HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-12-12 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.
December 12, 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
1.Approval of Minutes
a.November 14, 2023 Regular Meeting
b.November 28, 2023 Special Meeting
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 December 12, 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/98191446530
V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2023-00043, 192 North Mountain Avenue
VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2023-00044
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 822 Oak Street
OWNER / APPLICANT: Suzanne Zapf for Overlook Drive, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/four-unit
Performance Standards subdivision for the properties located at 822 Oak Street. The
Subdivision was previously approved in 2021 and some infrastructure work has been
completed, however land use approval subsequently expired. The application also includes
requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units (AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1)
where dedication of a public street is typically required, an Exception to Street Standards to
not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street. Finally, the
Page 1 of 2
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 CommissionAgenda
application requests relief from the adopted Physical and Environmental constraints maps
to reflect the topography on site and allow minor encroachment into slopes exceeding 35%.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-1-5; ZONING: Single Family Residential; ASSESSOR’S
MAP: 39 1E 04CA; TAX LOT: 200 & 201.
VII.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING
A. Recommendation of draft ordinance for Parks, Trails, and Open Space Map Update
VIII.OPEN DISCUSSION
IX.ADJOURNMENT
Next Scheduled Meeting Date: January 9, 2024 Regular Meeting
Page 2 of 2
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.
November 14, 2023
REGULAR MEETING
DRAFT Minutes
I.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street. She noted that Commissioner Phillips was attending the meeting via Zoom.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Doug Knauer Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Eric Herron Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Susan MacCracken Jain
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt (absent)
Gregory Perkinson
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
The City’s new emergency shelter at 2200 Ashland Street opened on November 1, 2023. There
are currently thirty unhoused persons residing there, including children. The site will also serve
as an inclement weather shelter.
Staff received building permit applications for the Les Schwab Tire Center and for Habitat for
Humanity’s two proposed buildings in the Beach Creek Subdivision.
The Ashland Parks & Recreation Department will be presenting an update to the Park, Trails,
and Open Space map of the City’s Comprehensive Plan to the Commission at its November
28, 2023 meeting.
The City Council will be holding a Special Meeting regarding the workplans of the City’s
Commissions and Committees, where the Council will also hold an appreciation event for
these groups.
The December Study Session will fall on December 26, 2023. The Commission agreed to
cancel the meeting.
The annual Planning Commission update to Council will be held on March 4, 2023.
Page 1 of 7
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).
Total Page Number: 3
Planning CommissionMinutes
III.CONSENT AGENDA
1.Approval of Minutes
a.October 10, 2023, Regular Meeting
Commissioners Knauer/Herron m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote: All
AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None
V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2023-00043
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 192 North Mountain Avenue
OWNER / APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for a modification of the previously approved Outline
Plan (PA-T3-2021-00003), and revised Final plan for the third phase of the Beach Creek
Subdivision. The proposal revises the subdivision plan to include a private alley and to
add one additional lot. The project is currently under construction with Phases I and II
recorded and houses under construction. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single
Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 10; TAX LOT #’s: 800
Ex Parte Contact
Chair Verner recused herself from participating in the discussion of this item because of her previous
contact with one of the applicant’s, Mark Knox, and because she has resided in two homes
developed by the owner, KDA Homes. Vice-Chair Knauer presided over this portion of the meeting.
No ex parte contact or site visits were reported.
Staff Presentation
Senior Planner Anderson stated that the proposal is requesting a minor modification to the already
approved outline plan, which would add a private alley and one additional lot to the Beach Creek
subdivision. He gave a brief timeline, starting with the Commission’s approval of the original project
on September 28, 2021, and ending with the current proposal’s 120-day application timeline on
February 22, 2024. He noted that development would still be within the allowed density, even with the
additional lot (see attachment #1).
Mr. Anderson noted that staff had received comments from nearby residents during the public
noticing period regarding various aspects of the project, including grading and solar access,
development of affordable housing, and an existing storm drain on the property. He stated that he
had met with members of the adjacent Homeowner’s Association (HOA) to discuss their solar
Page 2 of 7
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).
Total Page Number: 4
Planning CommissionMinutes
access and setback concerns, and that there would be no changes to the number of affordable
housing units proposed. Mr. Anderson stated that, per a meeting the City’s Public Works Department
and the applicant’s engineer of record, the aforementioned private storm drain would need to be
rehabilitated.
Questions of Staff
Vice-Chair Knauer asked if staff had satisfied the HOA’s concerns regarding solar setbacks. Mr.
Anderson responded that they appeared to be satisfied.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if the proposed amendments would result in any changes to
public or open spaces, and Mr. Anderson responded that they would not. Commissioner MacCracken
Jain inquired if the affordable housing units would change under the new proposal. Mr. Anderson
responded that the locations of the affordable housing units had not been finalized.
Commissioner Herron asked if the recorded easement would benefit the 6-7 units adjacent to it, or if
it would affect the whole neighborhood. Mr. Anderson stated that the easement would likely only
affect the adjacent lots, and as such would not pose any potential issues. Commissioners Herron
and Knauer expressed concern over parking access along the alley. Mr. Anderson responded that
the alley meets the City’s parking standards.
Applicant Presentation
Mark Knox noted that he is retired, but had returned to help complete this project. He stated that the
proposal is relatively simple and that he will reserve much of his presentation for rebuttal.
Mr. Knox briefly described the circumstances that led to the proposed creation of the additional lot
and alley, and that the development conforms well with the space. He stated that the findings of fact
are contained within the application, and that he saw no need to request exceptions or variances.
Mr. Knox stated that he met with nearby residents to address their concerns regarding solar access.
He also noted that lots 44 and 48 would be used for affordable housing, and would be accessed by a
driveway from Orchid Street.
Questions of the Applicant
Vice-Chair Knauer requested clarification regarding the orientation of lots 45 and 46 in relation to
Hagen Way. Mr. Goldman responded that those lots would be accessed from Rosemary Alley, but
would be facing Hagen Way. Mr. Knox added that Hagen Way will have street trees planted along it.
Public Comments
Laz Ayala/Mr. Ayala submitted a speaker request form but declined to comment.
Sue Whiteman/Ms. Whiteman distributed an informational packet to the Commission outlining her
Page 3 of 7
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).
Total Page Number: 5
Planning CommissionMinutes
concerns (see attachment #2). She stated that she is a member of the Ashland Village HOA
adjacent to the subject property, and that her main concern is the state of the existing storm drain
on the property that is not in accordance with engineering requirements. Ms. Whiteman related her
repeated attempts to contact KDA Homes, which were unsuccessful, resulting in her meeting with Mr.
Anderson on November 3, 2023 to discuss the drainage area, where the City determined that the
storm drain was not in compliance. She added that she was able to meet with KDA Homes on
November 13, 2023, regarding proposed changes to the drainage area.
Ms. Whiteman stated that Ashland Village HOA had been restoring its section of Beach Creek for the
last two and a half years under guidance from the state, the City, KDA Homes, and the Jackson Soil
and Water Conservation District (JSWCD). She asked why KDA Homes was not being required to
reseed the area surrounding the storm fall, and requested that the City provide a copy of its final
inspection of the storm drain to the Ashland Village HOA.
Vice-Chair Knauer asked for the location of the storm fall. Mr. Anderson responded that it is within
the common area associated with Bear Creek, and that the storm drain is on private property. He
added that the applicant’s engineer is working with the City’s Public Works department to ensure
that all appropriate corrections are made.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked how storm drain concern would affect the development of
phase III of this project. Mr. Anderson responded that the recording of phase III would not be
approved until all concerns with the subdivision have been addressed, including the storm drain. Mr.
Severson added that some items from phase II are still being addressed, including landscaping near
the bridge installation, and the applicant submitted a letter of credit to secure those approval
criteria in order to get the phase II plat signed.
Vice-Chair Knauer asked Ms. Whiteman how the status of the storm fall would affect the Ashland
Village HOA, particularly in terms of erosion. Ms. Whiteman responded that it is largely an ecological
concern, and that this issue was brought up by the Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Mr. Knox stated that he met with Ms. Whiteman and other members of the HOA on November 13, 2023
to address their concerns, and apologized for not being more available over the past four months of
this project’s development. He stated that the applicant team is working with the Lomakatsi
Restoration project to create a cohesive corridor along the property, and that they have planted over
400 trees as part of a fuel management program. Mr. Knox explained that they are also intending on
reinforcing the sides of the storm fall and adding netting, and that this issue is currently being
addressed. Vice-Chair Knauer asked if these improvements would meet Jackson County standards.
Mr. Knox responded that the proposed improvements are all in accordance with engineering
Page 4 of 7
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).
Total Page Number: 6
Planning CommissionMinutes
specifications. He informed the Commission that the applicant team donated to the HOA to assist in
mitigating any possible erosion.
Deliberation and Decision
Vice-Chair Knauer directed attention to public comments received from the public in advance of the
meeting (see attachment #3). He stated that James Jarrard had directed inflammatory remarks
towards each member of the Commission, as well as Mr. Goldman and Councilor Paula Hyatt. He
stated that these comments were false and despicable.
Commissioners Herron/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the application with staff’s
recommendations, including a final approval by staff of the storm drain. Roll Call Vote: All AYES.
Motion passed 4-0.
VI.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING
A. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE TO
REMOVE AUTOMOBILE PARKING MANDATES AND AMEND PARKING STANDARDS SET FORTH IN
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 18.2.2, 18.2.3, 18.3.14, 18.3.2, 18.3.4, 18.3.5, 18.3.9, 18.4.2,
18.4.3, 18.4.4, 18.4.6, 18.5.2, 18.5.3, 18.5.4, 18.5.5, AND 18.5.6.
Chair Verner returned to preside over the remainder of the meeting.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Goldman described how new state guidelines that went into effect earlier this year prohibit cities
from mandating parking within a half mile of public transit routes. He related how Oregon had
adopted Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules relating to parking in July, 2022,
with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by promoting alternative modes of
transportation. Cities were then given three options for how to adopt these rules, with the
Commission and City Council directing staff to explore Option 1, which would eliminate parking
mandates City-wide. This option was selected because the removal of parking mandates within a
half mile of public would eliminate parking mandates for much of the City, particularly with the
designation of future Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs).
Mr. Goldman briefly detailed the CFEC guidelines with regards to parking, then described
amendments that the City is considering that are not required by the new state guidelines (see
attachment #4). These City-specific amendments included new draft codes for the City’s ADA-
accessible parking requirements; conditional use permits for excess parking; amendments to on-
street parking in subdivisions; driveway separation standards; vehicular circulation width standards;
and maximum grade for flag drives.
Page 5 of 7
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).
Total Page Number: 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
Mr. Goldman outlined the timeline for adoption of the CFEC parking reforms, with the adoption of
Findings at the November 28, 2023 Commission meeting, before going to the City Council on
December 5 and December 19, 2023 for a first and second reading, respectively.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Herron requested clarification regarding proposed accessible parking standards to
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.4.3.050, which state “in cases where no parking spaces are
voluntarily proposed for commercial, industrial, public use, mixed-use, and multifamily
developments with three or more units, it is mandatory to provide at least one accessible parking
space.” Mr. Goldman responded that this change was made to differentiate multi-family units from
duplexes, single-family residential units, or even two units on one lot which would be considered
multi-family units. He elaborated that an ADA-accessible parking space would not be required for a
duplex. Commissioner Herron suggested that this be amended to include only residential units.
Commissioner Herron noted that buildings in C-1-D zones are not required to provide parking, and
asked if the proposed changes to AMC 18.4.3.050 would result in current businesses being out of
compliance if they don’t offer ADA-accessible parking. Mr. Goldman responded that staff had not
considered that impact, and that the Commission could make a recommendation to change this
before a final decision is made by the Commission and Council.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain requested clarification regarding sections of the draft ordinance
that were included in the packet from the September 12 Commission meeting that were crossed out.
Mr. Severson responded that the September 12, 2023 meeting presented two sets of code changes,
which were combined in preparation for the current meeting.
The Commission engaged in a discussion about unbundling parking spaces from rental units. Mr.
Goldman noted that a decision to unbundle parking is not being included as part of the proposed
amendments, and that the CFEC guidelines require that cities notify all those affected by such
changes before any amendments can be made. There was general agreement among the
Commission that unbundling parking should be reviewed more closely at a future date.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if all existing parking would be grandfathered in with the
proposed changes. Mr. Goldman responded that all required parking would convert to voluntary
parking, which would not be required to be maintained. Commissioner Phillips asked if existing
voluntary parking could be converted to other types of buildings or areas. Mr. Goldman responded
that voluntary parking areas could be considered developable land, though any such proposals
would be required to undergo site review before being approved.
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 8:27 p.m.
Page 6 of 7
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).
Total Page Number: 8
Planning CommissionMinutes
Deliberation and Decision
The Commission expressed anticipation in discussing unbundling parking at a later date, and also
appreciation for the public comments received on this matter.
Commissioners MacCracken Jain/Phillips m/s to approve staff’s proposal with the changes
discussed. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
VII.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-APPEAL-2023-00018, 321 Clay Street.
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact or site visits were declared.
Deliberation and Decision
Commissioner MacCracken Jain noted that sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the findings made mention of a
partition, which is not part of original application. Mr. Severson responded that those sections should
refer to the tree removal, and that this would be changed in the final draft of the findings.
Commissioners MacCracken Jain/Verner m/s to approve the Findings with the corrections
suggested by Commissioner MacCracken Jain. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
VIII.OPEN DISCUSSION
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if the Commission needed to take any further action on the
comments received by Mr. Jarrard. Mr. Goldman responded that staff believed that the accusations
from Mr. Jarrard may have be made in error due to an editing mistake, because a digital copy of
those letters was also received that did not include those claims. He outlined the City’s Acting City
Attorney submitted a letter into the record refuting these claims, and that there should be no need
for any further action.
IX.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 7 of 7
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).
Total Page Number: 9
Total Page Number: 10
Total Page Number: 11
Total Page Number: 12
Total Page Number: 13
Total Page Number: 14
Total Page Number: 15
Total Page Number: 16
Total Page Number: 17
Total Page Number: 18
ˡ̅˵̃̄˹˿˾̃ˏ
Total Page Number: 19
Total Page Number: 20
Total Page Number: 21
Total Page Number: 22
Total Page Number: 23
Total Page Number: 24
Total Page Number: 25
Total Page Number: 26
Total Page Number: 27
Total Page Number: 28
Total Page Number: 29
Total Page Number: 30
From:Brandon Goldman
To:Doug McGeary
Cc:Carmel Zahran;Michael Sullivan;Lisa Verner;Derek Severson;Paula Hyatt
Subject:Jerrard Public Comment PA-T2-2023-0043
Date:Friday, November 03, 2023 3:14:40 PM
Attachments:image001.png
2023-10-25_Public Comment_Jarrard - Goldman.pdf
image002.png
City Attorney McGeary,
I am writing to address a matter of significant concern related to the public comments submitted by
Mr. Jerrard on a proposed amendment to the Beach Creek Subdivision recently submitted by KDA
Homes. Both the City Planning Department and individual Planning Commissioners have received
correspondence from Mr. Jerrard urging the Commission not to approve the aforementioned
amendment which was publicly noticed and will be presented to the Planning Commission in the
coming month. These public comment letters submitted by Mr. Jerrard were received within the
stipulated timeframe and will be included in the upcoming Planning Commission packets relating to
the planning action.
I am not reaching out to discuss Mr. Jerrard’s position on the planning application proposed but to
address a specific allegation made in his letters.
Mr. Jerrard asserts that the developer, KDA Homes, requested a payment of $70,000 be made by
Habitat for Humanity, to me directly in connection with their affordable housing partnership. I want
to clarify unequivocally that this claim is entirely false. There appears to be a critical error in his
letters, as it has come to my attention that the same accusation was made against various recipients
including Staff, Planning Commissioners, and the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, with
the insertion of their individual names into the text concerning the alleged payment. A snippet of the
letter is below with the relevant sentence highlighted.
For the record, it is my understanding that KDA Homes had indeed requested that Habitat for
Humanity contribute $70,000 per lot to KDA Homes to assist with the development infrastructure
costs for the affordable housing units. However, upon review, the board of Habitat for Humanity
elected not to meet this request, and subsequently, KDA Homes donated two lots to Habitat for
Humanity without any requirement for payment.
The erroneous assertion by Mr. Jerrard that City Staff , Planning Commission members, or the
Council Liaison were to be paid direct payments in relation to this subdivision is not only baseless but
also damaging. There is no truth to this allegation, and I am concerned that such misinformation
now part of the public record ,even if made in error, could be misconstrued as fact. To address this
potential, a copy of this response clarification letter will also be included in the planning record.
Total Page Number: 31
Given that the receipt of these letters could raise questions during the upcoming deliberations on
the planning application, I felt it necessary to inform you of this issue promptly. It is important that
both the integrity of our processes and the reputations of the individuals and entities involved are
not wrongfully tarnished by such allegations.
Attached please find a copy of Mr. Jerrard’s letter which was addressed to me directly and received
by mail today. Should you require any further clarification on this matter or if any questions arise,
please do not hesitate to reach out to me.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
Brandon Goldman, AICP
Director of Community Development
Pronouns: he, him, his
City of Ashland
Community Development
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-552-2076 | TTY 800.735.2900
Brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us
Online ashland.or.us; social media (Facebook @CityOfAshlandOregon | Twitter @CityofAshland)
This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law
for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541-552-2076.
cc. Carmel Zahan
Lisa Verner
Michael Sullivan
Derek Severson
Paula Hyatt
Total Page Number: 32
From:Doug McGeary
To:Brandon Goldman
Cc:Carmel Zahran;Michael Sullivan;Lisa Verner;Derek Severson;Paula Hyatt
Subject:RE: Jerrard Public Comment PA-T2-2023-0043
Date:Monday, November 06, 2023 12:50:06 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
Dear Brandon,
I appreciate our phone conversation last Friday regarding Mr. Jarrard's letter. It served as a reminder
that our office had advised staff not to engage with Mr. Jarrard's repeated and confrontational
comments. However, this time, his accusations have crossed a line and become part of the public
record in the land use matter, necessitating a response.
In his letter, Mr. Jarrard alleges that you received money from the land use applicant through one of
the involved parties. While Mr. Jarrard's statement could be seen as an accusation of wrongdoing
against you and others, such a significant claim should, in theory, be evident to everyone and easily
refuted due to the lack of evidence or explanation. Additionally, you noted that essentially identical
letters, with only the names changed, have been sent to other official parties involved in this matter.
We both observed that there is an absence of spacing between your name and the dollar sign in the
alleged monetary figure. This suggests a likely systemic error in inserting names in the word
processing process. Such errors make the preposterousness of his claims even more evident.
Considering Mr. Jarrard's history and the identical letters sent to others, it's clear that these
accusations lack credibility. Rather than seeking a retraction from Mr. Jarrard, which I doubt he
would provide, your response letter effectively addresses the issue and documents our stance. If you
believe it would be beneficial, I'm willing to include this response in the official record for a more
comprehensive review.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Douglas M McGeary
Acting City Attorney
City of Ashland
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 552-2091
This electronic transmission contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL information and is
intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient(s), please note that any dissemination, use, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited.
From: Brandon Goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>
Total Page Number: 33
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 3:15 PM
To: Doug McGeary <doug.mcgeary@ashland.or.us>
Cc: Carmel Zahran <carmel.zahran@ashland.or.us>; Michael Sullivan
<michael.sullivan@ashland.or.us>; Lisa Verner <lisaverner815@icloud.com>; Derek Severson
<derek.severson@ashland.or.us>; Paula Hyatt <Paula.Hyatt@council.ashland.or.us>
Subject: Jerrard Public Comment PA-T2-2023-0043
City Attorney McGeary,
I am writing to address a matter of significant concern related to the public comments submitted by
Mr. Jerrard on a proposed amendment to the Beach Creek Subdivision recently submitted by KDA
Homes. Both the City Planning Department and individual Planning Commissioners have received
correspondence from Mr. Jerrard urging the Commission not to approve the aforementioned
amendment which was publicly noticed and will be presented to the Planning Commission in the
coming month. These public comment letters submitted by Mr. Jerrard were received within the
stipulated timeframe and will be included in the upcoming Planning Commission packets relating to
the planning action.
I am not reaching out to discuss Mr. Jerrard’s position on the planning application proposed but to
address a specific allegation made in his letters.
Mr. Jerrard asserts that the developer, KDA Homes, requested a payment of $70,000 be made by
Habitat for Humanity, to me directly in connection with their affordable housing partnership. I want
to clarify unequivocally that this claim is entirely false. There appears to be a critical error in his
letters, as it has come to my attention that the same accusation was made against various recipients
including Staff, Planning Commissioners, and the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, with
the insertion of their individual names into the text concerning the alleged payment. A snippet of the
letter is below with the relevant sentence highlighted.
For the record, it is my understanding that KDA Homes had indeed requested that Habitat for
Humanity contribute $70,000 per lot to KDA Homes to assist with the development infrastructure
costs for the affordable housing units. However, upon review, the board of Habitat for Humanity
elected not to meet this request, and subsequently, KDA Homes donated two lots to Habitat for
Humanity without any requirement for payment.
The erroneous assertion by Mr. Jerrard that City Staff , Planning Commission members, or the
Council Liaison were to be paid direct payments in relation to this subdivision is not only baseless but
also damaging. There is no truth to this allegation, and I am concerned that such misinformation
now part of the public record ,even if made in error, could be misconstrued as fact. To address this
potential, a copy of this response clarification letter will also be included in the planning record.
Total Page Number: 34
Given that the receipt of these letters could raise questions during the upcoming deliberations on
the planning application, I felt it necessary to inform you of this issue promptly. It is important that
both the integrity of our processes and the reputations of the individuals and entities involved are
not wrongfully tarnished by such allegations.
Attached please find a copy of Mr. Jerrard’s letter which was addressed to me directly and received
by mail today. Should you require any further clarification on this matter or if any questions arise,
please do not hesitate to reach out to me.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
Brandon Goldman, AICP
Director of Community Development
Pronouns: he, him, his
City of Ashland
Community Development
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-552-2076 | TTY 800.735.2900
Brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us
Online ashland.or.us; social media (Facebook @CityOfAshlandOregon | Twitter @CityofAshland)
This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law
for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541-552-2076.
cc. Carmel Zahan
Lisa Verner
Michael Sullivan
Derek Severson
Paula Hyatt
Total Page Number: 35
From:Kay Sandberg
To:planning
Cc:Aaron Anderson
Subject:questions for 11/14/23 meeting
Date:Monday, November 06, 2023 3:18:21 PM
\[EXTERNAL SENDER\]
Hello,
I have a few questions for the 11/14 meeting regarding the Beach Creek development that I
ask to be included in the meeting that evening...
1. What are the specific plans for affordable housing--all/only cottages? locations? all to be
completed by Habitat for Humanity and if so, when (please update)?
2.What is the timeframe for phase 3; is this the parcel of field nearest the tracks?
3. Who may we contact at KDA Homes with further questionsor concerns who will be
responsive to our inquiries and answer in a timely manner?
4. When will the Orchid Street entrance no longer be used for trucks and other construction
vehicles (approximate date)?
5. Will the public be permitted to ask questions and make comments at the meeting?
Thank you. kind regards,
Kay Sandberg
Total Page Number: 36
Total Page Number: 37
Total Page Number: 38
Climate Friendly Equitable Communities
Planning Commission
ˠ˱̂˻˹˾˷ ˢ˵˶˿̂˽
11/14/2023
Select Options
State Rules
State Adopted CFEC
City to select approach to
Adopt
Parking rules
address parking under CFEC
rules, and Draft Ordinance
Adopted by LCDC July
amendments
2022
Adopt Land
Option 1 Ϻ ˕˼˹˽˹˾˱̄˵ ˱˼˼
Use changes
Aimed at promoting
parking mandates
by December
climate friendly and
citywide
31, 2023
equitable urban
development
Option 2 Ϻ ˝˱˹˾̄˱˹˾ ̃˿˽˵
Implement
parking mandates (in
Statewide
20% of City) and apply
implementation
new detailed standards
effective January 1,
and performance
2023
measures
CFEC Parking Reforms
2
2
Total Page Number: 39
Total Page Number: 40
Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules
Aim: To help local governments in Oregon create Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs) for more
housing and transportation choices, alignin˷ ̇˹̄˸ ˟̂˵˷˿˾Ͻ̃ ˂ˀ˅ˀ ˓˼˹˽˱̄˵ ˠ˿˼˼̅̄˹˿˾
Reduction Targets.
CFEC rules require metropolitan cities (including Ashland) to reform in parking standards,
promoting diverse development by addressing current parking standards:
Eliminate parking minimums and set maximum parking allowances
Mandating bike parking spaces based on development type - Cargo-Bike and
Bicycle Parking graphics updated
Requiring new multifamily-housing/mixed-use developments to have electrical
conduit extended for Electric Vehicles to 40% of parking spots voluntarily provided.
Establishes tree canopy coverage and landscaping requirements for parking lots
CFEC Parking Reforms
5
Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules
Eliminating mandated parking requirements
Removing parking mandates gives developers the discretion to include parking based
on project-specific needs and contexts, rather than following a uniform requirement.
Developers can assess factors like location, target demographic, and access to public
transportation to determine if parking is necessary for their project.
The elimination of mandated parking removes the requirement for on-site vehicular
parking ratios by use, thereby enabling property developers and landlords to voluntarily
unbundle parking from housing and commercial spaces.
CFEC Parking Reforms
6
Total Page Number: 41
City of Ashland specific amendments (not CFEC required)
Aim: The aim of the City of Ashland's additional parking requirements, such as permitting
exceptions to exceed maximum thresholds, mandating accessible parking for certain
developments, and revising past parking and circulation ordinances, is to enhance
flexibility, accessibility, and regulatory consistency in urban development while aligning
with broader climate and community goals.
CFEC Parking Reforms
7
City of Ashland specific amendments (not CFEC required)
ADA-Accessible Parking Requirement: New draft code mandates at least one ADA-
accessible parking space in developments where no other parking is proposed,
ensuring accessibility compliance. (18.4.3.050).
Where parking is proposed with a
development the State Building Code
stipulates the requisite number of
accessible spaces required based on
the size of the parking lot.
CFEC Parking Reforms
8
Total Page Number: 42
City of Ashland specific amendments (not CFEC required)
Conditional Use Permit for
Excess Parking: Added draft
code language allows
applicants to request a
Conditional Use Permit when
demand exceeds maximums
parking space allotment,
offering flexibility in parking
planning (18.4.3.030.B.2)
CFEC Parking Reforms
9
City of Ashland specific amendments (not CFEC required)
On-Street Parking in Subdivisions: Amended code language focuses on the association
of on-street parking with Performance Standards Options in subdivisions, aiming to
streamline and clarify parking regulations in these areas. (18.3.9.060.A)
ForallPerformanceStandardsSubdivisionsinR-1zones,andforallPerformanceStandardsSubdivisionsinR-2orR-3zoneswhich
createorimprovecitystreets,atleastoneon-streetparkingspaceperproposedlotshallbeprovidedwiththefollowingexceptions.
1.Whereon-streetparkingisprovidedonnewlycreatedorimprovedstreets,thetotalnumberofon-streetspacesrequired
shouldnotsurpasstheavailablestreetfrontage,witheachparkingspacebeingconsideredequivalentto22feetinlength
withoutinterruptionandexclusiveofdesignatedno-parkingareas.
2.StreetsoutsidetheCityofAshland'sjurisdiction,suchasthoseoverseenbytheStateofOregonDepartmentof
Transportation(ODOT)orJacksonCounty,whichareimprovedbyadevelopment,arenotrequiredtoprovideon-streetparking
asoutlinedinthisrequirementifprohibitedorexemptedbythegoverningjurisdiction.
3.Lotscontainingcottagehousingdevelopments,housingunitssmallerthan750squarefeet,oraffordablehousingarenot
subjecttotherequirementofprovidingon-streetparkinginPerformanceStandardsSubdivisions
CFEC Parking Reforms
10
Total Page Number: 43
City of Ashland specific amendments (not CFEC required)
Driveway Separation Standardsˊ ˢ˵˽˿̆˵˴ ̄˸˵ ˅ˀϽ ˴̂˹̆˵̇˱̉
separation requirement on neighborhood streets for lots
̃˵̂̆˹˾˷ ̄˸̂˵˵ ˿̂ ˽˿̂˵ ̅˾˹̄̃ʼ ̂˵̄˱˹˾˹˾˷ ̄˸˵ ˂˄Ͻ ̃˵̀˱̂˱̄˹˿˾
standard for these lower order streets. (18.4.3.080.C.3.c.i)
11
City of Ashland specific amendments (not CFEC required)
Vehicular Circulation Width Standards: Amended code for two-way and one-way vehicular
circulation width, aligning with past variance approvals for consistency. (18.4.3.080.D.3).
ˁ˅Ͻ
˂ˀϽ
ˁ˅Ͻ
CFEC Parking Reforms
12
Total Page Number: 44
City of Ashland specific amendments (not CFEC required)
Maximum Grade for Flag Drives: Revised code to allow flag drives multiple sections to
exceed a 15% grade, up to a maximum of 18%, ensuring clarity and consistency with
previous variance approvals. (18.5.3.060.F )
15-18%
15-18%
15-18%
Driveway grade
Driveway grade
˂ˀˀϽ
ˁˀˀϽ
ˁˀˀϽ
Proposed
Existing
Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excessof 15
percent but no greater than 18 percentfor not more than provided that the cumulative length of such variances across multiple
sections of the flag drive does not exceed200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter
18.5.5Variances.
CFEC Parking Reforms
13
NEXT STEPS
Planning Commission Public Hearing: 11/14
Transportation Advisory Committee: 11/16
Planning Commission Adoption of Findings: 11/28
City Council Public Hearing & First Reading: 12/05
City Council Second Reading: 12/19
Local Adoption and State Acknowledgement by 12/31/2023
CFEC Parking Reforms
14
Total Page Number: 45
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.
November 28, 2023
SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT Minutes
I.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Doug Knauer Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Eric Herron
Gregory Perkinson
Russell Phillips
Susan MacCracken Jain
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Paula Hyatt
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcement:
The December 26, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session has been cancelled. The City
Council will be holding an event to acknowledge and show appreciation for City
Commissions and Committees on December 18, 2023.
III.PUBLIC FORUM - None
IV.OTHER BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities Parking Code
Amendments, PA-T3-2023-00006
Commissioner Knauer noted several typos within the headers of the Findings. Mr. Goldman
responded that these would be corrected before being presented to the Council. He also noted that
Page 1 of 5
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).
Total Page Number: 46
Planning CommissionMinutes
the corrections suggested by Commissioner Phillips and the rest of the Commission at the
November 14, 2023 meeting had been included in the Findings.
Commissioners Herron/Knauer m/s to approve the Findings with the corrections suggested by
Commissioner Knauer. Commissioners KenCairn and Perkinson attested that they had reviewed
the November 14, 2023 Planning Commission meeting materials and video before casting their
vote. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
V.OTHER BUSINESS
A.Parks, Trails, and Open Space Map Update
Senior Planner Derek Severson informed the Commission that the City Parks and Recreation
Department had developed this Parks, Trails, and Open Space map amendment over the course of
two years, which would replace the current map that was adopted in 2002. He noted that an
amendment to the map was proposed in 2012, but was never adopted.
Presentation
Interim Parks and Recreation Director Leslie Eldridge began by outlining the development of the map
update, which started with the creation of a subcommittee two years ago. This subcommittee met
six-seven times and provided a recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Commission in the
form of the current proposal.
Ms. Elridge informed the Commission that a study conducted in 2002, which helped inform the
current map, showed that the City had less land per capita than cities like Roseburg, Medford, and
Klamath Falls, and sought to rectify this by acquiring land and ensuring that there was a park within
one quarter miles of each resident. Ms. Eldridge stated that this target was largely achieved, and that
the goal has shifted to one of conservation and preservation of land. She commented that the
Croman Mill site is the only space not within a quarter mile of a park.
Ms. Eldridge described the various ways in which this goal could be achieved, including the purchase
of land, securing easements, and the donation of land. She mentioned that the proposed update is
primarily based on the 2012 map that was never adopted, and that her team is seeking
recommendations or suggestions before moving forward with adoption. She added that the map
update contains redundancies, and that not all spaces within the proposal would need to be
acquired in order to achieve its goal.
Questions
Commissioner KenCairn noted that some of the proposed areas on the map update are
unnumbered, and Ms. Eldridge responded that those exclusions are based on the older map.
Page 2 of 5
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).
Total Page Number: 47
Planning CommissionMinutes
Commissioner KenCairn pointed out that area #18 on the proposed map is privately-owned and
may potentially be developed in the future. She asked if this space was included in the proposal due
to its proximity to a riparian area, and Ms. Eldridge responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Perkinson expressed appreciation for the clarity of the map, and asked how the Parks
and Recreation Department envisioned the integration of forest management evolving in the future.
Ms. Eldridge responded that her department has a good working relationship with Chris Chambers,
Forestry Division Chief of the City’s Fire and Rescue Department, and the City’s Wildfire Division which
advises her department on wildfire issues, but that this relationship is not codified. She stated that
her department has a small forestry program, but that it is not as extensive as the Fire and Rescue
Department’s Forestry Division. Commissioner Perkinson suggested that this update could provide
an opportunity for proactive messaging relating to smoke and wildfire, and recommended that this
be included in the update.
Commissioner Knauer asked how the conservation of the south side of Grizzly Peak falls within the
scope of the Parks and Recreation Department. Ms. Eldridge responded that the view of Grizzly Peak
is of value to the City, so preserving the south side of it from development was included as a goal.
Commissioner Knauer asked if the proposed conservation of undeveloped areas was to protect
them from future development, or if these spaces were being preserved for later recreational use.
Ms. Eldridge responded that many of the spaces outlined in the map update have potential
recreational use, but that the conservation of these spaces would also be considered. She stated
that if the presence of pets, such as dogs, had a negative effect on local wildlife of recreational
areas, then they would be prohibited from those spaces. Commissioner MacCracken Jain suggested
that this topic be heavily considered as the Parks and Recreation Department becomes more
involved in the conservation of land.
Commissioner Knauer asked if the Parks and Recreation Department is ever in conflict with other
conservation groups. Ms. Eldridge responded that she is unaware of any such conflicts, and that
conservation groups are primarily interested in larger tracts of land.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain inquired if the subcommittee considered the Chamber of
Commerce’s concept of the City being used as a future hub for outdoor activities in the region. Ms.
Eldridge responded that the use of parks as staging areas was considered, and that her team is
aware of the Chamber’s Economic Diversification plan and is excited about the prospect of turning
the City into a hub for outdoor recreational activities.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if the Rogue Valley Mountain Bike Association provided any
recommendations for the map update. Ms. Eldridge responded that representatives from the
Ashland Watershed Trails Association and the Ashland Woodland & Trails Association provided
feedback on trails and mountain biking. City Councilor Eric Hansen also represented the mountain
Page 3 of 5
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).
Total Page Number: 48
Planning CommissionMinutes
biking community on the subcommittee and helped develop the proposal. She stated that Councilor
Hansen and herself worked with the Rogue Valley Mountain Bike Association and are aware of their
sustainability plan, and believe that their interests have been represented in the proposal.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked why the map update in 2012 was never adopted. Mr.
Goldman responded that the 2012 map was largely aspirational regarding the properties it proposed
be obtained for future recreational development. However, many of these properties were
purchased subsequently, leaving the map outdated and rendering it largely obsolete. He added that
the City’s comprehensive plan indicates that staff work with owners to acquire properties, which are
pursued if the land is available. There was also a general consensus at the time that the 2012 map
update did not go far enough in identifying new opportunities for the acquisition of land.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain commended the aspirational aspects of the proposed map
update, particularly with regards to the connectivity of existing trail systems. She suggested that
more information be included regarding the future of recreation in the area and the fostering of a
relationship with the Forest Service. She added that there was a typo within that document that
incorrectly labeled Roca Canyon as “Roca Cannon.”
Commissioner MacCracken Jain inquired if area #18, the Croman Mill Site, would be excluded from
the map update. Mr. Goldman responded that it is not being excluded, but that Townmakers LLC, the
group interested in purchasing and developing that property, have contacted the Parks and
Recreation Department to discuss the parks and riparian area and if area #18 can be removed from
the list.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain requested clarification regarding the use of the designation “no
fiscal impact” within the proposal. Ms. Eldridge responded that this refers to the fiscal impact of
developing the plan and updating the Comprehensive Plan with the map update proposal.
Commissioner Knauer directed the Commission’s attention to a public comment received by Amy
Gunter which expressed concern that the proposed map update includes the property at 755 North
Mountain Avenue, the inclusion of which could preclude the property from being redeveloped (see
attachment #1). Commissioner Knauer asked if the proposal included any language regarding
designating areas of interest to the Parks and Recreation Department that would preclude it from
being redeveloped. Mr. Goldman responded that the City could seek to purchase the land or request
an easement, but that the owners are not compelled to comply with that request. Commissioner
KenCairn asked if there is a right-of-way (ROW) through the property in question, and if the
existence of one meant that a street connection would be developed if the existing structure was
removed. Mr. Goldman responded that no new dwelling could preclude that ROW access, but that
the installation of a street connection would not be compulsory.
Page 4 of 5
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).
Total Page Number: 49
Planning CommissionMinutes
Ms. Eldridge remarked that she is hoping to rework the Systems Development Charges (SDCs) taken
in by the Parks and Recreation Department in the near future. She stated that they likely have not
been updated within the last 20 years, and don’t appear to have a cohesive methodology in how
they are calculated.
Mr. Goldman stated that a draft ordinance of the proposed map update will come back to the
Commission at its December 12, 2023 meeting for a recommendation to the Council.
VI.OPEN DISCUSSION – None
VII.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 5 of 5
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).
Total Page Number: 50
Total Page Number: 51
Total Page Number: 52
Number: 53
Page
Total
Number: 54
Page
Total
FINDINGS
_________________________________
Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2023-
00043,192 North Mountain Avenue
Total Page Number: 55
Total Page Number: 56
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 12, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION PA-T2-2023-00043A)
REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED )
OUTLINE PLAN (PA-T3-2021-00003), AND REVISED FINAL PLAN FOR )
THE THIRD PHASE OF THE BEACH CREEK SUBDIVISION. THE )
PROPOSAL REVISES THE SUBDIVISION PLAN TO INCLUDE A )
FINDINGS,
PRIVATE ALLEY AND TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL LOT. THE )
CONCLUSIONS,
PROJECT IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITH PHASES I )
AND ORDERS.
AND II RECORDED AND HOUSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION.)
)
OWNER & APPLICANT:
KDA HOMES)
______________________________________________________________)
RECITALS:
1)Tax lot #800of Map 39 1E 10 is located at 192 North Mountain Avenue,on the east side of
North Mountain Avenue between the railroad tracks and Clear Creek Drive. The subject
property prior to the subdivisionwasten acres in area. While both phase 1 and phase 2 have
been platted the County has not yet completed the cartography work. The subject property
of phase 3 is platted as Lot 27 of Phase 2 and is 4.25 Acres.
2)The applicantis requesting a modification of the previously approved Outline Plan (PA-
T3-2021-00003), and revised Final plan for the third phase of the Beach Creek
Subdivision. The proposal revises the subdivision plan to include a private alley and to
add one additional lot. The project is currently under construction with Phases I and II
recorded under construction.
3)The applicant provides the following history: “The Planning Commission and eventually
the City Council approved the property’s annexation into the City in November of 2021,
(PA-T3-2021-0003). The Final Plan and Site Review was approved in March of 2022
(PA-T1-2021-00173).
4)The approval criteriafor a minor modificationare provided at AMC 18.5.6.040.C and shall
be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are
met.
1.Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for
the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the
modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development’s
parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and
any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in
accordance with chapter 18.5.1.
2.A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance,
administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or
may be subject to other ordinance requirements.
PA-T2-2023-00043
December12, 2023
Page 1
Total Page Number: 57
3.The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the
application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do not
apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved
through a Ministerial review.
5)The approval criteria for Outline Plan are provided at AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 and shall be
approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met:
a.The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
b.Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved
access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police
and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not
cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
c.The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain
corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the
plan of the development and significant features have been included in the common
open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.
d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being
developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e.There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and
common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in
phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as
proposed in the entire project.
f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established
under this chapter.
g.The development complies with the street standards.
h.The proposed development meets the common open space standards
established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be
satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by
the City of Ashland.
6)The approval criteria for Final plan are provided at AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 and shall be
approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met:
a.The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on
the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those
permitted in the outline plan.
b.The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten
percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these
distances be reduced below the minimum established within this ordinance.
c.The common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the
outline plan.
d.The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by
more than ten percent.
PA-T2-2023-00043
December12, 2023
Page 2
Total Page Number: 58
e.The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the
purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
f.That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in
the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail
to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be
achieved.
g.The development complies with the street standards.
h.Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or
increased open space; provided, that if this is done for one phase, the number of
dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the common open
space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan.
7)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearingon
November 14, 2023 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented.
Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the Minor
Modification, the Outline Plan and Final Plan approvalsubject to the existing conditions of
approval from the modified action.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends
as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and
testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. FINDINGS& CONCLUSIONS
2.1The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable criteria fora Minor
Modification to an approved plan described in AMC 18.5.6.040.C,Outline Plan approval described
in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3, and Final Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5. Each of the
relevant approval criteria for these actions are addressed in the sections below.
2.3.1 The Planning Commission finds that the first approval criteria for a Minor
Modification is that “Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria
used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification
request.” The Planning Commission notes all of the relevant approval criteria are addressed in
sections 2.4 and 2.5 below. The Planning Commission finds that this satisfies the first approval
PA-T2-2023-00043
December12, 2023
Page 3
Total Page Number: 59
criterion.
2.3.2 The Planning Commission finds that the second approval criteria for a Minor
Modification is “A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance,
administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification.” The Planning
Commission finds that the modification request does not seek a new or alter an existing
Conditional Use Permit or seek a Variance, Administrative Variance, or Exception request.” The
Planning Commission finds that the second approval criterion is satisfied.
2.3.3 The Planning Commission finds that the third approval criteria for a Minor
Modification is “The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the
application, based on written findings.” The Planning Commission notes that it is adopting
written findings approving the application satisfying this approval criterion.
2.4 The Planning Commission notes that the scope of review is limited to only the
relevant approval criteria to the modification request; and that the only relevant approval
criterion to Outline Plan approval is “F.”
2.4.1 The Planning Commission finds approval criteria F for outline plan is “The
proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards.” The Planning Commission notes
that the original subdivision was 10 acres with an allowed density of 4.5/acre which totals 45
units. The Planning Commission notes several density bonuses applied to the project including
conservation housing (15%), additional open space (10%), and affordable housing (up to 35%).
The Planning Commission finds that this qualifies the subdivision to more a 25% bonus when
only considering the open space and conservation hosing bonuses. The Planning Commission
notes that the original subdivision was approved with 52 units (16% bonus density). The
Planning Commission notes that in the present modification the applicant is requesting one
additional unit for a total of 53. The Planning Commission notes that 53 units calculates to an
18% bonus over the allowed base density. The Planning Commission finds that 18% well within
the allowed density with additional unrealized bonus density available. The Planning
Commission finds that this approval criterion is satisfied.
2.4.2 The Planning Commission finds that the Outline Plan is approved, and The
Planning Commission will now consider its subsequent final plan approval below.
2.5 The Planning Commission notes that the scope of review is limited to only the
relevant approval criteria to the modification request; and that the only relevant approval criteria
to Final Plan approval are“A” & “B”
2.5.1 The Planning Commission finds approval criteria A for Final Plan is “The number
of dwelling units … in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline
plan.” The Planning Commission notes that the outline plan approval had 53 lots and concludes
that the final plan also has 53 lots. The Planning Commission finds that this approval criterion is
satisfied.
2.5.2 The Planning Commission finds approval criteria B for Final Plan is “The yard
depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on
PA-T2-2023-00043
December12, 2023
Page 4
Total Page Number: 60
the approved outline plan.” The Planning Commission notes that the final plan is identical to the
Outline Plan. The Planning Commission finds that this approval criterion is satisfied.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1......Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission
concludes that the proposal is supported by evidence contained within the whole record and is
approved. The following are the conditions of approval
1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified herein.
2)That all conditions of the original approvals (PA-T3-2021-0003 and PA-T1-2021-
00173) shall remain in effect except as specifically modified herein.
3)That a final survey plat shall be submitted for review and approval within 18
months of the final decision date of this approval.
4)That prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for the review, approval and
signature of the Ashland Planning Division:
a)All easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus access, and
reciprocal utility, maintenance, and access shall be indicated on the final
survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division.
December 12, 2023
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA-T2-2023-00043
December12, 2023
Page 5
Total Page Number: 61
Total Page Number: 62
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PA-T2-2023-00044
822 Oak Street
Total Page Number: 63
Total Page Number: 64
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2023-00044
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 822 Oak Street
APPLICANT/OWNER: Suzanne Zapf for Overlook Drive, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/four-unit Performance Standards
subdivision for the properties located at 822 Oak Street. The Subdivision was previously approved in 2021 and some infrastructure
work has been completed, however land use approval subsequently expired. The application also includes requests for: a Variance to
allow a private driveway to serve four units (AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1) where dedication of a public street is typically required, an Exception
to Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street. Finally, the application requests relief
from the adopted Physical and Environmental constraints maps to reflect the topography on site and allow minor encroachment into
slopes exceeding 35%.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-1-5; ZONING:Single Family Residential; ASSESSOR’S MAP:
39 1E 04CA; TAX LOT:200 & 201.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TuesdayDecember 12, 2023at 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
Total Page Number: 65
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 EastMain 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 of appeal 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 applicant and 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 Andersonat 541-552-2052 or
.
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).
OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3)
The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have
Approval Criteria for Outline Plan.
been met.
a.The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
b.Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage,
police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings,etc., have been identified
in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, commonareas, and unbuildable areas.
d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e.There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in
phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter.
g.The development complies with the Street Standards.
h.The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may
be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section18.4.4.070if approved by the City of Ashland.
APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAN
18.3.9.040.B.5
Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely
to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final
plan meets all of the following criteria.
a.The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 66
the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan.
b.The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall
these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance.
c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan.
d.The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent.
e.The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
f.That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with
substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved.
g.The development complies with the Street Standards.
h.Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the
number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan.
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.4.6.020.B.1
Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all
of the following circumstances are found to exist.
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the
site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle
cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency
crossing roadway.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
VARIANCE
18.5.5.050
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 besufficient 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 purposeand 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.
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
18.3.10.050
An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall beapproved if the proposal meets all
of the following criteria.
A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and
adverse impacts have been minimized.
B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards
caused by the development.
C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shallbe considered more
seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the
maximum development permitted by this ordinance.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 67
Total Page Number: 68
STAFF REPORT
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 69
Total Page Number: 70
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
December 12, 2023
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-T2-2023-00044
OWNER:
Overlook Drive, LLC
APPLICANT:
Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
LOCATION:
822 Oak St.
391E04CA Tax Lots 200 & 201
ZONE DESIGNATION:
R-1-5
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:
18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones
18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones
18.3.8Performance Standards Overlay
18.4.8Solar Access
18.5.1General Review Procedures
18.5.3 Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments
18.6.1Definitions
APPLICATION DATE:
November 7, 2023
PUBLIC NOTICE:
November 20, 2023
MEETING DATE:
December 12, 2023
120-DAY DEADLINE:
March 19, 2024
PROPOSAL:
Arequest for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/four-unit Performance
Standards subdivision for the properties located at 822 Oak Street. The subdivision was
previously approved in 2021 and some infrastructure work has been completed, however the land
use approval subsequently expired prior to getting the survey plat recorded. The application also
includes requests for aVariance to allow a private driveway to serve four units (AMC
18.4.6.040.C.1) where dedication of a public street is typically required, and an Exception to
Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street. This
variance and exception were also previously approved. Finally, the application requests ‘relief
from the adopted Physical and Environmental constraints maps’ to reflect the topography on site
and allow minor encroachment into slopes exceeding 35%.
I.Introduction
1)Overview
The application materials provide the following history “The property received approval for a
largely similar subdivision in 2021. The property owner/developer’s excavation contractor was
installing utilities and doing site work towards completion of the infrastructure portion of the
project and compliance with the conditions of approval to achieve plat approval. There was
additional geological investigation of the property for slope and soils analysis necessary to do
the site work and excavation for the construction of the site infrastructure. It was then that the
areas mapped as ‘severe’ constraints on the city of Ashland maps were found to be debris and
Planning Action T2-2023-00044Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
111
Applicant: Rogue Development for Overlook LLC Page of
Total Page Number: 71
detritus fill slopes with concrete and asphalt rubble. The overburdened hillside was removed with
the soils and other materials that were removed under the supervision of the project
Geotechnical Expert. Following debris removal, the grades of the property were reevaluated by
an Oregon Licensed Surveyor In the meantime, the previous decision expired thus a new
Subdivision application is requested herein.”
The previous approval was final on October 12, 2021, which was valid for 18 months. The land
use approval expired on April 12, 2023, as no extension was requested by the applicant.
2)Site Description
The subject properties are Tax lots #200 and #201 of Assessor Map 39 1E 04CA are vacant
parcels. The current street address for the property is 822 Oak Street. The property is located on
the east side of Oak Street between East Nevada Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive. The tax lots
are zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential) and are a combined area 37,500 sq. ft. (0.86 ac.).
The property has steep slopes on the eastern portion of the property. The preliminary plat for the
proposed subdivision is shown above and includes the topography as it exists today following
site grading that occurred following the prior approval.
3)Previous Condition of Approval
As mentioned above this subdivision was previously approved in 2021. Hearings were held on
Aug 10, 2021, and September 14,2021. During the hearings there was substantial discussion
about potential development in slopes greater than 25% and severe constraint slopes in excess of
Planning Action T2-2023-00044Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
211
Applicant: Rogue Development for Overlook LLC Page of
Total Page Number: 72
35%. When Planning Commission Findings and Orders were adopted on October 12, 2021, they
included the following condition of approval #10b:
The areas at the east edge of the property overlooking the Bear Creek
floodplain corridor with slopes in excess of 35 percent are unbuildable under
AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1 and shall not be included in building envelopes, as
Prior to disturbance of any slopes greater than 25
proposed by the applicant.
percent within the building envelopes, the applicant shall first provide a
geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the site
is stable for the proposed use and development. \[emphasis added\]
4)Geotechnical Studiesand Site Work
The application includes a detailed Geotechnical study and a follow up memo both prepared by
The Galli Group. The Galli Group Report dated Dec 12, 2021 explained the details of their
th
November 11 2021 site visit. It found that there was “undocumented fill consists of a mixture of
the silty sands, gravels and cobbles mixed with chunks of asphalt, concrete and other
construction debris and garbage.” It recommended removal of this fill and provided detailed
instructions for clearing and grading. The application indicates that in addition to years of use as
a dump, that when the houses that were previously on the site were demolished in 1989, and
states that,“It appears that the contents of the structures and the materials within may have been
discarded on the east side of the property.”
In September and December of 2022 there were three Public Works Department permits issued.
These permitswererelated tosewer, gas, and stormwater connections to serve the development.
On January 26, of 2023, at the applicant’s request, staff met onsite to discuss their concerns about
how to move forward with the application considering the previous condition of approval (10b).
Staff communicated to the applicant that they should apply for a modification of the previous
land use approval to move forward with the degree of excavation and grading proposed. There
was no application for a modification.
The follow up memo from The Galli Group is dated June 28, 2023. It details site visits through
the month of May 2023 and a final visit on June 26, 2023. The report states that:
“We observed all the undocumented fill at the eastern edge of the project area
had been satisfactorily removed, eliminating the artificially induced, overstep
slopes created by the buried manmade materials and loose soil and restoring
stability of soils in this location.”
And concludes:
“In accordance with The Galli Group’s geotechnical recommendation, the
undocumented fill at the site had been removed. This undocumented fill was
full of manmade materials and loosely placed on steep slopes. The loose soils
and deleterious materials, pushed over the edge of cuts and onto the native
hillside, created very steep and unstable slopes on the eastern area of the
parcels. The removal of the undocumented fill has restored the site to its native
condition, with slopes between 25% and 30%, fully mitigating the slope
Planning Action T2-2023-00044Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
311
Applicant: Rogue Development for Overlook LLC Page of
Total Page Number: 73
instability potential at the site. In addition, due to the removal of the
undocumented fill, and the exposure of the underlying dense to very dense
native soils, structures foundation may be constructed per the geotechnical
report without the need for excessive over-excavation at the site.”
Staff notes that with the final report from The Galli Group the stipulation in condition 10b,
requiring a geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the site is stable
for the proposed use and development, from the previous land use approval has been met.
II.Subdivision Proposal
1)Variance & Exception to Street Standards
Following the submission of the present application, the applicant reached out to the Community
Development Department Director to inquire about waiving the applicationfees predicated on
the previous review and approval. Upon review the Department Director determined that the site
work in support of the driveway approach, including installation ofstorm drain facilities and
related utility work, vested the variance as well as the exception to street standards. As such, the
application fee for the variance was removed from the invoice on this application. Because the
variance and exception to street standards were considered vested and are unchanged by this
proposal, we do not discuss the related approval criteria for these elements of the application.
2)Performance Standards Subdivision
Lot Size, base standards of the zone, etc.
The prior review, in 2021, addressed in detail all of the proposed elements of the subdivsion. In
summary,the subdivision request will create four new residential lots, each 50’ x 150’ (7500 sq
ft), along with and a single common lot that will serve all fourresidential lots with a private
access drive that is substantially complete (including associated storm drain facilities and city
utility extension).As previously mentioned, the variance allowing four to be served by a private
drive, the exemption from dedicating a public road, and the exception to street standards are
considered vested and are not discussed further.
Solar Access – a primer
The purpose of Solar Access is to provide protection of a reasonable amount of sunlight from
shade from structures and vegetation whenever feasible to all parcels in the City to preserve the
economic value of solar radiation falling on structures, investments in solar energy systems, and
the options for future uses of solar energy. The code provides a specific way to measure the slope
*
for solar setback(SSB), which adjusts the amount of setback to be a function of slope. It
requires two measurements, one on each side of the property with the results then averaged. In
the present case the standardprocedure creates a calculated slope that is not representative of the
entire lot.
*Slope, Solar Setback:A vertical change in elevation divided by the horizontal distance of the vertical change. Slope
is measured along lines extending 150 feet north from the end points of a line drawn parallel to the northern lot line
through the midpoint of the north-south lot dimension. North facing slopes will have negative (-) values and south
facing slopes will have positive (+) values.
Planning Action T2-2023-00044Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
411
Applicant: Rogue Development for Overlook LLC Page of
Total Page Number: 74
For example, on the southernmost residential lot (Lot 1) as proposed the difference in elevation
150’ feet apartN/Sat its far western edge is 2’,on the eastern side it is 22’. The result is that
applying the standard solar method would be to apply an averagecalculated slope of nearly -
0.08.It is for these reasons that this application asks to use a Performance Standard Solar
Envelope.
Solar Access Performance Standard
When subdividing land an applicant is provided two options, either:
A)“new lots shall be designed to permit the location of a 21-foot high structure with a
†
setback which does not exceed 50 percent of the lot's north-south lot dimension”
or;
B)“ a solar envelope shall be used to define the height requirements that will protect the
applicablesolaraccess standard”
In this proposal the applicant has presented a performance standard solar envelope (option B
above) for lots 1,2 and 3 utilizing the Solar Setback Exception Standards as provided at
AMC18.4.8.020.C.1, and as illustrated below.
First however, the application includes the following statement regarding the northern most
residentiallot (Lot 4),and it is memorialized here that:
“Lot 4 will comply with the solar setback standard A that applies to the
northern property line as the property to the north is outside of the subdivision
development.”
This means that when a building permit for Lot 4 is submitted it will need to demonstrate that it
meets Solar Setback A.Staff has analyzed the City GIS topography and measured a slope of -.03
on the western side of proposed Lot 4 and -.13 slope on the eastern side. These average for a
slope of -.08. The standard for calculating Solar Setback (SSB) from the north property line is
provided in the following equation SSB = (H-6)/(0.445+S), where S is slope and H is the shade
producing height. To simplify the equation for a 21’ tall shade producing height the equation
becomes SSB = 15/0.365 = 41’1”.
In the present case, due to the nature of the site topography all four home sites have a level area
at the western side, with a grade drop off toward Bear Creek along the western portion of the
residential lots proposed.The application indicates all four homes will have an identical finished
†
This standard would require the creation of lots that have a N/S dimension of nearly82’ given the topography.
Planning Action T2-2023-00044Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
511
Applicant: Rogue Development for Overlook LLC Page of
Total Page Number: 75
st
floor level. Based on these elevations and roof orientations, on December 21 at noon, the day
when the sun is lowest in the sky, the shadow cast from each homewill not shade the lowest
main level window locatedfour feet above finished floor elevation on the home to the north.
As mentioned above the building permit for Lot 4 will be required to show compliance with
Setback A. Considering the nature of the cross slope of the property, the application of the
performance standard solar envelope appears to be warranted. The standard setback formula,
when applied to the proposed residential lots, reveals considerable disparities in permissible
heights for shadow-producing points and solar setback requirements. This is due to the
significant elevation differences between the eastern and far western boundaries of each lot. The
relatively flat areas designated for the homes are more effectively managed by acknowledging
the finished floor levels, ensuring that windows on the first floor, situated 4 feet above the floor
level, remain unshaded. Therefore, the application of the performance standard solar envelope is
a suitable approach in this context in staff’s assessment.
3)Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit
The application also asks for ‘relief from the Severe
Constraints Standards.’ While the application does
not expressly say that it is asking for an Exception to
the Hillside standards it has addressed the second,
third and fourth approval criteria in their application
immediately following the Physical and
Environmental Constraints (P&E) approval criteria.
Based on the inclusion of these responses to the
approval criteria for an exception, staff understands
that the applicant is requesting an exception to allow
a portion of the building envelope on Lot 4 to
encroach on lands that, based on the applicant’s
submittal, are shown to be steeper than 35%
‡
(unbuildable).
The Site plan with building envelopes is shown at
right (the shaded areas are presented as being
severely constrained – slopes greater than 35%)
The applicationincludes the exact code language and
provides a response below each standard.However,
where the application begins to address the exception
§
criteria (pg. 39) the first standard is left out.In its
‡ AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1
All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes
“
also AMC 18.6.1.030 Definitions
greater than 35 percent shall be considered unbuildableUnbuildable
” “
Area.That portion of an existing or proposed lot that building upon is restricted by regulations.
Unbuildable area includes but is not limited to required yards, easements, and flood plain corridor,
hillside, and severe constraints lands as classified in section 18.3.10.060.
”
§
AMC 18.10.3.090.H.1
There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this
“
chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.”
Planning Action T2-2023-00044Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
611
Applicant: Rogue Development for Overlook LLC Page of
Total Page Number: 76
place is an argument in favor of the proposed encroachment into severely constrained lands
**
suggesting that is neededto meet the statutory requirements for ‘clear and objective’ standards
for ‘needed housing’. Furthermore, there is no response to the first approval criterion showing
that there is difficulty in meeting the specific standard \[building envelope location\] or the
‘unique or unusual’ nature of the site.
Staff understands that the applicant is suggesting that determining which lands are greater than
35% does not meet theclear or objective standard. Staff would note that it is the applicants’ site
map that delineates areas of slopes greater than 35%, based on data by a professional land
surveyor. LUBA has found that regulations are not clear and objective if they impose value laden
or subjective analysis. LUBA has also noted that there is a safe harbor, albeit small, where
††
numerical and absolute standards can be clear and objective. Staff responds that thirty-five
percent is a numerical and absolute standardthat is ‘clear and objective’ and that the applicant’s
surveyor has already demarcated those areas.
Furthermore, and more importantly, staff contend that the relief being sought is not authorized in
the code. Staff understands that the applicant believes that the standards for buildable area at
AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1 allows for exceptions as provided at AMC 18.3.10.090.H. Staff responds
existing
that the standards allowing an exception to buildable area only applies to ‘parcels’ and it
newly
is the following section, part 2 (below) that provides for the building envelopes for ‘
created
parcels’, at AMC 18.3.10.090.A.2 to wit:
2.Building Envelope.All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall
contain a building envelope with a slope of 35 percent or less.
It is this standard that the applicant is requesting an exception from in order to build a structure
on slopes greater than 35%, and this passage offers no opportunity for an exception and includes
the directive language of ‘shall.’ Staff communicated with the applicant and property owner on
th
November 20via email that it would be staff’s recommendation that “the proposed building
envelopes be modified to not encroach in the area of slopes greater than 35%.”
4)Public Input
Notice was posted at the property frontage and mailed to all properties within 200’ on November
20, 2023. Since that time, to the best of staff knowledge, there weretwophone calls inquiring
about the project from adjacent property owners, and one email. Staff spoke with both property
**
ORS 197.307(4): Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a local government may adopt
and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of
housing, including needed housing. The standards, conditions and procedures:
(a)May include, but are not limited to, one or more provisions regulating the density or height of a
development.
(b)May not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing
through unreasonable cost or delay.
††
“However, even if particular numerical or absolute standards are clear and objective, once one departs
from the relatively small and shallow safe harbor of numerical and absolute standards, few tasks are less
clear or moresubjective than attempting to determine whether a particularland use approval criterion is
clear and objective. \[underline in original, footnote omitted\]” Rogue Valley Association of Realtors v.
City of Ashland, 35 Or LUBA 139 (1998) (at 17)
Planning Action T2-2023-00044Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
711
Applicant: Rogue Development for Overlook LLC Page of
Total Page Number: 77
owners and reiterated the hearing date and opportunities to submit formal comment either
electronically or in person. The email was replied to answering their questions. No one has
submitted a formal comment on the planning action to date.
III.Procedural –Approval Criteria
1)Outline Plan
AMC 18.3.9.040.a.3.Approval criteria for outline plan. The planning commission shall
approve the outline planwhen it finds all of the following criteria have been met:
A.the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city.
B.adequate key city facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved
access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police
and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will
not cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity.
C.the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain
corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the
plan of the development and significant features have been included in the
common open space,common areas, and unbuildable areas.
D.the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being
developed for the uses shown in the comprehensive plan.
E.there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space
and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in
phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as
proposed in the entire project.
F.the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards
established under this chapter.
G.the development complies with the street standards.
H.the proposed development meets the common open space standards
established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may
be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if
approved by the city of ashland.
2)Final Plan
18.3.9.040.B.5.Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final plan approval shall be granted
upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. This substantial
conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one
planning step toanother. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the
outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria:
a.The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown
on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed
those permitted in the outline plan.
b.The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten
percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these
distances be reduced below the minimum established within this ordinance.
c. The common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on
the outline plan.
Planning Action T2-2023-00044Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
811
Applicant: Rogue Development for Overlook LLC Page of
Total Page Number: 78
d.The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan
by more than ten percent.
e.The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the
purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
f.That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in
the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial
detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be
achieved.
g.The development complies with the street standards.
h.Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or
increased open space; provided, that if this is done for one phase, the number of
dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the common open
space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan.
3)Physical & Environmental Constraints
18.3.10.050 Approval Criteria - An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit
is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the
proposal meets all of the following criteria.
A.Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the
potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and
adverse impacts have been minimized.
B.That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development
may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused
by the development.
C.That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse
impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall
consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum
development permitted by this ordinance.
4)Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands.
18.3.10.090.H.Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. An
exception under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of chapter
18.5.5, Variances. An application for an exception is subject to the Type I procedure in
section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for
Hillside Lands if the proposal meets all of the following criteria:
1.There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this
chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
2.The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources
protected under this chapter.
3.The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
4.The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter
18.3.10, Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay, and section
18.3.10.090, Development Standards for Hillside Lands.
5)Solar Setback Exception
b.The approval authority finds all of the following criteria are met.
Planning Action T2-2023-00044Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
911
Applicant: Rogue Development for Overlook LLC Page of
Total Page Number: 79
i.The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e.,
passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable
buildings.
ii.The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a
passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an
adjacent lot.
iii.There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do
not typically apply elsewhere.
IV.Conclusion and Recommendations
Staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve the Outline and Final Plan for the
subdivision including the proposed performance solar envelopes for Lots 1, 2, and 3, but deny
the request to establish building envelopes in lands that are classified as severely constrained.
Ifthe Planning Commission approves the application, staff recommends including the conditions
of approval below:
1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
2)That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any
additional work in the public right of way.
3)That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification
Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be
provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new
landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants
listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028.
4)That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months of Final Plan approval and
approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. Prior to submittal of
the final subdivision survey plat for signature:
a.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, public
pedestrian and public bicycle access, drainage, irrigation, and fire apparatus
access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the
Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments.
b.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities,
driveways, streets and common area improvements shall be completed according
to approved plans, inspected and approved.
c.Irrigated street trees selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide and
planted according to city planting and spaces standards shall be planted along the
full project frontage.
d.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and
approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to
installation.
Planning Action T2-2023-00044Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
1011
Applicant: Rogue Development for Overlook LLC Page of
Total Page Number: 80
e.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with
meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase,
inspected and approved.
5)That the building permit submittals shall include the following:
a.Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public and private
utility easements, mutual access easements, and fire apparatus access easements.
b.Demonstrate compliance with the approved solar setback: That Lots 1, 2, and 3
demonstrate that any shadows cast do not exceed four feet above the finished
floor elevation of the main level of a house at the south edge of the building
envelope on the respective lots to their north. That Lot #4 shall have Solar setback
calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback
Standard A.
i.As memorialized above: Unless it can be demonstrated by a professional
surveyor otherwise the City GIS indicates a slope of -0.03 on the western
side of Lot 4 and -0.13on the eastern side. These average for a slope of -
0.08. The standard for calculating Solar Setback is provided in the
following equation SSB = (H-6)/(0.445+S), where SSB is the required
solar setback, S is slope and H is the shade producing height from natural
-
grade. To simplify the equation SSB = H6/0.365.
c.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with
the applicable coverage allowances of the R-1-5 zoning district. Lot coverage
includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation
areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping.
Planning Action T2-2023-00044Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
1111
Applicant: Rogue Development for Overlook LLC Page of
Total Page Number: 81
Total Page Number: 82
APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 83
Total Page Number: 84
Total Page Number: 85
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Total Page Number: 86
Total Page Number: 87
Total Page Number: 88
Total Page Number: 89
Total Page Number: 90
Total Page Number: 91
Total Page Number: 92
Total Page Number: 93
Total Page Number: 94
Total Page Number: 95
Total Page Number: 96
Total Page Number: 97
Total Page Number: 98
Total Page Number: 99
Total Page Number: 100
Total Page Number: 101
Total Page Number: 102
Total Page Number: 103
Total Page Number: 104
Total Page Number: 105
Total Page Number: 106
Total Page Number: 107
Total Page Number: 108
Total Page Number: 109
Total Page Number: 110
Total Page Number: 111
Total Page Number: 112
Total Page Number: 113
Total Page Number: 114
Total Page Number: 115
Total Page Number: 116
Total Page Number: 117
Total Page Number: 118
Total Page Number: 119
Total Page Number: 120
Total Page Number: 121
Total Page Number: 122
Total Page Number: 123
Total Page Number: 124
Total Page Number: 125
Total Page Number: 126
Total Page Number: 127
Total Page Number: 128
Total Page Number: 129
Total Page Number: 130
Total Page Number: 131
Section Page
Total Page Number: 132
LIST OF FIGURES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B:
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 133
Total Page Number: 134
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 135
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 136
Recommendations for site grading and proper methods of cut-and-fill construction are
provided in the geotechnical recommendations section of this report, and it is essential
these recommendations be followed closely in order to minimize slope instability, both
during and after construction. Similarly, recommendations addressing surface and
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 137
subsurface drainage in the project area, as well as erosion control measures, will be also
be provided and must be followed during and, in some cases, after construction to
maintain slope stability in the project area. In-progress grading inspections should be
made during construction to note any adverse conditions which could negatively affect
cut slopes or general site grading.
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 138
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 139
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 140
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 141
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 142
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 143
It appears
that a stripping depth of from 4 to 6 inches will be required in most areas.
Redensification
shall be discontinued if it starts to Ðpump upÑ the subgrade. Care must be used to not
disturb prepared subgrade areas.
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 144
When proofrolling, a successful test is when the tires of a loaded or
partially loaded truck do not deflect the soils more t han inch.
However, these are likely to have some sloughing or rockfall off the walls
Some areas will likely have rockfall off
deeper trenches.
Please note, that while we have commented on the anticipated stability of the soil in
trenches and cuts, we are not responsible for job site safety. The contractor is at all
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 145
times responsible for job site safety, including worker and excavation safety. We
recommend all local, state and federal safety regulations be adhered to.
Please note, that while we have commented on the anticipated stability of the soil in
trenches and cuts, we are not responsible for job site safety. The contractor is at all
times responsible for job site safety, including excavation safety. We recommend all
local, state and federal safety regulations be adhered to.
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 146
Note:
It is
the contractor's responsibility to understand the impending weather and plan for use of
structural fill that will be capable of being compacted properly and remain stable in all
weather that could arise during the project construction. See Materials Specifications in
Section 9.0.
The contractor should use the
equipment that will help gain the best compaction without damaging the subgrade.
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 147
All areas
which exhibit movement or compression of the rock material more than ¼ inch, under
proofrolling, shall be reworked or removed and replaced as specified above.
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 148
Sideslopes can ravel and slough at times.
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 149
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 150
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 151
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 152
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 153
These Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) section designs assume the subgrade is
the properly prepared sand and gravel.
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 154
The saw cuts must
be made the same day as the pour, as soon as the concrete surface will not tear during
sawing; typically within 4+ hours.
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 155
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 156
These Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) section designs assume the subgrade is the
properly prepared.
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 157
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 158
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 159
The contractor must select the type of structural fill that will be able to be
placed and compacted to specified conditions during the weather conditions that can
take place during the construction schedule.
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 160
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 161
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 162
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 163
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 164
Earthquake Spectra, 32
Earthquake Spectra
Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other
Structures.
Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 99
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 92
Bulletin of Seismological
Society of America, 98
Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 107
Oregon Structural Specialty Code.
National Seismic Hazard Mapping.
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 165
Total Page Number: 166
Total Page Number: 167
Total Page Number: 168
Total Page Number: 169
Total Page Number: 170
Total Page Number: 171
Total Page Number: 172
Total Page Number: 173
Total Page Number: 174
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.
Total Page Number: 175
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.
Total Page Number: 176
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.
Total Page Number: 177
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.
Total Page Number: 178
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.
Total Page Number: 179
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.
Total Page Number: 180
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.
Total Page Number: 181
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.
Total Page Number: 182
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.
Total Page Number: 183
Total Page Number: 184
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 185
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 186
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 187
Total Page Number: 188
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 189
The Galli Group
Total Page Number: 190
Total Page Number: 191
Total Page Number: 192
Total Page Number: 193
Total Page Number: 194
Total Page Number: 195
Total Page Number: 196
Total Page Number: 197
Total Page Number: 198
Total Page Number: 199
Total Page Number: 200
Total Page Number: 201
Total Page Number: 202
Total Page Number: 203
Total Page Number: 204
Total Page Number: 205
Total Page Number: 206
Total Page Number: 207
Total Page Number: 208
Total Page Number: 209
Total Page Number: 210
Total Page Number: 211
Total Page Number: 212
Total Page Number: 213
Total Page Number: 214
Total Page Number: 215
Total Page Number: 216
Total Page Number: 217
Total Page Number: 218
Total Page Number: 219
Total Page Number: 220
Total Page Number: 221
Total Page Number: 222
Total Page Number: 223
Total Page Number: 224
Total Page Number: 225
Total Page Number: 226
Total Page Number: 227
Total Page Number: 228
Total Page Number: 229
Total Page Number: 230
Total Page Number: 231
Total Page Number: 232
Total Page Number: 233
Total Page Number: 234
ELECTRONIC COPY
(OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC) KAS 20-240
---------
G1
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION
ASHLAND, OR 97521
822 OAK STREET
TITLE SHEET
SUBDIVISION
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW
VERIFY SCALES
N
RECORD DRAWINGS
ASHLAND, OREGON
LOCATION
PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
ASHLAND
CITY OF
SHEET INDEX
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION
DEVELOPER
OVERALL PLAN
LATITUDE: 42.207030, LONGITUDE: -122.708710
39 1E 04 CA, TL 200
SURVEYOR
CONTOUR LEGEND
BENCHMARK
LEGEND
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES
Total Page Number: 235
ELECTRONIC COPY
(OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC) KAS 20-240
---------
C1
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION
ASHLAND, OR 97521
822 OAK STREET
PLAN
SUBDIVISION
MASTER GRADING
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW
VERIFY SCALES
CUTOFF SWALE
MASTER GRADING PLAN
CONTOUR LEGEND
FINISH GRADE SCHEDULE
Total Page Number: 236
ELECTRONIC COPY
(OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC) KAS 20-240
---------
C2
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION
ASHLAND, OR 97521
TYPICAL SECTION
822 OAK STREET
PLAN & PROFILE,
SUBDIVISION
PRIVATE DRIVE
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW
VERIFY SCALES
PRIVATE DRIVE TYPICAL SECTION (FACING EAST)
PRIVATE DRIVE PROFILE
PRIVATE DRIVE PLAN
Total Page Number: 237
ELECTRONIC COPY
(OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC) KAS 20-240
---------
C3
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION
ASHLAND, OR 97521
822 OAK STREET
PLAN
SUBDIVISION
MASTER UTILITY
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW
VERIFY SCALES
4"X4"X4"X2" PVC TEE CONNECTION DETAIL
SANITARY SEWER NOTES
STORMWATER SYSTEM NOTES
MASTER UTILITY PLAN
WATER SERVICE NOTES
Total Page Number: 238
ELECTRONIC COPY
(OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC) KAS 20-240
---------
C4
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION
ASHLAND, OR 97521
822 OAK STREET
FACILITY DETAILS
SUBDIVISION
STORMWATER
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW
VERIFY SCALES
DETENTION CONTROL STRUCTURE SECTION
DETENTION POND SECTION B-B
STORMWATER DETENTION POND DETAIL
DETENTION CONTROL STRUCTURE PLAN
DETENTION POND SECTION A-A
Total Page Number: 239
ELECTRONIC COPY
(OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC) KAS 20-240
---------
C5
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION
ASHLAND, OR 97521
822 OAK STREET
STANDARD DETAILS
SUBDIVISION
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW
VERIFY SCALES
Total Page Number: 240
ELECTRONIC COPY
(OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC) KAS 20-240
---------
C6
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION
ASHLAND, OR 97521
822 OAK STREET
STANDARD DETAILS
SUBDIVISION
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW
VERIFY SCALES
Total Page Number: 241
ELECTRONIC COPY
(OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC) KAS 20-240
---------
B1
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION
ASHLAND, OR 97521
822 OAK STREET
CONTROL PLAN
SUBDIVISION
EROSION & SEDIMENT
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW
VERIFY SCALES
EROSION CONTROL LEGEND
EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
Total Page Number: 242
ELECTRONIC COPY
(OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC) KAS 20-240
---------
B2
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION
ASHLAND, OR 97521
822 OAK STREET
DETAILS
SUBDIVISION
EROSION CONTROL
GRIZZLY PEAK VIEW
VERIFY SCALES
Total Page Number: 243
nbebsbeftjhoAzbipp/dpnnbebsbeftjhoAzbipp/dpn
652.775.8166652.775.8166
Dfousbm!Qpjou-!Ps!:8613Dfousbm!Qpjou-!Ps!:8613
XIJUF!DJUZ-!PS!
3::5!Xfmmt!Gbshp!Se3::5!Xfmmt!Gbshp!Se
2472!BWFOVF!G!
Mboetdbqf!Bsdijufduvsf-!Eftjho!'!DpotvmubujpoMboetdbqf!Bsdijufduvsf-!Eftjho!'!Dpotvmubujpo
Nbebsb!Eftjho!JodNbebsb!Eftjho!Jod
BESJBVOOB!FBTU
Total Page Number: 244
Total Page Number: 245
Total Page Number: 246
Total Page Number: 247
Total Page Number: 248
Total Page Number: 249
Total Page Number: 250
________________________________
_
Recommendation of draft ordinance
for Parks, Trails, and Open Space
Map Update
Total Page Number: 251
Total Page Number: 252
Total Page Number: 253
Total Page Number: 254
Total Page Number: 255
Total Page Number: 256
Total Page Number: 257
Total Page Number: 258
Total Page Number: 259
260
Number:
ark
k
P
n
i
rea
e
ta
r
un
Rd a
lan
d
Page
o
ie
C
trks
tif
Parks
N Me
or r
in S
.
)o
en
P sion
Pa
to
lan
ill Rdd
rri
d
rri
d
ae
m
i
ld
d
Miles
ot l
rtyist
e
e P
Term ek Coo
xtenol sit
st M
Total
ek Cor
n.n.
ss f
te
te
pe
rty
agle M i
n
ac
k/M
op
op
ut
Pla
Ea Pla
o
pe E
Sp
ra)acrocho
Cre Ad Ad 0.5
e, Cree
b
k e
Rdt p
Cre
o
ea
ce
ce
City
rare
ong
t
Een
d
i
he
he Y
S S
s P
pa
lker ssonpa
ilton W
P
erty
t to rf
nd N
fie
in t
an in t
l Op D
an
'
Scale: 1:31,680
ly
NO
rm
ldoy L
n S O
n S
g
a
N
z
b W
l
S
w E
inProp
Helm
a Y
L Tolm
Griz DL
Ham L
nti
Ash f DA
Bill
oigina
iedied
aacquired RD EA
y DNE
pepe LIH
M
Cr
arn,
D
(Herse
I
E
WWf
f
k
i
0) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) i
H
nt
ntd Od O
OM
E
r
IR
M
D
R
e L
o A
N
(B
R
dede 0.25
1111111111
R
e n
n KD
((((((((((
D
in
E 4
d- - - - - - - - - - R
AIa
Ia N
I
N
R
I
DCO
A
TS
1
EN
W
A
es
DO
6
R
D
G
IC
R
r N
ME
W
O
H
E
DR LAIRRINGT
ROMEM
NAIDNI D
AC
- (1) Jaquelyn St and Grizzly Dr Property
ti
Y
C
W
E6
T
lan AY
DA
- (20) Talent Irrigation Ditch Segments
A
per B
C
G
TE
LG
I
P
H
P
NT
P P
AA
IN
T
PT
O
S
P
U
- (9) Willows area trail connection
ace OS
- (5) East Main along Bear Creek- (8) Nevada St to N Mountain Av S
G
n W
E
U
A
(adjacent to YMCA City Park)R
R
D
o
0
R
erm Pla y (adjacent to Helman School)
P
- (7) Upper Liberty St Property RL
RD
se
R
RC
- (2) Upper Clay St Properties D
Sp RC
LL
r O
n OL
IYS
DL
.
H
W
- (6) Wrights Creek Corridor
d KE
a
Thehe LE
R
AR
Plan IA
l TG
L
OTD
k ace
C
te A
City CN
P E
A
NT
en
P in t W C
O T
A
- (4) Helman St Property N
A
R S
K
e
- (3) Property on Clay Stop C)
L
H
. AKS
N
t FDA
(Bear Creek Corridor)ace
th L OSI
bA
Op L
ce
Sp
PH
city no
O
CO
R)
Ad SNK
K
R
he R
C
N
ied IODY
on E
n S
A
TKTd
NB
l MnO
W
(Railroad property) E u
Sput TR
o
t ERY
e EEE
pa IOE
D
hD
RtW
in igina UCr
o
f ANR
n
in O
RNI (
bypei OSC B
L Cd
LT5S
LET NN
n y NEn
nt LBE
t T Wu
b K OToB
IIAb
GPNNEE
NR h
t
PS
d b S S
Pu
d
a SKRo
ied T
DsW
a(
n.
RT
City 5
N
Ope I
d O ide E
T
en OR
r AK
A
r C
m S
e
tif R
s Aquire o
irpla T
L
s re N
I
R
Sho Op
G an VE
ON
L
d d in
enere
u
by
C
d
arks
q
V
anertie A
s Idt a
ed
ose
N
iredie
w
O
pttif
S
e
arks T
T
hich TR
S
ndt ynd S
ES NO
GNIH
AW
roprop
F
s Pen
N
dou
I
F
A
E
q
aoa MJ
id
EE
LPnppLawAA
)
L
L
7
IHb
D S TSA
R
E
D
J
T
E
1
)F
VA NOS
y 2, 2002 dR
F
nE
uN
o
d
TRL
bnOE 1
E
huSTL
tMI
o
u LNK
Eo
sh
(tE
rTS Y
NO
5oTGN
1 IHSAE
GA
nW
E(
W
TL R
5
A
C
TE
S
T
OD MIL
R
A
ERATE
T
S
N
IR
T
DG
NAA
IL
YW L
SE
OR
DGNIRP
S
L
L
T
YI
E
KR
N
R
TH
CL
D
Y
O
DRSG
D KD
EW
RA
YNW
I
EE R
CVD
SEAR KERC D
TNMLOTRE
RA
OVAAS
N
AA
PR
R KERC NDR C
MLOTR KKEER
ERC NNI
ASMLOTAMLOT
ZW
TI
YIL
Y
TDO
WR
l RCKV
KWN
R
YD
EGA
OCR
N EAA
B Y BUSOE
RY OW R
CE
BR S M
cil Ju AY
NC
LD
E L RCA
SLKNS
AW AMM
KCY E
D
YW
URCL
O K E
AAC N
AE
D
O C
A I A
LKNL
LLEPE
OVR
V
M
RBOCLN
BR
A G
YRREBVDE
BE
TRBD
DN
A AR
AS 2 VAWEI
LLEBI
YW
AARKER
M UR
3 Y
E EG
1 B
05 L
NEBDVR
DO
CWH
EWKOLPPAN
EYA
WNG
TS YLIANYON P
UQAJKI
K
C
YW SM
YWOEC
ADA
MP
A
AW
SW
LNO
I
N
DTLOU
TE
ELGN
EIHSI
KIA
il 1, 20 L
BR
RY LNH
y SCR
H
C
A
AOL
R
r LL
C
oun
L
W
B
R
HE
LRD
nda
L
LB
KO
TR
I
T
DWS
B
S YALCT
S
YALC
SM
YAL
C
T
T
A
k
ou
r S YAL
C
ty C
NE
D
L
ated Ap
D
VP
A E
LDNE
KLGT
A
V
B EA
R
C
T
E
OA N
e ENJ Y
es OAM
A
RA
D
R
T
CTKAV
th
S
i
k SSE
EM
Featur
R
T
EC
DA
M
DKL
S
R
N P
AVA AH
INIL
w
A
N
Approved by the C e V
A HTIMAFW
AT
IW
M
SE
A
I
Grots
VA
MV
S
T
T
HT
mi
ENDA
RRET
S
R
S
Upd
R
OS
C
WEN
E
L
VAA
R
VP
T
an
L
A ZA
LPCY
Li
SZ
KRAP
L
O
ater
AE
F
DSRM
OO
SN
H KRA
WRP
EUTS
T
T
O
T
N
City SG
E
b V
A
L
E
M
Ur VRR
E
D
VA LAMONVKC
O
AYIWSE
RB
WY
W DH
F
R
Y
A
R
R
OH
VA LAM
ONN
J
MK
Y
NL
YAR
NL YAS
R
RW
LH
r
NYS
O
N
D EC
YMIVLIH
ROO
A
TA
MR
A
HT
RCE
Y
AS
S
I
NLP
W TIL
YE
EW
n R
CV
ENOV
V
W
TILL B
AL
AA R
NL Y EOD
MRAH
O
O
KS
EH
TC R
TNUH
VO
T
A
KR
e S
S
T
Y
DW
R
2
RD
V
NE
DAGS
N
NL A
AESIDR
B
AP
K
NL
LUP
R
U I
R R
VE
O
E
B 1 AHAD
RARS
L
YS
I
PSL
VA ET
KAWA
C
ARL
L
SN
I
VH
YA EK
YAW
8 SA
T
WT
W
E
E
G
GT
A
WT
TA
EI
EH
EL
TL
MS
1 L
L
R
TS
OS E
OUIDATSC
N
CCT
YCR
SM NC
Y
B
SA
C
W N CR
UPAL SEADI
LCNARFW
EE
RO
AN
NEN
LA
LKAI
S
SI
EAS
SP
5 HD C
RLLLI
T
E PL
R
A
R
ST
M
i A
B
SO
T
I
N
T
OS
RW
NSE
GDS
RHNO O
ES
RN
UN
TDSLTT
NAMNEIR
BGS
I
IE
T
OED
R
RW
W
E
ET
I
GD
R
DL
MMN
E
RT
NW
ONS
O
ETS AO
AIDNIEE
E
NV
ROPLLIMI
V
TRR
TRR
NT
EF
L
T
NTD
EE
IR
S TS ESNUS
ANLAMHD
A GIW
N I DEBD
S MIT
AMHD
NGIWE
L NE N O
LE
R R
R
T O
O TN
DAE
C O
F I
O I YO
TO
N L S
NSW
LL Y
S A DR RP
MLAPW
ECP
L C
DEH
AT
EI
O
TYNT
SI
SSG
NW
W T
S ECI
DROFS
UEGDIRBN
DO
US
E
TOENC
ELRH
OQIN
R
E
OSP
RE
SKOR
AINOFIOM
MLACL
P
TS
DA
S
R
S
TVM
YT
M
L
AT
S
REVAB
R
ES
NN
TA
DLPE
LU
I
A
EOS DR
HNOELE
K
V
Y
C
RT
YI
IN
RC
KS
LR
W
EO
N LRI
S
I
ETS DT
EIFAG
TS
RD KRAP DEIFS
ENEGALLIVAGP
C
D
E
OTC
P
S AOR
ERD ERAUS
EQSN
TC
M
E
D
L EGALLIVO
S TS N
O LONIL
R
G S
YR
TS
S C
E N
K-N
(off map extent)R
ER
E S MLAPW Y
A OTIREVIN
KRU
LR DR
N T
O
O
CDL G
ADR
D KCET
L W L RND
HT A
IS ET
V PONOUR T
ATIU DF
N S O LET
A O
PTWC REVIYS R
KFSA SEAKLE
CS LE
AST NIL
RBO S REA
S RKLE
N L LRW
AAN N
D N V
A
LP ITTUO
UASA LOA
YY RG
YEL UDL
I E W O
PTE AMS
A O UCNS
Grizzly Peak T CKN E VA NIA
T TNO
T AIPO TM S
SMM HPHLVA
) NIATNAUOY
PO T M N
K O
S L SSYM
N
TKYK
LR KVAVL
VAR NIAT
N P I NM
U S SWEI
U NT RER
OA OAA R LN
INK-
UM L K
O IC O W AD
N VFM NRRY
SY AO T
ATD TNL
)DEKE
A I
VA b KNE M E EU
NIATN NBO NNV
M N M IDUO
I EI
A AN K PB
OBR SS
CIRAW
A LNME V
OOTL V
EEYA NIAT
EHNM S
VS
F
GOL
A N
SA
ND 9 IBW
EUOIB
E L
ERE
N
D
F RRMB I
N A 6 OUL
VA WI
NIATNR
M N O
N YDWP
I O
HM
dE
KT
D ER LLN D
MR EH ST ALLEY
n MAUSATS WYD DO
A NELG
N R LTI
CG
u OL TE
NILC R
EA AAE
N
o T
C
TS
N PPL
19 D G OSTS
T
d Y RD EDIR MULPTI
D 1 SH
h N V
EA SR
tn N E
RE S
rU
K
uS
TMCAEB
Eo W RA
ESOMN
o
YIL AI
n EUJ A
T O I
b D
(O
KLI S NNYLTTAEB
LC
h R T
E S H
5t R
E L
G D
V I C R
u OE
R
T
EEP N
o NK
WE
N
Rs LNTON ATP STTS E
T O TADILA R S
S L
(
T H LAR
A A T
V
L
5 S NG L
IYE N
OE
T L A
L
SO
IE AVNL NNIUQ TS C
TT
S TRB
CIL
RT
TYW
MSNES
AIN
IT
TS NNL
AWTS YTRI
TLGOREB
N
ER
SIT
N
C
ILP EUT
LS S A
RBS YEN E
NARKS
HOEDI
T
TR AD
S
SOL
H
E
VNTT
TVMOTOA
M
AEB ASC
S
NALA
A
I
ERAP A 7
YE
L T
AD
WKSIE
F CS
A
TNR
WLLM
AN
TR
DTS
OBR
SPC
YSI
SS OTNLL
OM
8 T
UO
SOA
RA
LE TN
HPLE
F
ATS
DT
S
LNS
C
H
E
W
WX
IN
STOT
O
OE
H
LOI
T
T
LP
V
STC
S NSIRRSO
AHST
O N
A
TAT
AM
HT
NAM
NAD
TSRR
LS
Y N
LTS NDREHS R
TWREHN
SSSP
T
HV
ST
EPALSORAC
F
SIL
AF
P
E O
RL
BTE
TN
L T
DCY
AINSH
SRTS
IU
T N
LETS YERA
AEKM
OIATNI
VSS
LPOWL
NSEE
YLSO
SSI A
NTTR
S YAT
IONL
ELSL
SRE
ATTW W
SUTS OHAR
I NSTDI
0 EK
RHII
KREEPL
VPSH
KJ NI
RSLI
D
KRUI
TAP YN
HOLH
FVTS OADI
C KTWSR
S
SA A
MR
ID
EEIUP
A D
IR
EBI
CER
HA
AITN
EU
IR
RL
1 LF
VAEO
D
EI
ACTYR
TS
SROLYAT
ATP
MRO
ART
OPSO
KS E FE
TWAT
SSLA
V C SLS
I H
SDO
O F L L
R
A F ILYW LA
OL
HA DN
DVILLO O T
T TRAL
D Y D
A T IL
E WN
NATT
A 5 SS S SLGN
N L A
O TS MRA
RE OL AHSERAGW
A
LA PA S
TS MAHCL
EOESERGRY
BIEN
OMPY
OEH
RT
EI
TVPL
SS
TTD S
M
S TS EI
V DLRHTUGTR
NNEA
DRE
P
CORB
AOS
OH
1 COL
CEH
R
L
S B
E
NETHH
YO
P
S
4 DT
TNES
W
SNL
RNA
AET
SLI
TEE
TV
E
AT
S
TS NNATMTS YS
NMLEHS EDAEMENTRUOC
IH
N
R
E
TMC
DED
DA
SS
TU
RIA
F R
ANTRR
MIS
GT
F
S
TE
SDTS TSERC
SERLLIHR
RS T
TI
YN SD
EAAD
ASTKI
POYAE
AITS R
REFINNEJ
YNTPAHTWC E
E TR
YWYT
D RK
DNWA
S
SSME
CC I
RNIW
DTI
O
AEA
WRVP
TRYIE
RBV
T
DHT
AS
G UE EO
VA S
IROTT
VN
I
DSA
RWE
L
OTS ECO
EARRET
U
EAR
REI
SIDGL
AL
RG
R
TSSEE
LV N
KT
E
DSSG
E
LAVH
R
IN RD
N
RBEL
AORRD
WA
MNPOMAN
SWSWKROF WGD
L O TR
T
TW RI
LEES
T A
T E
E EANHVS
O
SR
ETI A L
L
U
S NEI
LRUBV
SL NH
H
MYOEN WEI
PRD
E
AO
S
ALLMO
R
DS
C S
N
EA
I
LR U T
E R L
PS
LV
G O
T
A
D ATK
A
R
U
YVA EO
LEO
T HCIMSR J F
O A R
TDTS W N U
S OLLIWAS A B
RREWT U WA
E G WE
L
TSTE
E
N
I W
T
EV
STS RA L E
DGGARDTG
TG LAC I
N T
M
NA N
RSI
SD ED
NN
A E
IER
OL
FN
RR
EN
D
T RHAA
XA
OS DR
T OI
ASTS
TB
TSV
ODNO
T
P
VSETU
V S
UN S
M WRS
T
OTB
TELON
L
SKEI
ANT
WMI
SETIAR
T
ND N
OKI
CN N G
CL
VKCSRE
AR
S T
LLTUE
EG
I
IY
W S
LESYW T
S
S
HTN
HTENTE
BAZILEL
R TL
GI S
T S
R LW
O BA
UH
LM
SBEENI
GNTI
T IIR
A
U
PNH
UHO
ILUV
ESIWGR
A
NAL
Q
T N
N D
LTBN
R
YIS
E
Y
IT
NMN
ANRSTA
NL
T
RK
EA
N
STT
ARG
SRETIN
LZ TS
D
NS E
N
E
EO
LONM
OLR
TWAAB
GD
MTGA
Y
S
EE
L
S ES
DIRDTNOMW
BACUM
T AIN
L
A
SS
WY
GLAA
A
S
AN
NS TN
ISNAR
DVO
LTS
DHGIH
G
TR
D
RR
AOR
A C
DS
N
END
VC
TS CI
NECS
T
E
C WO
ID
R
NTNE
SI
E
C
V
IS
SR
TM
WDD
EIP
TS KCOR
TSD
S
N
RS
LA
L
R
0
E
DER
PE
TLGEW
T
I
WN
3
RAT
D PCINE
CST
T
I
NTR
A D
H
ID
A
2
ML
ALNU
R
A
A
1 T
TS ATL
A
A
C
N
TR
L
D
T
S
R
S
WY
SA
II
TNAE
VR
R
T
STS
D
BR
S
NI
N
DNNI
IEH
TT
IV
E
AA
EEB
READ
R R
RYRD
M
HRNRT
M
EW
GIC
GTU
NT
HCKA
L
TWS
S UNSR
SRSEHE
C
R
W
T
STNL YT
RS
E
S
RVEGROI
VST
B
ND
Y
I
S
T
TE
I
E
SLPAMHW
LR
DI
SE
LEARI
DTT
SYR
WS WD
R S
TLAOR RN
EUNNV
E
S A
NIWEIVNNUSO
D
NA LN
OKWU
TR DNL
DH
SF
N
A
KON
CN
MN
CSCACE
AOG
JURA
R
L
TW
HERS
DOOO
OT
OL
DY
W
FWTE
G D
SP
CN
OOW
GOD
DT
W
WAO
TY
SK
C
S
I
TA
XRN
I
O
ET
H
S
FM
O
SA
J
N
AK
PRIM ST
N
M
A
E
NLB
EH
9
9RD KERC STGIRW
Y
A
YW NOTNROHT
W
H
G
I
H
D
R
T
S EPA
YP 6 D
O
W
RO
A
W
D M
D
E
CAN
R
R
I
E
B
NTS REHTARP
I
M
D
T
S
N
N
O
T
A
R
LO
N
H
S
A
Number: 261
Page
Total
Total Page Number: 262
Total Page Number: 263
Total Page Number: 264
Number: 265
Page
Total
Number: 266
Page
Total
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 267
Total Page Number: 268
Total Page Number: 269
Total Page Number: 270
From:gshaff@gmail.com
To:Parks Information
Cc:Brandon Goldman;Derek Severson;Paula Hyatt
Subject:11/28 Planning Commission Study Session
Date:Wednesday, November 29, 2023 8:50:28 AM
\[EXTERNAL SENDER\]
Hi Leslie,
I have a few comments and a question about the materials that were reviewed at last night’s
Planning Commission study session.
Foremost, I believe that there is an error on the Parks, Open Space and Trails map (p. 26 in
the PC packet). More particularly, the Cottle Phillips property fronting on Terrace (labeled as
property E on the map) is not developed. It is however, assessed as open space which limits
its development, absent paying back taxes, and because of that, may make it an attractive
acquisition for APRC.
It also bears noting the the city holds a pedestrian access easement on my property (516
Herbert Street) and my neighbor’s to the east. That easement is not shown on the map but
serves to provide access to the Cottle Phillips open space. I would encourage you to include
easements on the map using a distinctive pattern and distinguish it from outright ownership.
I believe easements are currently used in other locations to provide trail connectivity and, I
expect, APRC will find easements a useful tool, in the future, to protect stream side habitats.
My question relates to the use and approval of the map on page 26, showing future APRC
acquisition priorities. Will the acquisition priorities be approved by Council as a part of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and, if not, when?
Thank you,
Gary Shaff
516 Herbert
Total Page Number: 271
Total Page Number: 272
Total Page Number: 273
Total Page Number: 274