HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-11 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
October 11, 2022
I.CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1. September 13, 2022RegularMeeting
2. September 27, 2022 Special Meeting
IV.PUBLIC FORUM
V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Approval of Findings for PA-APPEAL-2022-00016, 580 Clover Ln
VI.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-T3-2022-00004
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1511 Highway 99 North
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Casita Developments, LLC for owner Linda Zare
DESCRIPTION:
A request for the Annexation of 16.86 acres located at 1511 Highway 99 North into the City
of Ashland, along with 6.6 acres of adjacent Oregon Department of Transportation state highway right-of-way
and 7.68 acres of California Oregon & Pacific railroad property. The property is currently located in Jackson
County and zoned Rural Residential (RR-5); with Annexation these properties would be brought into the City
asLow Density, Multi-Family Residential (R-2). Concurrent with Annexation, the application also requests:
Outline Plan subdivision approval to create 12 lots; Site Design Review to construct 230 apartments in ten
buildings including 37 affordable units; anException to the Street Design Standards; and Tree Removal
Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing – County RR-5 Rural Residential, Proposed –
City R-2 Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 38 1E 32; TAX LOT #’s: 1700 & 1702
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
September 13, 2022
I.CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM,viaZoom
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Haywood Norton Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager
Lynn Thompson Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Eric Herron Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
Lisa Verner Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Doug Knauer
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt (absent)
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcement:
The Commission will be discussing a draft ordinanceregarding food trucks at its September 27, 2022 Study
Sessionbefore making a recommendation to theCity Council.
That Study Sessionwill then turn into a Regular Meeting which will allow the Commission to hold a Public
Hearing on housing in employment zones. This item went before the Planning Commissionon December 14,
2021 where it wasapproved, but the Council since remanded it to the Commission for further review. Staff also
requested feedback from developers of mixed-use housingon some of the items contained in the ordinance.
The Council will discuss potential amendmentsto the City’s Commissions at its meeting on September 19,
2022.These changes would include creating a manger-advisory group that could lend its expertise to staff,
whichwould then be included in the staff report.
Mr. Molnar announced his retirement from the City on October 1, 2022. His last Commission meeting will be the
upcoming Special Meeting on September 27.He said that he was fortunate to have been able to work for so
th
many years as a land-use planner, and expressed appreciation to the Commission for the work that it has done.
III.CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.August 9, 2022 Regular Meeting
B.Initiation of an Ordinance Amendment Relating to Food Trucks & Food Carts
Commissioners Dawkins/Knauer m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM - None
Ashland Planning Commission
September 13, 2022
Page 1 of 7
V. TYPE I PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2022-00016(AppealingPA-T1-2022-00187)
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 580 Clover Ln
APPLICANT/OWNER:Tesla / AsiaJohnson
APPELLANT:Stracker Solar / Jeff Sharpe
DESCRIPTION:Anappealof the staffdecisionapproving a requestfor a ConditionalUsePermitandSiteDesign
Reviewapprovals to allow for theinstallationofanasphalt-pavedparkinglotwithapproximately24electricvehicle(EV)
chargingstallsonanundevelopedsite.Theprojectproposes to installassociatedelectricalequipment(transformers,
switchgears,Teslasuperchargercabinetsandsurchargerposts),stormdrainageandwater(foronsiteirrigationonly)
utilities,andlandscaping.COMPREHENSIVEPLANDESIGNATION:Employment;ZONING:E-1;ASSESSOR’SMAP:
391E14AA;TAXLOT:6801.
ExParteContact
Noexpartecontactwasreported. AllCommissionersconductedsitevisitsexcept for CommissionerDawkinswhowasfamiliar
with the site.
StaffPresentation
SeniorPlannerAaronAndersongave a briefoverviewoftheapplicationprocess,timeline,andscopeof the project.Henotedthat
manyof the approvalcriteriadonotapplytothisprojectbecausetheapplicantsarenotproposinganybuildingson the siteinthe
nearfuture.Because a fueling station isnotanalloweduseinan E-1 zone a ConditionalUsePermit(CUP) wasrequestedby the
applicant. Theapplicantshadalsorequestedanexceptiontostormwatercollectionstandardsdue to the site’s topography.while
theremainderof the plansconformed to the City’sdesignstandards.
Mr.Andersonlisted the threegrounds for appealsubmittedby the appellants,andnotedthatnocitationsfromrelevantcriteriaor
proceduresfrom the AshlandMunicipalCode(AMC.)wereincluded.Thegrounds for appealwereaslisted:
A requestfor the City to consider futuredevelopmentswhendeterminingthisproject’s effect ontheCity’selectricalgrid.
ThatCloverLaneisnarrowandthat the projectcouldnegativelyimpact traffic.
TheTeslachargingstationwouldnotbenefitotherelectricvehiclesortheCity.
Mr.Andersonoutlinedhow the applicanthadworkedextensivelywith the City’sElectricalDepartmentbeforeandafter the
applicationwassubmitted,andnotedthattherewasonedeficiencyidentifiedwithintheelectricalgridthatisbeingaddressed.
ThewidthofCloverLanewasfound to bewithinstandardsfor a neighborhood street. Mr.Andersonalsoclarifiedthatthe
applicantwouldbeprovidingthird-partychargingin the future,andthat the exclusivityofanyparticularbrandisnotrelevant to the
approvalcriteria.
Staff believedthattherewassufficientevidencein the record to demonstratethatallapplicablestandardshadbeenmetby the
applicationandrecommendedthat the Commissiondeny the appealanduphold the originalapproval(seeattachment#1).
QuestionsofStaff
CommissionerThompsonaskedwhetherthereis a minimumFloorAreaRatio(FAR)requirement for developmentsinan E-1
Zone.Mr.AndersonrespondedthatthereisanFARrequirement,andthatpastprojectshaveprovidedsimilarshadowplan
showingthatany future developmentwouldmeetFARstandards.CommissionerThompsonaskedthat a codereferencebe
provided for projectsdevelopingat .5 FAR, to whichSeniorPlannerDerekSeversoncitedAMC18.4.2.040.Commissioner
Thompsonpointedoutthat staff didnotincludecalculationsfor the shadowdevelopmentwhendetermining the project’s traffic
impact,requiringanyfuturedevelopmenttoconform to the remainingland.Mr.Andersonrepliedthatany future development
wouldrequire a sitedesignreviewandthat the shadowplanwouldnotmanifestwithoutanadditionalplanningaction.Atthattime
staff wouldevaluate the proposedbuildingand its parkingdemand,andhowitwouldimpact the CUPbeingdiscussed.
CommissionerThompsonnotedthat staff wasanalyzing a futuredevelopmentbasedontheleastintensiveuseofthespace, a
single-tenantbuilding,andthatanyfuturedevelopmentwouldlikelyhave a greater traffic impactthanisbeingconsidered.Mr.
Ashland Planning Commission
September 13, 2022
Page 2 of 7
Andersonrespondedthat a traffic studywouldberequiredforanyfuturedevelopment, addingthatanyfutureplanswouldlikely
beaccessory to the Tesla station andthatlinked-tripswouldnotgreatlyincrease traffic.
ChairNortonrequestedclarificationon the parkingallowedalongCloverLane.Mr.Andersonrespondedthatthereisnoparking
allowedon the northernendofClover,butisallowedonthesouthernendwhereitiswideenoughtoaccommodateparkingon
bothsidesof the street. ChairNortonexpressedconcernthat the narrownessof the streetwouldresultincongestion.
Commissioner Knauer commented that the Electrical Department’s review did not seem to be primarily focused on the Tesla
proposal. Mr. Anderson replied that the Electrical Department had used this as an opportunity to review the grid as well as re-
conductor the lines identified by the engineering firm.
Questions of the Applicant
Brian Sliger, Design Manager, and Alex Schoknecht, Project Developer, assured the Commission that Tesla was working to
create universal charging adapters to allow non-Tesla vehicles to use the station. Mr. Sliger mentioned that their traffic data was
extrapolated from similar charging stationsand the number of visits by customers.
Commissioner Dawkins expressed concern that a restroom would not be included as part of the project. Mr. Schoknecht
respondedthat their data showed most of their customers visited thecharging stations while nearby businesses were in operation
and providing amenities, making the inclusion of a sanitary facility unnecessary. Commissioner Thompson asked if Tesla was
planning on developing the remainder of the lot, to which Mr. Sliger responded in the negative.
Chair Norton expressed concern over the potentially longwait-times for customers to charge their vehicles. Mr. Sliger agreed that
keeping ahead of their capacity means is a primary goal for the company, but that Tesla’s plans to develop additional charging
stations in southern Oregon should help alleviate any potential wait-times. Mr. Schoknecht added that their goal is for a maximum
of 10% occupancy at any given timebefore it is considered congested.
Chair Norton noted that a Tesla charging station in Sutherlin has two ingress/egress points to the site, and inquired if this was
considered for the Clover Lane development.Mr. Sliger responded that their original plan included two points of entrance, but that
staff had suggested altering the site plans to include one entrance and a widening of the middle laneper the AMC.
Appellant’s Presentation
Appellant Jeff Sharpe noted that he was appealing as a citizen, and not on behalf of his company, andthathe submitted this
appeal in order have adequate time to provide comments before the comment period deadlinepassed. Mr. Sharpe expressed
concern for the potential strain that this project could place on the electrical grid,particularly with many large business buildings
nearby.He sharedChair Norton’s apprehension regarding the narrowness of the street, but rescinded his third ground for appeal
due to Tesla’s commitment to installing universal charging adapters.
Applicant’sRebuttal
TheApplicantsofferednorebuttal.
ChairNortonclosed the PublicHearingandRecordat7:56p.m.
DiscussionandDeliberation
Commissioner Thompson conveyed apprehension over the speculative nature of future developmentsin shadow plans, which
could be used by applicant’s to circumvent FAR standards. She asked if, in the event that the CUP is permitted, any future
developments would cause the CUP to be reconsidered. Mr. Anderson responded that in the process of reviewing a new
applicationit would be incumbent on staff to reexamine the CUP. He added that the Commission could include a condition of
approval for staff to reevaluate the CUP when a future development is proposeddepending on the application. Commissioner
Thompson remarked that any future project could then be denied based on the combined impact of it and the CUP.Mr. Anderson
responded that the site design review for any future development would include the use of the entire property.Mr. Molnar pointed
out that the CUP would not need to be reestablished, but that you would evaluate the cumulative impacts of the CUP and the
proposed project. Adjustments could then be made off of that evaluation, such as to the station or its traffic impact, but that it
should not necessarilypreclude the approval of the item being discussed.
Ashland Planning Commission
September 13, 2022
Page 3 of 7
Commissioner Knauer commented that there is a significant movement to fully electrify the City, and that this project would have a
serious impact on the grid if every charging station wereutilized at once, and that the City should attempt to plan accordingly.
Commissioner Herron inquiredif there were any requirements in the AMC for a travelcenter to include restrooms or sanitary
facilities. Mr. Molnar responded that there weren’t any in the land use codes, and that he was not aware of one in the building
codes. There was general concernfrom the Commission that the charging station would not include a sanitary facility for
customers.Commissioners Verner and Dawkins lamented the applicant’s lack of foresight in not including restrooms, but
acknowledged that this was not grounds for denial of the project.
Chair Norton emphasizedthat parking and the narrowness of Clover Lane continued to concern him. Commissioner Thompson
agreed that the on-street parking should be reevaluated, but stated that she would vote in favor of the projectdespite this
because all applicable approval criteria appeared to be met by the application.
Commissioners Knauer/Vernerm/s to deny the appeal.Roll Call Vote: Commissioners, Knauer, Thompson,Verner,
Herron, Dawkins: AYE.Commissioner Norton: NAY.Motion passed. 5-1.
VI.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T3-2022-00004
SUBJECT PROPERTY:1511 Highway 99 North
APPLICANT/OWNER:Casita Developments, LLC for owner Linda Zare
DESCRIPTION:A request for the Annexation of 16.86 acres located at 1511 Highway 99 North into the City of Ashland,
along with 6.6 acres of adjacent Oregon Department of Transportation state highway right-of-way and 7.68 acres of
California Oregon & Pacific railroad property. The property is currently located in Jackson County and zoned Rural
Residential (RR-5); with Annexation these properties would be brought into the City as Low Density, Multi-Family
Residential (R-2). Concurrent with Annexation, the application also requests: Outline Plan subdivision approval to create
12 lots; Site Design Review to construct230 apartments in ten buildings including 37 affordable units; an Exception to
the Street Design Standards; and Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at
breast height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING:Existing – County RR-5
Rural Residential, Proposed –City R-2 Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ASSESSOR’S MAP:38 1E 32; TAX LOT
#’s:1700 & 1702
Ex Parte Contact
Noexpartecontactwasreported. AllCommissionersconductedsitevisits.
Presentation
Senior Planner Derek Severson began by pointing outthat the application contained several Type II elements, including site
review, subdivision, the exception and tree removal, and that the Type III elementwould bethe annexation request. The
Commission wouldmake a recommendation totheCouncilfor finalapproval. Mr. Severson added that a similar application was
approved by the Commission and Council in 2019, but wasappealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) andultimately
deniedbecause the application did not include plans for a developmentor fullfrontage improvements. City codeshave since
been adjustedandthe new applicationmeet,andalsoincludethe requisiteplans for developing the site. The annexed area is
currently separated from the City limits by a railroad crossing, which is not considered a public right-of-way (ROW). State law
allowsthat the City can annex property where the owner has not consented provided that the City has a triple-majoritywhere half
of the property owners of half of the property’s assessed value consent to the annexation.Therefore the railroad property should
be included in the annexation to make the City limits contiguous and to extend utilities and services.
Mr. Severson stated that the annexed area would enter the City as Low-Density, Multi-Family Residential(R-2), and the applicant
would be installing 3,000 of sidewalk and a new bus-stopalong the street-front.The development would make up twelve
buildings, ten of which would contain 230 apartments and 37 affordable units(see attachment #2).The sidewalks would result in
pedestrian connectivity along Highway 99from the downtown area to El Tapatio Restaurant.
Ashland Planning Commission
September 13, 2022
Page 4 of 7
A significant portion of the site would be along the highway, making it the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT).The application requestedanException to the Street Design Standards to allow the development of curbside sidewalks
in order to install a bus pull-out lane, bus stop, and transit supportive plaza along the property’s frontage.The applicants
requested a reduction in required parkingfrom 230 spaces to 212due to the transit-supportive plaza.A provision in theAMC
allows for such a reduction request.
Mr. Severson noted that the Transportation Commission raised concerns abouthightraffic speeds near a large residential
development, but that ODOT had decided that a reduction in speed along the development site was not required.A pedestrian-
controlled crosswalk is being proposedcrossing Highway 99and was supported by ODOT. The sidewalks being proposed are
consistent with both City and ODOT standards, and the applicants proposed to maintain the current bicycle lanes and widen them
where necessary.
Mr. Severson related how the Tree Commission had reviewed the application and concludedthat the proposed tree removals
were acceptable and voted unanimously to approve the project.
Mr. Severson noted that the affordability standards had changed since the previous application, and now require that the total
number of affordable units proposed by a development be rounded up. Therefore the number of affordable units required by the
application should be increased to 38.However, if the applicantschoose to partner with a provider then the dedicated landshould
be adequate to accommodate therequired number of 47 ownership units at 100% AMI on the final plat.Alternatively, if the
applicants partneredwith an affordable housing providerthat is willing to participate in the design program proposed by the
applicant,then the applicants would only be required to provide38 affordable housing units at the 80% AMI rental rate. Staff
recommended that a conditionbe includedfor the Final Plan submittal to make clear how the affordabilityrequirementswouldbe
addressed.
Mr. Severson concluded that staff was generally supportive of the request and that the applicants met the criteria for approval.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Knauer requested clarification on the applicant’s choiceonwhether to construct the development themselves or to
partner with a provider. Mr. Severson responded that the applicants would still supply the facilities,but that a partner could be
brought in construct the proposed buildings. Mr. Goldman added that the external amenities would stay the same with a partnered
provider, but that the internal amenities may differ.
Commissioner Thompsonasked for further information regarding the open-space amenity requirements are for the project. Mr.
Severson responded thatthe staff report did not examine the requirements in detail becausethe proposal was providing
significantly more open-space than the 8% required for multi-family developments. The plans also includeda play area for
children, as well as recreational areas and patios.
Applicant’s Presentation
Amy Gunter began by stating that the applicant team had reviewed staff’s evaluation, findings, and recommended conditions of
approval, and acceptedthem as presented. She provided the Commission with a presentation for the annexation and
development for 1511 Highway 99 N.andgave a brief overview of the project andthe development area. Shenoted that
substantial public improvements would be required, and that this project would provideall improvementsnecessary(see
attachment #3).
Ms. Gunterdetailed how the current sidewalks along Highway 99 terminate on Schofield Streetand how this development would
greatlyimprove pedestrian access from the site to downtown. She pointed out how there is currently no safe passagefor
pedestrians to travel alongside Highway 99, and that there is also limited bicycle safety measures. She showed the Commission
several nighttime photos of the highway to emphasize the need for safe pedestrian walkways. Ms. Gunter notedhow there were
still discussions being heldabout what the underpass pedestrian improvements would entail at the railroad bridge, but that a
pedestrian sidewalk and bike lane would be included. She pointed out at the proposed improvements would be superior to the
existing facilities, and that a crosswalkwith Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) wasbeing plannedwheretwo new
bus-stops would be installed.
Ashland Planning Commission
September 13, 2022
Page 5 of 7
RobertKendrick pointed to various driveways and ingress/egress points along the highway that don’t conform to ODOT
standards.Henoted that this projectwould not be able to improve those areas, but that the installation of sidewalks and curbs
would greatly increase pedestrian connectivity and safety between downtown and the proposed development,meeting thedesign
standards for improvement.Mr. Kendrick stated that his goal in requesting a reduction in parking standards was to encourage the
use of other modes of transportation, namely walking, biking, and buses.He added that they have an offer from Rogue Valley
Transportation District (RVTD) to providebus passeswith unlimited usefor every residentin the development for $10.00 per
month.
Mr. Kendrick stated that his target tenant demographic are those between 80-120% AMI, who, on average, spend 29% on car-
related expenses. The proposed transportation upgrades would free up these expenses and increase quality of life for the
tenants. He pointed out that residents of northern Ashland are unable to use the bus-stops along the highway due to the lack of
safe crosswalks, and that his team had worked with ODOT for two years to get the RRFB crosswalkapprovedwhich would
benefittheneighborhood.
Mr. Kendrick then cited a Vehicle Access Safety Evaluation provided by his team’s traffic consultant. The safety standard is based
on Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) and vehicle speed,andwouldrequire an SSD of 360ftfor a car traveling at 45mph. Mr.
Kendrick statedthat his proposal would have an SSD of over 700ft in both directionsfrom the project site.
Ms. Gunter concluded the presentation by informing the Commission that the project would provide requiredpublicinfrastructure
improvements per annexation codestandards. She pointed out that the layout for the site was largely determined by the Billing’s
Siphon that runs through the property,which wouldreducethe number of treesneedingto be removed from the site.She added
that the wetland buffer included in the application is larger than is necessary for approval, and that the site was designed for
family use.
Commissioners Dawkins/Thompsonm/s to extend the meeting until 10:00 p.m.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner Dawkins voiced concernthatall affordable unitswouldbe located in one areainstead of being dispersed around
the site. Mr. Kendrick responded that the affordable units would be built to the same standard as the other units, and that the
purpose of the project would beto increase available housing and decrease rental costs in the City. Commissioner Dawkins
remarked that the proposal made mention of selling the units, to which Ms. Gunter responded that selling the units is merely an
option but is not being considered.
Commissioner Verner inquired why the number of rental units was increased to 230 from the 2019 application’s 196 units. Mr.
Kendrick stated that the demand for housing had changed during that time, as well as the need for additional single, double, and
triple occupancy housing. He added that privacy was also afocus when designing the units themselves, as well asprovidingopen
areas behind the buildings. Commissioner Verner asked if the annexation would include all of the ODOT property indicated in the
application. Mr. Kendrick responded that it would, indicating that this would result in greater connectivity to the rest of the City. Mr.
Severson added that in discussions during the 2019 application that ODOT had recommended that the annexation include the
whole ROW.
Commissioner Verner noted that the SSD included in the traffic report only referred to one of the application’s entrances. Mr.
Kendrick responded that the SSD did apply to both entrances, but thatthe second entrance is unnecessary and only required by
theCity.The focus will be on the main entrance which will include ADAcompliantpedestrianaccess pointsto encourage
pedestrian and bicycle usage near that entrance. Commissioner Verner pointed out that the width of the secondary access point
was only 24ft, to which Mr. Severson responded that the Fire Department only required the main entrance tohave a width of26ft.
Commissioner Verner inquired if the individual lots would be sold. Mr. Kendrickresponded that it was not being considered, and
that the involvement of Homeowner’s Associations in the development would be to lower the potential capital needing to be
borrowed from banks. Commissioner Verner inquired in the total lot coverage included the internal roadways. Ms. Gunter stated
that all surfaces that are not landscaped areas make up the total lot coverage, including driveways, patios, pathways, and
Ashland Planning Commission
September 13, 2022
Page 6 of 7
structures. Mr. Kendrick elaborated that the landscaped areas would not include grassin orderto conserve water.Commissioner
Verner stated that the applicants and the City should do everything possible to reduce the speed limit along the highway to
35mph.Mr. Kendrick agreed and requested thatthe City to assist his team in that endeavor.
Commissioner Thompson requested clarification regarding the orientation of the units in relation to the parking areas. Mr.
Kendrick responded that the entrance for the basement floor units would be facing outward, while the firstand second floor units
have entrances facing inward. He added that the affordable units could be placed anywhere on the property, and that the whole
neighborhood will increase in valueand quality.Ms. Gunter pointed out that the affordable unit wouldhave some of the best views
onthe lot because of their height and placement. Commissioner Thompson asked in RVTD had agreed to add a regular stop
outside the property. Mr. Kendrick responded that they had, and that the local ODOT office had also approved the new crosswalk.
Public Comments
Steve Rouse/Mr. Rouse stated that he is the Vice-President of Rogue Advocates, the group who successfully appealed the
original project to LUBA.He commentedthat he was impressed with the applicant’s proposal, but that significant concerns
remained. Mr. Rouse outlined the difficulty in addingadditional residential traffic from the development to the highway, and
suggested that the applicants reduce the number of units to limit congestion.He supported theapplicant’sintention of increasing
pedestrian safety,but stated that traffic would only increase due to this project.Mr. Rouse also contested the findings from the
traffic report, stating that the SSD would be much lower than was reported.
Mr. Rouse requested that the Public Record remain open so that he could submit additional written comments.
Ms. Gunter requested that the applicant team be given its five-minute rebuttal time before the meeting is adjourned. Chair Norton
responded that the Commission would be unable to make a decision in the remaining time allotted.He suggested that the item be
continued to the October 11, 2022 Regular Meetingwhen the Commission would have more time to deliberate, as well asallow
for any additional comments to be submitted.
Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to continue the Public Hearingon PA-T3-2022-00004untiltheOctober 11, 2022
meeting.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:58p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant
Ashland Planning Commission
September 13, 2022
Page 7 of 7
Approval Criteria
An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D
below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the
applicable criteria.
A.Underlying Zone.The proposal complies with all ofthe 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.
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 18.4if the circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, 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;
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; or
3.There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development,
butgranting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section
18.2.3.090. (Ord. 3147 9, amended, 11/21/2017)
Approval Criteria
1.That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed
to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any
City, State, or Federal law or program.
2.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and
throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
3.That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when
compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection
18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of
livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone.
a.Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit
use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
c.Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
e.Generation of noise, light, and glare.
f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use.
4.A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this
ordinance.
5.For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of
this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows.
f.E-1.The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity
of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review
overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements.
November 25, 2022
+ 14 days to Adopt Findings:
GRAND TERRACE II
ANNEXATION, SITE DESIGN REVIEW, STREET
STANDARDS EXCEPTION AND PERFROMANCE
STANDARDS SUBDIVISION REVIEW
ANNEXATION REQUEST
The property is within the Urban Growth Boundary
of the City of Ashland. This area of North Ashland
was added 40 years ago. The Comprehensive Plan
Designation of the property is Multi-Family
Residential.
The current zoning of the property is RR-5, Jackson
County Rural Residential. The properties to the
north are Jackson County Commercial and Jackson
County Exclusive Farm Use.
The properties to the S across the tracks are zoned
Jackson County Rural Residential and City of
Ashland, single family zoning.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
OR HWY 99 UNDERPASS IMPROVEMENT
Steep slopes and public infrastructure beyond the trestle at N Main and OR HWY prevent
park row and sidewalk. An eight-foot curbside sidewalk is proposed.
CROSSWALK WITH
RECTANGULAR RAPID
FLASHING BEACON
STREET STANDARDS
EXCEPTION
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL
LANDSCAPE &
OPEN SPACE
SITE PLAN
DETAILED
LANDSCAPE SITE
PLAN
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Kelly Sandow PE, of Sandow Engineering, LLC has evaluated the impacts of the proposal.
Key findings of the TIA include Ïthese are addressed in the Technical Memorandum and the TIA Review
Response Letter from ODOT dated May 7, 2020:
The TIA shows all studied intersections (Hwy 99N at South Valley View, Highway 99N at Jackson Road,
North Main Street at Jackson Road, North Main Street at Maple Street, and Hwy 99N at the project access
points) will meet the mobility standards through the Year 2034 with the addition of the traffic associated
with anticipated development of the subject property.
The addition of development traffic will not substantially increase queuing conditions over the
background conditions.
All site driveways are projected to operate safely and efficiently.
The TIA recommends that Highway 99N be restriped to include a left-turn lane for vehicles entering the
site.
The TIA review by ODOT concludes that the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) has been met.
ODOT SPEED STUDY
ORS222.170
-CONTIGUITY THROUGH CONSENT AT A
PUBLIC HEARING
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIALMEETING
DRAFTMinutes
September 27, 2022
I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:Staff Present:
Michael DawkinsBill Molnar, Community Development Director
Haywood NortonBrandon Goldman, Planning Manager
Lynn ThompsonDerek Severson, Senior Planner
Eric HerronMichael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Lisa Verner
Doug Knauer
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairnPaula Hyatt
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcement:
Townmakers, LLC will be providing a presentation at the October 3, 2022 City Council meeting. They have
previously conducted an open house to engage with the public, as well as met with the Planning Commission at
itsJanuary 25, 2022 Study Session.
Mr. Molnar reminded the Commission that he would be retiring affective September 30, 2022, and that Planning
Manager Brandon Goldman had beenappointedasinterim Community Development Director.
III.PUBLIC FORUM-None
IV. LEGISLATIVE HEARING:
A.PLANNING ACTION: #PA-L-2021-00013
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:AMC 18.2.3 Special Use Standards
AMC 18.2.6Standards for Non-Residential Zones
AMC 18.3.13Residential Overlay
AMC 18.6.1 Definitions
REQUEST:The proposal includes a series of amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18
Land Use to the residential standards for mixed-use development in the Commercial (C-1) and
Employment (E-1) zones.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Goldman gave a brief legislative history of the ordinancebefore it was approved by the Commission in December
of 2021.The Council remanded it back to the Commission in order to consider if there were opportunities tofurther
increaseaffordableresidential rentalson the ground floor of mixed-use developments. The affected areas would be C-
1zones outside of downtown,and E-1 zones with residential overlay.There is a provision in the ordinance for lots
Ashland Planning Commission
September 27, 2022
Page 1of 4
over 10 acres to be unaffected in order to retain larger scale commercial development potential. The ordinance would
also include, whichwould be built to meet
commercial standards but could be used explicitly for affordable rental housing. Mr. Goldman added that the
Residential density caps in C1, C-1-D, and E-1 were removedin order to encourage a variety of housing types(see
attachment #1).
Added to the code would be the definition for Commercial Ready Residential Space under AMC 18.6.1.030, and
Mr. Goldman outlined the proposed code provisions for discussion:
35# of the ground floor area shall be designated for permitted (commercial) uses, not including residential uses, or as
Commercial Ready Residential Spaceconsistent with 18.2.3.130.B.1.c.
Affordable rental housing could occupy Commercial Ready ResidentialSpace.
Affordable to renters earning 80% the Area Median Income or less.
Require affordable rental occupants be income qualified by the City at any change in tenancy.
Require a deed restriction or agreement with City clarifying the 35% ground floor area cannot be used as market rate
housing.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Thompson drew attention toanon-substantive correction on page 4, section 3 of the draft ordinance.
Commissioner Thompsonstatedthatthe main obstaclethe Commission encountered whenit first reviewedthe ordinance was
thata change to the Comprehensive Plan andtheHousing Analysis in2007 would need to take place in orderto allow 100%
residential on the ground floor of mixed-use buildings.Commissioner noted that staff hadutilized Senate Bill 8 as a means of
circumventing this issue, and inquired if staff would require a legal opinion on that argument. Mr. Goldman responded that there
have already been legal opinions renderedby Medford and Roseburgon how the senate bill was drafted,but that they had yet
been tested.the residential use could be maintained in perpetuity due to deed restrictions on the
properties, rather thanlimited tothe30-year term referenced in Senate Bill 8. Mr. Molnarremarked that staff had been in contact
with the state, whodid not indicate that this draft ordinance would be contrary to Goal 9. The state is awaiting the ordinance in its
entiretybeforepassing judgementinventory does not allow for E-1 without
a Residential overlay.Commissioner Thompson suggested that a preamble articulating the legal rationale for this legislative
change be included in the ordinance. Mr. Molnar responded that the rationalewould be reflected in the findings totheCouncil.
Commissioner Thompsoninquiredif parking would be developed to commercial standards,and how parking requirements would
be determined for commercial or residential use buildings.Mr. Goldman confirmed that they would be developed for commercial
use.For residential the number of parking spaces would be determined based on the number of bedrooms in the building, while
commercial parking are determined by the square footage of the building and its intended use. Commissioner Knauer inquired in
theseparking requirements would change based on the newClimate Friendly and Equitable Communities state guidelines, and
Mr. Goldman confirmed that they would.
Commissioner Verner requested clarification over why theCommercial Ready Residential Spaceordinancewould not apply to
propertiesover 10 acres in size. Mr. Goldman respondedthatpropertiesover 10 acreswere beingretained for largerscale
developmentrather thanbe divided intosmallermixed-use projects.
Commissioner Dawkins asked why projectscould develop one commercialand oneresidentialbuilding as part of the same
development, rather than developing both as mixed-use. Mr. Goldman responded that there arecurrentstandards in the AMC
that allow for this separation.As an example he cited the Rogue Credit Union andaccompanyingresidential building on the same
parcel, stating that the combined floor areasof the buildings then metcode standards.
Commissioners Thompson/Vernerm/s torecommend that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance as presented
with a few non-substantive changes.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0.
Ashland Planning Commission
September 27, 2022
Page 2of 4
V.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Food Truck Code Discussion
Staff Presentation
Senior Planner Derek Severson began bystating that this discussion is to determine how best to allow additional options for food
trucks, while finding furtheruse forvacant lots and underutilized properties.
Staff first recommendedchanges to allowances fortemporary use permits and special events, including holiday celebrations and
employee appreciation events.Currently there are allowances in the AMC for temporary use permits for food trucks limited to
once per year,withstaff suggesting anincrease toonce per month.
The second recommendation would be make it an administrative policy that any property in the Detail Site Review Zone that can
accommodate food vendors and outdoor eating spaces in their existing plaza space without physical alteration of the space could
do so withoutseparate land use approval.Mr. Severson displayed a map of the Detail Site Review Overlay to showcase the
affected areas of such a change.
The third staff recommendation would be to allow food trucks and associated outdoor eating spaces in existing parking lots in
commercial zones with over five spaces, except in cases where the parking lot is already subject to a mixed-use or joint-use
credit. Mr. Severson added that up to 20% of required parking spaces could be used for food trucks as an outright permitted use
without a requirement for land use approval.
Mr. Severson detailed how any potential food vendor wouldthenneed to obtain a staff-approved ministerial permit. They would
also be required to obtain a business license, register for and pay food and beverage tax, and obtainany required inspections
from theCitysBuilding, Fire, and Health departments.Food trucks would not be permitted to remain in one place for more than
fiveconsecutive days, andmore than three food trucks on a single propertywould trigger a Site Review.The proposed language
would not permit food trucks to operate in public rights-of-way, public parking lots, or parks through the ministerial process(see
attachment #2).Mr. Severson added that this is a similar process to oneused in Medford, and would create a consistent model
for food truck vendors in the area.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Verner requested clarification on the differences between the temporary use permit and the ministerial permit. Mr.
Severson responded that the temporary use permit would be limited to short-term special events, while the ministerial permit
would allow for more consistent serviceprovided that the food truck moved sites every five days.
Chair Norton conveyed surprise that the Cityhad not received feedback from local restaurants regarding the introduction of
additional food trucks to the City.
Commissioner Thompson expressed concern over the prospect of food trucks being permitted in the Historic District and the
potentially negative impactthey could haveon residential areas.She also stressed the importance of not suggesting that a food
cart is a required element in a plaza when it ismerelyone of the optional elements. Commissioner Thompson drew attention to
subsection A of the staff memo and inquired if food trucks would be permitted in residential zones, to which Mr. Severson
responded that they would not.He added that the Detail Site Review standards are not residential standards, and that language
could be added to clarify that distinction.
Commissioner Thompson reiterated herconcernthat food trucks could be permitted in the Historic Districts, even those with
commercial buildings. She drew attention to the potential erosion of residential zoning and where housing is permitted, and how
the addition of food trucks couldhave anegative impact in E-1 and C-1 zones withresidential buildings.Commissioner Thompson
asked what the approval criteria for food trucks would be. Mr. Severson responded that they would have to meet the zoning and
dimensional requirements, as well as a site plan and Fire, Building and Health department inspections. Commissioner Thompson
suggested that a minimum distancefrom residential areas be consideredas a requirement for the ministerial permit.
Ashland Planning Commission
September 27, 2022
Page 3of 4
Commissioner Knauer asked how many food trucks were issued Conditional Use Permits (CUP) in a standard year prior to the
pandemic. Mr. Severson responded that 2-3 would be typicalbecause of the lengthy application process. Commissioner Knauer
remarked that food trucks couldbenefit the City if managed properly, but that the proposed changes might not be sufficient to
perform an adequate experiment. Commissioner Thompson emphasized the significant change this would make in the process, to
which Commissioner Knauer responded that it could be approached in a different fashion. Chair Norton commented that the
changes presented might notresult in a significant number of food trucks entering the City, particularly when Medford has a
greater population,customer base, and roadways that are more beneficial tothem.
Commissioner Herron inquired why health care zoning was not included in the memo. Mr. Severson responded that health care is
typically residential, but that it can be included if the Commission believedit appropriate.Commissioner Herron indicated that they
shouldbe included in order service health care workers nearby. He then asked if these changes addressed the sale of alcohol.
Mr. Severson replied that it did not, but could beaddressed.
There was general concern from the Commissionover thelack of grease-traps,restrooms or other public amenities.
Commissioner Dawkins voiced the opinionthat it would be unfair to ask other local businesses tosupport food trucks who lacked
public amenities, and suggested thatin the futurestaff consider code amendments to address this issue.Chair Norton
commendedthe inclusion of trash disposalas part of the staff memo,but suggested that staff include a condition that required
food trucks to have sanitary services for theiremployees. Commissioner Herron stated that the City should be modeling its food
truck codes after Portland, Eugene, and Bend, pointing out that theyare on dedicated lots andrequire grease-traps and
restrooms. He went on to say that blight should be used in a way that is resourceful and sustainable.
Commissioner Thompson commented that the plaza space requirement seems to largely focus on serving the residents of a
particular neighborhood,but thatanyresultingfood courts couldpotentiallyattract visitors from outside thoseareasof the City.
The Commissionsuggested that the maximum number of food trucks allowed on a lot before it is considered a food court be
reduced to two. Chair Norton pointed out that the two designated food truck spotsonExit 14have amenity hookups and
restrooms.
Commissioner Herron asked if staff had received feedback from food truck owners regarding the proposed code changes.Mr.
Severson responded that staff had not received feedback about the changes specifically, but that they had complained to staff
about the difficulty in acquiring a CUP forfood trucksin the past. Commissioners Herron and Vernerrequestedthat staff gather
feedback from food truck owners, and Mr. Severson replied that staff can attempt tocontact them.
Commissioner Herron asked that staff provide the Commission with a variety ofapprovaloptionsat a later meeting. Chair Norton
outlined how the temporary event permits were near approval, but that the ministerial permitswouldrequire more deliberation.
Commissioner Dawkins commentedthat food trucks will be entirely market driven, and that they are unlikely to have a strong
presence in the City.
Membersof theCommissionexpressed appreciation to Mr. Molnar for hislongservice in the Planning Departmentand to the
City.
VII.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:24p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant
Ashland Planning Commission
September 27, 2022
Page 4of 4
#®£¤ ¬¤£¬¤³² ³ ±¦¤³¤£ ³
¨¢±¤ ²¨¦ §®´²¨¦ ® #¨³¸
¹®¤£ ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤³ « £²ȁ
March 16, 2021
December 2020
Research and Development
Ordinance Review
Public Hearings
o
o
o
o
o
Food Trucks
Ashland Planning Commission
Study Session Sept.26, 2022
Initial Staff
Recommendation #1
Change the allowances for temporary uses
under a short-term event permit from no more
than once to no more than once
.
Temporary
Uses
Variety
Special Events
Temporary Use ÂPop-up for special
events such as employee appreciation
events, private catering, holiday
celebrations.
Initial Staff
Recommendation #2
Food vendors and space for outdoor eating are requisite elements where plaza space
is required in the Detail Site Review zone. As such, it could be made an
administrative policy that any property in the Detail Site Review Zone that can
accommodate food vendors and outdoor eating spaces in their existing plaza space
without physical alteration of the space could do so without separate land use
approval (i.e.not requiring a Conditional Use Permit for something that is already a
required element for plaza space in the Detail Site Review zone). As an example, the
OSF Bricks could accommodate food trucks or carts without alteration and would be
allowed under the proposed amended language.
Existing
Plaza Space
Initial Staff
Recommendation#3
Allowfoodtrucksandassociatedoutdooreatingspacein
existingparkinglotsincommercialzoneswithoverfivespaces,
exceptincaseswheretheparkinglotisalreadysubjecttoa
mixed-useorjoint-usecredit.Upto20percentofrequired
parkingspacescouldbeusedforfoodtrucksasanoutright
permittedusewithoutarequirementforlanduseapproval.
In Parking
Lots
Vacant and Underutilized
Properties
Currently vacant properties, and underutilized
areas, offer an opportunity for the temporary or
intermittent placement of food trucks or parks
without impacting any existing uses.
Ministerial Permit
Food truck operator would need to:
Obtain a ministerial food truck permit.
(
)
Business license.
Register for and pay food and beverage
tax.
Obtain any required inspections from the
Building, Fire and the Health
Departments.
Next Steps
Policy Considerations
Ordinance Development
Public Hearings and Adoption
FINDINGS
_________________________________
PA--2022-0001,
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 11, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-APPEAL-2022-00016, )
AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF PLANNING )
ACTION #PA-T1-2022-00187, CONDITIONALUSEPERMITANDSITE)
DESIGNREVIEWAPPROVALSTOALLOWFORTHEINSTALLATION)
OFANASPHALT-PAVEDPARKINGLOTWITHAPPROXIMATELY 24 )
ELECTRICVEHICLE(EV)CHARGINGSTALLSONAN)
UNDEVELOPEDSITE.STAFF INITIALLY APPROVED THE )
FINDINGS,
APPLICATION. SUBSEQUENT TO THE MAILING OF A NOTICE OF )
CONCLUSIONS,
DECISION, JEFF SHARPE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS )
AND ORDERS.
BELOW FILED AN APPEAL REQUEST.)
)
OWNER:
ASIAJOHNSON)
APPLICANT:
TESLA)
APPELLANT:
JEFF SHARPE OF STRACKER SOLAR)
_______________________________________________________________)
RECITALS:
1)Tax lot #6801 of Assessor’s Map 39-1E-14-AAis located at 580 Clover Lane is in the E-1
zone and is 0.57 acres in size.
2)The application requested aConditional Use Permit and Site Design Review approvals to
allow for the installation of an asphalt-paved parking lot with 24 electric vehicle (EV)
charging stalls on an undeveloped site.
3)On July 18, 2022, the applicationwas deemed complete, and in accordance with AMC
18.5.1.050.B.4 a Notice of Complete application was posted at the subject propertyin clear
view from the public right-of-way and mailed to all property owners of record within 200
feet of the parcel.
4)The Staff Advisor approved the application on August 9, 2022, and a Notice of Decision
(NOD)was mailedon the same date.
5)On August 22, 2022, a Notice of Intent to Appeal (NITA) was received with Jeff Sharpe
named as the appellant.
6)In the proceedings below Jeff Sharpe submitted no written comment on the application,
however Denise Deneaux submitted public comment on behalf of Stracker Solar. The appeal
application, submitted by a representative of Stracker Solar in the name of Jeff Sharpe,
included no statements demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing
to appeal, nor was there a statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised
PA-APPEAL-2022-00016
October 11,2022
Page 1
*
during the public comment period, as required pursuant to AMC 18.5.1.050.G.2.c. For
that reason, the appeal could beconsidered to have a jurisdictional defect and not be
considered, however the Staff Advisor felt that the public was better served by hearing
the appeal on its merits.It is understood thatthe comments received from Ms. Deneaux
on behalf of Stracker Solar are the issues that have been preserved for the Stracker Solar
/ Jeff Sharpe appeal.
7)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on
September 13, 2020. Public testimony was received,and exhibits were presented.
8)The criteria of approval for Site Design Revieware described in Ashland Municipal Code
(AMC) 18.5.2.050 which state that the approval authority shall approve an application only
where allthe following criteria are met:
An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the
criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approvalauthority may, in approving
the application, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria.
A.Underlying Zone.
The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the
underlying zone (part18.2), 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
(part18.3).
C.Site Development and Design Standards.
The proposal complies with the
applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part18.4, except as provided by
subsection E, below.
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 DesignStandards of
part18.4if the circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, 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
*
c.Content of Notice of Appeal.The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the required filing fee and shall
contain.
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.
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.
PA-APPEAL-2022-00016
October 11,2022
Page 2
Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the
difficulty;
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; or
3.There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a
cottagehousing development, but granting the exception will result in a design
that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section18.2.3.090.
9)The criteria of approval for a CUP are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
18.5.4.050 which state that the approval authority shall approve an application only where all
the following criteria are met:
1.That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in
which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law
or program.
2.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm
drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
3.That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability
of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target
use of the zone, pursuant with subsection18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the
effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone.
a.Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets.Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of
capacity of facilities.
c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
e.Generation of noise, light, and glare.
f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive
Plan.
g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the
proposed use.
4.A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not
permitted pursuant to this ordinance.
5.For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with
the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows.
f. E-1.The general office uses listed in chapter18.2.2Base Zones and Allowed
Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all
PA-APPEAL-2022-00016
October 11,2022
Page 3
ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an
intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements.
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, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to rendera
decision based on the application, previous findings, Staff Report, public hearing testimony, and
the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission notes that electrical charging station for cars is not a use in the
Land Use Ordinance. The Planning Commission finds that an ‘electrical charging station’ is a
‘vehicle fueling station’ which is a conditionally allowed use in the E-1 zone.
2.3The Planning Commission finds that the applicationwasdeemed complete on July 18,
2022, and notice was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all
property owners within 200-feet of the subject property. The Planning Commission further finds
that the application was approved by the Staff Advisor on August 9, 2022, with a 12-day appeal
period which extended through August 22, 2022.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that AMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the development
of land to carry out the 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 the Planning Commission considers the application materials against the relevant
approval criteria in the AMC. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design
Review and a Conditional Use Permit meets all applicable criteria described in sections
18.5.2.050 and 18.5.4.050.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make
findings that each of the approval criteria have been met as demonstrated in the staff report dated
September 13, 2022 prepared for this appeal, the original findings approving the application, and
the application materials themselves. each of which are hereby incorporated herein by their
references as if set out in full.
2.5.1 The Planning Commission finds that the vehicular charging station is not a
PA-APPEAL-2022-00016
October 11,2022
Page 4
prohibited use within the zone, and the use is in conformance with all standards within the
zoning district, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
2.5.2 The Planning Commission finds that the capacity of City facilities for water,
sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, and transportation, is adequate to serve the property
and the proposed vehicular charging station use.
2.5.3 The Planning Commission finds that the vehicular charging station as proposed
will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when
compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that on August 22, 2022, prior to the end of the appeal
period, the appeal application, submitted in the name of Jeff Sharpe, was submitted by a
representative of Stracker Solar. In the proceedings below Denise Deneaux submitted public
comment on behalf of Stracker Solar. The Planning Commission finds that Stracker Solar /Jeff
Sharpe have standing to appeal.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the notice of appeal identified the following issues
on appeal:
We urge the city to look at decisions made today that will affect future electrical projects
Clover Lane is a crowded street and not at all an ideal location to send more traffic
This is a Tesla only charging station that only benefits Tesla and none of our local car
dealerships.
2.7.1 The Planning Commission notes that the appeal application supplies a field for the
applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code that was violated, these were
left blank. Nowhere in the appeal materials are there citations to specific criteria or
procedures that are alleged to be violated. The Planning Commission therefore presumes that
the first item relates to AMC 18.5.4.050.A.2 (adequate capacity of City facilities), and that
the second item relates to AMC 18.5.4.050.A.3.b (generation of traffic), in the alternative it
could relate to AMC 18.5.2.050.D (adequate capacity of City facilities and adequate
transportation). The Planning Commission notes that the third assignment of error does not
appear to relate to any approval criterion.
2.7.2 The Planning Commission notes thatthe first assignment of error is regarding
adequate capacity of City facilities, specifically electrical. The Planning Commission notes
that there is a memo in the record from the Department head of the Electrical Department
explaining that an engineering firm examined the expected demand under full load and
extreme weather conditions and made a single recommendation to upgrade two spans of
overhead conductor. The Planning Commission further notes that the Electrical Department
is already planning on installing these upgrades in additions to other improvements in the
area with planning already underway. The Planning Commission finds that there is
substantial evidence in the record that there will be adequate capacity of City facilities. The
Planning Commission denies the first assignment of error.
2.7.3 The Planning Commission notes that the second assignment of error is that Clover
Lane is a crowded Street. The Planning Commission notes paved curb to curb width exceed
PA-APPEAL-2022-00016
October 11,2022
Page 5
the standards for a neighborhood street, and further notes that while the Right-of-Way at the
subject site is only 41’ the Planning Commission finds that this was improved in accordance
with the approval PA#2003-112 and will not require additional ROW dedication or
improvements. The Planning Commission denies the second assignment of error.
2.7.4 The Planning Commission notes that the third assignment of error is regarding the
exclusivity to Tesla Vehicles. The Planning Commission finds that the exclusivity to Tesla
vehicles is not relevant to any of the approval criteria. The Planning Commission denies the
third assignment of error.
2.8 The Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable approval criteria and that
none of the appeal issues raised provide a basis to reverse the initial decision of the Staff
Advisor.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission
concludes that the request for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals are
supported by evidence contained within the whole record.
3.2 The Planning Commission denies the appeal andre-affirms the Staff Advisor’s original
approval of the application. 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
modified herein.
2)That all proposed signage be applied for through a separate ministerial permit
3)That prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy
a.That the irrigation and landscaping has been installed according to the approved
plan.
October 11, 2021
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA-APPEAL-2022-00016
October 11,2022
Page 6
INFORMATIONAL ONLY
_________________________________
ORS 260.432 Quick Reference Restrictions on Political Campaigning for Public
Employees
Generally, ORS 260.432 states that a public employee* may not, while on the job during working
hours, promote or oppose election petitions, candidates, political committee or ballot measures.
Additionally, no person (including elected officials) may require a public employee (at any time) to
do so.
*
A public employee includes public officials who are not elected, whether they are paid or
unpaid (including appointed boards and commissions).
As used in this Quick Reference
We use the phrase advocate(s) a political position to mean
promote or oppose an initiative, referendum or recall petition, candidate, political committee or ballot measure.
The term mpartial means equitable, fair, unbiased and dispassionate.
See the Secretary of States detailed manual on ORS 260.432 for specific factors to assist in ensuring impartiality in communications
about ballot measures. It is posted on the website under Election Laws, Rules and Publications, Manuals and Tutorials.
For more detailed information about ORS 260.432 and information about other election laws, contact:
Elections Division phone 503-986-1518
Secretary of State fax 503-373-7414
255 Capitol St NE, Suite tty
Salem, OR 97310 web www. oregonvotes.gov
Prohibited Activities
A public employee, while on the job during work hours may not:
prepare or distribute written material, post website information, transmit emails or make a presentation that advocates a political
position
collect funds, prepare filing forms or correspondence on behalf of candidates or political committees
produce or distribute a news release or letter announcing an elected officials candidacy for re-election (except for an elections official
doing so as an official duty) or presenting an elected officials political position
make outgoing calls to schedule or organize campaign events or other political activity on behalf of an elected official or political
committee (however, a scheduler may, as part of official duties, take incoming calls about the officials availability and add an event to
the schedule)
grant unequal access to public facilities to candidates or political committees
direct other public employees to participate in political activities, when in the role of a supervisor
draft, type, format or edit a governing bodys resolution that advocates a political position (except to conform the resolution to a
standard format)
prepare or give recommendations to the governing body urging which way to vote on such a resolution
sign such a resolution, except if the signature is only ministerial and clearly included to attest the board took the vote
announce the governing bodys position on such a resolution to the media
include the governing bodys position or vote on such a resolution in a jurisdictions newsletter or other publication
A public employee who provides voter registration assistance under the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) must not, when
performing voter registration services, influence a clients political choices. This means no display of political preferences, including a
restriction that no political buttons may be worn. ORS 247.208(3)
Allowable Activities
ring working hours may:
A public employee, while on the job du
prepare and distribute impartial written material or make an impartial presentation that discusses election subjects (using the
guidelines provided in the Secretary of States detailed manual on ORS 260.432.)
The Secretary of States Elections Division is also available for an advisory review of draft material about ballot measures produced by
government agencies.
perform standard job duties, such as taking minutes at a public meeting, maintaining public records, opening mail, inserting a
proposed resolution into a board agenda packet, etc.
impartially advise employees about possible effects of a measure, but not threaten them with financial loss to vote a particular way
address election-related issues while on the job, in a factual and impartial manner, if such activity is legitimately within scope of
employees normal duties
as staff of an elected official, handle incoming calls about the officials availability for political events
prepare neutral, factual information for a governing body to use in determining what position to take on an issue (planning stage of a
governing bodys proposed issue before certified as a measure to a ballot is not subject to ORS 260.432)
in a clerical manner, incorporate amendments into a finalized version of a governing bodys resolution on an issue respond to public
records request for information, even if the material advocates a political position
wear political buttons subject to applicable employer policies unless the public employee is providing voter registration services
under NVRA, where additional restrictions apply -
A public employee, on their own, off duty time, may send letters to the editor that advocate a political position and may participate in
any other lawful political activity.
It is advised that a salaried public employee keep records when appropriate in order to verify any such political activity that occurs
while off duty.
Prohibited and Allowable Activities for Elected Ofcials*
*includes a person appointed to fill a vacancy in an elective public office
Elected officials may
:
advocate a political position at any time. Elected officials are not considered apublic employee for purposes of ORS 260.432. ORS
260.432(4)(a).
vote with the other elected officials of a governing body (such as a school board, city council or county commission) to support or
oppose a measure, and publicly discuss such a votebut must not use the public employee staff time to assist in this, except for
ministerial functions
perform campaign activity at any time, however must take caution not to involve any public employees work time to do so
Elected officials may not:
in the role of a supervisor, request a public employeewhether the public employee is on or off dutyto perform any political activity
A request made by a person in a position of supervisor or superior is viewed as a command for purposes of this election law.
have an opinion piece or letter advocating a political position published in a jurisdictions newsletter or other publication produced or
distributed by public employees