HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-09-22 Planning PACKET
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
September 22, 2020
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. July 28, 2020 Special Meeting
2. August 11, 2020 Regular Meeting
IV.PUBLIC FORUM
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00020, 705 Helman Street (Helman Elementary School)
B. Approval of Findings for PA-T3-2019-00001, 1511 Hwy 99 N
VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 (appealing PA-T1-2020-00109)
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development/Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle
DESCRIPTION: Consideration of an appeal of the administrative approval PA-T1-2020-00109 of a
two-lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot for the property located at 345 Clinton. The tentative partition
plat creates two parcels that are 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac in size, with the smaller parcel situated in
the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family
Residential; ZONING: R-1-5;
(Please note: The record and
.
public hearing is closed on this matterThe Planning Commission's consideration of this item
will be limited to their deliberation and decision. No further submittals (evidence or argument)
will be accepted into the record.)
VII. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104
ADA Title 1).
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES - Draft
July 28, 2020
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Alan Harper Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Haywood Norton Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Roger Pearce Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairn Stef Seffinger, absent
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Commission would hear the appeal of a Type I
administrative approval on 345 Clinton Street, PA-T1-2020-00109 in August. Staff received an appeal of the Planning
Commission decision for PA-T2-2020-00017 at 210 Alicia Street Friday, July 24, 2020. It would go before the City
Council at their meeting August 18, 2020. The City Council heard from staff on the Affordable Housing Standards
update at their Study Session July 20, 2020.
III. PUBLIC FORUM
- None
IV.
A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T3-2019-00001
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511 Hwy 99 N
OWNER/AGENTS/APPLICANT: Linda Zare/Casita Developments, LLC & Kendrick Enterprise, LLC/
Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR-5 Rural
Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99
North. The annexation is to include adjacent railroad property and state highway right-of-way. The
application includes conceptual details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (1- and 2-
Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-story buildings; Outline Plan subdivision and Site
Design Review development approvals are not requested here, and would be applied for subsequent to
annexation. The application also requests an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard
parkrow and sidewalk improvements to respond to constraints of right-of-way width and existing
encroachments. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing
County RR-5, Proposed City R-2; s: 1700 & 1702.
Chair Norton read the rules of the electronic public hearing.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached):
Classroom Addition Proposal Pedestrian Access & Circulation (AMC
18.4.3.090)
Vicinity Maps
Parking Lot Landscaping & Screen Standards
Video Tour by the Applicants
(AMC 18/4.4.030) / Street Dedication
Demolition Plan
Requirements (AMC 18.4.6.030.C1)
Ashland Planning Commission
July 28, 2020
Page 1 of 5
Civil Site Plan City of Ashland Street Design Standards (AMC
Table 18.4.6.040.F)
Aerial Photo (2018)
Easement Language
Frontage Improvements (North)
Frontage Improvements (South)
Transit Improvements
Contiguity & the Railroad Property
Affordability, Base Density and Undevelopable
Lands
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 222.170
Tonight
Transportation and Circulation Access
Driveway Treatment
Site Design Review
Vehicle Area Design (18.4.3.080.B.4 & .080.C)
Driveways and Turn-around Design (18.4.3.080.D)
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Pearce asked what the proposal was for rezoning the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and
the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad properties. Mr. Severson thought it would go in the R-2 zone. Borders between
districts extended to the center of the right of way.
Presentation
Robert Kendrick/Ashland/
Explained it had been a year-long process. Had he known; he would had submitted the
proposal differently. The affordability component had been a challenge. The requirements could break the project. He
was open to making a lot line adjustment to make the units fit. He had wanted to avoid doing two sets of plans, so he
submitted developers plans that had caused some confusion. The project worked. He acknowledged the public response
having a project on Highway 99. He used the Road Diet as an example noting that since it was put in place accidents and
injuries had decreased dramatically. Ashland built approximately 15 apartments each year when it could handle over 50
yearly. The type of housing in this project would keep people in town.
Public Testimony
Don Greene/Ashland/
Noted his credentials as a planning commissioner in Ashland and Jackson County for 30
years. He referenced a section of the parking ordinance and questioned having a driveway access for a 200-unit
development instead of requiring it to be a street. The code also required 5-foot landscape areas when it abutted
private property. He did not think there was enough space to meet the requirements. The driveway needed a
sidewalk and should have a bike path. The driveway would not accommodate bikes with 1,800 vehicle trips a
day.
Rebuttal by Applicant
Amy Gunter/Medford/
Explained the exception to the design standard for 5-foot landscaping abutting private property
would be explored during site review. They were showing the driveway conceptually and it was not up for approval
currently. She clarified all trips to the site were not impacting this one narrow driveway, there would be other access points.
Additionally, apartments did not have a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner Thompson asked about the conclusion of the traffic impact analysis done by Sandow Engineering that
projected all site driveways would operate safely and efficiently. She only received the executive summary. Mr. Kendrick
explained they submitted two reports. Mr. Severson clarified the packet and traffic impact analysis (TIA) was posted online.
Ms. Gunter explained vehicle trip numbers, their distribution throughout the day, the turning lane by the trestle and driveway
were adequate to accommodate right and left turns in and out of the property. The driveways met the standards. Mr.
Molnar added ODOT concurred it met the requirement as well.
Ashland Planning Commission
July 28, 2020
Page 2 of 5
Commissioner Thompson wanted to ensure the conceptual ideas with the driveways would meet the access requirements.
She asked what the conceptual plan was for pedestrian and bicycle access using the driveway within the easement. Mr.
Kendrick explained there would not be a lot of cars parked on the easement and access area. A bicyclist would most likely
use the main entry point. It would also depend on the time of day. Maximum peak loads projected 50 or 60 cars in the
morning and afternoon. They could make the driveways shared use instead of incorporating bike paths on the easement
road. Mr. Kendrick wanted a dedicated bike lane at the other entrance. They had paths already designed into the project
and would add almost a mile for the rest of the sidewalk. It was a multi-modal project. They would provide electric cars
onsite for residents to use. Ms. Gunter added the bike lane along the highway was already installed and would remain.
Commissioner Thompson wanted to know how a bicyclist would access the site riding north. Mr. Kendrick explained they
would use good judgment and cross at the safest point. Ms. Gunter added painted arrows and restriping was suggested.
It would be no different than all the other intersections without a bike path.
Commissioner Thompson wanted to know if the same would apply to a pedestrian trying to cross the highway. Mr. Kendrick
responded there was excellent connectivity to the bus line on Valley View. It was a fifteen-minute walk.
Ms. Gunter noted the conclusions drawn in the TIA. The traffic engineer found all mobility standards met the current
conditions and future developments. All intersections, whether they were marked or unmarked, were considered
crosswalks.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Pearce commented on the findings. Page 8, section 2.2. stated the proposal met the appliable criteria
and it did not. He suggested saying it did not meet the boulevard street standards and the applicant would apply for an
exception.
Commissioner Pearce explained the applicant did not meet the affordable housing base density either. The applicant
had subtracted unbuildable areas from the calculation. Staff was recommending changing that in the code. Presently, it
was not in the code so the proposal did not meet the standards. The City Council could modify the affordable housing
requirements in the Type III legislative action on the annexation if they agreed with the applicant.
In the section regarding contiguity, Commissioner Pearce noted staff had included the ODOT property and justified
adding it. Then ODOT agreed on including the property. The findings did not reflect that. He suggested making the
findings about public facilities. That the Public Works Department reviewed the availability of water and sewer and with
these conditions it would be ok.
Electric
On page 11 under , strike the last sentence. Lastly, the Transportation section was confusing and should be
rewritten to adhere with the ordinance. On the same page, Commissioner Thompson suggested deleting that it was ok
the applicant did not have a site design plan. The applicant chose their approach and the Commission making findings
on that approach was not necessary or appropriate. She also wanted to exclude wording that referenced what their
attorneys had said.
Commissioner Harper did not agree that the City Council could choose to do whatever it wanted with the standards. He
also spoke to the importance of the easement. Without the easement, the project did not meet the standard.
Commissioner Dawkins agreed.
The Commission discussed the testimony Mr. Greene provided. They considered it a driveway instead of a street.
Commissioner Pearce/Dawkins m/s to move PA-T3-2019-00001 on to City Council with revised Findings.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Pearce recommended a traffic speed study on Highway 99 at some point. Commissioner
Thompson suggested adjusting the affordable housing units in the findings to 56 units or 37 if it was at 60%.
Ashland Planning Commission
July 28, 2020
Page 3 of 5
She did not think the Commission had the authority to make a recommendation contrary to the code to exclude
unbuildable lands in the calculation. She reiterated her concerns about transportation safety (Section E of the
Annexation Standards). Specifically that ODOT was unwilling to agree to any speed limit reduction, installation of a
signal or even a crosswalk given the size of the development, the volume of cars, the history of traffic accidents
according to the testimony of the community surrounding the development and the danger to bicyclists and pedestrians
as well as vehicles of attempting to cross the highway under these circumstances. She also wanted language like the
safety issue comments included in the findings. She thought the speed limit in that area
should be addressed. Commissioner Dawkins agreed. Commissioner Pearce thought it could be treated in the findings.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Pearce, Harper, Thompson, Norton and Dawkins,
Commissioner Harper agreed.
YES. Motion passed.
V. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2020-00008
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: A public hearing on ordinance amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to
update and clarify the open space requirements and design standards for multifamily and single-
family housing developments, and to correct terminology related to open space and other minor
wording edits. The proposed amendments include two ordinances: 1) An ordinance amending
Chapters 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones, 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option and PSO
Overlay, 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation, and Design, 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting, and
Screening, and 18.6 Definitions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to amend the open space
requirements and design standards, and 2) an ordinance amending chapters 18.2.2 Base Zones and
Allowed Uses, 18.2.3 Special Use Standards, 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones, 18.3.2 Croman
Mill District, 18.3.4 Normal Neighborhood District, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood District,
18.3.9 Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay, 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental
Constraints Overlay, 18.3.11 Water Resources Protection Zones (Overlays), 18.3.14 Transit Triangle
Overlay, 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation, and Design, 18.4.2 Parking, Access, and
Circulation, 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting, and Screening, 18.4.5. Tree Preservation and Protection,
18.4.6. Public Facilities, 18.5.2 Site Design Review, 18.5.3 Land Divisions and Property Line
Adjustments, and 18.5.7 Tree Removal Permits of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance for consistency
in terminology related to open space and other minor wording edits.
Staff Report
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation (see attached):
Issues Shared Outdoor Space
Surfacing standard in proposed
Renderings
o
18.4.4.070.Ca
Examples of multifamily developments
Private open space standards, walkways
o
common open space
and storage space, ground floor dwelling
Minimum Area Required in Lawn, Courts,
size
Etc.
Table in 18.4.4.070.A
o
Staff Recommendation
Cross reference open space fence
o
Water Conservation & Climate Change
requirements
Ground Floor Private Open Space
New Standards
18.4.070.D
Current Surfacing Standard 18.4.2.030
Other Changes in Version 3
Residential Development
Proposed Surfacing Standard
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Thompson discussed counting walkways and storage areas with Ms. Harris. Counting them addressed
walkways that went through private open space like a porch, patio, or deck area.
Ashland Planning Commission
July 28, 2020
Page 4 of 5
Commissioner Pearce confirmed that moving Surfacing from Section 4 to Section 5 of the common open space
standards made it applicable only to R-2 and R-3 zones.
Commissioner Thompson addressed the reference in the new table regarding maximum area allowed in private open
space. She wanted to know why it was allowed only up to a certain amount. Ms. Harris explained if it was 10 units or
more, the other half had to be in common open space. Commissioner Pearce commented they would provide additional
open space and receive only half a credit.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Pearce was not sure he supported the 48 to 60 sq. ft. dimensions for private open space. He thought
people should do the door swing calculations. Mr. Molnar thought the issue would be if the 48 sq. ft. was intended to be
exclusive of those other areas. A usable area had a minimum dimension of 6 feet and should be at least 48 sq. ft. By
default, it was 6 x 8. The walkways and storage areas would have to be left out to create an exclusive 48 sq. ft. space.
Ms. Harris clarified the concern was the administrative task of calculating for the applicants.
Commissioner Thompson/Pearce m/s to modify the proposed ordinance to incorporate Version 3 excluding
Section D1 and D2. DISCUSSION: Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Thompson, Norton, Dawkins, Pearce,
None.
and Harper. YES. Motion passed.
Ms. Harris noted the Surfacing standard was in Version 2.
Commissioner Thompson/Pearce m/s to modify the proposed ordinance to reflect the change in the Surfacing
standard as reflected in Version 2 of the proposal as well as stating lawn and durable lawn alternatives and
striking the list. DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Harper suggested stating lawn and durable lawn alternatives and
Roll Call on the amended motion:
striking the list. Commissioner Thompson accepted the modification.
Commissioner Dawkins, Harper, Thompson, Pearce and Norton, YES. Motion passed.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned 9:04 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
July 28, 2020
Page 5 of 5
o
Issues
Surfacing standard in proposed 18.4.4.070.C.4
•
Private open space standards
•
Walkways and storage space
o
Ground-floor dwelling units size
o
Table 18.4.4.070.A
•
Cross reference open space fence requirements
•
7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing
New Standards
Utility Vaults
•
Minimum Dimension
•
Yards Abutting a Street
•
Slope
•
Private Open Space Minimum Dimensions and Location
•
Credit for Proximity to a Park (R-2 and R-2)
•
Surfacing Standard
•
7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing
Current Surfacing Standard
18.4.2.030 Residential Development
H.Open Space.
Residential developments that are subject
to the provisions of this chapter shall conform to all of the
following standards.
2.Surfacing.Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch, and
other ground covers that do not provide suitable surface for
human use may not be counted towards this requirement.
7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing
Proposed Surfacing Standard
a.Surfacing. A minimum of 50 percent of the common
open space must be covered in suitable surfaces for
human use, such as lawn areas and recreational fields or
courts. Up to 50 percent of the common open space may
be covered by shrubs, mulch, and other grounds covers
that do not provide suitable surfaces for human use if the
area is usable for the intended residents, such as
community gardens or a natural area with benches and
walking paths.
7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing
Shared Outdoor Space.
Many or the same
ingredients necessary to provide successful private
outdoor spaces are needed for successful shared
spaces. The main difference is access to the area
by more than one person or unit. Shared open
spaces should provide for both active and passive
activities. Passive activities include areas for quiet
conversation, resting, walking, and enjoyment of
nature and scenery for young and old alike. Active
uses include sports such as croquet, volleyball, and
Frisbee.
880 Park St.
880 Park St.
880 Park St.
Minimum Area Required in Lawn, Courts, Etc.
R-2 ZoneR-3 ZoneR-1-5 Zone
Total Area
.75 Ac.50 Ac2.3 Ac
Required for 10
units
Minimum Total
2,614 sq. ft.1,742 sq. ft.5,009 sq. f.
Open Space
Minimum
1,307 sq. ft.871 sq. ft.5,009 sq. ft.
Common Open
Space
Minimum Area
653 sq. ft.436 sq. ft.2,505 sq. ft.
Suitable for
Human Use
7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing
Staff Recommendation
5.R-2 and R-3 Zones.In addition to the standards in subsection 18.4.4.070.C, above,
common open space in the R-2 and R-3 zones shall meet the following requirements.
a.Surfacing. A minimum of 50 percent of the common open space must be covered in
suitable surfaces for human use, such as lawn areas, recreational fields, or courts. Up to 50
percent of the common open space may be covered by shrubs, mulch, and other grounds covers
that do not provide suitable surfaces for human use if the area is usable for the intended residents,
such as community gardens or a natural area with benches and walking paths.
b.Play Areas.Play areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that
are designed to include families. Play areas are eligible for common open space.
c.Credit for Proximity to a Park. A credit of up to 50 percent for common open space may be
granted when the development is located within one-eighth of a mile walking distance of an
existing public park. Distance from the development to the park shall be measured from the lot line
via a sidewalk, multi-use path or pedestrian way located in a public right-of-way or public
pedestrian easement.
7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing
Water Conservation & Climate Change
a.Surfacing. A minimum of 50 percent of the common open space
must be covered in suitable surfaces for human use, such as lawn
durable lawn alternatives,
areas, recreational fields, and courts. Up
to 50 percent of the common open space may be covered by shrubs,
mulch, and other grounds covers that do not provide suitable surfaces
for human use if the area is usable for the intended residents, such as
community gardens or a natural area with benches and walking paths.
For the purpose of this standard, durable lawn alternatives is
defined as ground cover that provides a surface that can
withstand active uses and that conserves more water than a
traditional lawn. Examples of durable lawn alternatives are eco
lawn, meadow lawn, meadow sedge and mondo grass “lily turf.”
7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing
Ground Floor Private Open Space
18.4.070.D Private Open Space
Walkways and storage
•
Size of private open space for ground floor
•
units
7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing
Other Changes
Table 18.4.4.070.A
•
Fence references
•
18.4.4.070.C Common Open Space
•
18.4.4.070.C.4 Improvements
•
18.4.4.070.C.4.d Landscaping
•
7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - Draft
August 11, 2020
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Alan Harper Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Kerry KenCairn Aaron Anderson, Assistant Planner
Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Stef Seffinger, absent
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council would hold a public hearing on the Appeal of 210
Alicia Street at their meeting Tuesday, August 18, 2020. He noted the Croman Mill Site and explained why a recent
conditional use permit was denied. Lastly, staff received numerous emails from the public regarding the Helman Elementary
School decision, PA-T2-2020-00020. They were not forwarded to the Planning Commission because the record was closed
and the decision final.
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. July 14, 2020 Regular Meeting
2. July 28, 2020 Special Meeting
Commissioner m/s approved the minutes of the meeting on July 14, 2020.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Commissioner Thompson and Pearce had several clarifications and corrections to the minutes of the meeting on July 28,
2020. The minutes were pulled from the agenda for revision.
Commissioner Harper/Pearce m/s to pull the minutes of the Special Meeting on July 28, 2020from the Consent
Agenda. DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Nortonclarified staff would make the changes and bring the minutes back to the
meeting on August 25, 2020 for approval.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
- None
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00020, 705 Helman Street (Helman Elementary School)
Commissioner KenCairn recused herself from the item because she was part of the project. She left the meeting.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Dawkins, Pearce, Thompson and Norton declared no ex parte contact on the matter. Commissioner Harper
explained Barb Street emailed him to discuss the project. He had responded that it was still under consideration.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 1 of 7
11. That, outside of regular school hours and school events, the
Commissioner Pearce wanted to remove condition
perimeter gates shall remain unlocked so as to not to unreasonably limit or restrict access to school playgrounds
and greenspaces.
The Commission discussed the rules on changing findings during approval. They wanted the city
attorney to research if it was allowed. They also discussed whether to reopen the public hearing or not. Staff had received
over 40 emails after the record was closed regarding the playgrounds and greenspaces being locked after school hours.
Commissioner Dawkins wanted to make a motion to allow Commissioner Pearce to explain his reasons for removing
condition 11.
Commissioner Dawkins/Harper m/s to allow Roger to speak to why he thought the Commission should deny
condition 11. Discussion:
Chair Norton would not support the motion. They were not clear they had the authority to
make changes and had not consulted the city attorney. Commissioner Dawkins explained the motion was just to hear
Commissioner Pearce speak. If he convinced the Commission, Commissioner Dawkins would make a motion to have the
city attorney research changing the findings at the approval stage.
Commissioner Pearce explained they were adopting findings of fact, conclusions of law and orders. Nothing was final until
the Commission voted to approve the findings. Condition 11 was plainly illegal. Takings law did not apply because it was
public property. He read the standard from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on when they could impose conditions
based on Sherwood Baptist Church v. City of Sherwood, a 1993 Decision. When a condition of approval was imposed,
we must determine whether the evidence in the record would lead a reasonable person to conclude
LUBA stated
that considering the impacts of the proposed development there is a need for the condition.
The existing conditions
of this development were there was a need for playgrounds in the neighborhood. There was no evidence in the record to
show that. Currently the Ashland School District had a playground and it could allow the public to use it or decline public
use. It was the property. The proposal modified the campus. After this proposal, there would be
the same shortage of playgrounds in the community. It did not increase the need for playgrounds in the community. The
Ashland School District would have the discretion to allow the public to use the playground or deny the public to use the
playground. There was no evidence in the record that showed the proposal increased the need for playgrounds in the
community. Condition 11 told the Ashland School District that even though there was not impact, they had to allow the
public onto their property to use the playground. The condition was illegal, and the Commission should not be doing this
kind of condition.
Commissioner Thompson commented the public was currently permitted access to school property as at all other schools.
The project would install fences and gates and restrict access that was currently available for use. The Commission
addressed it by asking them to unlock the gate at the easement location for children to access. Condition 11 would address
current practice to having access to the school as a community greenspace. It was an attempt to preserve
it because something was being changed. Commissioner Pearce responded the public was currently using the property, but
they were not permitted to use it. The condition established a property right for the public to use it. If the Ashland School
District wanted to build a fence, it was their absolute right. This condition would require the Ashland School District to give
up a property right. This was something the Ashland School District and the Parks and Recreation Department should
negotiate.
Commissioner Dawkins
Thompson. If the Ashland School District decided it should be open all the time and did not take issue with it then it was a
done deal. He understood the point of taking private property but there was a community vision of having parks with one
quarter mile of each neighborhood.
Commissioner Harper also disagreed with property rights
all the time. He supported leaving the condition in the findings.
Commissioner Thompson suggested modifying the condition where the Ashland School District shall negotiate with the
Parks and Recreation Department on allowing the public to utilize the property when school was not in session. Chair
Norton responded that meant changing the condition and he wanted it clarified by the city attorney.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 2 of 7
to add a condition to open the green space and
Mr. Severson explained the amendment to the main motion was
playground to the public during non-school and non-school event times through the
Commissioner Pearce would support that but noted the condition was not written the way the motion was made.
Commissioner Harper thought the idea was having findings that reflected the decisions that were made.
Commissioner Dawkins withdrew the motion.
Commissioner Dawkins/Harper m/s to approve the findings as so written.
DISCUSSION:
School District negotiate with the Parks and Recreation Department. Commissioner Thompson ultimately thought it was
important these spaces were accessible. She had concerns they were locking down the playground. She was more
comfortable with a condition requiring the Ashland School District to talk to the Parks and Recreation Department. She
Roll Call Vote:
would vote against the motion but supported an amendment to change the language. Chair Norton agreed.
Commission Dawkins and Harper, YES; Commissioner Thompson, Norton, and Pearce. NO. Motion failed 3-2.
Commissioner Pearce thought they could change the condition to require the Parks and Recreation Department negotiate
with the Ashland School District to continue to allow public access. Commissioner Thompson agreed. She was not in favor
of reopening the public hearing. Commissioner Pearce agreed.
Commissioner Thompson/Pearce m/s to approve the Findings for as stated in planning action PA-T2-2020-00020
with the modification that Condition 11 is revised to state that the Ashland School District shall negotiate with the
City of Ashland Parks and Recreation Department in an effort to maintain public access outside of school hours to
the school playgrounds and greenspaces. DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Dawkins would vote against the motion. He
wanted to ensure the open space remained open to the public. Chair Norton did not support changing the conditions and
Roll Call vote:
changes like that should be done through a public hearing. He would not support the motion either.
Commissioner Thompson and Pearce, YES; Commissioner Norton, Harper, and Dawkins, NO. Motion failed 3-2.
The Commission decided to forward two issues for the city attorney to review. One, whether conditions in findings,
conclusions and orders could be changed after the preliminary decision. Two, was if condition 11 was legal.
Commissioner Harper/Thompson m/s to continue this item to next the meeting. DISCUSSION:
Chair Norton noted
one question for the city attorney was if it was legal. If not, then ask the city attorney if they added the negotiation language
that Commissioner Thompson had suggested, would if then be legal. The third question would be, could the Commission
change it in their consideration of findings, or to change it, do they have to reopen the public hearing. If they were going to
change it, did they need to reopen the public hearing based on the over forty emails. Commissioner Thompson thought it
might be simpler to ask whether a condition that mandates the Ashland School District in any fashion to make its property
available to the public for use outside of school hours would be a lawful condition. And whether the condition was modified
to negotiate the condition to require it through negotiation or just absolutely mandate it seemed to her a nuance that she
thought the city attorney might have trouble grappling with in rendering a legal opinion. Commissioner Pearce thought the
city attorney would have trouble rendering a legal opinion about whether it was legal or not. It was a law applied to fact
situation. Commissioner Thompson explained they could ask the city attorney the standard for evaluating the legality or is it
legal and what would the standard be. Chair Norton did not think the Commission had changed a condition as part of the
findings in the past five years he had served on the commission. This was the first time it had come up and he thought it
needed to be clarified. Commissioner Pearce disagreed. They had changed conditions of approval before. Commissioner
Thompson thought it was worth asking. They had changed wording in the past. This was a specific decision they were
Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Pearce, Thompson, Harper, Norton, and Dawkins, Yes.
trying to reconsider now.
Motion passed.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 3 of 7
VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 (appealing PA-T1-2020-00109)
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development/Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle
DESCRIPTION: Consideration of an appeal of the administrative approval PA-T1-2020-00109 of a two-
lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot for the property located at 345 Clinton. The tentative partition plat
creates two parcels that are 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac in size, with the smaller parcel situated in the
southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-1-5; MAP: 39 1E 04 DB; TAX LOT: 401
Commissioner KenCairn returned to the meeting. Chair Norton read the rules of the public hearing during an
electronic meeting.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Dawkins and KenCairn declared no ex parte contact but were familiar with the site. Commissioner Pearce,
Thompson and Harper had no ex parte contact or site visits. Chair Norton had no ex parte contact but had driven past the
site.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached):
Appeal Floodplain & Possible Wetland
Vicinity Map Potential Buildable Areas
Aerial Photo Staff Decision
Photo from the corner of Clinton/Ann Appeal Issues
Photo from end of Briscoe Place Appeal Issue #1 - Incomplete Application
Preliminary Plat Appeal Issue #2 Defective Notice
18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria Appeal Issue #3 Access to Inspect
Record
Proposed Additional Condition
Appeal Issue #4 Digital Access
Adjoining Land
Appeal Issue #5 Additional Time
Street Dedication Map (TSP Figure 10-1)
Appeal Issue #6 Multiple Land Use
North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) Street
Decisions
Layout Map
Appeal Issue #7 - Multiple Land Use
18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria E, F & G
Decisions
Appeal Issue #8 Appeal Noticing
H 1 & I
Staff Recommendation
18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criter
J & K
Staff recommended the appeal be denied and the original staff approval be upheld with the conditions in the staff report.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Thompson asked about online materials not including the application or the receipt and later they were on the
city website. Mr. Severson confirmed the application form and receipt were not initially on the website. The application
submittal materials were online. Commissioner KenCairn added the application was the one-page zoning application.
Commissioner Pearce asked staff to address the easements on the property that were not located in the survey. Mr.
surveyors were supposed to include all easements on the plat.
If the surveyor found an easement so poorly written it was difficult to locate, they made a note on the easement for a title
report referencing it could not be located. Some of the older descriptions were so vague they could not be found on the
property. The applicant had included a letter from the surveyor in their rebuttal submittal that was distributed earlier in the
day.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 4 of 7
Presentation
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning and Development/Medford, OR/
Explained the applicant supported the staff decision. Many
of the issues raised by the appellant were procedural issues the applicant could not speak to. They had turned in a signed
otice of application was mailed to property owners within 200-feet of
the property. Adequate notice was provided electronically. Numerous comments were received on the Type I proposal. There
18.5.3 Land
was not a lack of public awareness of the proposal. The proposal was consistent with the approval criteria in
Divisions and Property Line AdjustmentsORS 92
. The platting was consistent with Oregon state law for subdivisions and
partitions.
She provided a presentation (see attached):
Aerial photo of the Site
Partition Plat of the Site
shaped property where Carol Street terminated into Clinton Street and extended over to Oak Street
had a legally stipulated open space plan on it and could not be developed. There were portions of proposed parcel #1 that
could be partitioned in the future.
Proposed Partition Plat
Ms. Gunter clarified the flood plain area was in the 500-year flood plain. It followed the 100-year flood plain boundary on the
survey plat. The future development of the property because it was single family zoned property there was no minimum
density requirements. The property could have anywhere from one single family home to whatever density bonuses the
developer could come up with to increase density beyond the 15 units per acre. That was why there was not a formal
development plan submitted with the original application. There was not a plan of any sort. The survey plan and future lot
lines demonstrated the proposal did not have impacts to the natural resources. As a partition of this future property or future
subdivision went through, it would be reviewed by staff or the Planning Commission.
Natural Features
Conclusion
They were not opposed to the condition of approval. The lay out preserved the owner to their own driveway in the
event the someone had a different development plan for site lay out.
Questions of the Applicant
- None
Eric Elerath/Ashland/
Apologized to Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Assistant Planner Aaron
Anderson and Planning staff if he had appeared rude to them. He strongly contested that staff made multiple attempts
to provide him access to records. He first requested access to the records May 28, 2020 and they were not made
available to him until he paid the $150 appeal fee.
There were two critical issues involved. It was his contention that one, the application was not complete. One was
the statements on the easements on the partition plat referred to earlier. He had submitted his first questions about
these items May 28, 2020 and received a reply at 11:00 a.m. this morning after he had paid his appeal fee.
One of the comments a staff member and Mr. Hibbs from L.J. Friar & Associates P.C. had made referred to his ability
to read a survey map. Mr. Elerath provided his background, credentials, and education regarding his experience
with engineering drawings, survey maps, and his career in construction and architecture. He described the process
used at one of the firms for requests for information. He went on to explain he had left a place of employment due to
concerns regarding public-private partnerships and indicated there might have been corruption.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 5 of 7
He was not sure the amount of money the City requested for the application was disclosed or paid for by the applicant.
He was unable to find it. The record showed he had raised his concern to the Planning Department and not Mr.
Hibbs but he had on May 28, 2020. Mr. Hibbs response was forwarded to him from staff via email at 11:00 a.m. this
morning. This was the first reply he had received from the City despite several efforts on his part stating that the
application was not complete. email stated the rebuttal was from the applicant, but the application did not
From the email it did not appear it
was reviewed by the applicant or Rogue Planning Development whose name and signatures appeared on the
application. He did not question Mr. H
He explained that not long after he moved to Ashland there were land use documents that were messy and
problematic. For example, during an escrow for closing on the purchase of his house on Clinton Street, he received
a copy of a title report prepared for a different plot of land. He described the ordeal that ensued to attain the
appropriate title report.
Mr. Hibbs response still did not answer the question he had asked with his very first reply. If Mr. Hibbs was relying
on information from the title report, he should provide a copy of the title report and the name of the title insurance
company. If he were paying for Mr. Hibbs service, he would not pay him until he got better responses than the ones
he had received.
Mr. Elerath resumed his testimony and explained the drawings showed there were easements for two diches, pole
lines and cable lines that could not be found. He asked what if the ditches showed up tomorrow and they were 50-
feet wide concrete lined irrigation canals? What if the pole lines were 300-foot tall high voltage towers or 5G network
towers scattered across the property? What if the cable television easement was for Verizon or Comcast to bury
gigantic cables to carry data from the tower? What would happen to the wildflowers, wetlands, trees and wildlife?
Would the title company guarantee clear title to that? The entire proposal looked dubious to him. The history did not
, and he had just got an answer. The
application still was not complete until these serious questions were answered in full to the satisfaction of the effected
party. He wanted the planning action decision withheld until a clarification on the two issues of the easements in the
title report regarding the size of the pole lines, ditches and cable lines, as well as the receipt for the application fee.
Public Testimony
- None
Rebuttal by Applicant
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning and Development/Medford, OR/
Explained Mr. Hibbs from L.J. Friar & Associates P.C. was
hired to do the survey. He was not listed on the application form but was on the cover page of the written findings.
She could not speak to surveys and when easements were not located. Mr. Hibbs had extensive experience and she trusted
his knowledge.
Chair Norton asked Mr. Elerath if he was requesting information on the receipt and utilities. Normally at this time they would
close the record. Mr. Elerath wanted to leave the record open. Saying something was there did not mean it was there. He
did not have an answer to the question he asked over 60 days ago. The application was not complete. It was a submittal,
not an application. The application was the cover sheet, everything else was a submittal.
Mr. Severson explained the process would leave the record open for seven days where anyone could provide new argument
or evidence until August 18, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. Argument or responses, but not new evidence, to the submittals from the first
seven days would be submitted for another seven days until August 25, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. The next seven days would allow
final argument from the applicant only, but no new evidence, until September 1, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. The Planning Commission
would reconvene via Zoom at their next regular meeting on September 8, 2020 to deliberate and make a decision. The 120-
Ashland Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 6 of 7
day deadline was September 12, 2020. The Planning Commission would adopt findings at their meeting on September 22,
2020. Mr. Severson clarified only the applicant and appellant could submit argument or new evidence the first week the record
was open, closing September 18, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. The applicant and appellant would respond to submittals from the first
week by September 25, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. and the applicant only would submit a response the last week by September 1,
2020 at 4:30 p.m.
Assistant Planner Aaron Anderson noted the receipt and application were in the planning action record on page 83 and 84.
Mr. Severson brought up page 83 and 84 of the planning action record showing the application and the receipt. Mr. Elerath
responded the receipt and application was no longer an issue. He wanted a response and clarification from the title company
as to what the easement ditches were and wanted the reason why the law required them. Chair Norton asked Mr. Elerath to
send the items that were not addressed to Mr. Severson who would respond.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Dawkins asked staff why Phelps Street went all the way through when it seemed to line up with the driveway.
Mr. Severson explained if a half street was installed next to a driveway on two separate lots, they would have to be at least
24-feet apart. Commissioner KenCairn asked for clarification that an existing driveway could not be adopted into the street
dedication. Mr. Severson responded typically that would not happen. The driveway was next to a street on a separate
property, so the driveway needed to be separate from the street.
Mr. Molnar wanted to make sure everyone was clear on what was allowed during the record remaining open. He understood
there might be a request from Mr. Elerath for information from staff. He doubted staff would have the availability of the
easements. Mr. Severson did not have that information. He only had what was on the plat. Commissioner KenCairn asked
it they could be abandoned by the property owner. Commissioner Pearce suggested letting the parties submit whatever they
wanted to submit. What staff had to give to someone was covered by existing law.
Commissioner Harper did not want the appellant to think that staff was going to research the easements. It was the
responsibility of the appellant to submit and research whatever he wanted. That was why they were leaving the record open.
the
comment periods. Commissioner Thompson
was to determine whether the statutory standards for the partition were met. His questions may be more for the developers
in the future. Commissioner Pearce thought Mr. Elerath could argue if the standards were applicable. Commissioner
Thompson agreed.
Chair Norton continued the item to the meeting on September 8, 2020.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned 9:11 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 7 of 7
denovo
“TheStaffAdvisorshallprepareadecision
within45daysoftheCity’sdeterminationthatanapplicationiscomplete,
unlesstheapplicantagreestoalongertimeperiod.”
TheCityshalltakefinalaction
onAdministrative…landuseapplications,pursuanttothischapter,including
resolutionofallappeals,within120daysfromthedatetheStaffAdvisor
deemstheapplicationcompleteforpurposesofprocessing,unlessthe
applicantrequestsanextensioninwriting
Summaryof
ApprovalsbyTypeofReviewProcedures
Limited Land Use Decision
etal
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED
MINOR LAND PARTITION
345 Clinton Street
PROPOSED PARTITION PLAT
NATURAL
100 yr. FEMA
FEATURES
Ashland Modified Floodplai
Potential
Pond
Wetland
Mook Creek
Areas of the property include
potential wetland area and buffer
500 yr. FEMA
FEMA Floodplain
Ashland Modified Floodplain
The proposed partition is to create a discrete
•
parcel of record.
Both parcels area and dimensions exceed the
•
minimum lot size in the R-1-5-P zone.
Adequate vehicular access presently exists to the
•
property and future development will extend the
public streets through the future development area
CONCLUSION
of Parcel #2.
The parcels do have natural features such as
•
floodplains and potential wetlands, as addressed in
the findings. The future development will be
required to consider the physical constraints as
part of the future subdivision.
The City of Ashland has adopted numerous
•
documents addressing the need to additional
housing. This partition creates a developable
parcel that allows for the future development of
needed housing within the city limits.
FINDINGS
and
Legal Response Memo to
Commission Questions
_________________________________
PA-T2-2020-00020
705 Helman Street
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 22, 2020
INTHE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2020-00020, A REQUEST FOR )
SITEDESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVALS TO )
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 23,755 SQUARE FOOT, SINGLE-STORY )
CLASSROOM BUILDING FOR THE HELMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY)
AT 705 HELMAN STREET. THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS TO )
ALLOW EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DEVELOPMENT )
FINDINGS,
WHERE BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARKING AND CIRCULATION ARE )
CONCLUSIONS &
LOCATED BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AND THE STREET, AND FOR THE RE- )
ORDERS
LOOCATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIGNS. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES )
THE DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING CLASSROOM BUILDINGS THE A AND B )
QUADS - AND REQUESTS A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE A TOTAL OF)
12 SIGNIFICANT TREES. )
)
OWNER/APPLICANT:
HMK COMPANY/ASHLAND SCHOOL DIST. #5 )
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1)Tax lots 600, 2700, 2800 & 2900 of Map 39 1E 04BD comprise the Helman Elementary School
campus located at 705 Helman Street and are zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5).
2)The applicant is requesting Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals to allow the
construction of a new 23,755 square foot, single-story school building for the Helman Elementary School
property at 705 Helman Street. The requested Conditional Use Permit is to allow the expansion of an
existing non-conforming development where both the existing and proposed new parking and circulation
are located between the buildings and the street, and for the on-site relocation of a previously approved
signage. The proposal includes the demolition of two existing classroom buildings and
and requests a Tree Removal Permit to remove 12 significant trees. The proposal is outlined in
plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
AMC 18.5.2.050
3)The criteria for Site Design Review approval are detailed in as follows:
Underlying Zone:
A. 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.
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 access to
and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 1
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.
AMC 18.5.4.050.A
4)The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are detailed in as follows:
1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which
the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan
policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage,
paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to the subject property.
3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the
impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of
the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of
the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area
shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone.
a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
e. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the
proposed use.
4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted
pursuant to this ordinance.
5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the
approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows.
b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the
density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones.
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 2
AMC 18.5.7.040.B
5)The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in as follows:
1.Hazard Tree.
A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the
application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public
safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property
damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be
alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section
18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
2.Tree That is Not a Hazard.
A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the
approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform
through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable
Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints
in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies,
and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this
criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative
exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted
density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site
plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on
trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant
to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
AMC 15.04.216
6)The Demolition and Relocation Standards are described in detail in as follows:
A. For demolition or relocation of structures erected more than 45 years prior to the date of
the application:
1. The applicant must demonstrate that either subparagraphs a or b apply:
a. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any
economically beneficial use of the property. In determining whether an
economically beneficial use can be made of the property, the Demolition
Review committee may require the applicant to:
(i) Furnish an economic feasibility report prepared by an architect,
developer, or appraiser, or other person who is experienced in
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 3
rehabilitation of buildings that addresses the estimated market
value of the property on which the building lies, both before and
after demolition or removal, or
(ii) Market the property utilizing a marketing plan approved by the
Demolition Review Committee or by advertising the property in the
Ashland Daily Tidings and Medford Mail Tribune at least eight times
and at regular intervals for at least 90 days and by posting a for sale
sign on the property, four to six square feet in size and clearly visible
from the street, for the same 90 day period.
b. The structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound despite
efforts by the owner to properly maintain the structure.
2. In addition to subparagraphs a or b above, the applicant must also:
a. Submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for replacement or
rebuilt structure for the structure being demolished or relocated. The
replacement or rebuilt structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet,
unless the structure being demolished or relocated is less than 1,000
square feet. If the structure is less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement
structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan
must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all
replacement or rebuilt structures. No replacement structure is required,
however, if:
(i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and
a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit
to the neighborhood than redevelopment would, or
(ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a nonhabitable
accessory structure.
b. Demonstrate, if the application is for a demolition, the structure cannot be
practicably relocated to another site.
3. If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan:
a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until
the site review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open
space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.A.2.
b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur
until the building permit has been issued for the replacement or rebuilt
structure, unless the site is restricted to open spaces uses as provided in
section 15.04.216.A.2.
4. The Demolition Review Committee may require the applicant to post with the City
a bond, or other suitable collateral as determined by the City administrator,
ensuring the safe demolition of the structure and the completed performance of
the redevelopment plan.
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 4
B. For demolition or relocation of structures erected less than 45 years from the date of the
application:
1. The applicant:
a. Has the burden of proving the structure was erected less than 45 years
from the date of the application. Any structure erected less than 45 years
from the date of the application, which replaced a structure demolished or
relocated under section 15.04.216, shall be considered a structure subject
to the standards in subsections 15.04.216.
b. Must submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for a
replacement or rebuilt structure being demolished or relocated. The
replacement or rebuilt structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet,
unless the structure being demolished ore relocated is less than 1,000
square feet. If the structure is less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement
structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan
must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all
replacement or rebuilt structures. No replacement structure is required,
however, if:
(i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and
a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit
to the neighborhood than redevelopment would, or
(ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a nonhabitable
accessory structure.
2. If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan:
a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until
the site review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open
space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.B.
b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur
until a building permit has been issued for the structure or structures to be
replaced or rebuilt, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as
provided in section 15.04.216.B.
C. For any demolition approved under this section, the applicant is required to salvage or
recycle construction and demolition debris, in accordance with a demolition debris
diversion plan that complies with the requirements adopted the Demolition Review
Committee. The applicant shall submit such a plan with the application for demolition.
For any relocation approved under this section, the applicant must also comply with the
provisions of Chapter 15.08. (Ord. 2925, amended, 04/18/2006; Ord. 2891, amended,
11/19/2002; Ord. 2858, amended, 06/20/2000; Ord. 2852, added, 01/21/2000)
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 5
7)On April 15, 2020 Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order #20-16 Keep Government
Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued Operations by
Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak The Order required that
public bodies hold public meetings by telephone, video, or through some other electronic or virtual means,
whenever possible; that the public body make available a method by which the public can listen to or
virtually attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs; that the public body does not have to
provide a physical space for the public to attend the meeting or hearing; that requirements that oral public
testimony be taken during hearings be suspended, and that public bodies instead provide a means for
submitting written testimony by e-mail or other electronic methods that the public body can consider in a
timely manner. The Oregon Legislature subsequently passed House Bill #4212 which authorizes local
governments to hold all meetings of their governing bodies, including taking public testimony, using
telephone or video conferencing technology or through other electronic or virtual means provided that
they supply a means by which the public can listen to or observe the meeting. This bill requires that
recordings of the meetings be made available to the public if technology allows, and includes provisions
similar to the order allowing public testimony to be taken in writing via e-mail or other
electronic means.
8)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing on July
14, 2020. In keeping with Executive Order #20-16, this meeting was broadcast live on local television
channel 9 and on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, and was live-streamed over the internet
on RVTV Prime at rvtv.sou.edu.
The application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant,
and the staff report were made available on-line seven days prior to the hearing, with in-person review by
appointment, and printed copies available at a reasonable cost. Those wishing to provide testimony were
invited to submit written comments via e-mail by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, July 13, 2020, and the applicant
was able to provide written rebuttal to this testimony by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2020. Comments
and rebuttal received were made available on-line and e-mailed to Planning Commissioners before the
hearing and included in the meeting minutes. As provided in the Executive Order #20-16,
testimony was also taken electronically during the tele-conferenced meeting from those members of the
public who had pre-arranged to provide oral testimony by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2020.
After the closing of the hearing and the record, the Planning Commission deliberated and approved the
application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the index of exhibits, data, and testimony below will be used:
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 6
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 has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the staff report, written public testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review approval, Conditional Use
Permit, and Tree Removal Permit meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review described in AMC
18.5.2.050; for Conditional Use Permit described in AMC 18.5.4.050; and for a Tree Removal Permit
described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.
2.3The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Site
Design Review approval.
The first approval criterion addresses the requirements of the underlying zone, requiring 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 The Planning
Commission finds that the building and yard setbacks and other applicable standards have been evaluated
to ensure consistency with the applicable provisions of part 18.2, and all regulations of the underlying R-
1-5 zoning will be satisfied.
The second approval criterion deals with overlay zones, and requires that, The proposal complies with
applicable overlay zone requirements (part The Planning Commission finds that the property is
within the Performance Standards Option (PSO) overlay zone, which requires that all developments other
than partitions or individual buildings be processed under Chapter 18.3.9., however the proposal here is
limited to the development of school buildings on existing lots and does not require subdivision of the
property.
The Planning Commission further finds that the subject property is located within the Wildfire Lands
Overlay, and as such a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area
requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 will need to be provided for the review and approval of the Fire
Marshal prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property. New landscaping proposed will need
to comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List
per Resolution 2018-028. Conditions to this effect have been included below.
Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that this criterion is satisfied.
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 7
The third criterion addresses the Site Development and Design Standards, requiring that proposal
complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by
subsection E,
The Planning Commission finds that as proposed, the new classroom building being considered is being
placed more than 100 feet from the sidewalk, and existing parking and circulation between the campus
buildings and the street is being expanded through requests for Exceptions to the Site Development and
Design Standards and a Conditional Use Permit discussed later in this section and in section 2.4. Parking
areas are being shifted away from the street, on-site stormwater detention and new landscaping are being
added, and controlled access standards better addressed with the removal of a driveway which currently
exits into the crosswalk at the corner of Helman and Randy Streets.
The Planning Commission notes that automobile parking and circulation are discussed in detail in Section
2.4below. With regard to bicycle parking, the Planning Commission notes that 70 covered bicycle
parking spaces are required, based on the applicable ratios in AMC 18.4.3.070 of one covered space for
every five students and an enrollment capacity of 350 students. The application explains that only 12
covered bicycle parking spaces are in place, and that the applicant proposes to add a 20 stall bicycle
parking structure on the north side of campus accessible from Randy Street and an additional 29 space
structure west of the new parking lot along Helman Street to yield a total of 61 covered bicycle spaces, or
roughly 87 percent of the 70 spaces required.
The Planning Commission further notes that with the approval of the gym and library additions in Planning
Action #2007-01756, 66 bicycle parking spaces were required for the 330 student enrollment. At the
time, there were 68 spaces already in place on campus in uncovered non-standard racks, and 12 new
covered city-standard bicycle parking spaces were added adjacent to the new gym so that a total of 80
bicycle parking spaces available on campus. The Planning Commission finds here that since previously
required bicycle parking has been removed since the last approval and no Variance has been requested,
the full required 70 covered bicycle parking spaces are required.
The Planning Commission notes that the current proposal includes the construction of a new security fence
around the perimeter of the campus to control access. Presently, there is a paved pedestrian access
easement from the cul-de-sac on Parkside Drive, near 535 Parkside Drive, to the south of campus which
was required to be provided with the adjacent subdivision to the south to enable students to safely and
efficiently access campus. The Commission here finds that given that the Pedestrian Access and
Circulation Standards in AMC 18.4.3.090.B.3.b call for providing pedestrian connections to off-site
adjacent uses to the site to the extent practicable and that there is already an improved easement in place
to provide just such a connection, restricting this access during pick-up and drop-off times would run
counter to the Pedestrian Access and Circulation Standards. The Commission therefore finds that at a
minimum, the proposal needs to be modified to provide a gated neighborhood access point that can be un-
locked during pick-up and drop-off periods to enable a safe and direct route to school for students living
in the subdivision to the south rather than requiring a more indirect and circuitous route to campus. A
condition to this effect is included below as Condition #7k.
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 8
The fourth approval criterion addresses city facilities, specifically requiring that, The proposal complies
with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City
facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property
and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject The Planning Commission
finds that adequate capacity of city facilities, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
The Commission notes that existing services are in place and currently serve the campus and its buildings.
The applicant asserts that adequate city facilities exist to service the proposed new classroom building,
and further indicates that the proposal substantially upgrades the storm drainage facilities, which are
currently inadequate. The applicant emphasizes that the civil engineering plans (Sheets C2.1 Erosion
Control Plan, C3.0 Overall Civil Site Plan, and C.4 Overall Grading and Drainage Plan) provide necessary
details to demonstrate proposed site development and construction can comply with city standards. The
applicant further details:
ğƷĻƩʹ There is an existing six-inch water main in Helman Street, and a six-inch main in Randy Street.
There are fire hydrants on Randy Street including a hydrant and fire sprinkler vault west of the
gymnasium building. There are hydrants on Helman Street. A fire connection vault is proposed to be
located adjacent to Helman Street. The water line sizes are substantial and water pressure is 90 p.s.i.
at the Helman Street hydrant, which is adequate to address the water needs for the new structure.
{ĻǞĻƩʹ There is an eight-inch sanitary sewer line in Randy Street, and there are 18-inch and 12-inch
sanitary sewer lines in Helman Street. The applicant notes that in discussion with the Wastewater
Department Supervisor, no capacity issues with the public sanitary sewer lines have been identified.
9ƌĻĭƷƩźĭğƌʹ There are major overhead electrical facilities along Helman Street, and private facilities
including junction boxes and vaults are in place. The application explains that the new structure has
been designed and engineered to be solar-ready, and areas for future solar panel installation have
been reserved in the roof plan. The applicant indicates that they are unaware of any electrical
capacity issues.
ƩĬğƓ {ƷƚƩƒ 5ƩğźƓğŭĻʹ There is an 18-inch storm sewer main in Helman Street. The development
proposal includes substantial storm water quality improvements including the creation of two large
landscaped bio-swales. The final Civil engineering will be designed to the standards of the DEQ MS4
General Permit, Phase 2, and the storm water system also be designed to comply with all of
specific storm water quality design standards.
ƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓʹ The applicant notes that there are existing curbside sidewalks in place along all
frontages, and indicates that no changes to the existing curbside sidewalk configuration are
proposed.
According to the Transportation System Plan, Laurel Street is classified as a Residential Neighborhood
Collector. Laurel was recently subject to a Local Improvement District to install sidewalks in the
Helman School neighborhood, and no changes to the Laurel Street frontage are proposed.
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 9
RandyStreetisaclassifiedasaNeighborhoodResidentialStreet,andcurrentlyhaspaving,curbs,
gutters and curbside sidewalks in place along the property frontage, but no parkrows. The proposal
would remove 3 of the five existing driveway curb cuts on Randy, including one that is immediately
adjacent to the intersection and crosswalk, and reinstall a new driveway cut in a location which
complies with controlled access standards and serves a new one-way circulation. The applicant
emphasizes that these proposed changes to the driveways improve pedestrian safety by increasing
driveway spacing away from the most heavily used intersection, while the proposed changes to the
parking areas increase the length of the driveway and vehicular maneuvering area on site in order to
better accommodate parent drop-off and pick-up on site, without pushing traffic onto the adjacent
public streets, and the new one-way vehicular traffic circulation is to increase student and pedestrian
safety.
Helman Street is considered an Avenue. Helman Street along the frontage of the school is not
improved to current avenue standards there is paving, curb, gutter and curbside sidewalks in place,
but no parkrows. The application proposes to plant street trees behind the sidewalk and retain two
existing driveway curb cuts and add one additional new driveway cut which complies with controlled
access standards. No other changes to the Helman Street frontage are proposed by the applicant.
The Planning Commission notes that the application materials assert that facilities are in place to serve
the existing campus buildings, and adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the new classroom
building, and that based on consultations with representatives of the various City departments (i.e. water,
sewer, streets and electric) the proposed addition will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
The Commission further finds that the project is intended to improve accessibility, safety, security and
site circulation, but with the demolitions and addition proposed, neither the student enrollment or staffing
are to be increased. The application includes civil drawings to address the changes in site grading,
drainage, utilities and access associated with the proposal, and conditions have been included below to
require that final civil drawings detailing the final utility and infrastructure improvements be provided for
review and approval prior of the Building, Planning, Fire, Public Works and Electric Departments prior
to building permit issuance.
The Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied.
The final criterion for Site Design Review approval addresses Exception to the Site Development and
Design Standards.
The application materials recognize that the existing and proposed site development including the
placement of parking and vehicular access between the buildings and the street, placement of the new
building roughly 180 feet from the property line and not oriented to the corner of Helman and Randy
Street, and the lack of pedestrian entrances open to the general public from the sidewalk necessitate
exception to the design standards.
The applicant suggests that the use of the site as an elementary school can be found to be a unique which
poses a demonstrable difficulty in meeting these standards in that schools in 2020 cannot be open to the
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 10
general public like the typical commercial building considered in the standards. For student and staff
safety and security, access to the campus must be restricted, and the funding source for the current project
is through a local bond measure which sought to improve accessibility, structural safety, energy efficiency
and campus security for an elementary school original built in And the existing site layout
establishes building and parking placement which pose challenges to increasing compliance with the
applicable standards without full redevelopment of the campus. The applicant concludes that the
exceptions requested are the minimum necessary to accommodate the re-development of the parking area
and allow for the construction of a new classroom building.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal involves the demolition of the two existing quad
buildings nearest the corner of Helman and Randy Street, and the placement of a proposed new classroom
addition more central to the campus rather than removing parking to put them nearer the corner.
The Planning Commission concurs with the applicant that the unique nature of the elementary school use
poses challenges in meeting standards seeking a streetscape orientation without parking between buildings
and the street and placement of buildings close to the sidewalk in that while a school is a public building
subject to the Basic Site Review Standards for Non-Residential Development, it is at the same time a use
which requires campus access controls to insure the safety and security of students and staff, and which
seeks to avoid bringing cars into the mix of uses interior to the campus.
The Planning Commission notes that while the new classroom building is being placed in a location more
central to the campus, rather than orienting to the corner as the standards would seek, the applicant is
creating a new main entry plaza which orients the campus better to the corner and the neighborhood and
places campus administrative functions in a location where they can oversee a single, controlled campus
access point. The new classroom building responds to the campus character and broader neighborhood
context through a scale and placement which also attempts to preserve views of Mt. Ashland and Grizzly
Peak for the campus and its neighbors. The Commission finds that the proposed site plan creates a more
cohesive campus with a strong central interior courtyard space centered on the library, provides a layout
where access can be better controlled to maintain campus security, improves the campus orientation to the
corner, improves pedestrian safety by addressing existing non-conforming driveway locations near the
Helman and Randy intersection, and provides for new on-site detention of storm water in proximity to the
parking as called for in current standards. The Commission further finds that the proposed improvements
are in keeping with the general intent of the standards.
The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the
proposal complies with the requirements for Site Design Review approval.
2.4The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable standards for Conditional
Use Permit approval with regard to the expansion of a non-conforming development. The Commission
notes that the first criterion for Conditional Use Permit approval is, That the use would be in conformance
with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance
with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or
program. The Planning Commission notes that the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 8 Open Space
& speaks specifically to school playgrounds and fields in terms of their community role as
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 11
neighborhood parks, used as recreation space by nearby neighbors outside school hours, directly related
to neighborhood character, and having the advantage of being available during summer months and non-
school hours to provide recreational facilities for all age groups. The Commission further notes that the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element (10.10.07) speaks to as separate
off-road pedestrian and/or bikeways which minimize travel distances within and between residential areas
and schools, shopping and workplaces where street connections are infeasible. For example, these short
multi-use paths are useful to provide connectivity for cul-de-sac streets and dead end streets, as is the case
with the easement to the south connecting the campus to Parkview Drive, and the Comprehensive Plan
includes a policy to require such pedestrian and bicycle easements to provide neighborhood connectors,
and thus reduce vehicle trips, with development.
The Planning Commission finds that the use of the property as a public school is an allowed use in the
zone and the setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and parking conform to the R-1-5 zoning district
standards, and further finds here that the Conditional Use Permit request here is limited to considering the
expansion of the existing non-conforming development which places parking and associated vehicular
circulation between the buildings and the street.
The second criterion for a Conditional Use Permit is, That adequate capacity of City facilities for water,
sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. As noted in Section 2.3 above, the
application includes civil drawings detailing site grading, drainage, utilities and access associated with the
proposal, and conditions have been included to require that final engineered civil drawings detailing the
utility and infrastructure improvements be provided for review prior to building permit issuance, and the
Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of City facilities can and will be provided.
The Planning Commission notes that the third Conditional Use Permit criterion is, That the conditional
use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the
development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5,
below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability
of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a) Similarity in scale, bulk,
and coverage; b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle,
and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities; c) Architectural
compatibility with the impact area; d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other
environmental pollutants; e) Generation of noise, light, and glare; f) The development of adjacent
properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and g) Other factors found to be relevant by the
approval authority for review of the proposed use. In weighing these impacts, the criteria here explain
that the target use in the R-1 zones is residential use developed to the densities detailed in AMC 18.2.5,
which for the R-1-5 zoning here is 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The roughly 9.5 acres campus, the
Commission finds that for purposes of comparison the school property could accommodate roughly 42.75
dwelling units.
In considering the adverse material impacts of the increase in parking and circulation between the
buildings and the street, the Commission finds that the adverse impacts may include the aesthetic impacts
of pavement and parked cars at a scale out of character in a residential zone; the environmental impacts,
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 12
including increased stormwater run-off, an increase in the urban heat island effect, exhaust fumes, noise
and headlight glare; and the pedestrian impacts of paving and parked and circulating vehicles posing
obstacles to pedestrians seeking to navigate from the sidewalk corridor to building entrances and of
impediments to the neighborhood connectivity such as the pedestrian easement to the subdivision to the
south, which are typically sought with development through development standards and supported by the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commission finds that in the approval of the gym and library additions in 2008-2009 (PA-
2007-01756), 60 automobile parking spaces were required to serve the 240 seat capacity of the gym at the
then-applicable parking ratio of one space per four seats. The parking in place was found to satisfy the
parking requirements with 53 parking spaces to be provided off-street and the remaining seven spaces
required addressed through on-street parking credits as the school property has a total of approximately
1,998 lineal feet of frontage on the three adjacent streets. The Commission further finds that current
parking ratios require one parking space per 75 square feet of public assembly area, and the 4,725 square
feet of assembly space here require 63 spaces. The applicant notes that there are now only 49 spaces in
place on site, and proposes to add a new 17 space parking lot between the building and the street to fully
accommodate the parking required on-site, with no reliance on on-street parking credits.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed increase in parking between the building and the street
seeks to bring the site into compliance with current parking ratios and to reconfigure circulation and
parking in such a way that pick-up and drop-off impacts can be better absorbed on the campus itself and
in so doing limit the effects of traffic on the surrounding streets. The Commission finds that there are
benefits to better accommodating more of the vehicular queuing on site and in reconfiguring parking to
address ratios, minimize on-street impacts and provide new areas for stormwater detention, but further
finds that to fully balance the negative impacts to the neighborhood and streetscape of placing more
parking between the buildings and the street, the new main entry plaza treatment should be extended with
light- colored/permeable pavers, scored concrete or a similar treatment to include the driveway and seven
spaces between the new plaza and the corner to provide an extension of the plaza space which strengthens
the plaza and the campus orientation to the corner; reduces the aesthetic, environmental and pedestrian
impacts between the buildings and corner; and still retains the potential to accommodate parking when
needed. In addition, the Commission finds that the role the school playgrounds and greenspaces serve
both in providing essential neighborhood recreational space outside of school hours as recognized in the
Open Space & chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and in providing neighborhood
connectivity is crucial in offsetting the adverse aesthetic, environmental and pedestrian impacts of the
school on the surrounding residential neighborhood and has accordingly included Condition #11 requiring,
That, outside of regular school hours and school events, the perimeter gates shall remain unlocked so as
to not to unreasonably limit or restrict access school playgrounds and
The Commission finds that with the modified parking treatment near the plaza, the changes to parking and
circulation including improved driveway spacing near the Helman and Randy can be found to be beneficial
to pedestrian safety while lessening impacts to the streetscape from pick-up and drop-off traffic and
strengthening the presence in the neighborhood streetscape with the new main entry plaza at the
corner.
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 13
The fourth criterion is that, A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that
is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. Here, the Planning Commission finds that as detailed in
AMC Table 18.2.2.030.D, public schools are a permitted use in all R-1 zones.
The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the
proposal complies with the requirements for Conditional Use Permit approval.
2.5The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable standards for Conditional
Use Permit approval with regard to modification to the School approved sign permit program
under AMC 18.4.7.120 which provides that, Governmental agencies may apply for a Conditional Use
Permit to place a sign that does not conform to this chapter when it is determined that, in addition to
meeting the criteria for a conditional use, the sign is necessary to further that agency's public
Helman murals were originally approved in Planning Action 2009-00322, and were subsequently
incorporated into the master sign permit program under Planning Action PA-2012-00899 which
allowed a dragon wall graphic on the then-new gym and two existing student-designed/student-installed
tile murals in addition to wall, ground and directional signage. A number of other murals and a tile-mosaic
bench are also in place on campus, but are exempt from permitting because they are not visible from the
adjacent public rights-of-way. As proposed, the dragon tile mural on the north side of the administration
building, facing Randy Street, will be moved with demolition and replaced on a wall to be installed to
screen mechanical equipment. With the move, the mural will be visible from Helman Street.
In originally administratively approving the murals in 2009, staff found that the student-designed/student-
installed murals directly served the public purpose not only in providing a direct and creative
participatory educational experience but also in fostering a sense of connectedness between the students,
the built environment of the school and their larger community. With the demolition of the two quad
buildings, the applicant has proposed to relocate the dragon tile mural, and the Commission finds that this
relocation remains in keeping with the original sign permit approval.
2.6The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable standards for a Tree
Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard.
The first approval criterion for a Tree Removal Permit The tree is proposed for removal in order
to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4
and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. The Commission notes that 12 significant
trees are proposed for removal, and that the applicant explains that the removals are to permit the proposal
to be consistent with applicable ordinance requirements and standards, including applicable Site
Development and Design Standards.
The second approval criterion is that, 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 The
applicant indicates that the requested tree removals will not have significant negative impacts on erosion,
soil stability, the flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, and further
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 14
explains that the areas where trees are to be removed will be redeveloped with structures, hardscaping, or
will re-landscaped.
The third criterion is that, 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. The applicant
indicates that there are several trees within 200-feet of the subject property, and further suggests that the
relative proximity to the heavily vegetated Ashland Creek corridor across Helman Street provides
substantial species diversity, canopy coverage, and tree densities in the vicinity. The applicant concludes
that the proposed development will ultimately replace the canopy, tree densities, sizes, and species
diversity associated with the requested removals.
The fourth criterion for Tree Removal Permit approval notes that, 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. The Commission finds that there is no residential component
associated with the current application.
The final Tree Removal criterion is that, The City shall require 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 Commission finds that mitigation trees sufficient to meet this
requirement are proposed throughout the property. 12 significant trees proposed for removal and the
Landscape Plants plans (Sheets L3.00-L3.01) call for over 50 replacement trees including Kentucky
Coffee trees, Zelkovas, flowering Cherries, Maple, Birch, and Lindens and include planting of new
required street trees and 26 proposed shade trees for the parking areas to reduce the microclimatic impacts
of the pavement.
The Commission further notes that the Ashland Tree Commission was unable to convene its regular
monthly meeting for July of 2020 due to the City Administrato state of emergency declaration for
the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which suspended advisory commission meetings. As such
there is no Tree Commission recommendation. As provided in AMC 2.25.040, the failure of the Tree
Commission to make a recommendation on any individual planning action shall not invalidate that
action.
The Commission finds that the remaining trees which are to be preserved are proposed to be protected
with six-foot tall chain link fencing as recommended by the arborist and required in the Tree
Preservation & Protection Ordinance (AMC 18.4.5). Conditions have been included to require tree
protection fencing installation and verification before site work.
The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the
proposal complies with the requirements for Tree Protection and for Tree Removal Permits to remove
a total of 12 significant trees.
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 15
2.5 With regard to the proposed demolition of the and quad buildings, the Planning
Commission notes that the demolition and relocation of existing buildings is regulated through AMC
Chapter 15 Buildings and Construction with approval of permits by the Building Official and the
potential for appeal to the Demolition Review Committee.
The Commission finds that the applicant has indicated that the two quad buildings are to be demolished
following completion of the new classroom building, and a condition has been included below to make
clear that the applicant will need to obtain requisite permits for demolition through the Building
Official prior to commencement of demolition work.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal for Site Design Review, Conditional Use and Tree Removal permit approvals to construct a
new 23,755 square-foot, single-story classroom building and associated changes to the campus site
planning, relocate approved signage and remove 12 significant trees is supported by evidence contained
within the whole record.
The school property is an existing non-conforming development in that the existing placement of parking
between the buildings and the streets is contrary to the s Basic Site Review standards which seek to
place parking behind buildings or to one side and have the building placed at and oriented to the
streetscape. As proposed here, this non-conformity would be retained and expanded through a Conditional
Use Permit. The Commission finds that both the existing building lay-out on site and the school use pose
difficulties in complying with the standards and as proposed the applicant is creating a new entry plaza
near the corner of Helman and Randy Streets which creates an overall campus orientation to the corner
and the neighborhood and places the administrative functions at a single, controllable access
point for the sake of campus safety and security. The proposed new placement and scale are
in direct response to a community public process by the School District which ultimately identified the
need for a single-story structure placed more interior to the campus to preserve views of Mt. Ashland and
Grizzly Peak for the campus and for the neighborhood, and in so doing a more cohesive campus with a
central interior courtyard will be created and the library will become a clear center for the campus. In
addition, with the changes proposed the controlled access issues with the northern parking lot driveway
exiting into the crosswalk are to be remedied, new on-site storm water detention facilities installed to
better respond to standards, and site circulation issues addressed to handle a greater proportion of the daily
pick-up and drop-off traffic and parking on-site rather than in the surround neighborhood streetscape.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2020-00020. Further, if any one or more of the conditions
below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2020-00020 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1.That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
2.That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as
part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 16
conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval
shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3.That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of signage. Signage shall be consistent
with that described herein and shall be placed in a manner consistent with the vision clearance
standards of AMC 18.2.4.040.
4.That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved
addressing; fire apparatus access including aerial ladder access, turn-around, firefighter access
pathways and work area; fire hydrant spacing, distance and clearance; fire flow; fire sprinkler
system if applicable; fire extinguishers; limitations on gates or fences; providing required fuel
breaks; and meeting the general fuel modification area standards.
5.That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the surrounding streets, and the
location and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit
submittals.
6.That the applicant shall obtain applicable demolition permits through the Building Division if
deemed necessary by the Building Official prior to the commencement of any building demolition
on site.
7.That building permit submittals shall include:
a.The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or private utility,
irrigation and drainage easements, fire apparatus access easements, and public pedestrian
access easements.
b.The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and
approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those described
in the application and very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used.
c.Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the
property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties.
d.Revised landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the
Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised plans shall address: 1)
required size and species-specific planting details and associated irrigation plan
modifications, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers
and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications; 2) final lot coverage
and required landscaped area calculations, including all building footprints, driveways,
parking, and circulation areas, and landscaped areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no
more than 50 percent, and the calculations shall demonstrate that the requisite 50 percent
landscaping and seven percent parking lot landscaping are provided; 3) the mitigation
requirements of AMC 18.5.7 by detailing the mitigation for the 12 significant trees to be
removed on a one-for-one basis through replanting planting on-site, replanting off-site, or
payment to the Tree Fund in lieu of replanting; and 4) sight-obscuring screening of
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 17
the parking lot with a landscape buffer in keeping with the requirements of AMC
18.4.3.080.E.6.a.iv and 18.4.4.030.F.2.
e.A Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the 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 onto the 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.
f.Final storm water drainage, grading and erosion control plans for the review and approval
of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments. The storm water plan shall
address Public Works/Engineering standards requiring that post-development peak flows
not exceed pre-development levels. Any necessary drainage improvements to address the
storm water shall be provided at the expense. Storm water from all new
impervious surfaces and run-off associated with peak rainfall events must be collected on
site and channeled to the city storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public
street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in
accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection
systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
g.A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning
and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any necessary
connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations
of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm
drainage pipes and catch basins. The utility plan shall also address Water Department
requirements relative to cross connections and premises isolation. Meters, cabinets, vaults
and Fire Department Connections shall be located outside of pedestrian corridors and in
areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access
needs. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed by the applicant
at expense.
h.A final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all
primary and secondary services including any transformers, cabinets and all other
necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric,
Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of excavation or
building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located outside the pedestrian
corridor in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while
considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any necessary service extensions
or upgrades shall be completed at the expense.
i.That the applicants shall provide final engineered plans for any work in the street rights-
of-way including any changes to sidewalks, driveway aprons or pedestrian crossings for
the review of the Planning and Public Works/Engineering Departments.
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 18
j.Identification of required bicycle parking, which includes 70 covered bicycle parking
spaces. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the outdoor bicycle parking, and all bicycle
parking shall be installed in accordance with the standards in 18.4.3.070.I, inspected and
approved prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit
submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met.
k.A revised site plan that extends the new entry plaza treatment (i.e. light-colored, permeable
pavers, scored concrete or similar) to include the driveway and seven parking spaces
between the new plaza and the corner to provide an extension of the plaza space, strengthen
the plaza while retaining the potential to accommodate overflow parking as needed; and
provides a gated access point from the Parkside Drive pedestrian easement to allow its use
during pick-up and drop-off times.
8.That prior to any site work including staging, storage of materials, demolition or tree removal, the
applicant shall mark the trees to be removed and install protection fencing for the trees to be
retained, and obtain a Tree Verification Inspection so that the Staff Advisor can verify that the
trees identified on site for removal are consistent with the approved plan, and that those trees to be
protected have tree protection fencing in place in a manner consistent with the approved plans.
9.That prior to the issuance of a building permit all necessary building permits fees and associated
charges, including permits and connections fees for any new utilities, and applicable system
development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for
existing structures) shall be paid.
10.That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final project approval:
a.That the required automobile and bicycle parking shall be installed according to the
approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
b.All hardscaping including the sidewalk corridor, on site circulations routes, parking lots
and driveways; landscaping; and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the
approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor.
c.That the screening for the trash and recycling containers shall be installed in accordance
with the Site Design and Development Standards prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste
receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with 18.4.4.040.
d.That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent proprieties.
e.All required utility service and equipment installations and street frontage improvements,
shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with
the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
f.Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted and irrigated according
to the approved plan, or alternative mitigation demonstrated.
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22, 2020
Page 19
11.That,outsideofregularschoolhoursandschoolevents,theperimetergatesshallremainunlocked
soasto not to unreasonablylimit or restrictaccessschool playgroundsandgreenspaces.
,2020
PlanningCommissionApprovalDate
PA-T2-2020-00020
September 22,2020
Page20
FINDINGS
_________________________________
PA-T3-2019-00001
1511 Hwy 99 N
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 22,2020
IN THE MATTER OF PA-T3-2019-00001,A REQUEST FORANNEXATION OF TWO)
PARCELS TOTALING 16.87 ACRES,WITH A CURRENT ZONING OFJACKSON)
COUNTY RR-5(RURAL RESIDENTIAL)AND A PROPOSED ZONING OF CITY)
OF ASHLAND R-2 (LOW DENSITY, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR THE)
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1511 HIGHWAY 99 NORTH. THE ANNEXATION)
INCLUDESADJACENT RAILROAD PROPERTY & STATE HIGHWAY )
RIGHT-OF-WAY ADDED BY STAFF FOR A MORE LOGICAL BOUNDARY.)
THE APPLICATION INCLUDES CONCEPTUAL DETAILS FOR THE FUTURE)
FINDINGS,
PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF 1961-& 2-BEDROOM APARTMENTS RANGING)
CONCLUSIONS,
FROM 480-701SQUARE FEET IN 142-STORY BUILDINGS. OUTLINE PLAN )
ORDERS &
SUBDIVISION AND SITE DESIGN REVIEWDEVELOPMENT APPROVALS ARE)
RECOMMENDATION
NOT REQUESTED HERE, AND WOULD BE APPLIED FOR SUBSEQUENTTO)
ANNEXATION. THE APPLICATION ALSO REQUESTS AN EXCEPTION TO )
STREET STANDARDS TO DEVIATE FROM CITY STANDARD PARKROW)
AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS TO RESPOND TO CONSTRAINTS OF)
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH AND EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS.)
)
OWNER:
Linda Zare)
APPLICANT:
Casita Developments, LLC& Kendrick Enterprise, LLC)
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1)
Tax lots#1700 and #1702of Map 381E 32are located at 1511 Highway 99 North, which is presently
outside the city limits, and is zoned RR-5, Jackson County Rural Residential.
2)
The applicantsare requestingannexation of two parcels totaling 16.87acres with a current zoning
of Jackson County RR-5(Rural Residential) and a proposed zoning of Cityof Ashland R-2 (Low Density,
Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North. Adjacent railroad
property and state highway right-of-wayhas been included in the annexation by the Staff Advisorfor a
more logical and orderly boundary as provided in AMC 18.5.8.060. Theapplication includes conceptual
details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (1-and 2-Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701
square feet) in 14 two-story buildings. Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review development
approvals are not requested here, and would be applied for subsequent to annexation. The application also
requests an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard parkrow and sidewalk
improvements to respond to constraints of right-of-way width and existing encroachments. The proposal
is outlined inplans on file at the Department of Community Development.
3)
The approval criteria for Annexation are described in AMC 18.5.8.050as follows:
An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made
to conform through the imposition of conditions, with all of the following approval criteria.
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 1
A.
The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
B.
The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated
on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the
annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning.
C.
The land is currently contiguous with the present city limits.
D.
Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public
Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant
as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as
determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public
Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. 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.
E.
Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. 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 20-foot wide paved access exists, or can and will be
constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved
collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be
improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum 20-foot wide
driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development,
require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets
located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to City standards. 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 exist, or can and
will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike
lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle
destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible
bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated.
3.For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist or can
and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side
adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area.
Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the
annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing
sidewalk system, thesidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend
and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 2
site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving
those destinations shall be indicated.
4.For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely
to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public
transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit
facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation
improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property.
F.
For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the
development of the entire property 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 isnecessary
to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar
physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property 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 undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes
greater than 35 percent, 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 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.
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 anequivalency value of 1.0 unit.
c.Ownership unitsrestricted to households earning at or below 80 percent
the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit.
d.Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 60
percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.5 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-
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 3
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 18.5.8.050.G, subsections 4 - 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.
3. The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix and housing type 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 based as set forth in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3.
Table 18.5.8.050.G.3
Unit Type Minimum Required Unit Floor Area
(Square Feet)
Studio 350
1 Bedroom 500
2 Bedroom 800
3 Bedroom 1,000
4 Bedroom 1,250
b. The required on-site affordable units shall be comprised of the different unit
types in the same proportion as the market dwelling units within the
development.
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 4
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 distributed throughout the project
6.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 andquality for affordable units as for market-rate units
b.Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to interior
finishes and materials provided that the affordable housing units are
provided with comparable features to the market rateunits, and shall have
generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency, including
plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling
systems.
7.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 this chapter,
than would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of
subsection 18.5.8.050.G.2.
b.That an alternative mix of housing types not meeting the requirements of
subsection 18.5.8.050.G.3.b would accomplish additional benefits to the
City consistent with this chapter, than would the development providing a
proportional mix of unit types.
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 5
c. 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.
d. That the distribution of affordable units within the development not meeting
subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5 is necessary for development of an affordable
housing project that provides onsite staff with supportive services.
e. That the distribution of affordable units within the development as proposed
would accomplish additional benefits for the city, consistent with the
purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the distribution
requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5.
f. 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.6, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable
Housing standards or financing limitations.
8. The total number of affordable units described in this section 18.5.8.050.G shall be
determined by rounding down fractional 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. Properties providing
affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum
density bonus of 25 percent.
H.
One or more of the following standards are met.
1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than
a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use
zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which,
due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing
development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the
planning period. The five-year supply shall be determined from vacant and
redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections
from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned CM, E-1, or C-1 under the Comprehensive
Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Design Review approval for an outright
permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request.
3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary
sewer or water services.
4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary
sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year.
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 6
5.The area proposed 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.
6.The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an island completely surrounded by
lands within the city limits.
4)
The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050as follows:
Underlying Zone:
A.The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the
underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yardsetbacks, 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 access to 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 negativelyimpact 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 difficultyin 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.
5)
The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 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.
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 7
i.For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride
experience.
ii.For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii.For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level
of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
c.The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d.The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in
subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
6)
The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held public hearingsonNovember 12,
2019 and June 23, 2020 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented.Subsequent to
the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commissionrecommended that the City Council approve the
Annexation request subject to a number of conditions, and that the Council direct staff to work with the
Oregon Department of Transportation to initiate a speed study to determine whether a reduction in the speed
limit is possible on the adjacent state highway corridor.
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 has received all information necessary to make a
recommendation to the City Council based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits
received.
2.2The Planning Commission finds that the proposal forAnnexationmeets the applicable criteria in
AMC 18.5.8.050with two exceptions. First, as discussed in 2.3 below, with regardto affordability
requirementsin AMC 18.5.8.050.G
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 8
from the initial calculation, and the applicant argues that bothstate and city regulations do not consider these
to be buildable lands, and that similar exclusions have been allowed in past applications.The exclusion of
constrained lands is allowed in the code when calculating minimum density, but there is no similar provision
with regard to affordability calculations. To comply with the ordinance as written, the number of affordable
units would need to be increased to account for the full area of the subject properties in the calculation, or
the Council could opt to use its legislative discretion toallow exclusion of these constrained lands. Second,
All streets located withinannexed areas shall be fully improved
to City standardsity street standards.
immediate frontage, the applicant proposes city standard improvements except where the sidewalk must
be pushed to curbside to accommodate the installation of a bus pull-out lane associated with a new
southbound bus stop, and while the applicant proposes approximately 0.63 miles of new sidewalk to
connect to existing sidewalks to the north and south, due to physical constraints in the form of roadside
ditches and limited right-of-way standard parkrowplanting strips with street trees cannot be installed.
The application includes justification for an Exception to the Street Standards. The Commission finds
that while an Exception is merited such a request would not be considered independent from a Site Design
Review proposal, and that in the meantime the Council could again exercise its legislative discretionto
accept the improvements as proposed.
2.3The Planning Commission notesthat the approval standards for an Annexation require that the
subject property be located within the City's Urban Growth Boundary, that the proposed zoning for the
annexed area be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation, and that the land be
currently contiguous with the present city limits. In this instance, the subject property is located within
theUrban Growth Boundary, and the requested R-
Multi-Family ResidentialWhile Site Design Review approval is
not currently requestedfor development of the site, a conceptual multi-family development plan is
provided to demonstrate how the property could be developed to the required minimum density in keeping
with applicable standards.
, however
the Planning Commission notes that AMC18.5.8.060providesthat"Whenanannexationisinitiatedbya
privateindividual,theStaffAdvisormayincludeotherparcelsofpropertyintheproposedannexationto
makeaboundaryextensionmorelogicalandtoavoidparcelsoflandwhicharenotincorporatedbutare
partiallyorwhollysurroundedbytheCity.TheStaffAdvisor,inareporttothePlanningCommissionand
CityCouncil,shalljustifytheinclusionofanyparcelsotherthantheparcelforwhichthepetitionis
filed.ThepurposeofthissectionistopermittheCommissionandCounciltomakeannexationsextending
theboundariesmorelogicalandorderly."ThePlanningCommissionfindsthattheStaffAdvisor
hasincluded
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 9
Public Facilities
The Commission further notes that annexation requests must demonstrate that adequate public facilities can
and will be provided to and through the subject property. With regard to specific public facilities:
Water:
The Water Department 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 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 Department 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 and
o
south of the site, between Fox & Schofield Streets to a location north of the railroad trestle at the
o
pressures at the meter (160+ psi). This will require a pressure reducing valve (PRV) at the point
building.
It is understood that the applicant will likely install one water meter for the southernmost building
o
and a second "master meter" for the remainder of the site near the northernmost driveway.
Water meters must be placed in the public right-of-way and within the city limits. As such, the
o
proposed annexation should extend at least to centerline of the adjacent state highway right-of-
way.
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.
The City will need to review a more formal plan for on-site services with the eventual Site Design
o
Review application to develop the site, with infrastructure installation to occur in conjunction with
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 10
site development. The review here is limited to determining that adequate capacity of public
facilities can and will be extended to the subject propertywith development.
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
would be needed
Agreeme
the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority -now Rogue Valley Sewer Service -which dates to
November 8, 1995 and which provides 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 provided
the City and the sewer district may agree to
joint provision of service to areas within the City or its UGB by contract, mutual agreement or other
method. As proposedby the applicant here, RVSS will continue to provide these services to the
subject properties per the 1995 agreement. Public Works has indicated that RVSS continuing to serve
the property as allowed under the 1995 agreement is the most appropriate option and is acceptable
here, and RVSS has confirmed that their sanitary sewer system has adequate capacity for the proposed
development, and thatthere 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 application indicates that the future
development of the property is required to be compliant with the regionally-adopted Rogue Valley
Stormwater Design Manual, and further notes that the project Civil Engineers have performed
preliminary stormwater generation calculations based on the maximum coverage areas in the zone and
have proposed potential surface detention, and recognize that below-grade collection, detention and
treatment will be necessary with the future development of the site. With the 1995 agreement, the
existing sanitary and storm sewer services to the property would continue, but may need to be
formalized with an intergovernmental agreement between the City, RVSS and ODOT to finalize the
logistics of RVSS providing sewer and storm water service to the properties once annexed to the City.
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 lines 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. The Electric Department has
indicated that
the necessary capacity to serve anticipated future development of the property. They have further
noted that this preliminary service plan does not consider how development would be served on
site, and is limited to bringing necessary capacity to the property.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal is somewhat unique in that annexations, whether for
commercial or residential land, have historically been associated with concurrent development proposals
that provide clear trigger points for the completion of improvements and a measure of certainty with regard
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 11
totheultimate build-out. In this instance, while the applicant has provided a development plan to
conceptually demonstrate how the property could be developed in keeping with the zoning, there is no
concurrent development approval requested and the proposal involves the provision of some public
services by entities other than the city. The Commission recommends that any annexation approval make
clear that
the property.
Adequate Transportation
The Planning Commission notes that the annexation criteria include that,
meeting t
Vehicular Transportation
For vehicular transportation, the criterion requires that -foot wide paved access exists, or can and
will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or
arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street
standard with a minimum 20-foot wide driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the
development, require thefull improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located
within annexed areas shall be fully improved to City standards. Where future street dedications are
indicated on the Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication
Highway, which is a state highway under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Highway 99 North becomes North Main Street within the city limits south of the site. North Main Street
is a boulevard or arterial as classified in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). City street standards for
a boulevard or 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-inchcurb, a seven-to eight-foot parkrow planting strip with irrigated street trees, and
six-The
Road Dietch direction separated by a single, shared
center turn lane, and variable width bicycle lanes on the shoulder. There are currently no curbs, park rows
or sidewalks 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.
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
memorandum which evaluates the transportation impacts of the proposal. Key findings of the TIA
include:
The TIA shows all studied intersections (Hwy 99N at South Valley View, Highway 99N at Jackson
Road, North Main Street at Jackson Road, North Main Street at Maple Street, and Hwy 99N at the
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 12
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. The TIA technical memo further explains that the recent reduction in
through lanes with the road diet has resulted in increased queuing lengths when disruptions to
traffic such as garbage trucks, stopped buses or cars stopping for pedestrians create back-
mitigation is recommended to address these queue lengths.
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. After
review of the TIA and the subsequent supplementary technical memo, the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) which has jurisdiction over the roadway has accepted the TIA.
Access Easement
The Planning Commission notes that the applicant has indicated that one of the two access points to the
property is to be provided via a 30-foot wide access easement and notes that there are no reservations or
limits noted upon thiseasement. The applicant further explains that there is a 25-foot wide right of access
to the highway from the easement, and has included a survey noting the easement area along with the
easement language.
The Planning Commission finds that while the adjacent property owners have raised questions as to the
history and legitimacy of the existing easement, but ratherto determine, based on the easement in place,
if adequate transportation can be provided.
The Planning Commission finds that while city standards generally seek a gridded, interconnected street
system within and through the development that provides for broader connectivity, the presence of the
railroad tracks along one boundary of the subject properties combined with site topography prevents
connection to the adjacent street system. In this instance, multi-family zoned property is not required to
provide a dedicated public street with development (AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1)and no dedications are
identified through the subject properties on the current Street Dedication Map, howeverAMC
18.4.3.080.C.3.ddoesrequirethattwodrivewayaccesspointsbeprovidedifamulti-familydevelopment
willgenerateover250tripsperdayasisthecasehere.ThePlanningCommissionfindsthattheintentof
thisstandardistoprovideoptionsfortheorderlyflowoftrafficintoandoutofthesite,andhere,two
drivewaysareproposed,andthesupplementarytechnicalmemototheTrafficImpactAnalysis
(TIA)indicatesthatODOTwillbepermittingunrestrictedturningmovementsatbothdriveways
allowingbothright-in/right-outandleft-inandleft-outmovements.With development of the site, the
applicant will need to respond to standards and requirements dealing with parking, access and circulation
including vehicle area design and pedestrian access and circulation standards.
The Planning Commission finds thatHighway 99N is the only street within or adjacent to the proposed
annexation, and wAll streets located within annexed areas shall
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 13
be fully improved to City standards,the Highway 99N improvements described in the application do not
standard improvements except where the sidewalk must be pushed to curbside to accommodate the
installation of a bus pull-out lane associated with a new southbound bus stop, and while the applicant
proposes approximately 0.63 miles of new sidewalksto connect to existing sidewalks to the north and
south, due to physical constraints in the form of roadside ditches and limited right-of-way standard park
row planting strips with street trees cannot be installedwith those connections. The application includes
justification for an Exception to the Street Standards. The Commission finds that while an Exception is
merited such a request would not be considered independent from a Site Design Review proposal, however
the Council could exercise its legislative discretionto accept theimprovements as proposed.
Bicycle Transportation
For bicycle transportation, the approval criterion is that,
can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be
provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations fromthe project site shall be
The
Planning Commission finds that Highway 99N is classified as aboulevard or arterial street in the
Transportation System Plan, and that there are existing bike lanes in place which are to be retained with
the proposal.
Pedestrian Transportation
The pedestrian transportation criterion is that,safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist or can
and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the
annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required
by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of
an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect
to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe
and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated.
Frontage Improvements
The Planning Commission notes that the applicant proposes frontage improvements which mix city-
standard treatments with a parkrowplanting strip between the curb and sidewalk,and curbside sidewalk
installations to connecttheexisting sidewalks from the north of the site in the county to the south within
the city. The sidewalk installation proposed equates to approximately 0.63 miles.Thestandard sidewalk
and parkrow configuration is proposed along the ropertyfrontage, except where the
installation of a proposes bus pull-out lane and bus shelter necessitate an eight-foot curbside sidewalk.
where the right-of-way is constrained
by right-of-way width, slopes, or existing improvements.The applicant proposes to place either an
ODOT-standard cobra-head style street light or aCity-standard pedestrian-scaled streetlight near the
improved driveway apron, and a total of five additional street lights are proposed to be installed along the
property frontage. The application includes Exception findings to address those areas of sidewalk that
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 14
.The applicant discusses specific sidewalk sections in terms of the
station numbers on the civil drawings.
Stations 1-16 (North of Land of Paws
): An 8-foot curbside sidewalk is proposed. The applicant
explains that there is a large roadside ditch and private property belonging to Anderson Autobody
which prevent standard parkrow installation, andfurther notes that this curbside sidewalk will
connect to thecurbside sidewalk to the northof the subject properties.
Stations 16-23:
A 3-foot bike buffer, 6-foot bike lane, 7-½ foot parkrow, and 6-foot sidewalk are
proposed along this section of the property frontage.
Stations 23-27:
A bus turn-out lane, bus stop and 8-foot curbside sidewalk are proposed along this
section of the property frontage.The parkrow here has been displaced by the proposed busturn-
out lane.
Station 27-34:
A 3-foot bike buffer, 6-foot bike lane, and curbside sidewalk are proposed. The
applicant explainsthat this section is physically constrained by a steep roadside embankment and
by the existing railroad trestle, and submittal materials have shown the sidewalk at varying widths
in this area, however ODOT has indicated that a 6-foot sidewalk in the minimum acceptable width
under the railroad trestle.
Station 34 Schofield/North Main:
A 6-foot bike lane, 7½ -foot parkrow and 6-foot sidewalk
are proposed in this section.
Speed reduction
The Planning Commission notes that the applicant has suggested that with a change in roadside culture
through annexation and the introduction of higher density residential development, driving habits on the
corridor may change. They further suggest that after improvements are made, a formal speed study to
seek a reduction in highway speeds could be undertaken and if speeds are ultimately reduced and
pedestrian volumes increase, marked crossings could potentially be approved by the Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT).
The Planning Commission finds that ODOT has jurisdiction on this section of state highway with regard
to issues including highway markings for pedestrian crossings and speed limits. A request to initiate a
speed study will ultimately need to come from the City, and Planning and Engineering staff have indicated
that preliminary discussions withODOTstaffhavebegunandtheyareopentoconductingaspeedstudy,
whichhasnotbeendoneforthiscorridorsincethelanereconfigurationcompletedafew
yearsago.ThePlanningCommissionrecommendsthatwithanyannexationapprovalhere,theCity
CouncildirectstafftoworkwithODOTtoinitiateaspeedstudyandthatthecitystronglyadvocatefora
speedreductiontomakethecorridoramorepedestrian,bicycleandtransitfriendlyfacility.
The Planning Commission notes that ODOThas indicated that the TIA is satisfactory, that the bus lane is
satisfactory with a slight adjustment to its taper, and that they support a median cut to provide a pedestrian
refuge at North Main Street and pedestrian crossing signage. ODOT has further indicated that they are
satisfied with bicycle and pedestrian facilities as proposed, emphasizing the need for at least a six-foot
sidewalk under the trestle; and that ODOT permits will be required to complete improvements. ODOT
has also noted that they will need to review and approve final storm-drainage engineering at Site Review
since storm drainage is to outflow into a ditch in the ODOT right-of-way.
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 15
Transit Transportation
For transit transportation, the criterion is that,should transit service be available to the site, or be
likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider,
provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus
turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property.
Southbound RVTD Bus Stop
The Planning Commissionfinds that the applicant has workedwithRogue Valley Transportation District
(RVTD), the RVTD Bus Stop Committee and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)to
provide design details for a new soutoinclude
abus turn-outlane,busshelter with lighting, sidewalk, accessible loading pad and accessible route to the
site, any necessary retaining, and a merge lane for the bus to re-enter the travel lane at an appropriate
turn-out lane, shelter and street light
placement, and a proposed walkway connecting from the shelter onto the project site.
Northbound RVTD Bus Stops
ThePlanning Commission finds that thewithin 1,800-
2,000feet of the property, with one near the intersection of North Main Street and Highway 99N and the
other near Valley View and Highway 99N. The applicant has explored the potential for enhancing
crossingsin these locations, but indicates that ODOT has determined that new striping, rectangular rapid
observed traffic speeds, traffic
volumes, sight and stopping distances when weighed against the anticipated number of pedestrians. The
applicant further indicates that ODOT does support a median refuge at the intersection of North Main and
nage.
The Planning Commission concludes that the subject property iswithin aTransit Supportive Area in the
-oftransit stops,
which typically equates to a five-minute walk at a normal pace, and that the applicant is providing a new
southbound stop to support transit use by future residents of the property.
Transportation Conclusions
In considering annexations, the approval criteria call for all streets within the annexed area to be fully
improved to city street standards, and all adjacent streets to be improved to at least a ½-street standard.
The application as proposed does not meet these street standards. In the area to be annex
immediate frontage is proposed with city standard improvements except where the sidewalk must be
pushed to curbside to accommodate the installation of a bus pull-out lane associated with a new
southbound bus stop. On Highway 99N adjacent to the area to be annexed, the applicant proposes
approximately 0.63 miles of new sidewalk to connect to existing sidewalks to the north and south, but due
to physical constraints in the form of roadside ditches and limited right-of-way city standard park row
planting strips with street trees cannot be installed. The application includes justification for an Exception
to the Street Standards, and while the applicant has demonstrated that an Exception is merited such a
request isnotconsidered independently of aformal development proposal for the site.
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 16
The proposal includesthe installation of roughly 3,340 linear feet or 0.63 miles -of sidewalk connecting
from the existing sidewalk terminus near El Tapatio restaurant south into the city limitsto the existing
sidewalk at Schofield Street; the installation of a new bus stop with pull-out and merging lane; and
improvements to the crossing from North Main Street across Highway 99N to the northbound RVTD flag
stop to include an improved median refuge and pedestrian crossing signage. In considering the adequacy
of the proposed transportation facilities, thePlanning Commission notes that the Transportation
Commission had expressed concerns with pedestrians headed to the northbound bus route and cyclists
turning north on the highway without additional crossing improvements or a speed reduction. In the
raised similar concerns. For the
Planning Commission, the applicant has done what they can to provide adequate transportation within the
constraints of thestate highway. Staff have indicated that ODOT is open to a speed study to determine
whether a reductiony
should be initiated by the city with annexation in conjunction with strong advocacy for a speed reduction
from Valley View to the existing city limits.
Minimum Density
The Planning Commission notes that for all residential annexations, a plan is required to be provided to
demonstratethat the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90
percent of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number ofunits is necessary to
accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints.
The code further provides that for purposes of computing density, portions of the annexed area containing
undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35 percent, shall
not be included.To ensure compliance with this requirement, the code also requires that the owner sign
an agreement for recording with the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord
with the minimum density indicated in the development plan.
The Planning Commission finds that after excluding undevelopable areas due to significant natural
features and physical constraints posed by slopes exceeding35 percent, the riparian drainage area, and the
wetland area and its buffer zone, the developable area of the property is 13.75 acres. For the proposed R-
2 zoning, the base density for 13.75 acres is 185.625 dwelling units and the minimum density is 167
dwelling units (13.75 acres x 13.5 dwelling units/acre = 185.625 dwelling units x 0.90 minimum density
= 167.0625 dwelling units). The application notes that the property owner will sign an agreement with
annexation that future development will occur in accord with this minimum density, and the applicant has
provided a conceptual development plan including building designs, site lay-out and findings to
demonstrate how this could be achieved on site.
Affordability Requirement
The Planning Commission notes that annexations are required to demonstrate that they will meet the
affordability requirements set forth in AMC 18.5.8.050.G., which generally requires that the total number
ofunitsshallequalorexceed25percentofthebasedensityof the subject property. Theapplication
explainsthat the project is proposed as rental units and that the affordable rental units will be restricted to
60 percent of the area median income (AMI) as provided in AMC 18.5.8.080.G.1. At this level, each
rental unit provided counts as 1.5 units for the purposes of meeting the standard, and the applicant explains
that these typeunits will be provided with the future Site Design Review for multi-family development of
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 17
the property. The affordable units are to be evenly dispersed through the development and will be of a
comparable bedroom mix to the market rate units, and it is anticipated that 12 of the future buildings
would contain two units each while two of the future buildings would contain three units eachfor a total
of 30 affordable units. The applicant notes that they envisionthe future development to consist of 28 two
bedroom units and 168 one bedroom units of around 500 square feet in area.
The Planning Commission further notes that AMC 18.5.8.050.G.1requires thatThe total number of
affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25
percent of the base densityas calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth hereinAs proposed,
theapplicant proposesto exclude lands constrained by hillside slopes, water resource protection zones for
streams or wetlands, and lands with significant natural features, arguing that both state and city regulations
do not consider these to be buildable lands, and that similar exclusions have been allowed in past applications.
The Planning Commission finds that while there is a provision which allows for the exclusion of
constrained lands (hillsides, water resource protection zones for streams and wetlands, and lands with
significant natural features)when calculating theminimum density of a property, the ordinance currently
has no similar provision to exclude these lands from the base density when calculating the required number
ofaffordable units for annexation.
The Planning Commission finds that to comply with the ordinance as written, the number of affordable
units required with annexation of the property would need to be increased to account for the full base
density of the subject properties. The R-2 subject properties here have a based density of 13.5dwelling
units per acre, which for this 16.87 acre property equates to a 227.75dwelling unit base density and would
require 56affordable dwellingunits, or 37units offered at 60 percent of area median income,rather than
the 30 affordable dwelling units discussed in the application. While the proposal, in excluding constrained
lands from their affordability calculations, does not strictly comply with AMC 18.5.8.050.G, the
reasonable, and the Council has the option to use its legislative discretion toallow theexclusion ofthe
constrained lands.
Five-Year Supply
ThePlanning Commission notes that the final annexation criterion is that one or more of the standards in
AMC 18.5.8.050.H. are met. Of these, the applicable standard addressed with the current proposal is a
demonstration that there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and re-developable land in the proposed
land use classification within the current city limits. The applicant has provided detail based on city data
which notes there is a 4.8-year supply of available Multi-Family Residential land combined between the
R-2 and R-3 zones. The Planning Commission finds that the area is envisioned and proposed for
annexation as Multi-Family Residential, and based on city data in the Housing Element and Buildable
Lands Inventory there is less than a five-year supply of available Multi-Family Residential zoned land.
2.4The Planning Commission notes that the application submittal includes written findings
responding to AMC 18.5.9.020 to address a Zoning Map Amendment for the zone change from the current
County zoning of RR-5 (Rural Residential) to-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential)
The Planning
Commission finds that annexation of the propertyinto the city with zoning corresponding to the
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 18
Comprehensive Plan designation does not necessitate a Zoning Map Amendment and is necessary for
Annexation to occur.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that while neither Outline Plan subdivision nor Site Design
Review approvals for development of the property are requested here, the application includes conceptual
details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (One- and Two-Bedrooms, ranging from 480-
701 square feet) in 14 two-story buildings with building placement and site and building designs to address
Site Review criteria to address the requirement that the application include a plan demonstrating that with
annexation, the property will develop to at least 90 percent of the base density. A deed restriction will be
recorded on the property to require that it be developed to the minimum density.
The Planning Commission finds that the site plan details presented for future development here are
conceptual, and that Site Review approval for development of the property is not being considered at this
time. Outline Plan subdivision, Site Design Review and any other necessary land use approvals will need
to be obtained before the site can be developed, subsequent to Annexation approval.
2.6 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
which are unbuildable.
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
properties. One is only 60-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 recommended conditions below which would require that the
applicant provide evidence of concurrence from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) with the
wetland delineation prior to a 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
based protection of the subject propert and subsequent development.
SECTION 3. DECISION
annexation of two parcels totaling 16.87 acres with a current
3.1 The application includes a request for the
zoning of Jackson County RR-5 (Rural Residential) and a proposed zoning of City of Ashland R-2 (Low
Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North. The annexation
is to include adjacent railroad property and state highway right-of-way added by the Staff Advisor for a
more orderly and logical boundary. The application includes conceptual details for the future phased
development of 196 apartments in 14 two-story buildings. Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 19
Review development approvals are not requested at this time, but would be applied for subsequent to
annexation approval. The application includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards to deviate
from city standard parkrow and sidewalk improvements in response to constraints of right-of-way width
and existing encroachments, although such Exceptions are not considered independent of a development
proposal.
The subject properties pose a number of challenges to development: there are significant road cuts, large
areas of unimproved right-of-way along the frontage, and established commercial uses between the
highway and the subject properties, all of which pose barriers for access and improvements; there are
limited utility or transportation facilities currently in place; and railroad right-of-way restricts connectivity
between the property and contiguous areas of the city. Site topography, wetlands, a stream corridor and
-foot wide easement. However, for the
Commission, the key challenge is in safely accommodating the multi-modal transportation needs of future
residents along a state highway where the posted speeds, traffic and pedestrian volumes, and limited sight
distances complicate multi-modal improvements such as marked or signalized crossings, particularly for
those needing to cross the highway by bicycle heading north or on foot to access the northbound bus route.
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 challenges in extending utilities
and installing 0.63 miles of new sidewalks and a new bus stop with pull-out lane to provide much needed
rental housing along a transit route, the proposal merits approval, however with that recommendation the
Commission also recommends that the city work with the Oregon Department of Transportation to
conduct a speed study and strongly advocate for a reduction in speeds on Highway 99N from Valley View
south the existing city limits. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the requested annexation subject to each of the conditions below.
1)That all proposals of the applicants shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
2)That prior to any work within the right-of-way:
a.A final utility plan for the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning, Public Works/Engineering, Electric, and Building Divisions; Oregon
Department of Transportation; and Rogue Valley Sewer Services. The utility plan shall
include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the
development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and
services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Utility
installations, including any necessary meters or fire protection vaults shall be placed
outside of the pedestrian corridor, and necessary public utility easements on the property
shall be shown in the future Site Design Review application.
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 20
b.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. With annexation, the property will no
municipal electric utility and the necessary services to make this transition will need to be
proved 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.
c.
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 near El Tapatio
restaurant shall be provided for review and approval by the Oregon Department of
any work within the street right-of-way or pedestrian corridor. The required improvements
generally consist of:
Stations 1-16 (North of Land of Paws:
i.) An 8-foot curbside sidewalk. There is a
large roadside ditch and private property belonging to Anderson Autobody which
prevent parkrow installation, and this curbside sidewalk will connect to existing
curbside sidewalk to the north.
Stations 16-23:
ii. A 3-foot bike buffer, 6-foot bike lane, 7-½ foot parkrow, and 6-
foot sidewalk along this section of the property frontage.
Stations 23-27:
iii.A bus pull-out lane, bus stop and 8-foot curbside sidewalk are
proposed along this section of the property frontage.Parkrow here has been
removed to accommodate the bus pull-out lane, and the final design shall reflect
taper adjustments required by ODOT.
Station 27-34:
iv. A 3-foot bike buffer, 6-foot bike lane, and 6-foot curbside sidewalk
are proposed. This section is physically constrained by a steep roadside
embankment and by the railroad trestle.
Station 34 Schofield/North Main:
v.A 6-foot bike lane, 7½ -foot parkrow and 6-
foot sidewalk are proposed in this section. In addition, the final civil drawings shall
include modifications to the existing medians to create a median refuge for
flag stop near the intersection of Highway 99 North and North Main Street.
vi.Private sidewalks would also be extended into the subject properties along the
driveway with ultimate development of the site.
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 21
vii.Re-striping of Highway 99N to provide a left-turn lane into the property as
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.
d.The applicants shall obtain any necessary permit approvals from ODOT, ODOT Rail &
CORP Rail. The applicants shall provide evidence of permit approval, including copies of
all approved plans, for all work to be done within ODOT right-of-way prior to the
commencement of work.
e.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.
f.That the applicant shall obtain any necessary permits or approvals from the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) and/or Talent Irrigation District (TID) for any work within the
easement.
3)That the applicants shall obtain required land use approvals including but not limited to Outline
Plan subdivision and Site Design Review approvals, as applicable, as well as any necessary federal
or state approvals necessary, for development of the property. The current approval is limited to
the utility infrastructure and frontage improvements associated with Annexation, with site
development to be addressed subsequently.
4)That prior to final approval and annexation of the property, the applicant shall provide:
a.A final revised 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, to
include the adjacent Highway 99N right-of-way and the adjacent railroad property. 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 ORS 222.510 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-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 22
e.A deed restriction agreement that development of the property shall comply with the
affordability requirements described herein, and that future development of the site shall
address these affordability requirements at Site Design Review, including but notlimited
to the affordability levels, number of affordable units, and how the applicant will qualify
potential renters and provide annual reporting to the city to verify compliance with these
requirements.
5)That prior to the submittal of the Outline Plan subdivision or Site Design Review applications, the
applicants shall obtain and provide evidence of concurrence from the Division of State Lands (DSL)
for a wetland delineation.
6)That with annexation, the Wildfire Lands, Physical & Environmental Constraints-Hillside Lands
and Severe Constraints, and Water Resource Protection Zones maps and associated overlays shall be
property shall be subject to regulation under these overlays.
7)That prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy on the property, all utility and
transportation infrastructure including the proposed transit facilities shall be installed according to the
approved plans, inspected, and approvedby the Staff Advisor.
September, 2020
Planning Commission ApprovalDate
PA-T3-2019-00001
September 22, 2020
Page 23
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARING
CONTD.
_________________________________
PA-APPEAL-2020-00011
(appealing PA-T1-2020-00109)
345 ClintonStreet
Memo
DATE:
September 8, 2020
TO:
Planning Commissioners
FROM:
Derek Severson, Senior Planner
RE:
Open Record Submittals for 345 Clinton Appeal
The only item received during the open record period for the 345 Clinton Street appeal was the attached
th
e-mail from the appellant requesting a 30-day continuance received on August 13.
materials on this item from last month on hand
for deliberations.
Department of Community Development
Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Sf;!Bvhvtu!22!QD!Ifbsjoh!Uftujnpoz
Fsjd!Fmfsbui!=ffmfsbuiAwfsj{po/ofu?
Uiv!3131.19.24!2169!QN
Up;!Ebob!Tnjui!=ebob/tnjuiAbtimboe/ps/vt?<!Qmboojoh
Dpnnjttjpo!.!Qvcmjd!Uftujnpoz!=QD.qvcmjd.
uftujnpozAbtimboe/ps/vt?
\\FYUFSOBM!TFOEFS^
Efbs!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo;
J!xsjuf!up!btl!gps!b!!dpoujovbodf!pg!41!ebzt!jo!uif!nbuufs!pg;
QMBOOJOH!BDUJPO;!$QB.BQQFBM.3131.11122!)bqqfbmjoh
QB.U2.3131.1121:*
QMBOOJOH!BDUJPO;!QB.BQQFBM.3131.11122
!
TVCKFDU!QSPQFSUZ;!456!Dmjoupo!Tu/
PXOFS;!Qbvm!Nbdf!'!Lbuimffo!Lbimf
Jg!zpv!ibwf!rvftujpot!ps!xjti!up!sfqmz-!uif!dpouspmmjoh!dbtf!boe
jut!ijtupsz!nbz!cf!gpvoe!jo;!!Fsjd!FMFSBUI-!qfujujpofs-!w/!Gsbol
B/!NdHVJSF-!Dmfsl-!Tvqsfnf!Dpvsu!pg!Dbmjgpsojb-!fu!bm/!245
T/Du/!2:58!)3125*!299!M/Fe/3e!:73/!!Tvqsfnf!Dpvsu!pg!Vojufe
Tubuft/!!Bqsjm!39-!3125/
!
Uibol!zpv/
Fsjd!Fmfsbui
Po!Bvh!21-!3131-!bu!2169!BN-!Ebob!Tnjui
=ebob/tnjuiAbtimboe/ps/vt?!xspuf;
Uibol!zpv!Fsjd/!!J!xjmm!ejtusjcvuf!uijt!up!uif!Qmboojoh
Dpnnjttjpo!boe!tubgg!upebz/
Ebob!Tnjui-!Fyfdvujwf!Bttjtubou
Djuz!pg!Btimboe-!Dpnnvojuz!Efwfmpqnfou!Efqbsunfou!
62!Xjocvso!Xbz-!Btimboe!PS!:8631
Qipof;!!652.663.3183-!UUZ;!!911.846.3:11
Uijt!fnbjm!usbotnjttjpo!jt!pggjdjbm!cvtjoftt!pg!uif!Djuz!pg
Btimboe-!boe!ju!jt!tvckfdu!up!Psfhpo!Qvcmjd!Sfdpset!Mbx
gps!ejtdmptvsf!boe!sfufoujpo/!!Jg!zpv!ibwf!sfdfjwfe!uijt
nfttbhf!jo!fssps-!qmfbtf!dpoubdu!nf!bu!)652*!663.3183/
Uibol!zpv/
.....Psjhjobm!Nfttbhf.....
Gspn;!Fsjd!Fmfsbui!=ffmfsbuiAwfsj{po/ofu?!
Tfou;!Npoebz-!Bvhvtu!21-!3131!959!BN
Up;!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!.!Qvcmjd!Uftujnpoz!=QD.
qvcmjd.uftujnpozAbtimboe/ps/vt?
Tvckfdu;!Bvhvtu!22!QD!Ifbsjoh!Uftujnpoz
\\FYUFSOBM!TFOEFS^
Efbs!Tubgg
Qmfbtf!gjoe!fodmptfe!dpnnfout!gps!Qmboojoh
Dpnnjttjpofst!sfwjfx/
Uibol!zpv"
Fsjd!Fmfsbui
52:!Dmjoupo!Tu/
)421*!53:.91:4
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
INTO THE RECORD