HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-10 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please fill out a Speaker Request Form and place it in the Speaker Request Box by staff. You will then be allowed to
speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public
Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
May10, 2022
AGENDA
https://zoom.us/j/92925161973
I.CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PMvia Zoom
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
III.CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1. April 12, 2022 RegularMeeting
IV.PUBLIC FORUM
V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Approval of Findings for PA-APPEAL-2022-00014,34 Scenic Dr.
B.Approval of Findings forPA-T2-2022-00037,165 Water St.
VI.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.
Memo -Legislative Update
VII.ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104
ADA Title 1).
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DraftMinutes
April 12, 2022
I.CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM,viaZoom
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Haywood Norton Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager
Roger Pearce Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Lynn Thompson Aaron Anderson, Associate Planner
Lisa VernerMichael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Kerry KenCairn
Doug Knauer
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
None Paula Hyatt (absent)
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcements:
TheSocial Equity and Racial Justice (SERJ) Commission requested that a memberofthe Planning
Commissionand Housing and Human Services Commission attend their meeting on May 5, 2022.
Commissioner Knauer volunteered to attend.
The City Council will hold a hybrid Council meeting on April 19, 2022. The City Council members will be in
attendance, as well as key members of staff. Members of the public will still participate virtually.City
Commissions could potentially use this template forfuture meetings.
Mr. Molnar expressed gratitude to Commissioner Roger Pearce for his years of service on the Planning
Commission.This will be Commissioner Pearce’s final Commission meeting before his move to Seattle.
Commissioner Pearce said that it had beena privilege to work with theCommission and Planning staff.
III.CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
1.March 8, 2022 Regular Meeting
2.March 22, 2022 Study Session
Commissioners KenCairn/Vernerm/s to approve the Consent Agenda.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 7-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM- None
V.TYPE I PUBLIC HEARINGS –Appeal
A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2022-00014
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 34 Scenic Dr.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Development for Gobelman & Stahmann
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2022
Page 1 of 8
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission to hear an appeal of staff’s decision approving PA-T1-2021-00168
which was a request for a minor land partition to divide a 1.32-acre parcel into three parcels. Proposed Parcel 1 is
proposed as a 10,076 square foot (SF) parcel, to the south is proposed Parcel 2 is proposed to have 8,000 SF, and
parcel 3 is proposed to be 39,534 square foot parcel. The large parcel is not proposed for any development at this
time.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;ZONING: R-1-7.5;MAP: 39 1E 08 AD,
TAX LOT: 7300
Chair Norton read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported. All Commissionersexcept for Commissioner Thompsonvisited the site.
Staff Presentation
Associate Planner Aaron Anderson detailed the staff’s report on the appeal for the partition of the property at 34
Scenic Dr. The lot would be divided into three parcels,with parcel #3remainingcurrently undeveloped. Mr.
Anderson directed attention to the relevant criteria that were the main subjects of the appeal, and stated that staff
found the criteria had been met by the applicantsoriginal submittal. Thereforeit was staff’s recommendation that the
appeal be denied and the original staff approval be upheld with the conditions recommended in the staff report(see
attachment #1).
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Thompson asked for clarification from staff regarding theuse of aneasement across the appellant’s
property to access parcel #3.Mr. Anderson related howthe current easement would not be sufficient for any future
single family homesper theAshland Municipal Code(AMC), butthatstaff did not weigh in on this issue because it
was a civil matter between the two parties. Any future development would be required to show how the easement
would allow forany necessarydrivewaystandards before moving forward.
Applicant Presentation
Amy Guntergave a brief presentation to the Commission detailing how the minimum standards for a lot partition
were met in the original proposal. She stated that several parcel layouts were discussed before deciding on the
current proposal, which would have sufficient lot depth, widthandstreet access, andwouldcomplywith chapter
18.5.3 of the AMC.Ms. Gunter addressed one concern made by the appellants over the lack of a development plan
for parcel #3. She explained that the applicants had several potential plans for the parcel, but that it was their
intention to leave it undeveloped at this time.Thedevelopment planrecently submitted by the applicantswas made
to convey the development potential to the appellants and alleviate any concerns that they held.Ms. Gunter then
noted that the applicants had sought the expertise of an engineer to demonstrate that a driveway could be
developed for parcel #3 and conform to existing AMC standards.Shealso drew attention tothe recorded easement,
whichstipulated that the property owners would be permitted to drive, walk, and place utilities within that 15ftwide
easement, and would be alegal access point to the property.
Ms. Gunter addressed the connectivity issue raised by the appellantsdue to block length, pointing out that the
Granite Street easement could grant access to Lithia Park in the event of increased foot traffic through the property.
She stated that this is not the current intention of the applicants, but that this could be employed to alleviate the
concerns of the appellants. Speaking on behalf of the applicants, Ms. Gunter summarizedthe contentiousand
protractedlegal suit that settled the current easement over the property. The applicants also wanted the
Commission to be aware of the increasing urbanization of the Scenic Drive area, and that this partition conforms to
alldevelopment standardsand criteriarequiredby the AMC.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner Verner inquired if the applicants would be averse to removing the easement fromthe bottom oflot #3
in order to disconnect it from lot #2.Ms. Gunter repliedthat she would be hesitant to do this because of the potential
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2022
Page 2of 8
for utilities through that easement. The original intention of the partitionwas to provide driveway access from the
bottom of the lot and remove any need for parcels #1 and #2 to share a driveway. She stated that the site naturally
lends itself to preserving the driveway of parcel #1 for access to parcel #2, and that the easement at the bottom of
the lot could be amended to only allow for utilities along that easement and no longer support an ingress/egress
point.
Appellant Testimony
Raul Woerner spoke on behalf the appellants, Susan and Rod Reid, andstatedthat the intent of the appeal was not
to deny thepartition, but to address concernsprimarilyregarding accessto the parcel. The concern was that the
nearby retaining wall would necessitate any future development to use the 15ft wide easement as a principal access
point, a concept that the appellants believed would be untenable with increased traffic through theparcel. Therefore
the appellants requested that the Commission impose a condition for approvalstatingthat any issuance of
development permits for parcel #3 berestricteduntilanaccesspointthat meetsAMC standardsis provided.Mr.
Woerner contested page 2 of staff’s report that a single family could use the easement as a access point without
further review. He stated that this was incorrect because the AMC required that driveways over 50ft in length would
need to be wider than the 15ft easement would allow. He also pointed out that the engineering plan was not
provided in the initial application and was instead supplied afterwards, but was encouraged that such a development
would be possible.
Mr. Woerner concluded by informing the Commission that the Reids supported amending the terms of the easement
at the bottom of parcel #2to include utility use only.
Public Testimony
Richard and Joyce Stanley/Mr. and Mrs. Stanley conveyed their misgivingsover access and lack of a development
plan for parcel #3. They were concerned that the integrity of the nearby retaining wall would be compromised if
forced to support a relatively steep driveway.They inquiredif building a driveway in a swale would be problematic,
and how the development could impact the parcel as a natural wildlife corridor. Mr. and Mrs. Stanley concluded by
inquiring if a development plan could be requested, particularly with regards to the potential for up to twelve cottages
being developed on the site and what that could mean for the narrow access point.
Applicant Rebuttal
Ms. Gunter responded that many of the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Stanley were code criteria and directed
those inquiries to staff. She pointed out thatno development plan was originally required in the application, but that
one was provided in response to the appealand that the plan for twelve cottages was one of many options for
developmentand not a current proposal. Ms. Gunter clarified that the design for the driveway was done by one of
the engineers responsible for the original retaining wall, which was the reason the applicant’s team sought him out.
She conceded that such a development would be difficult, but that the only lots left available in City were the ones
with restrictive access points. She detailed how cottage housing would not require off-street parking as opposed to a
subdivision, which would have different standards for development.
Ms. Gunter then informed the Commission that she hadcontacted the appellants and agreed to change the
easement for parcel #2 to be for utility use only.
Chair Norton closed the Public Hearingand Recordat 7:55 p.m.
Discussion and Deliberation
Commissioner Verner stated that the Commission should deny the appeal because she believed that the requisite
criteria had been met, but with the condition of approval regarding the use of language for parcel#3.There was
general discussion over the Commission’s jurisdiction over the language of the easement, but it was determined that
because the applicants had consented to the change it could be listed as a condition of approval.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2022
Page 3of 8
Commissioners Verner/Dawkinsm/s to uphold the original approval including the four conditions
recommended by staff, with the addition of a fifth condition consistent with the applicant’s proposal that the
final survey plat identify the easement at the bottom of lot #3as an easement for utility access to lot #2.Roll
CallVote: Commissioners Dawkins, KenCairn, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, Knauer, and Norton,allAYES.
Motion passed. 7-0.
B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2022-00037 –CONTINUED
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165WaterStreet,160HelmanStreetand95VanNess(cornerofVanNess&Water
Streets)
APPLICANT/OWNER: RoguePlanning&DevelopmentServices,LLC,agentfor
DESCRIPTION: Arequestforasix-lotcommercialsubdivisiontoaccommodateaphasedmixed-usedevelopment
forthethreepropertiesat95VanNessStreet,165WaterStreetand160HelmanStreet.Theapplicant’sPhaseI
requestsSiteDesignReviewapprovalforfivemixed-usecommercialbuildingswithgroundfloorcommercialspaces
andtworesidentialunitsaboveineachbuilding,aswellasassociatedsurfaceparking,utilityinfrastructureand
streetimprovements.ThethreeremaininglotswouldhaveinitialsiteworkcompletedwithPhaseI,butbuilding
constructionwouldoccuronlyafterSiteDesignReviewapprovalsinafuturePhaseII.Theapplicationalsoincludes
arequestforaPhysical&EnvironmentalConstraintsReviewPermitbecausetheproposalincludesdevelopmenton
severeconstraintslandswithslopesgreaterthan35percentandonfloodplaincorridorlands;arequestforan
ExceptiontotheDevelopmentStandardsforHillsideLands;arequestforaTreeRemovalPermittoremove20trees
onthethreepropertiesandwithintheadjacentrights-of-way;andarequestforanExceptiontoStreetStandardsto
allowparkingbayswithstreettreesinbump-outsalongVanNessAvenueratherthanstandardpark-rowplanting
strips.\[SincetheMarchPlanningCommissionhearing,thenumberoflotsproposedhasbeenreducedfromeight
tosix.TheapplicationnolongerincludesaSolarAccessExceptionoranExceptiontotheplazaspacerequirement\]
COMPREHENSIVEPLANDESIGNATION:Employment;ZONING:E-1;ASSESSOR’SMAP:391E04CC;TAX
LOTS#:2000,2100&7100
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported.Commissioner KenCairn wanted it noted that she resides in the neighborhood,
but believes that she treatsall projectsthat gobefore the Commission impartially.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson first outlined the changes made to the commercial subdivision proposal since the
March 8, 2022 Commission meeting(see attachment #2).The significant changes included:
The number of lots was reduced from eight to six. Eightbuildings are still proposed but they would be
constructed as condominiums.
The resultant lot configuration would alter the property lines and a Solar Access Exception would no longer
be requested.
The resultant lot configuration would eliminate a previously identified street frontage issue for the previously
proposed lot #5.
Each building would now be configured to provide 65% of the ground floor area for commercial use.
Plaza space had been clearly detailed, and identified plaza space totaling 8,774 square feet, over the initial
proposal of 5,581 square feet. An exception for reduced plaza space would no longer be requested.
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was provided, and concluded that development would not significantly
impact traffic in the area.
A geotechnical report had been providedby the Galli Group Geotechnical Consulting firm. This report
concluded that, with their recommendations, the site would be suitable for development without adversely
affecting the stability of the slope.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2022
Page 4of 8
Mr. Seversonpointed out that the ceiling and building heights had not changed since the March 8, 2020Planning
Commission meeting. Hedirected the Commission’s attention to the recommendation made by the Historic
Commission at its April 6, 2022 meeting, which had determinedthat the three buildings along Helman Street did not
fit with the surrounding historic district and should be reduced in height, scale, and mass. The Historic Commission
statedthat the designs would benefit from a greater variety of materials, height, and number of stories to alleviate
the monotonythatthe buildings would present along the Helman streetscape.The Historic Commission thanked the
applicants for the changes that had been made to the design of the buildings, but concluded that too fewof their
significant issues with the project had been addressed since their meeting on March 2, 2022. The Historic
Commission unanimously recommended that the application be denied.
Mr. Severson outlinedhowthe key consideration for staff when examining the project was how to apply the Historic
District Development Standards addressed in AMC 18.4.2.050.B.1. Regarding Transitional Areas, these standards
stated that “appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and
material treatment may be considered to address compatibility with the transitional area while not losing sight of the
underlying standards or requirements applicable to the subject property.”
Mr. Severson stated that in staff’s opinion the massing of the buildings along Helman Street remained an issue.He
suggestedthatgreater third-floorstep backsor plaza space in front of the buildingsbeconsidered to make the
Helman Street frontage more compatible with the surrounding area.He cited aprojecton First Street that employed
third-story stepbacks in order to meet transitional building standards.Mr. Severson also drew attention to design
standards in the Transit Triangle Overlay and the Croman Mill site and their use of transitional zones to incorporate
future developments.
In staff’s opinion the application did not meet appropriate design and massing adjustments to meet the compatibility
standards of the Historic District.Mr. Severson recommended that the Commission consider whether a more
substantial third-floor step back might better address the buildings’ massing, and whether some additionalpark-row
and sidewalk width, or front plaza space, would work to provide some additional buffer space and better
accommodate street tree growth which would ultimately support greater tree canopy as a further buffer.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Verner requested clarification on the decision to deny the application by the Historic Commission. Mr.
Severson responded that on March 2nd the Historic Commission had given the applicants recommendations on how
to better incorporate the project into the Historic District. At the subsequent April 8meeting the Historic
th
Commission determined that the applicants had not made significant enough changes to the project design and
therefore recommended that the application be denied.
Commissioner Pearce asked for clarification from staff on their interpretation of the transitional zones, and whether
this referred to the transition between zones or the transition between individual projects. Mr. Severson stated that
when the Historic Commission looks at projectsthey focus on the impact area,which is typically within 200 feet of
the proposed site, and look at the existing development within thatarea.He pointed out that larger buildings have
historically existed in the area,as well as some currently,but not within the 200ft impact area of the development
site.
Applicant Presentation
Ms. Gunter gave a brief overview of the zoning and historical overlays of the development site and the surrounding
area. She summarized the site history and showed several examples of large scale buildings that had formerly
existed in the Historic District. Ms. Gunter also noted that streets previously named “Mechanic” and “Factory” could
be found in the area, which in her opinion alludedtoindustrial, employment, and commercial zoning being the
predominant zoning types and uses of the area. She stated that the proposed buildings met Historic District design
standards for massing, design, scale, mass, and materials used are within compliance for a mixed-use residential
and commercial development in this zone.Ms. Gunter added that the development would be consistent with the
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2022
Page 5of 8
surrounding area and was under the maximum allowed building height. She noted that the lot numbers may change
due to ORS92 requirements, but that the layout would not change.
Piper von Chamier spoke to the plaza space throughout the project, and detailed how the applicant team was able
to fully develop the plazas throughout the sites. She remarked that the design team hadalso considerednaming the
central promenade either “Factory” or “Mechanic” Way as a nod to the formerly named streets.Ms. Chamier
emphasized her firm’s desire to includestormwater as a part of the landscape, as well as for fountains and irrigation.
Thelargest plaza space would be Helman Plaza, which would have raised stormwater planters, fountains, trees,
and raised steps out to the parking area.
Ms. Gunter mentioned that she found the Historic District design standards text largely addressedresidential
dwellings and the immediately adjacent properties, but seemedto primarily focus on the compatibility between two
homes. She stated thatthe Transitional Zone between the districts wouldthereforeneed to be the most heavily
considered criteria, which the proposed development would conform to. Ms. Gunter detailed how the designs also
reflected the Historic District design standards, in the form of numerous traditional design elements and materials,
despite the scale and massing appearingmoremodernin relation to the nearby houses.
Ms. Gunter directed the Commission’s attention back to the Historic Design standards and itslack of guidelines for a
commercial development in relation to the existing residences. She stated that her team’s interpretation of the
transition zone indicates that the Historic District standards are supersededwhen considering the underlying zoning
standards,and expressed the opinion that the design standards should be more objectively written.
Mr. Gunter briefly presented side-by-side comparisons between the earlierbuildingdesigns and thosecurrently
proposed.She showed further comparisons between her team’s proposal and previously approved projects.
Included was onethat was accepted by the Commission but never developed, andwould have included similar
buildings in mass and scale to those proposed by the applicants. Ms. Gunter expressed concern that staff had cited
the Transit Triangle and Croman Mill development standards intheir report, despite those standards not being
applicable to this proposal.
Gil Livni, the property owner voiced his frustration over what he believed were shifting design standards from
previously approved projects. He said that his teamcould make further design adjustments, but that denials
seeminglybased on subjective reasoning were disheartening. Mr. Livni expressed concern that the code of conduct
regarding ex parte contact for Public Hearings had been breached.
Public Comments
Mark Brouillard/Mr. Brouillard rejected the concern that any improper contact had taken place. Hedrew the
Commission’s attention to two commercial buildings at 92 Van Ness Avenue and 152Helman Streetas a
comparison to the proposed development. Mr. Brouillard also contended that the applicant’s TIA report contained
inaccurate information.He cited section 18.3.13.010.a of the AMC whichstatesthat the Residential Overlay is
intended to encourage a concentration and mix of businesses that provide a variety of housing types, a standard
that he believes this project fellshort of. Mr. Brouillard concluded by suggesting that the Commission follow the
recommendation of the Historic Commission and deny the application.
Eric Bonetti/Mr. Bonettiinformed the Commission that he is Mr. Livni’s neighbor and has worked with him on
numerous projects. Mr. Bonetti contended that this districthas not yet been fully utilized as an E-1 zone. He showed
examples of several commercial buildings already in the Historic District and expressed the opinion thatthe
applicant’s project could help revitalize the area. Mr. Bonetti acknowledged the difficulties of developing a parcel that
encompasses and abuts the R-3, E-1, and M-1 zones, but that the applicants had put forth aconvincingand
appropriate proposal for development. He went on to say that if the applicationwas rejected then this would remain
an undeveloped and underutilizedarea, and warned that unsightlycommercial developments could one day occupy
the lot.Mr. Bonetti presented examples of undeveloped lots near the proposal site, and voiced frustration a project
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2022
Page 6of 8
with the potential to revive the area was not beingreadily approved.He cited thefour-story Plaza Inn and Suites
hotel on Water Street and three-story development on First Streetas examples of similarly sizeddevelopments, and
expressed the opinion that it could be seen ashypocritical if the Commission denied the applicant’s proposal.
Planning Manager Brandon Goldman wanted it noted that, while Mr. Brouillard doesserve on the Transportation
Commission, his comments were made as a resident of the neighborhood and not made on behalf of the
Transportation Commission.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Ms. Gunter pointed out that the buildings in the proposal were similar in mass and scale, but they would not be
identical. She stated that the development, when the base lot area relative to building size is taken into account,
would be similar in massing and scale to the commercial buildingon 92 Van Ness Avenue cited by Mr. Brouillard.
Ms. Gunter concluded by stating that citing existing single-story or underdeveloped Employmentzone properties
doesn’t provide an Historic District comparison because those properties could be redeveloped to the Employment
Districtsitedesign review standards. Therefore they cannot be taken asdirect comparisons to the applicant’s
proposal.
Chair Norton closed the Public Hearing and Record at 9:16 p.m.
Discussion and Deliberation
Mr. Severson stated that it was not staff’s intention to suggest that the proposal would be subject to the design
standards of the Croman Mill Site or Transit Triangle, merely to provide concrete examples of where the
Commission determinedthose types of treatments were appropriate of ways to mitigate mass.
Commissioner KenCairn suggested that the enclosed plaza spaces within the development be placed in front and
provide set-backs for the development, alleviating the scale and mass of the development in relation to nearby
single-story houses.She noted that the four-story development on Water Street had been approved because the
sitewasat a lower elevation than Helman Street, and wasn’t in a residential neighborhoodwhich made itmore
compatible with the area.Thereforethe applicant’s submittal could not be judged in relation to previously approved
projects.
Commissioner Pearce praised the plaza designs, adding that they met all the design standards necessary for
approval. He voiced the opinion that the Transition Zonehad been misinterpreted by the Historic Commission, which
he stressedspeaksto the transitionsbetween zones,not individual buildings. He statedthat the only source of
contention is thetransitionbetweenthe development site in the Employment Districtandthe R-3 Zone across
Helman Street, andstated thatthe proposalwascompatible with the neighboring R-3 Zone.
Commission Verner disagreed withCommissioner Pearce’s interpretation of the transition zonesand stated that
existing buildings should be taken into account when considering a new development. She suggested that the
applicants consider placing four-story buildings along Water Street and two-story buildings along Helman Street,
therebyremove the issue of mass and scale in relation totheneighboring houses.Commissioner Verner remarked
that she saw no significant change in the plazassince the applicant’s first brought their proposal to the Commission,
and voiced disappointment that the parking lots and entrance ways were being included as plazaspaces.
Commissioner Thompson agreed with Commission Verner, adding that the code refers to the transition being
between zones, andstatedthat the examples usedin that section comparednew developments to the existing
historic buildings in the immediate vicinity. She statedthat any transition between the Employment and R-3 zones
wouldthereforeneed to take the Historic District code into account when considering any new development.
Commissioner Thompson would support the Helman Street buildings being reduced to two-stories in favor of
increasing the Water Street developments to four-stories, andremarked that the mass and scale of the buildings
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2022
Page 7of 8
along HelmanStreetis compounded by the number of buildings proposed along that streetscape. Commissioner
Thompson expressed her disappointmentwiththe plaza spaces in the application.
Commissioners Dawkins/KenCairnm/s to extend the meeting until 10:00.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 7-0.
The Commission discussed the interpretation of the transition zone and massing along the Helman streetscape, and there was
general agreement that the applicants should submit a proposal dealing with this issue. Chair Norton remarked that the Planning
Commissionand Historic Commission had recommendedto the applicants that they adjust their proposal to reduce scale and
massalong Helman Street. Commissioner Pearceagreed that the building mass remained an issue,butthat the Commission
should encourage such development projects.
Commissioner Dawkins asked staff what would happen to the project if the Commission denied it. Mr. Seversonrepliedthat the
Commission could deny the application without prejudice, which would allow the applicants to submit a new proposal for the site
without delay. If it was denied outright then the only recourse for the applicants would be an appeal of the decision before the City
Councilor to wait one year before resubmitting.
Chair Norton voiced frustration that the Commission had been put in the position to deny the application after the applicantshad
been given instructions for approval. Commissioner Pearce agreed that it should be denied without prejudice to allow the
applicants to resubmit their development plans without delay.
Commissioners Dawkins/KenCairnm/s to deny the application without prejudice.Roll CallVote:Commissioners
Dawkins, KenCairn, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, Knauer, and Norton, allAYES. Motion passed. 7-0.
V.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:52p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2022
Page 8of 8
(requestreceivedafternoticing).
thisparcelandthesurroundingareaisconsideredtobestableforthe
constructionoftheproposedproject…There-gradingofthesitefortheproposedmixed-usedevelopment,
whenconstructedproperlyandinaccordancewiththefinalgeotechnical,structuralandcivildesignplansand
specificationsfortheproject,willnotadverselyimpactthegeneralslopestabilityofthisoradjacentparcels.
Propererosioncontrolmeasures,gradingtechniques(fillremoval,cutandfillslopeconstruction,fill
placementandcompaction,andfill-on-slopeandretainingwallconstruction)andpropersurfacewatercontrol
onallpartsofthesitewillassurethattheoverallstabilityofthisoradjacentparcelsisnotcompromised.
inourprofessionalopinion,theconstructionoftheproposedMagnoliaTerracemixeduse
Therefore,
developmentonthisparcelwillnotadverselyimpacttheslopestabilityofthisoradjacentparcelsandwill
maintainpublicsafetyintheimmediatearea.”
relativelyuniquein
beingE-1zoned,outsideoftheHillsideLandsoverlay,withalimitedareaofSevereConstraintsLandsnear
therearoftheproperty,andwithdevelopableE-1landbothaboveandbelowtheslopewhicharetobe
protectedfromslopefailurewithstructuralretainingtoenabledevelopmenttypicalofE-1landsandtheir
associateddevelopmentanddesignstandards.
A Street Example
TransitTriangle
providesforaten-foot
stepbackwhereover
25feetortwostories
andfacingastreetat
theperimeterofa
development.
10 Feet
Building #4 (adjacent to alley)
(b)An application or permit for residential development in historic areas designated for
protection under a land use planning goal protecting historic areas.
(requestreceivedafternoticing).
Preliminary Partition Plan
conceptual rendering
Helman Streetscape
From the corner of Van Ness & Water
In staff’s view, the proposal is an attempt to balance the Employment zone’s vision for the property with
the historic context and the site’s physical constraints. We look forward to the Historic Commission’s
comments as to whether they believe the balance achieved is the correct one in terms of the Historic
District Development Standards, including any comments the Commission may have with regard to the
use of similar building designs.
FINDINGS
_________________________________
PA--2022-00014,
34 Scenic Dr.
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
May10, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-APPEAL-2022-00014,)
AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF PLANNING )
ACTION #PA-T1-2022-00168,ATHREE-LOT PARTITION OF A 1.32-)
ACRE LOTFOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 34 SCENICST. THE )
TENTATIVE PARTITION PLAT CREATES THREEPARCELS THAT )
FINDINGS,
ARE 0.18, 0.23, AND 0.90 ACRESIN SIZE. STAFF INITIALLY )
CONCLUSIONS,
APPROVED THE APPLICATION. SUBSEQUENT TO THE MAILING OF A )
AND ORDERS.
NOTICE OF DECISIONAN APPEAL REQUESTWAS TIMELY FILED.)
)
OWNER:
JOYCE STAHMANN AND LARRY GOBELMAN)
APPLICANT:
ROGUE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES)
APPELLANT:
ROD AND SUSAN REID)
_______________________________________________________________)
RECITALS:
1)Tax lot#7300of Assessor’s Map 39-1E-08-ADis located at 34ScenicStreetis in the R-1-
7.5zoning districtand is 1.32acres in size.
2)The application proposed a three-lot partition and included a tentative partition plat showing
threeparcels that areproposed to be0.18, 0.23 and 0.90acres in size.
3)On December23, 2021theapplicationwas deemed complete, and in accordance with AMC
18.5.1.050.B.4aNotice of Complete(NOC)application was posted at the subject property
in clear view from the public right-of-wayand mailed to all property owners of record
within 200 feet of the parcel.
4)The Staff Advisor approved the applicationonFebruary 4,2022,subject to several
conditionsof approval and a Notice of Decision(NOD)was mailedon the same date.The
NOD listed the deadline to appeal as February 14, 2022,which was a scrivener’s error. The
correct deadline to appeal was in fact February 16, 2022
5)On February 16, 2022,a Notice of Land Use Appeal was timely filed byRod and Susan Reid
who reside at 153 GraniteStreet.The Reid’s have standing to appeal as they were both:
entitled to written notice, and by having submitted written comments on the application
during the initial comment period.
6)Due to scheduling the applicant was unable to commit to being able to attend the March
Planning Commissionmeeting, this required an extension to the 120-day time limit set forth
in ORS 227.178(1). On February 21, 2022,the applicant submitted a request for a45-day
extension to the time limit.
7)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held apublic hearing on April12,
PA-APPEAL-2022-00014
May 10,2022
Page 1
2022. The meeting was conducted electronically by Zoom due to the ongoing emergency
order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Public testimony was received,and exhibits
were presented.
8)After the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission deliberated anddetermined
that staff had not erred in approving the three-lot partition.A motion was made to deny the
appeal and approvethe application subject to conditions listed in the staff report, andthe
additional condition that the easement shown on the preliminary partition plat for the benefit
of Parcel2,along the southern edge of Parcel3,be limited to a utility easement.
9)The criteria of approval for a Land Partition are described inAshland Municipal Code
(AMC)18.5.3.050which state that the approval authority shall approve an application for
preliminary partition plat approval only where allthe following criteria are met:
A.
The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B.
The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be
impeded.
C.
The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if
any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area.
D.
The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
E., any
Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2
applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development
standards, per part 18.4(e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and
orientation).
F.
Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080Vehicle Area
Design. See also, 18.5.3.060Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria.
G.
The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the
street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to
existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall
identify all proposed public improvements and dedications.
H.Unpaved Streets.
1.Minimum Street Improvement.When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the
entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial
street, asdesignated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved
with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street.
The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of
the Public Works Department.
2.Unpaved Streets.The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access
for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist.
a.The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector
or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to
its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6prior to
the signature of the final partition plat by the City.
b.The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten
percent.
PA-APPEAL-2022-00014
May 10,2022
Page 2
c.The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public
Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a
substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the
lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation.
d.Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the
applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the
owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners
agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such
improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall
be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to
so agree, then the application shall be denied.
I.
Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided
from the alley and prohibited from the street.
J.
Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can
reasonably be obtained prior to development.
K.
A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in
section 18.5.3.060.
10)The criteria of approval for an exception to the street standards are described in Ashland
Municipal Code (AMC) 18.4.6.020.B.1which state that the approval authority may approve
exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 if all of the following circumstances are
found to exist.:
a.There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due
to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
b.The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity
considering the following factors where applicable.
i.For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride
experience.
ii.For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii.For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
c.The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d.The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in
subsection18.4.6.040.A.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and
recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and
PA-APPEAL-2022-00014
May 10,2022
Page 3
testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to rendera
decision based on the application, Staff Report, public hearing testimony,and the exhibits
received.
2.2The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for athree-lot partition meetsall
applicable criteria described in section 18.5.3.050, for preliminary partition plat approval.The
Planning Commission notes that the preliminary partition plat details the threeproposed parcels
to be 0.18, 0.23 and 0.90 acres in size.
2.3The Planning Commission finds that the applicationwasdeemed complete on December
23,2021,and notice was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all
property owners within200-feet of the subject property. The Planning Commission further finds
that the application was approved by the StaffAdvisoronFebruary 4, 2022,and a Notice of
Decision (NOD) was mailed on the same date. The Planning Commission notes that the NOD
contained a scrivener’s error with regard to the deadline to appeal. The correct deadline to appeal
was in fact February 16, 2022.
2.4The Planning Commission finds that onFebruary 16, 2022(the end of the appeal period),
Sue and Rod Reidtimely filed a notice of land use appeal. Mr. & Mrs. Reidown an adjacent
parcel to the east andalso submitted written comments during the public comment period and
thus had standing to appeal. The Planning Commission finds that the appellant has standing to
appeal.
2.6The Planning Commission findsthatthe subject property is located within the R-1-7.5
zoningdistrictand that land divisionsare governed by AMC 18.5.3.
2.7The Planning Commission findsthatAMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the division of
land to carry out the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to
encourage efficient use of land resources among other goals. When considering the decision to
approve or deny an application for land partition, the StaffAdvisor considersthe application
materials against the relevant approval criteria in the AMC.The approval criteria for a
preliminary partition plat are in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.3.050.ThePlanning
Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of
the criteria have been met, as follows:
2.7.1The Planning Commission notes the first approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is “The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract
will not be impeded.”The application includes a discussion regarding the future development
plan to demonstrate that the proposed partition will not impede future development of the
PA-APPEAL-2022-00014
May 10,2022
Page 4
parcels. The future development plan indicates that the proposed new parcel would be able to
be subdividedto create as many as threelots for the development of single-family homes
with access provided by afuture driveway from Scenic.The Planning Commission findsthat
the future urban purposes of the oversized parcel 3can be met with the development a single
home as there is no minimum density requirements in the R-1 zones.
The Planning Commission notes that the applicant has provided a driveway design to serve
Parcel 3 that would meet the standards for vehicle access upon obtaining aPhysical and
Environmental Constraints review and approval for the driveway at the time of future
development. The Planning Commission finds that the applicants proposal demonstrates that
primary vehicularaccess from Scenic Driveis possible. The Planning Commission finds that
with a condition of approval that requires that any future development of Parcel 3 shall
demonstrate compliance with the vehicle access standards of AMC 18.4,that the approval
criterion is met.
The existingaccess easement provided acrossthe adjacent property at153 Granite Street
would remain available as secondary access to Parcel 3, as well as for the extension of
utilities to serve the property.
2.7.2The Planning Commission notes thesecond approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is “The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access
thereto will not be impeded.” The Planning Commission notesthat noadjacent parcelwould
be impeded from future development due to this partition. Specifically, an adjacent property
with additional development potential can obtain directaccessfor future developmentby
virtue of its frontage along Granite Streetwithout requiring access through the subject
property.The Planning Commission finds that this criterion of approval is met.
2.7.3The Planning Commission notes the third approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is “The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted
neighborhood or district plans, if any, and nay previous land use approvals for the subject
area.” The Planning Commissionnotes that the only relevant district plan would be the
Historic district which has a requirement for Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA). The
Planning Commission finds that thesize of proposed parcel 1 allows for a house that is 2,718
sq. ft. which is greater than the existing house which the county assessor indicates is 2,485
meeting this standard.The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is satisfied.
2.7.4The Planning Commission notes the fourth approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is “The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.”The
Planning Commission notesthat theland has not been partitioned for more than 12 months.
The Planning Commission finds that this criterion is satisfied.
2.7.5The Planning Commission notes the fifth approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is the “Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying
zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any
applicable development standards, per part 18.4(e.g., parking and access, tree preservation,
solar access and orientation).” The Planning Commission notes that each of the three parcels
comply with lot width and depth requirements, coverage, MPFAstandards, solar access
PA-APPEAL-2022-00014
May 10,2022
Page 5
standards,” and the application providescalculations showing compliance with the applicable
standards can be achieved.The Planning Commissionfinds that the proposed lots do
conform to the requirements of the base zone.The Planning Commission concludes that this
criterion is satisfied.
2.7.6The Planning Commission notes the sixth approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is that “Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section
18.4.3.080Vehicle Area Design.”The Planning Commission finds that all three proposed
parcels have frontageof greater than seventy feetScenic Drive, which is a fully paved public
street. Additionally, with thecondition that future development of Parcel 3 would require
primary vehicle access from Scenic Drive,as discussed in 2.7.1 above, the Planning
Commission finds that this can be accomplished throughapproval of a Physical and
Environmental Constraints reviewfor the drivewayinstallationas demonstrated by the
applicant’s supplemental materials.The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is
satisfied.
2.7.7The Planning Commission notes the seventh approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is “The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage
facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and
allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The
”
preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications.The
Planning Commission finds that the subject property, and each of the proposedparcels, have
frontage on Scenic Drive which is a pavedandhas curb,gutter, and sidewalk. The
application materials make clearthat all city facilities are available within the adjacent rights-
of-way, including sanitary sewer,water,and franchise utilities.There are no newly proposed
streets, or public facilitiesproposed to be installed to serve the new vacant parcels.The
Planning Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied.
2.7.8The Planning Commission notes the eighth approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval addresses minimum improvements to the roadwaywhere there are
unpaved streets.The Planning Commission notesthat Scenic Drive is improved with a curb-
to-curb width is approximately twenty-two feetpavedmeeting the standard for a local street.
The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfiedbased in the
existing improvements.
2.7.9The Planning Commission notes the ninth approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is that “Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be
required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street.”The Planning
Commission finds that this criterion does not apply as there is no alley adjacent to the subject
property.
2.7.10The Planning Commission notes the tenth approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is that “Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been
obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development.” The Planning Commission
finds that at this time that the future development of the propertywould not require such
permitsas there are no identified wetlands or waterways on the property. The Planning
Commission concludes that this criterionis met.
PA-APPEAL-2022-00014
May 10,2022
Page 6
2.7.11The Planning Commission notes the final approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is that “A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall
additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060.” The Planning Commission finds that
1
this criterion does not apply as there is no proposed flag lotas all three parcels as proposed
have frontage on Scenic Drive meeting or exceeding the minimum lot width requirement.
2.7.12The Planning Commission notes that the application includes an exception from
the street standards to leave the non-conforming frontage along scenic in its current state
(curb tight sidewalk). The Planning Commission notes that the standard for a local street
requires a park-row. The Planning Commission finds that this is a reasonable accommodation
considering the existence of a curbside sidewalk along the full property frontage, the slope of
the property adjacent to Scenic Dr., and the extant retaining wall. Furthermore, the Planning
Commission notes that the required improvements would not be proportional to the proposal
considering the request is a simple partition with no other proposed development.
2.8The Planning Commission notes the notice of appealincluded the standard Land Use
Appeal form which has spaces for up to three specific grounds for appeal and a citation for the
relevant applicable criteria that it relates to. The items listed were as follows:
“The future use for urban purposes for proposed Parcel 3 will be impeded.”
\[citing 18.5.3.050.A\]
“Existing easement access from Granite Street as proposed to serve parcel 3 and
also to be extended to parcel 2 does not conform the the \[sic\] standards in section
18.4.3.080.” \[citing 18.5.3.050.F\]
“Proposed partition plan does not conform to the applicable development
standards for connectivity and block lengths.” \[citing 18.5.3.060\].
The form continues and says, “on attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the
above” (emphasis added). The appeal included four other pages that included a one-page letter
from the appellants, and a three-page memo from CSAPlanning Ltdto the appellants. The one-
page letter asserts that the proposed partition “Limits any practical access to Scenic Dr.” Based
on the predicate that no access from Scenic is possible, the remainder of the letter focus on issues
relating to an easement across the appellants property. The memo from CSA states that it was
prepared “to outline the bases for your to appeal” to the partition. The memo outlines the
required contents of appeal provided at AMC 18.5.1.050.G.2.c which provides for the following
four items
i.An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision.
ii.A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to
appeal.
1
AMC 18.6 Definitions provides: “Flag Lot” -Alot with two distinct parts. \[figure omitted\] 1) The flag, which is
the building site; and is located behind another lot. 2) The pole, which connects the flag to the street; provides the
only street frontage for the lot with less than 40 feet of frontage on a street; and unless an alley provides access,
includes a driveway providing access.
PA-APPEAL-2022-00014
May 10,2022
Page 7
iii.A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal.
iv.A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public
comment period.
The memoprovides specific responses to the first, second, and fourth items, but does not provide
anything below the third item (specific issues being raised on appeal). Staff understands that the
intent of the memo was to bolster the four items that were listed in the public comment submitted
by Mrs. Reid during the initial application period taking issue with 1) Lack of a Future
Development Plan, 2) Concerns about vehicle access, 3) Concerns about Block Length /
Connectivity standards, 4) Exception to street standards
2.8.1The Planning Commission notesthatthe first appeal issuewasthat “The future use
for urban purposes for proposed Parcel 3 will be impeded.” \[citing 18.5.3.050.A\]. The
Planning Commission finds that there is no barrier to the future urban use of the proposed
Parcel 3. As stated above, there is significant frontage along Scenic to provide future access.
The Planning Commission notes the applicants’ supplemental materials prepared by a
professional engineer demonstrate that a driveway access could be developed in conjunction
with the approval of a Physical &Environmental constraints review. Such a driveway could
serve as many as three lots consistent with the standards for a private drive. Finally, because
there is no minimum density for the R-1-7.5 zone if the oversized parcel only developed with
a single-family home it would be consistent the urban standards for the zone.The Planning
Commission concludes that the first appeal issue regarding the future use of the parcel is not
valid.
2.8.2The Planning Commission notes that the second appeal issue wasthat “Existing
easement access from Granite Street as proposed to serve parcel 3 and also to be extended to
parcel 2 does not conform the the \[sic\] standards in section 18.4.3.080.” \[citing 18.5.3.050.F\]
The standard cited at AMC 18.5.3.050.F provides, “Accesses to individual lots conform to
the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional
Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria.” The standards provided at AMC 18.4.3.080
only addresses easements in a limited fashion. The relevant part the code requires that
driveway curb cuts be minimized through the use of shard driveways as is proposed for
Parcels 1 and 2 on this proposal.The Planning Commission finds that this appeal issue is not
valid.
2.8.3The Planning Commission notes that the third appeal issue wasthat “Proposed
partition plan does not conform to the applicable development standards for connectivity and
block lengths.” \[citing 18.5.3.060\]. The approval criteria at AMC 18.5.3.060 contain a total
of 16 items numbered A through P, so it is unclear exactly which standard is being
referenced. That said, AMC 18.5.3.060 is titled ‘Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition
Plat Criteria.’ The Planning commissionunderstands that these approval criteria would only
apply when there is a proposed Flag Lot. ThePlanning Commission findsthat based on the
definitions at AMC 18.6 no ‘flag lot’ is being proposed, as such none of the approval criteria
at AMC 18.5.3.060 are relevant to the application.
In the alternative, the Planning Commissionpresumedthat the section cited was in error and
will address the concerns about connectivity and block length. Section AMC 18.4.6.040
PA-APPEAL-2022-00014
May 10,2022
Page 8
address Street Design Standards and their applicability. Under the applicability section it
states: “The following standards apply to all street improvements, including new streets,
alleys and pathways, and the extension or widening of existing streets.” The present
application does not propose a new road, nor is one required as a new public street must only
be dedicated when it is serving fourunits or greater.The Planning Commission concludes
that the third appeal issue is not valid.
2.8.4The Planning Commission notes above that the CSAPlanning Ltd.memo mainly
argues the four points that were raised in the initial public comment by the appellant which
included
Lack of a Future Development Plan
Concerns about vehicle access
Concerns about Block Length / Connectivity standards
Exception to street standards
Each are addressed in turn:
There is no requirement for a future development plan noris there a required base density of
development for the R-1-7.5 zone. The Planning Commission notes the applicant’s
supplemental materials andfinds that the applicant hasdemonstrated sufficiently with an
engineered plan for a new driveway accessing Scenic Drive that with a Physical and
Environmental constraints review a driveway could be developed from Scenic Drive to
support future developmentof a single family home, and possibly even furthersubdivision of
proposed Parcel 3. A condition of approval has been added that any proposed future
development of Parcel 3 will require a primary vehicular access be provided that is in
compliance with the Ashland Land Use Ordinance standards.
The Planning Commission notes that with regard to both the concerns about block length /
connectivity standards and exceptions to the street design standards, the CSAPlanning Ltd.
memo does not further develop these appeal issues. That said, the Planning Commission
refers to appellant’s January 5th 2022 letter, submitted with the original planning application.
As mentioned previously under the third appeal issue the standards for both block length and
connectivity are not relevant as the partition does not propose a new road nor is one required.
With regard to theexceptions to street standards the January 5th letter raises them only
briefly and then turns to discussion to connectivity which, as was just pointed out, are not
relevant here.
The Planning Commission further notes thatthe appellant argues that change in grade
presents difficulties to improve the Right-of-Way with a park row then it would logically also
preclude the development of a driveway. The Planning Commission notes thatthere is
presently a curbside sidewalk along theentire frontage of Scenic Dr., and removal of the
retaining wall, dedication of additional Right-of-Way, potential relocation of the sidewalk,
and installation of a park row would not be proportional to the impacts of the proposed
partition, and that when considering the present condition of the Right-of-Way the Planning
Commission finds thatthe exception to the street standards for installation of a park row is
valid and was administratively approved. The Planning commission further finds that the
PA-APPEAL-2022-00014
May 10,2022
Page 9
applicant,with their supplemental materials,have satisfactorily demonstrated that with a
Physical and Environmental Constraints permit a driveway could successfully be developed
from Scenic to serve proposed Parcel 3.
2.9The Planning Commission finds that with the conditions below attached, the proposal
satisfies the applicable approval criteriaand that none ofthe appeal issuesprovide a basis to
reverse the initial approval decision of the Staff Advisor.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1Based on the record of the Public Hearingson this matter, the Planning Commission
concludes that therequest for the partition approval to divide the propertyis supported by
evidence contained within the whole record.
3.2The Planning Commission denies the appeal andre-affirms the Staff Advisor’s original
approval of the partition. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be
invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then the Planning Actionis denied. The following are the
conditions,and they are attached to the approval:
1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
2)That any future developments of Parcel 3 shall demonstrate compliance with the vehicle
access standards of AMC 18.4.The applicant’s proposal tosatisfy this requirementby
providingprimary vehicularaccess from Scenic Drivewill require a separate approval of a
Physical and Environmental constraints review.
3)That the proposed easement shownto the benefit of parcel 2 over parcel 3be limited to
utilities only.
4)That a final survey plat shall be submitted, reviewed and approved within 18 months of the
final decision date of the preliminary partition plat approval by the City of Ashland.
5)That prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for the review, approval and signature of
the Ashland Planning Division, all easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus
access, and reciprocal utility, maintenance, and access shall be indicated on the final survey
plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division.
May 10, 2022
Planning Commission ApprovalDate
PA-APPEAL-2022-00014
May 10,2022
Page 10
FINDINGS
_________________________________
PA-T2-2022-00037,
165 Water St.
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2022-00037, A REQUEST FOR )
A SIX-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION TO ACCOMMODATE A PHASED )
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE THREE PROPERTIES AT 95 VAN NESS )
AVENUE, 165 WATER STREET AND 160 HELMAN STREET. THE )
PHASE I REQUESTS SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR FIVE MIXED-USE )
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACES )
AND TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE IN EACH BUILDING, AS WELL AS )
ASSOCIATED SURFACE PARKING, UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND STREET )
IMPROVEMENTS. THE THREE REMAINING LOTS WOULD HAVE INITIAL )
SITEWORK COMPLTED WITH PHASE I, BUT BUILDING CONSTRUCTION )
WOULD OCCUR ONLY AFTER SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALS IN A )
FUTURE PHASE II. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A )
FINDINGS,
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT BECAUSE )
CONCLUSIONS
THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT ON SEVERE CONSTRAINTS )
& ORDERS
LANDS WITH SLOPES GREATER THAN 35 PERCENT AND ON FLOODPLAIN )
CORRIDOR LANDS; A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT )
STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE LANDS; A REQUEST FOR A TREE PERMIT TO )
REMOVE 20 TREES ON THE THREE PROPERTIES AND WITHIN THE )
ADJACENT RIGHTS-OF-WAY; AND A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO )
STREET STANDARDS TO ALLOW PARKING BAYS WITH STREET TREES IN )
BUMP-OUTS ALONG VAN NESS AVENUE RATHER THAN STANDARD PARK-)
ROW PLANTING STRIPS. )
)
APPLICANT:
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LCC )
OWNERS:
MAGNOLIA INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC & GIL LIVNI )
_____________________________________________________________
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #2000, 2100 and 7100 of Map 39 1E 04CC are located at 165 Water Street and are zoned E-1,
Employment.
2) The applicant is requesting a six-lot commercial subdivision to accommodate a phased mixed-use
development for the three properties at 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Helman Street. The
Phase I requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use commercial buildings with ground
floor commercial spaces and two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking,
utility infrastructure and street improvements. The three remaining lots would have initial site work completed
withPhase I, but building construction would occur only after Site Design Review approvals in a future Phase
II. The application also includes a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit because
PA-T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace
May 10, 2022
Page 1
the proposal includes development on severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on
floodplain corridor lands; a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request
for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees on the three properties and within the adjacent rights-of-way; and
a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump-outs along Van
Ness Avenue rather than standard park-row planting strips. The proposal is outlined on plans on file at the
Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for the approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat are described in AMC 18.5.3.070 as follows:
A. Approval Criteria. The approval authority, pursuant to subsection 18.5.3.030.A, may approve,
approve with conditions or deny a preliminary subdivision plat on findings of compliance with all
of the following approval criteria.
1. The subdivision plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans,
if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area.
2. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any
applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development
standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and
orientation).
3. Access to individual lots necessary to serve the development shall conform to the
standards contained in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design.
4. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the
standards in chapter 18.4.6, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future
development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public
improvements and dedications.
5. All proposed private common areas and improvements, if any, are identified on the
preliminary plat and maintenance of such areas (e.g., landscaping, tree preservation,
common areas, access, parking, etc.) is ensured through appropriate legal instrument
6. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably
be obtained prior to development.
B. Conditions of Approval. The approval authority may attach such conditions as are necessary to
carry out provisions of this ordinance, and other applicable ordinances and regulations.
AMC 18.5.2.050
4) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in as follows:
A.
Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying
zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions,
density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other
applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.
PA-T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace
May 10, 2022
Page 2
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public
Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm
drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will
be provided to the subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: The approval authority may approve
exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in
either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing
structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially
negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the
stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the
minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the
exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the
Site Development and Design Standards.
AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1
5) The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in as follows:
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering
the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling
along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection
18.4.6.040.A.
AMC
6) The criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit are described in
18.5.4.050.A
as follows:
A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the
property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and
implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the
environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The
Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding
area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance.
PA-T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace
May 10, 2022
Page 3
AMC
7) The criteria for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands are described in
18.3.10.090.H
as follows:
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this
chapter.
3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10 Physical and
Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for
Hillside Lands.
AMC 18.5.7.040.B
8) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in as follows:
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds
that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the
imposition of conditions.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear
public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable
danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger
cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of
hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be
granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or
can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with
other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not
limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical
and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant
an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered
and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the
zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider
alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that
would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the
other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
PA-T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace
May 10, 2022
Page 4
approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition
of approval of the permit.
9) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing via Zoom on
March 8, 2022 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Prior to the closing of the
hearing, thearing was continued to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April
12, 2022, again via Zoom, at which time additional testimony was received and additional evidence was
presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission denied the application without
prejudice.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review approval does not meet all
applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval described in AMC 18.5.2.050. The Planning Commission
finds that the proposal for Subdivision, Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit, Exception
to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands, Tree Removal Permit and Exception to Street Design
Standards meets all applicable criteria for Subdivision approval described in AMC 18.5.3.070; for Physical
& Environmental Constraints Review Permit approval described in Chapter 18.3.10.050; for Exception to
the Development Standards for Hillside Lands approval described in AMC 18.3.10.090.H, and for Tree
Removal Permit approval described in Chapter 18.5.7.040.B. The Planning Commission finds that an
Exception to Street Standards as described in Chapter 18.4.6.020 is not applicable to the project as
proposed.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that AMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the development of land
envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage efficient land use among other goals. The
PA-T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace
May 10, 2022
Page 5
Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to find that the Subdivision,
Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit, Exception to the Development Standards for
Hillside Lands, and Tree Removal Permit component requests have been demonstrated to meet the
relevant approval criteria or to meet those approval criteria with the imposition of certain binding
conditions of approval.
2.5 place street trees within
bump-outs in the Van Ness Avenue right-of-way in order to provide additional public parking in bays
while still providing required street trees is in keeping with the Street Design Standards and the requested
Exception to Street Standards is not required.
Transportation System Plan (TSP) and while neither Table 18.4.6.040.F nor the cross-section illustrated
in Figure 18.4.6.040.G.4.a. detail a specific treatment for on-street parking in bays, the narrative
description in AMC 18.4.6.040.G clearly notes that parking may be provided in 7 ft bays rather than
as a continuous on-street laneeither the table, the figure or the description address the treatment of
street trees where parking is provided in bays, but the Commission finds that the proposal here is in
keeping with the intent of the standards.
2.7 The Planning Commission notes that Site Design Review approval requires a demonstration that
The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except
as prThe Planning Commission notes that the subject properties are
located within the Skidmore Academy Historic District and as such are subject to the Historic District
Development Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050. As explained in AMC 18.4.2.050.A.2, The City of Ashland
has adopted ordinances to assure that all development in the Historic District overlay remains compatible
If a development requires a Type I, II, or III review
procedure (e.g., Site Design Review, Conditional Use Permit) and involves new construction, or
restoration and rehabilitation, or any use greater than a single-family use, the authority exists in the law
for the Staff Advisor and the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these
standards. In this case the Historic Commission advises both the applicant and the Staff Advisor or other
City decision maker.
The Planning Commission further notes that the Historic Commission initially reviewed the proposal at
its March 2, 2022 meeting. During that review, the
PA-T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace
May 10, 2022
Page 6
At its April 6, 2022 meeting, the Historic Commission reviewed design revisions which had been provided
in response to their March 2, 2022 comments. These revisions included stepping the center bay in the
façade of Buildings 3 & 4 back three feet from wall plane of the second floor and adding a shed roof to
emphasize this step back; cutting back the roofline to reduce the massing of the overhang; changing some
surface and material treatments including adding a brick base, using white and lighter materials to de-
emphasize the third story, and using open wire or mesh railings where solid railings were previously
proposed; and increasing the length of the pedestrian overhang on the ground floor to add shadow lines
and emphasize the pedestrian scale of the building at the sidewalk. After reviewing these revisions, the
Historic Commission found that while the incremental changes were effective in addressing some issues
with regard to the building façades and pedestrian amenities, the revisions fell short in addressing the
larger issues identified in the March meeting, which had to do with the height, scale, and massing of the
AMC 18.4.2.050.B.2-B.4.
buildings as they relate to the Historic District Design Standards ()
The Historic Commission found that the three buildings facing Helman Street with heights near 40 feet
and three stories would overwhelm the mostly single-story historic residences across the street, and that
these proposed buildings fail to achieve an appropriate scale and façade compatibility to the adjacent
historic streetscape. Additionally, the Historic Commission found that the zero setback to the sidewalk
exacerbated the building mass and scale and will overwhelm the adjacent pedestrian traffic. The Historic
Commission pointed out that by comparison, the Plaza Inn & Suites hotel on the same side of Helman
Street, nearer to downtown, has 15- to 20-foot setbacks and is only two-stories in height at the street. The
Historic Commission concluded that while the building architecture and landscape design on this project
were very attractive and high quality, the buildings were just not compatible with the scale of the historic
district residences in the impact area, directly across Helman Street, and for these reasons, the Historic
Commission noted that they could not support the application and recommended that it be denied by the
Planning Commission.
In considering the proposal as it relates to the Historic District Development Standards and in light of the
or projects located at the boundary between zones or overlays, appropriate adjustments to building
form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatment may be considered to
address compatibility with the transitional area while not losing sight of the underlying standards or
In this instance, the subject properties are located at the
boundary between E-1(Employment) and R-3(High Density Multi-Family Residential), and there is M-1
(Industrial), C-1 (Commercial), and R-2 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning a short distance
PA-T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace
May 10, 2022
Page 7
away. Similarly, the property is at the outer edge of the Skidmore Academy historic district, with district
boundary to the north, the Railroad Addition historic district immediately across Water Street, and the
Downtown historic district a half-block to the south. The Planning Commission finds that the subject
properties are located within a transitional area, and that to address the transitional area standard, the
building designs need to incorporate appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale,
placement, or architectural and material treatment to address compatibility with the transitional area which
includes the existing historic residential block across Helman Street, while not losing sight of the
underlying standards and requirements applicable to the subject properties which are zoned E-1
(Employment).
The Planning Commission notes that the applicant provided a number of examples of more commercial
scale buildings in the vicinity, many of which were historical buildings which are no longer standing, to
demonstrate compatibility and the applicant also emphasized that the designs proposed were within the
maximum allowances of the E-1 zone. The Planning Commission finds that the transitional area standard
is intended to address compatibility with the transitional area as it exists, rather than with historic buildings
which are no longer standing. AMC 18.4.2.050 explains
sensitivity to surrounding buildings and the
existing land use patterns is essential to the successful development
The City of Ashland has adopted ordinances to assure that all development in the Historic District overlay
remains compatible with the existing integrity of the Historic District (18.4.2.050.A.2, emphasis added).The
drawings illustrating each design standard are described as applying to historic buildings
The Planning Commission
street (18.4.2.050.B.2)(18.4.2.050.B.3 & B.4)
further finds that considerations of compatibility are not limited to a simple comparison of the allowances
of the zoning district (i.e. the E-1 zone allowing a 40-foot height and 85 percent lot coverage where the
R-3 zone allows a 35-foot height and 75 percent lot coverage does not mean that any building complying
with the allowances of the E-1 zone is automatically compatible with historic buildings in an immediately
adjacent R-3 zone)appropriate adjustments to building form, massing,
height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatmentwhich address compatibility with the
immediate vicinity while still considering the allowances of the underlying zone. The Planning
Commission concurs with the Historic Commission in finding that the three very similarly designed three-
story buildings facing Helman Street with heights of nearly 40 feet fail to achieve an appropriate scale and
have heights and massing which, as designed, are not compatible with the adjacent historic streetscape.
similar architectural and material treatments. The
Planning Commission finds that here, measures such as setting the buildings back further and placing
plaza space between the buildings and the sidewalk; providing a greater step back of the third-story from
the second-story façade to better mitigate the height, mass and scale; providing greater variation in the
architectural and material treatments; or placing lower buildings along Helman and taller buildings along
address compatibility with the
transitional area by mitigating the buildings height, mass and scale, and could be accomplished without
losing sight of the standards and requirements of the underlying E-1 zone. The Planning Commission
finds, however, that the designs as revised fail to address the recommendations provided in March; do not
incorporate appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural
and material treatment to address compatibility; and fail to satisfy the Historic Development Design
Standards for height, scale and massing (AMC 18.4.2.050.B.2-B.4). The Planning Commission
concludes that the application as presented has not sufficiently addressed the Historic District
PA-T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace
May 10, 2022
Page 8
Development Standards, and as such cannot be found to have fully satisfied the approval criteria for Site
Design Review.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal forasix-lotcommercialsubdivision,SiteDesignReviewapprovalforfivemixed-use
commercialbuildings,Physical&EnvironmentalConstraintsReviewPermit,Exceptiontothe
DevelopmentStandardsforHillsideLands,TreeRemovalPermittoremove20trees;andExceptionto
StreetStandardsisnotsupported by evidence contained within the whole record.
The Historic Commission reviewed the application initially, identifying issues of height, massing and scale
where the designs did not satisfy the Historic District Development Standardsfor the transitional area where
historic one and one-and-a-half story residences are located directly across Helman Street from the
Employment zone here. The Historic Commission provided specific recommendations as to how these
standards might be better addressed. The applicant provided revised drawings which were subsequently
reviewed, however both the Historic and Planning Commissions determined that the revised designs had not
sufficiently addressed the recommendations and did not satisfy the Historic District Development Standards.
For both Commissions, the threeverysimilarly designed three-story buildings facing Helman Street with
heightsof nearly 40 feet fail to achieve an appropriate scale and have heights and massing which, as
designed, are not compatible with the adjacent historic streetscape, and these issues are exacerbated by
similar architectural and material treatments. To respond to the transitional area here,
where Employment and Residential zones intersect along a historic streetscape on Helman Street, greater
adjustmentstobuilding form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatment
would be necessary to addressstandards for height, massing and scale and achieve compatibilitywith the
existing historic buildings in the immediate vicinity.
After consideration of all information contained in the record, the Planning Commission finds thatthe
application fails to meet the burden of proof in addressing the Historic District Development Standards.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions,we deny Planning Action PA-T2-2022-00037 without
prejudice.
May 10, 2022
Planning Commission DenialDate
PA-T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace
May 10, 2022
Page 9
_________________________________
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Senior Planner
RE:
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
SB 458 does not apply to accessory residential units.
Requirements Under SB 458
All Middle Housing Types: SB 458 applies to any lot that allows middle housing under ORS 197.758.
Resulting Lots: A middle housing lot division must result in exactly one dwelling per lot, with the only
exception being that common areas may be located on a separate lot or shared tract.
Utilities: Separate utilities for each dwelling unit must be provided if a development is to qualify for a
middle housing land division under SB 458.
Easements: Easements are required to be provided for:
Pedestrian access (e.g., all pedestrian paths circulating through the parent parcel)
Common areas (e.g., common courtyards, community buildings, etc.)
Driveways and parking areas, if shared.
Utilities
Building Code: A MHLD proposal must meet the requirements of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code.
For example, if an attached duplex is being divided, there must be firewall construction between the two
units.
Timing of MHLD. In a typical land division, the land division is approved, infrastructure installed and plat
signed prior to building permits being reviewed and issued for construction. However, SB 458 does not
state that a middle housing land division must occur either before or after the issuance of a building
permit. Therefore, arguably land could be divided pursuant to SB 458 prior to submission of an application
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
for building permits, after a middle housing development is approved for development, or after it is
constructed. SB 458 also gives cities the option of allowing concurrent review of building permits and the
land division. In all cases, MHLD applications must include a middle housing development (either
ent
code. (There is some discussion as well of whether SB 458 will enable the division of existing middle
housing that was created prior to HB 2001 taking effect, as long as the development meets the building
code and the e standards. This will likely be a point of discussion in the
ordinance adoption process, as allowing such divisions could result in the removal of existing needed rental
units
Options Under SB 458
Street Frontage Improvements. SB 458 specifies that cities can require street frontage improvements for
newly created lots abutting a street. Land divisions are often a trigger for requiring frontage
improvements, whereas infill development on an existing lot may not trigger such improvements. Under
SB 458, frontage improvements may be required with an MHLD.
Right-of-way Dedication: SB 458 specifies that cities may require dedication of right-of-way if the original
parcel did not previously provide a dedication. Like frontage improvements, such a dedication
requirement would be dependent upon the City making findings to demonstrate consistency with
constitutional requirements (i.e. a demonstration of proportionality under Dolan).
Concurrent Review. The City may allow concurrent review of building permits and an MHLD application
for a middle housing development. Even if permits are not requested concurrently, the applicant is
required to demonstrate that the application meets the Oregon Residential Specialty Code.
Tentative/Final Plats: Cities may require that applicants submit tentative and final plats in a manner
consistent with their applicable platting requirements.
Limitations Under SB 458
Minimum Street Frontage: Newly created lots are typically subject to access and minimum frontage on a
public street as detailed in AMC 18.2.4.010, however SB 458 specifies that cities cannot require street
frontage for lots created through a MHLD (i.e. a middle housing lot at the rear of the parent parcel could
take access to the street via an access easement).
Parking or Driveway Access to Each Lot: While the housing must meet applicable parking requirements,
cities cannot require that each resulting lot have its own parking space or driveway access. For example,
a duplex could have a shared parking area, and the City cannot preclude the duplex lot from being divided
such that one of the resulting lots only has access to the parking area via an access easement.
Minimum Lot Size or Dimensions: Cities cannot specify minimum area or dimensions for lots resulting
from a MHLD.
Other Review Criteria. Cities cannot apply any approval criteria other than the approval criteria specified
in SB 458 to applications for an MHLD
housing development, separate utilities, easements, one dwelling on each lot, and building code
compliance.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
Expedited Land Divisions(ELDs)
Submittal requirements are consistent with typical land divisions.
Completeness review must occur by the City within 21 days of application submittal.
Notice is given to properties within 100 feet of the site, to utility providers and to applicable
neighborhood association(s).
There is a 14-day comment period.
A decision must be made by the city within 63 days after a complete application is submitted,
unless extended by the Council under limited circumstances. This is in contrast to the 120 days
typically allowed for land use actions.
Only the applicant and any person or organization who files written comments in the time period
specified in the bill may appeal. An appeal must be filed within 14 days of mailing the notice of
decision. A $300 deposit to cover costs must be paid with the appeal submittal.
A City-referee-
who must issue a decision within 42 days of the appeal being filed. The decision of the referee is
the final local decision on the MHLD application.
.
Timeline
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
Climate-Friendly and
Equitable Communities
Why this Rulemaking
In 2007, Oregon legislators adopted a goal to reduce Oregon’s
climate pollution by 75% by 2050. That’s what the science calls
for, if we’re going to avoid catastrophic impacts to our
environment, communities, and economy.
Fifteen years later, we’re far off track in our efforts to meet those
goals – and we’re already experiencing real-world impacts of
climate disruption, with increasing wildfires, in size, severity,
and timing,and record heat waves that have cost Oregonians
Oregon is dramatically off-track. If current trends
their homes, and their lives.
continue, Oregon will release more than 4 times more
transportation pollution than our goal by 2050.
We’re particularly off-track in reducing pollution from
transportation, responsible for about 38% of Oregon’s climate
pollution. On our current path, Oregon will only reduce
transportation pollution by about 20% by 2050. That means
we’re polluting far more than we hoped, meaning more extreme
weather events, more wildfires, more ocean acidification, and
more record heat waves. In response, Governor Kate Brown
directed state agencies to promote cleaner vehicles, cleaner
fuels, and less driving.
Meanwhile, the State of Oregon is grappling with a troubling
history and current patternsof inequity and discrimination,
including in our land use, zoning, and transportation
investment (and disinvestment) decisions. Wealth and health
Thousands of Oregonians have lost their homes in
have been concentrated in the privileged, at the expense of
recent wildfires. Missing our climate goals will mean
others. This rulemaking aims to take some steps in redressing
more extreme and more frequent weather events
past harms.
such as heat bombs, droughts, and wildfires.
Rulemaking Overview and Desired Outcomes
The Land Conservation and Development Commission launched
the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rulemaking in
response to Governor Brown’s order. It directed the Department
of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Oregon’s land
use planning agency, to draft changes in Oregon’s planning
system forcommunities in Oregon’s eight most populated areas
(see map at right).
The rules require those communitiesto changetheir local
transportation and land use plans to do more to ensure
The rules apply in Oregon’s eight metropolitan
Oregonians have more safe, comfortable ways to get around, and areas shown above.
don’t have to drive long distances just to meet their daily needs.
The rules also aim to improve equity, and help community transportation, housing, and
- 1 -
planning serve all Oregonians, particularly those traditionally underserved and discriminated
against.
What does that mean on the ground? It means having some areas where rules don’t get in the
way of more walkable neighborhoods. The draft rules ask cities to designate climate-friendly
areas, and to allow people to build taller buildings providing more housing. The rules don’t
requiretaller buildings, but make sure those buildings are allowed. In climate-friendly areas, a
minimum density standard would help ensure transit can serve the neighborhood.
Other provisions of the rulemaking call for new buildings to support the growing electric vehicle
transformation, reduce one-size-fits-all parking mandates, and increase local planning
requirements to address critical gaps in our walking, biking, and transit networks. The rules ask
communities to identify transportation projects needed so our climate goals could be met.
The rulemaking is mainly about letting climate-friendly development happen where people want
to build itand the market calls for it. There’s a lot of demand for housing where people can walk
to where they want to go. While single-family homes will continue to be allowed and provide
most housing, Oregonians have a diverse set of housing desires and deserve more affordable and
climate-friendly choices.Those could better meet the changing shape of American households,
as nearly a third of homes hold just one person. But again, people can choose what best meets
their needs.
Equitable Mapping, Engagement and Decision-Making
One central outcome of this rulemaking is an increased
emphasis on equity. The rulemaking has worked to integrate
equity, starting withthe rulemaking charge and title. Equity
was key as DLCD attemptedto have the composition of the
advisory committee reflect the diversity of Oregon’s
communities, and equity wasone of the first tasks tackled by
the group.
The rulemaking advisory committee spent significant time at
many of its meetings discussing equity, and developed an
Equitable Outcomes Statementto guide the rulemaking
drafting and implementation. The rulemaking conducteda
racial equity analysis of the rulesand an analysis on how the
rules could be improved to serve people with disabilities. The
committee subsequently reviewed a table listing how each item
in the Equitable Outcomes Statement was or was not brought
1938 Redlining map of Portland. Redlining allowed
white people to build wealth through homeownership.
forth into the draft rules, and what next steps might be.
The proposed rules define traditionally underserved populations to include Black and African
Americanpeople, Indigenous people, People of Color, people with limited English proficiency,
people with disabilities, low-income Oregonians, youth and seniors, and more. They require
mapping of traditionally underserved populations,local consideration of a set of anti-
displacement actions should decisions contribute toward displacement, centering the voices of
underserved populations in decision-making, and regular reporting on effortsto engage
traditionally underserved populations.
- 2 -
Climate-Friendly Areas
A climate-friendly area is an area where residents, workers, and
visitors can meet most of their daily needs without having to
drive. They are urban mixed-use areas that contain, or are
planned to contain, a greater mix and supply of housing, jobs,
businesses, and services. These areas are served, or planned to
be served, by high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
infrastructure to provide frequent, comfortable, and convenient
connections to key destinations within the city and region.
Why are climate-friendly areas important? A key component of
Oregon’s plan to meet our climate pollution reduction and equity
goals is facilitating development of urban areas in which
Oregon already has some climate-friendly areas,
pleasant places to meet one's needs without needing
residents are less dependent upon the single occupant vehicle.
to drive.
Before the automobile became common in American life, cities
grew more efficiently, with a variety of uses in city centers and
other areas that allowed for working, living, and shopping within a walkable or transit accessible
area. Over the last 100 years, the automobile and planning practices have served to separate
activities, creating greater inequities within cities and widespread dependence upon climate-
polluting vehiclesto meet daily needs. Climate friendly areas will help to reverse these negative
trends, with some actions taking place in the short term, and others that will occur with
development and redevelopment over time.
The proposed rules will require cities,and some urbanized county areas, with a population over
5,000 within the seven metropolitan areas outside of Portland Metro to adopt regulations
allowing walkable mixed-use development in defined areas within urban growth boundaries.
The proposed rules forthe Portland Metro area support implementation of the region’s 2040
Growth Concept. Areas will be sized to accommodate a portion of the community’s housing,
jobs, and services. Local governments will determine where these areas will be located, but
many of these areas will likely be established in existing downtowns that may currently allow for
mixed uses and higher densities.
Associated requirements will ensure high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure
is available within these areas toprovide convenient transportation options. The rules provide a
process for local governments to first identify potentialclimate friendly areas, then later to
adopt development standards for theareasbest-suited for this purpose. The rules provide some
minimum requirements for climate friendly areas, with a set of clear and objective standards
that may be adopted, or a process for local governments to craft their own standards. Cities of
more than 10,000 will monitor housing production within these areas over time and develop
strategies to facilitate desired development.
Reforming Costly Parking Mandates
Excess parking has a significant negative impact on
housing costs, business costs, the feasibility of housing
development and business redevelopment, walkability,
air and water pollution, climate pollution, and general
community character. Parking mandatesforce people
who don’t own or use cars to pay indirectly for other
people’s parking. Carless households tend to be the
Parking uses a huge amount of high-value land.
poorest households. Parking demand varies significantly
Off-street parking in downtown Corvallis in red.
- 3 -
from development to development, and about one-sixth of Oregon renter householdsown zero
vehicles. Planning practices of the past have imposed a one-size-fits-all requirement everywhere,
creating incentives to own more cars and drive more.
The proposed rules encourage the diversity of parking needs to be met by the diversity of
development. The rules would reduce or remove costly parking mandates for desired types of
development, such as smaller housing types, small businesses, childcare facilities, multi-family
housing, and historic buildings. The rules would completelyremove parking mandates within
one-half mile of frequent transit, where parking demand is lower per unit.
The rules give communities options to improve parking management. Those who adopt best
practice parking policies would get more flexibility. The rules require morepopulous cities to do
more management of on-street parking, through studying parking usage and using permits or
meters to manage location or time-specific demand.
Getting Ready for Oregon’s Electric Vehicle Future
Making our vehicles cleaner is a key part in meeting Oregon’s climate goals.
Oregonhas a vision where 90% of new vehicles will be electric by 2035. To
meet that goal, we need to ensure people can charge their vehicles. The
most convenient place to do so is at home, but many Oregonians live in
older multi-family homes that would be very expensive to retrofit.
Thus, the rules propose new housing and mixed-use development would
Building a complete network of EV
include electrical conduit (pipes) to 50% of spots, ready for adding wiring
charging stations at commercial and
and charging stations to support electric vehiclesas the market expands.
multi-family housing locations could
Those providing faster chargers could provide conduit to fewerspaces.
cut up to 11.9% of climate pollution
Planning for a Future of Transportation Options
DLCD and other state agency partners including the Oregon Department of
Transportation will provide arange of new and amplified services to help meet
greenhouse gas reduction goals, including grants, technical assistance, tools,
and publications, to help local governments adopt plans that meet or exceed the
state’s greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Local governments in Oregon have been required to make coordinated land use
and transportation plans for decades. The updated rules would require local
governments in metropolitan areas to:
Plan for greater development in transit corridors and downtowns, where
services are located and less driving is necessary;
Prioritize system performance measures that achieve community
Transportation options are
livability goals;
critical for everyone, but
Prioritize investments for reaching destinations without dependency on
particularly the one-in-three
single occupancy vehicles, including in walking, bicycling, and transit;
Oregonians who cannot drive.
Plan for needed infrastructure for electric vehicle charging; and
Regularly monitor and report progress.
- 4 -
Planningto Meet OurClimate Goals
DLCD’s regional greenhouse gas reduction programallows areas to work
together to consider statewide, regional, and local needs and issues. The flexible
regional planning process allows communities tostudyeconomic development,
fiscal impacts, resource use, pollution impacts, and the effects of different
choices on the state, region, community, or households. The results are
intended to help local government community members, elected and appointed
leaders better understand issues and quantify the effect of potential policies as
they review and update the area’s long-range plans and make investment
decisions.
The rules would expand requirements for regional plansto meet the state’s
climate pollution reduction targets from the Portland metropolitan area to the
next largest metropolitan areas in the state (Eugene-Springfield and Salem-
Keizer) initially. Other metropolitan areas will berequired to evaluate their local
plans towards meeting the state’s climate pollution reduction targets and amend
their local plans towards meeting the target.
Community Engagement
We’ve heard from lots of Oregonians over the past
eighteen months. We’ve heard from a 40-person advisory
committee including representatives from all of Oregon’s
impacted eight urban areas, several people who are home
builders, realtors, representatives of the trucking
industry, affordable housing advocates, land use
advocates, community-based and other community-
serving organizations.
To supplement those deliberations, staff held two
separate series of virtual community conversations in
Some members of the rulemaking advisory committee
2021 – five in the spring, and four in the fall. Staff have
hosted a series of nine technical work group meetings on specific topics, a series of practitioner
meetings with local government staff in each region, and dozens of additional meetings with
local elected officials, planning staff, and interest groups.
Upcoming conversations include events focused on what will be needed at the community level
to support implementation and ongoing engagement strategies.
We’ve heard from hundreds of Oregonians who have attended one or more of the scores of
meetings, community conversations, work groups, or practitioner meetings, and from hundreds
of people who’ve submitted comments (summary here). Our rules are better for it, having
continued to evolve and improve.
We’ll continue to hear from Oregonians through May, when we hope to adopt the rules. We
invite your feedback and comments.
But the engagement won’t end there – the rules require local governments to engage their
communities as they make key decisions on how the rules apply locally. If you’re interested in
these issues, we encourage you to stay engaged beyond May.
- 5 -
Implementing the Rules: Resources and Timelines
Ifthe Land Conservation and Development Commission adopts the rules, local governments will
be asked to implement them. Many of the rules take effect when a community next does a major
update of its Transportation System Plan (TSP), a community’s core document describing its
transportation needs and future plans.The rules do not set a specific deadline for most TSP
updates.The rules have Salem-Keizer and Eugene-Springfield areas on a schedule to do regional
scenario plans and update their TSPs by the end of 2027.
The land use components of the ruleshave specific deadlines. Communities are asked to study
potential Climate-Friendly Areas by June 30, 2023, and adopt Areas by June 30, 2024. Parking
reform is scheduled to happen in two phases -the first by the end of 2022, and the second by
March 31, 2023. Communities may ask for some flexibility around most of these dates.
DLCD is providing or working to find resources for local governments to do this work, along
with our agency partners at the Oregon Department of Transportationand the Oregon Housing
and Community Services Department. The Oregon Legislature provided $768,000 to assist with
implementation.
Learn More
Information on how to submit comments, get rulemaking updates via email, and or review many
additional materials including the draft rules language can be found at
www.oregon.gov/lcd/LAR/Pages/CFEC.aspx
Contact Information
Bill Holmstrom, Transportation Planner
bill.holmstrom@dlcd.oregon.gov
971-375-5975
Kevin Young, Senior Urban Planner
kevin.young@dlcd.oregon.gov
503-602-0238
March 2022
- 6 -
Senate Bill 458 Guidance
(Updated July 8, 2021)
Background
Senate Bill 458 was adopted by the Oregon Legislature in 2021. The bill is a follow-up to House
Bill 2001 - the bill that legalizes middle housing in many cities throughout the state - and allows
lot divisions for middle housing that enable them to be sold or owned individually.
Senate Bill 458 Summary
For any cityor countysubject to the requirements of House Bill 2001, Senate Bill 458 requires
those jurisdictions to allow middle housing lot divisions for any HB 2001 middle housing type
(duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses, and cottage clusters) built in accordance with
ORS 197.758. Senate Bill 458 only applies to middle housing land divisions permitted on or
after June 30, 2022.
The bill sets forth a series of parameters on how a city must process middle housing lot division
applications. The city must apply an “expedited land division” process defined in ORS 197.360
through 197.380, and the applicant must submit a tentative plan for the division including the
following:
- A proposal for development of middle housing in compliance with the Oregon residential
specialty code and applicable middle housing land use regulations,
- Separate utilities for each dwelling unit,
- Easements necessary for utilities, pedestrian access, common use areas or shared
building elements, dedicated driveways/parking, and dedicated common area,
- One dwelling unit per each resulting lot or parcel (except common areas), and
- Demonstration that the buildings will meet the Oregon residential specialty code.
Additionally, cities retain the ability to require or condition certain things, including further
division limitations, street frontage improvements, and right-of-way dedication if the original
parcel did notmake such dedications. They may notsubject applications to approval criteria
outside of what is provided in the bill, including that a lot or parcel require driveways, vehicle
access, parking, or min/max street frontage, or requirements inconsistent with House Bill 2001,
including OAR Chapter 660, Division 046.
Guidance
DLCD staff have received a significant number of questions regarding Senate Bill 458 and how
cities or counties can best prepare to comply with the law. Below are answers to commonly
asked questions. If you find that you have a question that has not been addressed in this
document, please reach out tothe Housing Team at housing.dlcd@dlcd.oregon.gov.
SB 458 Deadline
Question:
This bill applies to middle housing lot divisions permittedon or after June 30, 2022.
Will citiesor countiesneed to incorporate these standards before this deadline?
7/8/2021Department of Land Conservation and Developmentwww.oregon.gov/lcd
Answer:It is highly advisable, but not required, for citiesor countiesto incorporate
middle housing lot division standards into their development codes. On the June 30,
2022 deadline, a cityor countythat has not incorporated lot division standards within
their development codes would utilize the bill language directly to process middle
housing lot divisions under SB 458.
Question:
Medium cities need to allow duplexes on lots/parcels that allow single-family
detached dwellings by June 30, 2021 (i.e. this year). Are duplexes built between this deadline
and the SB 458 deadline eligible fora middle housing lot division?
Answer:A duplex builtpursuant to ORS 197.758 (i.e. House Bill 2001)during this time
period would be eligible to apply for a middle housing land division under SB 458 on
June 30, 2022, provided it met the applicable requirements outlined in the bill.
Question:
Do citiesor countiesneed to allow lot divisions for middle housingbuilt prior to
House Bill 2001?
Answer:SB 458 requires a middle housing lot division application submit: “A proposal
for development of middle housing in compliance with the Oregon residential specialty
code and land use regulations applicable to the original lot or parcel allowed under ORS
197.758 (5)”. This means that any lot division proposal will need to demonstrate
compliance with both applicable building code and HB 2001 middle housing code in
order to be eligible for a lot division under SB 458.
There is a potential hypothetical scenario in which a pre-HB 2001middle-housing type
could make this demonstration, but 1.) this is an unlikely scenario and 2.) a jurisdiction
retains the ability to require the applicant demonstrate the middle housing type complies
with applicable building code and middle housing code before approving a middle
housing lot division proposal.
Applicability, Application Process, and Submittal Requirements
Question:
What middle housing types are eligible for division under SB 458?
Answer:The bill specifiesany lot or parcelthat allows middle housing under ORS
197.758 (2) or (3)qualifies for a middle housing land division under SB 458. This
includes duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses, and cottage clustersin applicable
cities and unincorporated, urban portions of Metro counties. Accessory dwelling units are
not eligiblefor lot division under SB 458.
Question:
SB 458 requires cities or counties to apply the expedited land division process. What
is this?
Answer:The expedited land division process is outlined in ORS 197.360 to197.380.It
is an alternative procedure application intended to streamline the review of land divisions
under state law. While typical land use applications must be completed within 120 days
(ORS 227.178), an expedited land division must be processed within 63 days or
extended by the governing body of a local jurisdiction (not to exceed 120 days).
Question:
The expedited land division process under ORS 197.360(1)(b) seems to only include
divisions of three or fewer parcels. Does this mean that a middle housing land division is limited
to three total parcels?
7/8/2021Department of Land Conservation and Developmentwww.oregon.gov/lcd
Answer:No.First, ORS 197.360(1)(a) allows an expedited land division to be any size,
while ORS 197.360(1)(b) clarifies that the expedited land division process is also
extended to divisions of three or fewer parcels.
Additionally,SB 458 requires that local jurisdictions apply the expedited land division
procedure outlined in ORS 197.360 to 197.380, a “middle housing land division” is
distinct from an “expedited land division” and may contain more than three parcels,
provided that each resultant lot or parcel contains one unit.
Question:
Can a city or county apply a typical land division process to a middle housing land
division application?
Answer:SB 458 specifies that a city or county “shall apply the procedures under ORS
197.360 to 197.380”. This means that a city or countycannot require a middle housing
land division to undergoa standard land division pathway.
Question:
This bill seems to suggest that the jurisdiction must approve an application for middle
housing landdivision after or concurrent with the issuance of a building permit, which is
backwards in comparison to typical subdivisions. Can you clarify when an applicant may submit
an application for a middle housing lot division?
Answer:Senate Bill 458 does not state that a middle housing land division must occur
either before or after the issuance of a building permit. We anticipate that most middle
housing land divisions will occur before the application for a building permit, similar to
other housing land division processes. However, we also anticipate that there may be
circumstances in which an applicant submits a land division application after developing
a middle housing type. In both scenarios, the applicant must demonstrate that the
proposal meets applicable building code and middle housing code as well as the
requirements outlined in SB 458.
Additionally, the bill specifies that a city or county may allow the submission of a middle
housing land division at the same time as submission of an application for a building
permit, but they are not required to.
Lot Division Standards and Conditions for Approval
Question:
SB 458 sets out several requirements that applicants must demonstrate outlined in
the summary above. What else are jurisdictions allowed to require or condition?
Answer:The bill allows jurisdictions to require or condition the following:
- Prohibition of further division of the resulting lots or parcels
- Require notation in the final plat indicating approval was provided under SB 458
(later on, this will be the resultant ORS reference)
- Require street frontage improvements where a lot or parcel abuts a street
(consistent with House Bill 2001)
- Require right-of-way dedication if the original parcel did not previously provide a
dedication
Question:
Will jurisdictions be able to require applicants to submit tentative and final plats
consistent with local platting standards?
7/8/2021Department of Land Conservation and Developmentwww.oregon.gov/lcd
Answer:Yes, jurisdictionsmay require that theapplicant submit tentative and final plats
in a manner consistent with their applicable platting standards.
Question:
Can jurisdictions require that easements be submitted in a form approved by the City
Attorney and address specific issues like maintenance and repair, cost-sharing, access, notice,
damage, disputes, etc.?
Answer:Yes, cities are permitted to specify the format and issues an easement
addresses, provided that they are specific to the types of easements specified in Section
2(2)(c) of the bill, including:
A.Locating, accessing, replacing and servicing all utilities;
B.Pedestrian access from each dwelling unit to a private or public road;
C.Any common use areas or shared building elements;
D.Any dedicated driveways or parking; and
E.Any dedicated common area;
Question:
What requirements are jurisdictions limited in requiring for a middle housing lot
division?
Answer:The bill specifies that a jurisdiction may not subject a middle housing lot
division application to approval criteria except as provided in Section 2 of the bill. The bill
specifies that this includes the following:
- Require that a lot or parcel provide driveways, vehicle access, parking or
minimum or maximum street frontage
- Subject an application to procedures, ordinances or regulations adopted under
ORS 92.044 or 92.046 that are inconsistent with Section 2 of the bill or ORS
197.360 to 197.380.
Question:
Does that mean jurisdictions cannotrequire off-street parking for middle housing?
Answer:Jurisdictions are still permitted to require off-street parking and all other land
use regulations in accordance with the parameters set forth in administrative rule, OAR
Chapter 660, Division 046, but they may not require that each resultant lot or parcel
have off-street parking.Such a lot or parcel would be provided access to off-street
parking via easement.
Question:
Cities or counties cannot require street frontage under SB 458, butcan they limit
how many lots within a land division do not have street frontage? For example, could a city limit
the number of cottages in a cottage cluster development that only have street access from an
access easement?
Answer:The bill states that a city or county “may not subject an application to approval
criteria except as provided in this section”. The restriction on minimum or maximum
frontage is an explicit example of this prohibition. Because there is nothing in this section
specifying the number of units that may only have street access from an access
easement, a local jurisdiction would not be able to include such a limitation as a
standard or condition of approval.
7/8/2021Department of Land Conservation and Developmentwww.oregon.gov/lcd
Question:
Section 2 (4)(b)allows cities or counties to require street frontage improvements.
Would this enable them to require frontage improvements that might otherwise be exempted for
single-family detached dwellings, which is prohibited in OAR Chapter 660, Division 046?
Answer:Yes. This provision would enable a city to require street frontage improvements
in situations where it might not otherwise be permitted under administrative rule. We also
think this can be a compelling incentive to better address the street frontage deficiencies
that persist today in older single-family neighborhoods.
Question:
Does SB 458 require local jurisdictions to approve vertical divisions (i.e. divisions in
which one or more units of middle housing is not on the ground floor) of middle housing in
addition to horizontal divisions?
Answer:Senate Bill 458 does not speak to vertical divisions of middle housing and
requires that each resultant lot or parcel contain exactly one unit. Therefore, cities are
not required to allow vertical divisions of middle housing.
Townhouses
Question:
Does SB 458 apply to lot divisions for townhouses allowed under HB 2001?
Answer:The bill applies to any lot or parcel that allows middle housing under ORS
197.758, including townhouses.Local jurisdictions must allow townhouse proposals to
undergo the lot division process outlined in SB 458, including the application of the
procedures outlined in ORS 197.360 through 197.380.
Question:
The bill restricts cities or counties from applying minimum or maximum frontage
requirements to lots or parcels created under SB458. This seems to conflict with OAR 660-046-
0220(3)(b) regarding minimum street frontages applied to townhouses. Are jurisdictions
permitted to apply minimum street frontages to townhouses?
Answer:Yes, SB 458 specifies that in order fora middle housing proposal to be eligible
for a land division, it must comply with all of the land use regulations applicable to the
original lot or parcel allowed under ORS 197.758 (5), which includes the full scope of
administrative rules outlined in OARChapter 660, Division 046. Therefore, local
governments are able to, but are not required to, apply minimum street frontages to
townhouses as permitted in OAR 660-046-0220(3)(b).
Local governments will notbe able to apply minimum street frontage requirements for
individual units forplexes and cottage clusters. However, they may apply lot dimensional
standards to the parent lot as provided in OAR 660-046-0220.We recommend that local
jurisdictions carefully consider the incentives and resulting form for each middle housing
type when developing middle housing land use regulations.
7/8/2021Department of Land Conservation and Developmentwww.oregon.gov/lcd