HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-14 Planning PACKET
Planning CommissionAgenda
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you
have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the
public testimony may be limited by the Chair.
MARCH 14, 2023
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
III.CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. February 14, 2023, Regular Meeting
2. February 28, 2023 Study Session
IV.PUBLIC FORUM
Note: To speak to an agenda item in person you must fill out a speaker request form at the
meeting and will then be recognized by the Chair to provide your public testimony. Written
testimony can be submitted in advance or in person at the meeting. If you wish to discuss an
agenda item electronically, please contact PC-publictestimony@ashland.or.us by March 14,
2023 to register to participate via Zoom. If you are interested in watching the meeting via
Zoom, please utilize the following link: https://zoom.us/j/96755264167
V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2023-00038, 2308 Ashland Street
VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2023-00039
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 440 Granite St.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Jordan Willing/Rogue Development Services
DESCRIPTION: A request for planning approval to construct a new single family home on a
non-conforming lot. The planning action requires both a Water Resource Protection Zone
(WRPZ) Reduction and a Variance to exceed seven-percent lot coverage. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: WR; ZONING: Woodland Residential; MAP: 39-1E-16-BB; TAX LOT: 1300.
VII.OPEN DISCUSSION
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
Page 1 of 1
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 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).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you
have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the
public testimony may be limited by the Chair.
February 14, 2023
DRAFT Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chair Lisa Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Interim Community Development Director
Haywood Norton Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
Lynn Thompson Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Eric Herron
Doug Knauer
Kerry KenCairn
Lisa Verner
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Paula Hyatt
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Interim Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following
announcements:
The City Council approved the first reading of PA-L-2022-00014, regarding the Middle
Housing Land Divisions (MHLD) ordinance that the Commission had approved at its
November 22, 2022 meeting. The Council will have a second reading of the ordinance
at its February 21, 2023 meeting.
The Council will review the Food Truck code amendments that were recommended for
approval by the Commission.
The Council approved an appeal of PA-T2-2022-00037, 165 Water Street, which had
been denied without prejudice by the Commission at its April 12, 2022 meeting. The
Council approved the appeal with conditions relating to setbacks, and the condition
that three of the buildings have a wall-plate height of no greater than 10ft to
accommodate maximum ceiling height.
The Council will review a proposal for a mural on the side of the Elks Lodge building by
the artist John Pugh, which was recommended for approval by the Public Arts
Commission and the Historic Commission.
The Butler-Perozzi Fountain in Lithia Park needs to undergo restoration, a process
which was approved by the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission.
PA-T3-2022-00004, the annexation 1511 Highway 99 North, was appealed to the Land
Page 1 of 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) by Rogue Advocates.
The final meeting of the Housing Production Strategy (HPS) ad hoc group resulted in a
recommendation to forward the draft HPS to the Commission, the Housing and
Human Services Advisory Committee, and the Council. Beth Goodman of
ECONorthwest and staff will present the draft HPS to the Commission at its February
28, 2023 meeting.
Commissioner Knauer asked if the points of contention for the 1511 Highway 99 North appeal had
been made public yet. Mr. Goldman responded that they are not, and that the applicants had been
given 21 days to file as an intervener for the appeal and had not done so. Therefore, the applicant will
not participate in the appeal unless they operate in concert with the City attorney. Mr. Goldman
added that the City does not typically provide comment on planning actions to LUBA, and that that
burden lies with the applicant.
III.CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of December 13, 2022 Minutes
Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to approve the consent agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed 6-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None
V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2023-00038
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2308 Ashland Street
APPLICANT & OWNER: MCA Architecture / Les Schwab
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to modernize and expand the
existing Les Schwab tire facility. The proposal includes remodeling the existing overhang/work
area and replacing it with a vestibule addition and new façade enhancing the Ashland St.
Frontage. Additionally, the breezeway between the two main buildings is proposed to be
enclosed creating two new Bay doors and warehouse space to the rear. In addition, there is
proposed site work to install ADA / Pedestrian access to the intersection of Tolman and
Ashland. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; MAP: 39-1E-14-BA;
TAX LOT: 1100
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioner Herron conducted a site visit. Commissioner
Dawkins stated that he was part of the planning process when the development was first approved
in 1972 and that he is familiar with the site.
Page 2 of 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
Staff Presentation
Senior Planner Aaron Anderson provided the Commission with a brief presentation on the applicant’s
proposal to expand and modernize the Les Schwab tire facility, as well as an historical background
on the property. He informed the Commission that the proposal included a shadow plan for the
potential development of a three-story building in the future. Mr. Anderson detailed how staff had
focused on the following three main issues when reviewing the proposal, the first being the location,
and quantity of parking. He stated that staff dad determined that the applicants had made the case
for an exception to parking standards be granted due to the nature of the business and the
proposed screening element. Second, staff review the Floor to Area Ratio (FAR), and Mr. Anderson
stated that both methods for measuring the FAR show the project would meet the current standard
or would come closer into compliance with that same standard. Finally, staff looked at required
improvements and pedestrian connectivity, and determined that those improvements would not be
possible due to future cross-section of Tolman, which will require an additional right-of-way (ROW)
on the opposite side of the street (see attachment #1). However, staff will require that the applicant
dedicate 7.5ft of the western portion of the property to enable that development in the future.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Thompson asked if parking requirements were taken into consideration when staff
reviewed the shadow plan, and the potential parking needs of a 30,000 sq. ft. building. Mr. Anderson
responded that, with the changes to state law that went into effect on January 1, 2023, that a retail
building could be developed that would not have any required-parking impact.
Commissioner Thompson asked how many parking spaces are currently on the site. Mr. Anderson
responded that there are 36, and there would be a total of 41 spaces after the expansion.
Commissioner Thompson noted that there did not appear to be a substantial analysis justifying an
exception to parking requirements. Mr. Anderson responded that the business required additional
parking spaces due to the rotation of vehicles on the site as they are serviced and then parked aside
to await pickup. Commissioner Thompson inquired if staff’s analysis of an exception to exceed
parking standards was based on the increase in work bays and stations proposed by the
application, and Mr. Anderson responded that it was.
Commission Thompson requested that staff elaborate on the requested exception for a total site-
obscuring fence, as required by Ashland Municipal Code 18.2.3.050, which deals specifically with
automotive and truck repair sites. Mr. Anderson responded that the installation of a 2ft high hedge is
an improvement over the unobscured lot, and would also be better than a 6ft fence along Ashland
Street. Mr. Goldman stated that having a clear entryway from the street would increase pedestrian
connectivity, while a 6ft fence would undermine that. He added that the City had not required site-
obscuring fences for the Oil Stop, or for Ashland Automotive. Mr. Goldman further stated that there is
a grade change along Ashland Street, which would be augmented by the proposed 2ft hedge. Mr.
Goldman pointed out that the applicant would be moving the bays further back from the public
ROW, which will bring the site into greater conformity with the above-referenced code.
Page 3 of 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
Commissioner Thompson inquired if staff would need to look at proportional improvements if the
application did not meet current standards. Mr. Anderson responded that, when considering the
improvement to the façade and its relationship to the streetscape, staff believed the application met
the proportionality standard. He added that applying the complete proportionality standard to the
existing site would be disproportionate to the current site.
Commissioner Thompson asked how staff addressed the expansion of a building that was non-
conforming, and addressed the requirement that staff review the proportionality of improvements
with the expansion. Mr. Anderson responded that the building footprint would not be increasing, and
that he found that the application had met the proportional need of upgrading non-conformities. He
added that if this application had omitted certain improvements, such as the pedestrian
connectivity or ADA ramp, that additional improvements would be required, but that the application
had met that standard.
Commissioner Thompson pointed out that subsection G of AMC 18.4.2.040 would supersede
subsections A-D with regards to building orientation. Mr. Anderson responded that her point would
be reflected in the Findings.
Commission Herron commented that there is a 60ft gap in the hedge and inquired about its
purpose. Mr. Anderson responded that the gap will likely correspond with the proposed façade to the
showroom, and that the applicant would likely expand upon that during their presentation.
Chair Norton joined the meeting via Zoom at approximately 7:30 p.m. He stated that he had no ex
parte contact and had not conducted a site visit.
Applicant Presentation
Frank Rudloff detailed the applicant’s main goal is to modernize the existing facility due to shifting
operating procedures, as well as how the business merchandizes. These changes would also allow
their employees to work indoors, which would also help with employee retention. Fire suppression
systems have improved since the building was first developed, so the criteria for fire safety is
reflected in the application (see attachment #2).
Mr. Rudloff pointed out that the project site is just outside of the auto-centric area adjacent to the
interstate. He stated that there is an intention in the code to make Ashland Street a pedestrian-
oriented zone, but that the obscuring fence requirements would undermine that objective. He added
that this type of business does not require pedestrian traffic, but that a plaza area will be installed for
customers who wish to wait outside while their vehicle is being serviced.
Mr. Rudloff detailed the layout of the site, including the service bays, customer lounge, and support
areas. He clarified that the number of service bays would not change, they are just being relocated
indoors. Mr. Rudloff stated that the two bays that are being enclosed at the breezeway will be moved
Page 4 of 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
forward to create some variation in the building when viewed from the street. Mr. Rudloff stated that
there will be trees planted along the street frontage, along with the hedge, to obscure vehicles
parked on the site, but that the applicants want the building to be visible from the street.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner KenCairn remarked that a 2ft high hedge and 2ft rise would not be sufficient
coverage from street. She suggested that the hedge be slightly higher than proposed, but be
intermittent. Mr. Rudloff replied that there is room for negotiation. Commissioner Thompson
commented that a perforated metal screen had been mentioned in the packet. Mr. Rudloff
responded that the application presented the screen as a hedge but that it could be either.
Commissioner KenCairn commented that a hedge would be preferable.
Commissioner Thompson requested that Mr. Rudloff address the increase in parking. Mr. Rudloff
replied that the applicants are proposing the removal of the canopy, which would increase the
parking capacity while also allowing vehicular traffic through the site. Mr. Rudloff stated that there
are currently 36 parking spaces on the site, and that the applicants were proposing an increase to 41
spaces. Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Rudloff to identify the new parking spaces being
proposed. Mr. Rudloff detailed how some spaces would be removed to accommodate site
improvements, but that three spaces would be installed in front of the building, along with several
more in front of the showroom. Commissioner Thompson lamented the lack of a statistical analysis
of the site’s parking requirements to justify the exception to parking code standards. Mr. Rudloff
stated that the need for increased parking spaces comes down to the nature of the business, but
agreed that an analysis could have been included in the application.
Commissioner Herron requested that the applicant identify handicap parking spaces on the lot, and
also proposed that the Commission impose the installation of a continuous hedge. Mr. Rudloff stated
that the intent was for spaces 1-2, and possibly space three, to be handicap accessible spaces.
Chair Norton stated that if the applicants are required to install two handicap spaces, which would
each require two parking spaces to accommodate, then the applicants would only be increasing
their parking by one space, and the applicants would be near the point where they would not need
an exception. Mr. Goldman responded that he would review the Building department code
requirements, but that the applicants would be required to provide the requisite ADA parking spaces
regardless. He commented that the Commission could require that spaces 1-3 be designated as
handicap spaces as a condition of approval, provided the spaces qualify under the Building code.
Mr. Goldman added that the ADA accessible parking would only require additional parking space if
they were perpendicular to the building rather than parallel. Commissioner KenCairn remarked that
only spaces one and three would qualify as ADA accessible parking spaces.
Vice Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 8:04 p.m.
Page 5 of 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
Deliberation and Decision
Commissioner Knauer inquired if the minimum parking requirement changes that went into effect on
January 1, 2023 also affected commercial buildings. He added that this type of business is not
explicitly defined by the code, and requested clarification on the calculations used to determine a
business’ parking requirements under the new guidelines. Mr. Goldman responded that the parking
requirement changes affected both residential and commercial buildings, and that it is based on
the square footage of use. He added that the new guidelines impose a maximum number of parking
spaces based on a business’ square footage of use, which the proposal would exceed. Mr. Anderson
stated that the calculated parking demand for the site is 38 spaces, but that the applicant’s
calculations for its business model places that number at 43, of which they are only asking for 41.
Commissioner Knauer pointed out that the Albertson’s and Shop ‘N Kart grocery stores have
extensive parking lots, and asked why the extra spaces on the subject site would not be acceptable.
Commissioner Thompson stated that it is incumbent upon the applicant to successfully argue that
their business constitutes a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use. Commissioners Knauer
and KenCairn stated that the business does constitute a unique use of the site.
Commissioner KenCairn agreed with Commissioner Herron that the hedge should run continuously
around the site. Commissioner Knauer concurred.
Commissioner Dawkins expressed disappointment with the lack of a landscape plan in the
application, and that the ponderosa pine trees currently on the site should be removed. He
conceded that it was too late to require a landscape plan as part of the application, but suggested
that the applicant be required to make the current landscape more amenable to the power lines
along the street. Commissioner KenCairn agreed. Commissioner Thompson asked if the trees shown
in the applicant’s presentation were part of the proposed landscape, and Mr. Rudloff responded that
the presentation depicted existing trees.
Vice Chair Verner reopened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m.
Mr. Rudloff responded that the presentation depicted existing trees.
Commissioner KenCairn remarked that applicants should be required to specifically identify what is
being proposed, citing the confusion over whether a hedge or fence was being proposed. Chair
Norton pointed out that an entirely new development would have been required to submit a
landscape plan, but that the proposed hedge is not part of a landscaping plan, and is instead there
to fulfill the fence requirement. Therefore, the applicants are not required to submit a landscape
plan. Commissioner KenCairn reiterated that applicants should be clear on what they are proposing.
Vice Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing at 8:17 p.m.
Commissioner Herron asked staff why a hedge was not proposed along the Tolman Creek Road side.
Mr. Anderson responded that the applicant had not proposed one. He stated that staff spoke with
Page 6 of 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
the applicant at their pre-application conference about the proportionality of non-conformities, and
that the applicant returned with this proposal. Vice Chair Verner pointed out that staff had requested
a dedication of the ROW along Tolman Creek Road, and that it did not make sense to require
landscaping along there if it was going to be removed in the future. Commissioner KenCairn agreed.
Commissioner Thompson asked if the hedge is part of the proportionality analysis, or whether it is a
separate requirement. Commissioner KenCairn stated that pedestrians should not be looking
directly at parked cars on the site. Commissioner Thompson responded that the proportionality
comes down to the non-conformity of the site, and that any proposed improvements might need
proportional upgrades to the landscaping. Commissioner Herron commented that the new parking
spaces proposed along Ashland Street necessitate the inclusion of a sight-obscuring barrier.
Commissioner KenCairn agreed, but stated that she does not want a 6ft tall fence along the street.
Chair Norton stated that the precedent for not requiring sight-obscuring fences at the Oil Spot or
Ashland Automotive is not justification to not require one here. Regarding parking the parking
exception, he cited the applicant’s designation of their business as vehicle-centric, but that the code
is unclear on what constitutes a vehicle-centric business. He suggested that the code should be
clarified in the future.
Commissioner Thompson reiterated that an exception is not required under subsection G of AMC
18.4.2.040 for the sites circulation between the building and the street.
Vice Chair Verner stated that the hedge should be a minimum of 3ft tall. Commissioner KenCairn
agreed, stating that the hedge should be a type of evergreen, to be approved by staff, and be a
minimum of 3ft tall.
Commissioner Herron reminded the Commission that there were additional conditions suggested by
staff.
Commissioner KenCairn/Dawkins m/s to approve the application with conditions of approval
recommended by staff, and removal of the two ponderosa pine trees to be replaced with street-
trees from the Ashland Street-Tree list, and a continuous 3ft tall, sight-obscuring, and evergreen
hedge along the whole frontage of Ashland Street. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Submittedby,
Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant
Page 7 of 7
Shadow Plan.A schematic or conceptual design for future land
development when a lot could be developed at a higher intensity. A
shadow plan demonstrates that the proposed development will not
impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required
building intensity standards (i.e., Floor Area Ratio), and that the
proposed development has been planned to prevent piecemeal and
uncoordinated development.
ˡ˥˕ˣˤ˙˟˞ˣˏ
Planning CommissionMinutes
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you
have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the
public testimony may be limited by the Chair.
February 28, 2023
DRAFT Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chair Lisa Verner called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. via Zoom.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Interim Community Development Director
Haywood Norton Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Eric Herron
Doug Knauer
Kerry KenCairn
Lisa Verner
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Lynn Thompson Paula Hyatt
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Interim Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following
announcements:
The City Council approved the first reading of the Food Truck ordinance that was
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. It will go to the Council for a
second reading and final approval on March 7, 2023.
The City is hosting an economic roundtable with a number of large employers on
March 6, 2023. The Oregon Employment Department will also be in attendance to
provide background on regional economic issues. It will be televised as a study
session by the Council.
III.PUBLIC FORUM – None
IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Ashland Housing Production Strategy Update, presentation by ECONorthwest
Mr. Goldman introduced Beth Goodman of ECONorthwest, and related how she had presented
before the Commission at its April 12, 2022 meeting on the Housing Production Strategy (HPS), and
the Housing Capacity Analysis (HCA). ECONorthwest assisted the City in identifying potential
strategies that could be implemented to enable the City to acquire an appropriate mix of housing
Page 1 of 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
within the community. Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that the City received a grant from
the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to undertake the HPS with
ECONorthwest. The City also established an HPS Advisory Group, of which Commissioners KenCairn
and Verner are members. Over the course of five meetings between April, 2022 and January, 2023
the HPS Advisory Group developed a report based on the information gathered, and on January 25,
2023 they recommended approval of the HPS. On February 23, 2023, the Housing and Human
Services Advisory Committee (HHSAC) reviewed ECONorthwest’s findings, and they unanimously
recommended approval of the HPS. Mr. Goldman reminded the Commission that this meeting is a
study session, and that they will not be voting on this item until their meeting on April 11, 2023.
Ms. Goodman began by detailing the scope the meeting’s discussion, including funding sources,
partners and adoption, and any questions or suggestions the Commission might have. She
explained that the HPS was built on the HCA, and is an eight-year action plan that identifies near and
long term goals to support the development of needed housing, particularly low- and middle-
income housing. Ms. Goodman informed the Commission that the HHSAC prioritized a number of
potential strategies to achieve this goal before recommending that the City adopt the HPS. The
Council provided input to ECONorthwest regarding potential strategies back in August, 2022, which
the HPS now includes. Ms. Goodman detailed feedback that her group received from local
developers, who were able to prioritize potential strategies and also provide suggestions to the HPS
(see attachment).
Ms. Goodman outlined the City’s obligations following the adoption of the HPS, including a
commitment to the implementation of strategies identified in the final HPS, and regular updates to
the DLCD regarding their effectiveness. She added that the City can adopt strategies not outlined in
the HPS, and would not be required to provide updates to the DLCD regarding those strategies.
Ms. Goodman discussed the Commission’s role during the HPS process, specifically working with City
staff to change Ashland’s code enabling the development of needed housing. She then detailed
ECONorthwest’s strategic approach to achieving that goal, and listed a number of primary and
secondary focus initiatives that could be implemented by the City:
A. Evaluate participating in or establishing a land bank
B. Evaluate opportunities to participate in a land trust
C. Host educational events with the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee
D. Develop an equitable housing plan
E. Disallow SFD in High Density R-3 Zones
F. Evaluate increasing allowances for residential dwellings in commercial and employment
zones
G. Maintain quality and support development of a new manufactured home park
H. Increase development capacity of MFR dwellings
I. Implement the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) to support multifamily or
affordable housing
Page 2 of 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
J. Preserve and improve existing low-cost, unregulated, rental housing
K. Work with partners to support development of additional permanent supportive housing
L. Evaluate opportunities to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions during
housing development
M. Establish a Construction Excise Tax
N. Evaluate using Urban Renewal
O. Identify additional funds to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Vice Chair Verner inquired how action E would work with the Climate-Friendly Area (CFA) guidelines
handed down by the state. Ms. Goodman responded that there should be no issue integrating both
rulesets into the City’s housing code, as a SFD would not be suitable for an area designated as a CFA.
Mr. Goldman added that CFAs would be geographically specific, and that there some R-3 Zones
would remain outside of CFA areas, which would be affected by action E.
Commissioner Knauer requested elaboration on the rehabilitation of manufactured homes in the
City referenced in action G. Mr. Goldman related an instance where the City engaged in a
weatherization program using a Community Development Block Grant in order to lower utility costs
for tenants of manufactured homes. Ms. Goodman added that there is more state and federal
funding for rehabilitation and weatherization of affordable housing.
Vice Chair Verner remarked that action C would be a low-impact project and was surprised at its
inclusion on the list of initiatives. Ms. Goodman responded that the HHSAC felt that this action was
necessary, but that it would not result in affordable housing inherently. She added that the education
of residents on the importance of affordable housing can be impactful. Mr. Goldman commented
that the HHSAC felt it was important to include, but ranked it lowest on their list of priorities. Vice
Chair Verner asked if the City would get HPS credit for meetings that have already occurred. Mr.
Goldman responded that meeting credits would be geared more towards public outreach events
rather than commission meetings. He listed several educational events that the City had held in the
past, such as the annual Rent-Burden Forum, stating that similar events would be reported to the
DLCD in the City’s progress reports. Ms. Goodman stated that the City could also engage more with
the underserved part of the community as part of the HPS. She added that the City would ideally be
able to get credit for meetings and outreach events that are already planned, but that it should also
focus on increasing those opportunities.
Commissioner Knauer inquired how action L would apply to affordable housing, and remarked that
incorporating efficient energy systems to affordable units could increase housing costs for those
who are already income-burdened. Mr. Goldman responded that Councilor Bob Kaplan had
suggested that the HPS look at opportunities to promote incentives for existing and new housing. The
HHSAC agreed, but it was rated low on their priority list. Councilor Kaplan had requested that the
timeline for these incentives be accelerated, because the dividends for energy efficient housing is
not limited to the HPS. Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that the timeline for any of the
Page 3 of 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
initiatives can be accelerated or prioritized at the City’s discretion. Ms. Goodman noted that the term
“Housing Production Strategy” is a misnomer, as it is also about preserving existing housing and
making it more affordable. Costs of heating and electricity are factored into the HPS, which is why
incorporating energy efficient systems was included as a strategy to lower housing costs.
Commissioner Verner asked why the City had been given a strict timeline to implement various
actions. Ms. Goodman responded that the administrative rules for the HPS require that each action
be given a deadline year in order for the DLCD to review the City’s implementation of its selected
strategies. Ninety days after a missed deadline the City will be required to submit a report to the
DLCD informing why the timeline was not able to be met, such as the City determining that the
initiative was unviable, or simply delayed. Ms. Goodman remarked that the HHSAC had suggested
that the timeline be more compressed, but that one of the reasons the timeline is spread out is due
to the City’s limited staff capacity. Mr. Goldman added that the Council and Commission would also
have a difficult time accommodating a more expedited timeline.
Chair Norton stated that the shortage of land within the City contributed to rising land prices. He
suggested that the City may need to be more willing to bend environmental guidelines and
restrictions within the city limits to increase housing. Chair Norton called attention to street
improvement requirements and the resultant rise in HOA fees as one way in which the City codes
increase housing prices. He stated that the City should be willing to discuss these codes when
reviewing how to reduce the cost of development in the City. He also suggested that the City should
host educational events for first-time homebuyers. Commissioner KenCairn responded that the
removal of environmental guidelines would lead to further environmental degradation and impact
everyone. She commented that until the privileged are willing to have less, nothing will change. Chair
Norton agreed, but reiterated that some rules would have to give in order to meet the City’s housing
goals. Vice Chair Verner agreed that the people who will be most impacted by the HPS are those with
fewer privileges than the Commission members.
Commissioner Dawkins commented that the dilemma facing the Commission lies in how to achieve
the balance referenced by Chair Norton. He pointed out that the Wingspread Mobile Home Park and
similar developments could have been achieved greater housing density, and suggested that
manufactured homes and parks be reviewed by the Commission at a future meeting. Commissioner
Dawkins related how the 1960s saw an exodus of working class families from the City when the
Croman Mill closed, and led to an increasing number of homes being bought by buyers from
California. Vice Chair Verner agreed that this topic could be reviewed by the Commission at a future
Study Session. Mr. Goldman noted that action G was listed as the highest priority item by the HHSAC
and the HPS Advisory Group, and that it would begin with the adoption of the HPS. He mentioned that
many members of the community have called for an increase in manufactured housing parks,
despite them not resulting in dense housing.
Councilor Hyatt informed the Commission that herself and Councilor Gina DuQuenne have
advocated for the development of more manufactured home parks. She detailed how there are
Page 4 of 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
manufactured home parks in both Commercial and Residential Zones within the City limits, and that
the Commission would likely need to develop plans for both types at a future meeting in order to be
successful. Mr. Goldman agreed, adding that there would be financial and land use avenues that
would need to be considered to reach a solution.
Commissioner Knauer asked if ECONorthwest had a measurable goal that the Commission could
achieve through the methods presented, and expressed concern that not having a statistically
grounded goal could make success difficult to attain. Ms. Goodman responded that the various
initiatives presented will dictate the strategy that the City chooses to make. She added that her
organization cannot set targeted goals for the City and that the Council will need to set those
targets. Commissioner Knauer asked how the City can ensure that progress does not become
stagnated. Ms. Goodman stated that the focus of the initiatives and their progress will be
determined by the Council.
Vice Chair Verner pointed out that the Commission is unlikely to see low-income developments
come before it because high-income projects are preferred by developers. The Commission
discussed how the City could direct focus and developers to the creation of low-income projects. Mr.
Goldman commented that the City is limited in the exclusionary zoning that it can make to promote
low-income housing. He detailed how many states have imposed rules that require developers to
dedicate a proportion of housing units in a development be targeted to specific income groups, but
that developers, but that some developers circumvent those rules. He added that a moratorium on
the development of certain housing types could be legally problematic. Mr. Goldman outlined how
the City could impose a Construction Excise Tax (CET), the funds of which could be directed towards
supporting of increased opportunities for affordable ownership or rental housing for people making
less than 120% area median income (AMI).
Commissioner Knauer suggested that the City set realistic, achievable goals in a concerted effort to
alleviate the City’s housing needs. He expressed the opinion that this would allow the HPS to progress
without stagnating. Ms. Goodman agreed that the focus of the HPS is for the City to promote the
development of housing directed at people making less than 120% area median income, but that a
cessation on high-income developments would likely be illegal. Commissioner Knauer reiterated his
concern that a lack of concrete objectives to meet could result in the City not achieving its HPS
goals.
Chair Norton remarked that the New Normal Neighborhood project had not progressed since it was
approved in 2015, and stated that the City should examine which codes are discouraging developers
from building needed housing. He stated that street improvement and wetland standards may need
to be eased in order to allow developers to build housing in the City. Commissioner KenCairn agreed
that some codes should be reexamined, and suggested that some standards be divided into
environmental regulations, which should be maintained, and quality of life standards, which could
be more malleable. She stated that codes requiring costly improvements such as park-rows can
Page 5 of 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
discourage developers from building in the City, and that standardized rules are not suitable for
some projects.
Vice Chair Verner requested that staff come before the Commission at a future Study Session about
easing code requirements. Mr. Goldman responded that staff could, though it will likely require
multiple Study Sessions to ascertain the feasibility of easing code requirements and reviewing
whether it would positively impact development in the City. Commissioner Knauer agreed, stating
that the code could be directed to encourage the development of what the City requires.
Councilor Hyatt emphasized the importance of maintaining the City’s existing mobile home parks,
and that the number of homes within those parks, coupled with the pursuit of zoning changes
associated with those parks, would provide a metric for how many of those homes were preserved.
This metric could allow the City to immediately act on the HPS when it is approved. Councilor Hyatt
pointed out that this could work in concert with the energy efficiency initiative, because many people
are forced into tenuous housing situations due to four main reasons; 1) death in the family; 2)
unforeseen medical expenses; 3) loss of employment; 4) and being overburdened by utilities. She
suggested that a nexus could be found between Commissioner Knauer’s feedback and an
examination of manufactured home park zoning. Ms. Goodman remarked that the HPS report does
include some metrics, and that the City could easily supplement them.
Commissioner Knauer noted that the HPS does not include a metric for creating new manufactured
homes and how to achieve that goal. Mr. Goldman responded that the City would establish goals
and objectives for any prospective ordinance change, and in reviewing the number of units in a
manufactured home park the City would identify opportunities for increasing the density of
expanding the park as an objective of the ordinance. Vice Chair Verner requested that staff develop
a Study Session to review mobile home parks. Mr. Goldman stated that any directive from the
Council to develop an ordinance will begin with Study Sessions, and also include feedback from
mobile home park owners and their residents. He remarked that the broader question of the HPS and
its impact on the community over a 20-30 year period could be addressed at a future Study Session.
Chair Norton asked if the HPS would come back to the Commission in the form of a Study Session, to
which Mr. Goldman responded that the Commission will next review the HPS in the form of a Public
Hearing on April 11, 2023. Chair Norton noted that many of the mobile homes parks along Highway 99
North that were destroyed by the Almeda fire have not returned, and stated that the City should
review why that is.
Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that the City Manager is intent on establishing a
management advisory committee to reexamine existing City codes, and that staff would likely be
reaching out to members of the Commission to participate in that capacity. The group would be
tasked with reviewing and making recommendations of adjustments to City codes. Commissioner
KenCairn expressed a desire to join the committee.
Page 6 of 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
Ms. Goodman thanked the Commission for its feedback. Vice Chair Verner stated that the Council
will have until June 30, 2023 to adopt the HPS.
V.OPEN DISCUSSION
Chair Norton advised that any advisory committee should garner input from members of the public
who are affected by the code, particularly Commissioners Herron and KenCairn who engage with it
in a professional capacity.
Commissioner Herron related his experience speaking with housing developers and their desire for
the City to create avenues for the use of prefabricated homes, which could lower building timelines
and construction costs without compromising quality of life. Commissioner Herron noted that
prefabricated homes are made with similar materials as a standard dwelling, and asked if staff had
any updates regarding their use in the City. Mr. Goldman stated that the City does not distinguish
between a prefabricated home and a stick-built home, and that they can be approved by land use
on any lot that can accommodate a single-family dwelling. Any impediments to the use of
manufactured or prefabricated homes would originate from the state Building Codes Division, and
any changes to those guidelines would then need to be adopted by the City. Commissioner Herron
asked who would inspect the pre-installed electrical work in manufactured homes. Mr. Goldman
responded that it was his understanding that there is an inspector in the factory itself.
Commissioner Herron stated that he had not observed a noticeable impact on the recent state
guidelines regarding parking, but that it did allow for more flexible use of commercial spaces than
before. He remarked that large parking areas may not provide the same benefit for a business as
when the parking guidelines were first instituted, and that the new guidelines could benefit the City.
Chair Norton agreed that rules written 30 years prior may not be as applicable today.
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
Submittedby,
Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant
Page 7 of 7
Ashland: Housing Production Strategy
Planning Commission
February 28, 2023
th
Tonight’s Discussion…
Discussion
Funding sources, partners, and
adoption
Do you have any questions about the
information in the document?
Are there any suggested changes to the
HPS report?
An 8-year action plan that identifies near and long-term strategies that
the City can take to support the development of needed housing,
especially low-and middle-income housing.
We are
Housing
here
Evaluate
Production
Understand Develop strategies strategies to
Strategy with
achieve fair and
AshalndHousing to meet housing
actions that the
Needsneedequitable housing
City will
outcomes
implement
Project Schedule and Primary Tasks
We are
here
Input from the HHSAC (February 23, 2023)
Unanimously recommended that the City Council adopts the
Housing Production Strategy as a whole.
Advisory Committee Prioritization Survey (Oct 2022)
012345678
Maintain quality and support preservation of existing manufactured home parks and
1
6
support development of new manufactured home parks
Work with partners to support development of additional permanent supportive housing
2 5
Preserve and improve existing low-cost, unregulated, rental housing
12 4
Participate in a land trust
12 3
Disallow SFD in High Density R-3 Zone
12
3
Increase development capacity of MFR dwellings through changes to the Land Use
3
3
Ordinance
Participate in or establish a land bank
13
2
Develop an equitable housing plan
5
2
Implement the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) to support multifamily or
13 2
affordable housing
Establish a Construction Excise Tax
22 2
Identify additional funds to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund
4 2
Evaluate using Urban Renewal
15
Evaluate opportunities to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas
33
emissions during housing development
Host educational events with the HHSC or other organizations
42
Low PriorityMedium PriorityHigh Priority
, 2022
Council was supportive of:Council asked why there wasn't
Land banking inclusion of:
Land trust -they were very
Pre-approved ADU and Missing
interested in long-term
Middle Plan Sets
affordability
Universal design as a strategy for
Preservation ofmanufactured
inclusion
home parks
Evaluating using Urban Renewal
Council discussed, and some
Potentially using a CET
suggested removing, inclusionary
zoning
Interview Summary –Developers (Aug 2022)
Key FindingsPriorities/Suggestions
Stakeholder agreed more affordable and workforce Urban Renewal has been effective in facilitating
housing are important priorities for the City, and development in neighboring jurisdictions and could
are interested in building more affordable housing be a useful tool in Ashland.
if it could be done feasibly.
Land banking could allow developers to construct
Lack of available land and cost of land are the more workforce housing.
biggest challenges to housing development
Review the code for unintended barriers to density.
Certain code requirements create de facto density
limitations. Evaluate opportunities to streamline development
review.
Stakeholders supported increasing density and
vertical development in Ashland. Though some
doubted that increasing development capacity in
MF zones would have an impact due to lack of
demand for higher density development types in
Ashland.
Strategies to Accommodate Housing Need in Ashland
Requirements of Strategies in the HPS
For strategies identified in the final HPS, the City of Ashland will:
Commit to implementation
Be required to update DLCD on implementation progress, and be required to
comment on its effectiveness in the future
Strategies not identified in the HPS may still be implemented by the
City, but the City will not be held to specific action by the State.
Initiatives Approach
Encourage development of low-and moderate-
income affordable rental housing.
This initiative
seeks to increase the housing options for unregulated rental
households earning between 60% and 120% of MFI ($43,900 to
$87,700).
Increase opportunities for affordable
homeownership.
This initiative seeks to increase the housing
options for homeownership for households earning less 120% of MFI
(less than $87,700).
Encourage development of income-restricted
affordable housing units.
There are limited options
available in Ashland that are affordable to households with income of
less than 60% of MFI ($43,900). This initiative supports development
of housing affordable in this income group.
Preserve existing of low-and moderate-
income affordable housing.
This initiative seeks to
increase the housing options for households earning less than 120% of
MFI (less than $87,700).
Initiatives Approach
Action E.Disallow SFD in High Density R-3 Zone
(excepting areas in the historic district)
Purpose: Increases efficient use of land in the R-3 by focusing on
opportunities for higher density development by removing single-family
detached housing as an allowed use for new development
PC Role and Process: Work through the process to change AshlandÔs
development code with City staff through a public process.
Action Timeline
Action F.Evaluate increasing allowances for residential
dwellings in commercial and employment zones
Purpose: Lowering or eliminating barriers to residential development in
commercial or mixed-use zones can help encourage the development of
more dense multifamily housing in these zones. May increase allowances
for residential dwellings in commercial and employment zones.
PC Role and Process: Work through the process to change AshlandÔs
development code with City staff through a public process.
Action Timeline
Action G.Maintain quality and support preservation of
existing manufactured home parks and support
development of new manufactured home parks
Purpose: Preserve and support development of new manufacturing
housing parks because they play a significant role in providing naturally
occurring affordable housing. The City could adopt a zone that allows
manufactured home parks as a permitted use and prohibits other types of
single-family detached or multifamily housing.
PC Role and Process: Work through the process to change AshlandÔs
development code with City staff through a public process.
Action Timeline
Action H.Increase development capacity of MFR dwellings
through changes to the Land Use Ordinance development
of new manufactured home parks
Purpose:
Removing barriers to development of multifamily housing in the land use ordinance, such as:
Increasing the maximum allowed densities in R-2, R-3, and parts of the Normal Neighborhood and
Croman Mill District designations.
Increasing allowed height in the R-2 and R-3 multi-family residential zones, outside of designated
Increasing lot coverage allowances slightly in the R-2 and R-3 zones to support the other code
amendments
Evaluating the code to identify and remove unintentional barriers to density, such as the certain
elements of the solar ordinance, parking or driveway requirements.
PC Role and Process: Work through the process to change AshlandÔs
development code with City staff through a public process.
Action Timeline
City and Partner Roles
Implementation Schedule
Recommendations
Develop pre-approved plan sets for Middle Housing
Typologies and Accessory Dwelling Units.
Consider staff capacity for implementation of the HPS.
Questions for the Planning Committee
Do you have any questions
about the information in the
document?
Are there any suggested
changes to the HPS report?
Next Steps
City Council Study SessionÏMarch 7
Planning Commission Hearing ÏApril 11
City Council Adoption Hearing ÏMay 2
_________________________________
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
March14, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION PA-T2-2023-00038A)
REQUEST FOR SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO MODERNIZE )
AND EXPAND THE EXISTING LES SCHWAB TIRE FACILITY. THE )
PROPOSAL INCLUDES REMODELING THE EXISTING )
OVERHANG/WORK AREA AND REPLACING IT WITH A VESTIBULE )
ADDITION AND NEW FAÇADE ENHANCING THE ASHLAND ST. )
FINDINGS,
FRONTAGE. ADDITIONALLY, THE BREEZEWAY BETWEEN THE )
CONCLUSIONS,
TWO MAIN BUILDINGS IS PROPOSED TO ENCLOSE EXISTING )
AND ORDERS.
SPACE CREATING TWO NEW SERVICE BAYS AND ADDITIONAL )
WAREHOUSE SPACE TO THE REAR.)
)
OWNER
LES SCHWAB)
APPLICANT:
MCA ARCHITECTURE)
______________________________________________________________)
RECITALS:
1)Tax lots#200, 300, 400, and 1100of Assessor’s Map 39-1E-14-BAhas anaddress of2308
Ashland Street. Together these four parcels are 2.35 acres and make up the Les Schwab Tire
Center.
2)The Les Schwab Tire Center has been in existence since 1973 with major additions in 1980
and again in 2005.
3)All proposed development is on Tax lot #1100 which islocatedin the C-1zoning districtand
is 1.0acre in size.
4)The application proposestomodernize and expand the existing Les Schwab tire facility. The
proposal includes remodeling the existing overhang/work area and replacing it with a
vestibule addition and new façade enhancing the Ashland St. Frontage. Additionally, the
breezeway between the two main buildings is proposed to be enclosed,creating two new
service bays and additional warehouse space.
5)Because the proposal involves new commercial structure as well as modifications to the
parking and circulation on the property Site Design Review is required.
6)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on February
14, 2022. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented.No members of the public
gave testimony either in favor or against.
7)The criteria of approval for a Site Design Revieware described inAshland Municipal Code
PA-T2-2023-00038
February14,2023
Page 1
(AMC)18.5.5.050as follows:
A.Underlying Zone: The proposal complies withall of the applicable provisions of the
underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks,
lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height,
building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones:The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements
(part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards:The proposal complies with the applicable
Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by
subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities:The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6
Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer,
electricity, urban storm drainage, pavedaccess to and throughout the property and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
E.Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards.The approval authority
may approve exceptions to the Site Development and DesignStandards of 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.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and
recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and
testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1The Planning Commission finds that AMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the development
pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage efficient use of land resources
PA-T2-2023-00038
February14,2023
Page 2
among other goals. When considering the decision to approve or deny an application the
Planning Commission considers the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in
the AMC.
2.2The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to rendera
decision based on the applicationitself,the Staff Reportdated 2/7/23, public hearing testimony,
and the exhibits received.
2.3The Planning Commission finds that the applicationwasdeemed complete on January
19,2023, and further finds that the notice for the public hearing was both posted at the frontage
of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within200-feet of the subject property
on February 3, 2023, which was 11 days before the hearing.
2.4The Planning Commission findsthatthe subject property is located within the C-1zoning
districtand thatSite Design Review isgoverned by AMC 18.5.2.
2.5The approval criteria for Site Design Revieware in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
18.5.2.050.The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to
make findings that each of the criteria have been met, as was explained in detail in the
applicant’s submittal,as well as the2/7/23 Staff Report,and by theirreference areincorporated
herein as if set out in full.
2.5.1The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that“The proposal complies
with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not
limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area,
lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards.” The Planning Commission notes that the subject property is located in the C-
1 base zone,Detail Site Reviewoverlay,and Pedestrian Places overlay zones.
Commercial services, including automotive service centersare permitted outright in the
C-1 zone. Along arterial streets,includingAshland Street, there is a required arterial
setback of “not less than 20 feet, or the width required to install sidewalk and park row
improvements, consistent with the street standards in chapter 18.4.6, whichever is less.”
In this instance, the building is existingand the addition is incorporated intothe main
volumeof the building.The C-1 zone allows building heights of up to 40 feet. As
proposed, the height of the building is effectively unchanged, with a small increase at the
entry element. The highest part of the building is 19feet.The Planning Commission finds
that the base standards for the zone are met. Building orientation will be discussed under
the paragraph 2.5.2 below.
2.5.2The second approval criterion is that“The proposal complies with applicable
overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).” ThePlanning commission notes that theproperty
is located within the Detail Site Review overlay zone, Wildfire overlay, and the
Pedestrian Places overlay zone. The Detail Site Review overlay triggers specific
standards that apply as part of the Site Development and Design Standards in AMC
18.4.2.040.C. Compliance with these standards is addressed under the next approval
criterion2.5.3.The wildfire overlay covers the entire city and while the new construction
is required to meet the requirements of the fuel modification area the Planning
PA-T2-2023-00038
February14,2023
Page 3
Commission finds that the paved nature of the subject propertyaddresses the
requirements for fuel management and wildfire protections..The Pedestrian Places
overlayhas two development standards that apply, stating that solar setbacks only apply
if there is residential land to the north, and that outdoor pavedspaces may be applied to
meeting the required land scape area. The Planning Commission finds that there is no
residential property to the north.The outdoor paved areasareaddressedunder 2.5.3
below.
2.5.3The third approval criterion is that“The proposal complies with the applicable
Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
below.”The application materials explain that building entrances isoriented to Ashland
Street.The application explains that the building has multiple jogs and offsets, a new entry
element with a newpedestrianaccess providing ADA access to the intersection.As mentioned
in the previous approval criterion this new paved area contributes tothe required landscape
area.The Planning Commission further notes that the standards related to building orientation
and scale allow the standards at AMC 18.4.2.040.B.1a-d are allowed to be waived when not
accessed bypedestrians and finds that the service bays are not to be accessed by pedestrians.
The Planning Commission notes that two of the existing street trees, on Ashland Street,in the
northwest of the property are inappropriate, are in poor condition,and need to be removed. The
Planning Commission adds as a condition of approval that these trees shall be replaced with
appropriate trees selected from the Ashland Street Tree guide.The Planning commission notes
that when considering redevelopment of existing non-conforming developments that site
improvements shall be in proportion to the proposed development. The Planning Commission
finds that when considering the project in its entirety that the new storefront and pedestrian
access, and minimal landscaping improvements, and conditions of approval belowmeets this
standard.
The Planning Commission notes that within the Detail Site Review Zone, properties are
required to have a minimum 0.50 floor area ratio (F.A.R.). This means that the building’s
floor area must be equal to at least one half of the lot area to meet the standard. The
Planning Commission notes that as proposed, the additional enclosed building area
increases F.A.Rbringing the property further into conformance.Additionally, the
Planning Commission notes that for properties greater than one-half acre, the Site Design
and Development Standards provide that the Floor Area Ratio standard may be addressed
with a “shadow plan” illustrating how the development could be intensified over time to
meet the minimum F.A.R.The Planning Commission notes that the definition of the
Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) as provided at AMC 18.6.1. is “A schematic or conceptual
design for future land development when a lot could be developed at a higher intensity. A
shadow plan demonstrates that the proposed development will not impede the future use
of the lot to be fully developed to the required building intensity standards (i.e., Floor
Area Ratio), and that the proposed development has been planned to prevent piecemeal
and uncoordinated development.”The Planning commission finds that the shadow plan
satisfies this requirement.
The Planning Commission notes that there are two primary exceptionsrequestedto the
Site Design Standards; 1)Location of the parking between the roadway and the building
PA-T2-2023-00038
February14,2023
Page 4
and 2) the number of parking spaces. These exceptionswill address these exceptions in
the fifth approval criteriain 2.5.5.
2.5.4The fourth criterion for approval is 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 property.” The Planning Commission finds that the property is fully developed
and served with all franchise utilities and that the enclosure of the existing space will
have no greater impact on water, sewer, electrical, or storm drain than is presently
existing.
The Planning Commission notes that the future improvements to Tolman Creek Road
require additional Right-of-Way.The Planning Commission notes that improvement
would require ROW dedication on the opposite side of the street those full improvements
are not possible at this time.The Planning commission findsthat the Right-of-Way
dedication ofseven-and one-halffeet on the western property frontage meets the
applicants obligation and will not require any improvements other than what the applicant
has proposed.
2.5.5The final approval criterionrelates to thefor exceptionsto specific standards
requested, in this case building setback and number of parking spaces. The applicable
criteria are as follows “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 approvalof 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.”
The Planning Commission finds that the location of theexistingbuilding creates a
demonstrable difficulty in meeting the required setbacks, and further finds that the
removal of theexternalauto work area,to be relocated into the new service bays,reduces
the impact on the street scape. The Planning Commission notes that the non-conforming
nature of the building location dates back to the initial construction in 1972.
The Planning Commission notes that the application proposes a total of 41 spaces
(presently there are 36). The Planning Commission determinedthat the code requires35
parking spaces andallows for up to 110% of the parking space allowance to be provided,
which would be 38.The Planning Commission finds that the exception request is for
three additional parking spaces and notes that there is no increase in paved areas. The
Planning Commission findsthat the vehicle centric nature of the businessmake it
reasonable that some amount of surplus parking is required for vehicle stagingand the
drop off and pick up of vehicles being serviced.
The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.2.3.050 provides special use standards for
Auto and Truck repair facilities:“All cars and trucks associated with an automobile or
truck repair facility shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a total
PA-T2-2023-00038
February14,2023
Page 5
sight-obscuring fence.”
The Planning Commission notes that in the present application the applicant has proposed
a two-foot screeningelement. The Planning Commission further notes that the project is
several feet abovethe adjacent sidewalk. The Planning Commission finds that a hedge
three feet in height continuous along the entire Ashland St. Frontage would satisfy this
requirement.Acondition of approval to that affect has been included below.
2.5After the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission deliberated and approved
the application subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report as well as two additional
conditions of approval:
a.That the twoexistingponderosa pine street trees located on Ashland St. be
removed and replaced with an appropriate street tree selected from the Ashland
Street Tree guide.
b.That a continuous evergreen sight obscuring hedge,three feet in height, be
installed and maintainedthe length of the Ashland St. frontage to screen parking
areasbetween the ROW and the building.
2.6The Planning Commission finds that with the conditionsof approval included in the
decision,the proposal satisfies the applicable approval criteria.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1Based on the record of the Public Hearingson this matter, the Planning Commission
concludes that therequest forSite Design Review is supported by evidence contained within the
whole recordwith the conditions of approvalbelow:
1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approvalunless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
2)The westerly seven-and-one-half-feet of the property shall be dedicated as public street
right-of-way in such a manner and document as deemed appropriate by the Public Works
Engineering Division and Staff Advisor.
3)That the property owner shall sign in favor of local improvement districts for the future
street improvements, including but not limited to park-row and sidewalks, for the Tolman
Creek Road intersection.
4)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 conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify
this Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
5)That prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All signage
shall meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7).
6)That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including
approved addressing (OFC 505); commercial fire apparatus access including angle of
PA-T2-2023-00038
February14,2023
Page 6
approach and any necessary fire apparatus or shared access easements (OFC 503.2.8);
limitations on the installation of gates or fences; fire flow (OFC Appendix B, Table
B105.1); fire hydrant clearance; fire department connection (FDC); a Knox key box; and
fire sprinklers where required for mixed-use buildings or due to access constraints.
7)That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from surrounding rights-of-way,
and the location and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the
building permit submittals.
8)That prior to the installation of stairs, parking, or utility infrastructure within the public
alley right-of-way, an encroachment permit from the Ashland Public Works Department
shall be obtained. A final revised site plan illustrating the placement of these proposed
improvements shall be provide for the review and approval of the Public
Works/Engineering Department and Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of an
encroachment permit.
9)That the twoexisting ponderosa pine street trees located on Ashland St. be removed and
replaced with an appropriate street tree selected from the Ashland Street Tree guide.
10)That a continuous evergreen sight obscuring hedge, three feet in height, be installed and
maintained the length of the Ashland St. frontage to screen parking areasbetween the
ROW and the building.
11)That building permit submittals shall include:
a)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 approved in the application
b)Final revised Site, Landscape and Irrigation plans shall be provided for the
review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals.
12)That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a)That all hardscaping and landscaping improvements including plaza spaces,
landscaping, and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the
approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. Replacement
trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted and irrigated according to
the approved plan.
b)That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not
directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties.
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA-T2-2023-00038
February 14,2023
Page 7
_________________________________
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2023-00039
SUBJECT PROPERTY:440 Granite St.
OWNER/APPLICANT:Jordan Willing/Rogue Development Services
DESCRIPTION: A request for planning approval to construct a new single family home on a non-conforming lot. The planning action
requires both a Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) Reduction and a Variance to exceed seven-percent lot coverage.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:WR;ZONING: Woodland Residential;MAP: 39-1E-16-BB;TAX LOT: 1300.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center,
1175 East Main Street
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE
ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be
at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at “What’s Happening
in my City” at https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable
cost, if requested. Application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development
& Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing
planning@ashland.or.us.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an
objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision
maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right ofappeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that
issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on
that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with
sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicantand those in attendance concerning this request.
The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria.
Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open
for at least seven days after the hearing.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-552-2052 /
Aaron.Anderson@ashland.or.us
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 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 I).
WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONE REDUCTIONS
18.3.11.070
A Water Resource Protection Zone may be reduced by up to 25 percent through a Type I procedure in 18.5.1.050, and by greater than 25 percent and up to
50 percent through a Type II procedure in section 18.5.1.060 if the proposal meets all of the following criteria.
A.The proposed use or activity is designed to avoid intrusion into the Water Resource Protection Zone through the use of up to a 50 percent reduction of
any dimensional standards (e.g., required front, side and rear yard setbacks; required distance between buildings) to permit development as far outside or
upland of the Water Resource Protection Zone as possible. Such adjustment to any applicable dimensional standards shall be reviewed as part of the
requested reduction, and shall not be subject to a separate Variance application under chapter 18.5.5 Variances. Reductions to dimensional standards
may not be used to reduce required Solar Access setbacks without evidence of agreement by the effected property owner(s) to the north through a
concurrent Solar Access Variance application as described in chapter 18.4.8 Solar Access.
B.The alteration of the Water Resource Protection Zone is the minimum necessary to efficiently perform the proposed activity and/or use. The proposed
development shall minimize disturbance to the Water Resource Protection Zone by utilizing the following design options to minimize or reduce impacts of
development.
1.Multi-story construction shall be considered.
2.Parking spaces shall be minimized to no more than that requiredas a minimum for the use.
3.Pavement shall be minimized, and all pavement used shall be installed and maintained in a porous solid surface paving material.
4.Engineering solutions shall be used to minimize additional grading and/or fill.
C.The application demonstrates that equal or better protection for identified resources will be ensured through restoration, enhancement, and mitigation
measures. The structures, functions, and values of the Water Resource will be restored through the implementation of a restoration and enhancement
strategy set forth in a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements described in section 18.3.11.110 Mitigation
Requirements.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
D.Long term conservation, management, and maintenance of the WaterResource Protection Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of
a management plan as described in subsection 18.3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a
single-family dwelling and accessory structures.
VARIANCE
18.5.5.050
1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances ofthe subject site, such as
topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for
purposes of approving a variance.
2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site.
3. The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property
line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
DRAFT
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Before the Planning Commission -March14, 2023
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-T2-2023-00039
OWNER:
JordonWilling
APPLICANT:
Rouge Development Services
LOCATION:
404 GraniteStreet
ZONE DESIGNATION:
WR(Woodland Residential)
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION:
Woodland
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:
18.2.5Standards for Residential Zones
18.3.11Water Resource Protection Zone
18.5.5Variances
SUBMITTAL DATE:
January 24, 2023
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE:
January 27, 2023
HEARING DATE:
March 14, 2023
120-DAY DEADLINE:
May 24, 2023
REQUEST:
A request for Water Resource Protection Zone(WRPZ)reduction and a \[Type-2\]
Variance to lot-coverage to allow for the construction of a new single-familyhome.
I.Relevant Facts
Subject Property
The subject property is a non-
conforming lot with regard to minimum
lot size (0.87 acres where twoacres is
the minimum) and is located in the
Woodland Residential(WR)zoning
district.The subject property is the only
private property on the east side of
Granite Street as it is entirely
surrounded by Lithia Park.
Granite Streethas a forty-foot Right-of-
Waywhich is only improved with curbs
which run closeto the western property
line of the property.Ashland Creek runs
along the eastern property line. The
property is in the Special Flood Hazard
Area (zone A) buthas received a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) removing much of the
property from the regulated flood zone. AshlandCreek also has a regulated Water Resource
Planning Action #2023-T2-00039Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/aa
16
Owner:Jordon WillingPage of
DRAFT
Protection Zone (WRPZ) that extends
50’ from the top of the bank.The
property was previouslydeveloped
with a two-story single-family
residence(shown at right)which the
county assessor records indicate was
constructed in 1915. A demolition
permit was applied for in 2009 to
remove the home andwas finally
removed in 2011. Additionally, the
property also hastwo historic accessory
buildingsa small ‘Mill House’ and
studio building along with extensive
decomposed granitewalkways.
The WR zone has a very limited allowance for lot coverage of only seven-percent. In the present
case the existing accessory buildings, walkways, and other hardscape on site already calculated
at 33% lot coverage.
Lot Coverage
A note on Lot Coverage; The Land Use Ordinance defines lot coverage as follows:
Coverage, Lot or Site.The total area of a lotcovered by buildings, parking areas,
driveways, and other solid surfaces that will not allow natural water infiltration to the
soil.Landscaping, including living plants, vegetative ground cover, and mulch, which
allows natural soil characteristics and water infiltration and retention is not considered lot
or site coverage. \[emphasis added\]
In practice when administering lot coverage,the ‘natural water infiltrationtest,’ has been
applied in a strictmanner. This includes gravel parking areas, compacted DG and essentially
anything that is not landscaping.The logic has been twofold: 1) over time with compaction and
the addition of fine material the permeability of gravel surfaces will become subject to sheet flow
and pooling, and 2) very oftengravel padshave a way of becoming paved. While it is true that
depending on the porosity and void ratio some gravel mixtures will maintain an appropriate level
of infiltration,in Staff’s assessment without a geo-grid or other engineered product it is correct to
consider gravel areas asimpervious and therefore aslot coverage.
Background
The earliest existing zoningmap is dated 1984 and shows the subject property zoned as
woodland residential.Woodland residential has a minimum lot size of two acres.The property
appears to have been created by deed in 1953 which was a legal way to convey property at the
time. The property has been in its present size/shapefrom the adoption of zoning regulations
making the lot legally non-conformingwith regard to its size.
In 2009, the then owner of the property,in preparation for the development of a new single-
family home, applied for a demolition permit. On March 19, 2009,demolition permit approved
forthe removal of a3,502 sq ft. residence (PL-2009-00333).Then in July of 2009aLetter of
Planning Action #2023-T2-00039Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/aa
26
Owner:Jordon WillingPage of
DRAFT
Map Amendment(LOMA)(#09-10-0622A)was approved by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). The effect of the LOMA was to establish a Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) for the subject property and remove most of the upland portion of the property from the
regulated SFHA.
In November of 2009 both the demolition permit (Demo-2009-01474)andbuilding permit for
the new single-family home(SFR BD-2009-01375) were issued.At the time the proposed
residence was replacing the one to be demolished so lot-coverage was not addressed.While the
permits were issued in 2009 the actual removal of the home did nothappen until 2011, and
construction of the proposed residence never began.Finally, it should be noted that during the
forgoing the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) had notyet been adopted as that did not
occur until Decemberof2009.
Proposal
The request is to construct a new single family home. The proposed lot coverage exceeds the
allowed 7% so a variance is required. The design of the home also encroaches slightly into the
upland portion of the Water Resource Protection Zone so concurrent with the variance a
reduction to the WRPZ is being requested as allowed per AMC18.3.11.070.
II.Discussion
Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for Nonconforming Development
The Land Use Ordinance at AMC 18.4.4.040 allows for a Nonconforming Development to be
enlarged or altered subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The applicant, out of an
abundance of caution, has also provided findings in their application which address the approval
*
criteria for a CUP to alter ‘a nonconforming development.’ It is reasonable that in referencing
†
definition for ‘development’ in the Land Use Ordinance one could argue that at present the
“development” at the subject property is nonconforming due to the existing ‘graveled areas’
exceeding lot coverage allowances. That said, it is Staff’s assessment that the proper remedy to
the lot coverage is a variance rather than a CUP. This determination is for the following reasons:
1)The previous development (the home) was removed in 2011 and the current proposal
would maintain existing coverage without proposing removal of existing pathways or
other ‘graveled areas to reduce the excess coverage as could be conditioned through a
CUP process., and
2)In order to be considered nonconforming development, a development need have been
developed in a legal manner consistent with code requirements in place at the time of
development, and subsequently become out of compliance due a change in the code. As
the installation of decomposed granite pathways did not require permitting, neither the
*
Nonconforming Development.An element of a development, such as lot area, setback, height, lot coverage,
landscaping, sidewalk, or parking area, or lack thereof, that was created in conformancewith development
regulations but subsequently, due to a change in the zone or applicable code standards, is no longer in conformance
with the current applicable development regulations.
†
Development.All improvements on a site, including alterations to land and new or remodeled structures, parking
and loading areas, landscaping, paved or graveled areas, and areas devoted to exterior display, storage, or activities.
Planning Action #2023-T2-00039Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/aa
36
Owner:Jordon WillingPage of
DRAFT
City nor the applicant has a clear record that the lot non-conformity in relation to lot
coverage proceeds the establishment of the 7% Lot coverage requirement for the WR
zone, or were in place prior to the 1984 zoning map showing this property as being WR
zoned. Therefore, as discussed at the pre-application the only planning actions required
for the present proposal is for a WRPZ reduction and a variance to lot coverage.
As such Staff will not address the CUP/non-conforming development components of the
applicants’ findings further as the approval of a variance as also requested by the applicant
resolves the issue of expansion of lot coverage and encroachment into the WRPZ proposed.
Variance -Lot Coverage
As mentioned above the present lot coverage far exceeds the amount allowed for in the zone, and
the applicant notes that when the project is complete the lot coverage will actually be slightly
less than it is currently. Staff believes that the WR zone designation on a legally non-conforming
undersized lot presents a unique physical circumstance that the code did not anticipate. Staff
notes that a great deal of the present lot coverage is a hard gravel area is where the previous
building footprint existed. Staff further notes that the 0.87-acre property only has an allowed lot
coverage of only 2653 sq. ft. of which 984 sq. feet are already impervious building footprints.
Staff further notes that when considering the 2 buildings, seating area, and utility vault that
would only leave 1669 sq. feet of remaining lot coverage if all the walkways were removed or
decommissioned. Staff notes that based on numerous geological studies done in the area that the
primary soil locally is decomposed granite. Given this natural soil type it is reasonable to
presume the infiltration of water along these improved pathways is similar to that of naturally
occurring exposed decomposed granite. In Staff’s assessment the variance to lot coverage
proposed is the minimum necessary and the proposed development of the home and retention of
the existing pathways will have minimal adverse impact upon adjacent properties. Staff would
note that the present state of the property pre-dates the applicant’s proposal and ownership of the
property. Staff finds therefore that the need for the variance was not self-imposed. Staff
concludes that findings can be prepared showing how all the required criteria of approval for a
Variance have been satisfied.
Water Resource Protection Zone
As noted at the outset during the 2009 demolition
and building permit approval the Water Resource
Protection Zone (WRPZ) had yet to be adopted.
The WRPZ adopted stream bank protection zones
with different buffers depending on the nature of
the waterway. In the present application that
requires a 50feet buffer upland from the top of the
bank. For the subject property nearly 60% of the
lot is encumbered with the WRPZ.
Shown at right is a graphic from the application
showing the property and the area that is affected
with the WRPZ; the areas highlighted in yellow
indicate where proposeddevelopment is located.
Planning Action #2023-T2-00039Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/aa
46
Owner:Jordon WillingPage of
DRAFT
The standard for approval is that through the use of a “reduction of any dimension standards” the
intrusion has been limited. In the present case the applicant has proposed a standard front yard
setback of fifteen-feet, but the right-of-way is presently only forty-feet where forty-seven is the
standard. If ROW dedication were required, or installation of sidewalks were to occur the front
yard setback would be considerably less. As staff understands the application the dimensional
standard that is being reduced is effectively the ROW width to prevent the house from being too
close to the curb line. Additional staff feels it is important with the current application to
consider the nature of the past development of the area of encroachment, which is largely packed
DG from the completion of the previous demolition and lack and riparian on natural resources
that require protection. Staff believes that when viewed in its totality the encroachments are
minimal, and the nature of the area lacks riparian qualities to be protected based on the previous
development.
Public Notice
th
Notice of the March 14public hearing was mailed to all properties within 200 feet of the
subject property as well as a physical notice posted along the frontage of the property on March
1, 2023, thirteen days prior to the hearing.The notice included a staff contact name and phone
number and email.At the time of this writing no public comment was received either in favor or
against.
III.Burden of Proof
The criteria for aWater Resource Protection Zone Reductionapproval are detailed in
AMC 18.3.11.070as follows:
18.3.11.070Water Resource Protection Zone Reductions -A Water Resource Protection
Zone may be reduced by up to 25 percent through a Type I procedure in 18.5.1.050, and by
greater than 25 percent and up to 50 percent through a Type II procedure in section 18.5.1.060
if the proposal meets all of the following criteria.
A.The proposed use or activity is designed to avoid intrusion into the Water Resource
Protection Zone through the use of up to a 50 percent reduction of any dimensional
standards (e.g., required front, side and rear yard setbacks; required distance between
buildings) to permit development as far outside or upland of the Water Resource
Protection Zone as possible. * * *
B.The alteration of the Water Resource Protection Zone is the minimum necessary to
efficiently perform the proposed activity and/or use. The proposed development shall
minimize disturbance to the Water Resource Protection Zone by utilizing the following
design options to minimize or reduce impacts of development.
1.Multi-story construction shall be considered.
2.Parking spaces shall be minimized to no more than that required as a
minimum for the use.
3.Pavement shall be minimized, and all pavement used shall be installed and
maintained in a porous solid surface paving material.
4.Engineering solutions shall be used to minimize additional grading and/or
fill.
C.The application demonstrates that equal or better protection for identified resources
will be ensured through restoration, enhancement, and mitigation measures. The
Planning Action #2023-T2-00039Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/aa
56
Owner:Jordon WillingPage of
DRAFT
structures, functions, and values of the Water Resource will berestored through the
implementation of a restoration and enhancement strategy set forth in a mitigation plan
prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements described in section
Mitigation Requirements.
18.3.11.110
D.Long term conservation, management, and maintenance of the Water Resource
Protection Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of a
, except a management
management plan as described insubsection 18.3.11.110.C
plan is not required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a single-family dwelling
and accessorystructures.
The criteria fora Varianceapproval are detailed in AMC 18.5.5.050 as follows:
18.5.5.050Approval Criteria
A.The approval authority through a Type I or Type II procedure, as applicable, may
approve a variance upon finding that it meets allof the following criteria.
1.The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not
account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such
as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar
circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a
hardship for purposes of approving a variance.
2.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique
physical circumstances related to the subject site.
3.The proposal’sbenefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
4.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicantor property
owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property
line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant.
B.In granting a variance, the approval authority may impose conditions similar to
those provided for conditional uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding
property and property owners, the neighborhood, or the City as a whole.
The applicants have submitted a complete set of Findings addressing these approval criteria to
the Planning Department to demonstrate compliance with the applicable approval standards for
the proposed development and by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full.
IV.Conclusions and Recommendations
In staff’s assessment, the application with the conditions of approval listed below, would comply
with all applicable City Ordinances. Therefore, Staff recommends that the planning Commission
approve the application with the suggested conditions of approval below.
1)That all proposals of the applicant including proposed conservation, erosion control and
pollution control measures shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
2)The plans submittedfor the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with
those approved as part of this application.
3)The applicant shall obtain necessary inspection approvals for all conservation, pollution
control and erosion control measures.
Planning Action #2023-T2-00039Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/aa
66
Owner:Jordon WillingPage of
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
FILE #
________________________________
541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DpoejujpobmVtfQfsnjugpsOpo.DpogpsnjohTjuvbujpot-XbufsSftpvsdfQspufdujpo\[pofSfevdujpo-WbsjbodfupMpuDpwfsbhf
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT __ _______________________________________________________
Pursuing LEED® Certification?YES NO
o
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
551HsbojufTusffu
Street Address
2411
27CC
39 1E
Assessor’s Map No. ____ __________________________________ Tax Lot(s) __________________________________
XppemboeSftpvsdf
XS
Zoning ___ _________________________________ Comp Plan Designation ___ _______________________
APPLICANT
bnzhvoufs/qmboojohAhnbjm/dpn
652.:62.51313
SphvfQmboojoh'EfwfmpqnfouTfswjdft
Name Phone E-Mail
Nfegpse
2425.CDfoufsEs/-QNC$568
:8612
City __________________ Zip
Address __ ____________________________________________
PROPERTY OWNER
KpseboN/XjmmjohkpseboAuijolcmvfnbscmf/dpn
916.748.9464
Name Phone E-Mail
Btimboe:8631
732NpsupoTusffu
Address _ ____________________________________________________ City Zip
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
652.611.5887
jogpAufssbjobsdi/dpn
MboetdbqfBsdijufduUfssbjoMboetdbqfBsdijufduvsf
Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________
421PblTu/Voju$4Btimboe:8631
Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________
Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________
Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects,
true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1)that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2)that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3)that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4)that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
2/27/3134
Applicant’s SignatureDate
As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
__________________________________
____________________________________________________
Property Owner’s Signature (Date
required)
\[To be completed by City Staff\]
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ __________
OVER
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Forms & Handouts\\Zoning Permit Application.doc
ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner.
5
PLANNING FEES FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner.
5
FINDINGS OF FACT – Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or
5
findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include
information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre-Application Comment document.
TRUE SCALE PDF DRAWINGS – Standard scale and formatted to print no larger than 11x17 inches. Include site
5
plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details.
FEE (Check, Charge or Cash)
5
LEED® CERTIFICATION (optional) – Applicant’s wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall
provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps:
Hiring and retaining a LEED® Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and
construction of the project; and
The LEED® checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued.
NOTE:
Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis.
Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property
owner(s), all required materials and full payment.
All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance
with ORS 227.178.
The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission
meeting. (
Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which
).
meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St
A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns.
If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions.
Willing Family Residence
440 Granite Street
Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction of less than 25 percent
Conditional Use Permit for Non-Conforming Situations
Variance to Lot Coverage
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Subject Property
Address: 440 Granite Street
Map & Tax Lot:39 1E 16BB; 1300
Parcel Area: .87 acres – 37,902 square feet in area
Comprehensive
Plan Designation: WoodlandResidential(WR)
Zoning: Woodland Residential (WR)
Adjacent Zones: Single Family Residential (R-1-10)
Rural Residential (RR-.5)
Woodland Residential (WR)
Overlay Zones: Water Resource Protection Zone for Ashland Creek
Wildfire Lands overlay
Property Owner: Jordan M. Willing
621 Morton Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Landscape Architecture: Terrain Landscape Architecture
310 Oak Street, Unit #3
Ashland, OR 97520
Planning Consultation: Rogue Planning & Development Services
1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457
Medford, OR 97501
Request:
A request to allow for the construction of a singleresidence on the non-conforming Woodland
Residential parcel located at 440 Granite Street. A conditional use permit is required to alter the existing
non-conforming development. A Water Resource Protection Zone, Limited Activities Permit is requested
for encroachment into the Water Resource Protection Zone. The requested development seeks a
variance to reduce the existing coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed seven percent lot
coverage.
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 1
of 20
Property Description:
The subject property is 39 1E 16BB, Tax Lot 1300 located at 440
Granite Street. The property is on the east side of Granite Street. The
property is adjacent to Ashland Creek on the southern and eastern
property boundaries. Parcels owned by the city of Ashland and part
of Lithia Park border the property on thesouth,east and north sides.
The subject property of land is described in Instrument No. 90-16576
of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. The property
consists of a portion of the Missouri E. Allen tract recorded on August
9, 1923, in Vol. 145, Pg. 465. The subject property appears on the first
platted maps of Ashland and was the J. Dennis Tract.
440 GRANITE ST
The parcel is a legal, non-conforming, lot of record. The parcel is
37,902 square feet in area (.87 acre). The minimum lot area in the
Woodland Residential (WR) zone is 87,120 square feet in area (two
(2) acres). The parcels area is 56.5 percent smaller than the minimum
required lot area.
According to the Jackson County Assessors’ records of the property, and the previously approved
demolition permit (BD-2009-01474), the property was occupied by a 3,734 square foot, two story
residence with attached, 400 square foot garage. The 4,134 square foot residence was constructed in
1915 with additions in the 1950s and 1960s.
The structure had a 2,366 square foot footprint, including a 400 square foot garage, 716 square feet of
porch and deck area, and 400 square foot concrete patio. An 850 square foot driveway and walkway to
the front entry were also present. This 4,732 square foot area was scraped from the site beginning in
early 2011 and concluding later that year.
There are accessory structures on the property that remained following the removal of the single-family
residence. These include a 221 square foot studio structure on the north side of the property, and a 458
square foot historical mill house which was reconstructed a little over four years ago after being
damaged by a fallen tree. There is a 109 square foot area of concrete bench and seating area and a 196
square foot below-grade utility vault. In addition to the 984 square foot area of the structures on the
property, there are existing extensive decomposed granite walkways and gravel parking area. These
areas of decomposed granite walkway, driveway/parking area, and gravel pad area accounts for 11,649
square feet of lot coverage.
The existing site coverage as calculated by the current standards accounts for more than 12,633 square
feet, 33.3percent of the lot area. The existing site coverage is non-conforming development because
maximum coverage in the WR zone is seven percent (2,653.3 square feet).
Note: The demolition permit documents do not account for all of the surfaces that are now considered
coverage, specifically, the previous driveway, the previous deck areas, the existing gravel surface
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 2
of 20
walkways, sand set patios, etc., were not included in the calculations, thus a lower coverage calculation
provided on the forms. Again in 2017 with the preapplication conference for site redevelopment, the
same or similar numbers of coverage were provided by the property owners agents. The current
property owner purchased the property late 2019 with the intention of redeveloping the site to similar
intensity of single-family home development as what was on site, what is existing on site as coverage
and what is existing in the vicinity.
A large, manicured landscape yard area is present between the structure area landscaped a variety of
large boulders rock outcroppings, rock walls, a pond, and a man-made diversion ditch for irrigation
which bisects the property and connects to Lithia Park. This diversion ditch irrigates mature landscape
trees and vegetation to the north of the property within the park.
The property is bordered on the east and south property lines by Ashland Creek. Ashland Creek is a
local stream that has FEMA floodplain and a 50-foot from top of bank riparian buffer zone, also known
as the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). The WRPZ extends substantiallyinto the property and
encompasses the existing structures, decks, footbridges, the landscape retaining walls,the outdoor
seating area, the extensive landscaped planterareas and the lawn area.The WRPZarea of the property
is 23,052 square feet. The WRPZ area covers 60 percent of the property area.
The property had a FEMA Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) approved in the early 2000s which largely
removed the property from the FEMA 100-year floodplain. No development is proposed within the
floodplain area.
There are numerous trees on the property. There are conifer trees such as Redwood, Pine and Fir trees
on the north side of the property and near Granite Street. There are birch trees along the ditch,
another conifer stand, and numerous alder and maple trees on the south and east sides of the
property nearer the creek.
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 3
of 20
Proposal:
The proposal is to construct a replacement residence on the partially vacant, legal, non-conforming
property with a new residence and outdoor area that hassimilar lot coverage, and areas of disturbance
in the Water Resource Protection Zone. The residence and be a great addition in the residential
neighborhood, replacing the use of the property as a primary residence for a local, business owning
family.
The proposed construction alters the existing, non-conforming development on the non-conforming lot
which requires a Conditional Use Permit and approval of building permits.
The existing coverage is 12,633 square feet. The proposed 11,112 square feet of coverage is an overall
reduction. The proposed coverage exceeds the allowed 2,653.3 square feet of coverage, requiring a
variance to lot coverage.
The proposed redevelopment of the site encroaches into the 23,052 square foot of WRPZ portion of the
property. Between the existing encroachments, and proposed encroachments, there is 15.32 percent of
the WRPZ affected by the proposed site development. The areas of ‘new’ encroachment include areas
of existing encroachments from removed decks, graded areas, lawn areas, pathways and seating areas.
The two existing structures on the site, the millhouse and the studio are both within the WRPZ.
With the proposal, the manicured lawn and maintenance intense landscape areas are to be reduced in
area and replaced with more native vegetation. An arbor structure is proposed for a swing which is a
new feature. The goal of the proposal is to encroach only into the areas of previous encroachments and
to overall reduce the area that requires intensive maintenance such as lawns and manicured flower beds
from the WRPZ. For example, the large green lawn areas nearer the creek is proposed to be reduced in
area and the proposed pool and patio area adjacent to the residence encroachment is within the
previous deck and landscape area near the residence.
This property has a well-defined landscaped yard area that extended from the rear of the previous
house and the large decks with gravel paths connecting yard area to the mill house, the irrigation ditch
and pond to the creek, outdoor seating area and the studio structure. Along the creek there is a rock
wall that defined the boundary between the landscaped edge of the ‘back yard’ and the banks of
Ashland Creek. The yard area has large diameter cedars, pines and redwoods.
Along the north side of the property, north of the studio and continuing east along the creek, wrapping
around the southern portion of the property and around the mill house structure, is a clearly defined
riparian area adjacent to the creek. The vegetation in this area includes large diameter maples and
alders. The ground covers include viburnum, blackberry, snowberry, and sword ferns.
There is a stand of conifer trees near Granite Street and north of the building area that are outside of
the WRPZ. An 18-inch DBH Douglas Fir tree and a 9-inch DBH Redwood tree are proposed for removal
to accommodate the driveway. The removal of these trees exempt because the property is not vacant
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 4
of 20
of structures and the trees are outside of the regulated areas. The remaining trees are to be protected
and a tree protection plan has been provided. Additionally, that plan incorporates an erosion control
plan to address any erosion concerns towards the creek.
When the property was created and originally developed more than 100 years ago, a residence was built
and a large landscaped areas and a backyard leading right to the creek was constructed. There were
additions, modifications and intensification of use of the beautiful, secluded, creekside property. The
areas of encroachment occur within the footprint of the historical, site developments. The proposed site
development results in less coverage than existing. The existing and proposedencroachments in the
Water Resource Protection Zone are similar to the improvements within Lithia Park, the Calle
Guanajuato,and Bluebird Park. The proposed residential development and the limited, new
encroachment area provides for improvement and enhancement to the Water Resource Protection Zone
area with new plant materials that are appropriate for the area. There is no loss in riparian area plant
material or trees.
The proposal is similar is size, scale, mass and coverage as the other conforming and non-conforming
properties in the vicinity of the site. The approval of this request allows for the redevelopment of a non-
conforming property with a beautiful, architecturally pleasing and neighbrohood compatible home.
On the following pages are findings addressing Non-conforming Situations, Conditional Use Permit,
Variance to Lot Coverage, and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction criteria for the requested
development of the replacement single family residence.
Thank you for your consideration.
Amy Gunter
Rogue Planning & Development Services
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 5
of 20
Findings Addressing the Criteria from Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
AMC 18.1.4. - Non-Conforming Situations
Chapter 18.1.4 contains standards and procedures for the continuation of uses, structures, developments
and lots that are lawfully established but do not comply with current ordinance standards (“nonconforming
situations”). The chapter is intended to protect public health, safety, and general welfare, while allowing
reasonable use of private property. Nonconforming situations are not necessarily considered a negative
influence on a neighborhood; rather the benefits of continuing a nonconformity should be weighed against
impacts to the neighborhood. The chapter contains four sections as follows:
A. Nonconforming uses (e.g., commercial use in a residential zone) are subject to section 18.1.4.020;
Finding:
Not applicable. The allowed use is residential.
B. Nonconforming structures (e.g., structure does not meet setback standards) are subject to section
18.1.4.030;
Finding:
Not applicable.
C. Nonconforming developments (e.g., site does not meet landscaping standards) are subject to section
18.1.4.040;
Finding:
The existing site development includes structures, the utility vault, the other lot coverages created by
the graveled areas that remained on the property following the removal of the residence and associated
residential development components, the existing structures, the utility vault lid and the decomposed
granite walkways, the rock lined irrigation channel, the benches, sand set patios, and other site
improvements that are considered lot coverage under the definition of the Ashland Municipal Code
18.6.1.030 for “Lot Coverage” exist onsite exceed the maximum lot coverage in the WR Zone.
According to 18.6.1.030. Coverage, Lot or Site is the total area of a lot covered by buildings, parking
areas, driveways, and other solid surfaces that will not allow natural water infiltration to the soil.
Landscaping, including living plants, vegetative ground cover, and mulch, which allows natural soil
characteristics and water infiltration,and retention is not considered lot or site coverage.
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 6
of 20
18.1.4.040 Nonconforming Developments
A. Exempt Alterations. Repair and maintenance of a nonconforming development (e.g., paved
area, parking area, landscaping) are allowed subject to approval of required building permits if the
development is not enlarged or altered in a way that brings the nonconforming site less in
conformity with this ordinance. See also, section 18.3.11.050 related to nonconforming uses in
Water Resource Protection zones.
Finding:
The existing lot coverage of 33.3 percent is nonconforming development of the WR zoned
property which allows for only seven percent coverage. The proposed new construction of a
residence and the other associated improvements such as driveway, pathways, decks, patios,
etc., do not meet the exempt alterations criteria. See B below.
B.Planning Approval Required. A nonconforming development may be enlarged or altered
subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4 and approval of required
building permits, except that a planning action is not required for exempt alterations described in
subsection 18.1.4.040.A, above, and for non-residential development subject to subsection
18.4.2.040.B.6.
Finding:
The proposal includes findings addressing the Conditional Use Permit criteria under chapter
18.5.4 to alter the non-conforming site development (lot coverage), ultimately reducing the non-
conforming coverage areas.
C. Roadway Access. The owner of a nonconforming driveway approach or access to a public
street or highway, upon receiving land use or development approval, may be required as a
condition of approval to bring the nonconforming access into conformance with the standards of
the approval authority.
Finding:
Not applicable.
D. Destruction. A legal nonconforming development that is damaged by means beyond the
owner’s control, such as fire, flood, earthquake, or similar catastrophe, to an extent of 50 percent
or more of its replacement cost, may be restored or reconstructed within the original three-
dimensional building envelope (i.e., relative to coverage, height, setbacks, and other dimensions
of the developed area) provided the nonconformity shall not increase.
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 7
of 20
Finding:
Not applicable.
D. Nonconforming lots (e.g., lot smaller than minimum area standard) are subject to section 18.1.4.050.
Finding:
The property is a legal, non-conforming lot. The parcel area (37,902 square feet) is less than 50 percent
of the required minimum lot area (87,120 square feet) in the WR Zone. The previous site development
and the existing lot coverage predate the present WR zoning and the WR zoning restrictions.
18.1.4.050 Nonconforming Lots
If a lot or the aggregate of contiguous lots or land parcels held in single ownership, and recorded
in the office of the County Clerk at the time of passage of the ordinance codified herein, a legal lot
or lot of record, as provided by chapter 18.1.3, with an area or dimensions that do not meet the
standards of the zoning district in which the property is located, may be occupied by a use
permitted in the zone subject to other requirements of the ordinance.
Finding:
The property is a legal, non-conforming property. The parcel area (37,902 square feet) is less than
50 percent of the required minimum lot area (87,120 square feet) in the WR Zone. The parcel
and its previous development predate the present zoning and the zoning restrictions.
The parcel of land is described in Instrument No. 90-16576 of the Official Records of Jackson
County, Oregon. The property consists of a portion of the Missouri E. Allen tract recorded on
August 9, 1923, in Vol. 145, Pg. 465. The subject property appears on the first platted maps of
Ashland approved by the Board of Commissioners in December 1883, as the J. Dennis Tract. A
monument survey was conducted in 2009 that confirmed the properties boundaries and the
accuracy of the deed.
The assessor’s documents dated between 1983 – 2012 note the propertywas occupied by a
residential dwelling and associated site improvements. The assessor’s documents also note the
zoning of the property as Rural Residential (RR)-.5, then RR-.5-P. There is not a reference in the
assessor’s documents to WRzoning until after 2012.
After substantial research to determine why the discrepancy between the county records and
the city records it was found that on September 28, 1981, the area of the subject property was
rezoned to a new zoning designation Woodland Residential. According to City Council meeting
minutes, the new Woodland Residential District was to control slope development and was to be
applied sparingly to properties with very steep slopes. “Woodland Residential is a new zone to
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 8
of 20
be applied to forested areas to ensure that these areas are protected from incompatible
development on slopes and forests with erosion control and scenic values as the prime purpose
of the zone.” The council reviewed the slope criteria with the council regarding the minimum lot
sizes (two acres) is based on the slope percentages. (Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting, Ashland
City Council, September 28, 1982, pg. 4., are attached).
The subject property is not only substantially smaller (56.5 percent smaller) than the minimum
lot area in the WR zone, but the property is also not steep, and does not have erosion issues
based on the extensive area of pre-established yard area, landscaping, pathways, gravel,
structures, etc. Most of the site improvements existed in 1982 when the zone was changed from
RR-.5 to WR. The zone changes from RR-.5 to WR substantially decreased the allowed lot
coverage of the site below the development that was present at the time of the 1982 rezoning.
Additionally, based on how lot coverage is calculated the site remains non-conforming even
without the primary use of the site (single family residential) present.
The proposal seeks to reduce the existing coverage areas of the non-conforming lot,but the
resulting coverage is still more than allowed in the WR zone thus a variance is requested.
18.5.4.050 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria
A. Approval Criteria. A Conditional Use 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.
Finding:
The proposal includes findings addressing the Conditional Use Permit criteria under chapter 18.5.4 to
alter the non-conforming site development lot coverage (AMC 18.1.4.040), ultimately reducing the non-
conforming coverage areas. The non-conforming situation is exacerbated by the non-conforming lot area
in the highly restricted WR zone (AMC 18.1.4.050).
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.
Finding:
The use of the property as residential use is in conformance with purpose and intent of the residential
zones. The proposal seeks a Conditional Use Permit to address the non-conforming situations on the
property both non-conforming lot area and coverage for the WR zone. The use conforms to the
standards of the zoning district and in conformance with the relevant Comprehensive plan policies for
residential zones.
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 9
of 20
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.
Finding:
There isadequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage and paved
access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation exist to the site for the existing
uses and from the previous residence.
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.
Finding:
The proposed residential use of the property and the proposed residential structure are the target use
in the zone. The impact area includes 11 parcels. Four of those are Lithia Park properties that are
immediately adjacent to the north, east and south, and vacant.
There are seven residential parcels. Of those there are three that are zoned R-1-10 (Single family
residential, 10,000 SF minimum lot area and maximum coverage of 40 percent). These are development
with residential homes and associated improvements.
There are four WR zoned properties. Two of these are vacant of structures. These parcels are generally
very steep with slopes of over 35 percent. These properties are smaller than the minimum lot area in
the zone but include the steep slopes envisioned on WR zoned lots.
a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
Finding:
The scale and bulk is similar to the properties in the vicinity that are developed with residential
uses. The two tables on the following pages demonstrate that the request is similar in both scale,
bulk and coverage as the properties that are immediately adjacent to the subject property.
Not included in the tables are the adjacent R-1-7.5 zoned property but it should be noted that
the R-1-7.5 zoned property allows for a 45 percent coverage.
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 10
of 20
Scale and Bulk:
Address Zoning Lot Area Area of Ratio Notes:
Structure(s)
433 Granite R-1-10 25,264.82,200 8.7 percent
435 Granite R-1-10 11,761.22,111 17.9 percent
440 Granite WR 37,9026,250 16.4 percent Proposed
445 Granite R-1-10 18,295.22,743 14.9 percent
514 Granite WR 25,264.82,662 10.5 percent
Re-Zoned in ‘82
510 Granite WR 22,215.63,456 15.5 percent
Re-Zoned in ‘82
Built in ‘19
Coverage:Coverage estimated due to driveway area and pathway areas unknown
~
Address ZoningLot Area Lot Coverage Ratio Allowed:
433 Granite R-1-10 25,264.8 ~ 4,475 ~17.4 10,105.9
435 Granite R-1-10 11,761.2 ~ 2,611 ~ 22.1 4,704.5
440 Granite WR 37,902 11,112 ~ 29.3 2,653
445 Granite R-1-10 18,295.2 ~ 3,344 ~ 18.2 7,318.08
514 Granite WR 25,264.8 ~3,609 ~14.3 1,768.5
510 Granite WR 22,215.6 ~2,983 ~13.4 1,555
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 11
of 20
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.
Finding:
The generation of traffic and the effects of the traffic from the residence on the surrounding
street will be the same as a typical residential use.
c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
Finding:
The proposed residence is a two-story structure with a basement. The residence reflects
American Arts and Crafts style architecture. The structure proposes to use wood beams and
natural wood siding with a flag stone base and wall treatment. The materials used in the
construction will be compliant with the Wildfire Hazards Ordinance standards. The garage is
below grade and not facing the public street with back up and turn around on the site to allow
forward exiting of the property.
The proposed residence is architecturally compatible with the residences in the impact area.
d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
Finding:
The air quality will not be negatively impacted by the development of the property with a
residential use.
e. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
Finding:
The proposed residential structure will generate similar noise, light and glare as a typical
residential use.
f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding:
The adjacent properties are zoned residential. The development of this residential property with
a residential use does not affect the development of the adjacent properties as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 12
of 20
g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use.
Finding:
Unknown what other factors are relevant.
4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant
to this ordinance.
Finding:
The use of the property as a residential use is permitted.
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.
a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the
density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones.
Finding:
The target use of the zone is residential. The conditional use permit allows for the development of a
residential development which is the target use in the zone. The density of the property is one residential
unit. The conditional use permit seeks to acknowledge the non-conforming lot area and the non-
conforming site development and allow development with similar coverage. The existing coverage
exceeds coverage amounts allowed by code and the proposal seeks a variance to reduce the total lot
coverage while exceeding the maximum coverage allowed in the zone.
Lot Coverage Variance:
AMC 18.5.030.
1.The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique
physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent
development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a
hardship for purposes of approving a variance.
Finding:
The subject property is substantially smaller in area than the required minimum lot area in the
zone. The undersized lot area is a unique physical circumstance of the subject property that
necessitates the variance request.
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 13
of 20
There is substantially more coverage area afforded to a property when it is two acres vs. the
subject property which is .87 of an acre or 56 percent of the minimum lot area. A two-acre parcel
that has seven percent coverage is allowed 6,098 square feet of impervious surface.
Allowed lot coverage of the .87-acre (37,902 square feet) parcel when it was zoned RR-.5 would
have been 7,541 + (200 porous surface) square feet in area.
There are accessory structures on the property that remained following the removal of the single-
family residenceand its 4,732 square feet of impervious surfaces. These include a 221 square
foot studio structure on the north side of the property, and a 458 square foot historical mill house
which was reconstructed a little over four years ago after being damaged by a fallen tree. There
is a 109 square foot area of concrete bench and seating area and a 196 square foot below-grade
utility vault. The total areas of the site development excluding the walkways and paths included
5,716 square feet of coverage thus compliant with the previous zoning and prior ownership.
Presently on the property with the way lot coverage is calculated by the city in 2023 there is
substantially more coverage on the site. This is because in addition to the 984 square foot area
of the structures on the property, there are existing extensive decomposed granite walkways and
gravel parking area. These areas of decomposed granite walkway, driveway/parking area, and
gravel pad area accounts for 11,649 square feet of lot coverage. The existing site coverage as
calculated by the current standards accounts for more than 12,633 square feet, 33.3 percent of
the lot area. The existing site coverage is non-conforming development because maximum
coverage in the WR zone is seven percent (2,653.3 square feet).
The property is a legal, non-conforming property. The parcel area (37,902 square feet) is less than
50 percent of the required minimum lot area (87,120 square feet) in the WR Zone. The parcel
and its previous and existing development predate the present zoning and the zoning restrictions.
The subject property is not only substantially smaller (56.5 percent smaller) than the minimum
lot area in the WR zone, but the property is also not steep, and does not have erosion issues
based on the extensive area of pre-established yard area, landscaping, pathways, gravel,
structures, etc. Most of the site improvements existed in 1982 when the zone was changed from
RR-.5 to WR. The zone changes from RR-.5 to WR substantially decreased the allowed lot
coverage of the site below the development that was present at the time of the 1982 rezoning.
Additionally, based on how lot coverage is calculated the site remains non-conforming even
without the primary use of the site (single family residential) present.
The zone and the limited lot coverage was applied after the previous structure occupied the site
and the reasons for the zone, to protect steep, forested slopes are not present upon the subject
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 14
of 20
parcel and the WR zone appears to have been inappropriately applied to this lot because of the
directive that the zone be applied sparingly to land with very steep slopes.
2.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances
related to the subject site.
Finding:
The variance requests seek to allow for coverage area of 11,112 square feet. This is the minimum
necessary to retain the existing structures, pathways and walkways, and to allow for the
construction a new residence, the necessary parking and vehicle maneuvering areas, a
permeable patio area, and natural pool area.
The existing site coverage as calculated by the current standards accounts for more than 12,633
square feet, 33.3. The proposed site development accounts for 29.3 percent coverage, an overall
reduction of the site coverage by four percent.
3.The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan
of the City.
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 15
of 20
Finding:
The proposals benefit of development of a single family residentially zoned property as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan with a single-family residential home for a young, growing
family does not cause any negative impacts on adjacent uses or properties.
The proposals benefits are that the overall coverage of the property is reduced by four percent.
The property will have a home on it again nearly 110 years after the first residence was
constructed on the property.
4.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For
example, the variance request does not arise as a result of a property line adjustment or land
division approval previously granted to the applicant.
Finding:
The variance request is due to the lot area being more than 50 percent smaller than the minimum
lot area in the zone. The request is to reduce the existing site coverage by four percent and to
develop the property with a single-family residence as envisioned in the comprehensive plan.
The proposal seeks for lot coverage of the site that is similar to the coverage of the site by the
previous site improvements and is less than the existing coverage on the property. The non-
conforming lot area was not created by the property owners. The non-conforming lot area was
created when the zone was changed from RR-.5 (which the lot complied with both in area and
coverage) to WR in 1982 which immediately created a substantially non-conforming parcel.
The existing coverages on the site were in existence prior to the property owners purchase of the
lot in late 2019.
18.3.11.070Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction:
A Water Resource Protection Zone may be reduced by up to 25 percent through a Type I procedure
in 18.5.1.050and by greater than 25 percent and up to 50 percent through a Type II procedure in
section 18.5.1.060 if the proposal meets all of the following criteria.
Finding:
The proposed redevelopment of the site encroaches into the Water Resource Protection Zone by less
than 25 percent.
The property area is 37,902 square feet in area and the water resource protection zone encompasses 60
percent of the total lot area. The proposal seeks to provide a covered backyard patio area, a swimming
pool and an outdoor swing structure within the WRPZ. The proposed area of encroachment is within the
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 16
of 20
existing areas of encroachment and are not impacting the riparian soils or vegetation. The ‘new’
encroachment areas are 1,129 square feet, five percent of the total 23,052 square foot WRPZ.
The context of the properties landscaping, trees, historical yard areas, patio areas, structure locations
and overall site improvements are important to consider when discussing the impacts to the water
resource protection zone.
The existing use and improvements areseparated from the creek banks the water resource by a rock
wall. There is 8,262 square feet of the WRPZ in the natural areas along the retaining wall areas.
Remaining area of 14,790 square feet of the WRPZ is the area of the property that includes the existing
area previous disturbance associated with the residential use of the property that formerly included a
wood deck, walkways, stairs, stacked rock walls, a pond, and the man-made irrigation ditch. There is an
extensive lawn area and landscape planter beds. These site improvements can be maintained as exempt
activities, but this proposal seeks to change the property and the type of encroachments that are within
the WRPZ.
The proposal seeks to provide a covered backyard patio area, a swimming pool and an outdoor swing
structure within the WRPZ. The proposed area of encroachment is within the existing areas of
encroachment and are not impacting the riparian soils or vegetation. The ‘new’ encroachment areas are
1,129 square feet, five percent of the total 23,052 square foot WRPZ.
The manicured lawn area is reduced by 10 percent to off-set the impacts of the new encroachment. It
can be found that the minor area of encroachment is minimal when considering the percentage of the
property covered by the water resource protection zone and the amount of the WRPZ that is already
developed as yard area and structures.
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 17
of 20
A. The proposed use or activity is designed to avoid intrusion into the Water Resource Protection Zone
through the use of up to a 50 percent reduction of any dimensional standards (e.g., required front, side and
rear yard setbacks; required distance between buildings) to permit development as far outside or upland
of the Water Resource Protection Zone as possible. Such adjustment to any applicable dimensional
standards shall be reviewed as part of the requested reduction and shall not be subject to a separate
Variance application under chapter 18.5.5 Variances. Reductions to dimensional standards may not be
used to reduce required Solar Access setbacks without evidence of agreement by the effected property
owner(s) to the north through a concurrent Solar AccessVariance application as described in chapter
18.4.8 Solar Access.
Finding:
The proposed use of the Water Resource Protection Zone encroachments is to allow for the construction
of rear yard amenities for the new residence that is proposed at 440 Granite Street. The new areas of
encroachment include a proposed outdoor patio, a portion of the pool, the covered walkway and a family
swing. These are in the upland areas of the WRPZ.
The use of the rear yard area of the property as a beneficial use to the home is designed to avoid intrusion
into the Water Resource Protection Zone. The patio and pool area are proposed in the location shown
because it is an area that was previously deck, steps and walkway areas and has already been encroached
upon with deck and patio area and would previously have been permitted encroachments.
The front yard setback of the residence is at the minimum required front yard setback. The residence
will be 15-feet from the curb. The setback is not decreased to shift the structure away from the WRPZ
because there is not additional right-of-way buffering the residence from the on-street parking of upper
Granite Street. The buildable area is constrained by the narrowness of the lot between the street and
the creek.
Additionally, the setbacks are proposed at the minimum and utilize the existing driveway apron location
and grade to provide for a below grade garage. The setback adjacent to Granite Street is not proposed
to be reduced because of the amount of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the street, there is a
lot of public interaction across the frontage of the property and a reduced setback reduces privacy for
the property owners and a reduced setback imposes a structure upon the street and reduces the natural
areas and feeling of still being in Lithia Park.
One of the primary reasons for the location of the structure and the associated encroachments is due to
the presence of large boulders, the historic irrigation ditch location and the presence of large stature
trees to the north, east and south of the existing buildable area prevents the structure from shifting.
B. The alteration of the Water Resource Protection Zone is the minimum necessary to efficiently perform
the proposed activity and/or use. The proposed development shall minimize disturbance to the Water
Resource Protection Zone by utilizing the following design options to minimize or reduce impacts of
development.
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 18
of 20
1. Multi-story construction shall be considered.
2. Parking spaces shall be minimized to no more than that required as a minimum for the use.
3. Pavement shall be minimized, and all pavement used shall be installed and maintained in a
porous solid surface paving material.
4. Engineering solutions shall be used to minimize additional grading and/or fill.
Finding:
The proposed residential structure is outside of the WRPZ. The structure is two story with a basement
to reduce the footprint. The parking area, driveway and front yard areas are outside of the WRPZ.
The proposed encroachments include porous patio areas, a small area of covered walkway, a pool area,
a pergola structure for a swing, and a reduced, reconfiguration of the existing manicured lawn area.
The areas of the proposed encroachments is within the area of the existing site improvements and
encroachments into the WRPZ. The area of encroachment of the patio area is proposed to be a porous
solid surface pavement material and not a solid concrete. The proposed pool area is only partially
encroaching into the Water Resource ProtectionZone. The pool location is largely dictated by the
existenceof large boulders that are present between the front property line and the existing studio
structure and the existing patio area. These boulders push the functional areas of the property for use
to the south portions of the site.
The encroachments are the minimum necessary to allow for the site development. Less than five percent
of the total WRPZ area is proposed to be encroached upon. This is a minimal encroachment when
considering the WRPZ area encompasses 23,052 square feet of the property.
C. The application demonstrates that equal or better protection for identified resources will be ensured
through restoration, enhancement, and mitigation measures. The structures, functions, and values of the
Water Resource will be restored through the implementation of a restoration and enhancement strategy
set forth in a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements described in
section 18.3.11.110 Mitigation Requirements.
Finding:
Though the plan requests encroachments into the WRPZ, the reduced area of manicured lawn, and any
new vegetation per posed would be from the approved water resource protection zone plant list,
providesequal protection for the vegetation within the WRPZ. In this case, the majority of the WRPZ is
within the improved yard area of the property. The area of proposed disturbance has always beenpart
of a formal landscaped area. The proposal changesthe improvements from a wood deck structure and
planter area to a porous patio and a portion of a swimming pool area.
The area of encroachment does not have a negative impact on the structure of the water resource
because there is a substantial physical distance from the patio area and the portion of the pool where
encroachment occurs. The water resource is physically separated from the yard area by a retaining wall.
This retaining wall provides a clear distinction division between the vegetation and soil types associated
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 19
of 20
with a streambank and a riparian preservation area. The retaining wall is a historic feature of the
property that was recently maintained. The vegetation on the stream side of the wall consists of maples
and alders, trees typical to a riparian area. There is also limited ground cover under the tree canopy and
the soil is a sandy, gravel, rocky mix, more typical of a riparian are soil types. On the west side of the wall
within the historically developed yard area the trees are redwood, fir, oak and pine. These trees are
typical in upland areas and provide shading functions and habitat areas, adding value to the water
resource protection zone and the riparian area, but there is not a riparian type of landscaping and
includes planter areas, existing pathways, and a manicured lawn area.
The proposal does not remove any trees within the water resource protection zone, retains the trees
and reduces the lawn area. The proposed patio and partial pool area is within areas that have previously
been manipulated as part of the developed area of the property. The proposed development area
replaces previous wood decking, existing pathways, rockery, stairs, and landscape planter areas with a
porous surface patio area and only a portion of the of the pool encroaches. The primary area for the
reduction to the water resource protection zone is at the upper extent of the protected area.
D. Long term conservation, management, and maintenance of the Water Resource Protection Zone shall
be ensured through preparation and recordation of a management plan as described in subsection
18.3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a
single-family dwelling and accessory structures.
Finding:
Not applicable. The property is occupied by a single-family dwelling and accessory structures.
Attachments:
Application Exhibits (Pages 1 – 24)
Tree Protection and Erosion Control Plan
Map of Ashland
Deed 1923-901856
1981 Minutes Rezoning area to WR
Jackson County Appraisal Records(1984-2012 - Sampling to show historical context of improvements)
2009 Demolition Permit (partial forms excluding the construction evaluations)
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 20
of 20