HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-11-08 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
November 8, 2022
https://zoom.us/j/99362114252
I.CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PMat in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
III.CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.October 11,2022RegularMeeting
2.October 25, 2022 Study Session
IV.PUBLIC FORUM
V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Approval of Findings for PA-T3-2022-00004, 1511 Highway 99 North
VI.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).
Total Page Number: 1
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DRAFTMinutes
October 11, 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 Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Acting Community Development Director
Haywood Norton Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Lynn Thompson Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant
Eric Herron
Lisa Verner
Doug Knauer
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Acting Community Development DirectorBrandon Goldmanmade the following announcements:
The Oregon American Planning Association held aconference in Talent on September 29-30, whichwas
th
attended by several members of the Commission.
meeting,and will also
The City Council will discuss Preserving Manufactured Housing Parksatits October 31
st
examinethe Community Development process andanyrelated questions. The Council will then have a first
reading of the Legislative Amendment onHousing in E-1 and C-1 Zonesat its November 15meeting.
th
Staffincluded informationin the packetdetailing appropriate conductforpublicofficials and employees
regarding elections. Mr. Goldman noted thatmembers of the Commission areconsideredpublic officials and as
such are prohibited fromengaging in political advocacy while in their official capacity.
III.CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.September 13, 2022 Regular Meeting
2.September 27, 2022 Special Meeting
A correction was made to the September 13, 2022 Regular Meeting minutes on page 3 under “Discussion and Deliberation”;
Commissioner Knauer notedthat in the sentence “… and that this project wouldhave a serious impact on the grid…” that
“would”should be replaced with “might.”
Commissioners Verner/Dawkinsm/s to approve theSeptember 13, 2022 Regular Meeting minuteswith corrections.Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0.
Commissioners Dawkins/Knauer m/s to approve theSeptember 27, 2022 Special Meeting minutes as presented.Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM - None
Ashland Planning Commission
October 11, 2022
Page 1 of 6
Total Page Number: 2
V.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.Approval of Findings for PA-APPEAL-2022-00016, 580 Clover Ln
ExParteContact
Noexpartecontactwasreported.
Commissioners Verner/Herronm/s to approve the Findings for PA-APPEAL-2022-00016, 580 Clover Ln.Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed. 6-0.
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
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 construct 230 apartments in ten
buildings including 37 affordable units; an Exception to the Street Design Standards; and Tree Removal
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height.
DESIGNATION:ZONING:
Multi-Family Residential; Existing – County RR-5 Rural Residential, Proposed –
ASSESSOR’S MAP:
City R-2 Low Density Multi-Family Residential; 38 1E 32; TAX LOT #’s: 1700 & 1702
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins, Thompson, Verner, Herron, and Knauer did not report any ex parte contact, Commissioner Knauer
conducted one site visit.Chair Norton disclosed contact that he initiated with the applicant in order to clarify the structure of this
meeting.They did not discuss the project itself. CommissionerKenCairn is part of the applicant’s team and thereforeabstained
from the meeting.
There were no challenges for bias.
Chair Norton reopened the Public Hearing at 7:14 p.m.
Chair Norton noted that the September 13, 2022 Commission meeting had been adjourned before the applicants could submit
their rebuttal and that the Commission would now hear the continued testimony.Steve Rouseof Rogue Advocateshad requested
at the September 13, 2022 Commission meeting that the Public Hearing remain open to provide additional time to submit written
comments.Staff received four additional written comments, including one from Mr. Rouse (see attachment #1).
Public Comments
Micah Horowitz/Mr. Horowitz notified the Commission that he isa Transportation Planner with the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT)and hadsubmitted written comments to staff regarding this project. He stated that ODOT does support
the project with conditions and supportedthe traffic analysis findings submitted by the applicants. ODOT did recommend frontage
improvements,which are detailed in the staff report, as well as the installation of a Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
and a striped pedestrian crossingacross the highway.
Mr. Horowitz then spoke to a speed-zone investigation conducted by ODOT in 2021 to determine whether a reduction in the
posted speed along Highway 99 was warranted, and found that a speed reduction was not necessary at that time.However,
ODOT did recommend that another study be conducted after the annexation and the resultingchange in road conditions.
Ashland Planning Commission
October 11, 2022
Page 2 of 6
Total Page Number: 3
Commissioner Verner asked if a reevaluation of the speed limit would need to be a condition of approval for the project, or if the
City would need to request that ODOT conduct another study. Mr. Horowitz responded that the City’s Public Works Department
would need to make a request to ODOT for another study. Commissioner Verner asked if the pandemic could have affected the
accuracy of the 2021 study, to which Mr. Horowitz responded that theywould beunlikely to seechanges in traffic withoutthe
roadway having undergone any physical alterations.
Commissioner Thompson requested clarification regarding a passage from ODOT’s letter to the Commissionoverwhether the
proposed developmentwould conform to Oregon Administrative Rule(OAR)99. Mr. Horowitz responded that ODOT believed that
the traffic study was sufficient to make a determinationand that the project would conformandgenerally agreed with the traffic
analysis. Commissioner Thompsoninquired about the proposed crosswalk’s relation to the bus stop outlined in the proposal, and
expressed concern about the lack of a sidewalk going north along the highway. Mr. Horowitz agreed with her concern, and stated
that ODOT had not yet received the civil plans identifying a specific spot for the crosswalk.
Jim Falkenstein/Mr. Falkenstein supported the proposed development. He detailed his opposition to similar developments in the
past, but emphasized the need to embrace change and appealed to the Commission to approve the project.
SusanRounds/Ms. Rounds expressed concern that the new development would increase traffic congestion on an already
heavily trafficked highway. She detailed the congested traffic along Highway 99 when she was forced to flee from the Almeda fire,
and contested the traffic study’s findings that there was adequate line-of-site along the highway to safely merge into traffic.She
asked ifoncoming traffic was expected to stop for residents attempting to exit the development site.Ms. Rounds was also
concernedthat the addition of more residents to the City would increase the burden on its low water supply, and questioned
whether the City would have sufficient facilities to accommodate new residents. She concluded stating that she hadquestions
regarding the proposed walkway and bus stop.
David Runkel/Mr. Runkel supported the project, stating that it would increase the City’s limited housing and help alleviate those
who are economically burdened. He added that it would provide critical affordable housing and convenient transportation to
essential business.
Alex Knecht/Mr. Knecht supported the project, citing the City’s lack of affordable housing, particularly for employees of local
business. He stated that he and his wife would like to relocate their business to Ashland, but that the limited affordable housing
means that many workers cannot afford to live there, making such a change difficult. Mr. Knecht added that drawing in employers
is critical to the City’s financial sustainability, and that it directly tied to the affordable housing. He implored the Commission to
approve the development.
Applicants’Rebuttal
Chair Norton informed the applicants that their rebuttal period would be increased to ten minutes due to the complexity of the
project.
Amy Gunter began by stating that, according to the City’s Water Department, the water pressure is so strong in the project area
that pressure reduction valves would be necessary, andthatthe water line wouldbe extended to the property from where it
terminates at North Main Street. She added that there is not a moratorium on water use in the City, nor on developmentsdue to a
lack of water, and that the City’s Public Works department hadstated that there are adequate facilities to accommodate this
project.
Robert Kendrick stressed to the Commission thatmany of the comments received regarding traffic congestion are not
substantiated by criteria utilized by traffic engineers to design and evaluate transportation systems. He stated that Kelly Sandow,
a member of the project’s engineering team, has 22 years of experience performing traffic analysis,and is well versed intheCity,
industry,and ODOT standards required to perform a technical analysisof the site.Mr. Kendrick added that Steve Rouse is
untrained in the field of transportation engineering, and that Ms. Sandow’s testimony will refute the claims submitted by Mr.Rouse
and Rogue Advocates.
Ashland Planning Commission
October 11, 2022
Page 3 of 6
Total Page Number: 4
Ms. Sandow began by addressing Ms. Rounds, stating that oncoming traffic would not be expected to stop for residents exiting
the site.She statedthat the line-of-sight measurement usedensuredthat drivers would have adequate space to slow down in the
event that someone would be entering or exiting the site.She also assuredMs. Rounds that there would be sufficient facilitiesfor
pedestrianswalking to andwaiting atthe bus stop.
Addressing the concern raised by Rogue Advocates that the driveways would be unsafe due to congestion, Ms. Sandow stated
that the applicant team’s analysis showed that the driveway would operate well within ODOT’s standards for approval. She then
detailed how the operative line-of-sight would be adequate for residents entering and exiting the development site. Ms. Sandow
then clarified that the sight-distance is not a point on the pavement but a location of a vehicle on the roadway, refuting Rogue
Advocate’s claim that traffic could obscure line-of-sightfrom the intersection. She added that she had personally measured the
sight-distance and concluded that it measured 577ft in both directions from the driveway, whichODOT independently confirmed
wouldbe sufficient.
Ms. Sandow then addressed concerns expressed by Rogue Advocates thatthe presence ofbicycles and pedestrianswould
create hazardous traffic conditions near the development site. She stated that the project would create a bicycle, pedestrian, and
transportation-user friendly site by encouraging its residents to utilize non-vehicular modes of transportation. Additionally, the
applicants would be providing buffered sidewalks and bike-lanes along the site-frontage, an off-street bus pullout, as well as a
multi-use path that wouldtransitioninto a bike-lane and sidewalk connectingto Schofield Street.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner Thompson requested clarification regarding the line-of-sight and emerging gaps for residents to enter traffic. Ms.
Sandow replied that the gaps would be sufficient for residents to observe oncoming traffic, and that her team’sstatistical analysis
showed that a gap in traffic would emerge every five seconds. Commissioner Thompson noted the delay factor and queueing
cited in Ms. Sandow’s report and inquired if that data determined that adequate gaps would emerge for residents toenter traffic.
Ms. Sandow responded that her analysis examined peak traffic times, specifically the morning and evening period when residents
would be commuting to and from work, and determined that the average wait time for a vehicle to exit the development would be
approximately 40 seconds. This total delay would include the time spent waiting for anothercar in front to exit the development
beforeexitingitself. She added that the AMC allowedfor a maximum 50 second delay, and that this analysishad alsoincluded
the additional traffic created by the development’s residents.
Commissioner Knauer requested clarification regarding the layout of the proposed busstop on the eastside of the highway. Ms.
Sandow responded that there would not be a sidewalk on the east side, but there would be one on the west side. Ms. Gunter
stated that the east side location would be a flagstop without a specific location, andwould be a more flexible spacewhere a bus
would onlystopif there was a resident waiting in the area. She added that there is currently no physical demarcation signifying it
as a flagstop.
Commissioner Verner inquired if the development would include a sidewalk heading south underneath the railroad trestle. Mr.
Kendrick stated that there would be a raised sidewalk and a curb, with a 4ft concrete barrier on top of the curb. Ms. Gunter added
that ODOT will need to make a final determination on the design.
Chair Norton noted that any questions should be related to the rebuttal material and should not include items beyond that scope.
Commissioner Thompson suggested that the Commission should be liberal with its line of questioning due to the complexity of the
issue, to which Chair Norton agreed.
Commissioner Verner cited page 48 of the City staff report and requested clarification over which drivewayand its connecting
sidewalk werebeing discussed. Ms. Gunterresponded that it was discussing the main drivewayand the sidewalk that would
connect the space between El Tapatio and the development site,before transitioning into City standard street improvements
along the frontageof the project.Commissioner Verner asked if the parkrow would be developed between the two driveways, to
which Ms. Gunter responded that there is not sufficientpublicright-of-way (ROW)between adjacent properties and the existing
highway improvements for that to be feasible.
Ashland Planning Commission
October 11, 2022
Page 4 of 6
Total Page Number: 5
Commissioner Verner asked if the applicants would bedeveloping the affordable housing units themselves or if they would be
usingan affordable housing partner. Mr. Kendrick responded that he would prefer to partner with a non-profit organization to
develop the affordable units.He detailed thatthey would have the ability to go down to 0% rent on the units while he could only go
down to 80%, andthat his teamwould not be able to meet the same criteria that a group like Jackson County Housing could. Mr.
Kendrick also clarified that the marketrate units would be the same size as the affordablehousing units. Commissioner Verner
asked if the project would have separate phases of development.Mr. Kendrick responded that the off-site improvements,
includingdeveloping the sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus plazas,would occur firstbeforephasing into developing the site and
constructing 1-2 of thebuildings at a time.
Commission Thompson noted that the proposed apartments would all be under 500sq. ft., which theDepartment ofHousing and
Urban Development (HUD) require as a minimum size.Mr. Kendrick responded that his proposal would factor in the HUD
requirements and would be fitted to accommodate those more strict guidelines.
Commissioner Thompson drew attention to a portion ofthe applicant’s submittalthat appeared tomention the possibility of selling
offportions of the subdividedlot. Mr. Kendrick rejected that notion, stating that the reason for the subdivision would be to obtain
loans from multiple banksandminimize the financial burden of the project.
Commissioner Thompson remarked that one of the requirements in the Performance Standards option ofthe code was adequate
on-street parking, which this development would not be able to provide,and whether a exception to those standards would be
necessary.Mr. Kendrick responded that the goal of the project would beto encourage alternative modes of transportation, such
as biking, walking, and bussing, but that his team has contingency plans in place in the event that the residents require more
parking. He added that his team hopes to attract City residents who do not own cars. Chair Norton emphasized that thequestion
remains whether an exception would be required by the application. Mr. Severson clarified that the standard in question is in the
Performance Standardssection of the code, which speaks to on-street parking requirements,and suggested that a development
in a potential R-2 Zone would not be required to provide on-street parking along a highway where no such parking is permitted.
Ms. Gunter concurred, adding that a property owner should not be required to request a parking exception where no parking is
permissible.
Chair Norton closed the Public Hearing and Record at 8:24 p.m.
Discussionand Deliberation
Commissioner Verner suggested that two conditions for approval be added. The first would be the clarification that 38 affordable
units to be provided instead of 37, and second that a new traffic study be performed by ODOT to determine whether lowering the
speed limit along that section of the highway is warranted. There was general discussion about when such a study should take
place, and whether such a condition could be imposed on the applicant when it is the purview of the Public Works department to
request a new study be performed. Commissioner Verner pointed out that having the study be a condition of approval would
increase the likelihood of it taking place,and agreed with Commissioner Knauer that the efficacy of such a study would be
contingent on it taking place after the development had finished in order to gauge its impact more accurately.Mr. Goldman
suggested that the Commission recommend to the Council that the City initiate a request to ODOT to conduct a speed study
within a year of occupancy of the development, as opposed to placing it as a condition upon the applicantthat they may not be
able to fulfill.
Commissioner Thompson commended theapplicants for including the RRFBat the proposed crosswalk, but stated that it’s
placementby ODOTshould be clearly marked and its demarcation be a condition of approval. She expressed concern that the
RRFB’s location could be disconnected fromthe flagstop,and in that event a sidewalkor some sort of guidance be provided
connecting the crosswalk to the bus stop. Mr. Severson responded that the flag stop is marked,and that itis placed in that area
because the pavement encompassing the bike lane and shoulder is wide enough to accommodate the bus and pedestrian traffic.
Commissioner Thompson emphasized that a conditionshould be included requiring the crosswalk be connected to the flag stop,
orthatsafe access be provided connecting the two. Commissioner Knauer commented that the Commission could only make a
recommendation to ODOT regarding its placement, to which Commission Thompson said that the Commission could require the
applicants to connect the flag stop to the crosswalkif necessary.
Ashland Planning Commission
October 11, 2022
Page 5 of 6
Total Page Number: 6
Commissioner Thompson reiterated her concern about the code requiring on-street parkingand inquired if a set of findings would
be required stating why an exception to those standards would be necessary for approval.Mr. Severson stated that findings could
be provided addressing this issue.
Commissioner Thompson acknowledged the traffic concerns raised by several of the public speakers, but stated that she was
unwilling to go against theprovided traffic study without evidence. Commissioner Thompsonthenrecognized the concerns over
water availability raised by Ms. Rounds, but did not believe that the code standards gave the Commission discretionary authority
to deny the project basedon water availability in the future.
Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s the approval of the site review and performance standards of the code including
all of the necessary permits and subject toapproval by the City Council with thefollowingconditions:
Clarificationat final planon the number of affordable unitsprovided.
Clarificationat final plan whether Mr. Kendrick would develop the affordable housing units or dedicate to a provider,
which would change the requirement, unless that provider was a partner in the development.
An exception to the on-street parking requirement.
A condition relating to the crosswalk and its proximity to the flag stop, or if they are not proximatebased on ODOT’s
findings that there be safe access to it.
Roll Call Vote: all AYES. Motion Passed 6-0.
VII.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:54p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant
Ashland Planning Commission
October 11, 2022
Page 6 of 6
Total Page Number: 7
From:City of Ashland, Oregon
To:planning
Subject:Planning Commission Contact Form Submitted
Date:Saturday, October 08, 2022 1:54:48 PM
\[EXTERNAL SENDER\]
*** FORM FIELD DATA***
Steve Shapiro
Full Name:
818-943-2569
Phone:
steves18.ashland@gmail.com
Email:
Comment regarding PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2022-00004
Subject:
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2022-00004 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511
Message:
Highway 99 North APPLICANT/OWNER: Casita Developments, LLC for owner Linda
Zare I read the summary at the Hybrid Planning Commission Regular Meeting of
Tuesday, September 13, 2022. I have been looking at this proposal since last year and
was concerned then as I am now about traffic coming in and out of the development. I
am glad that there is agreement to reduce the speed limit from 45 MPH to 35 MPH and
to install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) . This addresses pedestrian
crossing which is great. What it doesn't address is vehicles entering from the northbound
lane and leaving the development and heading north bound. I can see the possibility of
accidents for both directions. Can this be addressed? Thanks Steve Shapiro
Attachment 1 file:
Attachment 2 file:
Attachment 3 file:
*** USER INFORMATION ***
16162
SubscriberID:
steves18
SubscriberUserName:
steves18.politics@gmail.com
SubscriberEmail:
66.241.70.76
RemoteAddress:
66.241.70.76
RemoteHost:
RemoteUser:
Total Page Number: 8
Department of Transportation
Region 3 Planning and Programming
100 Antelope Drive
White City, Oregon 97503
Phone: (541) 774-6299
October 10, 2022
Mr. Derek Severson
City of Ashland – Community Development
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97529
RE: PA-T3-2022-00004, 1511 Highway 99 North
Dear Mr. Severson,
Thank you for providing the Oregon Department of Transportation (the “Department” or “ODOT”) with the opportunity
to provide comments associated with the proposed annexation and zone change of approximately 16.86 acres at 1511
Highway 99 North (“Subject Property”). ODOT has worked with the City and the applicant to try to find solutions which
work for all parties. ODOT supports the proposal with conditions described below.
i.ODOT has reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) prepared by Sandow Engineering and generally
agree with the findings, believing that the analysis satisfies the requirements of the Transportation
Planning Rule related to Plan and Land Use Amendments (OAR 660-012-0060).
ii.ODOT supports frontage improvements consistent with City of Ashland standards and the adopted
Transportation System Plan, which exceed minimum standards identified in the State Highway Design
Manual. We understand Right-of-Way constraints will require exceptions in certain locations.
iii.The most recent set of civil plans will need to be further refined prior to approval by ODOT. City of
Ashland Municipal Code 18.4.6.030 requires installation of public improvements prior to issuance of
building permits. No disturbance or construction within the State Right of Way is permitted until the
applicant has obtained an ODOT misc./utility permit. Legal access will not be granted to Highway 99
North until the applicant has obtained an ODOT reservation indenture and access permit.
iv.Refined civil plans will need to incorporate:
a.Access points and curb cuts along the frontage improvements at existing accesses
b.Details related to the striped pedestrian crossing and rectangular rapid flash beacons (“RRFB”) in
the vicinity of North Main Street.
v.ODOT has had discussions with the City, the applicant and Rogue Valley Transit District about the
proposed bus pull out and bus stop within the State Right of Way and is supportive pending review and
approval of final civil plans.
vi.ODOT’s Region 3 staff supports the proposal for a striped crossing and RRFB. ODOT Region 3 Traffic
evaluated a number of potential locations, and recommend a location south of the Subject Property near
North Main Street. Approval from the State Traffic Engineer in Salem will be required once civil plans
have been reviewed and accepted by local staff.
vii.ODOT will require a drainage report demonstrating the proposal will not adversely affect State facilities
consistent with standards in the ODOT Hydraulics Manual Chapter 4 Appendix C. We understand this
will be conducted during the final engineering phase of the project.
ODOT Region 3 Traffic staff conducted a Speed Zone Investigation (the “Investigation”) along Rogue Valley Highway
(OR99) which was completed in June 2021 to determine whether a lower posted speed limit is warranted. The study
examined speeds along OR99 from approximately Hartley Rd in the City of Talent to Grant Street in the City of Ashland.
Total Page Number: 9
The study methodology included evaluation of the roadway context, intersecting streets, horizontal and vertical alignment
of the Highway, existing traffic data, and speed data collected on-site during the Investigation. The Subject Property is
located within an area of the Investigation identified as “Section E” which extends from approximately Valley View Road
thth
to the trestle north of Jackson Road. The investigation found a 50 percentile speed of 44mph, and an 85 percentile
speed of 49mph.
The speed of existing traffic is one of the factors considered when evaluating whether a speed reduction is appropriate.
The rationale is that simply changing the posted number generally doesn’t make the facility safer as a stand-alone
measure. This can lead to large speed differentials with the possibility of increasing aggressive and dangerous driving
maneuvers. As the physical context of the roadway changes, such as narrowing the travel lanes, installation of frontage
improvements, and traffic calming measures a natural decrease in vehicle speeds is expected. Evaluation criteria is
weighted differently within urbanized areas in city limits versus rural unincorporated areas. ODOT recommends the City
request a new speed zone investigation after development and installation of frontage improvements so posted speeds can
be established based on the new driving culture created by the existence and roadside improvements associated with this
development proposal.
Exhibit A
Please feel free to contact me at Micah.HOROWITZ@odot.state.or.us or 541-774-6331 should you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
Micah Horowitz, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner
Total Page Number: 10
Department of Transportation
Region 3 Planning and Programming
100 Antelope Drive
White City, Oregon 97503
Phone: (541) 774-6299
October 10, 2022
Mr. Derek Severson
City of Ashland – Community Development
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97529
RE: PA-T3-2022-00004, 1511 Highway 99 North
Dear Mr. Severson,
Thank you for providing the Oregon Department of Transportation (the “Department” or “ODOT”) with the opportunity
to provide comments associated with the proposed annexation and zone change of approximately 16.86 acres at 1511
Highway 99 North (“Subject Property”). ODOT has worked with the City and the applicant to try to find solutions which
work for all parties. ODOT supports the proposal with conditions described below.
i.ODOT has reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) prepared by Sandow Engineering and generally
agree with the findings, believing that the analysis satisfies the requirements of the Transportation
Planning Rule related to Plan and Land Use Amendments (OAR 660-012-0060).
ii.ODOT recommends buffered sidewalk and curb frontage improvements consistent with City of Ashland
standards and the adopted Transportation System Plan, which exceed minimum standards identified in the
State Highway Design Manual.
iii.The most recent set of civil plans will need to be further refined prior to approval by ODOT. City of
Ashland Municipal Code 18.4.6.030 requires installation of public improvements prior to issuance of
building permits. No disturbance or construction within the State Right of Way is permitted until the
applicant has obtained an ODOT misc./utility permit. Legal access will not be granted to Highway 99
North until the applicant has obtained an ODOT reservation indenture and access permit.
iv.Refined civil plans will need to incorporate:
a.Access points and curb cuts along the frontage improvements at existing accesses
b.Details related to the striped pedestrian crossing and rectangular rapid flash beacons (“RRFB”) in
the vicinity of North Main Street.
v.ODOT has had discussions with the City, the applicant and Rogue Valley Transit District about the
proposed bus pull out and bus stop within the State Right of Way and is supportive pending review and
approval of final civil plans.
vi.ODOT’s Region 3 staff supports the proposal for a striped crossing and RRFB. ODOT Region 3 Traffic
evaluated a number of potential locations, and recommend a location south of the Subject Property near
North Main Street. Approval from the State Traffic Engineer in Salem will be required once civil plans
have been reviewed and accepted by local staff.
vii.ODOT will require a drainage report demonstrating the proposal will not adversely affect State facilities
consistent with standards in the ODOT Hydraulics Manual Chapter 4 Appendix C. We understand this
will be conducted during the final engineering phase of the project.
ODOT Region 3 Traffic staff conducted a Speed Zone Investigation (the “Investigation”) along Rogue Valley Highway
(OR99) which was completed in June 2021 to determine whether a lower posted speed limit is warranted. The study
examined speeds along OR99 from approximately Hartley Rd in the City of Talent to Grant Street in the City of Ashland.
Total Page Number: 11
The study methodology included evaluation of the roadway context, intersecting streets, horizontal and vertical alignment
of the Highway, existing traffic data, and speed data collected on-site during the Investigation. The Subject Property is
located within an area of the Investigation identified as “Section E” which extends from approximately Valley View Road
thth
to the trestle north of Jackson Road. The investigation found a 50 percentile speed of 44mph, and an 85 percentile
speed of 49mph.
The speed of existing traffic is one of the factors considered when evaluating whether a speed reduction is appropriate.
The rationale is that simply changing the posted number generally doesn’t make the facility safer as a stand-alone
measure. This can lead to large speed differentials with the possibility of increasing aggressive and dangerous driving
maneuvers. As the physical context of the roadway changes, such as narrowing the travel lanes, installation of frontage
improvements, and traffic calming measures a natural decrease in vehicle speeds is expected. Evaluation criteria is
weighted differently within urbanized areas in city limits versus rural unincorporated areas. ODOT recommends the City
request a new speed zone investigation after development and installation of frontage improvements so posted speeds can
be established based on the new driving culture created by the existence and roadside improvements associated with this
development proposal.
Exhibit A
Please feel free to contact me at Micah.HOROWITZ@odot.state.or.us or 541-774-6331 should you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
Micah Horowitz, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner
Total Page Number: 12
Ro
gue Advocates
P.O. Box 633
Ashland, Oregon
97530
RE: Grandview Terrace
Ashland Planning Commission, October 10, 2022
We sincerely thank you for the opportunity to present more specific written
comments following our brief oral comments at the conclusion of the previous
Type 3 review hearing of the proposed Grandview Terrace apartment
development. Our comments will primarily address the traffic and personal safety
issues that will be created if this project for 230 units is approved as presented
and designed.
and consider the real impact on the community of adding a significant number of
cars and people entering and exiting this hazardous section of Highway 99
approaching Ashland. I have driven this section at peak hours going to work or
returning to our shop in Talent for forty years. The speed limit is 45 mph and my
loaded van is often being passed as I drive the speed limit. Folks jockey for
position, sometimes using the bike lane to get ahead as they approach the road
diet and that is where the entrance to the 236 unit development is located.
Drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists will be in harms way as additional traffic
attempts to leave or return to these proposed apartments. Will the existing traffic
safety hazards in this section of Highway 99 remain the same or be reduced? No,
that is impossible as designed.
HIGHWAY 99 TRAFFIC: Sandow Engineering has developed a traffic impact study
(TIS) in an attempt to assess the affect 212 additional cars will have on the
existing traffic flow on State Highway 99 as folks enter and exit the City of Ashland
at the north end of town. Sandow has entered data into two software programs
used to assess the impacts. Those programs are the Synchro Model and
Simtraffic. The traffic engineer states the results conform to AASHTO standards.
However, in the record ODOT comments by Michael Wang dated 10/25/2019
challenged the computerized data summary. Following is the Sandow response
Total Page Number: 13
dated 2/3/2020 that w Engineering understands it, the road diet
the system is not able to be modeled within Synchro.
The Synchro model was completed following all standards and methodology typically required
for this type of project. As Sandow Engineering understands it, the road diet has created an
unstable traffic flow. What this means is that the traffic flow can be moving as normal and
something within the system will cause a delay in travel that will cause backups for the
remainder of the peak travel time. This delay is commonly caused by buses stopping to pick
up/drop off riders, garbage trucks stopping, vehicles stopping for pedestrians not crossing at
signalized intersections, and other factors within the roadway. Unfortunately, this type of
instability within the system is not able to be modeled within Synchro.
If the traffic engineer acknowledges their computer traffic simulation software
does not accurately reflect reality, how can the Planning Commission rely on
and safety from additional
ingress/egress impacts from the development?
attempt to satisfy ODOT, but garbage in/garbage out fails to reflect the reality of
actual traffic flows. The traffic studies are seriously flawed, and the road diet is
likely not the primary culprit. Please let me explain the real world problem per
experience.
Traffic approaching the development from the North entering Ashland is
, but also compressed by the signals at Valley View
Road. Vehicles coming off I-5 down Valley View often develop a long queue that
backs up all the way to the freeway and are unable to all enter Highway 99 on one
green light. Then cars waiting at the red light approaching Ashland on Highway 99
from Talent create the next compression of cars flowing in front of the
development.
These strings of cars with few breaks during peak hours will inevitably create long
lines of vehicles waiting to exit the development. The TIS states in a single exit
lane from the development only two or three cars will be in line to exit the
development, but that calculation seems to be a fantasy in reality considering
over 200 vehicles at the development.
Vehicles leaving Ashland the other direction heading north along Highway 99 are
also compressed
Total Page Number: 14
northbound vehicles exiting Ashland. Tenants exiting the development must hope
that the bunched flows on Highway 99 in both directions can be properly timed to
allow safe egress from the development, and that this timing occurs quickly
enough to not create congestion behind them.
s and bicyclists that the
development encourages. The traffic study fails to address the reality that we all
know to exist on this stretch of Highway 99 in front of the development. Approval
as designed will create a safety and traffic nightmare.
INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE An additional component of ingress/egress is
proper sight distance for an exiting vehicle to clearly see oncoming traffic.
Pictures on page 16-
of sight for Intersection Sight Distance )ISD) in each direction. Looking south the
ISD is just before the train tressle. Looking south the ISD is just before the large
storage container at Anderson Auto Body. There is no room for error in either
direction.
What is not pictured looking south is that northbound traffic will entirely obscure
oncoming northbound traffic for extended periods. Trucks and vans significantly
In a practical sense the ISD does not conform to
the ASSHTO standard. Vehicles turning north from the development across traffic
might have to gamble there will not be an oncoming vehicle
slope of the road compounds this issue for both visibility as well as cars gaining
speed on the downslope.
PARKING uses the number 212 as this is the number
of parking spaces that are proposed in the application, even though 236 units will
be constructed. The 212 parking spaces are the minimum allowed per the Ashland
Development Code wit 24 credits applied for alternative transportation
developments adjacent to the site. The Commission should consider if this
number of spaces will actually be adequate for the full occupancy of the proposal.
There is no evidence presented that some units will have no cars while some units
may have more than one car.
Total Page Number: 15
There has been no allowance for guest parking while folks visit their friends in this
236 unit development. There has been no allowance for service vehicles that will
inevitably be present to provide maintenance for the apartments. There is no
allowance if a couple sharing a unit have two cars. No mitigation is presented, as
there is no street parking allowed along the State Highway 99 in front of the
complex. At a minimum these issues of overflow parking must be revisited by the
developer.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Steve Rouse
Rogue Advocates Vice President
Total Page Number: 16
From:Rich Rohde
To:Planning Commission - Public Testimony
Subject:10/11/22 PC Hearing Testimony”
Date:Monday, October 10, 2022 8:50:01 PM
\[EXTERNAL SENDER\]
October 10, 2022
TO: Ashland Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As a longtime resident of the city of Ashland I am very supportive of the 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.
1.First and foremost this housing plan is a wonderful example of much needed and prioritized workforce housing.
The scale of this
proposal can actually make an important contribution to addressing our severe housing shortage for Ashland
workers in ways that are
almost unique in our area. 230 units with 37 permanently affordable homes is amazing. Nothing we have seen
except the Snowberry II homes on Clay St are comparable.
2.With our outstanding inclusionary policies in Ashland having mixed in 37 very permanently affordable homes
makes this project a vital next step for our plans for truly diverse/ inclusionary neighborhoods.
3.With the relentless gentrification that our city is experiencing we must take this step now to reverse our slide into
a white monoculture. While there are some important hurdles to insure that the transportation/ evacuation
infrastructure will be in place I am confident that the
ability of the applicant, city staff and planning commission will adopt plans that will accomplish these goals.
This proposal is vitally important to the kind of city we want to become. And I support your approval.
Rich Rohde
124 Ohio St
Ashland, OR 97520
rvoarich@yahoo.com
Total Page Number: 17
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
DRAFT Minutes
October 25, 2022
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Acting Community Development Director
Haywood Norton Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Lynn Thompson Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Eric Herron
Lisa Verner
Doug Knauer
Kerry KenCairn
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Paula Hyatt
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Acting Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
At its October 31, 2022 Study Session the City Council will discuss two items relating to the Planning
Commission; first, to review manufactured housing parks and a potential ordinance for rezoning manufactured
housing parks to allow that as an exclusive use. This was brought to the attention of the Council by two City
Councilors, as well as members of a manufactured park in Ashland. The second item will be to review the
review procedures for the purpose of providing greater clarity to
residents and developers during the permitting process.
On November 15, 2022 the Council will review an ordinance regarding a change to Housing and Employment
Zones. The Commission previously recommended an increase of ground-floor residential use in mixed-use
buildings. The Council will also hold a First Reading and Site Review of the 1511 Highway 99 North annexation,
which the Commission recommended for approval at its October 11, 2022 meeting.
III.PUBLIC FORUM
- None
IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Food Truck Ordinance Updates Continued
Staff Presentation
Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation detailing several key points for the Commission to discuss. He
will then bring the Commission a draft ordinance at their November 8, 2022 meeting for deliberations and approval. Mr.
Severson commented that he had invited approximately 50 food truck vendors to participate in the discussions, but that
staff had not received any requests to speak at the meeting.
Mr. Severson informed the Commission that any regulations regarding handwashing stations and restrooms would be
under the jurisdiction of the state and county, though the Commission could require further guidelines. The Oregon
Health Authority (OHA) requires that any food truck that operates for more than two hours, or has seating in place for
Ashland Planning Commission
October 25, 2022
Page 1of 6
Total Page Number: 18
customers, is required to have a restroom available within 500ft. They would also be required to provide access to a
handwashing station with hot/cold running water and soap, as well as paper towels or air dryers. This requirement could
be met by an agreement between the food truck vendor and a nearby business that provides those amenities, and would
be verified by the Jackson County Environmental Health Department upon receipt of the vendors permit application (see
attachment #1).
Questions and Discussion
Commissioner KenCairn inquired if a porta-potty would fulfill those requirements, and Mr. Severson responded that a
standard model would not have a handwashing station. Commissioner Knauer commented that an agreement between a
food truck vendor and a nearby business should be sufficient, otherwise the vendor should be required to provide those
amenities themselves. There was general agreement from the Commission.
Commissioner Thompson asked if these standards would apply to the temporary use permit, or just the proposed longer-
term ministerial permit. Mr. Severson responded that it would to a temporary use permit. Commissioner Thompson
recommended that, in additional to requiring a business license and all associated inspections, that vendors also
possess the applicable licenses from the OHA and be in compliance with their requirements. She remarked that it should
also be clear what the repercussions for noncompliance should be. Commissioner Knauer agreed, inquiring what form
enforcement would take. Mr. Goldman responded that code compliance complaints are typically brought to staff very
quickly due to the relatively small size of the City, and the offending vendor would be contacted and their permit would
be placed under review before they could reopen. Commissioner Herron commented that the guidelines should be
referenced on the permit or application so that the vendors are explicitly aware of the requirements. Mr. Goldman
agreed, adding that it would make code compliance more affective.
Chair Norton inquired if vendors would be required to display their permit on the premises, commenting that the Health
Department normally requires that customers can see the vendors permit. He added that the best code enforcement
typically will come from a vendors competitors who have completed the permitting process. Commissioner Thompson
remarked that food trucks should also post where restrooms and handwashing stations could be accessed in the event
that the vendor has an agreement with a local business.
Commission Thompson commented that it was unclear how many of the listed requirements of the draft code would
apply to temporary-use permits, and inquired if temporary use permits would have need to meet the requirements. Mr.
Severson responded that it was his intention to keep temporary use permits as they are currently, but that the additional
requirements could be included. He noted that temporary use permits are still required to meet Jackson County health
guidelines, and could only operate for limited periods. Commissioner Thompson stated that some of the ministerial
permit requirements should be considered for the temporary use permits. Commissioner Herron remarked that the
existing restroom requirements do affect a food truck once it has been set up longer than two hours, to which
Commissioner Thompson recommended that the guidelines should be stated clearly on the permit application.
Commissioner Thompson asked which criteria for approval would be utilized by staff. Mr. Goldman responded that
review for granting a special-use permit was based on the applicants permit history from the previous year. He said that
staff would also examine whether the food truck would encroach into the public right-of-way, and whether they had
street-closure or sidewalk-closure permits issued. They would also be required to receive all necessary approvals from
the Fire Department regarding safety concerns, as well as licensing from the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission
in the event that the vendor wishes to sell alcohol. Mr. Severson added that applicants would be required to submit a site
plan for review, and detailed how the approval criteria are not limited to one department.
Chair Norton stated that the catalyst for these discussions was a local business that wanted to hire a food truck as a
show of appreciation for their employees, but that Planning staff was restrained due to existing restrictions. He proposed
that a list of previously approved vendors be created in order to expedite the review process. Commissioner KenCairn
was concerned that such a list would promote some vendors over others. Chair Norton clarified that it would be used to
approve vendors that have already obtained their certifications, and Mr. Severson commented that expediting the
approval of already certified vendors would be possible. Mr. Goldman added that the business owners in question were
advised they would need a special event permit for an employee appreciation event, and that that a Condition Use
Ashland Planning Commission
October 25, 2022
Page 2of 6
Total Page Number: 19
Permit (CUP) would be required for more regular use. Under discussion would be the rules for short-term monthly use,
as well as creating an avenue for persistent use on surplus parking lots of commercial properties.
Commissioner Herron inquired what kind of permit would need to be obtained for the small event under discussion. Mr.
Goldman responded that they would have needed to acquire a ministrative special event permit, which typically can be
approved within less than a week, because the vendors would be providing food to the businesses employees and not
the general public. Commissioner Thompson expressed concern over the definition of the temporary use permit, pointing
out that it is not limited to food trucks. She emphasized that the Commission should be aware of the unintended
consequences of the broad allowances in a ministerial permit, and that they should be specifically related to food trucks
and special events. Commissioner KenCairn responded that special events would also need to be defined as well. Chair
Norton inquired if someone who obtained a ministerial permit would be able to sell non-food items. Mr. Severson
responded that the temporary use information is already in the code, and that staff is merely proposing changes to
increase temporary use permit allowances for food trucks from 72 hours per year to 72 hours per month. Commissioner
KenCairn recommended that the special event ordinance remain the way it is, and that food trucks be the only vendors
with greater allowances.
Commissioner Knauer inquired what limitations there were on employers hiring a food truck for employee use, citing food
trucks as a means by which employers hope to increase employee retention. Mr. Goldman responded that the business
could apply for a ministerial permit in order to exceed the proposed 72 hour per month allowed by the temporary use
permit.
Mr. Severson informed the Commission that staff would be looking at existing plaza space for ministerial permits, and
related how food vendors and space for outdoor eating are currently among the identified elements where plaza space is
required in the Detail Site Review Zone. Given that there are already elements deemed appropriate for a plaza space,
staff believed it is logical to provide ministerial permits instead of requiring the applicant to go through the CUP process.
As long as the vendor would operate in a Detail Site Review Zone without altering the existing site plan, unless to
provide temporary power, then they could be permitted. Mr. Severson gave the Bricks at the Oregon Shakespeare
Festival as an example, and noted that they already have a relevant CUP. Commissioner Thompson pointed out that the
plaza requirement does not apply to the Bricks area, and inquired if staff was looking at designs that incorporate plazas
explicitly. Mr. Severson detailed how the Bricks were considered plaza space until recent code changes. Commissioner
KenCairn commented that the plaza space owner would be the one to apply for a permit, not the vendors. Mr. Goldman
agreed, but stated that it would likely be a collaborative permit application between the property owner and the vendor.
Mr. Severson detailed how the ministerial permit would be for the site itself, while the vendor would have to demonstrate
all relevant approval criteria. He added that this process would only apply to private land, not public.
There was general discussion regarding appropriate sites for food trucks to operate. Commissioner Dawkins was
hesitant to allow food trucks to compete directly with small businesses like Rubys. Mr. Goldman commented that
Southern Oregon University has a special use permit for food trucks in front of the Stevenson Union Building, but has
shown interest in applying for more regular use. Chair Norton inquired what type of permit the Farmers Market operates
with, and Mr. Goldman responded that it is a CUP with the option for up to fifteen food trucks. Commissioner Thompson
remarked that a CUP seemed to be the correct avenue to pursue, and inquired if there was a size limitation on food
trucks in relation to plaza space. Mr. Severson responded that there currently is no size limit, just that it cannot interfere
with the existing site plan.
Mr. Severson inquired whether the Historic Districts outside of downtown should be excluded from consideration for food
trucks or whether the applications should be sent to the Historic Commission for review. There was agreement that the
Historic Commission should decide, but Commissioner KenCairn warned that food trucks could interfere with parking if in
operation too regularly.
Commissioner Thompson noted that the dimensions for a food truck listed in the staff presentation would be larger than
a standard parking space at 170 square feet, even without additional equipment. Mr. Severson stated that those
measurements were adopted from the City of Medfords food truck guidelines and could be adjusted. Commissioner
Thompson inquired if a minimum 10-space lot should be required if a food truck could potentially take up to 20% of the
Ashland Planning Commission
October 25, 2022
Page 3of 6
Total Page Number: 20
space. Commissioner KenCairn commented that a 5-space lot could be sufficient if those spaces are not part of the
business required parking. Commissioner Knauer suggested that the number of spaces occupied by a food truck be at
the discretion of the business lot owner. Commissioner Thompson agreed, as long as strain was not placed on nearby
on-street parking. Mr. Goldman noted that the new Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities guidelines set to take
affect on December 31, 2022 could negate any parking requirements imposed. Commissioner KenCairn stated that a
business that only required a small amount of parking space should not be restricted from allowing food trucks, and
feared that such guidelines would disproportionally affect smaller businesses. Commissioner Herron recommended that
vendors only be permitted to take up 20% of a parking lot, as this would allow for smaller businesses to accommodate
smaller food carts and still provide parking. There was general agreement from the Commission.
Mr. Severson detailed the approval criteria to operate a food truck via the ministerial permit as such: a ministerial permit
and business license; registering and paying food and beverage tax; inspections from the Building, Fire, and Health
departments; the food truck not be located in the public ROW, public parking lots, parks, or in residential zones; and
could not remain in place for more than 5 consecutive days. Commissioner Thompson noted that the Ashland Fire Chief
had stated that the City would accept assistance inspecting food trucks from the Medford Fire Department. Mr. Severson
suggested that the City would likely see food trucks that had already passed inspection from the Medford Fire
Department and could therefore be permitted based on that prior approval.
Mr. Severson reminded the Commission that staff had initially recommended up to three food trucks be permitted under
ministerial review on the same lot before being designated as a food pod, but that the Commission had considered
reducing that down to two. He elaborated that the elements constituting a food pod would be those not located in a plaza
space or parking lot, have utility connections, and permanent seating requiring a site review. Commissioner Dawkins
asked if a food pod would need to be approved by the Commission. Mr. Severson stated that something like that would
typically be handled as a Type I permit, which would include a staff review and decision, be Noticed, and be brought to
the Commission if objected to by the neighbors. Chair Norton remarked that the Ashland Street space for food trucks
needed to be approved by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and required a greater level of review
despite it not constituting a food pod. There was agreement among the Commission that the maximum number of food
trucks permitted on the same lot without requiring a site review would be three, and would only be permitted in
commercial zones. The Commission determined that a CUP would also be required for permitting in the downtown area,
because a ministerial or special permit was deemed to be inappropriate.
Mr. Severson inquired if the need for a food truck to vacate an area after a maximum of five days was appropriate, which
the Commission all agreed it was.
Commissioner Herron questioned how the Historic Commission would review a food truck permit due to its relative
impermanence. Commissioner KenCairn commented that the Historic Commission would speak more to the nature of
the area, but would then also need their own set up approval criteria. Mr. Goldman pointed out that the Historic
Commission would only be providing a recommendation, and that the deciding body would apply its approval criteria.
Mr. Severson asked if the Commission would be comfortable with a Type I process in the event of a site review and
being approved at the staff level, but with the potential to appeal to the Commission and the Noticing of neighbors.
Commissioner Knauer remarked that an appeal could add two months to a project, and inquired if there were any other
alternative routes to consider. Mr. Severson responded that the alternative would be the ministerial permit, but that a
Type I project would have the potential for permanent site alterations that could impact nearby property owners, traffic
flow, or utility systems. Ministerial permits would also not be Noticed to neighbors.
B. Community Development Permitting Process and Code Review
Staff Presentation
Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that staff would be going before the Council on October 31, 2022 to discuss the
Community Development permitting process and code review. This is in response to the Economic Roundtable that the
Council held on May 16, 2022, where concerns were raised regarding the clear and objective standards utilized by the
Ashland Planning Commission
October 25, 2022
Page 4of 6
Total Page Number: 21
Community Development Department for building code review for building permits and planning actions. This will
examine whether a more streamlined development review process could be identified to make it more cost-effective and
expeditious for owners and developers. Mr. Goldman noted that the Community Development Department is a regulatory
agency and is required to uphold local, state, and federal laws that apply to projects under review, but outlined how this
could result in increased communication with applicants. Staff recently created a questionnaire that was sent out to
1,200 developers and owners, in order to gather feedback regarding their experience with the Community Development
staff. Staff had conducted a similar survey 5 years ago, and based on the results will be able to determine if customer
satisfaction has increased or decreased over that period. They could then determine how to provide more effective
services in the future.
Mr. Goldman stated that roundtable meetings between developers and the City Manager are being considered by staff to
consider how to streamline the permitting and review process. The City may also create an ad hoc review board to
identify and revise portions of the code that are unclear to developers and applicants. As an example, an interpretation
request previously came before the Commission regarding the maximum driveway grade on a driveway up to 200ft with
a 15% slope. An interpretation was required before the primary application could be submitted, and an ad hoc review
board would be created to clarify similar portions of the code.
Mr. Goldman itemized ways in which staff has already streamlined the application review process, including updated
permitting software system and the increased use of online submittal systems for faster communication and review. The
City is also developing a Citizen Self-Service system that would allow customers to submit applications, check their
permit status, and request inspections online. Mr. Goldman noted that, upon review of minor code revisions, as well as
the changes to the City commissions that were recently implemented, staff will no longer require review from the Tree
Commission prior to approving some projects. Additionally, there may be opportunities for staff to eliminate several
smaller permits that do no need to be reviewed by the Commission, but take up significant staff time, such as tree
removal permits and fence permits. These would be larger policy changes that will require review by the Commission
and Council and would result in code amendments.
Questions and Discussion
Commissioner Knauer expressed concern that the move to self-service systems would adversely affect customer satisfaction,
particularly if the system is difficult to operate. Mr. Goldman assured the Commission that staff would always be available for
customer assistance, and that there would be no current services would be eliminated. He added that many of the Citys frequent
customers already use and prefer the online portal, but that educational materials could be created for those using it for the first
time. He clarified that customers would only be able to access applications associated with their email address, stating that
privacy would be a particularly critical component of code compliance cases. Commissioner Knauer inquired about what changes
had been made since the last public survey and if those goals had been met. Mr. Goldman replied that he did not have a clear
answer at this time.
Commissioner Thompson asked how a citizen would know which projects required permits. Mr. Goldman responded that staff
would always be an available resource for any questions, but that staff had no proactive public educational programs regarding
permits. He added that staff will often need to step in in cases where residents have started minor projects that they were
unaware required permits. Commissioner Thompson was hesitant to eliminate some minor permits, pointing out that it could be
more expensive and time-consuming for residents to require changes after the project had begun development that could have
been corrected in the permitting stage. Mr. Goldman agreed, but stated that such an initiative could reduce the backlog of minor
permits and free up staff time to review larger projects. Commissioner Thompson suggested that online resources be available for
residents to check if a permit is required.
Commissioner KenCairn inquired if fence standards would be eliminated if the need for a fence permit was removed. Mr.
Goldman responded that the standards would remain in place, and detailed how a shed under 200 square feet does not require a
permit but must abide by City codes. Chair Norton drew attention to several relevant criteria for fences, and requested that staff
forward the above-mentioned questionnaire to the Commission.
Chair Norton lamented that a significant portion of the feedback received from the Economic Roundtable did not offer specific
avenues to improve the development process. Commissioner Thompson pointed out that many applicants are unaware that the
Ashland Planning Commission
October 25, 2022
Page 5of 6
Total Page Number: 22
Commissions role is to apply existing codes to proposed projects, which can result in them being denied. Chair Norton
commented that he would like to hear more from applicants about specifics areas for improvement in the future.
VII.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
October 25, 2022
Page 6of 6
Total Page Number: 23
Food Trucks in
Ashland
Ashland Planning Commission
Study Session Oct. 25, 2022
Since
Last
Month
Determinedthatrestroom&
handwashingrequirementsare
regulatedbythestateand
county.
Gatheredinformationonthe
MedfordFireDepartmentÇs
MobileFoodVendor
permittingprogram,which
wasdevelopedwithcurrent
AshlandFireChiefSartain.
Sente-mailinvitationto
participatetoapproximately
50activeSouthernOregon
foodtruckoperators.
Total Page Number: 24
DoesthePlanningCommission
wishtohaverestroom
requirementsinadditionthose
underStateandCounty
requirements?
Temporary Uses &
Special Events
Temporary/pop-upforspecial
eventssuchasfestivals,
employeeappreciationevents,
privatecatering,holiday
celebrations.
Total Page Number: 25
Short-Term
Events
ArePlanningCommissionersgenerally
agreeablewithchangingtheshort-term
eventallowancefromonceayearto
?
Temporary
Uses
Ministerial Permits
Existing Plaza Space
AreCommissionerscomfortablewiththeideaof
allowingfoodtrucksinexistingplazaspaceinDetail
SiteReviewzones?
WouldCommissionersliketoincludeprohibitionson
ministerialapprovaloffoodtrucksinthedowntown
andhistoricdistricts,orshouldtheybeallowed
subjecttoHistoricCommissionreview?
Total Page Number: 26
?
Ministerial Permits
Parking Lots
AreCommissionerscomfortablewiththeideaofallowingfoodtrucksinparking
lotswithmorethanfivespaces,andtoallowthemtouseupto20percentof
requiredparkingspaces?
Total Page Number: 27
Food truck operator would need Ministerial Permits
to:
Obtain a ministerial permit &
business license, and register
to pay food and beverage tax.
Obtain required inspections
from Building, Fire and Health
Dept.
Ministerial Permits
DoCommissionersfeelcomfortablewiththeallowanceforuptothreefoodtrucksorcartstobe
approvedonasinglepropertythroughministerialreview,orwoulditseemmoreappropriateto
limitthenumbertonomorethantwo?
DoestheCommissionbelievethatthreefoodtrucksonasinglepropertywouldbeamore
appropriatethresholdforreviewasafoodtruckpod/foodtruckcourt?
DoCommissionersbelievethattherequirementthataministerially-approvedfoodtrucknotremain
inplaceformorethanfiveconsecutivedaysisappropriateandnecessary?
Total Page Number: 28
Food Truck Pods
or
Courts
Forfoodtruckpodsorcourts,doestheCommissionbelievethatSiteDesignReviewshouldbe
requiredinsteadofthemorediscretionaryConditionalUsePermitreviewcurrentlyrequired?
DoestheCommissionbelievethatthesereviewscouldbehandledasadministrativedecisions,with
noticetosurroundingpropertyownersandthepotentialforappealtothePlanningCommission
(i.e.aÄTypeIÅprocess)?
Next Steps
Planning Commission Discussion Tonight
Update Code Language
PC & CC Hearings and Ordinance Adoption
Total Page Number: 29
FINDINGS
_________________________________
PA-
Total Page Number: 30
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 8,2022
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T3-2022-00004,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 (ODOT)STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND )
7.68 ACRES OF CALIFORNIA, OREGON & PACIFIC (CORP) RAILROAD )
PROPERTY. THE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED IN )
FINDINGS,
JACKSON COUNTY AND ARE ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR-5); )
CONCLUSIONS &
WITH ANNEXATION THESE PROPERTIES WOULD BE BROUGHT )
ORDERS.
INTO THE CITY AS LOW-DENSITY, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-)
2). CONCURRENT WITH ANNEXATION, THE APPLICANT ALSO )
REQUESTSOUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE 12 )
LOTS; SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT 230 )
APARTMENTS IN TEN BUILDINGS INCLUDING AT LEAST 38 )
AFFORDABLE UNITS; EXCEPTIONSTO THE STREET DESIGN )
STANDARDS; AND TREE REMOVAL PERMITS TO REMOVE TWO )
TREES GREATER THAN SIX-INCHES IN DIAMETER-AT-BREAST-)
HEIGHT(DBH).
OWNER:
LINDA ZARE/CASITA DEVELOPMENTS, LLC
APPLICANT:
CASITA DEVELOPMENTS, LLC
_______________________________________________________________
RECITALS:
1)Tax lots#1700 and #1702of Map 381E 32are located at 1511 Highway 99 North, are presently
outside the city limits, and are currently zoned RR-5, Jackson County
Rural Residential.
2)The applicantis requestingthe 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 requestsOutline Plan subdivision approval to create 12 lots; Site Design Review to
construct 230 apartments in ten buildings includingat least 38 affordable units; an Exceptionsto the Street
Design Standards; and Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at
breast height. The proposal is outlined inplans on file at the Department of Community Development.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 1
Total Page Number: 31
3)The approval criteria for Annexation are described in AMC 18.5.8.050as follows:
An application for an annexation may be approved if the proposal meets the applicable criteria in
subsections A through H below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose
conditionsof approval consistent with the applicable criteria and standards, and grant exceptions
and variances to the criteria and standards in this section in accordance with subsection
18.5.8.050.I.
A.
The annexed area is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
B.
The annexation proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan plan designations
applicable to the annexed area, including any applicable adopted neighborhood, master,
or area plan, and is an allowed use within the proposed zoning.
C.
The annexed area is contiguous with the city limits.
D.
Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the annexed area as determined by
the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the annexed area to an
approved waste water treatment facility as determined by the Public Works Department;
the provision of electricity to the annexed area as determined by the Electric Department;
urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be
provided from the annexed area.Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a
shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists
system-wide for these facilities. All required public facility improvements shall be
constructed and installed in accordance with 18.4.6.030.A.
E.
Adequate transportation can and will be provided to serve the annexed area. For the
purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular,
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit transportation meeting the following standards.
1.For vehicular transportation a minimum 22-foot wide paved access exists, or can
and will be constructed, providing access to the annexed area from the nearest fully
improved collector or arterial street. All streets bordering on the annexed area
shall be improved, at a minimum, to an applicable City half-street standard. The
approval authority may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the
full improvement of streets bordering on the annexed area. All streets located
within annexed areas shall be fully improved to City standards unless exception
criteria apply. Where future street dedications are indicated on the Street
Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication
and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation.
2.For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities according to the
safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or street
(e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation)
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 2
Total Page Number: 32
exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexed area border an arterial
street, bike lanes shall be constructed along the arterial street frontage of the
annexed area. Likely bicycle destinations within a quarter of a mile from the
annexed area shall be determined and the approval authority may require the
construction of bicycle lanes or multi-use paths connecting the annexed area to the
likely bicycle destinations after assessing the impact of the development proposed
concurrently with the annexation.
3.For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities according
to the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or
street (e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of
Transportation).exist, or can and will be constructed.Full sidewalk improvements
shall be provided on one side of all streets bordering on the proposed annexed area.
Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the
annexed area. Where the annexed area is within a quarter of a mile of an existing
sidewalk system or a location with demonstrated significant pedestrian activity, the
approval authority may require sidewalks, walkways or multi-use paths to be
constructed and connect to either or both the existing system and locations with
significant pedestrian activity.
4.For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the annexed area,
or be likely to be extended to the annexed area in the future based on information
from the local public transit provider, the approval authority may require
construction of transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes.
5.Timing of TransportationImprovements. All required transportation
improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance with 18.4.6.030.A.
F.
For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the
development of the annexed area will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent
of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units are necessary
to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar
physical constraints. The owner or owners of the annexed area shall sign an agreement, to
be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future
development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development
plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area
containing unbuildable lots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area such as existing
streets and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and property, wetlands, floodplain
corridor lands, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a public park,
shall not be included.
G.
Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or potential
density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zonedlands, or
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 3
Total Page Number: 33
commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall
meet the following requirements.
1.The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying
renters, shall be equal to or exceed25 percent of the base density as calculated
using the unit equivalency values set forth herein. The base density of the annexed
area for the purpose of calculating the total number of affordable units in this
section shall exclude any unbuildablelots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area
such as existing streets and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and
property, wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, water resource areas, slopes greater
than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a public park.
a.Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120 percent
the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit.
b.Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100 percent
the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit.
c. Ownership or rental unitsrestricted to households earning at or below 80
percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25
unit.
2.As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the
applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development
complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non-
profit (IRC 501(3)(c) affordable housing developer or public corporation created
under ORS 456.055 to 456.235.
a.The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the
standards set forth in sections 18.5.8.050.G.5 and 18.5.8.050.G.6.
b.All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed
for transfer.
c.Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred
to the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of
government,a nonprofit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation
created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235.
d.
affordable housing program requirements.
e.Transfer of title of buildable land in accordance with this subsection shall
exempt the project from the development schedule requirements set forth in
18.5.8.050.G.4.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 4
Total Page Number: 34
3.The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix with the market rate units
in the development.
a.The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the
residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number of
bedrooms per dwelling unit in the market-rate units within the residential
development. This provision is not intended to require the same floor area
in affordable units as compared to market-rate units. The minimum square
footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required
floor area based as set forth in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3, or asestablished by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for
dwelling units developed under the HOME program.
Table 18.5.8.050.G.3 Minimum Required Floor Area for
Unit TypeMinimum Required Unit Floor Area
(Square Feet)
Studio350
1 Bedroom500
2Bedroom800
3 Bedroom1,000
4 Bedroom1,250
4.A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the
affordable housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G shall be developed, and made
available for occupancy, as follows.
a.That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building
permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first
50 percent of the market rate units.
b.Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market
rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued
certificates of occupancy.
5.That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building
materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units.
a.The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential
development shall be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 5
Total Page Number: 35
development. External building materials and finishes shall be substantially
the same in type and quality for affordable units as for market-rate units
b.Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to floor area,
interior finishes and materials, and housing type provided that the
affordable housing units are provided with comparable features to the
market rate units, and shall have generally comparable improvements
related to energy efficiency, including plumbing, insulation, windows,
appliances, and heating and cooling systems.
6.Exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsections G.2 G.5, above, may
be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the
following.
a.That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish
additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of thischapter,
then would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of
subsection 18.5.8.050.G.2.
b.That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection
18.5.8.050.G.4 provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that
the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion.
c.That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the
development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per subsection
18.5.8.050.G.5, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable
Housing standards or financing limitations.
7.The total number of affordable units described in this section 18.5.8.050.G shall be
determined by rounding upfractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed
restriction or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with
affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years for units qualified as
affordable rental housing, or 30 years for units qualified as affordable for-purchase
housing.
H.
One or more of the following standards are met.
1.The annexation proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.080.B,
above.
2.A current or probable danger to public health exists within the proposed area for
annexation due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services in accordance
with the criteria in ORS Chapter 222 or successor state statute.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 6
Total Page Number: 36
3.Existing development in the proposed area for annexation has inadequate water or
sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year.
4.The proposed area for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service
extended, connected, and in use, and a signed consent to annexation agreement has
been filed and accepted by the City.
5.The proposed area for annexation is an island surrounded by lands within the city
limits.
I.Exceptions and Variances to the Annexation Approval Criteria and Standards.
The
approval authority may approve exceptions to and variances from the approval criteria
and standards in this section using the criteria in section 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exceptions to the
Street Design Standards or chapter 18.5.5. Variances.
4)The criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval are described in 18.3.9.040.A as follows:
Approval Criteria for Outline Plan.
The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan
when it finds all of the following criteria have been met:
a.The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
b.Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, pavedaccess to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and
adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity.
c.The existing and natural features ofthe land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors,
ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the
development and significant features have been included in the common open space,
common areas, and unbuildable areas.
d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the
uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e.There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and common
areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early
phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this
chapter.
g.The development complies with the street standards.
h.The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under
section18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open
space in accordance with section18.4.4.070if approved by the City of Ashland.
Approval of the Outline Plan.
a.Afterthe City approves an outline plan and adopts any zone change necessary for the
development, the developer may then file a final plan in phases or in its entirety.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 7
Total Page Number: 37
b.If an outline plan is phased, 50 percent of the value of the common open space shall be
provided in the first phase and all common open space shall be provided when two-thirds
of the units are finished.
5)The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in 18.5.2.050as follows:
Underlying Zone:
A.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.
Overlay Zones:
B.The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part
18.3).
Site Development and Design Standards:
C. The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
below.
City Facilities:
D.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 accessto and throughout the property and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards.
E.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.
6)The criteria for the approvalof a Tree Removal Permit are described in 18.5.7.040.B as follows:
Hazard Tree.
1.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
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 8
Total Page Number: 38
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 part18.6.
b.The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to section18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition
of approval of the permit.
Tree That is Not a Hazard.
2.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
part18.4and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10.
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
approval pursuant tosection18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
7)The criteria for an Exception to the Street Design Standards are described in AMC Section
18.4.6.020.B.1 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.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 9
Total Page Number: 39
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.
8)ThePlanning Commission, following proper public notice held apublic hearingonSeptember 13,
2022at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presentedboth in person and via Zoom.Prior
to the conclusion of this initial evidentiary hearing, participant Steve Rouse representing Rogue Advocates
requested an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony regarding the application
as provided in ORS 197.797(6)(a). The Planning Commission granted this request by continuing the
public hearing to October 11, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center at 1175 East Main Street.
The Planning Commission reconvened the continued hearing on October 11, 2022and an opportunity was
provided at thiscontinued hearing for persons to present and rebut new evidence, arguments or testimony.
Subsequent to the closing of the hearingand the record,the Planning Commissionapproved the request for
Outline Plan subdivision approvalto create 12 lots; Site Design Review to construct 230 apartments in
ten buildings including at least 38 affordable units; Exceptionsto the Street Design Standards; and Tree
Removal Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height subject to the
recommendation that the City Council approve the Annexation request subject to a number of conditions.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludesand 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. FINDINGS& CONCLUSIONS
2.1The Planning Commission finds that it hasreceived all information necessary to make adecision with
regard to the land use requests and to make a recommendation to the City Councilon the annexation based
on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 10
Total Page Number: 40
2.2The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets the applicable criteria for Outline Plan
subdivision approval in AMC 18.3.9.040.A; for Site Design Review approval in AMC 18.5.2.050; for an
Exception to the Street Design Standards in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1; and for Tree Removal in AMC
18.5.7.040.B. The Planning Commission further finds that the proposal meets the applicable criteria for
Annexation in AMC 18.5.8.050.
2.3The Planning Commission notes that the Performance Standards Option Chapter (AMC 18.39)
provides for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. Under the
Performance Standards Option, designs should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity, and
innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage; provide a quality of life
equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes; be
aesthetically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the impact of development on the
natural environment and neighborhood. The applicant here has proposed to develop the subject properties
with two parcels. Parcel 1 is proposed at 8.34 acres and would include the existing single family residence
and the areas to its north. Parcel 2 would include ten footprint lots to accommodate the proposed buildings
as well as the associated common areas for the development.
Outside of the PSO overlayzone, the Performance Standards Option chapter is available for use by
applicants where the subject parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width;
where development under the Performance Standards Option is necessary to protect the environment and
the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density
allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact; and for
properties zoned R-2, R-3 or CM. The Planning Commission finds that in this instance, the subject
property is to be zoned R-2 with annexation and as such may be developed under the Performance
Standards Options Chapter as proposed.
The application materials explain that the Grand Terrace Subdivision land area is 371,131 square feet, and
will include ten building padlot areas of approximately 7,428 square feet each. These lots will include
building footprints, exterior stairs, covered walkways, laundry rooms, and covered bicycle parking. All
other areas outside the building pad are to be part of the common area, including walkways, parking lots,
The applicant explains that
the proposed buildings are to be built offsite. All walls, floors and roofs will be built offsite, delivered to
the site and stood up in approximately five days per building. The interior and exterior layout, design and
build stress energy efficiency. The exteriors are to be fire resistant and the interior areas will have fire
suppression systems. The applicant emphasizes that while architectural creativity is expressed throughout
household sizes and costs versus rental amounts. The Building Officialhas reviewed the proposal and
indicated that off-site assembly will require that there be necessary inspections and certifications at the
point of construction and that these certifications will need to be provided to the Building Division. A
condition to this effect has been included below.
The development meets all applicable ordinance
requirements of the City.The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development complies with
all applicable ordinance requirements of the city, as the proposed lots exceed minimum areas and
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 11
Total Page Number: 41
dimensions, and the subdivision complies with the lot coverages and access standards and provides for
the perpetual upkeep and maintenance of the common area through the creation of a prop
association with Covenants, Contracts and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer,
paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire
protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity.The Planning Commission finds that all of the proposed utility extensions to the subject
propertiesare through existing and proposed easements or from the adjacent street rights-of way, and that
theextension of city facilities to service the development will not cause a facility to operate beyond the
. The applicant notes that written statements verifying capacity from the various service
providers have been provided stating that there was adequate capacity to serve the development, and all
utilities are proposed to extend to and through the property as identified on the Conceptual Utility Plan
. T
submittal will include final civil-engineered utility plans.
The application materials further note that the proposed development complies with the Street Standards,
except where Exceptionshave been requested, and street cross-section drawings have been provided in
sSheet C7.2. The Exceptionsrequested are to not install standard park row planting strips
with street trees between the curb and sidewalk for a portion of the proposed street improvements, and to
not provide on-street parking along Highway 99 North. TheExceptionsare addressed in Section E below.
The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain
corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development
and significant features have been included in the common open space, common areas, and unbuildable
areas.
The Planning Commission finds that while the site has a generally consistent grade and is moderately
sloped with an approximate ten-to 15-percent slope from southeast to northwest, the western half of Tax
Lot #1700, west of the existing residence, consists of large terraces with areas of steep slopes between and
a substantial amount of this lot has slopes in excess of 35 percent which, by city codes, would be
The Planning Commission further finds that there is a riparian land drainage identified as a tributary of
Bear Creek at the north end of Tax Lot #1700, and that two wetlands have been identified on the subject
-square feet and is located at the
base of a small depression northwest of the existing single family residence on Tax Lot #1700. The other
is larger at approximately 4,606 square feet in area and located on Tax Lot #1702.
The Planning Commission has included conditions below which require that the applicant provide
evidence of concurrence from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) with the wetland delineation
prior to Final Plan approval for the development application for the site, and that the properties be included
in the Wildfire Lands, Physical & Environmental Constraints Hillside Lands and Severe Constraints, and
Water Resource Protection Zones maps and associated overlays in order to fully incorporate land-use
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 12
Total Page Number: 42
based protection of the subject properties
The Planning Commission further finds that and included
in the open space and common areas of the development. Overall, the proposal recogniz
significant natural features including thesevere constraints lands, wetland areas, riparian corridors and
oak savannah. Large open spaces are included throughout the Grand Terrace plan, and trees and landscape
islands within the parking area and pedestrian walkways connect the apartment buildings to the open
spaces, parking areas, sidewalks, and the public pedestrian and transit improvements.
The development of the landwill
not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.The
Planning Commission finds that the proposed annexation here enables adjacent properties to be developed
for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Without this annexation, the north Ashland Urban Growth
Boundary is prevented from future development as shown i.
There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and
common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases
have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
at this early juncture, they believe the proposed subdivision will be completed as presented, with the only
unknowns being the length of time required for land use and permit approvals and the state of the economy
once permitting is completed. The applicant further suggests that if phasing of the development ultimately
proves necessary, it would occur as follows:
preliminary grading of the site.
Infrastructure installation consisting of water, electric, and other utilities.
Building pads with infrastructure stubbed-in, driveways and parking areas.
Buildings 1-8 as lease-up demands. The affordable housing is to be developed by others.
The applicant indicates that a final Phasing Plan will be submitted with the
in their natural state (i.e. the wetland and the buffer zone) or improved as illustrated on the plans, and the
common open space improvements will be timed so that 50 percent of the value of the common open
space will be provided in the first phase and all common open space will be provided when 2/3 of the
units are finished. All identified open spaces within the planned subdivision are to be owned and managed
in perpetuity by the Grand Terrace Association subject to Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions
(CC&Rs). A draft copy of the CC&Rs will be provided with the Final Plan application submittal.
Conditions requiring that a final phasing plan and draft CC&Rs be provided with the Final Plan submittal
have been included below.With that, the Planning Commission finds that there are adequate provisions
for the maintenance of common open space and common areas, andthat if development is developed in
phases, the early phases will have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project
The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established
under this chapter.The application materials include the following calculations:
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 13
Total Page Number: 43
Total land Area:
16.86 acres
Unconstrained Area:
13.75 acres
Base Density (R-2):
13.5 dwelling units (du) per acre
Gross Base Density Dwelling Units Allowed:90%
13.75 acres x 13.5 du/acre = 185.625 du
Minimum Density Requirement:
185.625 x 0.90 = 167.06 du
The application notes that per AMC 18.2.5.080.B.2., units that are less than 500 square feet gross habitable
floor area are considered as ¾ (0.75) of adwelling unit for the purposes of calculating density. The
Planning Commission finds that the 230less-than-500-square foot dwelling units proposed equate to 172.5
units (230 d.u. x 0.75 =172.5 dwelling units), and concludes that the proposed 230 units proposed comply
with the base density standards of the zone and exceeds the minimum density required with annexation.
The application materials indicate that the property owner will sign a recorded agreement after approval
of the annexation ensuring that future development of the property will occur in accord with the minimum
density as indicated in the development plan, and a condition requiring this agreement has been included
below.
The development complies with the street
standards.The application materials explain that as evidenced in the street cross-sections provided as
-of-way is under Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) jurisdicti
The applicants are requesting Exceptionsto the Street Design Standards to install some portions of the
proposed sidewalks at curbside, without a city-standard parkrowplanting strip between the curb and
sidewalk, and to not install on-street parking along the highway. These Exceptionsare discussed in
Section E below. The Planning Commission finds that other than those areas where these Exceptionshave
been requested, the street improvements proposed are to be consistent with the applicable street design
standards.
The proposed development meets the common open space standards
established under section18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open
space in accordance with section18.4.4.070if approved by the City of Ashland.The Planning
Commission finds that the site planprovided demonstrates that a substantial area of common open space
is available in excess of the minimum requirements of AMC 18.4.4.070. The development proposal
demonstrates that a variety of positive green spaces and recreational open spaces area will be included in
the development. The application detailsthat the development area consists of 371,131 square feet with
27 percent provided as open space that is a combination of 59,417square feet(
property and an additional 11 percent which is to be obtained from ODOT).The applicant emphasizes
that the open space to be provided is significantly morethan required by the standard, and that the large
setback from the highway, the large area of open space along the frontage and the substantial area of open
space within the development will enhance the livability of the development and the appearance of this
gateway area to Ashland.The application materials go on to explain that in addition to large areas of
outdoor common open space, each individual unit is to have a patio or deck space. The applicant
concludes that the proposal greatly exceeds the minimal dimensional standards for required open space,
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 14
Total Page Number: 44
and notes that the open space is to be surfaced in a material appropriate for human recreational use,
The Planning Commission concludes that the criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval have been
satisfied.
2.4The Planning Commission notes that where a proposal involves three or more dwelling units on a
lot in a residential zone, Site Design Review approval is required. In this case, each of the ten proposed
buildings is to be on its own lot and will contain 23 dwelling units. The PlanningCommission further
notes that Site Design Review approval requires that the approval criteria in AMC 18.5.2.050 be
addressed.
ThePlanning Commission notes that the first approval criterion for Site Design Review approval is that,
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.The
Planning Commission finds that the proposed site development complies with all of the applicable
provisions of the R-2 (Low-Density, Multi-Family Residential) zone, including:
Building & Yard Setbacks
:As provided in AMC 18.3.9.020, developments under the
Performance Standards Options chapter are not required to meet the standard setbacks of part 18.2,
however AMC 18.3.9.070 requires that the perimeter setbacks of the parent property be consistent
with the underlying zone and that standard front yard setbacks be provided. Here, there is a
substantial area of additional right-of-way between the improved portions of the existing highway
, and in addition to this substantial area of state highway
right-of-way, the proposed buildings are placed to meet or exceed the standard minimum 15-foot
front yard setback required in the R-2 zone.
Lot Area and Dimensions:
As provided in AMC 18.3.9.020, developments under the
Performance Standards Options chapter are not required to meet minimum lot size, lot width, or
lot depth standards of part 18.2. Despite that allowance, the minimum lot area in the R-2 zone is
5,000 square feet, and all of the proposed pad lots for the building areas exceed minimum lot area
and dimensions.
Density & Floor Area:
The total proposed number of units is 230 and is in compliance with the
base density of the zone and the minimum density requirement for annexation. The base density
calculation forthe proposal, which will be zoned R-2 with annexation, is 13.5 dwelling units per
acre based on a developable area of 13.75 acres. The base density of the property is 185.625
dwelling units (13.75 acres x 13.5 du/acre = 185.625 du). The minimum density for annexation
is 90 percent of the base density or 167 dwelling units (0.90 x 185.625 du = 167.0625 du). All of
the proposed unitsare less than 500 square feet in size and are considered as 0.75 of a dwelling
unit for the purposes of calculating density. As such, the minimum density with units less than
500 square feet is 223 units (167 du/0.75 = 223 du). The proposed density of 230 units complies
with the minimum density standards of 167 units. The applicant asserts that with open space and
affordability density bonus options, an additional 70+ units could be provided but providing
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 15
Total Page Number: 45
greater open space and setbacks along the highway are important to the occupants and the city,
and as such the applicant is not proposing adding any additional units. Theproposed 230 dwelling
units is consistent with the minimum density requirement.
Lot Coverage:
The total proposed impervious areas including building footprints, pathways,
parking areas, patios and decks is 41,747 square feet, which equates to a total lot coverage of 55.5
percent. This is substantially less than the maximum of 65 percent coverage allowed in the R-2
zone.
Building Height:
The proposed buildings are not more than 35-feet tall and each is two-stories
ed garden-style apartments are less tall than what is
permitted in the zone and the rooflines of the proposed units are substantially lower than the
residential neighborhood that is uphill from the project site, preserving their views.
Building Orientation:
Residential buildings are generally required to have a primary orientation
toward a street. Where located within 20 feet of a street, they are to have a primary entrance
toward the street with a walkway connection to the right-of-way, and noparking or circulation
between the buildings and the street. Here there is no build-to line or maximum front yard setback,
and none of the buildings is proposed to be located within 20 feet of the street.
Architecture:
The proposed buildings are modern, contemporary, simple, use negative space very
well, provide interior spatial privacy for double occupancy, are simplyshaped, using local
topographic color tones, and are low profile, but visually interesting, garden flat-style units with
separate, individual entrances to the immediate outdoors. The buildings have slightly pitched roofs
behind the parapets. Each building has residential-style windows and doors that provide orientation
to the street. The proposed design for the buildings has the façadesbroken into smaller elements
using reveals, recesses, trim, window and door locations. Retaining walls, landscaping and
outdoor patio areas follow the grade, and each unit has a private outdoor living area provided on
upper story decks and walkout patios.
Other Applicable Standards:
There is a required building separation within the Performance
Standards Options subdivision chapter which requires that buildings be separated by one-half the
height of the taller building, with the maximum required separation being 12 feet. Here, all of the
proposed buildings are illustrated with at least a 20-foot separation, which provides substantially
more than the minimum required separation.
The Planning Commission notes that the second Site Design Review approvalThe
proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).The Planning Commission
finds that upon annexation the property will be within the city, and the overlay zones typical for
development within the city limitsshall be applied to the property. Staff hasrecommended that the
Wildfire Lands, Physical & Environmental Constraints -Hillside Lands and Severe Constraints, and Water
Resource Protection Zones maps and associated overlays be revised to fully incorporate the subject
under these overlays. In terms of theSite Development and Design overlay zones, which include the
Detail Site Review, Downtown, Historic, Pedestrian Places and Transit Triangle overlays, residential
development of the subject properties would be subject to Site Design Review approval wherever three or
more units per lot are proposed, however none of the specific Site Development andDesign overlays is
d-family residential zoning. The proposed
zoning is not commercial and the location is not within the downtown or historic districts or located along
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 16
Total Page Number: 46
the transit triangle or any of the specific nodes identified as pedestrian places.The properties are currently
that the Wildfire Lands designation from AMC 18.3.10.060.Cwill be applied. With that in mind, the
application materials explain that in addition to the neighborhood planning efforts at fuel reduction
conducted annually within the Wild Cat Gulch riparian area, all of the proposed buildings are being
designed to comply with the recently adopted wildfire mitigation efforts in ORS R327.4 which include:
roofing to be metal roofing with no opening between the exterior walls and the roofing material; gutters
to be encapsulated for protection from fire embers; vent openings to be fire resistant; exterior walls to be
non-combustible materials, including under eave overhangs and porch extensions; all decks and porch
surfaces to be constructed of fire retardant wood or non-combustible materials; all exterior windows to be
tempered glass or similar rating; all areas within five feet of the perimeter of the building will be non-
combustible in accordance with AMC 18.3.10.100.B; all fencing to be non-combustible (vinyl) within
five feet of the buildings; all standing dead and dying vegetation shall be removed from the property prior
to initial construction; and all new plantings, including trees, shrubs and ground cover throughout the site
will not include any plant materials listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List. The application
materials further note that the proposal complies with AMC 18.3.10.110, which regulates hillside lands
with severe constraints, as all areas with slopes of more than 35 percent slopes are to be considered
undevelopable.
The Planning Commission has included conditions below to require that that the Wildfire Lands, Physical
& Environmental Constraints -Hillside Lands and Severe Constraints, and Water Resource Protection
Zones maps and associated overlays be revised to fully incorporate the subj
features with annexation, and that any development of the properties be subject to regulation under each
of these overlays. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed site development complies with the
overlay zone requirements which are to be applied to the subject property.
The Planning Commission notes that the third Site Design Review approval The proposal
complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by
subsection E, below.
Access and Circulation; Landscaping, Lighting & Screening, and Tree Preservation and Protection.The
dwelling units having a primary orientation to the street, and where they are located within 20 feet of the
street, providing a primary entrance toward the street and connected to the right-of-way via an approved
walkway. Automobile circulation and parking are not to be placed between the building and the street,
and parking is instead to be to the rear or the sides. Where there is a build-to line or maximum front
setback yard, buildings are to comply with the build-to line. The Planning Commission finds that here,
there is no build-to line or maximum front yard setback, and the buildings are not located within 20 feet
of the street. There is a varying width right-of-way of 30 to 60 feet between the dwelling units and the
highway improvements, some portions of which includes significant changes in topography or the wetland
and its protection zone. The buildings are setback more than 20-feet from the front property line. The
dwelling units have glazing, decks and a clear orientation to the street even though they are placed more
than 20 feet from the property line, although the buildings do have their entrances oriented to the driveway
system. No parking isproposed between the buildings and the street, parking is located to the side or rear
of the structures, or between the buildings and other properties separating them from the street. Proposed
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 17
Total Page Number: 47
materials and paint colors are to be compatible with the surrounding area, with a mix of fiber cement
roofing to accommodate solar panels, black vinyl clad windows and doors and a minimal amount of split
face CMU block reveal along the foundation line. One street tree selected from the street tree list is to be
placed every 30 feet for the portion of the property fronting the street. There is substantially more
landscape and open space areas than required by code, and the proposal preserves all the trees on the site
with the exception of removing one dead tree near the wetland buffer area and two trees near the existing
house in order to build the driveway. The landscape plan provides a variety of deciduous and evergreen
trees, shrubs and ground covers, with plants selected to be appropriate for the climate, exposure, and
availability of water. The stormwater facilities utilize water tolerant species. Common refuse and
recycling areas are to be provided in a screened area adjacent to the parking lot area and will comply with
In terms of parking, access and circulation, the Planning Commission finds that
includes 230 units that are less than 500-square feet in area. The required parking is 230 spaces, which
may be reduced by up to23 spaces using a transit supportive plaza creditprovisions in AMC
18.4.3.060.G.1. 212 parking spaces are proposed, including ADA-accessible parking spacesconsistent
with the requirements of the building code. The application notes that van-accessible spaces, location of
spaces, accessible routes, identification, lighting, design, and construction requirements will be addressed
in all building permit submittal materials. One covered bicycle parking space is required for each unit,
and the plan provided includes covered bicycle parking structures at the entry areas of each building to
address this requirement. In addition, individual dwelling units are to have a hanging bicycle rack within
the units whereverpossible to prevent theft.
The Planning Commission finds that the parking areas shown on the site plan have been designed in
accordance with the standards and dimensions of AMC 18.4.3.080.B, with more than 50 percent of the
parking area consists of parking spaces that are 9-feet by 18-feet, the remaining parking spaces consist of
compact parking spaces that are 8-feet by 16-feet. The parking spaces are all accessed via a drive aisle
that is 26 feet wide, which is wider than the required 22-footwidth. The Planning Commission finds that
theparking area serves more than 50 parking spaces and pedestrians must traverse more than 150-feet of
the parking area, and as such the parking areas have been divided into separate areas by grouping spaces
near the buildings, and the parking areas are connected with walkways that lead to the larger open space
features. Five-foot wide, continuous walkways with narrowed crossings at the intersections of the parking
areasand driveways are proposed. The parking area has curbing, accessible ramps, pedestrian scaled and
landscape-level lighting and shade trees, with raised mid-parking lot crossings to provide a street-like
system through the development. The parking areas have been designed in a manner consistent with the
standards for Parking Lot Construction and Design. The parking lot surface treatment includes50 percent
of the vehicle parking area surface as cement and the remaining parking area surfaced in asphalt. Run-off
from the hardscape surface areas will be treated through a series of stormwater treatment facilities, bio-
swales and below grade storage systems. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed site
development plan meets the standards for parking, access, circulation and parking area development.
The Planning Commission notes that the fourth approval The proposal complies with the
applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 18
Total Page Number: 48
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.
facilities and transportation is addressed in detail in the Annexation discussion above.
ThePlanning Commission notes that the fifth approval criterion is specific to Exception to
the Site Development and Design Standardshe 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) Thereis 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.The Planning Commission finds that the application does not
include any specific request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. Exceptions
to the Street Design Standards are discussed in detail in section 2.6 below.
The Planning Commission concludes that the criteria for Site Design Review approval have been satisfied.
2.5The PlanningCommission notes that r
equests to depart from the Street Design Standards in AMC
18.4.6.040 are subject to Exception to the Street Design Standards. The Planning Commission further notes
over 3,000 linear feet of sidewalk installation is proposed,and of this only
that with the current request,
approximately
frontage, an Exception isrequested to allow curbside sidewalks in order to install a bus pull-out lane, bus
stop and transit supportiveplaza. The remainder of the areas to be improved
ownership or control,and there are impediments to city-
properties adjacent to the right-of-way; obstructions created by private property owners, and privately-
owned encroachments into the highway right-of-way; and physical barriers including private property
curbing and the railroad overpass. The applicant emphasizes that the installation of a continuous sidewalk
system will have a positive impact on the adjacent properties while providing greater connectivity, comfort
and safety for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users.
The application submittal includes proposed street cross-sections as Sheet C7.2. The first requested
Exception to the Street Design Standards is for the park row planting strip and street trees abutting the
travel lanes for a portion of the highway frontage, as further detailed below:
Stations 1-16 (North of Land of Paws):
An eight-foot curbside sidewalk is proposed. There is a
large roadside ditch and private property belonging to Anderson Auto Body which prevents
standard park-row installation, and this curbside sidewalk will connect to the curbside sidewalk to
the north of the subject properties.
Stations 16-23:
A three-foot bike buffer, six-foot bike lane, 7½-foot parkrow, and six-foot
sidewalk are proposed along this section of the property frontage.
Stations 23-27:
This section includes the proposed bus pull-out lane, bus stop and eight-foot
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 19
Total Page Number: 49
curbside sidewalk. The applicant suggests that this should not be considered an exception as
curbside sidewalks at transit stops in other locations have not been treated as such.
Station 27-34:
A three-foot bike buffer, six-foot bike lane, and curbside sidewalk or a combined,
buffered multi-use path are proposed. This section is physically constrained by a steep roadside
embankment and by the existing railroad trestle, and ODOT has indicated that for a state facility,
a six-foot sidewalk is the minimum acceptable width under the railroad trestle.
Station 34 (
Schofield/North Main): City standard improvements including a six-foot bike lane,
7½-foot parkrow and six-foot sidewalk are proposed in this section.
The Planning Commission notesthat the Land Use Board of Appeals previous reversal of the approval of
PA-T3-2019-00003 was based on the Ashland Municipal Code at the time requiring that for Annexations,
streets be fully-improved to city street design standards with no provision allowing for Exceptions to the
Street Design Standards. The Planning Commission and Council recognized that in many cases,
properties to be annexed are adjacent to streets which are and will remain under state or county jurisdiction
(and will thusbe subject to standards o
existing improvements, available right-of-way and physical impediments such as steep slopes, or as is the
case here, the prescribed standard street design cross-sections do not account for the installation of transit
facilities such as the bus pull-out lane proposed here despite requiring that adequate transit facilities be
considered with Annexation. As such, since the LUBA reversal of the previous application to annex the
subject property, The
approval authority may approve exceptions to and variances from the approval criteria and standards in
this section using the criteria in section 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exceptions to the Street Design Standards or
chapter 18.5.5. Variances.
The first criterion for the approval of an Exception to the Street Design Standards is that,
demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual
The Planning Commission finds that there are natural and
man-made physical impediments that prevent city-standard street improvements and whichare currently
hazardous to pedestrians and bicyclist along the area of the highway to be improved. These include an
existing curbside sidewalk that terminates at a wide, open drainage ditch where pedestrians need to
transition to the road shoulder for well-over a quarter-mile until the sidewalk resumes at Schofield Street.
There are also several non-conforming driveways in the area. One is a 30-foot wide, non-conforming
driveway entrance at the Animal Medical Hospital. The application suggests that because there is no clear
and safe demarcation for entry or exit, and the driveway opening is so wide,drivers use it to make U-turns
from the highway. The northern driveway access to the subject property has encroachments that have
narrowed the driveway width at the highway, including a sign built into the driveway. Adjacent is the non-
conforming 30-foot driveway along the Animal Medical Hospital frontage, and the driveway serving
Paradise Supply. Theapplication explains that this leads to confusionoverwhere to enter and exit making
the driveway area dangerous. To the south of Paradise Supply is Anderson Auto-body, where a driveway
connects to a curb built to the edge of the right-of-way extending the length of the business frontage. The
application explains that these encroachments and driveways reduce useable highway right-of-way for
construction of full improvements necessitating the Exception to the Street Design standards.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 20
Total Page Number: 50
of the subject property frontage
The entire area north of thefrontage is not part of the subject property and is not under the
ownership or control. The Planning Commission finds that after the proposed improvements
are installed,thehighway frontage will be much safer for pedestrians, bicyclist and vehicles than the
current configuration.
The Commission further finds that along the developmentfrontage, from Anderson Auto Body for
approximately 900-feet south, city-standard improvements with the bike lane widened to six-feet where
necessary, curb, seven-foot landscaped park row and six-foot sidewalk will be installed. Near the railroad
trestle, the sidewalk will transition to curbside with a safety barrier built on top of the curb to provide
comfort and a feeling safety to pedestrians and bicyclists walking their bikes along the sidewalk to the
development. Under the railroad trestle, a shared bike lane and sidewalk (i.e. multi-use path) is proposed
with overhead lighting
the frontage of the development area, there are other physical barriers that prevent required city-standard
street improvements. These include the steepness of the adjacent hillside and the presence of a drainage
culvert and utility cabinets.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 21
Total Page Number: 51
lity
to install full city-standard street improvements.
The Planning Commission finds that physical barriers are present for approximately 2,218-feet of the
approximately 3,088-feet of frontage proposed to be improved as part of this annexation. The Commission
concludes that thecombination of unique and unusual aspects makes the installation of city-standard
improvements impossible when private ownership of much of the abutting property is taken into
consideration.
The second criterion is that,
connectivity considering the following factors where applicable: 1) For transit facilities and related
improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience; 2) 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; and 3) For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
wThe Planning
Commission finds that:
Transit:
The requested exception to sidewalks and park row dimensions will not have a negative
impact on transit facilities. The proposal includes a new southbound bus stop and transit
supportive plaza area and new overhead street lighting, a proposed sidewalk and a pedestrian-
activated flashing light crossing near the Schofield Street intersection (near the northbound RVTD
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 22
Total Page Number: 52
flag stop) whichwill provide citizens additional, safer access and reduce wait times to cross
Highway 99N, and will greatly improve safety for pedestrian and bicycleusers of transit. The new
crosswalk will provide a pedestrian-activated signalized crossing for pedestrians and bicyclist
seeking access to the north bound flag stop location across Highway 99N between the T-
intersectionsof Schofield to the east and Jackson Road to the west where none previously existed
for north Ashland residents. The connection of the more than 3,000-foot gap in the sidewalk system
will not only improve twill provide sidewalks and transit access
where none existed before.
Bicycle:
The exception should have no impacts on the bicycle facilities but only enhance and
encourage bicycling with the proposed improvements. The proposed improvements will only
increase safety; along the frontage of the property, a six-foot bike lane is provided along with lights
added overhead along the highway and within the railroad trestle making it much safer. Being able
to be seen is an important element and the lighting will greatly improve safety and use.
Pedestrian:
Presently from the El TapatioRestaurant to Schofield Street along Highway 99N
there are no sidewalks and no pedestrian/bicycle lighting along the highway, under the railroad
trestle, and to the north and south of the project. At the same time, there is no safe crosswalk to
cross the highway. The entire area is dark and unsafe to vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles driving
along the area and for those turning into and exiting driveways. This area has no pedestrian or
bicycle safety features. Presently it is unsafe, lacking sidewalks and curbs as buffers, or street
lighting which would provide vehicles driving along this area any evidence of pedestrian activity.
Cars tend to travel faster, making it unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists. With the improvements
to the bike lanes, new sidewalks, new overhead lighting for pedestrians, and a crosswalk with a
flashing beacon, there will be a safer experience with increased comfort for pedestrians and
bicyclists. The applicant suggests that a new roadside culture will be created with these
improvements, and thatit will encourage vehicles to be more attentive to their surroundings and
promote the feeling of safety for pedestrians and bicyclists when walking and riding along the
roadway.
The third criterion is that, The
Planning Commission finds thatthe requested exceptionto deviate from city street standards is the
minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty in installing standard dimension sidewalks, park rows, and
bike lanes. Thisexception isonly requested in areas where there are significant natural or man-made
obstacles to constructionof standard improvements, and thebenefit of the new additions and corrections
to the existing unsafe conditions outweighs the impact of the exception request.
The final approval criterion for an Exception to the Street Design Standards is that,
The Planning
Commission finds that the proposal furthers the purpose and intent of the standards by connecting more
than 3,000 feet of an incomplete sidewalk systemwhileproviding as close to theapplication of the full
city street standards as possible when considering the numerous encumbrances from factors thatthe
property owner cannot control. The proposal increases the feeling of safety and security for the
pedestrians, increases opportunities for transit and greater safety for cyclistswith lighting, sidewalks, and
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 23
Total Page Number: 53
a new roadside culture.And the proposed improvements are consistent with the standards and
specifications of the Oregon Department of Transportation, which is and will remain the responsible
jurisdictionfor this section of roadway.
The Planning Commission concludes that the approval criteria for an Exception to the Street Design
Standards not to provide parkrow planting strips for the full extent of the proposed frontage improvements
have been satisfied.
2.6The Planning Commission finds that in additiontothe Exception to the Street Design Standards
request discussed in section 2.5above, the application also requires an Exception to the Street Design
Standards because the street cross-section for the frontage improvements proposed at
least one on-street parking space per-
improve public streets
as R-2, and while the proposal does not create any new public streets, it does include limited frontage
improvements including widening of the bike laneand the installation of curbs, parkrow planting strips,
sidewalks and a bus pull-out lane.
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.The standard requires that the required parking be provided as on-street public
parking consistent with the standard cross-section or that it be immediately adjacent to the public
right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land and be directly accessible from public right-of-way
streets. On-street parking spaces shall be located within 200 feet of the dwelling that it is intended to
serve.The Planning Commission finds that in this instance, the property fronts on state highway right-
of-way which is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and ODOT
standards for the roadway do not include on-street parking. In addition, ODOTcontrolled access
standards limit access points to the highway to the two proposed driveways and donot accommodate
additional access points to provide the required direct access to parking provided immediately adjacent to
the right-of-way. The proposed bus pull-out lane, which is a requirement of annexation under AMC
18.5.8.050.E.4, poses an impediment to the installation of on-street parking here. In addition, only three
of the ten proposed buildings are within the required 200 feet of the highway improvements due to
developed commercial properties located between the subject properties and the highway and significant
sections of unimproved right-of-way, including steep slopes and awetland, which separate the property
from the highway and prevent the placement of parking within or immediately adjacent to the right-of-
way.
The second criterion is that,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.The Planning
Commission finds that not providing on-street parking along the state highway frontage enables the
installation of the proposed transit facilities; avoids the potential conflicts that would otherwise arise with
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 24
Total Page Number: 54
cross traffic from parking or exiting vehicles and bicycles using the bike lane; and does not adversely
impact pedestrians, and as such results in equal or superior facilities.
The third criterion is that, The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.The
Planning Commission finds that the exception not to provide on-street parking in conjunction with the
limited street improvements proposed is the minimum necessary to respond to the jurisdictional limitations
The final criterion is that, The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards
in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.AMC 18.4.6.040.A This
section contains standards for street connectivity and design as well as cross sections for street
improvements. The standards are intended to provide multiple transportation options, focus on a safe
environment for all users, design streets as public spaces, and enhance the livability of neighborhoods,
consistent with the Comprehensive PlanThe Planning Commission here finds that the exception is
consistent with the intent of providing for multiple transportation options focused on a safe environment
for all users and designing streets as public spaces which enhance livability. As noted, both jurisdictional
limitations and physical constraints in the form of a larger than normal separation between the
development and the right-of-way and the presence within that separation of other properties, significant
grade changes, and an identified wetland pose difficulties in providing on-street parking immediately
adjacent to the roadway as envisioned in the standard street cross-section, however such on-street parking
here would also conflict with the bus pull-out lane being required as a condition of the annexation, and
with the desire to better accommodate bicycles along the frontage. The proposal seeks to provide needed
housing in the form of smaller and more affordable rental units along a transit corridor with a focus on
providing increased connectivity not just for motor vehicles, but also for pedestrians, cyclists and transit
users. The Planning Commission concludes that this is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the street
standards, consistent with the Comprehensive Planvision, and ultimately in line with the recently passed
Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rulemaking just adopted by the State of Oregon.
The Planning Commission concludes that the approval criteria for an Exception to the Street Design
Standards to not provide on-street parking with the limited street improvements proposed have been
satisfied.
2.7The Planning Commission notes that the removal of trees in multi-family residential zones on lots
occupied only by a detached single-family dwelling and any associated accessory structures is exempted
from Tree Removal Permits when the property cannot be further developed with additional dwelling units.
In this instance, while the subject property here only contains a single residence, its size and further
development potential mean that the removal of any trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast
height (d.b.h.) requires a Tree Removal Permit. The application includes an inventory of the 23 trees
identified on the property and an assessment of their current condition and relative tolerance to
development disturbance along with a Tree Preservation and Protection Plan provided as the ap
Sheet L.1.1. Three trees are proposed to be removedincluding an 18-inch d.b.h. cottonwood tree (Tree
#7) which is identified as being dead and as such is exempt from Tree Removal Permit requirements, and
twoother trees-an 18-inch d.b.h. Ponderosa Pine (Tree #22) and a 30-inch d.b.h. Cedar Elm (Tree #23),
both of which are noted as being in good condition.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 25
Total Page Number: 55
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
part18.4The application materials
explain that there are 23 trees greater than six-inches d.b.h.on or directly adjacent to the property. Three
trees are proposed for removal. One is a dead 18-inch d.b.h. cottonwood, and the other two are an 18-inch
d.b.h. Ponderosa Pine and a 30-inch d.b.h. Cedar Elm. The Planning Commission finds that these two
trees are within the driveway providing access to the site, and that the trees proposed for removal were
carefully considered, but their locations were not conducive to retaining the trees.
The second approval criterion is that,
eThe
Planning Commission finds that the tree removalsproposed will not have impacts on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, and protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. One tree is a dead
cottonwood, and the other two trees are near the residencesand site circulation improvements and would
be negatively impacted by the construction.
The third criterion is that,ree 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
The Planning
Commission finds that there are a significant number of deciduous and confer trees within 200-feet of the
property, and that the removal ofthese trees will not have a negative impact on the densities, sizes,
canopies or species diversity.
The fourth Tree Removal Permit criterion makes clear that,
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
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies
with residential densities of the R-2 zoneand is not required to be reduced here.
The final approval criterion notes that, the applicant to mitigate for the removal
of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.The Planning Commission finds that with the full landscaping of
the site at the time of development, numerous mitigation trees are proposed to be planted throughout the
project site, while only two living trees are proposed for removal.
ThePlanning Commission further notes that the Ashland Tree Commission reviewed the request at its
regular monthly meeting on September 8, 2022. In the Tree Commissioners assessment, the development
of the property as proposed would represent a significant net gain for the landscaped environment, and
they recommended that the application be approved as presented.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 26
Total Page Number: 56
The Planning Commission concludes that the applicable criteria for the requested Tree Removal Permit
have been satisfied.
2.9The Planning Commission notes that Chapter 18.5.8 of the Ashland Municipal Code provides the
procedures and approval criteria for the annexation of land to provide for the orderly expansion of the city
and public facilities and services, consistent with the provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
including ORS Chapter 222. Annexations are a legislative decision; the Ashland City Council makes the
final decision on annexations in accordance with subsection 18.5.1.010.B.4.,with recommendations from
the Tree Commission, Transportation Commission and Planning Commission. The Councilmay require
improvements to public facilities, such as utilities and streets, as a condition to annexation approval, in
addition to the requirements of section18.5.8.050, and may grant exceptions and variances to the criteria
and standards in accordance with subsection 18.5.8.050.I. Except for City-initiated annexations,
annexation applications require an accompanying planning application for the development of the entirety
of the annexed area in accordance with applicable procedure and approval criteria concurrent with the
annexation application.
The annexed area is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
The Planning Commission finds that in this instance, the subject properties are all located withinthe Urban
Growth Boundary.
The annexation proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan plan designations applicable to the annexed area, including any applicable adopted neighborhood,
master, or area plan, andis an allowed use within the proposed zoning.Planning Commission finds
that the requested R-2-
Family Residential.here are no applicable neighborhood, master or
area plans in the immediate vicinity, however Site Design Review has been requested for a 230-unit multi-
family residential development which is an allowed use within the R-2 zoning district.
The annexed area is contiguous with the city limits.Planning
Commission finds that the land identified for annexation in the application is contiguous with the city
limits.The application requests the annexation of 16.86 acres owned by Linda Zare and located at 1511
Highway 99 North. In addition, the application requests the annexation of 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 application submittal includes written consent to annexation from Linda Zare, and
copies of consent to annexation letters sent to ODOT and the railroad. ODOT has responded via e-mail
to indicate they have no objection, and there has been no response provided to date with regard to the
.
AMC18.5.8.060providesthat"When an annexation is initiated by an applicant other than the City, the
Staff Advisor may includeother land in the proposed annexation in order to make a boundary extension
more logical, to address the effective extension of public facilities, or to avoid an area of land which is
not incorporated but is partially or wholly surrounded by the City. TheStaff Advisor, in a report to the
Planning Commission and City Council, shall justify the inclusion of any land other than the land for
TheStaffAdvisorhasaccordinglyincluded
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 27
Total Page Number: 57
The fourth criterioAdequate City facilities for the provision of water
to the annexed area as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the
annexed area to an approved waste water treatment facility as determined by the Public Works
Department; the provision of electricity to the annexed area as determined by the Electric Department;
urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided from the
annexed area. Unless the Cityhas declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or
electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. All required
public facility improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance wi
The Planning Commission notes that the existing residence on the property relies on a well for water
service, and is serviced by Rogue Valley Sewer Service (RVSS) for sanitary sewer and Pacific Power for
electric service. Storm drainage is via a roadside ditch in the ODOT highway right-of-way as part of
provided to the subject property. Each of the listed city services is discussed below:
Water:
The Water Division has noted that the property is not currently served by a water main,
and a new main will need to be installed to connect to the existing city water system. The nearest
point of connection is near the intersection of North Main Street and Highway 99 North. The
applicant notes that water lines to service the property are proposed to be extended, and indicates
that these will be adequately sized to provided water pressure for residential service and fire
suppression systems. The Water Division has indicated that with extension of a new main, there
will be adequate supply of potable water available to the site subject to the following:
The City will require the applicant to extend the existing 12-inch main line at a location uphill
o
and south of the site, between Fox & Schofield Streets, to a location north of the railroad trestle
ails of the exact location and method
of connection to the existing 12-inch city-owned water main will be included in the final
engineered plans provided with the Final Plan submittal. In preparing the final civil drawings,
consultation with RH2 Engineeri
water model may be required to evaluate domestic consumption and fire flow needs for Grand
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 28
Total Page Number: 58
Terrace, the potential future extension of the main further to the north and resultant impacts to
the city system.
o
pressures at the meter (160+ psi). This will require a pressure reducing valve (PRV) station at
the point of connection. The final type, size, and location of the PRV station will need to be
determined in consultation with the project civil engineer, the city-approved PRV supplier and
Water Department staff based on the city water model currently managed by RH2
Engineering.PRV stations of thissize are typically in underground vaults big enough to walk
around in and will need to be in a location where regular maintenance can be performed without
stopping traffic or endangering Water Division personnel. T
also e
Final Plan submittal shall include complete PRV details.
Water meters must be placed in the public right-of-way and within the city limitsas close to
o
the roadway as possible, but in a protected area safe from vehicular damage and also safe for
Water Division employees to access them. The proposed annexation should extend at least to
centerline of the highway right-of-way. (Water meters may not be connected to private water
mains inside the development.)
Each water meter or connection will be required to be backflow protected immediately on the
o
private side of the meter, with a double check backflow preventer, due to the increase in altitude
of the terrain and heightof the structures above the service connection height. It is also likely
that a reduced pressure backflow assembly will be required behind each meter instead of the
double check backflow preventer, due to the presence of ponds and TID irrigation on the
property. Final backflow protection details are to be included in the civil drawings provided
with the Final Plan for review and approval of the Water Division.
At the two locations where the private on-site water main branches off the proposed City water
o
main extension, a Double Check Detector Assembly or a Reduced Pressure Zone Detector
assembly, will be required to isolate and separate the City water main from the private water
main as it enters the development, as close to the right-of-way as practical.
Fire hydrants to be installed on-site will be located on private property and will require yearly
o
The existing well on site will need to abandoned, or the applicant will be required to install
o
premises isolation measures (RPZ/double check).
The applicant will need to work with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) on any necessary
o
modifications to proposed site improvements and associated permitting to address the "Billings
Siphon" irrigation easement and associated federal requirements.
Sanitary Sewer & Storm Drainage:
City code requirements typically necessitate that all utilities
transition to city services with annexation, however in this instance the property is well outside and
new services
would be needed and all sewage and stormwater would need to be pumped. However, there is a
County and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority -now Rogue Valley Sewer Service (RVSS) -
which dates to November 8, 1995 and which provided that with annexation, the sewer district shall
continue to provide an urban level of sanitary sewer and/or storm water services that it has historically
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 29
Total Page Number: 59
provided to t
agree to joint provision of service to areas within the City or its UGB by contract, mutual agreement
or other method. As proposed by the applicant here, RVSS willcontinue to provide these services to
the subject properties per the 1995 agreement. RVSS has indicated that their sanitary sewer system
has adequate capacity for the proposed development, and there is an eight-inch main in the right-of-
way due north of the project site. On-site storm water drains to a roadside ditch that is within the state
highway right-of-way and maintained by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The
ered to comply with the
RVSS Stormwater Quality Design Manual, which is used by the City of Ashland, Jackson County and
RVSS. The project Civil Engineer has determined the approximate sizes and locations for on-site
detention and treatment facilities. Acondition of approval has been included below that the Final
Plan submittal include a final stormwater management plan including necessary calculations and
operational and maintenance details.
Electric:
The application explains that the property is currently served by Pacific Power, but that with
the development the property will be served by the City of Ashland Electric Department with the
installation of new electrical infrastructure by the applicant. The application explains that there is
presently low-voltage city electric service in place to power street and landscape lighting in and around
the central median at the railroad trestle overpass. With the proposal, electric facilities are to be
provided in or adjacent to the highway right-of-way to provide adequate infrastructure to the proposed
development and future development in the vicinity, and a preliminary electric service plan has been
provided with the application materials. Conditions have been included below to require that a final
approvedelectric service plan for the proposed development be provided with the Final Plan submittal,
and that this plan makes clear that all utility installations will not disturb the wetland or its associated
water resource protection zone.
Based on the above, the Planning Commission finds that the annexation request here demonstrates that
adequate city facilities can and will be provided to the subject properties.
The subject properties front on Highway 99N, sometimes referred to as the Rogue Valley Highway, which
is a state highway under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT). Highway
99N becomes North Main Street within the current city limits. North Main Street is a boulevard or arterial
as classified in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). City street standards for an arterial street generally
call for 11-foot motor vehicle travel lanes, a 12-foot median/center turn lane, six-foot bike lanes on each
side, eight-to nine-foot parking lanes where on-street parking is appropriate, a six-inch curb, a seven-to
eight-foot parkrow planting strip with irrigated street trees, and six-foot sidewalks.
The Road Diet
motor vehicle travel lane in each direction separated by a single, shared center turn lane, and variable
width bicycle lanes on the shoulder. There are no curbs in place along the property frontage, and roadside
ditches are present in some locations. On the opposite side of the roadway, a guardrail is in place at the
outside edge of the bike lane.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 30
Total Page Number: 60
The criterion and sub-criteria relative to transportation facilities for annexations are detailed below in
italics, with responses following:
Adequate transportation can and will beprovided to serve the annexed area. For the purposes of
this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit transportation meeting the following standards.
The application materials explain that the subject properties abut Highway 99 N, which is under the
jurisdiction of Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Highway 99 N is designated by ODOT as
call for an eight-foot curbside sidewalk and
asix-foot bike lane. City of Ashland Street Standards call for a six-foot bike lane, seven to eight-foot
landscaped park row planting strip with irrigated street tress and a six-foot sidewalk. ODOT accepts the
sidewalk buffered by a parkrow as required by the city standards as an alternative to the ODOT-standard
eight-foot curbside sidewalk. The applicant asserts, and ODOT has confirmed, that the proposed
improvements include public infrastructure improvements that comply with the ODOT standardsfor the
entirety of the highway frontage improvements, and in addition to a Traffic Impact Analysis the
Access Safety
1.For vehicular transportation a minimum 22-foot wide paved access exists, or can and will
be constructed, providing access to the annexed area from the nearest fully improved
collector or arterial street. All streets bordering on the annexed area shall be improved, at
a minimum, to an applicable City half-street standard. The approval authority may, after
assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets bordering
on the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to
City standards unless exception criteria apply. Where future street dedications are
indicated on the Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made
for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for
annexation.
The application explains that a 22-foot-wide paved access exists along the full frontage of the project site
to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The full improvement of the highway frontage
adjacent to the development and in the annexed area is proposed to be improved to ODOT and city
standards. The full frontage of the project site is proposed to be improved with bike lane, curb, gutter,
seven-and-a-half-foot park row and a six-foot sidewalk, except for the portion of the frontage where the
bus pull out and transit-oriented plaza are to be installed.
There are some areas where some exceptions to the street standards are requested due to topographical
difficulties, utility encroachments, and physical encumbrances in the form of the railroad trestle, a
drainage ditch, private driveway approaches and other private property encroachments. The proposal
seeks Exceptionsto the Street Design Standards for the sidewalk and bike lane under the overpass of the
railroad trestle where a shared sidewalk will be installed, and where city standard sidewalks are not
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 31
Total Page Number: 61
possible due to physical constraints, ODOT-compliant frontage improvements are proposed.In addition,
on-street parking is not proposed.
The application explainsthat a gridded street system connecting to other streets in the vicinity through the
development is not possible due to the physical barrier posed by the railroad tracks, and by the topography
of the adjacent property to the south. As such, the traffic into and out of the development will be limited
to residents, visitors, and traffic for the complex itself, and there will be no through-traffic accessing
adjacent properties or destinations.The application further notes that a Transportation Impact Analysis
TIA by Kelly Sandow PE, of Sandow Engineering, LLC include:
The TIA shows allstudied 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 concludes that the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) has been demonstrated to be met.
Given the complexity of the TIA, an additional Safety AccessEvaluation has also been provided to
summarize how the proposal complies with the ODOT safety standards for sight distance,stopping
distance and intersection sight distance. The application summarizes this evaluation as follows:
Sight Distance A Safe and Clear Line of Sight Exists at the Driveways.
Clear line of sight, or sight distance for vehicles at the driveway access connection allows for
drivers entering and exiting the access drive to make safe turning movements and allows vehicle
traveling on the roadway time to react to turning vehicles in a safe manner. The proposed
application has the clear line of sight required for all conditions.
Stopping Sight Distance Safe Stopping Sight Distance Exceeds Requirement.
Stopping sight
distance (SSD) is based on the speed of the roadway being traveled. Highway 99 has a posted
speed of 45 miles per hour (mph) within 800 feet of the driveway access in either direction. As per
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, the
required SSD was over 700 feet in both the north and south directions. The available SSD exceeds
the minimum required distance.
Intersection Sight Distance Safe Reaction Time to Turn Exceeds Required Distance.
Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) is a measure of the length of visibility of the roadway for a
stopped vehicle on a driveway/minor road approach. The distance provides time to perceive and
react to gaps in traffic and allow a driver to safely turn into the roadway. For this calculation, it is
-feet above the ground and that the object to be seen is 3½-feet
above the ground of the intersecting road. The recommended ISD is calculated for a vehicle
turning from the access onto Highway 99N for both left and right turn maneuvers, based on Case
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 32
Total Page Number: 62
B1 of the AASHTO manual. The AASHTO methodology measures the ISD from the typical
driver position 14 feet back from the travel lane. Here, the speed used is 45 mph which results in
an ISD of 500 feet for this approach. The available ISD to the north was measured at 569 feet,
and the available ISD to the south was measured at 577 feet meaning that the ISD requirements
are met in both cases.
In response to concerns raised during the hearing with regard to traffic impacts, the applicant emphasized
that many of the concerns raised were anecdotal and not substantiated when considered in light of the
methodology required to be used by traffic engineers to design and evaluate transportation systems. The
project traffic engineer Kelly Sandow emphasized that the line-of-sight measurement used ensured that
drivers would have adequate space to slow down in the event that someone would be entering or exiting
the site. She further emphasized that her analysis showed that the driveway would operate well within
-of-sight would be adequate for
residents entering and exiting the development site. Sandow clarified that the sight-distance is not a point
on the pavement but a location of a vehicle on the roadway, and as such other traffic could not obscure
the line-of-sight from the intersection. The project traffic engineer explained that she had personally
measured the sight-distance at 577 feet in both directions from the driveway, and that ODOT had
independently confirmed that the sight distance provided would be sufficient. The project traffic engineer
further explained that the project would create a bicycle-, pedestrian-and transit-user friendly environment
which encourages residents to use non-automotive modes of transportation by providing buffered
sidewalks and bike-lanes along the site-frontage, an off-street bus pullout, and sidewalks connecting to
Schofield Street.
2.For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities according to the safety
analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or street (e.g., City of
Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation) exist, or can and will be
constructed. Should the annexed area border an arterial street, bike lanes shall be
constructed along the arterial street frontage of the annexed area. Likely bicycle
destinations within a quarter of a mile from the annexed area shall be determined and the
approval authority may require the construction of bicycle lanes or multi-use paths
connecting the annexed area to the likely bicycle destinations after assessing the impact of
the development proposed concurrently with the annexation.
With regard to bicycle transportation, the application materials explain that Highway 99N which is an
arterial street and state highway, currently has bicycle lanes buffered by striping along the frontage of the
property, with bicycle lanes on both sidesof the highway extending north of Valley View Road and south
into downtown Ashland. The bike lanes are of typical width and the striped buffer along the frontage
provides an additional measure of safety. The proposal maintains these bicycle lanes in accordance with
City standards along the frontage with two multi-use path connections into the site. A crossing will be
installed on Highway 99N at Schofield Street with pedestrian-or cyclist-activated rectangular rapid flash
beacons (RRFBs) to support cross
facilities that exist or will be provided as part of the annexation comply with the design and safety criteria
for ODOT as the governing jurisdiction, and the applicant thus asserts that this criterion is satisfied.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 33
Total Page Number: 63
Bicycle destinations within ¼-mile include two coffee shops, two restaurants, a new financial institution
now under construction, and a bicycle shop, and the Bear Creek Greenway is accessible at Valley View
Road within ½-mile of the site. The application materials assert that all of these destinations are easily
accessed from the existing protected bicycle lanes which are to be maintained, and that these bicycle lanes
continue the 1¼-miles into downtown Ashland.
3.For pedestrian transportation,safe and accessible pedestrian facilities according to the
safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or street (e.g.,
City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation).exist, or can and
will be constructed.Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side of all streets
bordering on the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by
ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the annexed area is within a
quarter of a mileof an existing sidewalk system or a location with demonstrated significant
pedestrian activity, the approval authority may require sidewalks, walkways or multi-use
paths to be constructed and connect to either or both the existing system and locations with
significant pedestrian activity.
In responding to the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities criterion, the applicant explains that there are
frontage and Schofield Street to the south which limits pedestrian access and safety for north Ashland
residents. The applicant proposes street frontage improvements including sidewalk improvements which
comply with the design and safety criteria of ODOT as the governing jurisdiction, and as such asserts that
this criterion is satisfied.
There are no interior streets proposed within the development, however the site circulation system includes
pedestrian connections between the public sidewalks along the highway, the apartments, parking areas
and other areas of the site. These include two ADA-compliant multi-use paths through the landscape open
spaces into the site from the north and the south along the highway frontage for pedestrians and bicycles,
including the main entrance driveway with adjacent sidewalks that are also ADA-compliant.
To the south of the project, towards Ashland, the width of the highway is restricted to the single travel
lane, bike lane and shoulder by the railroad overpass. The railroad overpass currently lacks any sidewalk
or lighting, but a shared bicycle and pedestrian path with overhead lighting is proposed. As an extra
measure of caution, a vertical barrier will be provided at the curb. This will provide a safer, well-lit area
increasing the comfort and safety over what currently exists. The applicant emphasizes that ODOT
Engineering staff have been actively involved in this design, and has confirmed that all the improvements
conform to ODOT standards.
The application materials further explain that the applicant will be providinga high-visibility crosswalk
across Highway 99N with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). The application further notes
that mid-block crosswalks are dangerous, and RRFBs increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists
crossing when compared to a traffic signal. The application materials go on to indicate that studies have
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 34
Total Page Number: 64
presence and will not go off until they are safely out of the crosswalk. The proposed RRFB crossing is to
be placed between North Main Street at Schofield Street, between the north-and south-bound bus stops.
The RRFB crossing will provide a safe pedestrian and bicyclist crossing for all the residents in north
Ashland where none existed before, both to access to Grand Terrace and to cross the highway to access
these bus stops safely. The applicant notes that local ODOT authorities have given approval to install a
crossing with RRFBsin this location, and that final approval will be subject to review of the final design
by the regional office in Salem. The developer will be responsible for the design, cost and installation of
the crosswalk and RRFBs. A condition has been included belowrequiring that the final location and
design of the RRFB crossing be detailed in the Final Plan submittal.
4.For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the annexed area, or be
likely to be extended to the annexed area in the future based on information from the local
public transit provider, the approval authority may require construction of transit
facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes.
In discussing transit, the application materials explain that the nearest transit stop is currently located
approximately 950 feet south of the site between North Main and Schofield Streets. The applicant
proposes to provide a high-visibility pedestrian crossing with RRFBs in this location to provide a safe
pedestrian and bicycle crossing serving this transit stop and providing access into the proposed Grand
Terrace development and the north Ashland neighborhoods.
There are two other existing transit stops serving north-and south-bound trips; these are approximately
2,100feet (0.39 miles) and 1,767 feet (0.33 miles) to the north. The north-bound stop is in front of Bear
rider must flag down the bus, and there are no bus shelters or bus turn-out lanes provided at these stops.
The applicant team has consulted with the Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) Planning &
Strategic Programs Manager regarding installation of a new south-bound stop directly in front of the
project site where the property abuts the highway. The applicant will be constructing a bus pull-outlane
and a covered bus plaza for an enhanced transit stop along the southern site frontage. The design will
allow buses to stop outside the travel lane and have a dedicated lane to accelerate prior to merging back
into the travel lane. The applicant will be providing a direct multi-use path from the apartment buildings
to the bus plaza. RVTD has already tested the merging areafor safety entering traffic from the planned
location and has approved it for development.
The applicant asserts that the proposed development meets and in places exceeds the Federal Highway
encies
(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/ch4.cfm) with the development of the
bus stop immediately at the site entrance, and the safe pedestrian and bicycle crosswalk with RRFBs at
the current bus stop 0.31 miles from the Grand Terrace pedestrian access area. According to the FHA
guide,Most people are willing to walk for five to ten minutes, or --mile to a
transit stop..-bound flag stop is 1/3 of a mile which is 30 percent
less than the maximum walking distance under the FHA Pedestrian Safety Guide.The applicant concludes
that the proposed improvements will encourage pedestrians to comfortably walk to the transit stop by
installing sidewalks and a safe crosswalk, as well as installing a new bus stop and transit supportive plaza
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 35
Total Page Number: 65
directly on the frontage. In addition, the application also emphasizes that for transit riders that need
their front door or at the proposed transit plaza.
5.Timing of Transportation Improvements. All required transportation improvements shall
be constructed and installed in accordance with 18.4.6.030.A.
The application materials emphasize that all required public facility improvements will be installed in
accordance with approved designs, and that any necessary financial guarantee will be provided.
The Transportation Commission considered the proposal at the pre-application level at its March 2022
meeting, and the key issues they identified were reducing the highway speeds, implementing protected
bike lanes and providing better sidewalks. With re
for protected bicycle lanes, although the lanes here are buffered with striping. Similarly, the sidewalks
proposed are designed to meet the city street design standards and those of ODOT as the governing
jurisdiction, with the exception that parkrow planting strips will be omitted where prevented by physical
constraints or transit facilities. The bicycsafe
according to the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of
which here is ODOT, and the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has
provided a Safety Access Evaluation prepared by a Transportation Engineer which details the vehicular,
The 45 mile per hour speed limit along the highway here was a significant discussion point in 2019, and
continues to be an issue for the Transportation Commission. In 2021, ODOT as the governing jurisdiction
conducted a speed zone investigation to determine if a speed reduction wasmerited. This investigation
resulted in no changes to the existing speed zones, finding that there was not a density of pedestrian or
th
bicycle transportation users to justify a reduced speed. ODOT representatives present at the October 11
hearing notedthat they were conditionally supportive of the project with the conditions presented by staff,
subject to review of final civil drawings, and that they accepted the findings of the traffic analysis as
demonstrating that the Transportation Planning Rule was satisfied. With regard to the speed investigation
conducted in 2021, ODOT representatives indicated that their determination was that at that time a speed
reduction was not merited however they recommended that another investigation be conducted after the
annexation and development of the property and the resultant changes in the roadway had occurred. The
Planning Commission recommends thatan annexation approvalby the Council should include direction
to Public Works staff to request that ODOT again conduct a speed investigation within 12 months of the
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal has adequately addressed the requirements for vehicular,
bicycle, pedestrian and transit transportation. Vehicle travel lanes are in place, bicycle lanes are to be
widened where necessary to meet standards, continuous sidewalks are to be provided along the frontage
extending to connect with the existing pedestrian facilities in both directions for a total distance of 3,088
linear feet, and a new bus pull-out lane, bus stop and transit-supportive plaza are to be provided. The
Exception requested with regard to the parkrow configuration is merited given right-of-way constraints
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 36
Total Page Number: 66
including the existing roadside ditches, grades and encroachments, and the new southbound transit stop
with pull-out, plaza and shelterto be provided directly along the frontage.
In the 2019 application, ODOT, RVTD and the Transportation Commission suggested that there be some
consideration for a crossing south of the trestle near the intersection of North Main Street, Jackson Road
and the Highway 99 intersection to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic needing to access a north-
bound RVTD flag stop across Highway 99N. City staff had expressed concern that the alignment of
streets at this intersection, lack of sidewalks on the north side, grades, and sight distances with the curving
roadway under the trestle could complicate placement of a safe crossing here, and in response the applicant
has shifted the proposed crossing location further south nearer to Schofield Street, with the final design
and location to be provided for ODOT and City of Ashland review with the Final Plan submittal.
The Planning Commission finds that the application materials include a Transportation Impact Analysis
and a Safety Access Evaluation which speak favorably to the proposed transportation facilities in terms
of the applicable standards of the governing jurisdiction. The Commission further finds that the placement
of the development set back from the right-of-way, buffered by open space with multi-use paths providing
circulation options well back from the roadway, and the provisions for continuous sidewalks, bike lanes,
southbound transit improvements and a new crossing to the northbound transit stop can be found to
provide safe and accessible facilitiesdespite the highway speeds.
The sixth annexation approval criterionFor all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided
demonstrating that the development of the annexed area will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90
percent of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units are necessary to
accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints.
The owner or owners of the annexed area shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk
after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum
density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the
annexed area containing unbuildable lots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area such as existing streets
and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and property, wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, slopes
greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a public park, shall not be included.
The application materials include the following calculations:
Total land Area:
16.86 acres
Unconstrained Area:
13.75 acres
Base Density (R-2):
13.5 dwelling units (du) per acre
Gross Base Density Dwelling Units Allowed:
13.75 acres x 13.5 du/acre = 185.625 du
90 Percent Minimum Density Requirement:
185.625 x 0.90 = 167.06 du
The application notes that per AMC 18.2.5.080.B.2., units that are less than 500 square feet gross habitable
floor area are considered as ¾-units (0.75 dwelling units) for the purposes of calculating density. The 230
dwelling units proposed equate to 172.5 units (230 d.u. x 0.75 = 172.5 dwelling units), and the applicant
concludes that the 230 units proposed therefore comply with the base density standards of the zone and
exceeds the minimum density required with annexation. The application materials further indicate that
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 37
Total Page Number: 67
the property owner will sign a recorded agreement after approval of the annexation ensuring that future
development of the property will occur in accord with the minimum density as demonstrated with the
proposed development plan.The Planning Commission finds that development of the annexed area as
proposed will occur at the minimum to 90 percent of the base density of the zone.
The seventh approval criterion is an involved one, dealing with affordability. The criterion and its sub-
criteria are detailed below in italics, followed by responses to each.
G.Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or potential density of
four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment
or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet the following requirements.
1.The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters,
shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated using the unit
equivalency values set forth herein. The base density of the annexed area for the purpose
of calculating the total number of affordable units in this section shall exclude any
unbuildablelots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area such as existing streets and
associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and property, wetlands, floodplain corridor
lands, water resource areas, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a
public park.
a.Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120 percent the area
median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit.
b.Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100 percent the area
median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit.
c. Ownership or rental unitsrestricted to households earning at or below 80 percent
the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit.
The application materials explain that the proposed annexation has a density of more than four residential
units, that the development proposal demonstrates that minimum density can be met with the future
development of the residentially zoned land, and that 25 percent of the base density shall be dedicated as
the proposal provides the necessary land area for the development for the affordable housing required, as
the ordinance stipulates that when utilized as rentals, the affordable units would be restricted to households
earning 80 percent or less of the area median income (AMI), with an equivalency value of 1.25 units.
Twenty-five percent of the 185.625 base density is 46.406 units, which they equate to 37 affordable units
being required (46.406/1.25 = 37.125).
2.As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1,above, the
applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development
complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non-profit (IRC
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 38
Total Page Number: 68
501(3)(c) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under ORS 456.055
to 456.235.
f.The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the standards
set forth in sections 18.5.8.050.G.5 and 18.5.8.050.G.6.
g.All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for
transfer.
h.Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred to the
City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of government,
a nonprofit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation created under ORS
456.055to 456.235.
i.
affordable housing program requirements.
j.Transfer of title of buildable land in accordance with this subsection shall exempt
the project from the development schedulerequirements set forth in 18.5.8.050.G.4.
The application materials indicate that the applicant intends to create separate lots for legally separate title
to provide the flexibility to transfer a legal lot to a non-profit. These lots are to have in place all the
infrastructure, driveways, parking and open space. The applicant indicates that the land area will be
provided and thus the criterion is satisfied. The application materials further explain that the land to be
transferred is located within the project and the affordable units will meet the standards set forth in AMC
18.5.8.050.G.5 and G.6 below. The land area is proposed as two of the building pads in the proposed
Grand Terrace development as illustrated on the preliminary property boundary map provided. The
necessary facilities for the area of the affordable housing units to be transferred will be extended to the
building pad area. The common area improvements include the utility infrastructure, sidewalks, curbs,
gutters, parking lot improvements, shade trees for the development of the affordable housing units. The
building pad areas for the affordable housing are to be the same as the building pad areas of the market
rate building areas. The title to the land area for development of the affordable housing units will be
transferred to the city, an affordable housing development or other appropriate non-profit organization or
public corporation that meets the ORS 456.055 to 456.235 prior to the commencement of the project, and
the land transferred will be deed restricted to comply with the affordable housing program requirements.
3.The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix with the market rate units in the
development.
b.The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the
residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number of bedrooms
per dwelling unit in the market-rate units within the residential development. This
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 39
Total Page Number: 69
provision is not intended to require the same floor area in affordable units as
compared to market-rate units. The minimum square footage of each affordable
unit shall comply with the minimum required floor area based as set forth in Table
18.5.8.050.G.3, or asestablishedby the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for dwelling units developed under the HOME program.
Table 18.5.8.050.G.3 Minimum Required Floor Area for
Affordable Units
Unit TypeMinimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet)
Studio350
1 Bedroom500
2 Bedroom800
3 Bedroom1,000
4 Bedroom1,250
The application materials indicate that the required affordable units are proposed to be developed by the
developer or by others, and that in either case the units will be comparable to the proposed one bedroom
deluxe and micro-studio units. The proportion of affordable units and the unit types and sizes will be
similar in proportion to the market rate units as detailed in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3.
4.A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the affordable
housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G shall be developed, and made available for
occupancy, as follows.
a.That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50 percent of the
market rate units.
b.Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market rate
units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates
of occupancy.
Where the affordability requirements are to be met through a land dedication to an affordable housing
provider, the project is exempt from the development schedule requirements set forth in AMC 18.5.8.050.
G.4. above. The application materials indicated that the required affordable units may be provided through
the dedication of land area sufficient to develop affordable housing by others or the developer of the
project may construct the required affordable units themselves. The application goes on to indicate that
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 40
Total Page Number: 70
unless dedicated, the developer will obtain building permits for 50 percent of the affordable units prior to
the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50 percent of the market rate units and
prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market rate units, the final 50 percent
of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy.
5.That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials
and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units.
a.The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development
shall be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the development. External
building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type and quality
for affordable units as for market-rate units
b.Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to floor area,
interior finishes and materials, and housing type provided that the affordable
housing units are provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and
shall have generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency,
including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling
systems.
The applications materials reiterate that the affordable units may be built by the developer or by others,
on is that with this Site Design Review the units demonstrate the exterior
appearance of the affordable units will be visually compatible with the market rate units. The exterior
materials and finishes will be substantially the same in type and quality forthe affordable units as the they
are the market rate units unless a modification of the Site Design Review approval requested here is
obtained. Whether developed by the developer or an affordable housing provider, the affordable units
will have comparable improvements related to energy efficiency, including plumbing, insulation,
windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems as the market-rate units.
6.Exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsections G.2 G.5, above, may be
approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the following.
d.That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional
benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, then would
development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of subsection
18.5.8.050.G.2.
e.That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.4
provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the affordable housing
units will be provided in a timely fashion.
f.That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 41
Total Page Number: 71
development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per subsection
18.5.8.050.G.5, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing
standards or financing limitations.
No exceptions to the requirements of subsections 18.5.8.050.G.2 through 18.5.8.050.G.5 have been
requested.
7.The total number of affordable units described in this section 18.5.8.050.G shall be
determined by rounding upfractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction
or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria
for a period of not less than 60 years for units qualified as affordable rental housing, or
30 years for units qualified as affordable for-purchase housing.
The application materials explain that with the request for Annexation, deed-restricted, dedicated
rdable
units required is 37. These are proposed to be developed by the developer or adequate land area for the
required affordable rental units will be dedicated to a provider with the lots over pad areas 9 and 10. These
units will be deed-restricted as affordable rental housing for 60 years.
The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.5.8.050.G.7 provides that the total number of affordable
units described in AMC 18.5.8.050.G shall be determined by rounding upfractional answers to the nearest
whole unit.Twenty-five percent of the 185.625 dwelling unit base density is 46.406 affordable units,
which rounds up to 47 units (185.625 d.u. x 0.25 = 46.406, which rounds up to 47 units). When the 1.25-
unit equivalency factor is applied for the 80 percent AMI affordability level for rental units this equates
to 38 units (46.406/1.25 = 37.125 units, which rounds up to 38 units.). The Planning Commission finds
that these rounded-up numbers will need to be addressed in the required affordability agreement and in
thedevelopment proposal for the Final Plan submittal.
The Planning Commission further finds that uncertainty over whether the developer will provide the
required affordable units themselves or dedicate the required land area to an affordable housing provider
poses some potential complication here. While AMC 18.5.8.050.G.1.a-.c provides for the use of a unit
equivalency factorin determining the required number of affordable units based on the type and level of
affordability (i.e. one rental unit provided at 80 percent AMI equates to 1.25 units in the calculations under
G.1.c.), the alternative to allow the dedication of land area to a non-profit is specific to AMC
18.5.8.050.G.1.b and does not provide for the use of an equivalency factor, and as such if land is simply
dedicated to a provider it must be a land area sufficient to accommodate the required number of affordable
ownership units at 100 percent AMI (i.e. 47 units, not 38). This does not pose an issue if the applicant
provides the affordable units themselves, or if they find a partner provider who agrees to provide rental
units in the proposed location of the same design, lay-out and construction and willing to participate in
oposed level of affordability. The Planning Commission has included a
condition of approval requiring that the Final Plan submittal make clear how the affordability requirements
are to be addressed, and that if the applicant opts to dedicate land to an affordable housing provider, rather
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 42
Total Page Number: 72
than constructing them themselves or with aprovider partner, that the dedication comply with the
requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and include adequate land area to accommodate the required
number of 47 affordable ownership units at 100 percent AMI on the finalplat. A condition has also been
included below to require that a deed restriction be recorded on the property to require that the affordability
requirements for annexation be addressed with any future development of the site.
The eight approval criterion is that,
H.
1.The annexation proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.080.B, above.
2.A current or probable danger to public health exists within the proposed area for
annexation due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services in accordance with the
criteria in ORS Chapter 222 or successor state statute.
3.Existing development in the proposed area for annexation has inadequate water or
sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year.
4.The proposed area for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service
extended, connected, and in use, and a signed consent to annexation agreement has been
filed and accepted by the City.
5.The proposed area for annexation is an island surrounded by lands within the city limits.
The application materials respond to H.1 above, explaining that the annexation proposal is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan designation applicable to the annexed area, and that the proposed apartment
development is an allowed use within the proposed R-2 zoning.
The ninth and final annexation criterion provides that,The approval authority may approve exceptions
to and variances from the approvalcriteria and standards in this section using the criteria in section
18.4.6.020.B.1 Exceptions to the Street Design Standards or chapter 18.5.5. Variances.
r this applicant
and property because an Exception was included, the Planning Commission and Council recognized that
in many cases, properties to be annexed are adjacent to streets which are and will remain under state or
county jurisdiction (and thus subj
terms of jurisdiction, existing improvements, available right-of-way and physical impediments such as
steep slopes, or as is the case here, the prescribed standard street design cross-sections do not account for
the installation of transit facilities such as the bus pull-out lane proposed despite requiring that adequate
transit facilities be considered with Annexation, and the standards of the underlying jurisdiction do not
allow on-street parking to be placed along and directly accessible from the state highway. As such, this
criterion was added to make clear that where merited, Exceptions or Variances may be granted to the
approval criteria for Annexation.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 43
Total Page Number: 73
The Planning Commission concludes that all applicable criteria have been satisfied, and recommends that
the City Council approve the annexation subject to the conditions below.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1The application isa 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 construct 230 apartments in ten buildings including at least 38 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.As required with annexations, the property will be deed-restricted to ensure that
the future development occurs in keeping with both the minimum density of the R-2 zoning district and
y requirements.
The site involved here has a number of challenges to annexation and development. There are significant
road cuts and significant areas of unimproved right-of-way along the property frontage providing a barrier
between the state highway and the developable area of the property. There are limited improvements
currently in place to provide utilities or transportation facilities to the property, and the adjacent railroad
corridor limits connectivity between the property and contiguous areasof the city. Site topography,
wetlands, a stream corridor and steeply-
-
foot wide easement. Established commercial uses along the highway limit access between the subject
property and the roadway for a large proportion of its width
a state highway which is, and will remain, under state jurisdiction with Annexation.
The Planning Commission concludes that after the applicants efforts in working with the City, Rogue
Valley Sewer Services, Rogue Valley Transportation District, Oregon Department of Transportation,
Talent Irrigation District and the Bureau of Reclamation to address these challengesinextending utilities,
installing 0.63 miles of new sidewalks,providing access, installing a new south-boundbus stop with pull-
out lane and installing a new pedestrian-controlled crossing toprovide accessibility to the nearest north-
bound bus stop in order to provide muchneeded rental housingalong a transit route,the proposal meets
the approval criteria for Outline Plan subdivision,Site Design Review, Exception to the Street Standards
and Tree Removal. The Planning Commission further finds that the proposal meets all applicable criteria
for Annexation, and recommends that the City Council approve the Annexation request subject to a
number of conditions detailed below.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, the Planning Commissionapproves the Outline Plan, Site Design
Review, Exception to Street Standards and Tree Removal components of PA-T3-2022-00004 with the
Annexation request, and further recommends
that the City Council approve the requested Annexation with the conditionsrecommended below.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 44
Total Page Number: 74
1)That all proposals of the applicants shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
2)That the applicants shall obtain required land use approvals including but not limited to Final Plan
subdivision approval as well as any necessary federal or state approvals necessary prior to
development of the property.
3)That with annexation, the Wildfire Lands, Physical & Environmental Constraints -Hillside Lands
and Severe Constraints, and Water Resource Protection Zones maps and associated overlays shall
the property shall be subject to regulation under these overlays.
4)That any new addresses shall beassigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. Street and
subdivision names shall be subject to City of Ashland Engineering Department review for
compliance with applicable naming policies.
5)That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressingthe General Fuel Modification Area
requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior
to bringing combustible materials ontothe property, and any new landscaping proposed shall
comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant
List per Resolution 2018-028.
6)That the tree protection fencing and other tree preservation measures shall be installed according
to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to any site work, storage
of materials, staging or issuance of a building or excavation permit. The tree protection fencing
shall consist of chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.4.5.030.C. No
construction activity, including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil,
waste, equipment, or parked vehicles, shall occur within the tree protection zones.
7)That prior to final approval and annexation of the property, the applicant shall provide:
a.A final boundary description and map of the properties to be included in the annexation
prepared by a registered land surveyor in accordance with ORS 308.255, including the full
Highway 99N right-of-wayand railroad corridor. The boundary shall be surveyed and
monumented as required by statute subsequent to City Council approval of the proposed
annexation.
b.A final, signed irrevocable consent to annexation as required in AMC 18.5.8.020.A.
c.A final signed agreement to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding
indebtedness of special districts defined in ORS222.510 as required in AMC 18.5.8.020.B.
d.A deed restriction agreement ensuring that any future development will occur in accord
in the development plan, as required in AMC 18.5.8.050.F.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 45
Total Page Number: 75
e.A deed restriction agreement that development of the property shall comply with the
affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including that where the
required number of affordable units is fractional it shall be rounded up, and that should the
applicant opt to dedicate land area to an affordable housing provider, it will require that the
dedication comply with the requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and dedicate sufficient
land area to accommodate 47 ownership units affordable at 100 percent AMI.
f.A deed restriction agreement that the required utility infrastructure and street frontage
improvements required of annexation and approved herein shall be completed, or sufficient
security to insure their completion shall be provided, prior to any development of the site.
8)That the Final Plan application submittal shall include:
a.Final electric service, utility and civil plans including but not limited to the water, sewer,
storm drainage, electric, street and driveway improvements shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Public Works/Engineering
Departments, Rogue Valley Sewer Services and Oregon Department of Transportation
with the Final Plan submittal. The street improvement plan shall include full designs with
cross-sections consistent with city standards, except where exceptions have been approved
herein. Street lights shall be included in keeping with city street light standards. The utility
plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations
of water lines and meter sizes; fire hydrant; sanitary sewer lines, manholes and clean-
storm drain lines and catch basins; and locations of all primary and secondary electric
services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other
necessary equipment. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least
visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the utility departments. Any
required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. All civil
infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the
signature of the final survey plat.
b.The final water service plan shall address the extension of the existing 12-inch main line
near Fox & Schofield Streets to a locat
contract engineer (RH2 Engineering), and shall include necessary details of meter
placement, pressure reducing valves, backflow prevention and premises isolation. Fire
hydrants to be installed on-site will be located on private property and will require yearly
c.The applicant shall submit a final electric plan including any necessary load calculations
and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets,
streetlights and all other necessary equipment. Transformers and cabinets shallbe located
in areas least visible from streets and outside of the sidewalk corridor and vision clearance
areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services
shall be installed underground to serve all lots within the applicable phase prior to signature
of the final survey plat. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for
the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 46
Total Page Number: 76
fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey
plat. Electric services shall not be installed within the wetland or its buffer. With
annexation, the property will no longer be served by Pacific Power and Light; service will
be provided by the C
and approved by the Planning, Engineering and Electric Departments prior installation.
Transformers and cabinets shall be located outside of the pedestrian corridor, and in those
areas least visible from the street while considering the access needs of the Electric
Department.
ķ͵
A final storm drainage plan detailing the location and final engineering for all storm
drainage improvements associated with the project shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The
applicant shall provide evidence that this plan has been reviewed and approved by the
Oregon Department of Transportation and Rogue Valley Sewer Services as well. The
storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or
equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality
mitigation has been addressed through the final design.
e.
Highway 99N frontage, from the existing terminus of the sidewalk south of the site near
Schofield Street to the existing terminus of the sidewalk north of the site shall be provided
for review and approval by the Oregon Department of Transportation and the City of
right-
of-way or pedestrian corridor. The required improvements shall be as described herein and
From Schofield to North Main Street:
i.City standard improvements including a
six-foot bike lane, 7½ -foot parkrow and six-foot sidewalk are proposed in this
section. A pedestrian crossing with RRFBs is to be installed in this sectionas well,
with the final design to be provided for the review and approval of the City and
ODOT. The proposed pedestrian-activated crossing shall be located to directly
connect to the flag stop, or it shall be demonstrated that safe pedestrian and bicycle
access can be provided to connect the flag stop to the crossing.
From North Main Street to the Railroad Trestle:
ii.Where roadside slopes pose a
constraint, an eight-foot curbside sidewalk is proposed in this section.
At the railroad trestle on the south end of the site:
iii.Beneath the trestle, a shared
bicycle and pedestrian path is proposed with overheadlighting and a vertical barrier
at the curb. This configuration, and any signage or striping necessary for the
transition from sidewalk to multi-use path to sidewalk shall be detailed in the civil
drawings.
A southbound transit stop
iv.with pull-out lane, bus stop shelter and eight-foot
sidewalk are to be installed along the frontagein the more level area just north of
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 47
Total Page Number: 77
the trestle. The final civil drawings will need to be revised to include the bus pull-
out lane.
In the more sloped area at the south end of the site:
v.The applicant would widen
the existing bike lane to the full, required six-foot width and install an eight-foot
curbside sidewalk.
Along the site frontage:
vi.A three-foot bike buffer, six-foot bike lane, 7-½ foot
parkrow, and six-foot sidewalk are proposed along this section of the property
frontage.
vii.Private sidewalks would also be extended into the subject properties along the
driveway with development of the site.
To the north of the driveway:
viii.The sidewalk is proposed to transition to an eight-
foot curbside sidewalk with curb and extend north to connect to existing curbside
sidewalk.
The final engineered designs shall include details of the transition from the existing
sidewalks, and any additional right-of-way necessary to accommodate these improvements
shall be provided through a right-of-way dedication if deemed necessary by the Public
Works/Engineering Department or Oregon Department of Transportation.
f.A final grading and erosion control plan which includes the location of any silt fencing
placement to protect wetlands, creek corridors or their protection zones during
construction.
g.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating that lot coverage is to comply with the
applicable 65 percent lot coverage allowance of the R-2. Lot coverage includes all building
footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other
than natural landscaping.
h.That the requirements ofthe Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire
apparatus access, fire apparatus access approach, aerial ladder access, firefighter access
pathways, and fire apparatus turn-around; fire hydrant distance, spacing and clearance; fire
department work area; fire sprinklers; limitations on gates, fences or other access
obstructions; and addressing standards for wildfire hazard areas including vegetation
standards and limits on work during fire season shall be satisfactorily addressed in the Final
Plan submittals. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the civil drawings.
i.That draft CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and
ribe
responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including driveway,
open space, landscaping, utilities, and stormwater detention and drainage system, and shall
include an operations and maintenance plan for the stormwater detention and drainage
system.
j.The approved Tree Protection Plan, Water Resource Protection Zone, and accompanying
standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 48
Total Page Number: 78
deviations from the approved Tree Preservation and Protection Plan or disturbance of the
Water Resource Protection Zones shall be considered violations of the Planning approval
and subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code.
k.If fencing is proposed, a fencing plan which demonstrates that all fencing shall be
and that fencing around common open space, except for deer fencing, shall not exceed four
s. The location
and height of fencing shall be identified at the time of building permit submittals, and fence
permits shall be obtained prior to installation.
l.Any necessary easements for transit amenities shall be identified in the Final Plan submittal
to allow for the future placement of a Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) bus
stop, transit-supportive plaza and bus pull-out lane. The final easement details shall be
mutually agreed upon with RVTD.
m.A final phasing plan for the subdivision.
n.Evidence of concurrence from the Division of State Lands (DSL) for the wetland
delineation.
9)That prior to any work within the right-of-way:
a.The applicants shall obtain any necessary permit approvals from ODOT, ODOT Rail
and/or CORP Rail. The applicants shall provide evidence of permit approvalto the city,
including copies of all approved plans, for all work to be done within ODOT right-of-way
prior to the commencement of work.
b.The applicants shall also obtain any necessary plan and permit approvals from the City of
Ashland Public Works Department/Engineering Division. The applicants shall obtain all
required Public Works inspection approvals for work completed within the right-of-way.
c.That the applicant shall obtain and provide evidence of any necessary permits or approvals
from the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and/or Talent Irrigation District (TID) for any work
d.That the applicant shall obtain and provide evidence of any necessary permits or approvals
from Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVSS) for the sanitary sewer and storm connections
to the RVSS system.
10)That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months of Final Plan approval and approved
by the City of Ashland within 18 months of that approval. Prior to submittal of the final
subdivision survey plat for signature:
a.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, mutual access and
parking, public pedestrian and public bicycle access, drainage, irrigation and fire apparatus
access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning,
Engineering, Building and Fire Departments.
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 49
Total Page Number: 79
b.That the subdivision name shall be approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division.
c.That all infrastructure improvements associated with the annexation and subdivision
including but not limited to utilities, driveways, street frontage improvements andcommon
area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and
approved.
d.Irrigated street trees selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide and planted
according to city planting and spaces standards shall be planted where park row planting
strips have been approved, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
e.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and approved.
The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric,
Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation.
f.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the
street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved.
g.If the applicant opts to dedicate land area to a non-profit affordable housing developer,
dedication shall occur in a manner consistent with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and recording of
deed restrictions guaranteed affordability described herein shall occur in conjunction with
plat signature and recording.
11)Off-site pre-fabrication of the proposed structures will require necessary inspections and
certifications at the point of pre-fabrication. Pre-fabrication details will need to be included with
the building permit submittals, and evidence of required certifications will need to be provided
to the Building Division.
12)That the City of Ashland Public Works Department shall request that the Oregon Department of
Transportation conduct a speed study within 12 months of the issuance of the final occupancy
permit for the project in order to determine whethera speed reduction is merited with annexation
and development of the subject properties and associated improvements to the highway.
November 8, 2022
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA-T3-2022-00004
November 8, 2022
Page 50
Total Page Number: 80
INFORMATIONAL ONLY
_________________________________
Community Development Department
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
1.Please check the box that best describes you:
I am the Property OwnerI am a Design Professional I am the Property Owner’sAgent
(Architect/Engineer/etc.)(Consultant/Attorney/Contractor/
etc.)
2.Please check off the types of development actions you have applied for through the City during the past
48months.
Building PermitVariance
Residential Site ReviewPre-Application Conference
Commercial Site ReviewTree Removal
Land Partition/SubdivisionOther (list): ___________________________________
Conditional Use Permit
3.Did your application involve a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission? YES NO
4.Please indicate what the building permit or land use approval was for.
New single family residenceor accessory residential unit.
New apartments, townhomesorcondominiums.
Remodel or addition to single family residence.
Remodel or addition to apartments, townhomesor condominiums.
New commercial, officeor industrial building.
Remodel or interior tenant improvement to commercial, officeor industrial building.
Other (list): _____________________________________________________________________
5.Please indicate how often you work with the City’s development review and approval process.
One time user of the development review and approval process.
Frequent user of the development review and approval process.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541-488-5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541-488-6006
www.ashland.or.usTTY: 800-735-2900
STRONGLY STRONGLY
APPLICABLE
NO OPINION
DISAGREEDISAGREE
AGREEAGREE
NOT
QUESTION
6.When making an application, I have generally found the
Community Developmentstaff to be responsive and
helpful.
7.In general, the staff has dealt with me in a professional
andpositivemanner, providing options where available,
and attempting to help me navigate through the process.
8.Application plan checking is complete and accurate.
Additional problems did notsurface later that should have
been caught in the initial review.
9.Application review turnaround time is acceptable. I did
not have to wait an excessive amount of time to get back
plans or find out about problems that needed to be
corrected.
10.Codes and policies are applied by staff in a fair,
consistent, and practical manner.
11.Staff explanations regarding the background and purpose
of regulationsand standards wereclear and informative.
12.The turnaround time for review and approval or
disapproval of my application was similar toother cities
where I have filed applications.
13.Ashland is just as fair, consistent, and practical in its
application of regulations as other neighboring cities or
counties.
14.Staff was courteous.
15.The conditions of approval applied to my project were
reasonable and justified.
16.Staff waseasily accessible when I needed assistance in
resolving problems.
17.I found the handoutssupplied by the City to be useful and
informative in explaining the requirements I must meet for
approval.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541-488-5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541-488-6006
www.ashland.or.usTTY: 800-735-2900
STRONGLY STRONGLY
APPLICABLE
NO OPINION
DISAGREEDISAGREE
AGREEAGREE
NOT
QUESTION
18.The Planning Commission applied the approval criteria in
a fair, consistent and practical manner.
19.The Planning Commission members were courteousand
respectfulduring the hearing.
20.Was your application ultimately approved?Yes No
21.If you marked DISAGREEor STRONGLY DISAGREEon any of theaboveitems, please tell us what we
could have done to better meet your expectations.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
22.Please add any final comments or suggestions you may have that wouldimprove our process or
customer service.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541-488-5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541-488-6006
www.ashland.or.usTTY: 800-735-2900