Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-08 Planning PACKET ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 8, 2021 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. May 11, 2021 Regular Meeting 2. May 25, 2021 Special Meeting IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 375 & 475 East Nevada Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (), David Young owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000 () owner, 475 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lots 1100,1200 & 1300 DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of Urban Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts that there are differences in the location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clear that the portions of the four properties in question are within the City of Urban Growth Boundary as Residential Reserve (1.37 acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300). PLEASE NOTE: The 1982 Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential of Commissioners. Reserve & North Mountain; ZONING: RR-.5 & NM-MF; MAP: 39 1E 04A; TAX LOT #: 1000, 1100, 1200 & 1300. VI. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - Draft May 11, 2021 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Alan Harper Maria Harris, Planning Manager Haywood Norton Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Senior Planner Roger Pearce Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Lynn Thompson Lisa Verner Absent Members: Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the LUBA opinion expected April 30, 2021 on the 1511 Highway 99 annexation had not posted yet. The Ashland School District was getting closer to a resolution regarding the Walker Elementary School project. Staff would present the duplex code amendments and the Housing Capacity Analysis to the City Council at their study session May 17, 2021. Community Development Department and Fire Department staff would propose the final piece of the fire adapted model. It would require all new construction to use noncombustible or fire-resistant materials. This would apply to Ashland within city limits. III. PUBLIC FORUM - None IV.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. April 13, 2021 Regular Meeting 2. April 27, 2021 Special Meeting Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC FORUM - None VI. A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2021-00141 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 599 East Main Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for Livni Family Trust (Gil Livni, Trustee) DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to modify the existing building at 599 East Main Street including converting the former church to use as office/assembly space and adding a new entry. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit as it involves the alteration Ashland Planning Commission May 11, 2021 Page 1 of 5 of an existing non-conforming development where no off-street parking is available, and Street Tree Removal Permits to remove and replace two Callery Pear street trees (10.2-inch & 12.7-inch DBH) in the park row planting strip along East Main Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; MAP: 39 1E 09AC; TAX LOT #: 7600 Chair Norton read aloud the rules for electronic public hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Dawkins explained he had lived across the street from the project site for nineteen years. There had always been an abundance of parking in the area. Commissioners Pearce, Thompson, and KenCairn declared no ex parte contact and no site visit. Commissioner Harper, Verner, and Norton had no site visits, but each had discussed the project with staff. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached): Additional Items Received Parking Spaces off the Alley Technical Memo Parking Parking Spaces off the Technical Memo Trip Generation Staff Recommendation Parking Spaces off the Alley behind Fellowship Hall Based on the technical memo provided, staff thought a finding could be made that the proposal satisfied the applicable criteria for a conditional use permit (CUP) and merited approval. Questions of Staff Commissioner Pearce asked for the rationale of having the parking stay with the church property. Mr. Severson explained the parking was available through the nonconforming development that consisted of both lots. Having them separate and potentially have the spaces vacant while the other lot was generating demand on the neighborhood seemed questionable. The applicant continuing to contribute what little parking they had control of was beneficial. Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning and Development Services/Medford, Or/ Gil Livni/Magnolia Fine Homes LLC/Ashland/ Ms. Gunter provided a presentation: Historic Renovation 599 E Main Street East Elevation Graphics of the general area of the property West Elevation Subject Property South Elevation Site Plan Impact Area Existing Structure Conclusion North Elevation Proposed Conditions 10 and 11 Their concern was setting up a negative impact on an adjacent use by dedicating the parking. Mr. Livni explained that giving the parking to the church property made the other property useless. There was also the potential of losing one of the three spaces if they converted it to an ADA parking space. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Pearce asked what the current use of the fellowship hall was. Mr. Livni explained it was being used to cook meals and other activities for the homeless community. Ashland Planning Commission May 11, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Commissioner Dawkins asked if Mr. Livni would be willing to stripe the three parking spaces so people would stop parallel parking there. Mr. Livni responded he would and added he wanted to improve the landscaping there as well. Commissioner Harper was struggling with the no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area criteria. He wanted to get to an approval that allowed all on-street parking, no on-site parking with no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than having the required on-site parking. He was not sure how to say it had zero impact. Ms. Gunter explained that was why it was compared to the existing use of the site as a church. There was not a good analysis in the code for the project. There was no comparison to a 4,600 square foot building with no on-site parking. This was a rare instance. City code would not let them tear down a historic building that was economically viable nor would the code let them look at what the current uses of the property were. The only alternative was demolishing the building and rebuilding at a reduced size to incorporate a parking lot. Mr. Livni thought they were doing less impact with the proposal. If they kept it as a church, it would be a greater impact. Ms. Gunter added the code did say livability of the impact area and this was a commercial zone. Of the twenty-one properties in the impact area, more than half were commercially zoned. They were trying to compare it to the use they were forced to use. Commissioner Verner thought the proposal from staff was to ask the applicant to allow the uses of the parking area now but then they would be jointly used by both properties if the second property developed. Mr. Livni explained he would be unable to develop the property or sell it if he had to keep the three parking spaces on the property. Ms. Gunter explained there was a condition of approval for the church when they built the fellowship hall to put in adequate parking. The applicants at that time did not do that and had not met the building permit requirements. Ms. Gunter and Mr. Livni were aware of the parking concerns at 48 5 Street. The use of that 1,500 sq. ft. building was th going to require three or four parking spaces for its use. If they remove a portion of the building it would require a separate site review and would be analyzed at that time. They wanted to retain the parking spaces because they would be necessary when it was used as an office. Commissioner Pearce asked about the permit history of the fellowship hall. Mr. Severson explained in the applicants submittals it was approved in 1993. A building was demolished, and the fellowship hall was built. It was accessory to the church use but was not part of the sanctuary. There was a statement the parking spaces were not required in the planning approval for the fellowship hall but were shown on the building permit just not striped. They had volunteered more parking than what was required. Public Testimony - None - None Chair Norton closed the hearing and the record at 7:54 p.m. Deliberation and Decision earlier concern. She thought it might be possible to argue that in utilizing the exception to site design development and land provision there was a unique or unusual aspect of the structure in that it was a historic nonconforming building onsite. It was nonconforming because it did not satisfy the parking requirements. The CUP target use comparison to the retail use would incorporate the exception standard, the recognition that it was a nonconforming structure without parking then look at whether granting the CUP would substantially negatively impact the adjacent properties. It might not because the impact of having an office versus retail would not increase the parking demand beyond the status quo. Commissioner Harper thought it could be argued. Because it was a pre-existing development, it would be compared to something with an exception to retain the structure. Commissioner Pearce thought it was a good way to think Ashland Planning Commission May 11, 2021 Page 3 of 5 about it. His concern regarding the parking was alleviated when he found out the spaces were not required. The traffic analysis showed eleven office trips in the p.m. peak hour where retail would have 27 trips. Chair Norton noted conditions 10 and 11. One condition required parking be shared and the other required it to be recorded. He thought the conditions should be addressed in the motion. Commissioner Pearce/Harper m/s to approve PA-T1-2021-00141 for 599 E Main to change the use of the building of church to office use and delete Conditions 10 and 11 from the proposed Findings and that the Findings include there was an exception or the parcel was already built and committed to a historic structure and was part of the analysis that considered the livability in the neighborhood. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Harper thought the findings should include they found an exception, or that the parcel was already built and committed to a historic structure and was part of the analysis that considered the livability in the Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Verner, Dawkins, neighborhood. Commissioner Pearce accepted the amendment. Thompson, Harper, KenCairn, Pearce, and Norton, YES. Motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T1-2021-00141, 599 East Main Street. Item was moved to the next Planning Commission Meeting. VIII. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2021-00010 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A public hearing on a legislative amendment to the Ashland Municipal Code Title 18 Land Use to update the allowances and standards for duplexes and accessory residential units as required by House Bill 2001 from the 80 Oregon Legislative Assembly, 2019 th Regular Legislative Session. The proposed amendment includes a series of changes to the following chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance including 18.1.4, 18.2.2, 18.2.3, 18.2.5, 18.3.4, 18.3.5, 18.3.9, 18.3.10, 18.3.12. 18.4.2, 18.4.3, 18.5.2, 18.5.7 and 18.6.1. Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation (see attached): New Items Conversion of nonconforming structures o Building separation in multifamily zones o Existing lots over 35% slope o Duplex parking o Questions of Staff Commissioner Harper wanted to know if there were reductions for System Development Charges (SDCs) and water meters for duplexes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Ms. Harris explained SDCs were reduced for units under 500 square feet (sq. ft.). Senior Planner Brandon Goldman further explained that transportation SDCs were reduced 50% for units under 500 sq. ft. and 25% for units that were 500 to 800 sq. ft. There was a 25% reduction of parks, water, and sewer for units under 500 sq. ft. SDCs were based on unit size and not a designation of accessory residential units, duplexes, or apartments. Ms. Harris explained meter sizes and other costs were based on single- family or multi-family and technical factors like water line size. She noted earlier comments made by Mark Knox that ARUs were being charged a higher multi-family base rate for utilities. Staff had contacted the Utility Billing Division and was looking into it. Mr. Goldman clarified water and electrical meters were driven by building code, not land use code. Separate dwelling units could be occupied independently and required a separate meter. That was federal law. Mr. Molnar provided history on an earlier discussion during a City Council study session a couple years before to waive more fees for ARUs. Ashland Planning Commission May 11, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Thompson asked about allowing multiple structures on a lot with a severe slope. Allowing ARUs and duplexes would congest development on a steep slope. Ms. Harris agreed and explained there were parameters in the hillside standards that would be applied if someone proposed a separate structure. The Commission discussed building ARUs or duplexes on a severe slope and how the hillside standards applied. Public Testimony None Chair Norton closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. Deliberation and Decision Commissioner Pearce thought Ms. Harris had done a good job incorporating the new changes. It met the state requirements. Commissioner Pearce/Verner m/s to recommend adoption of PA-L-2021-0010 Duplex and ARU code amendments to the City Council. Voice Votes: ALL AYES. Motion passed. Ms. Harris explained the item would go before the City Council at their study session on May 17, 2021. The public hearing and first reading would happen at their meeting on June 1, 2021. Second reading and adoption would occur ng on June 15, 2021. IX.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission May 11, 2021 Page 5 of 5 .¤¶ )³¤¬² ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - Draft May 25, 2021 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Alan Harper Maria Harris, Planning Manager Haywood Norton Derek Severson, Senior Planner Kerry KenCairn Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Lisa Verner Absent Members: Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt II. ANNOUNCEMENTS A.LUBA decision for PA-T3-2019-00001, 1511 Hwy 99 North (Attached) DISCUSSION ITEM Item was added to the agenda under . Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Housing Capacity Analysis and code revisions for duplexes and accessory residential units went before City Council at their study session on May 17, 2021. First reading of the Wildfire Mitigation Construction Standards went before the City Council meeting on May 18, 2021. Second reading would occur June 1, 2021. III. PUBLIC FORUM - None IV.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T1-2021-00141, 599 East Main Street. Ex Parte Contact The Commission had no ex parte contact on the matter. The following changes were made to the Findings: Page 6, first full paragraph, added to last sentence, Page 8, after bulleted items and second full paragraph, add, proposed office use requires ten off-street parking spaces, based on the ratio of one off-street parking space per 500 square feet of general office use found in AMC Table 18.4.3.040 (4,630 square feet/one space per 500 square feet = 9.36 spaces). The Commission finds that the application does not meet the parking requirements because it is a nonconforming development with regard to parking. Nonconforming developments can be altered or expanded pursuant to AMC 18.1.4.040.B Ashland Planning Commission May 25, 2021 Page 1 of 3 where the Conditional Use Permit criteria are met. The Conditional Use Permit criteria are discussed in section 2.4 below. The Planning Commission further finds that the proposed office use requires one bicycle parking space for every five required automobile spaces and that fifty percent of these spaces must be sheltered as provided in AMC 18.4.3070. In this case, ten automobile spaces are required (4,630 square feet/one space per 500 square feet = 9.36 spaces ) and two bicycle parking spaces are required (10 spaces/one bicycle space per five automobile spaces = 2 spaces). While the site currently has no bicycle parking in place, the applicant has proposed to provide three U-racks for bicycle parking which more than satisfies the requirements. Conditions have been included below to require that bicycle parking be included in the permit submittals and that it be provided on site The Planning Now page 11, first paragraph, change wording at the end of the sentence to read, Commission notes that the application includes a Technical Memo from Sandow Engineering which assesses the trip generation for the previous church use, proposed office use and target retail use using the ITE Trip Generation Manuals, 10 Edition, as illustrated in the table below, and concludes th that the proposed office use has less of a trip generation impact to the neighborhood than the target the benefits of Now Page 12, third full paragraph, add wording to read, preserving and renovating the historic building may be weighed against the generation of traffic and its effect on the surrounding streets that result from the continuing parking non-conformity. With all of things considered, the Commission concludes that the effect of parking and trip generation on the surrounding streets for the proposed office use has a lower impact than the target use as evidenced in Technical Memo, particularly when weighed alongside the benefit of preserving and renovating the historic Commissioner Thompson/Pearce m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T1-2021-00141, as amended during this meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. B. Approval of Findings for PA-L-2021-00010, Duplex and Accessory Residential Units code amendments. Commissioner Pearce/Harper m/s to adopt proposed Findings for PA-L-2021-00010, Duplex and Accessory Residential Units code amendments and forward them to City Council with the Planning recommendation. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. DISCUSSION ITEM A.LUBA decision for PA-T3-2019-00001, 1511 Hwy 99 North (Attached) Mr. Molnar had read through the decision critical one where LUBA reversed the decision. He was not sure if the other two would have caused a reversal. He provided a presentation (see attached) on the assignments of error in LUBA No. 2021-009 Final Opinion and Order: proposed annexation area 1 Assignment of Error Improperly approved an Exception St An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to o conform through the imposition of conditions, with all of the following approval criteria: Ashland Planning Commission May 25, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Public Facilities Chapter 18.4.6 applies to all new development, including projects subject to Land o Division (Subdivision or Partition) approval and developments subject to Site Design Review, where public facility improvements are required. The application, as part of annexation, required compliance with city street standards. The applicant proposed having a significant portion of the sidewalk construction at curbside and not separated from the curb by a park row. It was proposed to deal with some constrictive right of way issues. During the planning commission discussion at that time, it was deemed more appropriate to be taken up at the time development was proposed. During the City Council decision, an exception to the design standards to allow curbside sidewalk was available through the annexation process. LUBA focused on these areas of the annexation standard. With annexation, there was not really an allowance to deviate. It needed to meet the requirement, or the city needed to condition the annexation approval, so the proposal met them. LUBA noted the Public Facilities Chapter 18.4.6 where the criteria for exception to street standards was contained and it stated the public facilities chapter applied to all new development including projects subject to land division approval and developments subject to site design review. Since this was an annexation, there was no development or land division, and no site review that would allow an exception. LUBA did not provide guidance or make a decision if a development was proposed concurrently with an annexation whether an exception procedure could be used. 2 Assignment of Error Contiguity Issue (LUBA did not rule on this issue) nd property in the proposed annexation to o make a boundary extension more logical and to avoid parcels of land which are not incorporated but are partially or wholly surrounded by the City. Portions of the ODOT property and the railroad were included for the purposes of providing contiguity and an orderly city boundary. The Findings spoke to the purpose of making the boundary extension more logical and was absent in terms of addressing the second part that avoided parcels of land which were not incorporated but were partially or wholly surrounded by the city. LUBA was also concerned about standards. Under Oregon state law a parcel is a property created by a land partition and a lot was a property created through a subdivision. It showed inconsistency in the code. The City code definition of lot included a piece of land that could be created through partition or parcels or lots could be used similarly. 3 Assignment of Error Not supported by substantial evidence (LUBA did not rule on this issue) rd Pedestrian and bicycle destinations from the project shall be determined and the safe and accessible o pedestrian and bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. condition nor do-Appellant o dequate was not supported by substantial evidence. Mr. Molnar was not sure how LUBA would have ruled on that. The appellants arguments were reasonable. They did point out there discretionary and potentially difficult to provide direction to an applicant. LUBA noted the speed study was not a condition nor would it necessarily ensure a reduction in speed. Mr. Molnar recommended adding an item to a future City Council agenda to get direction from Council. There were inconsistencies in the code that would affect future annexations. The applicant still wanted to move forward with the annexation. The Commission discussed the need to review the annexation code and the transportation section and was interested in updating the code. VI.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission May 25, 2021 Page 3 of 3 TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-T2-2021-00031 375 & 475 East Nevada Street Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 375 & 475 East Nevada Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000), David Young (owner, 475 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lots1100,1200 & 1300) DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of Urban Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts that there are differences in the location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original maps scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clearthat the portions of the four properties in question are within the City of Urban Growth Boundary as Residential Reserve (1.37 acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & PLEASE NOTE: 1300). The also requires review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Board of Commissioners. Single Family Residential Reserve &North ZONING: MAP: TAX LOT #: Mountain; RR-.5 &NM-MF; 39 1E 04A;1000, 1100, 1200 & 1300. ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 7:00 PM th OVER Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.edu and RVTV Prime. The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers 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. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line at www.ashland.or.us/PCpackets seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, 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. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the June 8PC Hearing Testimony June 7, 2021. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the subject June 8 PC Hearing Testimony June 8, 2021. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, June 7, 2021. In order to provide June 8 testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email Speaker Request 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number youwilluse if participating by telephone. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please -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). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Senior Planner Derek Severson, the staff planner assigned to this application, at 541-488-5305 or e-mail: derek.severson@ashland.or.us Minor Map Amendments or Corrections (Type II). \[AMC 18.5.9.020.A.\] The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will trial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT June 8, 2021 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031 APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (375 E. Nevada St.) David Young (475 E. Nevada St) SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 375 East Nevada Street (39 1E Map 04A, Tax Lot 1000) 475 East Nevada Street (39 1E Map 04A, Tax Lot 1100-1200-1300) ORDINANCE REFERENCES: See https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse AMC 18.1 Introduction and General Provisions AMC 18.1.2 Title, Purpose & General Administration AMC 18.2 Zoning Regulations AMC 18.2.1.030 Determination of Zoning Boundaries AMC 18.5 Application Review Procedures and Approval Criteria AMC 18.5.1 General Review Procedures AMC 18.5.9 Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Land Use Ordinance Amendments AMC 18.5.9.020.A Minor Map Amendments or Corrections AMC 18.6 Definitions Ashland Comprehensive Plan (see http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/Comprehensive_Plan- updated_6.2019.pdf) UGBA 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement () between City of Ashland & Jackson County (See https://jacksoncountyor.org/ds/DesktopModules/Bring2 mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?Command=Core_D ownload&EntryId=34685&language=en- US&PortalId=16&TabId=1460) 120-DAY TIMELINE: Not Applicable (see ORS 227.188) Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 1 of 13 REQUEST: The application is a request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of urban growth boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts that there are differences in the location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clear that the portions of the four properties in (1.37 question are within the City of urban growth boundary as Residential Reserve acres of Tax Lot 1000)(2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan 1200 & 1300) as illustrated on the attached Staff Exhibit S-1. -judicial procedure may be used for minor map amendments or corrections. However, in this instance the 1982 Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary requires review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners. As such, the application is being treated as a procedure because it requires a Council decision. If the City Council approves the current request, the applicant would then need to make a similar application to Jackson County for consideration by the Board of Commissioners before either body adopted an ordinance correcting the boundary line. I. Discussion The application requests approval of a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment in the form of a map correction to clarify the urban growth boundary. The application materials assert that the record of the exact location of the urban growth boundary line has been inconsistent, and recording a plat to further urbanize the subject properties within the city limits would leave Jackson County RR-5 zoned remnant properties outside the Urban Grown Boundary with less than the minimum required lot area under their county zoning. Goal 14 of Oregons statewide land use-planning goals deals with Urbanization. In the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), OAR 660-004-0040 discusses the Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas. The subject properties here are within the counties Rural Residential zone (RR-5). With regard to rural lands planned for residential uses such as the properties here, Goal 14 prohibits the urban use of these rural lands, and to that end prevents the creation of new lots or parcels smaller than the minimum size (which is generally no smaller than two acres in Goal 14, and specifically five acres here under the Countys RR-5 zoning) without an exception to Goal 14. Recording a plat to partition or divide the portions of the properties within the city limits would create new discrete parcels out of the remnant pieces of the properties that lie outside the city limits and urban growth boundary, triggering the exception. This would be a costly action with the County and in a pre-application with County staff, they have indicated to the applicant that approval of such an exception appears extremely unlikely. There are portions of four tax lots included in the request for clarification of the urban growth (39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100, boundary. These properties are located at 475 East Nevada Street 1200 & 1300)(39 1E 04A Tax Lot 1000). and at 375 East Nevada Street In 2017, the Planning Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Single Family Residential Reserve to North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay Zoning; a Zone Change from Jackson County Rural Residential, ½-acre minimum (RR-5) to North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) Zoning Overlay; Outline Plan and Site Design Review approvals for a 20-lot/23-unit Performance Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 2 of 13 at 475 East Nevada Street. The application materials explain applicant met with Jackson County staff regarding the split-zoning of the property and the need, with subdivision of the property, to create discrete lots for the remnant properties outside the urban growth boundary. The application suggests that at this point, it became apparent that there were 8 and the maps the County used in implementing their development regulations. The application concludes that the request is that the portions of tax lots 1100, 1200 & 1300 totaling 2.08 acres at 475 East Nevada Street, and the approximately 1.37 acre area of tax lot 1000 at 375 East Nevada Street which are depicted on the current city maps as being outside the urban growth boundary instead be included within the City of Ashlandurban growth boundary as it was drawn in the official 1989 map, explaining that while the present Geographical Information System (GIS) maps show the properties divided by the City of Ashland urban growth boundary roughly mid-way between the north and south property lines with the urban growth boundary following the city limits boundary, the 1989 map is of such a scale that the pen stroke is larger than the specific location of the UGB on the subject property per the GIS maps. The application materials emphasize that the issue at hand must be addressed before further action can be taken to complete the approval and development of the Katherine Mae Subdivision. II. Analysis The expansion of the urban growth boundary other than through the correction of a mapping error would trigger a minor amendment to the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. When the Regional Plan was completed in 2012, the City of Ashland was the only participating city in the region that chose not to identify urban reserve areas for the future expansion of its urban growth boundary. Ashland instead committed to accommodating a doubling of the regional population over the next 50-60 years through more efficient land use within the existing city limits and urban growth boundary. Should the city now seek to expand its urban growth boundary by not more than 50 acres, it would require a minor amendment to the Regional Plan be processed by Jackson County with the City of Ashland as the applicant. In discussing the application with Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff, they have confirmed that if the application is truly a clarification of the UGB boundary based on the interpretation of historic documents, it does not constitute a UGB amendment and can be treated as a correction The request here is to determine whether the current maps reflect the originally intended placement of the urban growth boundary, or if the urban growth boundary was incorrectly placed in the transition from the original paper maps to the currently adopted electronic maps and thus merits correction. Minor Map Amendments or Corrections As detailed in AMC 18.5.9.020.A, minor map amendments or correction may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following: Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 3 of 13 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. Determination of Zoning Boundaries AMC 18.2.1.030 also speaks to the of Zoning and provides that: Unless otherwise specified, zoning boundaries are lot lines, the centerlines of streets, and railroad right-of-way, or such lines extended. Where due to the scale, lack of scale, lack of detail or illegibility of the Zoning Map, or due to any other reason, there is uncertainty, contradiction or conflict as to the intended location of a zoning boundary, the Staff Advisor or, upon referral, the Planning Commission or City Council, shall determine the boundary as follows: A.wźŭŷƷƭΏƚŅΏǞğǤ͵ Boundaries that approximately follow the centerlines of a street, highway, alley, bridge, railroad, or other right-of-way shall be construed to follow such centerlines. Whenever any public right-of-way is lawfully vacated, the lands formerly within the vacated right-of-way shall automatically be subject to the same zoning designation that is applicable to lands abutting the vacated areas. In cases where the right-of-way formerly served as a zoning boundary, the vacated lands within the former right-of-way shall be allocated proportionately to the abutting zones. B.tğƩĭĻƌͲ ƌƚƷͲ ƷƩğĭƷ͵ Where a zoning boundary splits a lot into two zones and the minimum width or depth of a divided area is 20 feet or less, the entire lot shall be placed in the zone that accounts for the greater area of the lot by the adjustment of the zoning boundary. Where a zoning boundary splits a lot into two zones and the minimum width and depth of both divided areas is greater than 20 feet, the lot shall have split zoning with lot area designated proportionately to each zone. C.WǒƩźƭķźĭƷźƚƓ ĬƚǒƓķğƩǤ͵ Boundaries indicated as approximately following a City or County boundary, or the Urban Growth Boundary, shall be construed as following said boundary. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 4 of 13 D.bğƷǒƩğƌ ŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭ͵ Boundaries indicated as approximately following the centerlines of a river or stream, a topographic contour, or similar feature not corresponding to any feature listed in section 18.2.1.030, above, shall be construed as following such feature. Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement (UGBA) In addition to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), there is an County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement which was adopted in 1982. The UGBA sets forth the mutually adopted urbanization program between the City and Jackson (and) establishes an Urban Growth Boundary, an Area of Future Urbanization, Areas of Mutual Planning Concern, joint policies governing the urbanization of lands, and revision and administrative procedures. The UGBA requires review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners as follows: /ƚƩƩĻĭƷźƚƓ ƚŅ 9ƩƩƚƩƭ͵ If the City Council or the County Board of Commissioners become aware of an error in either the map or the text of the mutually adopted urbanization program, both bodies may cause an immediate amendment to occur to correct the error, after mutual agreement is reached. Such a correction shall be in the form of a public hearing and an ordinance, conducted separately or jointly by both bodies, which may take effect on an emergency basis. Public hearings before the Planning Commissions shall not be required where an amendment is intended specifically to correct an error. Generally, an error is a cartographic mistake or text misprint, omission or duplication. Such errors are not derived from new data or suggested errors made in interpretations of the attitudes of the public, the governing bodies or data; the latter error types are considered under the amendment provisions cited herein. In discussions with Jackson County staff, they have confirmed that if the city determines an error has been made and the map requires correction, they would forward the issue to the Board of Commissioners for a decision, as detailed in the 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. For staff, the most applicable criterion in considering a minor map correction is AMC 18.5.9.020.A.2, that A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. clear that the transition from the original paper maps to a computer-based Geographic Information System (GIS) enabled mapping by the city and county to become much more precise and represented a substantial change, and the key question is whether the more precise mapping resulted in the incorrect identification of the intended urban growth boundary. The original paper maps often did not show tax lot boundaries or clearly illustrate how the city limits or urban growth boundary lines related to one another or to individual properties. As the applicant notes, in some of the adopted paper maps, the UGB line was drawn with a width which equates to more than 200 feet on the ground, while the current request deals with tax lots that are in some instances only 250 feet in depth. While staff believes that boundary lines including the UGB should follow property lines wherever possible, as provided in AMC 18.2.1.030, in reviewing the maps provided by the applicant and other maps in city records, staff are unable to identify any clear error in the placement of the urban growth boundary lines. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 5 of 13 The Tarp The original working map used in developing the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan maps is often referred to as as it was created from a large canvas tarp. This is not an officially adopted map, but has been used as a reference tool for staff when boundary questions arise. Staff estimates that The Tarp dates to the early- to mid- as it was in use as a reference tool when the current Community Development Director was hired in the late A photo of The Tarp as it illustrates the subject properties is shown below - with a red rectangle added by staff to identify the subject properties: Figure 1 While The Tarp does not illustrate a clear distinction between the city limits and urban growth boundary here, it does clearly show the subject tax lots and does not identify Comprehensive Plan map designations for the portions north of the city limits line shown, suggesting that even from this early date, boundary lines were located so that they left the portions of the subject properties in question here outside the boundaries. Based on the scale, the boundary line is shown at just over 150 feet from the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 6 of 13 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement (UGBA) Map The city and county adopted an Urban Growth Boundary Agreement in 1982 which included an Urban Growth Boundary Map as A. A portion of that map depicting the subject properties is copied below, with a red rectangle added by staff in the general area of the subject properties: Figure 2 1982 UGBA Map This UGBA exhibit map does not identify individual tax lots and is generally lacking in clear detail. The scale on the map is difficult to read and imprecise, but the city limits and urban growth boundary lines appear to scale to less than 200 feet north of the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way. (The current GIS map has this boundary at between 153 feet and 167 feet north of the right-of-way. If adjusted as the applicant requests, the boundary would be between 250 and 329 feet north of the Nevada Street right-of-way.) Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 7 of 13 1982 Comprehensive Plan Map from Urbanization Element (Adopted by Ord. 2227) A new Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan map were adopted in 1982 as Ordinance #2227. The Urbanization element of the Comprehensive Plan included a map illustrating the urban growth boundary; the portion of this map depicting the subject properties is copied below, with the general location of the properties, the urban growth boundary and city limits identified in red: Figure 3 1982 Urbanization Element Map This 1982 Comprehensive Plan map does not identify individual tax lots and is generally lacking in clear detail. The scale on the map is difficult to read and imprecise, and identifying the exact intended location of the urban growth boundary is complicated by the fact that the width of the boundary line itself scales to slightly more than 200 feet and obscures the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way and the city limits line beneath it. The associated Urbanization element of the Comprehensive Plan does include a narrative description of the urban growth boundary based on lettered points called out on the map noting, The urban growth boundary returns to the city limits at point Q. The only other departure of the urban growth boundary (line from the city limits line) is from point R to point S, where it includes the sewage treatment plant and a portion of the Bear Creek Greenway. The subject properties are between point S and the starting point A, suggesting that in this vicinity the city limits line and urban growth boundary line were one and the same in 1982. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 8 of 13 1982 Adopted Zoning Map Staff have obtained a digital copy of the original zoning map sent to the state for acknowledgement in 1982. The portion relevant to the subject properties is illustrated below, with the general location of the properties in a red rectangle: Figure 4 Officially-Adopted Zoning Map (1982) The city limits and urban growth boundary line are one and the same here. Individual tax lots are not identified, however the boundary line scales as approximately 120 feet north of the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 9 of 13 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement Map The application materials provided include a map described as being part of a 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. The relevant portion of this map, with the notes in the red box, is included below. Figure 5 UGBA Map (1989). hŅŅźĭźğƌͪ Staff cannot locate an adopted 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement, and as such cannot confirm that this is an official map. There was an Urban Growth Boundary Agreement update process initiated in 2001, but it never came to fruition, and both the city and the county are still currently working under the adopted 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement discussed above, and are unaware of an adopted 1989 update. While the map provided includes individual tax lots, the tax lot lines are unclear with regard to the subject properties here, and the map provided does not include a scale. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 10 of 13 2008 Officially Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map In 2008, the city adopted new zoning and associated overlay maps in digital format with Ordinance #2951. These are the current official maps. A portion of the official Comprehensive Plan map depicting the subject properties is shown below, with a red rectangle added by staff around the subject properties. Figure 6 Current Officially-Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map (2008) In the current officially-adopted maps, the city limits and urban growth boundary lines are one and the same in this vicinity, similar to the way they were depicted on and described in the narrative description in the 1982 Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This currently adopted official GIS map has the boundary lines at between 153 feet and 167 feet north of the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way, which splits the subject properties between city and county, leaving remnant portions outside the city and urban growth boundary under the county jurisdiction. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 11 of 13 III. Procedural AMC 18.5.9.020.A Minor Map Amendments or Corrections The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. Ashland/Jackson Urban Growth Boundary Agreement (UGBA) Section 11.D of the 1982 UGBA between Ashland & Jackson County addresses of as follows: Correction of Errors. If the City Council or the County Board of Commissioners become aware of an error in either the map or the text of the mutually adopted urbanization program, both bodies may cause an immediate amendment to occur to correct the error, after mutual agreement is reached. Such a correction shall be in the form of a public hearing and an ordinance, conducted separately or jointly by both bodies, which may take effect on an emergency basis. Public hearings before the Planning Commissions shall not be required where an amendment is intended specifically to correct an error. Generally, an error is a cartographic mistake or text misprint, omission or duplication. Such errors are not derived from new data or suggested errors made in interpretations of the attitudes of the public, the governing bodies or data; the latter error types are considered under the amendment provisions cited herein. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 12 of 13 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff believes that the boundary lines would have been much better placed to follow property lines, and staff is equally frustrated that the size of resulting remnant properties in the county prevents further urbanization of these properties, however in reviewing the application materials and associated maps, staff have been unable to identify any clear error in the urban growth boundary current placement that suggests it was placed differently than was originally intended and needs to be corrected. While each of the various maps pose some challenges in terms of clarity, scale and the identification of individual tax lot lines relative to the boundary line locations, all of them are generally consistent in depicting a straight urban growth boundary line in the same location as the city limits line as was described in the Comprehensive Plan narrative in 1982 when the boundary was established - rather than having the boundary follow property lines. As such, staff are unable to say that a correction is merited here. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 13 of 13 Received 3.15.2021 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 375 East Nevada Street 475 East Nevada Street ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Received 3.15.2021 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Subject Property Property Address: 475 EAST NEVADA STREET Map & Tax Lots: 39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100, 1200; 1300 Property Owner: Young Family Trust 348 South Modoc Street Medford, OR 97504 Property Address: 375 EAST NEVADA STREET Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 04A Tax Lot: 1000 Property Owner: Peter and Laura Schultz 375 E Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520 Surveyor:Hoffbuhr & Associates 880 Golf View Drive; Suite 201 Medford, OR 97540 Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Amy Gunter 1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457 Medford, OR 97501 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Reserve Zoning: SPLIT: City of Ashland RR-.5 Jackson County Rural Residential (RR-5) Adjacent Zones: NM-R-1.5; NM-MF; Rural Residential (RR-.5); Jackson County RR-5; and Jackson County Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 1 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Request: The application requests approval for a City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Jackson County Rural Residential to Ashland Residential Reserve/North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. It can be found that the record of the exact location of the Urban Growth Boundary line has been inconsistentand leavesJackson County RR-5 zoned remnant parcels of landthat necessitate Goal 14 exceptions due to the limited lot area of the legal parcels of record of the areas north of and outside of the city of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary. There are portions of four parcels of record included in the request for clarification of theUrban Growth Boundary. The properties are 475 East Nevada Street (39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100, 1200; 1300) and 375 East Nevada Street (39 1E 04A Tax Lot: 1000). In 2017, the Katherine Mae Subdivision obtained Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Single Family Residential Reserve to North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay Zoning, a Zone Change from Jackson County Rural Residential, ½ Acre minimum (RR-.5-P), to North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) Zoning Overlay; Outline Plan and Site Design Review approval for a Performance Standards Subdivision to allow for the future development of a phased subdivision in 2017. At the time of the subdivision request, it was believed that the property was divided by the city of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that is shown on the 2008 adopted maps from the city of Ashland as roughly half-way between the north and south property lines. Following discussions and meetings with Jackson County regarding the “split zoning” of the property and the need to create separate and discrete parcels of recordnorth of the UGB that areseparate from the property on the south side of the UGB. Following inquiries at the County, it became apparent that there is question to the adopted maps on file with the city of Ashland and dated July 2008 and the maps that Jackson County uses in the implementation of their development regulations. In the research of this issue, the ability to readily manipulate the boundary lines presently when mapped by the Geographic Information Services (GIS) mapping software versus the lines drawn on the adopted Comprehensive Plan Mapsbecame more apparent. The property owner and the project team find that there is an important issue at hand that must be addressed before further action can be taken concerning the Final Planning of the adjacent Katherine Mae Subdivision. According to the present Geographical Information Systems (GIS) drawn maps, theproperties are divided by the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) roughly mid-way between the north and south property lines. The UGB is shown following the city limits boundary. The official map is dated 1989 Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 2 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 and is of such a scale that the pen stroke is larger than the specific location of the UGB on the subject property per the GIS maps. The request is for the 2.08-acre portions of 1100, 1200 & portions of 1300, and an approximately 1.37- acrearea of 375 East Nevada Street that is on the north side of the GIS drawn line to be included into the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary as drawn upon the 1989 official maps. Property Descriptions: The properties proposed for proposal consists of four properties, tax lots #1000, 1100, 1200, and 1300. The properties are on the north side of East Nevada Street west of the intersection of East Nevada Street, and an unimproved, remnant portion of the North Mountain Avenue right-of-way. The subject properties are Comprehensive Plan designated as Single-Family Residential Reserve. Tax lots 1100, 1200, and 1300 have been rezoned to North Mountain Multi-Family Residential. Tax lot 1000 is a city of Ashland RR-.5 and Jackson County RR-5 zoning. The properties are all within the Performance Standards Overlay. North of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the City limits boundaries, the properties are Jackson County Rural Residential, Five Acre Minimum (RR-5). Tax lot #1200 is occupied by a 1,785-square foot single-story, single-family residence that was constructed in 1954. There is a detached garage on the county side of the property. Another outbuilding exists behind the residence. Tax lots #1100 and 1300 are vacant. The properties to the east and west are also split by UGB and split zoned by Ashland RR-.5 and Jackson County RR-5. The property to the east is too small and constrained to be considered. Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 3 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 The property to the west at 375 East Nevada (39S 1E is included in the proposalat the recommendation of the City of Ashland. This property is occupied by a single-family residence and associated outbuildings. The property to the north at 1059 North Mountain Avenue (39S 1E 04A; 201) is zoned Jackson County RR-5. This lot is occupied by a vacant mobile home. This lot is zoned Rural Residential, five-acre minimum, and is more than five acres in area. The property at 1260 Oak Street (39S 1E 04A; 300) is to the north of 375 East Nevada Street. This property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use and is 21.97 acres. Across the North Mountain Avenue overpass to the southeast, the properties are zoned Healthcare (HC). These properties are part of the Skylark Assisted Living Facility and Mountain Meadows Retirement community. The properties to the south, across East Nevada Street, are within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan Overlay. There are North Mountain Single Family (NM-R-1-5); North Mountain Commercial (NM-C); and North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) zones within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan Overlay. The four parcels included in the request are bound by East Nevada Street along the south property lines. According to the street classification in the Transportation System Plan (TSP), East Nevada Street is an Avenue or Major Collector. East Nevada would be considered a two-lane avenue. Avenues have a right- of-way width of between 59 – 86 feet. There is generally, 60-feet of ROW along the frontage of the properties. In the area of steep, rocky slopes between the subject property and the driving surface of East Nevada Street, there is more than 120-feet of ROW. East Nevada Street is not improved to Avenue Standards. Due to the topographical constraints within the ROW, East Nevada Street is narrow, constrained by the development to the south, and by the rock outcropping on the north side. East Nevada has a varying width of improvements. Along the frontage of the properties, East Nevada Street is improved with pavement, curb, and gutter. There is a 22-foot paved travel lane, curb, and gutter. On the south side of East Nevada Street, there are various street improvements within the varying width ROW. Across from 475 East Nevada, there is curb and gutter, no sidewalk. This property is “under-developed”, and street improvements will be required with future site development. West of the intersection of Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street, the street improvements include 22- feet of driving surface, with curb, gutter, varying width park row, and sidewalk. These improvements continue down the hill to the intersection of Camelot and Kestrel Parkway. None of East Nevada Street has dedicated bicycle lanes. The right-of-way that forms the east boundary of the property is North Mountain Avenue because it falls within a remnant of the North Mountain Avenue right-of-way, but the actual surface street North Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 4 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Mountain is above the property and transitions from surface street to bridge over the Interstate. The “street” is not improved more than the narrow gravel driveway that serves the five-acre parcel to the north of the subject properties. This new street is approved to be named Franklin Street. Details of the Request: The request is to acknowledge the adopted 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Map and that the north side of the pen stroke (the north property lines of the properties at 375 E Nevada Street and 475 E Nevada Street) is the location of the UGB. Discussions regarding the property boundaries of the Katherine Mae subdivision began in earnest with Jackson County and the City of Ashland in early 2016. At the time of the Subdivision application to the City, Jackson County had indicated that the Urban Growth Boundary Line was a defacto property line due to jurisdictional overlap. The County found they could not approve a partition of the “non-conforming” parcels that are north of the presently mapped GIS database for a few reasons. 1) All of the subject parcels that are divided by the GIS version of the UGB are zonedJackson County Rural Residential (RR-5) lots. Torevise thelegal description of the properties north of the UGB, a partition application in Jackson County is required. The resulting lot areas of the separate parcels to the north of the UGB are substantially less than the minimum lot size in the RR-5 zone. 2) Rural Residential lands that are outside of the UGB and are less than the minimum lot area of two acres, requires a Goal 14 Exception. The property is unique from what appears to be assumed with Goal 14 review, that future division of existing parcels to create lots that are less than the minimum lot area cannot be approved. This property consists of three, discreet parcels that exist with the UGB creating the boundary division. Allowing the land to be urbanizeable to the standards of the City of Ashland prevents the application of Goal 14 to the rural residential land. Oregon Administrative Rules: 660-004-0040 Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas (1) The purpose of this rule is to specify how Goal 14 “Urbanization” applies to rural lands in acknowledged exception areas planned for residential uses. (2) For purposes of this rule, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning Goals, and OAR 660-004-0005 shall apply. Also, the following definitions shall apply: (f) “Rural residential areas” means lands that are not within an urban growth boundary, that are planned and zoned primarily for residential uses, and for which Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 5 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 an exception to Goal 3 “Agricultural Lands”, Goal 4 “Forest Lands”, or both has been taken. 5) The rural residential areas described in subsection (2)(f) of this rule are “rural lands”. Division and development of such lands are subject to Goal 14, which prohibits urban use of rural lands. (6) (a) A rural residential zone in effect on October 4, 2000, shall be deemed to comply with Goal 14 if that zone requires any new lot or parcel to have an area of at least two acres, except as required by section (8) of this rule. (b) A rural residential zone does not comply with Goal 14 if that zone allows the creation of any new lots or parcels smaller than two acres. For such a zone, a local government must either amend the zone's minimum lot and parcel size provisions to require a minimum of at least two acres or take an exception to Goal 14. Until a local government amends its land-use regulations to comply with this subsection, any new lot or parcel created in such a zone must have an area of at least two acres. (7) After October 4, 2000, a local government's requirements for the minimum lot or parcel sizes in rural residential areas shall not be amended to allow a smaller minimum for any individual lot or parcel without taking an exception to Goal 14 pursuant to OAR chapter 660, division 14, and applicable requirements of this division. (8)(a) The creation of any new lot or parcel smaller than two acres in a rural residential area shall be considered an urban use. Such a lot or parcel may be created only if an exception to Goal 14 is taken. This subsection shall not be construed to imply that the creation of new lots or parcels two acres or larger always complies with Goal 14. The question of whether the creation of such lots or parcels complies with Goal 14 depends upon compliance with all provisions of this rule. To facilitate orderly development as envisioned in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and to retain consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan adopted maps and plans, recognizing the adopted UGB “line” extends to the north property boundary of the parcels in question eliminates the dividing line that created Goal 14 exception land outside of the UGB. The benefits of acknowledging the north property line as the UGB provides many benefits to the City of Ashland. The additional 3.45 acres has the potential base density of 41 dwelling units. The property is Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 6 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 directly adjacent to the city limits and the areahas had various mapping that leads one to believe the boundary is not officially mapped and clarification is sought. This request does not include site design review of any of the future residences on the properties as they would be developed at a later date, following the annexation of the area in question. On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided. For clarity, the criteria are infont and the applicant’s responses are in Times New Roman Calibri font. Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 7 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Findings of Fact Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change: 18.5.9.020 Applicability and Review Procedure Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows: A. Type II. The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. Applicant’s Finding: According to the 1982-024 Jackson County and Ashland Urban Growth Boundary Agreement, Minor Boundary Line Agreements, are minor adjustments to the UGB that are defined as focusing on individual properties and not having a significant impact beyond the immediate area of the change. In 2004, the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance adopted a process for correcting minor mapping errors. The Jackson County criteria regarding minor amendments are similar to the Ashland Municipal Code requirements and an application for amendment is necessary at the county level following the decision at the City of Ashland. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant’s Finding: The change implements the public need for the additional land area adjacent to the existing developable land area that allows for diverse housing stock. The requested change is consistent with the State of Oregon Legislative goals and is in line with a recent effort by the Department of Land Conservation and Development pilot program for minor UGB amendments though a state-assisted process, Ashland was not part of the project area but qualified if it had sought the program. The proposal implements Statewide PlanningGoal 14: Urbanization, to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.If undersized, substantially smaller than minimum five-acre portions of RR- 5 zoned land remaining, it is an inefficient use of level, buildable, connected land that is best suited for urbanization instead of remnant rural residential lands. The addition of connected, owned in common properties to the Urban Growth Boundary furthers Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.10. Which seeks to ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section ofAshland’s population, consistent with Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 8 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 preserving the character and appearance of the city. The development standards of the North Mountain Overlay (anticipated with future rezoning and development of these portions of the properties) ensure the character and appearance of the city are maintained. The North Mountain Overlay allows for single-family attached and detached, clustered, and multi-family style development patterns. This is consistent with the character and appearance of the city. The proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.11 as it relates to growth form, City policy should encourage the development of vacant available lots within the urban area while providing sufficient new land to avoid an undue increase in land prices. This shall be accomplished with specific annexation policies.Allowing portions of existing parcels that are in the same immediate vicinity, served by the same public streets, adjacent to the same freeway, restricted to the same solar orientation standards, lot coverage, stormwater drainage, parking, open space requirements, heights, orientation, scale, etc. as the properties to the east as part of the Mountain Meadows development including Skylark Place, and the other developments within the North Mountain Neighborhood to the south, and southwest is an inefficient use of land that allows for additional housing area to meet Ashland’s housing needs. The proposal furthers the Energy, Air, and Water Conservation goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Chapter 11. The proposal adds land that is physically connected to the city limits. The land has access to city electricity, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, and water. The site has excellent solar orientation and solar electric generating systems would be possible. 1059 N Mountain Avenue (39 1E 04; 200) though outside of the city limits and UGB has city water service. The city shall strive, in every appropriate way, to reduce energy consumption within the community. The Council's goals include leveraging the city resources to provide additional lands for housing development. Allowing for a small area of land to be included within the UGB to allow for future urbanization demonstrates the city's efforts to increase the developable area to increase housing stock. The proposal furthers the goals outlined in Chapter 12, Urbanization which seeks to maintain a compact urban form and include an adequate supply of vacant land to not hinder natural market forces and ensure orderly and sequential development of the land in the city limits. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. Applicant’s Finding: The state regulations imposing Goal 14 exceptions when a parcel area of Rural Residential land is smaller than the minimum lot area was adopted in 2000. The city limits were adopted pre-1900. The urban growth boundary was adopted in the early 1980s, the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1997. The subject properties were Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 9 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 part of the large area of underdeveloped land on the north side of Bear Creek, accessedonly by a gravel-surfaced, North Mountain Avenue. Between 1997 and today, major public and private expenditures were made to bring paved streets, sewer, and water to this area. The current property owners understand the great value in working with the City and providing additional developable land consistent with the adjacent property zones and development patterns allowing for furthering the Comprehensive Plan concerning urbanization. The various Comprehensive Plan Maps lead one to speculate that there is a discrepancy between the paper maps adopted in the 1970s and 1980s and the 2000s changes to the state laws regarding Goal 14 exceptions for RR-5 zoned land that is smaller than minimum lot areas, is a substantial change that necessitates the requested modified Urban Growth Boundary to create remnant parcels that cannot be developed or are area deficient and requires an exception to state regulations of rural residential lands. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. Applicant’s Finding: N/A 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. Applicant’s Finding: The area of the 475 E Nevada Street parcels is 2.08 acres. Of this, approximately 11,300 square feet (.259 acres) of tax lot 1200 has slopes of 35 percent or greater. The remaining 1.82 acres has a base density of 21.85 dwelling units. When these properties are annexed, five (21.85 X .25 = 5.46) affordable housing units would be provided when the portion of the property in question is annexed and developed. The area of 375 E Nevada Street that is north of the city limits line is 2.34 acres. Of these 2.34 acres, 5,200 square feet is the floodway of Bear Creek and 25,860 square feet is FEMA's 100-year, special flood hazard area. The area of the property outside of the floodplain and floodway is 1.63 acres and the base density is 19.66. When this property is annexed, four (1.63 X .25 = 4.91) affordable housing units would be provided when the portion of the property in question is annexed and developed. Adequate numbers of affordable housing units that comply with the standards of subsection ALUO 18.5.8.050.G. will be provided when the subject properties are annexed into the city. Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 10 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards outlined in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. Applicant’s Finding: N/A 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliancewith affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. Applicant’s Finding: The total number of affordable housing units varies depending upon the future uses and the level of AMI restriction. The future development of the subject properties will demonstrate compliance at the time with the required number of affordable housing units as required per ALUO 18.5.9.202.A. The property owner and the applicant find that to facilitate orderly development as envisioned in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and to retain consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan adopted maps and plans, recognizing the adopted UGB “line” extends to the north property boundary of the parcels in question eliminates the dividing linethat created Goal 14 exception land outside of the UGB. The benefits of acknowledging the north property line as the UGB provides many benefits to the City of Ashland. The additional 3.45 acres has the potential base density of 41 dwelling units. The property is directly adjacent to the city limits and the area has had various mapping that leads one to believe the boundary is not officially mapped and clarification is sought. This request does not include site design review of any of the future residences on the properties as they would be developed at a later date, following the annexation of the area in question. Respectfully submitted, Amy Gunter Attachments: Snip of Ashland Acres SubdivisionPlat Map (1923) Draft UGB map (1” = 4000’ dated 2/22/1979) Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 11 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Draft UGB map (1” = 2000’ dated 2/22/1979) Adopted UGB map (dated 11/2/1982) UGB Map from 1989 UGB Agreement (dated 7/1989) Official Map of City of Ashland (dated 2004) Jackson County Development Services map of the property (dated 12/14/2018 and 1/23/2019) Jackson County Pre-application Conference Summary Letter from Attorney Brett Hall (dated June 7, 2020) Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 12 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Bqqspyjnbufmpdbujpopg tvckfduqspqfsuz)2:8:* Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 MpdbujpopgTvckfduQspqfsuz/ Pvutjeffehf)opsuitjef*pg mjoftipxojtmpdbujpopgopsui qspqfsuzmjof/)2:9:* Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Development Services Charles Bennett Planner III 10 South Oakdale Avenue, Room 100 Medford, OR 97501-2902 Phone: (541)774-6115 Fax: (541)774-6791 bennetch@jacksoncounty.org Pre-Application Conference Summary Report File: 439-18-00012-PRE(PA-NON) \[This is nota Land Use Decision and is for Informational Purposes Only.\] 1) GENERAL INFORMATION: LegalDescription : Township 39, Range 1E, Section 04A, Tax Lot1100&1200 & 1300 Location: The property is located at 475 East NevadaStreet. Property Owner: Young Family Trust Meeting Time: A meeting was held on Friday,December 21, 2018, at 2:00 PM. Agent: Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services LLC Staff: Charles Bennett & Craig Anderson Proposal: The property owner wants clarification on location of the Urban Growth Boundary. Acreage: 2.08 acres Zoning: The property ispartially within the City of Ashland and partially in the County zoned Rural Residential-5 (RR-5). 2) DISCUSSION: Staff and the applicants discussed the location of the Urban Growth Boundary based on review of current mapping (GIS) and historic maps. GIS maps are not official maps. The official map is dated 1989 and is of such a scale that the pen stroke is larger than the specific location of the UGB on the subject property. Most of the historic maps indicate that the UGB is a straight line that corresponds with Ashland City limits. The UGB also appears to be consistently approximately 1320’ from the Section line to the northin this area. A previous version of the GIS mapping had the UGB following the subject taxlotsjust north of the Ashland City limits which appears to be the least consistent with official historic maps. GIS mapping currently indicates the UGB to be a straight line along the city limits. Jackson County File #439-18-00012-PREPage 1 Received 3.15.2021 3) REQUIRED APPLICATIONS: The Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement and the 2004 Land Development Ordinance (LDO) provide for the process to correct minor mapping errors. The applicants first need to obtain Ashland City Council acknowledgement of the error and then file for a Type IV Zone Map Amendment ($7,078)addressing the map error procedureand criteria whichthen would go to the Board of Commissioners for final review(skipping the Planning Commission per procedure). The applicants couldalsoapply for a Type II or Type III partition along the UGB line(Section 10.2.3). The applicants may also apply for a Type IV application for a Goal 14 Exception to expand the UGB to includethe entire subject tax lots, but approval appears extremely unlikely. 4)CONCLUSION / DISCLAIMER: Notice: There was no public notification of this PRE-APPLICATION proposal (This is not an application. It is a pre-application.) Information: This report is for informational purposes onlyand represents the Planning Departments best understanding of the applicant’s request at this time. No guarantees have been given in this pre- application as to whether or not the application will be approved or denied. The burden of proof rests solely with the applicant to provide the necessary information to approve such a request based upon the applicable standards and criteria of the County Land Development Ordinance. If you have any questions feel free to give me a call at 774-6115. Sincerely, Charles Bennett Planner III Date: 1/25/19 Attachments: Copies of Maps, UGBA, Section 5.1.4 of LDO Jackson County File #439-18-00012-PREPage 2 Received 3.15.2021 June 7, 2020 Planning Division, City of Ashland 20 East Main Street 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Dear City of Ashland: I represent the Young Family Trust. The Young Family Trust owns Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300 in Township 39 Range 1E, Section 04A; the street address is 475 East Nevada Street. There is currently an approved Planning Action 2017-02129 in place for development of this property into a 20 lot, 23-unit subdivision, with associated proposed Comprehensive Plan designation changes. The planned development is consistent with the goals of the City of Ashland and Oregon land use law, and will benefit the City of Ashland. It will provide additional housing for the City’s residents, and will include low income housing. The purpose of this letter is to request a formal interpretation pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code § 18.1.5.020 et seq., of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) line along these three tax lots. There is currently a question as to the location of the UGB along the north side of these three tax lots. The City has previously taken the position that the UGB follows the City limits boundary, which is approximately 100 feet south of the northern most property line of each lot. This position appears to be based on a visual interpretation of a thick marker line on the latest Comprehensive Plan map, and a GIS map adopted by City Council. It is our understanding that this position is also inconsistent with previous maps and agreements as jointly adopted and agreed to by Jackson County and the City, such as the Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement dated May 20, 1982. See Attachment 1, Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. See also, Attachment 2, Excerpt from 1982 Comprehensive Plan; Chapter 12: Urbanization (Comprehensive Plan Map Pg. 9), adopted November 2, 1982, ORD 2227. It is also inconsistent with the Jackson County Planning Office’s interpretation in December 2018. See Attachment 3, Pre-application Conference Request, Katherine Mae Subdivision at p. 2. See also Attachment 4, 1982 map received from Jackson County. And finally, maps based on GIS mapping and not physical surveys, such as the one adopted by the City of Ashland, are necessarily imprecise by virtue of the imprecise method in which they are created, as opposed to maps from actual surveys which can and did serve as the legal basis of the 1982 agreement between Jackson County and Ashland.For these reasons the exact location of the UGB with respect to these properties is unclear. In addition, the City’s position would result in that land being subject to County jurisdiction, and we understand a Goal 14 Exception is not feasible. (ORS-660-004-040 Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas). If, on the other hand, that land is within the UGB then the property could be annexed, brought into the development and provide additional housing for the City of Ashland and its citizens. 1 Received 3.15.2021 Accordingly, pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code § 18.1.5.020 et seq., we request a formal interpretation of the exact location of the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary \[Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 12; Urbanization: Adopted November 2, 1982. ORD 2227\] along Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300 in Township 39 Range 1E, Section 04A, and to determine whether the adopted line from the aforementioned map has a width of along the adopted city limits boundary, which would be the south edge of mapped line, or along the north property line boundary of the subject property, which would be the north edge of mapped line. Again, we believe the map from with the 1982 boundary agreement with the County is the accurate map and is not based on GIS interpretation which is generally not a precise form of map. Please contact me if you have any questions. In the meantime, we look forward to the City’s formal interpretation. Best regards, Brent H. Hall Attachments: Attachment 1: Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. Attachment 2: 1982 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 12: Urbanization (Comprehensive Plan Map p. 9). Adopted November 2, 1982. ORD 2227 Attachment 3: Pre-Application Conference Request, Katherine Mae Subdivision Attachment 4: 1982 Map received from Jackson County cc: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning and Development Services Client 2 Received 3.15.2021