HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-04 Historic PACKET
HPACCommittee Agenda
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any HPAC meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been
recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public
testimony may be limited by the Chair. Times noted for each item are approximate…
September 4, 2024
AGENDA
(4:00) CALL TO ORDER: Meeting held in person at 51 Winburn Way and via Zoom at:
https://zoom.us/j/94031360077
READING OF LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I.(4:05) APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II.(4:10)APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of August 7, 2024
III.(4:15) PUBLIC FORUM
IV.(4:30) LIASON REPORTS
A.Council Liaison - Jeff Dahle
B.Staff Liaison – Derek Severson
VI.(4:45) DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Climate Friendly Areas discussion
B. Cabinet replacements - ODOT
C. Review Board
VII.(5:30) PLANNING ACTION REVIEW
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00050
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 113 Pine St.
APPLICANT & OWNER: Rogue Development for Charlie Hamilton
DESCRIPTION: Outline & Final Plan Performance Standards Option subdivision to
create four-lots including three residential lots and one common space. Also includes: a
request for an Exception to Street Design Standards to not install park row and retain the
curbside sidewalk; and a request to remove seventeen trees, five of which are ‘significant’.
Conceptual building designs have been provided; final home designs will be developed as
each lot is sold. \[Note: Demolition of the existing ‘E.E. Phipps House’ as a dangerous building
has been approved by the Building Division.\]
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; MAP: 39-1E-08-
AD; TAX LOT: 2600
VIII.(6:00) ADJOURNMENT
Page 1 of 1
HPAC Committee Minutes (Draft)
August 7, 2024
5:00PM – 6:30PM
Community Development/Engineering Services Building – 51 Winburn Way
5:00PM CALL TO ORDER
Chair Scharen called the meeting to order at 5:00PM
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison:
Shostrom Jeff Dahle
Skibby (ZOOM) Staff Present:
Emery Derek Severson; Planning Manager
Repp Regan Trapp; Admin Support
Scharen
Whitford
Commissioners Absent: Bonetti
Brouillard
READING OF LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Land Acknowledgement was read by Scharen.
(5:05) APPROVAL OF AGENDA (5 min)
Commissioner suggested amendments to Agenda.
No suggested amendments.
o
(5:10) APPROVAL OF MINUTES (5 min)
Minutes of July 3, 2024
(5:15) PUBLIC FORUM (15 min)
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak.
(5:30) LIAISON REPORTS (5 min)
Councilor Dahle gave liaison report. Items discussed were:
Thanked the Committee for all the work they have done. He went on to say that it’s nice
see that the work they are doing is really dialed in.
Community Center and Pioneer Hall should be completed by late winter 2025 if all goes
well.
HPAC Committee Minutes (Draft)
Severson gave the staff report. Items discussed were:
Alice Peil Walkway is complete, and the Committees recommendation of additional
lighting was incorporated.
Next month there will be a presentation regarding climate friendly areas.
(5:45) PLANNING ACTION REVIEW (20 min)
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2024-00241
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 27 N Main St
APPLICANT/OWNER: Alessandro Circiello
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Review for an exterior change to a Historic Contributing
building. Changes include replacing the existing window with an accordion style window with a
new standing height bar on the left side of the entrance and replacement of the existing awning
with a retractable awning. The entrance itself is to remain unchanged. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D; MAP: 39 1E 09 BB; TAX LOT: 8400
Applicants present:
Alessandro Circiello (Café Lumina), applicant of 27 N. Main was present to discuss the
application.
After a brief staff report at the July 3 meeting explaining the details of the proposal, applicant
rd
Alessandro Circiello discussed the proposal noting the wood tones proposed, removal of the
soffit, keeping the stone veneer to better relate to the adjacent façade and using stones
removed below the window to raise the level of stonework on the columns by about one foot.
Circiello also noted that he was applying for a city beautification grant. He explained that there
will be a retractable awning that will extend out four- to five-feet, and that the windows will be
accordion-style, trimmed in dark wood or copper rather than aluminum. HPAC members
discussed the proposal focusing on the following points:
Skibby questioned that there were only color renderings and no scalable, architectural
drawings or cross-sections of the proposal.
After concerns were raised that the board and batten treatment as presented seemed
too primitive, it was suggested that a solid color would help. It was noted that the boards
are a solid color in walnut, and that the bats were shown in a lighter, contrasting color.
There was
discussion of what color the stain would be on the walnut, with emphasis on selecting a
single color and having a monochromatic treatment, rather than contrasting bats. (
)
HPAC Committee Minutes (Draft)
Shostrom summarized the discussion and suggested that the existing treatment of the
building is not historic, and the current proposal is an incremental improvement when
the remainder of the building (i.e. the Little Tokyo space) is not being fully addressed.
Emery discussed the awning, removal of the soffit and restoring the full window height
and expressed hope that the columns can ultimately be restored. Shostrom expressed
his preference that the awning be a stationary installation rather than retractable.
Skibby noted that originally there were awnings that tipped forward, whereas these will
unroll out. Emery concluded that he liked the design as submitted and had no issue
with any of the details and felt that it was great as is. (
.)
Repp/Whitford m/s to recommend approval of this application with the changes
agreed to by the applicant during the July and August discussion and reflected in the
August 7 submittal materials (). Voice vote: All AYES. Motion
th
passed.
(5:55) DISCUSSION ITEMS (10 min)
A. Review Board
B. Attendance Report
C. Butler-Perozzi Fountain update – Whitford
Whitford is on the Committee to restore the Butler-Perozzi Fountain. They have raised
93% of the funds needed! Some of the money raised will go into a fund to save
towards maintenance and repairs.
The architects from ARG came up with an estimate of $35,000 to get to the next
phase. Shostrom has been in discussion with the architects, marble specialists and
pool contractors to discuss the most important details of this project.
Skibby requested that we find the original photos of the fountain in our digital files.
D. Recap/takeaways from City Council meeting on July 16 -Chair Scharen
th
Chair Scharen presented the bullet points to Council that Severson put together and
went on to present to them that it would be nice to have a small budget for outreach
in the Historic District. Severson discussed that the Committee suggest that they ask
for a share of the monies from the TOT Tax. The Committee will go back through the
goals discussed over a year ago and decide what the most important are.
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting is scheduled September 4, 2024 (time TBD) at, 51 Winburn Way
There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 6:00PM
Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp
Applicant’s Figure 1.
Lumina frontage as proposed.
1
Applicant’s Figure 2.
Lumina frontage as proposed.
Applicant’s Figure 3.
Lumina frontage as proposed in context with adjacent Plaza businesses.
2
Applicant’s Figure 4. Proposed mechanical hood venting as viewed from Calle Guanajuato.
Staff Photo of the building as view from Calle Guanajuato for comparison with Figure 4.
3
Applicant’s color & material sample submittal
4
Climate-Friendly and
Equitable Communities
Why this Rulemaking
In 2007, Oregon legislators adopted a policy and goal to reduce
Oregon’s climate pollution by 75% by 2050. That’s what the
science calls for, if we’re going to avoid catastrophic impacts to
our environment, communities, and economy.
Fifteen years later, we’re far off track in our efforts to meet those
goals – and we’re already experiencing real-world impacts of
climate disruption, with increasing wildfires, in size, severity,
and timing, and record heat waves that have cost Oregonians
Oregon is dramatically off-track. If current trends
their homes, and their lives.
continue, Oregon will release more than 4 times more
transportation pollution than our goal by 2050.
We’re particularly off-track in reducing pollution from
transportation, responsible for about 38% of Oregon’s climate
pollution. On our current path, Oregon will only reduce
transportation pollution by about 20% by 2050. That means
we’re polluting far more than we hoped, meaning more extreme
weather events, more wildfires, more ocean acidification, and
more record heat waves. In response, Governor Brown directed
state agencies to promote cleaner vehicles, cleaner fuels, and
less driving.
Meanwhile, the State of Oregon is grappling with a troubling
history and current patterns of inequity and discrimination,
including in our land use, zoning, and transportation
investment (and disinvestment) decisions. Wealth and health
Thousands of Oregonians have lost their homes in
have been concentrated in the privileged, at the expense of
recent wildfires. Missing our climate goals will mean
others. This rulemaking aims to take some steps in redressing
more extreme and more frequent weather events
past harms.
such as heat bombs, droughts, and wildfires.
Rulemaking Overview and Desired Outcomes
The Land Conservation and Development Commission launched
the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rulemaking in
September 2020. The commission directed the Department of
Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Oregon’s land use
planning agency, to draft changes in Oregon’s planning system
for communities in Oregon’s eight most populated areas (see
map at right).
The rules require those communities to change their local
transportation and land use plans to do more to ensure
The rules apply in Oregon’s eight metropolitan
areas shown above.
Oregonians have more safe, comfortable ways to get around, and
don’t have to drive long distances just to meet their daily needs.
The rules also aim to improve equity, and help community transportation, housing, and
- 1 -
planning serve all Oregonians, particularly those traditionally underserved and discriminated
against.
What does that mean on the ground? It means having some areas where rules don’t get in the
way of more walkable neighborhoods. The rules ask 15 communities to designate climate-
friendly areas, and to allow people to build taller buildings providing more housing. The rules
don’t require taller buildings, but make sure those buildings are allowed. In climate-friendly
areas, a minimum density standard would help ensure transit can serve the neighborhood.
Other provisions of the rulemaking call for new buildings to support the growing electric vehicle
transformation, reduce one-size-fits-all parking mandates, and increase local planning
requirements to address critical gaps in our walking, biking, and transit networks. The rules ask
communities to identify transportation projects needed so our climate goals could be met.
The rulemaking is mainly about letting climate-friendly development happen where people want
to build it and the market calls for it. There’s a lot of demand for housing where people can walk
to where they want to go. While single-family homes will continue to be allowed and provide
most housing, Oregonians have a diverse set of housing desires and deserve more affordable and
climate-friendly choices. Those could better meet the changing shape of American households,
as nearly a third of homes hold just one person. But again, people can choose what best meets
their needs.
Equitable Mapping, Engagement and Decision-Making
One central outcome of this rulemaking is an increased
emphasis on equity. The rulemaking has worked to integrate
equity, starting withthe rulemaking charge and title. Equity
was key as DLCD attempted to have the composition of the
advisory committee reflect the diversity of Oregon’s
communities, and equity was one of the first tasks tackled by
the group.
The rulemaking advisory committee spent significant time at
many of its meetings discussing equity, and developed an
Equitable Outcomes Statement to guide the rulemaking
drafting and implementation. The rulemaking conducted a
racial equity analysis of the rules and an analysis on how the
rules could be improved to serve people with disabilities. The
committee subsequently reviewed a table listing how each item
in the Equitable Outcomes Statement was or was not brought
1938 Redlining map of Portland. Redlining allowed
white people to build wealth through homeownership.
forth into the draft rules, and what next steps might be.
The rules define traditionally underserved populations to include Black and African American
people, Indigenous people, People of Color, people with limited English proficiency, people with
disabilities, low-income Oregonians, youth and seniors, and more. They require mapping of
traditionally underserved populations, local consideration of a set of anti-displacement actions
should decisions contributetoward displacement, centering the voices of underserved
populations in decision-making, and regular reporting on efforts to engage traditionally
underserved populations.
- 2 -
Climate-Friendly Areas
A climate-friendly area is an area where residents, workers, and
visitors can meet most of their daily needs without having to
drive. They are urban mixed-use areas that contain, or are
planned to contain, a greater mix and supply of housing, jobs,
businesses, and services. These areas are served, or planned to
be served, by high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
infrastructure to provide frequent, comfortable, and convenient
connections to key destinations within the city and region.
Why are climate-friendly areas important? A key component of
Oregon’s plan to meet our climate pollution reduction and equity
goals is facilitating development of urban areas in which Oregon already has some climate-friendly areas,
pleasant places to meet one's needs without needing
residents are less dependent upon the single occupant vehicle.
to drive.
Before the automobile became common in American life, cities
grew more efficiently, with a variety of uses in city centers and
other areas that allowed for working, living, and shopping within a walkable or transit accessible
area. Over the last 100 years,the automobile and planning practices have served to separate
activities, creating greater inequities within cities and widespread dependence upon climate-
polluting vehicles to meet daily needs. Climate-friendly areas will help to reverse these negative
trends, with some actions taking place in the short term, and others that will occur with
development and redevelopment over time.
The rules require cities, and some urbanized county areas, with a population over 5,000 within
the seven metropolitan areas outside of Portland Metro to adopt regulations allowing walkable
mixed-use development in defined areas within urban growth boundaries. The rules for the
Portland Metro area support implementation of the region’s 2040 Growth Concept. Areas will
be sized to accommodate a portion of the community’s housing, jobs, and services. Local
governments will determine where these areas will be located, but many of these areas will likely
be established in existing downtowns that may currently allow for mixed uses and higher
densities.
Associated requirements will ensure high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure
is available within these areas to provide convenient transportation options. The rules provide a
process for local governments to first identify potential climate-friendly areas, then later to
adopt development standards for the areas best-suited for this purpose. The rules provide some
minimum requirements for climate-friendly areas, with a set of clear and objective standards
that may be adopted, or a process for local governments to craft their own standards. Cities of
more than 10,000 will monitor housing production within these areas over time and develop
strategies to facilitate desired development.
Reforming Costly Parking Mandates
Excess parking has a significant negative impact on
housing costs, business costs, the feasibility of housing
development and business redevelopment, walkability,
air and water pollution, climate pollution, and general
community character. Parking mandates force people
who don’t own or use cars to pay indirectly for other
people’s parking. Carless households tend to be the
Parking uses a huge amount of high-value land.
poorest households. Parking demand varies significantly
Off-street parking in downtown Corvallis in red.
- 3 -
from development to development, and about one-sixth of Oregon renter households own zero
vehicles. Planning practices of the past have imposed a one-size-fits-all requirement everywhere,
creating incentives to own more cars and drive more.
The rules encourage the diversity of parking needs to be met by the diversity of development.
The rules would reduce or remove costly parking mandates for desired types of development,
such as smaller housing types, small businesses, childcare facilities, multi-family housing, and
historic buildings. The rules would completely remove parking mandates within one-half mile of
frequent transit and three-quarters of a mile of rail stops, where parking demand is lower per
unit.
The rules give communities options to improve parking management. Those who adopt best
practice parking policies would get more flexibility. The rules require cities with over 100,000
population that choose to continue to mandate off-street parking to eventually charge at least 50
cents per day for 10% of on-street parking spots.
Getting Ready for Oregon’s Electric Vehicle Future
Making our vehicles cleaner is a key part in meeting Oregon’s climate goals.
Oregonhas a vision where 90% of new vehicles will be electric by 2035. To
meet that goal, we need to ensure people can charge their vehicles. The
most convenient place to do so is at home, but many Oregonians live in
older multi-family homes that would be very expensive to retrofit.
Thus, the rules require new housing and mixed-use development with at
Building a complete network of EV
least five units would include electrical conduit (pipes) to 40% of spots,
charging stations at commercial and
ready for adding wiring and charging stations to support electric vehiclesas
multi-family housing locations could
the market expands.
cut up to 11.9% of climate pollution
Planning for a Future of Transportation Options
DLCD and other state agency partners including the Oregon Department of
Transportation will provide a range of new and amplified services to help meet
greenhouse gas reduction goals, including grants, technical assistance, tools,
and publications, to help local governments adopt plans that meet or exceed the
state’s climate pollution reduction goals.
Local governments in Oregon have been required to make coordinated land use
and transportation plans for decades. The updated rules would require local
governments in metropolitan areas to:
Plan for greater development in transit corridors and downtowns, where
services are located and less driving is necessary;
Prioritize system performance measures that achieve community
Transportation options are
livability goals;
critical for everyone, but
Prioritize investments for reaching destinations without dependency on
particularly the roughly
single occupancy vehicles, including in walking, bicycling, and transit;
one-in-three Oregonians
Plan for needed infrastructure for electric vehicle charging; and
who cannot drive.
Regularly monitor and report progress.
- 4 -
Planning to Meet Our Climate Goals
DLCD’s regional greenhouse gas reduction program allows areas to work
together to consider statewide, regional, and local needs and issues. The flexible
regional planning process allows communities to study economic development,
fiscal impacts, resource use, pollution impacts, and the effects of different
choices on the state, region, community, or households. The results are
intended to help local government community members, elected and appointed
leaders better understand issues and quantify the effect of potential policies as
they review and update the area’s long-range plans and make investment
decisions.
The rules expand requirements for regional plans to meet the state’s climate
pollution reduction targets from the Portland metropolitan area to the next
largest metropolitan areas in the state (Eugene-Springfield and Salem-Keizer)
initially. Other metropolitan areas will be required to evaluate their local plans
towards meeting the state’s climate pollution reduction targets and amend their
local plans towards meeting the target.
Community Engagement
We’ve heard from lots of Oregonians over the past
eighteen months. We’ve heard from a 40-person advisory
committee including representatives from all of Oregon’s
impacted eight urban areas, several people who are home
builders, realtors, representatives of the trucking
industry, affordable housing advocates, land use
advocates, community-based and other community-
serving organizations.
To supplement those deliberations, staff held two
separate series of virtual community conversations in
Some members of the rulemaking advisory committee
2021 – five in the spring, and four in the fall. Staff have
hosted a series of nine technical work group meetings on specific topics, a series of practitioner
meetings with local government staff in each region, and dozens of additional meetings with
local elected officials, planning staff, and interest groups.
Upcoming conversations include events focused on what will be needed at the community level
to support implementation and ongoing engagement strategies.
We’ve heard from hundreds of Oregonians who have attended one or more of the scores of
meetings, community conversations, work groups, or practitioner meetings, and from hundreds
of people who’ve submitted comments (summary here). Our rules are better for it, having
continued to evolve and improve.
But the engagement won’t end there – the rules require local governments to engage their
communities as they make key decisions on how the rules apply locally. If you’re interested in
these issues, we encourage you to stay engaged.
- 5 -
Implementing the Rules: Resources and Timelines
Local governments are responsible for implementing the rules. Many of the rules take effect
when a community next conducts a major update of its Transportation System Plan (TSP), a
community’s core document describing its transportation needs and future plans. The rules
state most plans should be updated by December 31, 2029. The rules have Salem-Keizer and
Eugene-Springfield areas on a schedule to do regional scenario plans and update their TSPs by
the end of 2027.
The land use components of the rules have specific deadlines. Communities are asked to study
potential Climate-Friendly Areas by December 31, 2023, and adopt Areas by December 31,
2024. Parking reform is scheduled to happen in two phases - the first at the end of 2022, and the
second by June 30, 2023. Communities may ask for some flexibility around most of these dates.
DLCD is providing or working to find resources for local governments to do this work, along
with our agency partners at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon
Housing and Community Services Department. The Oregon Legislature provided $768,000 to
assist with implementation on land use, and ODOT has identified another $18 million to assist
with transportation plan updates.
Learn More
Information on how to get implementation updates via email and many additional materials can
be found at www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/CFEC.aspx
Contact Information
Evan Manvel, Climate Mitigation Planner
evan.manvel@dlcd.oregon.gov
971-375-5979
Cody Meyer, Land Use and Transportation Planner
cody.meyer@dlcd.oregon.gov
971-239-9475
Kevin Young, Senior Urban Planner
kevin.young@dlcd.oregon.gov
503-602-0238
July 2022
- 6 -
155 N First St
P.O. Box 3275
Rogue Valley
Central Point, OR 97502
(541) 664-6674
Council of Governments
Fax (541) 664-7927
City of Ashland
Climate Friendly Area
Study
Produced by the Rogue Valley Council of
Governments, in collaboration with the City
of Ashland and 3J Consulting
2023
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Climate Friendly Area Project Staff
Brandon Goldman, Director of Community Development, City of Ashland
Derek Severson, Planning Manager, City of Ashland
James Schireman, Associate Land use Planner, RVCOG
Yazeed Alrashdi, Associate Transportation Planner, RVCOG
Anais Mathez, Project Manager, 3J Consulting
Scott Fregonese, Senior Project Manager, 3J Consulting
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 2 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Disclaimer:
The following study analyzes CFA candidates within the City of Ashland and explores paths forward and
potential scenarios should the city designate a Climate Friendly Area. By no means does this study alter
the current zoning, land uses, or other development regulations governed by the City of Ashland.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 3 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Contents
Chapter 1: Climate Friendly Area Regulations and Methodology Background ............................................ 6
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rulemaking .................................................................. 6
Climate Friendly Areas Overview ......................................................................................................... 7
Implementation Timeline ..................................................................................................................... 7
Goals ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Community Engagement Plan ............................................................................................................ 10
Locate and Size Candidate CFAs ......................................................................................................... 11
Evaluate Existing Code ....................................................................................................................... 13
Identify Zoning Changes ..................................................................................................................... 15
Calculate CFA Capacity ....................................................................................................................... 15
Calculate Housing Unit Capacity ........................................................................................................ 16
Equity Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 2: Candidate Climate Friendly Area Analysis................................................................................. 18
Locate and Size Candidate CFAs ............................................................................................................. 19
City Guidance ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Calculate Housing Units Needed ....................................................................................................... 21
Zoning Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Zoning Code Review ........................................................................................................................... 22
CFA Capacity Calculation ........................................................................................................................ 30
City Guidance ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Calculate Housing Unit Capacity ........................................................................................................ 34
Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 39
Chapter 3: Anti-Displacement Mitigation Strategies .................................................................................. 40
CFA Redevelopment Outcomes .............................................................................................................. 40
Anti-Displacement Map Analysis ............................................................................................................ 40
.................................................................................................................. 40
............................................................................................................................. 40
........................................................................................................................... 40
.............................................................................................................................. 41
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 4 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
............................................................................................................................. 41
............................................................................................................................. 41
......................................................................................................................................... 41
Neighborhood Types Present Within the Proposed CFA........................................................................ 41
Suggested Strategies .............................................................................................................................. 43
Category A: Zoning and Code Changes ............................................................................................... 43
Category B: Reduce regulatory Impediments ...................................................................................... 43
Category C: Financial Incentives ......................................................................................................... 44
Category D: Financial Resources ......................................................................................................... 45
Category E: Tax Exemption and Abatement........................................................................................ 45
Category F: Land, Acquisition, Lease, and Partnerships ...................................................................... 46
Appendix A: Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ 47
Appendix B: References .............................................................................................................................. 48
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 5 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Chapter 1: Climate Friendly Area Regulations and Methodology
Background
Introduction
Rogue Valley Council of Governments, in collaboration with the City of Ashland and the project
consultant, 3J Consultant, is conducting a study of potential Climate Friendly Areas (CFA) in accordance
with the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rulemaking (OAR 660-012-0310). The State
rules were initiated by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in response to
Governor Brown’s Executive Order 20-04 directing state agencies to take urgent action to meet
Oregon’s climate pollution reduction targets. The rules encourage climate-friendly development by
facilitating areas where residents, workers, and visitors can meet most of their daily needs without
having to drive. A CFA aims to contain a variety of housing, jobs, businesses, and services. A CFA also
supports alternative modes of transit by being in close proximity to high-quality pedestrian, bicycle, and
transportation infrastructure.
Phase 1 of this project is the CFA study which identifies candidate CFAs and analyzes what zones are
most aligned to the CFEC rules, and what adjustments to them would be required.
Phase 2 will encompass the actual designation of the Climate Friendly Areas under consideration, and
the adoption of maps and ordinances necessary to implement the CFEC initiative. Cities may use CFA
areas from the study or any other qualifying area.
Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rulemaking
The Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rulemaking is part of Oregon’s longstanding effort to
reduce pollution from the transportation system, especially greenhouse gases that are causing a change
in climate and associated weather-related disruptions, including drought, wildfires, and warming
temperatures with greater variation overall.
The rules encourage climate-friendly development in Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs). Other provisions of
the rulemaking call for new buildings to support the growing electric vehicle transformation, reduce or
eliminate one-size-fits-all parking mandates, and increase local planning requirements to address critical
gaps in our walking, biking, and transit networks. The rules ask communities to identify transportation
projects needed to meet our climate goals.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 6 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Climate Friendly Areas Overview
A CFA is an area where residents, workers, and visitors can meet most of their daily needs without
having to drive. They are urban mixed-use areas that contain, or are planned to contain, a greater mix
and supply of housing, jobs, businesses, and services. These areas are served, or planned to be served,
by high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure to provide frequent, comfortable, and
convenient connections to key destinations within the city and region. CFAs typically do not require
large parking lots and are provided with abundant tree canopy.
A key component of Oregon’s plan to meet our climate pollution reduction and equity goals is
facilitating development of urban areas in which residents are less dependent on the single occupant
vehicle. Before the automobile became common in American life, cities grew more efficiently, with a
variety of uses in city centers and other areas that allowed for working, living, and shopping within a
walkable or transit accessible area. Over the last 100 years, the automobile and planning practices have
served to separate activities, creating greater inequities within cities and widespread dependence upon
climate-polluting vehicles to meet daily needs. CFAs will help to reverse these negative trends, with
some actions taking place in the short term, and others that will occur with development and
redevelopment over time.
The rules require cities (and some urbanized county areas) with a population over 5,000, and that are
located within Oregon’s seven metropolitan areas outside of the Portland metropolitan area, to adopt
regulations allowing walkable mixed-use development in defined areas within their urban growth
boundaries. Associated requirements will ensure high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
infrastructure is available within these areas to provide convenient transportation options, and cities
and counties will prioritize them for location of government offices and parks, open space, and similar
amenities.
Implementation Timeline
The rules provide a two-phased process for local governments to first study potential CFAs, and then, in
a second phase, to adopt development standards for the area, or areas, that are most promising.
Key CFA Study Dates:
June 30, 2023 – CFA Study Funding Expires
December 31, 2023 – CFA Studies Due
December 31, 2024 – Adopt CFA land use standards and any map changes*
*Local governments may request an alternative date for the adoption of land use standards, as provided in OAR 660-012-
0012(4)(c).
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 7 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Goals
The purpose of this study is to identify candidate CFA areas that meet the size and locational criteria
required by OAR 660-012-0310(1). Relevant zoning codes will be reviewed, and suggestions will be made
regarding any changes that are necessary to bring zoning codes into compliance with CFEC rules. It is the
intention of the project management team that the candidate CFA selection prioritize community
context reflecting the most feasible zoning code changes, little to no infrastructure investment, and
alignment with citizen interests. The City of Ashland may move forward with the identified CFA area(s)
into Phase 2, or they can use what they learned from the study to choose a new area or areas for
adoption.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 8 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Methodology
The methodology was developed by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and
was adapted to perform this CFA study. The Climate-Friendly Areas Methodology Guide goes over the
steps to perform the CFA study. The study goes through each of the eight steps highlighted in the
methodology guide, including locating and sizing CFA areas, evaluating existing code, identifying zoning
changes, calculating CFA Capacity and equity analysis. While the technical analysis team was responsible
for overseeing the steps reliant on GIS or analysis of the land use code, Step 1: Public Engagement Plan,
was drafted and prepared by 3J Consulting.
The diagram above shows a workflow for conducting a CFA study. This is not the only order in which the
Steps can be performed, but it is a recommended sequence for the purpose of clarity and efficiency.
To understand the context of the steps listed above, a summary of the rules, a CFA’s purpose, and what
requirements should exist or be adopted in CFA areas is necessary. According to DLCD, "a CFA is an area
where residents, workers, and visitors can meet most of their daily needs without having to drive. They
are urban mixed-use areas that contain, or are planned to contain, a greater mix and supply of housing,
jobs, businesses, and services."
The following is a summary of the steps, rules, and regulations on the specifications of siting a CFA. The
CFA designation process first requires a study of potential candidate areas, ultimately ending in an
area(s) being designated as the City’s Climate Friendly Area. This process, slated to conclude by
December 2023, is known as phase 1. Phase 2: Adoption requires that cities implement the necessary
changes to the land use code to make the zones within the proposed CFA compliant with state
regulations, as provided in OAR 660-012-0310 through -0320.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 9 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Community Engagement Plan
This step is planned, drafted, and prepared by 3J Consulting, in coordination with city staff and the
technical analysis team. While the Community Engagement deliverables are distinctly separate from the
technical CFA Study, this study does take into account the community feedback from public meetings
throughout the study phases.
Local governments must develop a community engagement plan for the designation of CFAs that
includes a process to study potential CFA areas and to later adopt associated amendments to the
comprehensive plan and zoning code following the provisions of OAR 660-012-0120 through -0130:
-making must be consistent with statewide planning goals and local
plans
levels of decision-making, consider the effect on underserved populations, work to reduce
historic and current inequities, and engage in additional outreach activities with underserved
populations
include the planning area and engage with affected tribes
The community engagement plan must be consistent with the requirements for engagement-focused
equity analysis in OAR 660-012-0135(3). Equity analysis is required for a variety of transportation
planning actions under Division 12, including study and designation of CFAs. The purpose of an equity
analysis is to identify potentially inequitable consequences or burdens of proposed projects and policies
on impacted communities in order to improve outcomes for underserved populations.
The equity analysis must include robust public engagement, including a good-faith effort to:
reporting back information learned from the analysis and unresolved issues
—including lived
experience—on potential benefits and burdens on underserved populations
proposed changes for impacts on and alignment with desired key community
outcomes and performance measures under OAR 660-012-0905
people engaged
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 10 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Locate and Size Candidate CFAs
Every potential CFA must follow the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rulemaking
(OAR 660-012-0310) requirements in order to be properly located and sized. The rules regarding
location for potential CFAs are universal for all cities.
The CFEC rules of OAR 660-012-0310 that must be followed in the CFA location process are:
CFA locations must be able to support development consistent with the land use requirements
of OAR 660-012-0320.
CFAs must be located in existing or planned urban centers (including downtowns, neighborhood
centers, transit-served corridors, or similar districts).
CFAs must be served by (or planned to be served by) high quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
services.
CFAs may not be located in areas where development is prohibited.
CFAs may be located outside city limits but within a UGB following OAR 660-012-0310 (e).
CFAs must have a minimum width of 750 feet, including internal rights of way that may be
unzoned.
While the allowed land uses and denser environment will largely influence the choice of a CFA,
development feasibility is another important criterion to consider. The area chosen to be CFA should not
have infrastructure problems or limitations that could prevent the development of Climate Friendly
Areas. The infrastructure capacity of a candidate CFA will be discussed with city staff to determine if it is
a sufficient choice or to move forward with another candidate area.
City population is the primary determinant regarding CFA size requirements. There are two categories
for sizing a CFA: cities over 5,000 and cities over 10,000 in population. Ashland's population falls under
the second option for cities with populations greater than 10,000. Cities with a population greater than
10,000 must designate a minimum of one CFA that accommodates 30% of their current and projected
housing, the overall area being at least 25 acres in size. In addition, all CFAs must have a minimum width
of 750 feet.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 11 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
In discussing CFA requirements with city staff, the technical analysis team opted to utilize the
prescriptive standards as written by DLCD. The following table 1 shows the prescriptive standards
requirements that must be incorporated in the development code, in accordance with the City’s
population.
Table 1. Prescriptive Standards
Population Minimum Residential Density Max Building Height
5,001-24,999 15 dwelling units/net acre No less than 50 ft
25,000-49,999 20 dwelling units/net acre No less than 60 ft
50,000 or more 25 dwelling units/net acre No less than 85 ft
Because the city of Ashland falls within the 5,001 – 24,999 category, phase 2 will require adoption of
rules for a minimum residential density of 15 dwelling units/net acre and a maximum building height of
no less than 50 ft in height.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 12 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Evaluate Existing Code
The land use requirements established in OAR 660-012-0320, as shown below, are pivotal in
determining how much a base zone already aligns with CFA requirements.
Land Use Requirement for CFAs:
Development regulations for a CFA shall allow single-use and mixed-use development within
individual buildings or on development sites, including the following outright permitted uses:
Multifamily Residential
o
Attached Single-Family Residential
o
Other Building Types that comply with minimum density requirements
o
Office-type uses
o
Non-auto dependent retail, services, and other commercial uses
o
Child Care, schools, and other public uses
o
Maximum density limitations must be prohibited
Maximum block length standards must apply depending on acreage of site
Local governments shall establish maximum block length standards as follows:
Development sites < 5.5 acres: maximum block length = 500 feet or less
o
Development sites > 5.5 acres: maximum block length = 350 feet or less
o
Local governments shall prioritize locating government facilities that provide direct service to
the public within climate-friendly areas and shall prioritize locating parks, open space, plazas,
and similar public amenities in or near climate-friendly areas that do not contain sufficient
parks, open space, plazas, or similar public amenities.
Streetscape requirements in CFAs shall include street trees and other landscaping, where
feasible.
Local governments shall adopt policies and regulations in CFAs that implement the following:
Transportation review process in OAR 660-012-0325
o
Land use requirements in OAR 660-012-0330
o
Parking requirements in OAR 660-012-0435
o
Bicycle parking requirements in OAR 660-012-0630
o
Local governments may choose to either adopt density minimums and height maximums
(Option A – Prescriptive Standards) or adopt alternative development regulations to meet
performance standards (Option B – Outcome-Oriented Standards)
The following map 1 is the city’s zoning map, and helps convey where zones are located throughout the
city of Ashland.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 13 | Page
Map 1. City of Ashland Zoning Map
Available as an interactive map online at gis.ashland.or.us/planning/
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 14 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Identify Zoning Changes
Zoning in CFAs may need to change if the existing zoning does not meet the land use requirements in
OAR 660-012-0320. During phase 1 of the study, cities do not need to adopt the land use requirements,
but evaluation of necessary land use reforms may influence a base zone’s viability of being a potential
CFA candidate. Essentially, an existing zone that meets a large proportion of the CFA criteria will likely
feature the characteristics that define climate friendly areas, while zones that require intense reform
may not incentivize development due to lack of compatible land uses or alternative transit
infrastructure.
During the adoption phase, slated to occur in 2024, local governments will have to make and adopt all
necessary zoning changes and will need to provide DLCD with documentation that all adopted and
applicable land use requirements for CFAs are consistent with OAR 660-012-0320.
Calculate CFA Capacity
The proposed CFA(s) must meet the residential housing capacity threshold expressed in OAR 660-012-
0315(1). The target threshold to meet is at least 30% of current and projected housing needs citywide.
The total number of units necessary to meet all current and projected housing needs is derived from the
most recent adopted and acknowledged housing capacity analysis (HCA; also known as a housing needs
analysis or HNA) as follows:
Total number of units needed citywide
=
current number of existing units
+
projected number of units to meet future needs
After calculating the Total Units Needed, the technical analysis team proceeded to calculate the
potential housing unit capacity of the proposed CFA site. The following page goes over the equation that
will be used to calculate the Housing Unit Capacity.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 15| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Calculate Housing Unit Capacity
The following method was adapted from DLCD’s Climate-Friendly Areas methodology guide. The
calculation follows the prescriptive path requirements as described in the methodology guide. Total
Housing Unit Capacity in the CFA is estimated using the following variables:
1.The Net Developable Area in sq. ft. (a)
2.The maximum number of building floors (f)
3.The assumed percentage of residential use (r)
4.The average size of a housing unit in sq. ft. (s)
Using these, the housing unit capacity (U) in any part of a CFA can be given by a simple formula:
Housing Unit Capacity ()=( Net Developable Area Maximum floors Resident use percentage )
Note: In the above formula, the results are rounded up to the nearest integer.
The values to use for Assumed Percentage of Residential Use (r) and Average Size of a Housing Unit (s)
are given in the rules. Net Developable Area and Maximum Building Floor factors in the above
calculation require some additional sub-calculations. Each uniquely zoned area of the CFA will have its
own calculations of these factors and the above housing unit formula. Then they are summed for the
CFA to give the total Housing Unit Capacity.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 16| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Equity Analysis
Local governments must determine if rezoning the potential CFA would be likely to displace residents
who are members of state and federal protected classes and identify actions to mitigate or avoid
potential displacement.
The CFA Study must include plans for achieving fair and equitable housing outcomes within CFAs
following the provisions in OAR 660-008-0050(4)(a)-(f). CFA studies must include a description of how
cities will address each of the following factors:
Location of Housing: How the city is striving to meet statewide greenhouse gas emission
reduction goals by creating compact, mixed-use neighborhoods available to members of
state and federal protected classes.
Fair Housing: How the city is affirmatively furthering fair housing for all state and federal
protected classes.
Housing Choice: How the city is facilitating access to housing choice for communities of
color, low-income communities, people with disabilities, and other state and federal
protected classes.
Housing Options for residents Experiencing Homelessness: How the city is advocating
for and enabling the provision of housing options for residents experiencing
homelessness and how the city is partnering with other organizations to promote
services that are needed to create permanent supportive housing and other housing
options for residents experiencing homelessness.
Affordable Homeownership and affordable Rental Housing: How the city is supporting
and creating opportunities to encourage the production of affordable rental housing
and the opportunity for wealth creation via homeownership, primarily for state and
federal protected classes that have been disproportionately impacted by past housing
policies.
Gentrification, Displacement, AND Housing Stability: How the city is increasing housing
stability for residents and mitigating the impacts of gentrification, as well as the
economic and physical displacement of existing residents resulting from investment or
redevelopment.
Please note, the equity analysis was performed with the guidance of DLCD’s Anti-Displacement and
Gentrification Toolkit. The Toolkit provides an in-depth resource for local government to address racial
and ethnic equity in housing production, including a list of strategies to mitigate the impacts of
gentrification and displacement. The toolkit helps and guides local governments to establishing a
framework for creating housing production strategies with a particular focus on the unintended
consequences of those strategies.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 17| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Chapter 2:Candidate Climate Friendly Area Analysis
This section reviews the analysis components that were performed to derive the results of the study.
The technical analysis team began with initial candidate location suggestions from City Staff, then
calculated the housing capacity of the proposed CFAs boundary, and readjusting the CFAs size as needed
to accommodate the housing unit capacity.
The zoning analysis focuses on the land use requirements in OAR 660-012-0320 and compares them
with the city codes to find suitable zones that are fully or partially compliant with the CFA land use
requirements. The zoning analysis informs the team of the land use compatibility of the proposed CFAs.
Zoning analysis and identifying zoning changes go hand-in-hand. If existing development standards do
not meet CFA requirements, then identify the necessary changes to the specific zones and how to bring
them into compliance with the land use requirements or OAR 660-012-0320.
The GIS analysis helps determine the status of transportation infrastructure that is within or around the
proposed CFA and whether the proposed area satisfies the transportation connectivity aspect of the
regulations. A CFA site must be served by, or planned to be served by, high quality pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit services according to OAR 660-012-0310.
Capacity analysis determines whether the potential CFA, or a combination of CFAs, can accommodate
30% of citywide current and projected housing need. If identified CFA candidate area(s) are not
sufficient to accommodate at least 30% of housing need, resizing the proposed CFA area or identifying
additional candidate CFA areas must be performed.
Equity analysis must determine if rezoning the potential CFA would be likely to displace residents who
are members of state and federal protected classes and identify actions to mitigate or avoid potential
displacement. Chapter 2 of this study includes plans for achieving fair and equitable housing outcomes
within CFAs following the provisions in OAR 660-008-0050.
Overall, the analysis steps are intertwined with each other. Locating a CFA candidate, calculating
Housing Needs, Zoning analysis, GIS analysis, Capacity analysis are the steps to designate the
appropriate CFA area within the city.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 18| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Locate and Size Candidate CFAs
City Guidance
City staff have highlighted several priority CFA candidates, shown in Map 2 below. Staff selected these
areas not only for their designated zoning’s alignment to the CFA requirements, but also factored in
development potential. The Croman Mill and Railroad Property sites are largely undeveloped and
present strong cases for rapid CFA-related changes. The Transit Triangle is one of the priority CFA
options within the city and has the potential to be improved through redevelopment and development
of vacant properties. The prior approval of the Transit Triangle code amendments are largely compatible
with CFA, as such this transit served area has considerable redevelopment potential supporting the CFA
goals. Conversely, the Downtown area is largely built out, is a National Register Historic District,
indicating barriers to potential redevelopment. However, the current built environment is similar to
what is expected of CFAs and the C1-D (downtown Commercial) zone could be adapted to comply with
CFA guidelines with little trouble and may serve as useful tracts for CFA expansion in the future.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 19| Page
Map 2. CFA Candidates
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 20 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Calculate Housing Units Needed
As outlined in the methodology guide, the proposed CFA(s) must meet the residential housing capacity
threshold expressed in OAR 660-012-0315(1). The threshold to meet is that the cumulative capacity of
the CFA(s) is at least 30% of current and projected housing needs citywide. And this is derived by the
following formula:
Total number of units needed citywide
=
current number of existing units
+
projected number of units to meet future needs
The most recent Housing Capacity Analysis for the City of Ashland was published in May of 2021 and
projects housing needs and trends out to 2041. This analysis estimates there are currently 10,705
dwellings in the city, with a projected need of 858 units more by 2041.
10,705 + 858 = 11,563 projected housing units needed by 2041
Based on these estimates, the city of Ashland will need to locate and size CFA(s) that encapsulate 30% of
11,563 dwellings, or 3,469 units.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 21| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Zoning Analysis
Zoning Code Review
Existing zoning codes were compared to the CFA requirements to identify those zones that are most
closely aligned with CFEC rules. Shown in Table 2 below, zones were scored for each criterion with 2
points for full compliance, 1 point for conditional or mixed compliance. Zones also earned 1 additional
point for having 40-foot building height maximums, while zones that have 35-foot maximums earned no
additional points. Green cells are those in compliance. Yellow cells are those that have partial or
conditional compliance or are closer to the 50-foot building height maximum, and overall are closer to
compliance than other options.
Any zone can be adjusted to be made CFEC-compliant, so CFAs are possible anywhere in the city, but
those zones that would take more legislative changes and create more dramatic changes to the built
environment relative to what is currently in the area are not prioritized.
The Croman Mill site was master planned in 2008 and this document includes several subzones that are
analyzed in Table 3. Much of the area is currently planned for non-residential uses, but City staff have
informed the RVCOG team that the property owner is presently working with a developer, TownMakers
LLC, to re-envision the area and propose major plan amendments which would newly incorporate
residential development throughout the area. While each subzone was scored individually, for the
purpose of analyzing prospective zoning changes the entire site has been attributed the attributes and
scores of the Mixed-Use subzone.
The Transit Triangle Overlay was also analyzed for its impact on relevant base zones and their CFA
suitability.
Overall, the scoring matrix indicates the suitability of the zones regarding the land use requirements.
However, the scores are only the first step of the analysis and the results they produce are only one
factor among several that the study analyzes. Therefore, a high scoring zone alone does not determine a
CFA candidate area. The location of the zones and surrounding transportation infrastructure must be
factored in the 2step of the study.
nd
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 22| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Table 2. Zoning Code Analysis
ResidentialCommercial
Industrial
Scoring Matrix
Y - Yes, Permitted OutrightY = 2
C - ConditionalC/M = 1
Single Low Density High Density
SuburbanRuralWoodlandCommercialDowntownEmploymentIndustrial
M - MixedN = 0
FamilyMFMF
N - Not Permitted40 ft = 1
N/A - Not Applicable35 ft = 0
R-1R-1-3.5R-2R-3RRWRC-1C-1-DE-1M-1
Single Use
YYYYYYYYYY
Mixed Use
NNNNNNYYYN
Multi-FamilyNYYYNNCCCN
Single -Family AttachedCCCCCCCCCN
OfficeNNCCNNYYYY
Non-Auto Retail/Services/CommercialNNCNNNYYCC
ChildcareCCCCCCYYYY
SchoolsCCCCCCNNNN
Other Public UsesNNNNNNMMYY
Government FacilitiesCCNNCCYYYY
Parks, Open Space, and Other SimilarYYYYYYNNNN
Maximum Block Length
YYYYYYYYYY
Density Minimum (15 Dwelling Units/Acre)
NNNYNNNNNN
Density Maximums Prohibited
NNNNNNNNNN
Maximum Building Height (>= 50ft)
NNNCNNCCCN
Maximum Building Height
35353535353540404040
Score
10121315101020201914
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 23 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Table 3. Croman Mill Zoning Analysis
Scoring Matrix
Y - Yes, Permitted OutrightY = 2
Neighborhood Office/Compatible
Mixed UseOpen Space
C - ConditionalC/M = 1
CenterEmploymentIndustrial
M - MixedN = 0
N - Not Permitted40 ft = 1
N/A - Not Applicable35 ft = 0
NCMUOECIOS
Single Use
YYNNN
Mixed Use
YYNNN
Multi-FamilyYYNNN
Single -Family AttachedYYNNN
OfficeNYYYN
Non-Auto Retail/Services/CommercialYMMMN
ChildcareYYYYN
SchoolsCCCCN
Other Public UsesYYYYY
Government FacilitiesYCCCY
Parks, Open Space, and Other SimilarNNNNY
Maximum Block Length
YYYYY
Density Minimum (15 Dwelling Units/Acre)
NNNNN
Density Maximums Prohibited
NNNNN
Maximum Building Height (>= 50ft)
YYYYN
Maximum Building Height
50507575N/A
Score
212113138
Observations:
Single- and mixed -uses are permitted outright in all zones, but single use multi-family
residential is only available in higher density residential zones
Government facilities, parks, open space, plazas, and similar public amenities vary throughout,
but are generally more available in the Commercial zones
Maximum block length applies to all zones except C-1 and C-1-D
Most zones permit a portion of the required outright permitted uses (multifamily and single
family attached residential, office uses, non-auto dependent retail/services/commercial,
childcare, schools, and other public uses), but no zones permit all of them outright
The more greens and yellows, the more CFA-ready a zone is with less modification.
The Croman Mill District has the most qualifications for a CFA
Identify Zoning Changes
Zones were evaluated in more depth to determine the specific changes that are needed to bring them
into compliance with CFEC rules. The purpose of the initial zoning code evaluation was to identify those
zones that are the most CFA-ready, as a way to ensure that CFA-related changes occur where they will
fit well within the existing built environment and simplify the City’s process of updating zoning codes.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 24 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
CFA Compatible Zones
Croman Mill (CM)
Croman Mill District
Single Use
Y
The CM District Mixed Use Zone (CM-
Mixed Use
Y
MU) is close to CFA-compliance. It
Multi-FamilyY
permits outright all residential uses
Single -Family AttachedY
and already meets the building height
OfficeY maximum requirement.
Non-Auto Retail/Services/CommercialM
ChildcareY
To be in line with CFA rules, the CM-
SchoolsC
MU zone would need to be expanded
Other Public UsesY
to the entire site and must permit
Government FacilitiesC
outright non-auto
Parks, Open Space, and Other SimilarN
retail/service/commercial, schools,
Maximum Block Length
Y
and civic uses. Parks and open space
Density Minimum (15 Dwelling Units/Acre)
N
must be allowed, density minimums of
Density Maximums Prohibited
N
15 du/acre or more enforced, and
Maximum Building Height (>= 50ft)
Y
density maximums prohibited.
Maximum Building Height
50
Score21
Residential – High Density
The R-3 zone meets many of the CFA
Residential - High Density (R-3)
land use requirements, except for the
Single Use
Y
50 ft building height maximum and a
Mixed Use
Y
portion of the permitted uses. To meet
Multi-FamilyY
the CFEC requirements, the City of
Single -Family AttachedC
Ashland would have to adjust the
OfficeC
currently permitted outright building
Non-Auto Retail/Services/CommercialN
height maximum from 35 ft (40 ft
ChildcareC
conditional) to 50 ft and change single-
SchoolsM
family attached, office uses, childcare,
Other Public UsesN
schools, and other public uses from
Government FacilitiesN
conditional to permitted outright uses.
Parks, Open Space, and Other SimilarY
An increase of residential density from
Maximum Block Length
Y
13.5 dwellings per acre would need to
Density Minimum (15 Dwelling Units/Acre)
M
be changed to a minimum density of
Density Maximums Prohibited
N
15 du/acre with no maximum
Maximum Building Height (>= 50ft)
C
residential density. Non-auto
Maximum Building Height
35
dependent retail/services/commercial
and civic uses must be permitted, and
Score16
density maximums must be prohibited.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 25 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Commercia Downtown – Central Business District
The Downtown Commercial District is
Ashland’s Central Business District
(CBD), and is the city’s nexus for
employment, services, and
transportation. It is more suitable as a
CFA than most other zones because it
already has conditional building height
maximums of 55 ft and permits mixed
uses, government facilities, parks, open
space, and other similar public
amenities outright. The residential
density is currently 60 dwellings per
acre, yet there are no minimum density
requirements. To meet the full CFA
requirements in this area, Ashland
would need to mandate a minimum
density of at least 15 dwelling
units/acre, remove the density
maximum, and permit outright building
heights of 50 feet or more.
Commercial - Employment
The E-1 zone allows for a significant
cross section of CFA requirements, but
there are several uses like multi-family
and single-family attached residential,
and schools that would need to be
permitted outright to qualify as a CFA.
Within a designated CFA, parks and
open space also need to be allowed,
residential density minimums
established, and density maximums
prohibited. Like other Ashland zones,
building height maximums would also
need to be raised from a 40’ height to
50’. E-1 zoned properties are also
included within the Transit Triangle
Overlay, which is discussed later in the
document.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 26 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Other Residential Zones (R-1, R-1-3.5, R-2, RR, WR)
The lower-density residential zones share a lot in common with each other. They allow single- and
mixed-uses and parks. They all partially or conditionally allow single-family attached, childcare, and
schools. All except for R-2 do not currently allow office or non-auto retail/service/commercial uses. With
the exception of R-2, these lower-density residential zones do not have density minimums except when
brought into the City through annexation or as a zone change. The R-2 zone requires a minimum density
of 80% the base density. These residential zones have maximum building heights of 35 ft.
Despite their low scores in our analysis, like all zones, these can be made compliant with CFEC rules with
certain changes. All office, non-auto retail/service/commercial, childcare, schools, and civic uses would
need to be permitted outright making these areas similar to Ashland’s commercial zones. To be
designated as qualified CFAs density minimums of 15 dwelling units per acres would need to be
established and enforced density maximums must be prohibited and building height maximums would
have to be raised to a minimum of 50 ft.
Other Commercial and Industrial Zones (C-1, M-1)
C-1 and M-1 zones both score very well in our analysis, but there are other factors that have left them as
lower priorities. C-1 scored essentially the same as C-1-D and it would need the same changes to
become CFA-ready. The C-1-D receives preference because it encompasses the part of the city with the
highest density of jobs and built housing potential, but the adjacent C-1 areas would make good
candidates to expand the CFA geographically if needed. C-1 also features prominently in the Transit
Triangle Overlay, which is discussed in the next section.
The M-1 zone scored fairly well in our analysis, but it is not prioritized because industrial uses are not as
easily relocated as other uses and the goal of the CFA project is to avoid creating undue burdens on the
local economy. Additionally, industrial uses do not coexist with residential uses the same way that
commercial uses do. That being said, if a portion of the M-1 zone is required to form the ideal CFA form,
non-auto retail/services/commercial and schools will need to be permitted outright. Multi-family and
single-family attached residential must be permitted along with parks and open space. Density
minimums of 15 dwelling units or more must be created and building height maximums need to be
raised to 50 ft. Density maximums would have to be prohibited, as well.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 27 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Transit Triangle
Transit
Base Zones
Triangle
Scoring Matrix
Overlay
Y - Yes, Permitted OutrightY = 2
Low Density High Density
CommercialEmployment
C - ConditionalC/M = 1
ResidentialResidential
M - MixedN = 0
Table 4.
N - Not Permitted40 ft = 1
Transit
N/A - Not Applicable35 ft = 0
C-1E-1R-2R-3
Triangle
Single Use
YYYY
Zoning
Mixed Use
YYYY
Analysis
Multi-FamilyMMMM
Single -Family AttachedCCCC
OfficeCCYY
Non-Auto Retail/Services/CommercialYCCN
ChildcareYYCC
SchoolsNMMM
Other Public UsesMYNN
Government FacilitiesYYNN
Parks, Open Space, and Other SimilarNYYY
Maximum Block Length
NNYY
Density Minimum (15 Dwelling Units/Acre)
YYNY
Density Maximums Prohibited
NNNN
Maximum Building Height (>= 50ft)
YYNN
Maximum Building Height
50504040
Score
18211516
The Transit Triangle Overlay (TTO) is intended to diversify the mix of housing and business types along
major transit routes. Table 4 above shows that the overlay enhances the C-1 and E-1 zones within the
TTO and significantly improves their scores in our analysis. However, for the TTO, multi-family
residential uses are permitted only for rental and not for purchase. The main improvements to the C-1
and E-1 zones are the increased building height maximums, density minimums, and parks/open space.
Within the TTO, the C-1 and E-1 zones have excellent scores and are some of the best candidate areas
for CFA locations.
Map 3 on page 29 showcases the zones illustrates which best fit the CFA requirements. No zones are
currently in compliance with CFEC rules, but Tables 2 and 3 show that the Croman Mill, Residential –
High Density (RHD), and Commercial – Central Business District (CBD) zones stand out as being the
closest. Small changes to permitted uses and the building height maximum would bring most into
compliance.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 28 | Page
Map 3. Zoning Analysis
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 29 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
CFA Capacity Calculation
Candidate CFA locations have been identified and prioritized, and this step evaluates each area’s
housing capacity. If the proposed CFA’s boundaries do not encompass 30% or more of current and
future dwellings, there will be a need for boundaries to be adjusted or the creation one or more
additional CFAs. Additional CFA candidates that have been identified will be considered first for CFA
expansion if need be and the evaluation process will begin at Step 2 for these sites.
City Guidance
City staff have highlighted several priority CFA candidates, shown in Map 4 below. Staff selected these
areas not only for their designated zoning’s alignment to the CFA requirements, but also factored in
development potential as an additional factor. The Croman Mill and Railroad Property sites are largely
undeveloped and present strong cases for rapid CFA-related changes. The Transit Triangle is one of the
priority CFA options within the city and do have the potential to be improved within the existing uses
and make it more compatible as CFA requirement and it could look like a secondary downtown.
Conversely, the Downtown area is largely built out, indicating a barrier to potential redevelopment.
However, the current built environment is similar to what is expected of CFAs and could be adapted to
CFA guidelines with little trouble and may serve as useful tracts for CFA expansion in the future.
City staff have highlighted several priority CFA candidates, shown in Map 4 below. Staff’s selections
were made based not only on how well the designated zoning aligns with CFA requirements but also
considering the potential for development. Among these areas, the Croman Mill and Railroad Property
sites stand out due to their underdeveloped nature, making them suitable for rapid CFA-related
changes. Another noteworthy candidate area is the Transit Triangle Overlay, which holds a prime
position among the CFA options within the city. There is potential to enhance this area while
maintaining its existing uses, thereby making it more compatible with CFA requirements.
In contrast, the historic Downtown area is already extensively developed, posing a challenge for
potential redevelopment. Despite this, its current built environment closely resembles what is
envisioned for CFAs. With some adjustments, it could be brought in line with CFA guidelines without
significant difficulty. As such, it could serve as a valuable location for potential CFA expansion in the
future.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 30| Page
Map 4. Priority CFA Candidates
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 31 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Croman Mill
Image 1 - Croman Mill
The Croman Mill site is approximately 92 Acres in the
southeastern corner of the city (Image 1). It is served by
Siskiyou Blvd. at the south end and Mistletoe Rd. in the
north. A master plan for the site was adopted in 2008, but
development has yet to occur (Image 2). The plan calls for
office and industrial uses for most of the site. Also, there is
residential center and mixed-use zones allowed within the
Croman Mill site.
The Croman Mill site is viewed as an excellent CFA location
due to its redevelopment potential, large size, and
proximity to quality transit service and bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure.
Image 2 - Croman Mill Planned Zones
Railroad Property
The Railroad Property site is 57 Acres in the center of the
city, just a few blocks north of downtown (Image 3). The
site rests between the rail line and E Hersey St. The
northern half of the site is developed with commercial,
and employment uses, but the majority of the southern
portion of the site is undeveloped.
The 2001 master plan for the site shows a pedestrian-
focused mixed-use area intermingled with civic uses
adjacent to the existing northern commercial area
enhanced with new local streets connecting to E Hersey St
(Image 4).
Image 3 - Railroad Property Image 4 - Railroad Property Master Plan
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 32 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Downtown
Transit Triangle Overlay
The Transit Triangle is intended to facilitate a The downtown area closely resembles the
mix of housing types and businesses along vision of what a CFA can look like when it has
major transit corridors on Siskiyou Blvd., reached maturity and there would be few
Ashland St., and Tolman Creek Rd. The goal is adjustments needed to make it CFA-
to create an environment that is friendly to compliant. However, it is almost completely
walking, biking, and using transit. built out and there have been very few new
The Transit Triangle, as written, is close to construction projects in the area over the last
meeting CFA requirements and as a result it is 20 years.
considered one of the priority CFA options the However, the community has expressed
city can consider. The Transit Triangle has an interest in implementing CFA strategies
area of 167 acres and that area could significantly beyond what is minimally
theoretically have a considerable additional required, and the downtown area stands out
housing capacity. as an obvious place to include in any
expansion efforts.
Image 5 – Transit Triangle Image 6 – Downtown
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 33 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Calculate Housing Unit Capacity
This method was adapted from the DLCD Climate-Friendly Areas Methods Guide. The calculation follows
the prescriptive path described in the methods guide. Total Housing Unit Capacity in CFA is estimated
using the following variables:
The Net Developable Area in sq. ft. (a)
The maximum number of building floors (f)
The assumed percentage of residential use (r)
The average size of a housing unit in sq. ft. (s)
Using these, the housing unit capacity (U) in any part of a CFA can be given by a simple formula:
Housing Unit Capacity ()=( Net Developable Area Maximum floors Resident use percentage )
Note: In the above formula, the results are rounded to the nearest integer.
Net Developable Area and Maximum Building Floor factors in the above calculation requires some
additional sub-calculations. The values to use for Assumed Percentage of Residential Use (r) and Average
Size of a Housing Unit (s) are given in the rules.
Each uniquely zoned area of the CFA will have its own calculations of these factors and the above
housing unit formula. Then they are summed for the CFA area to give the total Housing Unit Capacity.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 34 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Evaluation
Assumptions
Both the Croman Mill District and Railroad Property sites have significant development opportunities,
and while they are master planned, specific lots have not been identified. Additionally, while ongoing
master planning efforts are underway (Croman Mill District revisions), there are several changes being
worked on at the moment that could significantly affect the layout of these sites, the details of which
will not be available for some time. Therefore, it is prudent to use city standards to determine gross and
net block areas. The Right-of-Way (ROW) set aside is 20%, as that is the DLCD standard. We use the
street network plans when available to measure out the undevelopable area and subtract it from the
overall area. The same standards will be applied for the Transit Triangle area to calculate the housing
capacity of the site.
These calculations are based on the block level and do not count for interior lot setbacks. All sites are
within 0.5 miles of a frequent transit corridor according to OAR 660-012-0440, and parking minimums
cannot be mandated within this area. Values shown below may differ slightly from actual values due to
rounding.
Note that 30% of projected needed housing for the city is 3,469.
Gross Block Area = Block Length x Block width
Net Block Area = Gross Block Area –
Net Developable
= Net Site Area – (Green space, ROW, Streets, etc.)
Area
Building Floors = (Building Height Max -10) / 10
Housing Units = Housing Unit Size
Units per Acre = Housing Units / Net Area
City Standards
Block Length
Block Perimeter
Gross Block Area 3.67 Acres:
Right-of-Way Set-Aside (DLCD rule of thumb) 20%
DLCD CFA Standards
30%
Average Housing Unit Size 900
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 35 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Calculations
Croman Mill
Site Area 92.69 Acres
Green Space 10.1 Acres
Street Network 20 Acres
Approximately
Net Developable
65 Acres:
Area
Housing Units
5,142
Capacity
Percentage from
(Housing Unit Capacity/Needed Housing). 148%
Needed Housing
Units Per Acre 79
Croman Mil District Results
5,142 units is more than the Needed Housing Units the city will need to meet the CFA requirement of
30% of projected needed housing units, which is 3,469. The Croman Mill site has the potential to host
28% more than the required 30% of projected needed housing units. Please note that this calculation
accounts for the individual Housing Unit capacity of all the different planned land use zones, mainly
because different zones allow for different building heights, within the Croman Mill site .
The cumulative housing unit capacity across the site results in a total of 5,142 dwellings. Despite this
capacity based on maximum building size, minimum unit size, and maximum lot coverage, City Staff
anticipates that the more realistic development scenario would be closer to the minimum residential
density of 15 dwellings per acre, rather than the maximum calculated feasibility of up to 80 units per
acre. Thus, utilizing 15 units per acre across the 65 net developable acres of the Croman Mill District
would lead to a more limited capacity of 975 dwellings. In assessing the designated CFA sites, City Staff
would aim to ensure that the 3,469 dwelling units required within CFAs are achievable at the minimum
residential density required, rather than the maximum density achievable.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 36 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Transit Triangle Overlay
Site Area 162.89 Acres
Green Space 7.51 Acres
Approximately
R.O.W (DLCD Standard) 20 %
Net Developable
148 Acres 6,447,752
Area
Housing Units
7,524
Capacity
Percentage from
(Housing Unit Capacity/Needed Housing). 217 %
Needed Housing
Units Per Acre 52
Transit Triangle Overlay Results
The Transit Triangle overlay is capable of hosting around 7,524 units within it if developed in its entirety
at the maximum allowable residential density afforded within a CFA. This site alone can meet and
exceed the Projected Needed Housing for the city. Please note that this calculation accounts for the
individual Housing Unit capacity of all the different planned land use zones, mainly because different
zones allow for different building heights, within the Transit Triangle Overlay and
The sum of all the housing unit capacity for the site gives us 7,524 units based on maximum
development capacity. However, the Southern Oregon University zone (SO) portion within the Transit
Triangle Overlay is not accounted for in the calculations of the housing unit capacity. That zone is being
governed by the Southern Oregon University Masterplan. To avoid further complicating overlapping
zones and overlays, the SO zone is excluded from the CFA. City Staff have further determined a revised
residential density for the Transit Triangle Area, exclusive of the SO zone, based on the scenario where
the area is developed at the CFA minimum residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. This
calculation results in an estimated total of 2,220 dwelling units.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 37 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Railroad Property
Site Area 57.27 Acres
Green Space 6.41 Acres
Approximately
Street Network 12.52 Acres
Approximately
Net Developable
38.34 Acres
Area
Housing Units
2,226
Capacity
Percentage from
(Housing Unit Capacity/Needed Housing). 64%
Needed Housing
Units Per Acre 58
Railroad Property Results
The calculated 2,226 housing units of the Railroad Property are not independently enough to meet the
CFA requirement of 30% projected needed housing units. The site is short of 1,243 units from being
compliance with the CFA requirements were it the sole CFA within the city. Therefore, an expansion of
some kind must be considered.
One option for the city is to contemplate were the railroad site to be the primary CFA would be
enlarging the boundaries of the Railroad site to encompass the developed residential and commercial
regions nearby, which could bridge the existing gap were this site to be the exclusive CFA within
Ashland. CFAs. Alternatively, the city has the option to label the Railroad site as a secondary CFA site,
with the primary CFA sites being the Croman Mill District and/or Transit Triangle Overlay area.
Collectively, these sites would fulfill the CFA requirement to accommodate 30% of Ashland's housing
needs.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 38 | Page
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Conclusion
The Croman Mill and Transit Triangle sites both can provide ample room for CFA development to fulfill
the requirement of the CFEC rules for 30% of projected needed housing units. The specific boundaries
that have been analyzed could change in a variety of minor ways without bringing the unit count below
the necessary threshold.
The Railroad property falls short in covering 30% of the Projected Needed Housing for the city. In any
case, resizing the boundary could help increase the housing capacity of the site and bring it closer to
compliance with the 30% requirement of the CFEC, or best-case scenario it will bring the railroad
property to a full compliance with the 30% requirement of the CFEC.
The downtown area has been included in this discussion because it remains relevant to the CFA
transformation and may end up included in a broad CFA overlay that encompasses the major
employment, commercial, and higher-density residential areas of the city, even if it is not needed to
meet the housing requirement.
Overall, the city of Ashland does have a few options when designating a CFA site. The site will need to be
fully compliant with the CFEC land use regulations, and most of the sites do not need major updates to
bring them up to compliance with the CFEC regulations. Both Transit Triangle and Croman Mill sites are
compatible with the 30% projected needed housing in the city. However, the railroad property does not
have the capacity to host the full 30% of the projected needed housing, but it could act as a secondary
CFA and as a safety buffer for the projected housing units for the primary CFA(s). City Staff highlights
that if the potential CFA candidate areas, namely the Croman Mill District, the Transit Triangle Overlay
area, and the Railroad site, are individually developed to meet the minimum density requirement set for
designated CFAs (which is 15 units per acre), their combined residential development capacity even at
this minimum would successfully meet the CFA mandate of accommodating a minimum of 30% of
Ashland's housing demands.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 39 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Chapter 3:Anti-Displacement Mitigation Strategies
Council of GovernmentsCouncil of Governments
Rogue ValleyRogue Valley
CFA Redevelopment Outcomes
Due to the nature of the regulations, an area designated as a climate friendly area gains the capability to
be redeveloped for a wide variety of uses and dense housing types. While these factors intend to
promote nodes not reliant on personal automobile use, they also have the capability of creating
modernized, attractive, and competitively priced developments which can subsequently displace
protected classes. This trend, known as gentrification, can become a component of a climate friendly
areas if cities do not carefully analyze a CFA’s location and consider proper phase 2 protections to
ensure the developments remains accessible to all populations.
Anti-Displacement Map Analysis
Recognizing this potential threat, DLCD has prepared an anti-displacement guide. This guide classifies
areas by neighborhood type which are characterized by their income profile, vulnerable classes, amount
of precarious housing, housing market activity, and overall neighborhood demographic change. Each
area is identified through the DLCD anti-displacement map, which can be found here: Anti-Displacement
Map
Each neighborhood type is categorized as one of the following:
The tract is identified as a low-income tract, which indicates a neighborhood has lower median
household income and whose residents are predominantly low-income compared to the city average.
The neighborhood also includes precariously housed populations with vulnerability to gentrification and
displacement. However, housing market in the neighborhood is still stable with no substantial activities
yet. At this stage, the demographic change is not under consideration.
This type of neighborhood represents the early phase in the gentrification. The neighborhood is
categorized as a low-income tract having vulnerable people and precarious housing. The tract has a hot
housing market, yet no considerable changes are found in demographics related to gentrification.
These neighborhoods are identified as low-income tracts with a high share of vulnerable people and
precarious housing. The tracts are experiencing substantial changes in housing price or having relatively
high housing costs found in their housing markets. They exhibit gentrification-related demographic
change. The latter three neighborhoods on the table are designated as high-income tracts. They have
hot housing market as they have higher rent and home value with higher appreciation rates than the
city average. They also do not have precarious housing anymore. However, Late Gentrification type still
has vulnerable people with experiences in gentrification related demographic changes.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 40| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
This type of neighborhood does not have predominantly low-income households, but still have
vulnerable population to gentrification. Their housing market exhibits high housing prices with high
appreciations as they have relatively low share of precarious housing. The neighborhood has
experienced significant changes in demographics related to gentrification.
The neighborhoods are categorized as high-income tracts. Their population is no longer vulnerable to
gentrification. Precarious housing is not found in the neighborhoods. However, the neighborhoods are
still experiencing demographic change related to gentrification with hot housing market activities.
The neighborhoods are identified as high-income tracts. They have no vulnerable populations and no
precarious housing. Their housing market has higher home value and rent compared to the city average,
while their appreciation is relatively slower than the city average. No considerable demographic change
is found in the neighborhoods.
The unassigned tracts have not experienced any remarkable changes in demographics or housing
markets. The neighborhood has been stable with unnoticeable change, yet this does not necessarily
mean that there is no need for extra care compared to other neighborhoods with assigned types.
Planners need to engage with the communities to make sure the neighborhood is stable while aligning
with community needs and desires.
Neighborhood Types Present Within the Proposed CFA
As proposed, the candidate CFA for Ashland currently lies within a census tract 18 of Jackson County,
which is identified by the neighborhood type: Late Gentrification, see the following map.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland
DRAFT 09-19-2023 41| Page
Map 5. DLCD Anti-Displacement Map
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 42 | Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Suggested Strategies
It is important to note that the while the project’s scope of work directly referenced DLCD’s housing
production strategies (HPS) as a component of the anti-displacement analysis, the City of Ashland has an
approved Housing Production Strategy report which satisfies DLCDs requirements and aims to ensure
sustainable and equitable residential development within the city. Because the housing production
study was put out for public comment on May 23 rd, 2023, the technical analysis in this report utilized
DLCD’s HPS for the purposes of the Climate Friendly Area analysis. Nonetheless, the technical analysis
team recommends use of the in-depth HPS report produced by the City of Ashland for phase 2 of the
CFA study.
Referring to DLCD’s housing productions strategies, which can be found here, RVCOG has identified the
following strategies to ensure that a climate friendly areas acts as an equitable community. In selecting
strategies RVCOG prioritized strategies color coded as green for the Late Gentrification neighborhood
type for their likeliness to generate little to no adverse impact, factoring in local context and feasibility
as well.
A03: Density or height bonuses for affordable housing.
Cities could consider introducing a height and density bonus for developments which introduce units
between 30% - 120% of the average median income (AMI). RVCOG suggests using the CFA thresholds as
a potential model for such bonuses, in the case of Ashland potentially allowing an increased 10 feet of
maximum height and additional 5 dwellings per acre. City Staff notes that Ashland presently allows an
affordable housing density bonus of up to two market rate units for every qualifying affordable housing
unit provided, accommodating up to a 35% increase in residential density.
A07: Single Room Occupancy
Single room units, such as junior accessory dwelling units, present a new housing typology not
commonly considered among residential zones. Enabling this use as a permitted accessory component
of a multi-unit development could provide developers with the opportunity to provide unique housing
arrangements and a variety of units at different price points. (New State Law)
A14: Re-examine Mandated Ground Floor Use
The City of Bend has determined that while lively streetscape in a dense environment is a worthy goal,
mandating that ground floors be occupied by commercial uses when the surrounding market forces
can’t support such a use can contribute to decreased development or loss of area for dwellings. City
Staff notes that HB 2984, passed in the 2023 State Legislative Session, allows the conversion of buildings
from commercial use to housing without a zone change or conditional-use permit. It prohibits local
governments from requiring more parking and limits collection of system development charges. This
statewide legislation effectively allows residential ground floor use within commercial buildings.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 43| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
B10: Public Facility Planning
Factoring that some of the proposed CFA sites are largely vacant, assisting in providing public facilities
could make these sites more attractive for development. Furthermore, assisting in providing public
facilities may enable the city to prioritize key connections or better plan for expansion in the future.
B07: Flexible Regulatory Concessions for Affordable Housing
Considering that cities within the 10,000-24,999 population range are in one of the lower ranges for
prescriptive CFA standards, enabling affordable housing to move into some of the upper thresholds
could present a unique advantage further attract affordable housing. Furthermore, this strategy enables
a CFA to evolve directly in response to its City’s population growth, possibly resulting in a CFA pre-
emptively meeting the next threshold’s requirements.
B19: Survey Applicant on Development Program Decision-Making
User feedback can help illustrate frustrations or pitfalls in the planning process not seen by staff.
Utilizing a survey as litmus test for ease of development within a CFA can serve as an asset not only to
the CFA, but the City’s Planning department as a whole. City Staff notes that in February 2023 the City
Community Development Department surveyed all individuals that obtained a Planning Permit, or
Building Permit, from 2018-2022. The City is in the process of establishing a Development Process
Management Advisory Committee made up developers, builders, architects, and private planners, to
assist in reviewing the survey and to recommend areas to improve the permitting process and reduce
barriers to the development of needed housing.
C01: Reduce or exempt System Development Charges (SDCs) for needed housing.
SDC’s are often seen as necessary yet prohibitive cost associated with new development. Granting
exemptions for needed dense and affordable housing helps clear the way for development, while
commercial developers seeking to capitalize on attractive areas by constructing recreational or tourism
oriented, or general luxury developments can bear a larger part of the burden when it comes to needed
infrastructural growth. City Staff notes that Ashland presently waives all SDCs for qualified affordable
housing.
C04: Incentivize Manufactured and Modular Housing.
Manufactured and modular housing could be a popular option in vacant CFA areas as it can be
constructed for less cost and added on to as a larger population occupies the CFA. Modular housing also
supports homeownership rather rented housing, a notion that could ensure a CFA acts as equitable
community for permanent residents and doesn’t become an area merely for vacation rentals. City Staff
notes the City’s adopted Housing Production Strategy includes a strategic action to create a
Manufactured Park Zone to preserve existing parks and potentially identify opportunities for additional
manufactured home parks. Manufactured and Modular housing are presently permitted outright on
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 44| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
individual residentially zoned lots within the City with the exception of designated National Register
Historic Districts.
D02: Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC).
Federal tax credits represent an external opportunity for an affordable housing development to feasibly
occur within a city. Disclaiming these opportunities to developers comes at little cost to the city, and can
facilitate mixed income housing that contributes to a more diverse set of demographics within a CFA.
D09: Demolition Taxes
A demolition tax can ensure that new development within a CFA introduces a greater density than the
existing structure or be forced to be pay a tax to fund a housing trust fund. Demolition taxes help
mitigate the effects of higher density, aging housing being replaced by lower density, newer, market-
rate homes, which could occur if the CFA is sited in a more historic area of a community, or the
introduction of the CFA regulation induces more affluent populations seeking proximity to mixed uses.
D09: Construction Excise Tax
Seeing as the CFA’s are located on vacant land, a construction excise tax (CET) seems to be an apt
solution to ensure development of a CFA accrues funds for affordable housing projects both within the
CFA and elsewhere. City Staff notes the City’s adopted Housing Production Strategy includes a strategic
action to evaluate establishing a CET to support affordable housing development within the community.
E03: Vertical Housing Development Zone Tax Abatement
This housing production strategy authorized ORS 307.841 directly aligns with the live work environment
that’s meant to appear within CFA’s and is natural candidate to assist in mixed use development. The
effectiveness of this strategy could be somewhat bound by a CFA’s respective height limits but coupled
with affordable housing density bonuses could be quite effective. City Staff notes that Ashland
presently established a Vertical Housing Development Zone to correspond with the Transit Triangle
Overlay rea. As this Transit Triangle area is a candidate for a CFA, this strategy is in already place within
one of the potential CFA areas under consideration.
E04 & E05: Multiple Unit Tax Exemptions (Property and Limited taxes)
Similar to the Vertical Housing Tax Abatement, the multiple unit tax exemptions could serve as a
symbiotic strategy to the type of development intended to occur within a CFA. Whether this strategy
seeks to aid in overall feasibility by being a long-term exemption or aid in the initial
E10: Delayed tax Exemptions
Delayed tax exemptions can be seen as a viable strategy to allow new development recoup construction
costs and establish a profitable base before falling below 80% AMI. This strategy could benefit initial
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 45| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
developments in CFA’s, and later assist them in serving a new economic bracket when the area becomes
more developed.
F17: Designated Affordable Housing Sites
Designating CFA’s partly or entirely as affordable housing sites can ensure the best use of the land in the
future. While price control measures may ward off developers initially, highlighting tax exemptions and
streamlined planning process coupled with the relative newness of the CFA regulations may highlight
these areas as feasible location for affordable housing.
F19: Affordable Housing Preservation Inventory
Identifying and inventorying areas currently hosting affordable housing enables staff to examine what
contextual factors have led them to appear in their community, and informs areas to proceed with
caution when expanding the CFA.
City staff are encouraged to review and evaluate the list of strategies when it comes time for phase 2
zoning reform.
City Staff emphasizes that the strategic actions outlined in the approved Ashland Housing Production
Strategies will be evaluated in the context of identifying and implementing Climate Friendly Areas
(CFAs). A new CFA land use designation would be crafted with the primary goal of encouraging the
development of transit supported mixed-use, higher-density environments that actively diminish the
dependence on fossil fuels. The evaluation process will pay particular attention to addressing the
potential displacement of existing affordable housing within any designated CFA area while
simultaneously seizing the opportunities to foster necessary housing options within the designated
areas. This comprehensive approach underscores the city's commitment to both sustainable urban
development and the preservation of affordable housing for its residents.
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 46| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Appendix A: Acronyms
Regulatory:
LCDC = Land Conservation & Development Commission
•
DLCD = Department of Land Conservation & Development
•
OAR = Oregon Administrative Rules
•
CFA = Climate Friendly Area
•
CFEC = Climate Friendly & Equitable Community
•
Technical:
HNA = Housing Needs Assessment
•
HCA = Housing Capacity Analysis
•
HPS = Housing Production Strategy
•
NDA = Net Developable Area
•
HUC = Housing Units Captured
•
MF = Multifamily Housing
•
SF = Single Family Housing
•
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 47| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Appendix B: References
Climate-Friendly Areas Methods Guide by DLCD.
CFA Anti-Displacement Analysis by DLCD.
Housing Production Strategy by DLCD.
The cover picture used in the study document is by Fred Stockwell
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 48| Page
Rogue ValleyCouncil of Governments
Climate Friendly Areas Study
City of Ashland, OR
R
ogue Valley
Council of Governments
155 N First St
P.O. Box 3275
Central Point, OR 97502
(541) 664-6674
Fax (541) 664-792
CFA STUDY City of Ashland 49| Page
Subject: Signal Improvements including Cabinet Upgrades
\[EXTERNAL SENDER\]
Greetings, Derek!
Larissa Rudnicki here again, one of the architectural historians with ODOT. I wanted to reach out to
you and notify you that ODOT is proposing to replace certain cabinets within Ashland with those will
be 7.5 inches taller in height.
The six intersections where cabinets will be replaced within Ashland are:
NE corner of Siskiyou Blvd and Mountain Ave (within the Siskiyou-Hargadine District)
NW corner of Main St and N Second St (within the Downtown District)
SW corner of Lithia Way and N Second St (within the Downtown District)
NE corner of Lithia Way and N Pioneer (within the Downtown District)
SW corner of Pioneer and Main St (within the Downtown District)
SE corner of Main St and Laurel St (within the Skidmore Academy District)
The cabinets at five of the locations will be reaffixed to the signal poles, as opposed to freestanding,
and I have requested that they be powder-coated black to match the signals (as opposed to the
natural metal). The cabinet at Siskiyou Blvd and Mountain Ave will be reinstalled on the existing
ground mounted pad. This cabinet is also proposed to be painted black.
I wanted to notify you and the Ashland Historic Commission of this work, but also make sure that I
am not missing anything in Ashland’s city management plan. For reference, I have included an image
of the cabinet at Lithia Way and N Second St –
Please let me know if you or the Ashland Historic Commission have any questions or concerns! Or if I
am missing anything within your management plan! Thanks so much! Of note, this is different work
than the ongoing ADA improvements.
Cheers,
Larissa
Larissa Rudnicki, M.S.
(she/her - why pronouns?)
ODOT Architectural Historian
Regions 3, 4, and 5
4040 Fairview Industrial Drive SE | Salem, OR 97302
Larissa.Rudnicki@odot.oregon.gov
(cell) 503.507.0558 |
Sept 2024
HPAC Review Board
Meet at 3:00pm - Lithia Room
Every other week
**Staff to email if there is anything to review on the off weeks**
DATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ATTENDING
Sept 5th Repp Shostrom
Sept 19th Whitford
*Call 541-488-5305 to verify there are items on the agenda to review
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
MIDTOWN TERRACES
A PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION BY SUNCREST HOMES
REQUEST FOR FOUR LOT
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDVISION
Property Address: 113 Pine Street
Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 08AD; 2600
Property Owner/Applicant: Charlie Hamilton
Kasey Hamilton
PO BOX 1313
Talent, OR 97540
Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services
1314-B Center Dr., PMB #457
Medford, OR 97501
Surveyor: Terra Survey
274 Fourth Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Civil Engineering: KAS and Associates
304 S Holly Street
Medford, OR 97501
Landscape Architecture: Terrain Landscape Architecture
310 Oak Street, Suite 3
Ashland, OR 97520
PROPOSAL:
The request is forapproval of an Outline and Final Plan of four lot, Performance Standards Subdivision
(AMC 18.3.9). There are three residential development lots and a common area lot. The lots will be
accessed via a shared private driveway.
An exception to street standards to not install seven-foot landscape park row and six-foot sidewalk on
Pine Street to retain the existing public street frontage improvements is requested (AMC 18.4.6.020.B).
Tree removal requestto remove five treesis proposed with the application due to the development of
the property. Two of these trees are dead.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 1 of 36
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is on the westside of Pine Street and
is approximately 100 feet to the north of the intersection of
Pine and NutleyStreets.
The property is zoned residential, 7,500 square foot
minimum lot area (R-1-7.5) and the properties to the north,
and south are also zoned R-1-7.5. Properties to the west are
zoned R-1-7.5 and residential, 10,000 square foot minimum
lot area (R-1-10). The propertyand the adjacent properties
are within the Skidmore Academy Historic District.
The parent parcelin its current configuration was created as
part of a three-lot partition in July 1978 (78-365). The
trapezoidal parcel is 33,886 square feet in area. The parcel
has a narrow street frontage of 63.8 feet on the east side
adjacent to Pine Street and extends an average lot depth of
307-feet to the west. The parcel widens to more than 163
feet along the west property line.
The property is occupied by a 1,630-square foot single story
residence. There is an 856 square foot unfinished basement.
The house was constructed sometime around 1903 appearing on the first Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
in 1907. The single-story residence sits above Pine Streetwith a poured in place concrete wall that
extends from the at grade concrete stairs leading to the house up to nearly five feet tall on the north
end. The wall is adjacent to the curbside sidewalk. The structure is built up above the street with a
daylight basement and a flight of stairs to the front porch. The existing structure is centralized on the
property and located approximately 22-feet from the property line and 16-feet from the wall. The
structure is considered Historic Contributing in the Historic Resources Inventory for the Skidmore
Academy Historic District. In 1983, the structure was assessed by the Jackson County Assessor at 70
percent of its value due to the condition by 2006, the assessment notes the structure is near the end of
its economic life.
At this time, the structure is not habitable. Following complaints to the city council, city of Ashland Code
Compliance and the Ashland Fire Department were tasked with address the complaints of fire safety
concerns, squatter concerns and a hording situation. The property was cleared of much of the debris
and the structure was secured to prevent trespass. The building was tagged by the city of Ashland Fire
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 2 of 36
Department as “Unsafe” based on the exterior conditions of the home that are evident. In addition to
the clear and present danger presented by the failed front porch, the structure has moved off the
‘foundation’. There are substantial structural issues, and the building has come into the property owner’s
possession as a dangerous building in accordance withthe International Existing Building Code(IEBC)
pursuant to AMC 15.04.010.B. A separate demolition permit seeking dangerous building declaration has
been applied for.
The property is accessed via a10-foot-wide concrete apron and a gravel driveway on the south side of
the structure. This driveway is partially located on the property to the south. There is approximately 16.3
feet of separation between the driveway apron on the subject property and the adjacent property to
the south.
Public infrastructure and utilities are present on Pine Street. These include water, storm sewer and
sanitary sewer service. The property is served by overhead electric from across Pine Street. This crosses
the northeast corner of the property to the south at 105 Nutley Street. The 105 Nutley Street sanitary
sewer line appears to cross the subject property in the same location as the overhead electric. Thre are
no easements.
There is a dry gully along the south side of the property. This gully historically extends from Winburn
Way, under the homes between the north side of Granite Street up to the terminus of Nutley Street.
The property is not within the Physical Constraints Overlay, the slopes in the southwest portion of the
property adjacent to the gully are 35 percent greater. These slopes are identified as Severe Constraints
layer of the Physical Constraints map.
There are 39 trees greater than six inches in diameter at breast height. There are 19 Significant trees
on the subject property and on the adjacent properties that are within 15-feet of the subject property.
The trees are a variety of deciduous and conifer including Oak, Maple, Cottonwood, Ash, Walnut, Pear,
Apple, Incense Cedar, Fir, Pine and Sequioa. The majority of the trees are less than 12-inches in
diameter at breast height. Many of the trees are in a state of decline due to lack of maintenance and
care. There are some near specimen Oak trees on the property near the gully. There are only five of
the nineteen significant trees proposed for removal. An International Society of Arboriculture licensed
arborist has been obtained to address tree preservation and proposed tree removals.
Pine Street is a Neighborhood Street. Neighborhood Street right of way varies from 47 feet up to 57-
foot-wide and requires 8-foot wide landscape parkrows and six-foot wide sidewalks. The current right
of way of the majority of Pine Street is 40 feet. Along the frontage of the subject property, the Pine
Street right of way is slightly less, approximately 33-feet, due to the lot pre-dating the current ROW
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 3 of 36
widths. Pine Street isimproved with a curband gutter and a five-foot-wide curbside sidewalk along the
west side of Pine Street along the frontage of the subject property.
DETAILED PROPSAL:
The request is forOutline and Final Plan for a four lot, Performance Standards Subdivision. There are
three development lots, each exceeding the minimum lot area in the R-1-7.5 zone. An open space area
of 2,855 square feet is proposed as an amenity for the homeownersand to aid in the preservation of
the slopes, significant trees and the gully area.
Utilization of the Performance Standards Subdivision Option is requested consistent with the Purpose
Statement from AMC 18.3.9.010. The Purpose Statement notes that the Performance Standards
Option should be used to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the
conventional subdivision codes when due to the undeveloped nature of the property, sloping
topography, or the existence of vegetation, the result is equal in its environmental and aesthetic
impact as subdivision standards would allow, are more suitable for development under Performance
Standards.
The Performance Standards Option - Overlay map does not include this property. Development under
the Performance Standards chapter is allowed when the development is necessary to protect the
environment from degradation and would be of equal in aesthetic and environmental impact as
allowed through maximum density under subdivision standards (18.3.9.030.D.2.). The lot area allows
for four lots, each more than7,500 square feet in area. A three lot, flag lot configuration is also
possible with the same result as the proposed PSO Subdivision but without the open space.
The.78 acre, nearly 34,000 square foot parent parcel is largely undeveloped but surrounded byhistoric
development patterns that were developed pattern similar to a traditional subdivision code. Has
severely constrained slopes that will be protected from disturbance, preserves numerous trees
including nearly all significant stature trees and only removes the minimum number of trees for
construction of the driveway, the homes and to remove dead and dying vegetation.
Lot 1 is proposed to be a 9,291 square foot lot. Lot 1 consists of the area of the existing structure that
will be removed. The existing lot width along Pine Street is 63.8 feet wide with the south 20-feet as an
easement for the driveway. This lot extends an average of 119 feet to the rear property line. Due to
the condition of the existing structure on the property, it will be removed. The lot has zero percent
downhill to the north the purposes of solar setbacks and the lot width exceeds required north/south
lot dimensions for the purposes of solar setbacks. At the time of development of the lot, coverage, not
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 4 of 36
to exceed 45 percent of 9,291 square feet in area (4,180.95 square feet). The maximum permitted floor
area (MPFA) for the replacement residence is 2,648 square feet of floor area.
Proposed Lot 2 is to the west of Lot1 and will be accessed via the shared driveway. Lot 2 is proposed to
be 10,705square feet. Along the south property line is the fire truck apparatus hammerhead area and
the open space area. The lot has a coverage area of 4,871.25 square feet in area. Proposed Lot 2 has a
slope of less than one percent (.07) uphill to the north. The building envelope line provides for the
solar setback envelope of 29.13-feet for a 21-foot-tall shade producing point. The maximum permitted
floor area (MPFA) for the new construction is 2,766.17 square feet of floor area. This lot will include
some of the areas of more than 35 percent slopes into a deed restriction that prevents further
development of those slopes following the installation of the pathway from the open space to the lot.
Lot 3 is further west, this lot is proposed to be 10,587 square feet in area. Proposed Lot 3 also takes
access from the shared private driveway. The front yard is more than 20-feet from the north property
line because of the shared driveway and trees upon the adjacent property to the north. The setback is
five feet from the 20-foot access easement for the driveway. The rear property line is opposite (rear)
and the east and west property lines are the side yards with six feet of separation. This lot has a
coverage area of 4,764.15 square feet in area. The lot has a slope of 1.4 percent uphill to the north.
The building envelope line demonstrates the solar setback envelope of 25.64 feet for a 21-foot tall
structure and not exceed the lots N/S dimension. The maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) for the
new construction is 2,735.68 square feet of floor area. This lot also includes some of the areas of more
than 35 percent slopes into a deed restriction that prevents further development of those slopes
following the installation of the pathway from the open space to the lot.
The proposed home designs stress energy efficiency with each unit constructed to Earth Advantage
Standards. The proposed homes are architecturally creative and are designed in a manner to not
prevent the lot to the north from access to passive or active solar.
A voluntarily provided open space is proposed to provide preservation of significant trees and provide
a common area lot that is 2,835 square feet in area. The open space lot will have deeded access for
each of the lots within the development. The open space will be improved with landscaping, benches
and pathways leading to Lots 2 and 3. The utilities for Lots 2 and 3 extend through the open space lot.
Lot 1 will have access via the easement of the fire apparatus access hammerhead area across Lot 2.
The property is outside of the Hillside Overlay. Topography of than 35 percent are considered Severe
Constraints and are not considered developable. The sloped areas of more than 35 percent along the
banks of the gully are shown on the proposed preliminary subdivision plat map. Some of these areas
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 5 of 36
are protected from development within the open space area.The areas of 35 percent upon Lots 2 and
3 are outside of the building envelope and the slopes will be restricted through a slope easement on
the survey, and deed restricted to further protect the slopes from future development. The excavation
for the utility trenches in the slope area and the creation of a graveled walking path from the open
space to Lots 2 and 3 will not exceed 1,000 square feet in area, 20-cu yards of material exported or
imported, and no structures will be constructed. The proposed development avoids impacts to the
areas of severe constraints areas near the gully. The maps also depict severe constraints upon the front
property line where the retaining wall is located, the slope of the front yard is not in excess of 35
percent as evidenced on the topographical site survey.
There are 39 trees on the property or adjacent to the property. Of those, there are 19 Significant trees.
The trees are a variety of deciduous and conifer including Oak, Maple, Cottonwood, Ash, Walnut, Pear,
Apple, Incense Cedar, Fir, Pine and Sequioa. The majority of the trees are less than 12-inches in
diameter at breast height (DBH). Many of the trees are in a state of decline due to lack of maintenance
and care. There are only five of the nineteen significant trees proposed for removal. One of the four,
an 18-inch DBH Cottonwood directly adjacent to the north property line is dead. The other four
significant trees proposed for removal are due to the location of the shared driveway or within the
building envelope. There is a 12-inch DBH Walnut Tree within the building envelope of Lot 2, a 16-inch
DBH Oak tree within the building envelope of Lot 2 and a 16-inch DBH Norway Maple within the path
of the driveway and the 14-inch DBH Plum tree within the open space lot is in a severe state of decline.
An International Society of Arboriculture licensed arborist has been obtained to address tree
preservation and proposed tree removals.
On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are
provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are infont and the
Times New Roman
applicant’s responses are inCalibri font.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 6 of 36
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 7 of 36
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 8 of 36
FINDINGS OF FACT
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONAND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OVERLAY
18.3.9
18.3.9.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is
permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency,
architectural creativity, and innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest
advantage; provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under
the standard zoning codes; be aesthetically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the
impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood.
Finding:
The request is for Outline and Final Plan for a four lot, Performance Standards Subdivision. There are
three development lots, each exceeding the minimum lot area in the R-1-7.5 zone. An open space area
of 2,855 square feet is proposed as an amenity for the homeowners and to aid in the preservation of
the slopes, large stature trees and the natural gully area.
Utilization of the Performance Standards Subdivision Option is requested consistent with the Purpose
Statement from AMC 18.3.9.010. The Purpose Statement notes that the Performance Standards
Option should be used to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the
conventional subdivision codes when due to the undeveloped nature of the property, sloping
topography, or the existence of vegetation, the result is equal in its environmental and aesthetic
impact as subdivision standards would allow, are more suitable for development under Performance
Standards.
18.3.9.020 Applicability
Developments exercising the Performance Standards option, including developments that are required to
apply the option pursuant to this ordinance, shall meet the provisions of this chapter and all other
applicable sections of this ordinance; except that developments subject to this chapter are not required to
meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setback standards of part 18.2, and other standards
as specifically provided by this chapter. The Performance Standards option may be used to divide
residential and non-residential zoned land.
Finding:
The proposed development seeks to utilize the Performance Standards Option and the proposal
demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 9 of 36
18.3.9.030 PSO-OVERLAY
B.Applicability. This chapter applies to properties located in the Performance Standards Option
Overlay (PSO) as depicted on the Zoning Map. All developments in the PSO overlay, other than
partitions and development of individual dwelling units, shall be processed under this chapter. The
minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within residential zoning
districts is three.
Finding:
The property is not within the PSO – Overlay as depicted on the zoning map. There are three dwelling
units proposed within the proposed Performance Standards Option subdivision.
D. Development Outside PSO-Overlay. If a parcel is not in a PSO overlay, then development under
this chapter may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist.
2. That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the
neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density
allowed under subdivision standards or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact.
Finding:
The proposed three lot Performance Standards Option Subdivision proposes to protect the
environment from degradation and will be equal in its aesthetic impact as that would occur
from development to the maximum density allowed under the subdivision standards.
Environmental protection is provided to large stature and significant trees within the proposed
open space. The open space reduces the areas of the lotswhere structures can be built. The
area of the open space on Lots 2 and 3 is an area within the gully that could be developed with
structures without the open space designation.
The proposed open space and the severely constrained slopes adjacent to the Homeowners
Association maintained open space area will include protections in the form of slope easement
and deed restrictions that would not be provided in a standard subdivision procedure. This
increases the environmental protections.
A Performance Standards Subdivision is requested because as noted in the Purpose statement
(AMC 18.3.9.010), the Performance Standards option should be used to allow an option for
more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The parent parcel
is largely undeveloped but surrounded by historic development patterns that were developed
in a layout and development pattern similar to a traditional subdivision code. Excepting the
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 10 of 36
residencenear Pine Street, which is in very poor condition, the narrow gravel driveway, small,
shed structures and the trees, the .78 acre, the nearly 34,000 square foot parcel is largely
vacant.
The configuration of the parent parcel is another consideration forthe use of the flexibility
provided within the Performance Standards Subdivision to utilize a private driveway instead of
a flag lot layout. The property area would allow for a flag lot configuration with Lot 1 being
excessively deep just to meet minimum lot width standards whereas the Performance
Standards Subdivision Option allows for flexibility in lot layout. Specifically,by not requiring a
flagpole property line connection for Lots 2 and 3 that reduces the lot width along the street,
the Performance Standards Option allows for the the same driveway configuration within an
easement therefore a similar average lot width of the existing lot width for proposed Lot 1.
It can be found that development under the PSO-Overlayis supported by the property location
in a largely developed area, on a lot that has a narrow streetfrontage that presents access
limitations and lot configuration issues that would not apply in the Performance Standards
Option Subdivision.
It can be found that the proposal provides for the preservation of significant natural features
including topography and significant trees within a 2,865 square foot open space, that is deed
restricted for no development, and slope easement upon the unbuildable areas that are in
excess of 35 percent.
Each proposed lot area substantially exceeds the minimum lot area in the zone while preserving
the natural features though the creation of open space, deed restricted, unbuildable areas and
preservation of large stature trees. Further protections are provided because the proposed
homes are to be constructed to Earth Advantage Standards, be architecturally creative and
aesthetically pleasing. The environmental protections provided for the open space while being
less than 900 feet from Lithia Park and 1,100 feet from the Waterline Road provides for a great
quality of life with an efficient use of the land and limited impacts to the natural environment
and neighborhood.
REVIEW PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
18.3.9.040
A. Outline Plan.A proposed outline plan shall accompany applications for subdivision approval under
this chapter. For developments of fewer than ten lots, the outline plan may be filed concurrently with the
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 11 of 36
final plan, as that term is defined in subsection 18.3.9.040.B.4. For developments of ten or more lots,
prior outline plan approval is mandatory.
Finding:
The attached subdivision plans including topographical survey, building envelopes, conceptual
grading, erosion control, drainage and utility plan address the submittal requirements of the
Outline Plan and Final Plan.
The proposal is for concurrent review of Outline and Final Plan because there are fewer than
ten units.
The proposed subdivision utilizes conventional financing through FDIC lending institutionsand
private financing. The property proposed for development is owned by Charlie Hamilton.
The proposed common lot and private driveway will have maintenance stipulations outlined in
the Homeowner’s Association and Covenants, Conditions & Restriction Documents. The steep
slopes that are outside of the common area and upon Lots 2 & 3, will be restricted from
development both by deed and by ordinance.
A. 3.Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline
plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met:
a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
Finding:
The proposed development is exercising the Performance Standards Option. The development
demonstrates compliance with the standards from 18.3.9.050 – 18.3.9.080, and the provisions
of this chapter. The other applicable sections of this ordinance including:18.4.3 Parking, Access,
& Circulation; 18.4.6 Public Facilities; 18.4.8 Solar Access Performance Standard, 18.5.3 Land
Divisions and Property Line Adjustments; 18.5.7 Tree Removal Permits, and preservation of the
Severe Constraints slopes 18.3.10.060.D., etc. are addressed in these findings.
The PSO – Overlay development is subject to chapter 18.3.9 and is not required to meet the
minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setback standards of part 18.2, and other standards
as specifically provided by this chapter. The proposed development complies with all other
applicable standards from the R-1-7.5 zone.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 12 of 36
Lot 1:
Proposed Lot 1 consists of the area of the existing structure that will be removed. The existing
lot width along Pine Street is 63.8 feet wide with the south 20-feet as an easement for the
driveway. This lot extends an average of 119 feet to the rear property line. The rear property
line is ~113 feet. The average lot width is 88.4 feet. The proposed lot area is 9,291 square feet.
Due to the condition of the existing structure on the property, it will be removed.
Standard setbacks are proposed for this Lot with 20-foot front yard setback, six-foot north side,
or as required based on the height of the future structure shade producing point from natural
grade. A ten-foot rear yard setback and a five foot from easement setback are provided with
the building envelope. Proposed Lot 1 has zero percent slope to the north for the purposes of
solar setbacks. The lot width exceeds required north/south lot dimensions for the purposes of
solar setbacks. A 21-foot-tall shade producing point requires a 33.78-foot setback from the
north property line. This distance does not exceed 50 percent of the lot’s N/S dimensionof
~88.47 feet.
At the time of development of the lot, coverage did not exceed 45 percent of the lot area, or
4,180.95 square feet. The maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) for the replacement residence
is 2,648 square feet of floor area.
Lot 2:
Proposed Lot 2 is to the west of Lot 1 and will be accessed via the shared driveway. Lot 2 is
proposed to be 10,705 square feet. Along the south property line is the fire truck apparatus
hammerhead area and the open space area.
The building envelope depicts the north (front), south (rear), east and west (sides) setbacks. All
setbacks proposed meet or exceed minimum setbacks in the R-1-7.5 zone. The front yard is
more than 20-feet from the north property line because of the shared driveway and trees upon
the adjacent property to the north. The setback is five feet from the 20-foot access easement
for the driveway. The rear property line is opposite (rear) and the east and west property lines
are the side yards with six feet of separation. The lot has a coverage area of 4,871.25 square
feet in area. Proposed Lot 2 has a slope of less than one percent (.07) uphill to the north. The
building envelope line demonstrates the solar setback envelope of 29.13-feet for a 21-foot-tall
shade producing point does not exceed 50 percent of the lot’s N/S dimension. The maximum
permitted floor area (MPFA) for the new construction is 2,766.17 square feet of floor area. This
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 13 of 36
lot will include some of the areas of more than 35 percent slopes into a deed restriction that
prevents further development of those slopes following the installation of the pathway from
the open space to the lot.
Lot 3:
Proposed Lot 3 is further west and will also be accessed by the private driveway. This parcel is
proposed to be 10,587 square feet in area. Proposed Lot 3 also takes access from the shared
private driveway. The front yard is more than 20-feet from the north property line because of
the shared driveway and trees upon the adjacent property to the north. The setback is five feet
from the 20-foot access easement for the driveway. The rear property line is opposite (rear)
and the east and west property lines are the side yards with six feet of separation. This lot has a
coverage area of 4,764.15 square feet in area. The lot has a slope of 1.4 percent uphill to the
north. The building envelope line demonstrates the solar setback envelope of 25.64 feet for a
21-foot tall structure and not exceed the lots N/S dimension. The maximum permitted floor
area (MPFA) for the new construction is 2,735.68 square feet of floor area. This lot will include
some of the areas of more than 35 percent slopes into a deed restriction that prevents further
development of those slopes following the installation of the pathway from the open space to
the lot.
The proposed open space lot is 2,855 square feet in area. The open space lot will have deeded
access for each of the lots within the development. The open space will be improved with
landscaping, benches and pathways leading to Lots 2 and 3. The utilities for Lots 2 and 3 extend
through the open space lot. Lot 1 will have access via the easement of the fire apparatus access
hammerhead area across Lot 2.
The property is outside of the Hillside Overlay. Topography of than 35 percent are considered
Severe Constraints and are not considered developable. The sloped areas of more than 35
percent along the banks of the gully are shown on the proposed preliminary subdivision plat
map. Some of these areas are protected from development within the open space area. The
areas of 35 percent upon Lots 2 and 3 are outside of the building envelope and the slopes will
be dedicated with a slope easement and deed restricted to further protect the slopes from
future development. The excavation for the utility trenches in the slope area and the creation
of a graveled walking path from the open space to Lots 2 and 3 will not exceed 1,000 square
feet in area, 20-cu yards of material exported or imported, and no structures will be
constructed. The proposed development avoids impacts to the areas of severe constraints
areas near the gully. The maps also depict severe constraints upon the front property line
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 14 of 36
where the retaining wall is located, the slope of the front yard is not in excess of 35 percent as
evidenced on the topographical site survey.
b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and
adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond
capacity.
Finding:
The proposed layout provides adequate key City facilities.
All utilities will be extended to the development lots through the private driveway via easement
across proposed Lot 1, through Lot 2 and onto serve Lot 3.
Water pressures are adequate to serve the proposed, efficient dwellings. There will be three
new water meters provided. A fire hydrant is present directly across Pine Street from the
driveway.
Sanitary sewer laterals using gravity flow from the dwellings down to the sanitary sewer main
within Pine Street. There have no indications that the sewer mains are not adequate for the
additional flows from the new residences.
The stormwater will be captured and detained onsite in engineered, underground detention
pipes located between the street and the dwelling on Lot 1. Following the retention, detention
and treatment of the stormwater within the system, the stormwater percolates out to the
public system within the street. There have not been any indications that there were issues
with the storm drainage system.
Following meetings with the City of Ashland Electric, an electric vault will be installed extending
the service from across Pine Street, under the roadway and to a new vault on the west side of
Pine Street.
All of the utilities will have easements from the Common Area Lot and from the adjacent lots
through which utilities cross.
18.3.9.060
Parking Standards
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 15 of 36
All development under this chapter shall conform to the following parking standards,
which are in addition to the requirements of chapter 18.4.3, Parking, Access, and
Circulation.
A. On-Street Parking Required. For all performance standards subdivisions in R-1
zones, and for all performance standards subdivisions in R-2 or R-3 zones which create
or improve city streets, at least one on-street parking space per proposed lot shall be
provided with the following exceptions:
1. Where on-street parking is provided on newly created or improved streets, the total
number of on-street spaces required should not surpass the available street frontage, with
each parking space being considered equivalent to 22 feet in length without interruption
and exclusive of designated no-parking areas.
Finding:
No streets are proposed. Not applicable.
18.4.3.080.
Vehicle Area Design
A. Parking Location
Finding:
Per 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design, each lot will have adequate parking with two vehicle
spaces within a garage accessed from the private drive either directly or from a driveway
extension. The residential parking is not within any required yard area.
B. Parking Area Design.
Finding:
Not applicable
C. Vehicular Access and Circulation.
a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom
of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach.
Finding:
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 16 of 36
The existing driveways are separated by less than 24-feet. The driveway serving
the residence to the south is approximately 17-feet from the existing driveway
apron. The driveway will be moved to the south, off the adjacent property and
increasing the separation slightly.
b. Partitions and subdivisions of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or
M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable,
cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by
the land division can be made from one or more points.
Finding:
Thesubject property is zoned R-1-7.5 and is not subject to the controlled access
standards per this section.
c. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-1 zone
shall be limited to the following.
Finding:
The property is zoned R-1-5 and not subject to the standards.
d. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. All multi-family
developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle
trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development.
Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers.
Finding:
Not applicable.
4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts.
a. Plans submitted for developments subject to a planning action shall indicate how
driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared
driveways and all necessary access easements. Where necessary from traffic safety
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 17 of 36
and access management purposes, the City may require joint access and/or shared
driveways in the following situations.
i. For shared parking areas.
ii. For adjacent developments, where access onto an arterial is limited.
iii. For multi-family developments, and developments on multiple lots.
Finding:
The proposed access uses an existing driveway apron, shifts it north and widens it
slightly to provide adequate access to the private drive. This single, narrow
driveway minimizes access points.
b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and
driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the
proposed development. Curb cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard
curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter/furnishings strip as appropriate.
Finding:
The proposal is to develop a standard driveway approach where presently one
does not exist. There are no additional, unnecessary approaches.
c. If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must
be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage.
Finding:
The proposal is to create a shared, private drive.
5. Alley Access. Where a property has alley access, vehicle access shall be taken from the
alley and driveway approaches and curb cuts onto adjacent streets are not permitted.
Finding:
There is no alley access.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 18 of 36
18.3.9.040A.3 (continued)
c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds,
large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and
significant features have been included in the common open space, common areas, and
unbuildable areas.
Finding:
The existing and natural features of the land including the 19 significant trees, the gully and the
steep topography on the south and north sides of the gully that are shown as Severe
Constraints are identified on the plan maps.
The south side of the dry gully and the steep slopes are preserved within the ~2,800 square foot
common area with the steep slopes on the north side identified as unbuildable and protected
throughdeed restriction. There are large stature deciduous trees within the open space on the
southwest property lines including large stature Oak and Plum trees and a large stature Walnut
tree is to be proposed at the top of the steep slope on the south side of the building envelope
of Lot 3.
d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses
shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding:
The adjacent properties are zoned residential. The properties to the north and south of the
property have limited development potential due to the location of the existing structures and
lot configurations. There is a larger parcel on the north side of thepropertythat may have
development potential, but the lots narrow width limits it development potential.
A gridded street system is not proposed due to the limited lot width of the parent parcel,
topography of the subject property and the adjacent properties. Additionally, the adjacent
properties lot area, dimensions, topography, and trees greatly limits if not completely prevents
extension of any vehicular access though the subject property.
e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and common areas,
if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have
the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 19 of 36
Finding:
A Homeowner’s Association (HOA) with Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, and By-Laws
will be created with a land use attorney. The provisions for the maintenance of the common
open space, the driveways, stormwater detention facility and the shared features will be
addressed in the subdivision governing documents.
The subdivision is not phased.
f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this
chapter.
Finding:
The density of the lot based on area alone is four (4) lots that are 7,500 square feet in area.
When the Performance Standards Option is applied the density of AMC 18.3.9 for the R-1-7.5
Overlay is applied. The PSO density for R-1-7.5 zones is 3.6 dwelling units per acre. The parent
parcel area is 33,976.8 square feet (.78 acres) .78 X 3.6 = 2.81 is the base density.
The proposed density is three (3) lots. Each residence will be constructed to the Earth
Advantage Standards which allows for a 15 percent density bonus (2.81 X 1.15 = 3.23).
The proposal complies with the minimum density and the bonus density standard with the
development of the Earth Advantage Certified dwelling units.
The lot area is adequate for three lots utilizing the standard partitioning section of the
ordinance, and the proposed density is the same but with the Earth Advantage development of
energy efficient housing is proposed that would not be required in the standard partition
scenario.
g. The development complies with the street standards.
Finding:
There are changes to the existing frontage except the dedication of right of way to align the
east property line with the adjacent properties to the north and south. The existing curbside
sidewalk with retaining wall behind will remain.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 20 of 36
An exception to street standards is sought to not install awiderpublic sidewalk and landscape
park row along the Pine Street frontage. See exception findings for reasons not to install a 43.8-
foot-long section of park row and relocate the sidewalkto where it has no connection to
adjacent curbside sidewalks.
No new public streets are proposed.
h. The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under
section 18.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in
accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland.
Finding:
No open space is required when the minimum density is less than 10 units. The proposed open
space area is 2,855 square feet. It has no dimension of less than 20-feet. The open space area
preserves the large stature, significant trees, preserves the steep slopes and preserves the
historic landscape feature of the gully. The open space will remain largely in the condition it is
in with removal of dead / dying plum trees, removal of the overgrown vegetation, addition of
benches, providing a path from the terminus of the fire apparatus access hammerheadand
through to the lots. There will be a minor encroachment of decomposed granite path from the
open space to Lots 2 and 3. The paths will not trigger the development thresholds for
disturbance of constrained slopes. The building permit submittal for the infrastructure portion
of the subdivision will provide the final landscape and irrigation plan to improve the aesthetics
of the open space.
The open space provides additional environmental protection as required by with the
application of the Performance Standards Option that would not be required through the
standard partitioning process including the flag lot configuration. The allowance of the
Performance Standards Subdivision Option provides a greater benefit of additional open space
for the neighborhood that includes many oversized lots with large stature and significant trees.
The open space area reduces the buildable areas of the lots which limits the number of
structures and the impacts to adjacent properties and environmental protections. The HOA and
CC & Rs will provide clear standards for the open space.
Fencing on Lots 2 and 3 adjacent to the open space will be limited to four feet of solid panel
fencing. All other fencing determinations will be made at building permit phase.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 21 of 36
4. Approval of the Outline Plan.
a. After the City approves an outline plan and adopts any zone change necessary for the
development, the developer may then file a final plan in phases or in its entirety.
Finding:
The plan is filed in its entirety.
b. If an outline plan is phased, 50 percent of the value of the common open space shall be
provided in the first phase and all common open space shall be provided when two-thirds of the
units are finished.
Finding:
The application is not for a phased subdivision.
FINAL PLAN
18.3.9.040.B.
5. Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial
conformance with the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to
facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist
when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria:
a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved
outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan.
b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those
shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the
minimum established within this ordinance.
c. The common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than
ten percent.
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent
of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline
plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the
performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved.
g. The development complies with the street standards.
h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open
space; provided, that if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 22 of 36
transferred to another phase, nor the common open space reduced below that permitted in the
outline plan.
Finding:
With the concurrent proposal, there are no intended modifications between outline and final
plan.
6. Any substantial amendment to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure in section
18.5.1.040 and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria.
Finding:
It is understood substantial amendment would require additional review.
LAND DIVISIONS AND PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENTS
18.5.3.020 Applicability and General Requirements
A. Applicability. The requirements for partitions and subdivisions apply, as follows.
1. Subdivisions are the creation of four or more lots from one parent lot, parcel, or tract, within
one calendar year.
Finding:
The request is for approval of a Performance Standards subdivision. The proposed subdivision
creates four lots from one parent tract of land. Three development lots and a common area lot.
B. Land Survey. Before any action is taken pursuant to this ordinance that would cause adjustments or
realignment of property lines, required yard areas, or setbacks, the exact lot lines shall be validated by
location of official survey pins or by a survey performed by a licensed surveyor.
Finding:
An official survey of the property has been performed by an Oregon licensed surveyor.
C. Subdivision and Partition Approval Through Two-Step Process. Applications for subdivision or
partition approval shall be processed by means of a preliminary plat evaluation and a final plat
evaluation.
1. The preliminary plat must be approved before the final plat can be submitted for review.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 23 of 36
2. The final plat must demonstrate compliance with all conditions of approval of the preliminary
plat.
Finding:
The proposal is for anOutline and Final Subdivision plat review.
D. Compliance With Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) chapter 92. All subdivision and partitions shall
conform to state regulations in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions.
Finding:
The subdivision will conform to state regulations in ORS chapter 92.
E. Future Re-Division Plan. When subdividing or partitioning tracts into large lots (i.e., greater than two
times or 200 percent the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying land use district), the lots
shall be of such size, shape, and orientation as to facilitate future re-division and extension of streets and
utilities. The approval authority may require a development plan indicating how further division of
oversized lots and extension of planned public facilities to adjacent parcels can occur in the future. If the
Planning Commission determines that an area or tract of land has been or is in the process of being divided
into four or more lots, the Commission can require full compliance with all subdivision regulations.
Finding:
The minimum lot size in the zone is 7,500 square feet in area. The proposed resulting lot areas following
the partition is for three lots that are less than two times the minimum lot area.
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT CRITERIA
18.5.3.070
A. Approval Criteria. The approval authority, pursuant to subsection 18.5.3.030.A, may approve,
approve with conditions or deny a preliminary subdivision plat on findings of compliance with all of the
following approval criteria.
1. The subdivision plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and
any previous land use approvals for the subject area.
Finding:
There are no City adopted neighborhood or district plans. To the applicant’s knowledge, there are not
previous approvals for the subject properties that would prevent the proposed subdivision.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 24 of 36
2. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable
overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g.,
parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation).
Finding:
The proposed lots conform to the requirements of R-1-7.5 zone. The proposed subdivision is consistent
with the standards from 18.3.9 for Performance Standards Option Subdivision. The threeparcels for
development will have more than 7,500 square feet of area.
18.2.2.030 Allowed Uses
A. Uses Allowed in Base Zones. Allowed uses include those that are permitted, permitted subject
to special use standards, and allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
Finding:
A Performance Standards Options Subdivision to create a four-lot, residential subdivision is
permitted use in the zone. The proposed subdivision seeks to create three new residential lots
and a common space lot. The lots are proposed to be accessed via a private driveway. Private
driveways are allowed to access three lots within a Performance Standards Option Subdivision.
One and two family residences are permitted use in the zone.
18.2.5.090 Standards for Single-Family Dwellings
A. The following standards apply to new single-family dwellings constructed in the R-1,
R-1-3.5, R-2, and R-3 zones; the standards do not apply to dwellings in the WR or RR
zones.
B. Single-family dwellings subject to this section shall utilize at least two of the following
design features to provide visual relief along the front of the residence:
1. Dormers
2. Gables
3. Recessed entries
4. Covered porch entries
5. Cupolas
6. Pillars or posts
7. Bay window (min. 12" projection)
8. Eaves (min. 6" projection)
9. Off-sets in building face or roof (min. 16")
Finding:
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 25 of 36
The submitted concepts of residences and designs are of a similar aesthetic as the
adjacent property. There is an eclectic mix of architectural styles in this area of the
Skidmore-Academy Historic District. The conceptual elevations demonstrate that two or
more of the design features listed above will be provided on the proposed single-family
residential units.
Lot 1:
Proposed Lot 1 consists of the area of the existing structure that will be removed. The existing
lot width along Pine Street is 63.8 feet wide with the south 20-feet as an easement for the
driveway. This lot extends an average of 119 feet to the rear property line. The rear property
line is ~113 feet. The average lot width is 88.4 feet. The proposed lot area is 9,291 square feet.
Due to the condition of the existing structure on the property, it will likely be removed. A credit
for the system development charges for parks, transportation and the coverage area will be
obtained.
Standard setbacks are proposed for this Lot with 20-foot front yard setback, six-foot north side,
or as required based on the height of the future structure shade producing point from natural
grade. A ten-foot rear yard setback and a five foot from easement setback are provided with
the building envelope. Proposed Lot 1 has no slope to the north for the purposes of solar
setbacks. The lot width exceeds required north/south lot dimensions for the purposes of solar
setbacks. A 21-foot-tall shade producing point requires a 33.78-foot setback from the north
property line. This distance does not exceed 50 percent of the lot’s N/S dimension of ~88.47
feet.
At the time of development of the lot, coverage did not exceed 45 percent of the lot area, or
4,180.95 square feet. The maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) for the replacement residence
is 2,648 square feet of floor area.
Lot 2:
Proposed Lot 2 is to the west of Lot 1 and will be accessed via the shared driveway. Lot 2 is
proposed to be 10,705 square feet. Along the south property line is the fire truck apparatus
hammerhead area and the open space area.
The building envelope depicts the north (front), south (rear), east and west (sides) setbacks. All
setbacks proposed meet or exceed minimum setbacks in the R-1-7.5 zone. The front yard is
more than 20-feet from the north property line because of the shared driveway and trees upon
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 26 of 36
the adjacent property to the north. The setback is five feet from the 20-foot access easement
for the driveway. The rear property line is opposite (rear) and the east and west property lines
are the side yards with six feet of separation. The lot has a coverage area of 4,871.25 square
feet in area. Proposed Lot 2 has a slope of less than one percent (.07) uphill to the north. The
building envelope line demonstrates the solar setback envelope of 29.13-feet for a 21-foot-tall
shade producing point does not exceed 50 percent of the lot’s N/S dimension. The maximum
permitted floor area (MPFA) for the new construction is 2,766.17 square feet of floor area. This
lot will include some of the areas of more than 35 percent slopes into a deed restriction that
prevents further development of those slopes following the installation of the pathway from
the open space to the lot.
Lot 3:
Proposed Lot 3 is further west and will also be accessed by the private driveway. This parcel is
proposed to be 10,587 square feet in area. Proposed Lot 3 also takes access from the shared
private driveway. The front yard is more than 20-feet from the north property line because of
the shared driveway and trees upon the adjacent property to the north. The setback is five feet
from the 20-foot access easement for the driveway. The rear property line is opposite (rear)
and the east and west property lines are the side yards with six feet of separation. This lot has a
coverage area of 4,764.15 square feet in area. The lot has a slope of 1.4 percent uphill to the
north. The building envelope line demonstrates the solar setback envelope of 25.64 feet for a
21-foot-tall structure and not exceed the lots N/S dimension. The maximum permitted floor
area (MPFA) for the new construction is 2,766.17 square feet of floor area. This lot will include
some of the areas of more than 35 percent slopes into a deed restriction that prevents further
development of those slopes following the installation of the pathway from the open space to
the lot.
Open Space Lot:
The proposed open space lot is 2,855 square feet in area. The open space lot will have deeded
access for each of the lots within the development. The open space will be improved with
landscaping, benches and pathways leading to Lots 2 and 3. The utilities for Lots 2 and 3 extend
through the open space lot. Lot 1 will have access via the easement of the fire apparatus access
hammerhead area across Lot 2.
Fences:
Any fences or walls within the development will comply with the fence and wall standards from
18.4.4.060 specifically adjacent to the open space where a not more than four foot fence will be
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 27 of 36
proposed. Fence permits will be obtained and will be provided for on the building permit
submittals.
Hillside:
The property is outside of the Hillside Overlay. Topography of than 35 percent are considered
Severe Constraints and are not considered developable. The Severe Constraints map depicts
severe constraints along the front property line where the retaining wall behind the sidewalk is
located, the slope of the front yard is not in excess of 35 percent as evidenced on the
topographical site survey.
The areas of more than 35 percent along the banks of the gully are shown on the proposed
preliminary subdivision platmap. The areasof over 35 percent are protected from
development within the open space area. Where the areas of 35 percent upon Lots 2 and 3 are
located they are protected by ordinance as unbuildable area. They are located outside of the
building envelope, and the slopes will have a slope easement and be deed restricted to further
protect the slopes from future development. The excavation for the utility trenches in the slope
area and the creation of a graveled walking path from the open space to Lots 2 and 3 will not
exceed 1,000 square feet in area, 20-cu yards of material exported or imported, and no
structures will be constructed.
The proposed development avoids impacts to the areas of severe constraints areas near the
gully. The building envelopes are outside of the areas of severe constraints and the trees within
the areas of severe constraints are preserved.
There are greater protections provided with a Performance Standards Subdivision than would
be provided in a partition scenario where there would be no open space and no HOA to assure
compliance with the deed restrictions.
Tree Preservation and Removal:
A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan has been preparedthat includes notes for construction
within the root zones and tree preservation techniques to address the construction impacts on
the trees on the subject property as well as the adjacent property to the north. There are
substantial numbers of healthy trees and significant stature trees retained with the proposal.
Near specimen Oak trees are preserved within the open space.
Within the area of Lot 1, within the building envelope area, the driveway area or heavily
impacted by construction are five trees. Of those, one is significant, a 16-inch DBH Norway
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 28 of 36
Maple (#2462). Within the building envelope there are three10-inch fruit trees. In the front
yard area is a 10-inch Red Mapletree and that will be removed. The three apple trees are in
decline or within the driveway area.
Proposed Lot 2 has an 8-inch DBH pear tree, an 8-inch DBH Raywood Ash a 7-inch DBH Norway
Maple, and a 12-inch DBH Walnut tree (#2348) that will be removed. These trees are within the
building envelope. The 12-inch DBH Walnut tree is a significant tree, the others are not.
According to the project arborist, Walnut is in decline.
Lot 3 has a 6-inch DBH California Black oak, an 8-inch DBH apple tree and a 14 inch DBH Incense
Cedar tree that will be removed, these trees are within the building envelope. A 16-inch DBH
California Black Oak (#2361) is within the side yard setback and building envelope area of Lot 3.
A significant Walnut tree near the open space area, and the trees on the west property line will
be preserved.
Within the Open space lot on the south side of the property there are two Plum trees in severe
state of decline. One of the trees is a 14-inch DBH tree (#2411) and the other is an 8-inch DBH
Plum. Both of these trees will be removed and mitigation trees will replace the canopy from the
Plum trees.
There is a dead, large stature, 18-inch DBH Cottonwood tree (#2365) on the shared property
line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north. This tree will be
removed with the property owner to the north’s permission. This dead tree needs to be
removed and the property owners will work in concert with each other.
Tree removal findings for the four trees that meet the thresholds for significant trees are
presented on page 33-35.
3. Access to individual lots necessary to serve the development shall conform to the standards contained
in section 18.4.3.080Vehicle Area Design.
Finding:
The proposed private driveway accessing the proposed lots will be within a 20-foot-wide access
easement with a 15-foot-wide paved driveway and a 20-foot-wide clear easement width.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 29 of 36
The proposed driveway will utilize the same location as the existing driveway apron on the south side
of the property. The adjacent driveway to the south is less than 24-feet from the subject property
driveway. The separation between the driveways is increased with this proposal.
The width (20-feet clear, 15-feet paved) and the grade of the driveway at no point exceeds 15 percent.
The proposed driveway is adequate to allow for a circulation system that will accommodate the
expected onsite traffic.
The future development proposal will provide adequate parking for the future houses.
The surface will be installed in a manner that does not allow for the surface waters to drain across any
public right-of-way or adjacent properties as per the civil drawings for the driveway construction.
4. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the standards in
chapter 18.4.6, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands.
The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications.
Finding:
There are no proposed streets. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access to
adjacent residential lands will not be impeded by the proposal. The development of adjacent
properties is limited due to the size of the properties, the existing structure locations, the lot
configurations, topography, access limitations, etc. of the adjacent properties and are not impacted by
this proposal.
There are no proposed transitions to potential future developments on adjacent lands due to the
limitations on the number of lots accessed via a private driveway and the lack of available area on
adjacent parcels, topography, or future connectivity of a public street because of the previously listed
limitations on future development potential.
The proposed utilities extend from the existing infrastructure present within the Pine Street right of way.
All of the proposed infrastructure and the driveway has been designed by an Oregon Licensed Civil
Engineer. The utility plan conforms to the requirements of AMC 18.4.
No modifications are proposed to the street. The preliminary plat identifies the proposed dedication of
public right of way, a 10-foot Public Utility Easement behind the property, and preliminary easements
for private utilities within the easement areas.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 30 of 36
Pine Street is improved with a curb, gutter and curbside sidewalk. No changes to the right of way are
proposed. Right of way dedication to match the adjacent properties is proposed. Along the frontage of
the subject property and the adjacent properties, there is a retaining wall and established trees that
prevent the extension of landscape park row and sidewalk to street design standards.
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.4.6.020.B.1.
Finding:
The proposal does not include improvements to Pine Street thus an exception to Street Standards
is required.
1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to
the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following
circumstances are found to exist.
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to
a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
Finding:
The code allows for the granting of exceptions when physical conditions exist that preclude
development of a public street, or components of the street. Such conditions may include
mature trees, topographical constraints, and limited right-of-way. Eachof these conditions
are present on the frontage.
The property has a 63.8-foot-wide frontage to PineStreet. Along the frontage of the property
and the adjacent properties to the north and south, there is approximately 5.5-feet of right
of way. This right of way width is not adequate to install required improvements. The narrow
width of the property frontage following the installation of the driveway leaves 43.8-feet of
frontage for a small landscape park row and sidewalk. There are curbside sidewalk
connections off-site of the subject property to the north or south. If the sidewalk were built
to present standards, the existing improvements would not connect. The unique situation
includes the development and prevention of a sidewalk and park row system that goes
nowhere.
Pine Street is an collector and requires a right-of-way of 47 feet. The standards seek 32-33
feet of curb-to-curb pavement, seven – eight feet of landscape park row, and six -feet of
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 31 of 36
sidewalk on. Inadequate right-of-way is present on the east side of Pine Street to provide the
city standard improvements. The proposed dedication of right of way aligns the right of way
and the property lines adjacent o the north and south property boundaries. Extending a park
row and sidewalk beyond the property would require dedication of right-of-way by adjacent
property owners and a substantial alteration to the trees and utilities within the right-of-way.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity
considering the following factors where applicable.
Finding:
No changes to the transportation facilities are proposed so they will remain equal to the
present improvements.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
Finding:
The proposed exception is to not modify the sidewalk or install a park row. There is
inadequate right-of-way to achieve park row and sidewalk improvements. Not installing
sidewalk alleviates the difficulty in extensions of said sidewalks in a logical and functional
manner on properties that are not associated with the proposed development and based on
existing development, will not redevelop in a manner that would require dedication of right-
of-way or removal of trees.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards insubsection
18.4.6.040.A.
Finding:
The Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards section speaks to connectivity and design
focus on a safe environment for all users, design streets as public spaces, and enhance the
livability of neighborhoods, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There are nosidewalks
with park row in the Pine Street neighborhood. The lack of right-of-way to install
improvements and that not installing sidewalk and park row will not negatively impact the
vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian experience.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 32 of 36
A street tree will be planted in the front yard behind the sidewalk. The tree will be chosen
from the City of Ashland Recommended Street Tree Standards.
5. All proposed private common areas and improvements, if any, are identified on the preliminary plat
and maintenance of such areas (e.g., landscaping, tree preservation, common areas, access, parking, etc.)
is ensured through appropriate legal instrument (e.g., Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Finding:
There will be a Homeowners Association with Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
developed that addresses the use and maintenance of all shared access and utility easement areas. The
CC&Rs will further describe driveway use, fire apparatus access standards, maintenance of all private
utilities within the utility and access easement, storm water facility maintenance, driveway surfacing
standards, open space maintenance and care requirements, the tree preservation plan, fencing
standards and restrictions adjacent to the open space, and severely constrained hillside preservation.
It can be found that this standard can be met with the final plat submittals.
6. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained
prior to development.
Finding:
There are no required state and federal permits that need to be obtained prior to development.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT CRITERIA
18.5.7.040
B. Tree Removal Permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if
the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to
conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to
applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental
Constraints in part 18.3.10.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 33 of 36
Finding:
There are five deciduous trees that have a DBH of 12-inches or more that are proposed for
removal, one of which is dead. These trees are within the area of the private driveway, and
within the building envelope area of Lots 2 and 3 or within the open space and in a severe state
of decline. The tree removal permits are necessitated by the construction of a driveway and
residential dwellings and to allow the planting of new trees.
The proposed private driveway area which is in the existing driveway footprint requires the
removal of a 16-inch DBH healthy Norway Maple on proposed Lot 1. The driveway is required
to be in this location due to site topography, the need for adequate width, grades for the
driveway, and allows for the driveway on the south side where the existing driveway and
topography conducive to the driveway is located. Additionally, the proposed location of the
driveway keeps the construction impacts from the driveway further from the large stature trees
on the adjacent property to the north.
Within the building envelope area of Lot 2, the significant tree proposed for removal is a 12-
inch DBH Black Walnut (#2348). According to the arborist evaluation, this tree is in decline. It is
also within the buildable area of proposed Lot 2. Within the side yard setback of Lot 2 and
substantially within the side yard and building envelope area of Lot 3 is a 16-inch DBH California
Black oak tree (#2361). This oak tree is considered healthy but within the building envelope of
Lot 3. Additionally, California Black oaks notoriously do not withstand the impacts from
construction and the changes to hydrology with development where historically there was
open lawn area.
Within the Open space lot on the south side of the property there is a 14-inch DBH Plum tree in
severe state of decline.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow
of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
Finding:
The removal of the five trees will not have a significant impact on erosion, soil stability or
protection of adjacent trees. The trees are not part of any windbreak.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an
exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no
reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 34 of 36
Finding:
There are five significant deciduous trees proposed for removal. The removal of these trees will
not have a significant impact on tree densities, sizes, canopies or species diversity. There are
more than 25 trees retained on the subject property following the development. There are
substantial numbers of deciduous trees within 200 feet of the property.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider
alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would
lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other
provisions of this ordinance.
Finding:
The tree removal facilitates the development of an oversized parcel with a small subdivision
and housing as envisioned by the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan. The trees are not
especially unique, are none are in excellent health. Impacts to the 16-inch DBH Oak tree (2361)
are inevitable no matter where structures were proposed when considering the property line
setbacks, separation between building requirements, fire separations, and that Oak trees do
not tolerate construction. There is no reason to alter the development layout to preserve the
Oak, Plum or Mapletrees.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval
pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of
the permit.
Finding:
One new street tree is proposed. There will be a mitigation tree in the yard areas of each lot to
mitigate for the removal of the trees. The dead Cottonwood Tree will not be mitigated for.
The four mitigation trees will be identified on the Final landscape and irrigation plan that will be
submitted with the final plat for review and the building permit application.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 35 of 36
ATTACHMENTS:
1978 Partition Plat Survey #7326
Southern Oregon Tree Care Report, May 5, 2024
Geotechnical Report, May 28, 2024
Topographical Survey
Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Subdivision Civil Plans
Grading Plan
Utility Plan
Electric Distribution Plan
Tree Removal / Tree Protection Plan
Landscape and Irrigation Plan
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Midtown Terraces
113 Pine Street
39S 1E 08AD; 2600 Page 36 of 36
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
DEMOLITION/RELOCATION
Community Development Department
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
APPLICATION
541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
# _____________________________
Date Received ____________________ Demo Permit
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Street Address __________________________________________________________________________________
224QjofTusffu
Assessor’s Map #39 1E ___________________ Tax Lot(s) ________________________ 19BE3711
Details of each structure to be Demolished / Relocated:
Commercial Building: Age _______ Sq. Footage ____________ Fixture Count _______________________
House: Age _______ Sq. Footage ___________ 2343597
(Contact Plumbing Inspector for assistance)
431
Carport/Garage: Age ________ Sq. Footage ___________
234
qpsdi-dpwfsfeefdlboetubjst234511
Other (Describe)_________________________: Age _________ Sq. Footage _____________
Square footage of impervious surface to be removed (including building footprints): ________________
5627,2311TGesjwfxbz
APPLICANT
E-Mail _______________________________________bnzhvoufs/qmboojohAhnbjm/dpn
652.:62.5131
Name _________________________________________________ Phone __________________________________
BnzHvoufs
2425.CDfoufsEs/-QNC$568Nfegpse:8612
Address ____________________________________ City _________________ Zip _________________________
PROPERTY OWNER
Name _________________________________________________ Phone __________________________________ 652.:55.4:87
DibsmjfIbnjmupo
QPCPY2424Ubmfou:8651
Address ____________________________________ City _________________ Zip _________________________
IS THE STRUCTURE EXEMPT FROM AMC 15.04.214 AND 15.04.216?
No Yes
(Applicant must submit written justification to support exempt status)
5
If Yes, select one:
Structure is less than 500 sq.ft.
Structure will be relocated on the same lot.
Structure is declared dangerous under the International Existing Building Code
5
(IEBC) pursuant to AMC 15.04.010.B.
IEBC DEFINITIONS:
Dangerous
. Any building, structure or portion thereof that meets any of the conditions described below shall be deemed
dangerous.
1. The building or structure has collapsed, partial collapsed, moved off its foundation or lacks the support of ground
necessary to support it.
2.There exists a significant risk of collapse, detachment or dislodgment of any portion, member, appurtenance or
ornamentation of the building or stature under service loads.
Unsafe
. Buildings, structures or equipment that are unsanitary, or that are deficient due to inadequate means of egress
facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or that constitute a fire hazard, or in which the structure or individual structural
members meet the definition of “Dangerous”, or that are otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or that
involve illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance shall be deemed unsafe. A vacant structure that is not
secured against entry shall be deemed unsafe.
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact,
are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the
event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is
subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; that
the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further, that all structures
or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also
possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek
competent professional advice and assistance.
7/35/35
BnzHvoufs
_______________________ _________________________________________ _______________________________________
Date Applicant Owner
Submittal Requirements for Non-Exempt Structures:
If the structure is non-exempt, the following submittal requirements apply :
\[15.04.214/15.04.216\]
If structure is more than 45 years old and
A.Structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site:
Furnish Economic Feasibility report (see details in Section 15.04.216.1.a.i) OR
Submit a Marketing Plan approved by the Demolition Review Committee (15.04.216.1.a.ii) OR
Submit evidence that the property was advertised in the local newspaper at least eight times and at
regular intervals for at least 90 days with appropriate “For Sale” sign for the same 90 day period.
B.Structure is structurally unsound:
Demonstrate how it is unsound
Also submit:
Redevelopment plan for the site that details the nature, appearance and location of the replacement or
rebuilt structure(s).
Demonstrate, if the application is for a demolition, that the structure cannot be relocated to another
site.
If the application is for a demolition, provide a demolition debris diversion plan outlining how
construction and demolition debris will be salvaged or recycled.
If structure is less than 45 years old:
Provide proof the structure was erected less than 45 years from the date of the application.
Redevelopment plan for the site that details the nature, appearance and location of the replacement or
rebuilt structure(s).
NOTE:
A.If a Demolition or Relocation permit is issued and the redevelopment plan:
a.Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review permit
has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in Section
15.04.216.B.
b.Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until a building
permit has been issued for the structure(s) to be replaced or rebuilt unless the site is restricted to
open space uses as provided in Section 15.04.216.B.
B.For any demolition approved, the applicant is required to salvage or recycle construction and demolition
debris per approved demolition debris diversion plan.
C.For any relocation approved, the applicant must also comply with the provision of Chapter 15.08.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements (15.04.216 Demolition and
Relocation Standards) on another sheet(s) of paper and enclose it with this form. Keep in
mind your responses must be in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and
supported by evidence.
June 26, 2024
113 Pine Street
IEBC DEFINITIONS:
Dangerous. Any building, structure or portion thereof that meets any of the conditions described
below shall be deemed dangerous.
1. The building or structure has collapsed, partial collapsed, moved off its foundation or lacks
the support of ground necessary to support it.
2. There exists a significant risk of collapse, detachment or dislodgment of any portion,
member, appurtenance or ornamentation of the building or stature under permanent, routine
or frequent loads; under actual loads already in effect; or under snow, wind, rain, flood,
earthquake or other environmental loads when such loads are imminent. (edit 2021 IEBC)
Unsafe. Buildings, structures or equipment that are unsanitary, or that are deficient due to
inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or that constitute a fire
hazard, or in which the structure or individual structural members meet the definition of
“Dangerous”, or that are otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or that involve
illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance shall be deemed unsafe. A vacant
structure that is not secured against entry shall be deemed unsafe.
Finding:
Theat
As advised by the1nd tis so
dilapidated iunsafe but
The
fully
open
holes in thein
is ais an old
with moss and mold on the inside of the windows The fail
and/
a
-s, and s
the weight of s 4
leveling stone is east The
, post below To the
oles to a
long- the
- dumpg
s of the
Hamilton ship of the 4 foE and C
Chapman of
County Tax
of the to its
Figure 1: Front porch -daylight coming through roof, rottenFigure 2:Front steps to front porch and front entry. Window opening showing damage where
faciaevidence of foundation failure below. Wall is bucklingto left of window.
Figure 3: Long dead tree protruding from the foundation.
Figure 4: SE corner of foundation shows substantial crack in the corner stone which sits upon
a round rock
Figure 5: At SE corner ofhouse facing driveway. Corner post shifting from the rim joist
Figure 6: South Wall of house along the driveway
and the wall failure continues up to the top plate.
Figure 8: North Wall and northwest corner. Porch post cracked, off of the corner. Failing
Figure 7: West wall. Substantial rotted wall with raised spigot to right
roofevident with blue tarp at roof valley. Valley patched significantly, the wall under tarp
is black with rot and mold
Figure 10: Rock stack supporting structure
Figure 9: Crawlspace access on SE side. Wood blocks jammed betweenfloor joist
and stemwall posts.
HPAC
MembershipList-Web
CommissionerName
TermE-Mail
bill@ashlandhome.net
BillEmery4/30/26
DaleShostrom
shobro@jeffnet.org
4/30/27
skwhippet@charter.net
SamWhitford4/30/27
terryskibby@gmail.com
TerrySkibby4/30/25
ashlandoregon@gmail.com
Eric Bonetti4/30/26
shelby@scharendesignstudio.com
Shelby Scharen4/30/26
Kaylynnrepp@gmail.com
Katy Repp4/30/26
mtbrouillard@msn.com
Mark Brouillard4/30/26
CouncilLiaison
jeff.dahle@council.ashland.or.us
Jeff Dahle
Derek Severson
Derek.Severson@ashland.or.us
StaffLiaison
ReganTrapp
regan.trapp@ashland.or.us
AdminSupport
Updated 5.1.2024