HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-08_Planning PACKET
Planning CommissionMinutes
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you
have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the
public testimony may be limited by the Chair.
August 13, 2024
REGULAR MEETING
DRAFT Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street. Councilor Hyatt attended the meeting via Zoom.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Susan MacCracken Jain Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Kerry KenCairn Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
Eric Herron Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Russell Phillips
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Doug Knauer Paula Hyatt
Gregory Perkinson
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Staff Announcements
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
At its August 5, 2024 meeting the City Council reviewed the Homeless Persons Assessment
Report provided by the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee. This report
included a variety of actions the City and county social services could take to assist
unhoused persons.
On August 20, 2024 the Council will review a request from KDA Homes to provide the
remaining six affordable housing units at the Beach Creek subdivision to the City. KDA Homes
had initially sought to reach an agreement with a local nonprofit affordable housing
providers to take ownership of the units but were unsuccessful.
Also on August 5, 2024, the Council reviewed an application to correct the property line at 375
East Nevada Street. This application was reviewed by the Commission in 2021, which found
that the location of the property line and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) was not in error
per existing City maps. The Commission at the time was supportive of making the
modification if it was found that a correction was needed. The applicant subsequently
prepared a new application that examined the Urban Growth Management Agreement
between the City and the County and found there to be a discrepancy. Therefore the Council
Page 1 of 6
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
determined that the UGB should be corrected to align with the property.
2. Advisory Committee Liaison Reports - None
III.CONSENT AGENDA
1.Approval of Minutes
a.June 25, 2024 Regular Meeting
b.July 9, 2024 Study Session
Commissioners Phillips/KenCairn m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. DISCUSSION:
Commissioner MacCracken Jain requested that the sentence “would only encompass the portion of
the Science Building” located on page 5 of the July 9, 2024 minutes be changed to “would only
encompass the newer portion of the Science Building” to more accurately represent her inquiry.
Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None
V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.Approval of Findings for PA-T3-2024-00009, 2228 East Main Street.
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact or site visits were disclosed since the July 9, 2024 meeting.
Discussion and Decision
Commissioner Phillips abstained from the discussion and vote of this item due to his absence from
the July 9, 2024 meeting.
Senior Planner Aaron Anderson stated that several minor grammatical errors were made to sections
2.4.4 and 2.4.5 of the Findings. Chair Verner noted that section 2.4.5 of the Findings occurred twice,
the correction of which would impact the numbering of each subsequent section. Mr. Anderson
stated that these changes would be made.
The Commission motioned to approve the findings with the corrections noted by staff and Chair
Verner. Commissioner Phillips abstained from the vote due to his absence from the July 9, 2024
meeting Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 4-0.
Page 2 of 6
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
VI.OTHER BUSINESS
A.Climate Friendly Areas Update
Staff Presentation
Mr. Goldman stated that the City is currently working to align with the state’s Climate-Friendly and
Equitable Communities (CFEC) guidelines and that the City has received funding from the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to complete this project. The City has
since hired 3J Consultants and ECONorthwest to assist with developing the necessary code changes.
Mr. Goldman stated that the purpose of Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs) is to create sustainable urban
growth while encouraging the development of mixed-use buildings and alternative transportation
methods to reduce carbon emissions. The City has requested an exception to the December, 2024
deadline to complete this project in order to accommodate an ambitious public involvement
process.
Planning Manager Derek Severson stated that the CFA guidelines apply to Oregon’s metropolitan
areas. These areas are traditionally downtown and a mix of office, retail, residential, and public use
spaces. These CFAs would accommodate 30% or more of the City’s future housing needs, which
would require new design standards and rezoning of all designated spaces. Mr. Severson gave a
brief timeline of the project, including items that the City has already completed, such as removing
parking standards from all zones. The areas chosen for consideration as CFAs are the Railroad
Property, the Transit Triangle, the Croman Mill Site, and the Downtown area.
Mr. Goldman stated that the City is expecting a proposal from Townmakers LLC in September to
develop the Croman Mill Site, which is currently undergoing environmental cleanup to make it
suitable for development. He noted that a cleanup plan is also under development for the Railroad
Property and that the southern portion of the site is largely undeveloped. He stated that the Transit
Triangle contains a mixture of developed and undeveloped areas and is a likely center for future
growth. He added that the Downtown area is also being considered as a secondary site as it is
unclear if it would require significant redevelopment (see attachment #1).
Mr. Severson detailed the CFA community engagement objectives, which include an open house and
presentation on September 17, 2024, as well as press coverage, public noticing, and new items to
spread awareness of the project and garner feedback. He outlined the upcoming meetings to review
this project:
Advisory Committees, Planning Commission & Council
September – November 2024
Page 3 of 6
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
2024-09-04 4:00 P.M. Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (Hybrid)
2024-09-05 5:00 P.M. Social Equity and Racial Justice Advisory Committee (Zoom)
2024-09-12 5:30 P.M. Climate and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (Hybrid)
2024-09-19 6:00 P.M. Transportation Advisory Committee (Zoom)
2024-09-26 4:00 P.M. Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee (Hybrid)
2024-10-22 7:00 P.M. Planning Commission Study Session (Hybrid)
2024-11-04 5:30 P.M. City Council Study Session (Hybrid)
Public Meeting/Open house
September 17, 2024 (4:00 to 6:00 p.m., Siskiyou Room & via Zoom)
Present Project Scope, Goals & Recommendations
Code Audit Findings
o
Market Study Findings
o
Code Concepts
o
Online Survey
Questions of Staff
Chair Verner asked if additional meetings could be scheduled in the event that more review is
deemed necessary. Mr. Goldman responded by noting that the Commission has a dual-role under
the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), where one of its duties is to act as the Citizen Involvement
Committee to ensure public participation through the planning process. As such, the Commission
could determine if more meetings are necessary to ensure sufficient public engagement. Mr.
Severson stated that a Highway Impact Analysis will also be conducted which would include
Highway 99.
Commissioner Phillips asked if the Transit Triangle met the minimum width requirement for CFAs
referenced in the meeting packet materials. Mr. Severson responded that the outline of the CFAs
displayed in the staff presentation were designed to accommodate this minimum width. Mr.
Goldman remarked that the minimum diameter for a CFA is 750ft and the Transit Triangle would
otherwise not comply with this minimum standard without the buffer designated in the packet.
Chair Verner asked if there is a maximum number of CFAs that the City could designate or if all four
options could be chosen. Mr. Severson responded that there is no limit and that the City could
designate all four locations as CFAs if it wished.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain noted that two of the selected locations are largely undeveloped
while another is underdeveloped, and asked if this was a consideration when these areas were
selected. Mr. Severson responded that those considerations are not likely factored in by the state. He
stated that the City has already adopted specific regulations in the Transit Triangle that are similar
to state CFA regulations in order to encourage that type of redevelopment. He added that
Page 4 of 6
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
redevelopment of underdeveloped areas was also the goal of the Ashland Corridor standards
adopted in the 1980s-1990s. Mr. Goldman stated that some communities are overlaying their CFAs
with fully-developed higher-density areas because these areas already qualify under CFA standards
and then attempting to have these areas meet the necessary 30% housing capacity. He pointed out
that the City, by choosing areas that are undeveloped or largely underdeveloped, had the potential
to consolidate future development of CFAs in a way that is more efficient than identifying pre-
existing areas that would be difficult to redevelop. Commissioner MacCracken Jain pointed out that
the transportation corridor benefits from its proximity to SOU, the Ashland High School, and public
transportation, and could be developed in a more efficient way than it has historically to maximize
these benefits. Mr. Severson stated that cities of Ashland’s size have two options for development:
the prescriptive option includes requirements such as minimum density and maximum building
height increases, while the outcomes option focuses on a target development level to create a
minimum of 20 homes and jobs per net acre. He noted that there has been a call from some citizens
to go further in these allowances and encourage higher buildings and greater density within CFAs.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked how this project aligned with the update to the
Transportation System Plan (TSP). Mr. Goldman responded that the City had not yet entered into a
contract to develop the TSP update, so the CFA project would likely be completed first and could help
inform the development of the TSP. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if consultation funds
could be used to assist with the TSP update. Mr. Goldman responded that the Public Works
Department is working with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to receive funding, but
that a scope of work has not yet been outlined.
The Commission determined that an extension request to the CFA development process should be
made to the state.
The Commission discussed whether to extend the CFA regulations to encompass the entirety of the
City, not just within the designated areas. It was agreed that such an expansion could have
unintended consequences and that development should be managed.
The Commission discussed if the proposed CFA boundaries should be adjusted to include adjacent
developed multi-family residential zones. The Commission generally agreed that allowing the
proposed changes to take effect in adjacent residential zones could have a deleterious effect on the
neighborhood, particularly regarding buildings of up to 55ft.
Mr. Severson asked the Commission whether a new CFA zone should be implemented over the
selected areas, or if an overlay should be utilized. Commissioner Herron remarked that it is easier to
develop in a zone that contains an overlay rather than one that is rezoned. The Commission
generally agreed that a CFA overlay over existing zones would be most beneficial in all proposed
CFAs except for the Croman Mill Site which could receive a new zone when developed.
Page 5 of 6
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Commissioner Herron asked if the CFA locations were based upon density or they can encompass
parks or open spaces. Mr. Severson responded that the guidelines require that cities allow public
uses within CFAs, such as parks, including requesting policy adoptions stating that these uses are
prioritized by the City. He elaborated that if the City were to develop a new public-facing facility,
such as one for the Utility Billing Department, that it should be located in a CFA if possible. He added
that these regulations would not inherently protect park spaces, but they would not be detrimental
to them.
Commissioner Phillips requested clarification regarding parking benefit districts. Mr. Severson
responded that these are districts that received funding through parking permits, parking tickets,
and metered revenue. He explained that some cities have held art shows utilizing similar funding
sources.
Commissioner Herron asked if the City could review parking structures during this process, citing the
lack of parking space in the downtown area. Mr. Severson responded that the Downtown Parking
Management and Circulation Ad Hoc Advisory Committee submitted a report to the Council in 2016
identifying a number of overparked areas or lots that are empty a majority of the week that could be
used as additional parking. Commissioner Herron remarked that the City could help manage
parking since parking is no longer required for developments.
B.Annual Retreat Discussion
The Commission discussed meeting at the Phoodery in Phoenix before making several site visits
around Phoenix, Talent, and Ashland. Some potential sites included the new development at 188
Garfield Street and some established mobile home parks in Phoenix. Chair Verner requested that
staff develop a list of potential site visit locations and meeting dates.
V.OPEN DISCUSSION – None
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 6 of 6
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
CFA
CFA Code
Parking
Zoning/Code
CFA Study
Audit & Market
Eliminate Mandates
Adoption
Analysis
Phase 1, the required CFA study identified four potential CFAs and evaluated development standards that
may be applied within them.
Phase 2, CFA locations and development standards will adopt & amend zoning in these areas to comply
with applicable CFA standards.
The second phase must be completed by December 31, 2024, unless a time-extension request is approved.
Overarching Community Engagement Objectives
The public involvement process aims to meet the following objectives:
Inform the community with timely, transparent, and accurate information.
Educate community members about planning and decision-making
processes.
Consult and involve the community in the identification, refinement and
prioritization of policy updates needed to guide growth and development in
Ashland. Ensure community members understand how decisions are made,
their concerns are heard, and they know how their feedback influenced
decisions.
Partner with city and agency representatives to ensure officials are engaged
in the planning process and key decisions.
Reach a diversity of stakeholders wh˿ ̂˵˶˼˵˳̄ ˑ̃˸˼˱˾˴Ͻ̃ ˷̂˵˱̄˵̂ ˳˿˽˽̅˾˹̄̉ʾ
Advisory Committees, Planning Commission & Council
ˣ˵̀̄˵˽˲˵̂ Ϻ ˞˿̆˵˽˲˵̂ ˂ˀ˂˄
2024-0904 4:00 P.M. Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (Hybrid)
2024-0905 5:00 P.M. Social Equity and Racial Justice Advisory Committee (Zoom)
2024-0912 5:30 P.M. Climate and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (Hybrid)
2024-0919 6:00 P.M. Transportation Advisory Committee (Zoom)
2024-0926 4:00 P.M. Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee (Hybrid)
2024-1022 7:00 P.M. Planning Commission Study Session (Hybrid)
2024-1104 5:30 P.M. City Council Study Session (Hybrid)
Public Meeting/Open house
September 17, 2024 (4:00 to 6:00 p.m., Siskiyou Room & via Zoom)
Present Project Scope, Goals & Recommendations
Code Audit Findings
o
Market Study Findings
o
Code Concepts
o
Online Survey
Council and Planning Commission
Study Sessions
Adoption: Public Hearings
Zone Change or Overlay adoption
Ordinance Amendments
Design Standard amendments
Highway Impact Analysis
Multimodal Transportation Gap
Summary
Deadline Extension Request:
Should the City formally request an
extension to the December 31, 2024
deadline from DLCD to align with the
consultant contract timeline?
Factors to be emphasized in this
request would be our efforts to ensure
comprehensive public engagement
and code analysis.
Delayed DLCD/Consultant contract
initiation of work
DLCD contract extends through May
2024.
City of Ashland public engagement
efforts
Progress made by Dec.31, 2024.
Closely-related studies informed by
final decisions
Height Allowances in E-1/C-1 Zones:
ˣ˸˿̅˼˴ ˸˵˹˷˸̄ ˱˼˼˿̇˱˾˳˵̃ ̀̂˿̀˿̃˵˴ ˶˿̂ ˓˖ˑ̃ ʸ˽˱̈˹˽̅˽ ˅ˀϽʼ ˆˀϽʼˏʹ ˲˵
applicable across all C-1 or E-1 zones, modifying the land use zoning code
universally, or should these allowances be restricted to the designated CFA
areas?
Density Regulations in E-1/C-1 Zones:
Is it advisable to eliminate maximum density regulations in all E-1 and C-1
zones, or should this de-regulation be limited to areas designated under the
CFA overlay?
The existing zones have maximum densities of 15 dwellings per acre in E-1, and
30 units per acre in C-1. The Transit triangle overlay area presently removes
density maximums within that overlay.
Boundary Adjustments to Exclude Multifamily Residential Zones:
Should proposed CFA boundaries be adjusted to include or exclude adjacent
developed multifamily residential zones?
The CFEC rules allow inclusion of adjacent multifamily areas provided they
have at least a 15-dwelling units per acre density. R-2 districts currently have
a 13.5-dwelling units per acre base density, and a maximum height of 35' or 2.5
stories.
If such areas were to be included within the CFA boundaries Planning Staff
and the consultants would need to evaluate whether any other regulatory
changes for CFA designation would impact the existing character of these
zones. (OAR 660-012-0320 )
New CFA zone, CFA overlay, and or general code amendments:
Does the Council have a preference between creating a new CFA zone
˱˾˴ ̂˵ʽ̊˿˾˹˾˷ ̄˸˵ ̀̂˿̀˿̃˵˴ ˱̂˵˱̃ ˱̃ ̄˸˵ Ͽ˓˖ˑЀ ̊˿˾˵ʼ ˿̂ ˳̂˵˱̄˹˾˷ ˱ ˾˵̇
Ͽ˿̆˵̂˼˱̉ ̊˿˾˵Ѐ ̇˸˹˳˸ ˳˿̅˼˴ ˲˵ ˱̀̀˼˹˵˴ ˿̆˵̂ ̄˸˵ ˵̈˹̃̄˹˾˷ ̊˿˾˵̃ ˿˶ ˵˱˳˸
area?
A new CFA Zone could simplify the application of the new rules in the
designated areas specifically, whereas a new overlay could be created
and applied with less disruption to the existing regulations and
processes.
Adopting specific code amendments (iedensity/height allowances) in all
E-1 or C-1 zones could apply CFA supportive changes throughout these
zones, outside of designated CFAs. This hybrid approach provides greater
consistency in the application of the land use framework citywide.
ResidentialOverlayinE-1Zones
Currently,mixed-useresidentialisonlyallowedinthoseportionsoftheE-1
(Employment)zoneswherethereisan-R(Residential)overlay.
E-1zoneswithintheCFAswillneedtoallowresidential,meaningthatthe-R
overlaywouldneedtobeextendedintotheseareas,ortheregulations
adjustedtoeliminatethe-RoverlayandallowresidentialinallE-1zones.
ResidentialOverlayinE-1Zones
City of Ashland
Planning CommissionMinutes
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you
have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the
public testimony may be limited by the Chair.
August 27, 2024
STUDY SESSION
DRAFT Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Doug Knauer Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Gregory Perkinson Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Eric Herron
Russell Phillips
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt
Susan MacCracken Jain
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Staff Announcements
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
On August 20, 2024 the City Council approved the Homeless Services Assessment
Report which was developed by the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee
and an ad hoc group over a six-month period. This is the first consolidation of a gaps
analysis for homeless services and identifies 26 potential short- and long-term
strategies to address homelessness.
Also on August 20, 2024, the Council approved the acquisition of six affordable lots of
the Beach Creek Subdivision. They will be deed-restricted to be affordable for a
minimum of 30 years, though the City hopes to find an applicant who will extend this
period beyond that timeframe.
2. Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None
Page 1 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
III.PUBLIC FORUM – None
IV.OTHER BUSINESS
1.Manufactured Home Park Zone - Update
Staff Presentation
Mr. Goldman noted that staff have provided the Commission with a memo regarding Resident-
Owned Community (ROC) Models for use during their discussion (see attachment #1)
Mr. Goldman briefly outlined the development of a Manufactured Home Park Zone (MHPZ), which was
identified by the Housing Production Strategy (HPS) that was concluded in 2023. The City applied for
and subsequently received a grant by the Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD) which was used to hire 3J Consultants to assist the City with developing a MHPZ ordinance
(see attachment #2).
Mr. Goldman described how the ordinance would set standards for density, lot size, setbacks, utilities,
and more to preserve existing parks and possibly allow higher-density development and smaller
unit sizes within these zones. He outlined the public engagement process, which will include public
meetings, advisory committee input, and hearings before the Housing and Human Services Advisory
Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. He pointed to several existing manufactured
home parks, including Wingspread, the Upper Pines, and the Siskiyou Village, and stated that
manufactured home parks provide opportunities for affordable housing otherwise not found in the
market.
Mr. Goldman detailed the key steps in the development of a MHPZ ordinance, which would include a
comprehensive code audit; the drafting of the new zoning ordinance; engagement with
stakeholders and the public; and adoption of the ordinance. The outcome of such a process would
be the creation of a new zoning designation that would preserve existing manufactured home parks.
Mr. Goldman outlined the potential timeline of such a project, beginning in September, 2024 and
concluding as late as June, 2025.
Public Comments
Rich Rohde/Mr. Rohde introduced himself as a member of the Housing and Human Services Advisory
Committee and a retired community organizer. He recounted the history of manufactured park
closures in Oregon, including Lower Pines, which was one of the first parks in the state. He detailed
how the residents had no legal recourse to stop the closure and lost their homes and community
without compensation, and we even forced to pay for the destruction of their own units. He
emphasized the need to preserve such communities.
Page 2 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Janet Bell/Ms. Bell informed the Commission that she is a new member of Wingspread and
reiterated the need to protect these close-knit communities. She stated that these parks include
many retired residents with fixed-incomes who have difficulty finding new homes if they are
displaced, such as from park closures or natural events like the Almeda Fire. She implored the
Commission to protect such communities from redevelopment in favor of higher-density housing.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Knauer asked if manufactured home parks would preclude pre-built homes or mobile
homes. Mr. Goldman responded that the City examined existing housing types in existing parks,
allowing that the City permits RVs in RV parks even when recreational vehicles are not permitted. He
remarked that these distinctions should be reviewed moving forward. Commissioner Perkinson
noted that state certifications of the residences could apply, as well as the City’s Building Official
ensuring that design standards are upheld.
Commissioner Knauer noted that the goal of the project is that it not only “complies with but exceeds
housing related statutes”, and remarked that it does not appear to have affordable housing as a
goal. He suggested that affordability of housing be included in the goals of the ordinance,
particularly when current guidelines refer to potentially superfluous standards, such as seemingly
unenforced guidelines requiring 48in-wide sidewalks serving each unit. He emphasized that the
affordability of the units should be included in the ordinance. Mr. Goldman responded that the City
could review items that the Commission believes are important for livability, or are deemed
superfluous, and review them with the consultants. He noted that there is limited guidance in
creating MHPZs as few cities have adopted them.
Chair Verner asked when the Commission would review this item again. Mr. Goldman responded
that it would come back to the Commission at two future Study Sessions, where the second Study
Session would review a draft form of the ordinance. He added that this item would also be reviewed
by various advisory committees throughout this process, one of which would be a Management
Advisory Committee that Commissioner KenCairn had shown interest in serving on.
Commissioner Herron requested clarification regarding the designation of a dedicated area
exclusively for manufactured homes. Mr. Goldman responded that it would be a zone where
apartment buildings or single-family detached homes would not be permitted. Commissioner
Herron asked if the creation of protected MHPZs would prohibit manufactured home parks from
being developed outside those zones. Mr. Goldman responded that they would not be prohibited but
those parks would not have the same protections as those within MHPZs.
Commissioner Knauer asked if the City’s consultants knew why no new manufactured home parks
were being built in the state. Mr. Goldman responded that it is likely a market issue or lack of
opportunity in dedicating land to this particular use, but that staff would ask the consultants. He
Page 3 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
added that established parks with 100 or more units can be quite lucrative in terms of rent
generated, but that the cost of developing the parks might be prohibitive.
The Commission discussed introducing standards for minimum unit size. Commissioner Herron
recommended that RVs be prohibited from the MHPZs due to their disruptive nature and their use for
temporary occupancy. He also suggested that site improvements are also required, such as fire
hydrants. Mr. Goldman noted that current building codes require fire hydrants within 150-200ft of
homes, but that many manufactured homes were installed before this code was implemented and
the infrastructure to retroactively require this does not exist.
Commissioner Knauer asked about parking requirements in manufactured home parks. Mr.
Goldman responded that the City does not require parking be provided. He elaborated that the City
could cap the maximum number of parking spaces required but not require a minimum number of
spaces.
Regarding density and design standards, Commission Knauer emphasized the importance of
including the aspect of Area Median Incomes and ensuring that these parks continue to be
affordable.
V.OPEN DISCUSSION
Chair Verner asked if a date has been chosen for the Commission’s annual retreat. Mr. Goldman that
it will likely take place in October.
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 4 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Manufactured Home
Park Zone
Planning Commission Study Session
8/27/2024
Zone Designation Development
Project Background: The MHPZ is a part of Ashland's Housing Production Strategy to protect
manufactured home parks from redevelopment pressures.
DLCD Grant: Ashland received a technical assistance grant from the Oregon Department of
Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to fund the creation of the MHPZ ordinance.
Consultant Engagement: 3J Consulting has been contracted to conduct a code audit, review
existing regulations, and draft the new MHPZ ordinance.
Design Standards: The ordinance will set standards for density, lot size, setbacks, utilities, and
more to preserve existing parks and possibly allow higher-density development and smaller
unit sizes.
Public Engagement: The process will involve public meetings, advisory committee input, and
hearings before the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee, Planning Commission,
and City Council.
Maintain quality and support preservation of existing
manufactured home parks
Rationale
Preserve and support development of existing manufacturing housing parks because
they play a significant role in providing naturally occurring affordable housing.
Description
Manufactured home parks provide opportunities for affordable housing for homeowners
of a type that is not otherwise present in the housing market. Closure of manufactured
˸˿˽˵ ̀˱̂˻̃ ̇˱̃ ˳˿˽˽˿˾ ˹˾ ˟̂˵˷˿˾ ˴̅̂˹˾˷ ̄˸˵ ˽˹˴ʽ˂ˀˀˀϽ̃ ˱˾˴ ˾˵̇ ˽˱˾̅˶˱˳̄̅̂˵˴
home parks have not been developed in Oregon cities in the last decade or more.
321 Clay St
20.4 acres
~ 116 units
Zoned: Zoned R-2
215 Tolman Creek Rd
38 Units
6.6 Acres
Zoned: Zoned R-1-3.5
1565 Siskiyou Blvd
51 Units
2 commercial
buildings on Ashland
St.
1 small commercial
building on Siskiyou
Blvd.
2.6 Acres
Zoned: C-1
2799 Siskiyou Blvd ~ 49 units
2020 Hwy 99 ~ 42+ units
˂˂˅˃ ˘̇̉ ˉˉ ̎ ˁˆ ϼ̀˵̂˽˱˾˵˾̄Ͻ ̅˾˹̄̃
Unit Size Requirements and Dimensions (18.2.3.180)
Minimum Unit Size: Each unit must be at least 650 square feet.
Minimum Unit Width: Each unit must be at least 12 feet wide.
Foundation Requirements: Units must be placed on permanent foundations
with wheels and hitches removed, and fully skirted or bermed.
Deck or Patio: A deck or patio of at least 80 square feet with a minimum width of
8 feet is required adjacent to each unit.
Thermal Envelope: Units must comply with the thermal envelope requirements
for heat loss as per the building code for single-family detached homes.
General Design Standards (18.2.3.180)
Minimum Court Size: Must occupy at least one acre.
Density: Maximum of eight units per acre. Units 14 feet wide or less, or under 800 square
feet, count as 0.75 units.
Site or Lot Size: Each site must be at least 2,000 square feet.
Minimum dimensions: 35 feet wide by 40 feet deep.
Lot Coverage:
R-1-3.5 zone: Maximum 55% lot coverage.
R-2 zone: Maximum 65% lot coverage.
Setbacks:
Exterior: Must meet parent zone requirements, with a minimum of five feet from the
property boundary.
Interior Front Yard: Minimum 10 feet.
Interior Side and Rear Yards: Minimum 5 feet; 10 feet minimum separation between
units.
General Design Standards (18.2.3.180)
Street Standards: Public streets must comply with chapter 18.4.6 standards. Private
streets: Minimum 20 feet wide, with a maximum depth of 300 feet for dead-end streets.
Sidewalk Standards: Permanent pedestrian walkways at least 48 inches wide must
connect all units to streets, common spaces, parks, and facilities.
Utilities: Must comply with City procedures for electric, water, and sanitary services, with
underground placement for telephone and electric lines.
Landscaping:
R-1-3.5 zone: 45% of the site must be landscaped.
R-2 zone: 35% of the site must be landscaped.
Common Open Space: At least 5% of the total lot area must be designated as common
open space. Play Area: If accommodating children under 14, a play area of at least 2,500
square feet or 100 square feet per unit is required.
Ordinance Development
Key steps in completing the work of creating a new Manufactured Home Park Zone
(MHPZ):
1.Conduct a Comprehensive Code Audit: Review existing zoning ordinances,
comprehensive plans, and development codes to identify any legal or policy issues
related to Manufactured Home Parks.
2.Draft the New Zoning Ordinance: Develop the specific language for the MHPZ, including
provisions for density, lot sizes, setbacks, and other relevant standards.
3.Engage Stakeholders and the Public: Hold meetings with the Management Advisory
Committee (MAC), Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee (HHSAC), Planning
Commission, and the general public to gather input and refine the draft ordinance.
4. Finalize and Adopt the Ordinance: Revise the draft based on feedback, prepare the
final adoption-ready ordinance, and conduct formal public hearings for approval by the
City Council.
Outcomes
Major expected outcomes of the Manufactured Home Park Zone (MHPZ) ordinance
development project are:
Creation of a New Zoning Designation:
Establish a zoning designation specifically for Manufactured Home Parks, preserving
existing parks and potentially allowing for higher-density development to increase
affordable housing options.
Adoption-Ready Ordinance:
Deliver a fully developed, hearings-ready ordinance that aligns with state housing
mandates and reflects community input, ready for formal adoption by the City
Council. Land Use Ordinance, Zoning Map, Comprehensive Plan map amendments.
Preservation of Manufactured Home Parks:
Protect existing manufactured home parks from redevelopment pressures.
Preservation of affordability may require formation of Resident Owned Communities.
Timeline
Planning CommissionMinutes
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you
have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the
public testimony may be limited by the Chair.
September 10, 2024
REGULAR MEETING
DRAFT Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers,
1175 E. Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Doug Knauer Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Kerry KenCairn Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
Eric Herron Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Gregory Perkinson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Susan MacCracken Jain Paula Hyatt (absent)
Russell Phillips
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Staff Announcements
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
The City Council is scheduled to review an annexation proposal of 2228 East Main
Street, which the Commission recommended for approval and annexation.
The City will host a Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs) open house at the Community
Development building at 51 Winburn Way on September 17, 2024 from 4:00-6:00 p.m.
The consultants from 3J Consultants and ECONorthwest will be in attendance to
provide preliminary information regarding CFA requirements and a market analysis
for areas with the potential to be designated as CFAs. Mr. Goldman stated that the
Commission is welcome to attend this meeting in lieu of the scheduled September 24,
2024 Study Session, provided this meeting is noticed. Chair Verner agreed that the
Commission would be in attendance.
2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None
III.PUBLIC FORUM – None
Page 1 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
IV.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chair Verner made the decision to reorder the agenda and review PA-T2-2024-00050, 113 Pine Street
second due to the complexity and level of public interest involved in the item.
1.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00049
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2308 Ashland Street
APPLICANT & OWNER: MCA Architecture / Les Schwab
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to add a “RV and Truck Service
Area canopy” at the east end of the building as part of the ongoing and previously approved
site modernization. The planning action includes a request to remove three sweetgum trees
along the property frontage and replace with Trident Maples. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; MAP: 39-1E-14-BA; TAX LOT: 1100
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Herron, Knauer, and Verner disclosed site visits. Commissioner KenCairn stated that
she reviewed the original application with the Commission at its February 14, 2023 meeting. No ex
parte contact was disclosed.
Staff Presentation
Senior Planner Aaron Anderson stated that the application is a request for Site Design Review
approval to add a Canopy to create a service area for RVS and trucks to Les Schwab. He noted that
this item was processed as a Type II Planning Action because the original application, PA-T2-2023-
00038 was reviewed by the Commission, otherwise the scope would warrant a Type I process.
Mr. Anderson displayed a map of the existing site, stating that construction under the original
application is currently underway (see attachment #1). He pointed out that the application also
seeks approval for the removal of three sweet gum trees that have already been erroneously
removed. He concluded that the application is a minor modification to a rudimentary plan.
Applicant Presentation
The applicant, Frank Rudloff of MCA Architects, represented Les Schwab and provided a brief
presentation of the proposal, stating that Mr. Anderson had discussed the salient aspects of the
application.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner KenCairn stated that she recalled the original approval including a wall with a hedge
on top to obscure the site from the street, but that this new application made no mention of the wall.
Mr. Anderson stated that the continuous hedge was included as a condition of approval of the
original application, but that there was no wall element.
Page 2 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Commissioner Knauer asked if staff was made aware of the unpermitted tree removals. Mr.
Anderson responded that staff was unaware until they were informed of the removals by the
applicant, who offered the information voluntarily. Commissioner Knauer asked if there is any
penalty in place for trees removed without a permit. Mr. Anderson responded that the planning
action process and replacement of the trees the applicant has undergone is the remedy for such a
violation. Mr. Goldman added that a citation would only be appropriate in cases where the violator is
not complying with the City.
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 7:19 p.m.
Decision
Commissioners Herron/Perkinson m/s to approve the application with the conditions of approval
recommended by staff. Voice Vote. Commissioners Knauer, Perkinson, Herron, Verner: AYE.
Commissioner KenCairn: NAY. Vote Passed 4-1.
2.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00050
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 113 Pine St.
APPLICANT & OWNER: Rogue Development for Charlie Hamilton
DESCRIPTION: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval of four-lot,
Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The proposal includes three proposed
residential lots and a common area lot. The application includes a request for an exception to
street standards to not install park row and to retain the existing frontage improvements. The
application also includes a request to remove a total of seventeen trees, five of which are
‘significant’. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5;
MAP: 39-1E-08-AD; TAX LOT: 2600
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Herron, KenCairn, Knauer, and Verner disclosed site visits. No ex parte contact was
disclosed.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Anderson stated that the application is requesting a concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval
for a four-lot Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The proposed subdivision would
include three residential units and one open space lot. He described the application’s request to
remove five significant trees and an exception to street standards to not install standard street
improvements due to an existing sidewalk. He displayed site and zoning maps for the project and
pointed to areas of the open space which include slopes of greater than 35% and are considered
Page 3 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
unbuildable. He stated that the current driveway encroaches on the property to the south but that
the redeveloped driveway will be entirely on the subject property (see attachment #2).
Mr. Anderson explained that the PSO is an alternative method in the code to subdivide land, and
generally offers a more flexible design than would otherwise be permissible under the conventional
zoning codes. He described how the PSO can be used outside of designated areas under one of the
following four criteria, the second of which is being used by the applicant:
1.The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width.
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.
3.The property is zoned R-2, R-3
4.The property is developed as a cottage housing development
Mr. Anderson stated that to determine if these criteria are applicable the staff report analyzed the
density of “normal” subdivision standards, which is obtained by the square footage divided by the
minimum lot size for the zone, for a base density of 4.52, limiting the lot to four dwellings. He added
that four-lot subdivisions would also require the dedication of a public street. The density of the PSO
is determined by dwellings per acre, for a density of 2.8. though the applicant is also making use of
an Earth Advantage Density bonus of 15%, for an allowed density of 3.22.
Mr. Anderson stated that, due to the proposed lesser impact that three dwellings would have on the
lot, that option #2 could be applied to this project provided that the application sufficiently
addresses the aesthetic and environmental impact and degradation to the neighborhood under the
maximum density allowed.
Mr. Anderson described how the application is requesting an exception to Street Standards to not
install a park row, stating that the existing street width is roughly 30ft and that the existing portions of
sidewalk on the north side of the street are generally on private property. There is also a continuous
curb along the entirety of the street which would be included proposed dedicated right-of-way
(ROW).
Mr. Anderson stated that at the Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) meeting the
applicant proposed altering their application to no longer include the removal of several trees,
numbers 2361, 2385, 2379, and 2374. There are now only three significant trees and 13 trees below the
regulatory threshold proposed for removal. Mr. Anderson briefly reviewed the approval criteria for the
Outline Plan, Final Plan, Exception to Street Standards, and Tree Removal. He noted that staff had
revised two conditions of approval to the following:
Page 4 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Condition #2: That the building envelope on lot three be modified to protect the Critical Root Zone of
Trees #2386 (15” Walnut) and #2361 (16” Oak) and that the revised plan be submitted prior to any
site work.
Condition #4: That any excavation within the critical root zones (CRZ) of trees #2339 #2421, #2439
and #2443, be supervised by the project arborist. Should impacted trees tree die within a two years
following excavation activities, as a direct result of such disturbance, that the trees will be removed
and replaced at the applicants cost in coordination with the affected property owner.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Herron asked if the TMAC and Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) were
able to review the application before it came to the Commission, Mr. Anderson responded that they
were. Commissioner KenCairn asked if the HPAC would review the proposed homes prior to
construction. Mr. Goldman responded that the Historic Review Board would review the proposal and
offer any necessary recommendations.
Commissioner Knauer asked what the applicant would be permitted to do using the PSO versus the
typical Performance Standards. Mr. Anderson responded that the PSO would allow for a more
efficient use of the land due to the dimensions of the subject property and its narrow frontage on
Pine Street. Commissioner Knauer asked if these greater allowances are found in PSO #2. Mr.
Anderson responded that the use of PSO #2 is rare because most PSO subdivisions fall under the
other criteria, and that this option would offer relief from dimensional standards that would make
developing this property challenging. Commissioner Perkinson noted that another advantage to
using option #2 is that the application would not be held the same nominal street standards. Mr.
Anderson responded that a similar application would likely have required the same exception to
street standards as they relate to the park row by virtue of the existing sidewalk and retaining wall.
Applicant Presentation
Amy Gunter of Rogue Planning & Development Services represented the owners of the subject
property and outlined the application requests and approval criteria. She stated that the property is
zoned R-1-7.5 and cited the narrow frontage as the primary reason of the proposed layout. She
stated that lots 2 and 3 would be accessed by a shared driveway from Pine Street and that the
firetruck apparatus access turnaround would be on the south side of the lot. She noted that the open
space holds the highest number of large-stature trees on the site and would be 2,055sqft. She
described how the steep slopes adjacent to the open space would be protected through a
conservation easement area (see attachment #3).
Ms. Gunter briefly described the trees to be removed, adding that protective fencing would be
installed around trees 2361, 2370, 2374, 2375, and 2376 and that mitigation trees are also proposed.
Page 5 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Ms. Gunter stated that the applicant would provide driveway screening to the adjacent flag lots and
that no utilities would go through the open space area. She noted that the Pine Street ROW is smaller
than is required by code and that the proposal includes a dedication of approximately 7ft of public
ROW and a 10ft public utility easement. She added that the house on lot 1 would be built to be
consistent with neighboring homes in the historic district.
Ms. Gunter concluded that the application had satisfied the criteria for approval under the PSO and
that each proposed lot area exceeded 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.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner KenCairn noted that the proposed driveway with the fire access turnaround
appeared to be longer than would be necessary and suggested that it be shortened in favor or more
open space. The owner of the subject property, Charlie Hamilton, agreed and stated that his team
would shorten the driveway and enlarge the open space area if that were included as a condition of
approval. Mr. Hamilton also noted that the application is not requesting any more units through the
PSO than are allowed by regular subdivision standards.
Commissioner Knauer expressed concern that use of the PSO had not been sufficiently satisfied and
asked for further clarification as to how it applies to the application. Mr. Hamilton responded that one
of the applications primary goals is the preservation of the lot’s natural features and to prevent the
degradation of the neighborhood, which he stated could have occurred if he had instead chosen to
develop a large home on lot 1 and a number of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on the remaining
lots. Commissioner Knauer stated that he would consider approval of the project if it was found that
the current proposal did not result in degradation of the neighborhood. Mr. Hamilton stated that the
neighbors would likely feel that the development of ADUs on the lot would degrade the area and that
the application is seeking to preserve the lot’s existing natural features.
Commissioner KenCairn pointed out that the application proposed placing the area over 35% slope
in an easement, which would then be the responsibility of the property owner instead of the lot
owners, and asked if the reasoning for this placement was to increase floor area potential. She noted
that if the goal was the preservation of the neighborhood then the slope would be included in the
open space, which would constrain those two lots and make them smaller, and that smaller homes
would have been proposed. Mr. Hamilton stated that the application referenced the largest possible
homes that could be built on the lot, but that those are not the intent of the proposal. Commissioner
KenCairn expressed appreciation for the application, but stated that she was skeptical about the use
of the PSO to protect natural features when they could instead be included in the open space.
Page 6 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Chair Verner remarked that the open space could be removed, lots 2 and 3 could be enlarged,
conservation and access easements maintained, and the need for a homeowners association
(HOA) removed from the development. Mr. Hamilton responded that he would support the
Commission imposing a condition of approval to that effect. Chair Verner noted that the proposed
pathway and bench would be unnecessary unless there is public access to the lot.
Public Comments
Anne Schreiber/Ms. Schreiber provided testimony to the Commission via Zoom and read from a
statement that had been submitted to staff prior to the meeting (see attachment #4). Her primary
concerns focused on the unnecessary removal of trees and the impact this development could have
on the land. She noted that shortening the driveway had already been considered as a condition of
approval by the Commission, but that the use of the PSO and promise to include environmental
improvements only serve the applicant’s interests. Ms. Schreiber requested that the number of
homes proposed be reduced from 3 to 2, the road be shortened to reduce the number of trees
needed to be removed, and that extended open spaces be left intact for local wildlife.
Commissioner KenCairn asked staff if the removal of the open space would also remove the density
bonus granted by the Earth Advantage standards. Mr. Anderson responded that the bonus is
unrelated to open space.
Lawrence Van Egdom/Mr. Van Egdom voiced his opposition to the proposal, explaining that the
property is a sanctuary for local wildlife, such as deer, that would be displaced if the area were
developed. He stated that the proposal is not compliant with existing codes in several areas, such as
the street frontage being 63ft when 65ft is required, and the access to the driveway being
nonconforming with the driveway. Mr. Van Egdom expressed the belief that the building on lot 1 is
proposed to be small due to the narrow aspect of the lot to the north, not due to a desire by the
applicant to conform the development to the neighborhood. He stated that the use of the PSO does
not meet the requirement for the environment, neighborhood, or aesthetic impact, and that the
installation of a flag lot driveway would restrict wildlife and resident mobility.
Mr. Van Egdom requested that the record be kept open to allow for more public input to be
submitted and emphasized the need for the developer to meet existing codes.
Julia Vinciguerra/Ms. Vinciguerra related how her son learned to pitch baseball in the lot, but that
the proposed open space is a steep ditch that suffers from seasonal floods. She expressed
agreement that use of the PSO is inappropriate for this development and requested that the record
be left open to grant her an opportunity to consult with an attorney. She stated that she had
submitted comments prior to the meeting that had not been addressed in the staff report.
Page 7 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Ms. Vinciguerra stated that there is a larger impact to the area that must be considered prior to
approval, adding that she hadn’t seen any impact reports and asked if a geotechnical study had
been conducted. She expressed concern over the potential size of the dwellings and reiterated the
need to understand the potential impacts large developments could have on storm water drainage.
She added that buildable site could be in close proximity to her home at 68 Scenic Drive and
requested more information regarding the potential impact.
Ms. Vinciguerra requested that the record be left open. She stated that this development would not
provide affordable housing for the City and emphasized the need for smaller homes with a greater
consideration for the environment.
Chair Verner requested additional information regarding potential flooding at the site. Ms.
Vinciguerra responded that Mr. Van Egdom had worked on the property for the previous owner and
witnessed seasonal flooding of the area. Chair Verner noted that there did not appear to be a
drainage system near the bridge on site. Mr. Anderson stated that there was no culvert on the City’s
infrastructure map for the site, so the only water collecting in the gully would likely be shed from the
singular adjacent property uphill from the subject property, or be existing groundwater. Ms.
Vinciguerra cautioned against overstating the beauty of the open space.
Mark Morrison/Mr. Morrison introduced himself as a resident and manager of 97 and 99 Pine Street
and expressed his support for eliminating the need for an HOA at this development. He remarked
that some members of the community regard the aforementioned deer as nuisance species. He
stated that the City needs more housing, particularly affordable housing, and that he supports the
development as an employee of the Ashland School District. He commented that the area has a
potentially higher granite shelf which prohibits water from seeping as deeply into the ground and
resulting in flooding.
Applicant Rebuttal
Ms. Gunter stated that the notice mentions the removal of 17 trees, but that 13 of those trees are not
designated as significant and are therefore require approval to remove. She emphasized that the
trees are not being removed without reason, such as the construction of the driveway, and that there
would be hundreds of trees remaining around the property. She added that the open space area
requires beautification, which this development would provide.
Ms. Gunter stated that the current lot width and driveways are pre-existing legal nonconforming
issues that would not become exacerbated by the development and is permitted by the code, and
that the driveway would be improved by the proposal. Ms. Gunter stated that there is no density
bonus being proposed, and no evidence of flooding in the gully which would typically be visible.
Regarding the sizes of each dwelling, she related how lot coverage is the primary restricting factor
on the property and each lot is prohibited from lot coverage exceeding 45%. She stated that previous
Page 8 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
lots were under 5,000sqft of lot coverage which is not inconsistent with adjacent properties. She
explained that house sizes are also restricted by the maximum permitted floor area in the historic
district, and that the proposed house sizes are consistent with neighboring houses, such as 68
Scenic Drive which is 2,300sqft.
Ms. Gunter stated that relocating the driveway would not be possible due to the topography of the
site. She noted that there is a geotechnical report which reviewed the 35% slope and the retaining
wall, and that the wildfire prevention and control plan would largely be met when the property is
mowed and trees removed. She added that a street tree is also being proposed.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner KenCairn asked if the applicant is proposing to landscape the open space or to
preserve its natural state. Ms. Gunter responded that a landscaping plan is included in the proposal
and it spoke to planting trees and installing a pathway rather than relandscaping the area.
Chair Verner noted that a request to continue the meeting and keep the record open had been
made. Mr. Anderson stated that the Commission could close the Public Hearing but keep the Public
Record open until September 17, 2024 to allow parties of record time to submit new evidence and
public comments. The applicant would then have until September 24, 2024 to offer a rebuttal to any
public comments received in that timeframe. The applicant would then have until October 1, 2024 to
submit any final legal arguments.
Commissioners KenCairn/Perkinson m/s to close the Public Hearing and keep the Public Record
open until September 17, 2024. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing at 8:48 p.m. and stated that this item would be continued to
the October 8, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
V.OPEN DISCUSSION
Mr. Goldman reminded the Commission that the Climate Friendly Areas Open House would be held
on September 17, 2024, and that this could take the place of the September 24, 2024 Planning
Commission Study Session Chair Verner agreed that the Study Session should be canceled.
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 9 of 9
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Tues. 10/8 7:00 pm
Tues. 10/1, 4:30 pm
Tues. 9/24, 4:30 pm
Tues. 9/17, 4:30 pm
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
October8, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION PA-T2-2024-00049A)
REQUEST FOR SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO ADD AN“RV &)
TRUCK SERVICE AREA CANOPY” AS PART OF THE ONGOING AND )
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE MODERNIZATION.THE PLANNING )
FINDINGS,
ACTION INCLUDES A REQUEST TO REMOVE SIX TREES.)
CONCLUSIONS,
)
AND ORDERS.
OWNER
LES SCHWAB)
APPLICANT:
MCA ARCHITECTURE)
________________________________________________________________)
RECITALS:
1)Tax lot#1100of Assessor’s Map 39-1E-14-BAis located in the C-1 zoning district and is
1.0 acre in size.
2)The property has anaddress of2308 Ashland Streetand is developed with the Les Schwab
Tire Centeroriginally builtin1973 with major additions in 1980,2005, and most recently a
major modernization effort was approved in 2023whichis presently under construction.
3)The applicant wants to add a 34-foot by 42-foot canopy to provide an area for RV & truck
repairand requests Site Design Review approval to do so.All new commercial construction
triggers Site Design Review. Because of the projects size and the presence of the Detail Site
Review Overlay the project is subject to a Type II planning action.
4)The application includes a request to remove and replace three sweet gum trees that are
located under powerlines and have been repeatedly topped. The application also addresses
three treesalong Tolman Creek Roadthat were previously removed without permits.
5)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on
September10, 2024.Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented.No members of
the public gave testimony either in favor or against.
6)The criteria of approval for a Site Design Review are described in Ashland Municipal Code
(AMC) 18.5.5.050 as follows:
A.Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the
underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot
area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building
orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones:The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part
18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards:The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
PA-T2-2024-00049
October 8,2024
Page 1
below.
D. City Facilities:The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6
Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity,
urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
E.Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards.The approval authority may
approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the
circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1.There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing
structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not
substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is
consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the
exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2.There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting
the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose
of the Site Development and Design Standards.
7)The criteria of approval for a Non-Hazard Tree removalare described inAshland Municipal
Code (AMC)18.5.7.050as follows:
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 part18.4and
Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10.
b.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
c.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City
shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removalhave
been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be
used as permitted in the zone.
d.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below
the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may
consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping
designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to
comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
approval pursuant to section18.5.7.050
condition of approval of the permit.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and
recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and
testimony will be used.
PA-T2-2024-00049
October 8,2024
Page 2
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1The Planning Commission finds that Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)Chapter18is the
Land Use Ordinance (LUO) and regulates the development pattern envisioned by the
Comprehensive Plan and to encourage efficient use of land resources among other goals. When
considering the decision to approve or deny an application the Planning Commission considers
the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in the AMC.
2.2The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to rendera
decision based on the applicationitself,the Staff Reportdated 9/10/24, public hearing testimony,
and the exhibits received.The Planning Commission finds that the notice for the public hearing
was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within
200-feet of the subject propertyonAugust20, 2024, which was 21days before the hearing.
2.3The Planning Commission notes that PA-T2-2023-00038 reviewed the entire property
with regards to the Site Development Standards and that in the present application the Planning
Commission is only addressing the newly proposed canopy.The Planning Commission further
notes that all imposed conditions of approval from PA-T2-2023-00038 continue to be in force.
2.4The Planning Commission notesthatthe subject property is located within the C-1
zoningdistrict. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.5.2.020.A.1 requires that all new
structures, and additions in the C-1 zone requireSite Design Reviewwhichisgoverned by AMC
18.5.2.
2.5The Planning Commission notes that the approval criteria for Site Design Revieware
located at AMC18.5.2.050.The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in
the record to make findings that each of the criteria have been met, as was explained in detail in
the applicant’s submittal,as well as theStaff Report,and by theirreference are incorporated
herein as if set out in full.
2.5.1The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that“The proposal complies
with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not
limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area,
lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards.” The Planning Commission notes that the subject property is located in the C-
1 base zone,Detail Site Reviewoverlay,and Pedestrian Places overlay zones.
Commercial services, including automotive tire sales are permitted outright in the C-1
zone. The C-1 zone hasnomaximum lot coverage,or minimum front, side or rear yard
setbacks. The Planning Commission notes that the C-1 zone limits building height to 40’,
and the proposed structure is 19’8”. The Planning Commission finds that the base
standards for the zone are met,and that this approval criterion has been satisfied.
PA-T2-2024-00049
October 8,2024
Page 3
2.5.2The second approval criterion is that“The proposal complies with applicable
overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).” ThePlanning Commission notes that the
property is located within the Detail Site Review overlay zone, Wildfire overlay, and the
Pedestrian Places overlay zone. The Planning Commission reiteratesthat the only
element being considered in this application is the proposed canopy. The canopy includes
horizontal and vertical offsets. Aside from the offsets as it relates to building articulation
the Planning Commission find that there are no other elements of the Detail Site Review
overlay,and the Pedestrian Places overlay that relate to the application. The wildfire
overlay covers the entire city and while the new construction is required to meet the
requirements of the fuel modification area.The Planning Commission finds that the
paved nature of the subject propertyaddresses the requirements for fuel management and
wildfire protections.The Planning Commission finds that this approval criterion has been
satisfied.
2.5.3The third approval criterion is that“The proposal complies with the applicable
Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
below.”The Planning Commission notes that there is no pedestrian entrance to the
structure as it is a canopy adjacent to the main building and that building orientation
standards are not applicable. The application explains that the building has both a vertical and
horizontal offsets. The Planning Commission notes that when considering redevelopment of
existing non-conforming developments that site improvements shall be in proportion to the
proposed development.The Planning Commission notes that the present application proposes
to replace trees that have been previously removedalong Tolman Creek Road as well as
remove and replace the inappropriate species of tree along Ashland St. The Planning
Commission finds that addressing these trees along with the previously approved hedge row
that brings the property further into conformity for the zone. The Planning Commission finds
that this approval criterion has been satisfied.
2.5.4The fourth criterion for approval is that“The proposal complies with the
applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of
City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and
throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the
subject property.” The Planning Commission finds that the property is fully developed
and served with all franchise utilities and that the construction of the canopy over an area
that has already been paved will have no greater impact on water, sewer, electrical, or
storm drain than is presently existing.The Planning Commission finds that this approval
criterion has been satisfied.
2.5.5The final approval criterionrelates to theexceptionsto specific standards
requested, in this case building setback and number of parking spaces. The applicable
criteria are as follows “There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific
requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual
aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the
exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of
the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design;
and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.”The
Planning Commission notes that the application didnot include any exceptions, and finds
PA-T2-2024-00049
October 8,2024
Page 4
that this approval criterion has been met.
2.5After the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission deliberated and approved
the application subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report.The Planning
Commission finds that with the conditionsof approval included in the decision,the proposal
satisfies the applicable approval criteria.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1Based on the record of the Public Hearingson this matter, the Planning Commission
concludes that therequest forSite Design Review is supported by evidence contained within the
whole recordwith the conditions of approvalbelow:
1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
2)All conditions of approval from PA-T2-2023-00038 continue to be in force.
3)That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not
in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify
this Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
4)That prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained.
5)That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a)That all hardscaping and landscaping improvements including plaza spaces,
landscaping, and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the
approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor.
b)That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not
directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties.
Planning Commission ApprovalDate
PA-T2-2024-00049
October 8,2024
Page 5
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2024-00245
SUBJECT PROPERTY:329 Granite
OWNER/APPLICANT:Jovick for Clarke
DESCRIPTION:An application for a modification to the previously approved planning action PA-T2-2022-
00036. The modification is a request to modify a portion of retaining near the garage into a split wall design. The
application also addresses grading and a small third wall at the first turn in the drive.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Woodland / LDR; ZONING:WR / RR-.5;
MAP: 39 1E 08 EE, TAX LOT:704
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday October 8, 2024 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center,
1175 East Main Street
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: September 17, 2024
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: October 1, 2024
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE
ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting
will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 EastMain Street, Ashland, Oregon.
A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at “What’s
Happening in my City” at https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/. Copies of application materials will be provided
at reasonable cost, if requested. Application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland
Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling
(541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an
objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the
decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of
appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed
conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for
damages in circuit court.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this
request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the
applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the
record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Andersonat 541-552-2052 or
aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I).
MINOR MODIFICATIONS
18.5.6.040
C.Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria
are met.
1.Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited
to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development’s parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed
parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1.
2.A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major
Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements.
3.The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval
do not apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review.
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
18.3.10.050
An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall beapproved if the proposal meets all
of the following criteria.
A.Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and
adverse impacts have been minimized.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
B.That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards
caused by the development.
C.That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shallbe considered more
seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the
maximum development permitted by this ordinance.
EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE LANDS
18.3.10.090.H
An exception under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of chapter 18.5.5 Variances. An application for an exception is
subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if
the proposal meets all of the following criteria.
1.There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the
site.
2.The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter.
3.The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
4.The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section
18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Before the Planning Commission -October10, 2024
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-T1-2024-00245
OWNER:
Katherine and Joseph Clarke
APPLICANT:
JovickConstruction
LOCATION:
329 Granite Street
39-1E-08-DDTax Lot 704
ZONE DESIGNATION:
RR-.5 / WR
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION:
Woodland / LDR
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:
18.2.4General Regulations for Base Zones
18.3.10Physical&EnvironmentalConstraints
18.5.1GeneralReviewProcedures
18.6Definitions
APPLICATION DATE:
September5, 2024
PUBLIC NOTICE:
September17, 2024
MEETING DATE:
October8, 2024
120-DAY DEADLINE:
January3, 2025
PROPOSAL:
An application for a modification to the previously approved planning
action PA-T2-2022-00036(“The Approval”), which was approved by the Planning Commission
th
at a public hearing on February 8, 2022, with findings adopted on March 8, 2022. While the
approval for the project occurred in 2022, the land use process began with its first pre-application
in October 2020.The project is currently under construction and the building permit for the
home was issued in September of 2023.
Theproposedmodification is a request to modify a portion of retainingwallnear the garage into
a split wall designto improve vehicle maneuverability.Staff also addressesother work that had
been done which deviated fromthe previous approval.
Chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) is the Land Use Ordinance (LUO). AMC
18.5.6of the LUO providesfor “Modificationsto Approved Planning Applications”and further
states that“The Staff Advisor through a Ministerial or Type I procedure, depending on whether
the proposal involves the exercise of discretion, shall review proposals for Minor Modifications.”
In the present case there have been several previously approved modifications to the approved
planat the staff level. Due to the cumulative effect of the multiple modificationsto the original
approved planning applicationthe Staff Advisor chose to refer thecurrently proposedType I
application to the Planning Commission for its review and decision in a public meeting as
provided in AMC 18.5.1.010.B.2.
Planning Action: PA-T1-2024-00245Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
18
Applicant/Owner:Jovick/ClarkePage of
I.Introduction
1)Lot creation and history
Thecomplete history of the land use approval for this property is set out below.
*
(no PA #) February1980:Minor Land Partition (approved inDecember1974)recorded
as CS 8239. This segregated off a 0.378 parcel that is now 315 Granite St. (Tax lot #701).
PA 85-106–August1986: Major Land Partition recorded as CS 10635; created a 0.627
parcel that is now 321 Granite St. (Tax lot #702) and adjusted the size and shape of tax
lot 701. This left 18.68 Acres in the parent parcel.
PA 88-102–August1988: Major Land Partition recorded as CS 11309; created a 1.74
parcel that is now 333 Granite St. (Tax lot #703). This left 16.93 (m.o.l.) acres in the
parent parcel.
PA 2004-057–May2004:Partition Plat P-29-2004 recorded as CS 18276. While it is
referenced as a lot line adjustment in staff memos it was actuallya partition creating the
subject property as 3.22 acre and also creating a new13.71acres parcel that was deeded
to the City of Ashland Parks Department as open space.
PA 2004-074–June2004: Request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review
Permitto construct a driveway. The application included variances to allow a driveway
on slopes greater than 35% as well as exceptions to hillside development standards.
Construction never took place.
2)Current Development
The Clarke’s purchased the property in August of 2020 and the land use process began with the
first pre-application conference in October of 2020.
PA-T1-2021-00150:May-June2021. The application was determined to be incomplete
applicationfor issues related to addressingneeded exceptions and variances.This
application never moved forward and was eventually voided in the City’s permit system.
PA-T1-2021-00159:July-December2021. A request for a Land Use Ordinance code
interpretation was submitted and reviewedto determine the lengthof a driveway that can
exceed a grade of 15 percent, but less than 18 percent,under the variance standards
PA-T2-2022-00036:January-March2022:APhysical and Environmental constraints
review (P&E) was approved which includedseveral requested exceptions, a limited
activity and uses permit in the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ), a variance to
both maximum allowed lot coverage and maximum grade of a driveway, and tree
removal permits.The staff report described the application as follows:
“TheP&E is for each of the following land classifications: flood zone, hillside, and severe
constraints. The \[previously approved\] application also includes requests for exceptions from
the following standards:
*
The survey narrative explains “that the deeds of record were impossible to retrace without causing havoc in the
neighborhood” therefor considerable time passed between approval to clearing the boundary lines by agreement and
“suit to quiet title”
Planning Action: PA-T1-2024-00245Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
28
Applicant/Owner:Jovick/ClarkePage of
The standards allow new driveways on slopes greater than 35 percent for a length
o
not to exceed 100 feet. Here the driveway proposed is more than 800 feet, and nearly
all is on lands with slopes greater than 35 percent. (AMC 18.3.10.090.A.3.2.b.)
The proposal retains 69.3 percent of the site in its natural state when the standards,
o
based on average slope, call for 89.57 percent to be retained in a natural state.
(AMC 18.3.10.B.3.)
The standards allow a maximum cut slope of 15 feet and require terracing, with
o
terrace heights not to exceed five feet. Here, cut slopes of 30 feet with ten-foot high
terraces are proposed. (AMC 18.3.10.090.B.4.b.)
The standards call for building placement to avoid ridgelines and to maximize tree
o
preservation and retention of the site’s natural state. The building placement here is
at the ridgeline, removes a total of 97 trees and askes for an exception to lessen the
amount of the site retained in its natural state (AMC 18.3.10.090.E.1.a).
The standards require that downhill building walls greater than 20 feet provide a six-
o
foot step-back. As proposed, the eastern façade wall is 26 feet high without the
required step-back. (AMC 18.3.10.090 E.2.c)
The standards require that a continuous horizontal building plane greater than 36
o
feet in length include at least a six-foot off-set. Here the applicant proposes longer
planes without the requisite off-set. (AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2.d.)
Two Variances:
Lot Coverage (Type II)
o
The application requests an increase in the allowable lot coverage,
proposing a total area of impervious surfaces in the WR zone of 7,663 sq. ft,
which exceeds the maximum allowable coverage of 4,611 sq. ft. This is a 66-
percent increase in allowable lot coverage for the WR zone.
Driveway Grade (Type II)
o
The application proposes that one segment of driveway have an 18-percent
grade for a length of 200 feet.
ALimited Activities & Uses Permit to construct a new driveway crossing the Water Resource
Protection Zone (WRPZ) for Twin Creek, an identified ‘Intermittent/Ephemeral Stream.”
(AMC 18.3.10.060.D)
ATree Removal Permit for the removal of 18significanttrees. A total of 97trees are
identified as being removed; 18of these are considered to be ‘significant’ by definition (AMC
18.5.7.040 & AMC 18.3.10.090.D).”
The Planning Commission approved the application following a public hearing on February 8th,
2022, with findings adopted on March 8, 2022.
3)Previous Modifications
Following the 2022approval the application has had multiple ‘minor modifications’ requests that
have been approved administratively.Each of the type-1 planning actions listedbelow included a
public notice to the vicinity with opportunity for comment and appeal of the staff decisions.
These planning application modifications are summarized below:
Planning Action: PA-T1-2024-00245Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
38
Applicant/Owner:Jovick/ClarkePage of
PA-A-2022-00217
-August2022:Administrative approval of two additional tree
removals for the drivewayexcavation.
PA-T1-2023-00209
-May-July 2023:Type-1 planning action to:1) to remove two
additional trees due to the location of an electrical transformer 2) Modify two portions of
retaining walls from three-tier to two-tier, and 3) to modify the Water Resource
Protection Zonemitigation plantings with more appropriate plantings based on advice
from a restoration expert.
PA-T1-0023-00215
–September –October2023:Type-1 planning action to:1) in two
locations change the retaining walls from three tier to two tier, which also adjusts the
height of these walls; 2) slight adjustment to the alignment of retaining walls and
driveway; 3) removal of five additional trees; and 4) Increase the lengthof culvert
through the driveway area.
PA-T1-2024-00231
–March -August2024:Type-1 planning action to:To change the
retaining walls immediately adjacent to the garage to enable better vehicle maneuvering –
During conversations with staff following public notice, it was evident thatthe
conceptual proposal had changed considerablyin final design. Both for the change in
proposed design and the associated shot clocks that application was withdrawn.
II.Present Modification Request
1)Retaining Wall near garage
The current modification request is to modify a portion of retaining wall adjacent to the garage to
improve functionality of vehicle maneuverability. The previous modification request that was
withdrawn (PA-T1-2024-00231)was for a single wall nearly 20’ in height. Staff consulted with
the applicant and the modification that is now proposed involves having the wall begin as a
single wall at its lower segment, which will then splitinto two tiers where the wall is tallest. This
design alternative helps break up the mass while also increasing the space alongside the garage.
Shownbelow is the presently approved retaining wall on the left and the proposed modified
retaining wall on the right.
ApprovedProposed
Planning Action: PA-T1-2024-00245Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
48
Applicant/Owner:Jovick/ClarkePage of
By having the wall join to a single element,and allowing the terrace to taper gradually,space for
additional vehicle maneuvering is provided to accommodate vehicles backingout of the garage,
and turning to exit the driveway in a forward manner.
The development standards for hillside lands limit cut retaining walls to no more than fifteen-feet
in height with each terrace no taller than five-feet. Here the wall height is a total of twenty-feet
with individual sections taller than five-feet, howeverthe exception to these standards were
granted during the original approval. There is no change in the total wall height that is presently
approved, the only change is how the two tiers relate to each other.
The current design has the wall stepping back , or split,at a height of seven-feetcreating a
terrace. In the modified proposal, as the wall wraps around the garage, the grade changes,
resulting in a lower section that is ten feet high and an upper section that is also ten feet high.
This adjustment increases the area for vehicle maneuvering, improving safety and circulation.
The lower portion of the retaining wall has already been constructed.The lower portion of the
stack block retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the currently approved plan. The
concrete wall shown is the foundation for the garage (the finished floor of the garage isjust
belowthe top of the concrete wall shown below.
As mentioned above, this is the third significant change to the project. Each of these changes has
ultimately been driven by the site’s topography. During excavation and construction, it is
common forslightadjustments to be needed based on the final grades achieved. However, in this
case, due to the significant length and steep slope of the driveway, what would typically be minor
adjustments become much more substantial.
The steepness of the grade and the extended length of the driveway mean that even small
variations in elevation or alignment can have a larger cumulative impact on the overall design.
These factors affect the maneuverability of vehicles, drainage patterns,and the structural
Planning Action: PA-T1-2024-00245Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
58
Applicant/Owner:Jovick/ClarkePage of
integrity of the retaining walls. As a result, minor changes to grade or layout require more
significant modifications to ensure the driveway functions safely and efficiently. This is why the
project has undergone several adjustments, all aimed at accommodating the challenging site
conditions while meeting the practical needs of the property.
The application explains that: “Initial plans were inadequate for vehicular circulation as they
allowed for the bare minimum space for a sub-compact vehicle and required backing out of the
driveway along a steep curve. A sub-compact vehicle cannot serve this family of six. Dr. Clarke
is a surgeon and must be available to respond to emergencies in hospitals throughout the
community. Having a space to turn around a vehicle in front of the garage is of paramount
importance for safety and functionality for the residents.”
The application further notes that this proposed modification will improve access to the east side
of the house and will help facilitate future landscaping and wildfire prevention work.
Staff requested that the applicant provide the maneuvering diagram shown above to demonstrate
that the proposed modification is the minimum necessary to accommodate the circulation
improvement. Upon evaluating the proposal, staff finds that the modification represents an
improvement over the currently approved plan and supports its approval. The original approval
was based on a smaller vehicle size that did not provide adequate space for larger family
vehicles, such as SUVs, to back up and complete a three-point turn as illustrated in the updated
diagram. As amended, the plan addresses this need by providing sufficient space for these larger
vehicles to maneuver safely and efficiently.
Planning Action: PA-T1-2024-00245Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
68
Applicant/Owner:Jovick/ClarkePage of
2)Work inconsistent with current approval
As stated above during the review process of
the application and site visit Staff became
aware of a minor difference with regard to the
retaining walls at the first major turn.Shown
at right is the first major retaining wall.
Following the approval of the October 2023
modification which adjusted the lower
retaining walls form three tiers to two tiers the
intention was the simply lay-back the grading
as it transitioned to undisturbed ground. The
contractor felt that a third smaller wall was a
better solution and that is what has been
constructed and is shown at right.
Ironically, this wall was originally proposed to be 3 tiers but was modified to two tiers during the
first minor modification. The contactor determined that the strategy to ‘lay back’ the remainder
of the land was not appropriate and constructed this thirdsmaller wall at the top in consultation
with the project engineer.
3)Application Burden of proof
The applicant has provided written responses to each of the relevant approval criteria, and by
their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full.
4)Public Input
Notice was posted at the property frontage and mailed to all properties within 200’ on September
17, 2024.At the time of this writing no public comment has been received.
III.Procedural –Approval Criteria
1)Minor Modificationto an approved plan
C.Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the
approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met.
1.Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the
initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification
request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development’s parking lot shall
require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to
associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter
18.5.1.
2.A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance,
administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be
subject to other ordinance requirements.
3.The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application,
based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings
are not required, where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review.
Planning Action: PA-T1-2024-00245Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
78
Applicant/Owner:Jovick/ClarkePage of
2)Physical and Environmental Constraints Review
An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in
section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria.
A.Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential
impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts
have been minimized.
B.That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may
create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the
development.
C.That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the
environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible
actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing
development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this
ordinance.
3)Exception to Hillside standards
H.Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. An exception under this section is
not subject to the variance requirements of chapter 18.5.5, Variances. An application for an
exception is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with
respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if the proposal meets all of the following
criteria:
1.There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter
due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
2.The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected
under this chapter.
3.The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
4.The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10,
Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay, and section 18.3.10.090, Development
Standards for Hillside Lands
IV.Conclusion and Recommendations
Staff recommendsthat the Planning Commission approve the modification to the approved plan.
Ifthe Planning Commission approvesthe application,staff recommendsincluding the following
conditions of approval below:
1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval, and that all conditions
of approval from PA-T2-2022-00036remain fully in effect.
Planning Action: PA-T1-2024-00245Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
88
Applicant/Owner:Jovick/ClarkePage of
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
FILE #
________________________________
541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT __ _______________________________________________________
Pursuing LEED® Certification? YES NO
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
329 Granite St
Street Address
#704
39 1E
08-DD
Assessor’s Map No. ____ __________________________________ Tax Lot(s) __________________________________
RR.5 and WR
Zoning ___ _________________________________ Comp Plan Designation ___ _______________________
APPLICANT
Dan@Jovickbuilt.com
Dan Jovick
541-301-7844
Name Phone E-Mail
249 A Street Suite A
Ashland97520
Address __ ____________________________________________ City __________________ Zip
PROPERTY OWNER
Joe and Katie Clarke
404-803-1505
Clarjoe@gmail.com
Name Phone E-Mail
301 Hillcrest St
Ashland
97520
Address _ ____________________________________________________ City Zip
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
TerrasurveyTerrain@bisp.net
Surveyor541-482-6474
Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________
97520
274 Fourth St
Ashland
Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________
Civil Engineer
Todd Powell
541-613-0723
Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________
todd@powellengineeringconsulting.com
100 E. Main St. Suite O
Medford
97501
Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects,
true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1)that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2)that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3)that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4)that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
Applicant’s Signature Date
As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
__________________________________
____________________________________________________
Property Owner’s Signature ( Date
required)
\[To be completed by City Staff\]
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ __________
OVER
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Forms & Handouts\\Zoning Permit Application.doc
ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner.
FINDINGS OF FACT – Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or
findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include
information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre-Application Comment document.
2 SETS OF SCALED PLANS no larger than 11”x17”. Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape
details. (Optional – 1 additional large set of plans, 2’x3’, to use in meetings)
FEE (Check, Charge or Cash)
LEED® CERTIFICATION (optional) – Applicant’s wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall
provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps:
Hiring and retaining a LEED® Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and
construction of the project; and
The LEED® checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued.
NOTE:
Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis.
Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property
owner(s), all required materials and full payment.
All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance
with ORS 227.178.
The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission
meeting. (
Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which
).
meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St
A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns.
If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Forms & Handouts\\Zoning Permit Application.doc
-
-
-
-
-
-
QSPQPTFE!XBMM!TFDUJPO
TFDUJPO!2!
Tubdlfe!Xbmm!Mpxfs!po!Qspqfsuz!up!Nbudi!Hbsbhf!Xbmmt!2
Tubdlfe!Xbmm!Mpxfs!po!Qspqfsuz!up!Nbudi!Hbsbhf!Xbmmt!3
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT - ADDENDUM
Before the Planning Commission - October 8, 2024
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-T2-2024-00050
OWNER:
Charlie Hamilton
APPLICANT:
Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
LOCATION:
113 Pine St 39-1E-08-AD Tax Lot 2600
ZONE DESIGNATION:
R-1-7.5
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:
18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones
18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones
18.3.9Performance Standards Overlay
18.4.8Solar Access
18.5.1General Review Procedures
18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments
18.6.1Definitions
APPLICATION DATE:
August 2, 2024
PUBLIC NOTICE:
August 20, 2024
MEETING DATE:
September 10, 2024
ND
2MEETING DATE:
October 8, 2024
120-DAY DEADLINE:
November 30, 2024
PROPOSAL:
A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a four-lot
Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The proposed subdivision includesthree
residential lots and one openspace lotfor the propertylocated at 113 Pine Street.The application
includes a request for an exception to street standards to not install standard street improvements
due to the existing sidewalk. The application also includes a request to remove five significant
trees.
This addendum staff report provides briefprocedural summary and amended recommended set
of conditions of approval based on the prior discussion.
I.Background
Initial Hearing
The application was reviewed at a public hearing by the Planning Commission on Tuesday
th
September 10, 2024. Staff and the applicant both gave presentations on the proposal. Four
members of the public gave testimonyexpressing concerns about the application. Prior to the
close of the public hearing there was a request to leave the record open. ORS 197.799(6)(a)
provides that “Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may
request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony regarding the
Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00050Ashland Planning Department – Staff ReportAddendum
14
Owner:Charlie HamiltonPage of
application.” The Planning Commission is required to grant such request by either continuing the
public hearing or leaving the record open. The Planning Commission left the record open
pursuant to the following schedule:
from 9/10 –9-17 New evidence or arguments could besubmitted by any party.
From 9/17 –9/24Rebuttalmaterials could be submitted to the new evidence
From 9/24 –10/1 The applicant would have the opportunity to respond to any rebuttal
materials.
Information received during the first week
During the period of 9/10 –9/17 the four items were received andare in this meeting packet. The
City received comments from the following individuals.
“Farmer James” of Family Tied Farms
Anne Schriber
Julia Vinciguerra
Lawrence VanEgdom
The comment from Mr. VanEgdom included a short video which waspostedat the project
website: https://www.ashlandoregon.gov/1037/113-Pine-PA-T2-2024-00050. The comments
along with a memoincluding the web site informationwas sentto the Planning Commission on
September 18,2024.
Information received during the secondweek
During the period of9/18 –9/24any party could offer Rebuttal ofNew Evidenceor Argument in
responseto the materials receivedthe previous week.One item was received from the applicant’s
st
land use consultanton 9/24 Thiswas sent to the Planning Commission on October 1and is also
included in the meetingpacket.
II.Conclusion and Recommendations
Ifthe Planning Commission approvesthe application,staff recommendsincluding the following
conditions of approval below.These areamendedset of recommended conditions of approval
th
from what wasin the September 10staff reportbased on the prior discussionat the public
th
hearing.The changes made between what is presented below andthe September 10staff report
are that #2 and #4 were amendedto be more specific, and conditions #5through #8 have been
includedfor the Planning Commission’s consideration:
1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
2)That the building envelope on lot three be modified to protect the Critical Root Zone of
Trees #2386 (15” Walnut) and #2361 (16” Oak) and that the revised plan be submitted
prior to any site work.”
3)That a revised utility plan be submitted for review showing all proposed utilities to follow
the private drive rather than extend into the gully areaand that the revised plan be
submitted prior to any site work.
Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00050Ashland Planning Department –Staff ReportAddendum
24
Owner:Charlie HamiltonPage of
4)That any excavation within the critical root zones (CRZ) of trees #2339 #2421, #2439
and #2443, be supervised by the project arborist. Should impacted trees tree die within
two years following excavation activities, as a direct result of such disturbance, that the
trees will be removed and replaced at the applicants cost in coordination with the affected
property owner.
5)That the screening for the flag drive, as required by AMC 18.5.3.060.N, shall be provided
or maintained along the northern and southern property lines of the parent parcel to
screen the drive from adjacent properties, but driveway screening within the subdivision
is not required
6)That a seven-foot-wide strip of right-of-way along Pine Street shall be dedicated, as
shown on the preliminary subdivision plat, to incorporate the existing sidewalk within the
public street right-of-way.”
7)That the fire truck turnaround located at the southern property line terminus of the
driveway in Lot 2 shall be limited in length to the minimum necessary to accommodate a
fire truck turnaround or staging area, as required by Ashland Fire and Rescue.
8)That if thedecisionof the Planning Commissionis to removetheopen spacelot from the
subdivisionthat the following three conditions of approval be added”
a.That the Common Open Space lot shall be eliminated, and the designated area
shall be incorporated into Lots 2 and 3. A conservation and reciprocal access
easement shall be established and shown on the Final Survey, covering the
proposed open space area andall lands with slopes exceeding 35%. This easement
shall restrict development in the designated area and be maintained in perpetuity
for conservation purposes
b.That a private maintenance agreement be created to ensure continued maintenance
of the private drive,all storm drain infrastructure, and conservation areain equal
parts
c.That each of the lots be limited to aMaximumPermitted Floor Area (MPFA)as
proposedby the applicant with the open space lotas follows:
i.Lot 1: 9291 x 0.75 x 0.38 = 2,648squarefeet.
ii.Lot 2: 10705 x 0.68 x 0.38 = 2,766squarefeet.
iii.Lot 3:10,587x0.65x0.38=2,735squarefeet.
9)That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any
additional work in the public right of way.
10)That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification
Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be
provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new
landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants
listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028.
11)That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months of Final Plan approval and
approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. Prior to submittal of
the final subdivision survey plat for signature:
Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00050Ashland Planning Department –Staff ReportAddendum
34
Owner:Charlie HamiltonPage of
a.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, drainage,
irrigation, mutual access, conservation areaeasements,and fire apparatus access
shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the
Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments.
b.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities,
driveways, streets, and conservation areaeasements, shall be completed according
to approved plans, inspected and approved.
c.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and
approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to
installation.
d.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with
meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase,
inspected and approved.
12)That the building permit submittals shall include the following:
a.Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public and private
utility easements, mutual access easements, conservation areaeasements,and fire
apparatus access easements.
b.That all residential units approved for development shall meet the minimum
requirements for certification as an Earth Advantage home, as approved by the
Ashland Conservation Division under the City’s Earth Advantage program as
adopted by Resolution 2006-06. (required for the density bonus of the
subdivision.)
c.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units comply with Solar Setback
Standard A in the formula \[(Height –6) / (0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar
Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest
shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade.
d.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with
the applicable coverage allowances of the R-1-7.5 zoning district. Lot coverage
includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation
areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping.
e.That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with
peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water
collection system through the curb or gutter at a public street, a public storm pipe,
an approved public drainage way, or through an approved alternative in
accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site
collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00050Ashland Planning Department – Staff ReportAddendum
44
Owner:Charlie HamiltonPage of
9/18/2024
RE: 113 Pine St.
Pine_113_PA-T2-2024-00050_SR
Prior to the close of the public hearing on 9/10/2024 there was a request to leave the record
open.
ORS 197.799(6)(a) provides that “Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any
participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or
testimony regarding the application.” The Planning Commission is required to grant such
request by either continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open. The Planning
Commission left the record open pursuant to the following schedule.
During the period of 9/10 – 9/17 the four items were received and are attached to this
documents. These were Public Comments received from:
“Farmer James” of Family Tied Farms
Anne Schriber
Julia Vinciguerra
Lawrence VanEgdom
The comment from Mr. VanEgdom included a short video which will be hosted at the project
website: https://www.ashlandoregon.gov/1037/113-Pine-PA-T2-2024-00050
/s/ Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
City of Ashland, Planning Division
(541) 552-2052 or aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
Ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900
Additional Neighborhood input on subject property: 113 Pine St., Ashland, OR
September 17, 2024
Julia Vinciguerra, 68 Scenic Dr. Ashland.
To the Planning Commission:
Suncrust Homes would need to show an approved variance for a max density residential development
requirement (18.2.5.030), since the development does not meet minimum requirements as currently laid
out by code.
-Designing a larger density project, especially one with 4 housing lots,
, -all while providing quality housing, therefore, a
variance would not, and should not, be approved (18.5.5.020). The argument that the current
larger density project, is moot.
PSO approval outside of a PSO overlay: 18.3.9.030
That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the
The developer’s argument is that they could build something larger with more density on this site, so their proposal
is “…and meets ” Again, this is false, since the larger
development would require a variance approval – which has not occurred – and has been described above as
moot.
The current
Potential Value Impact on 68 Scenic Dr. with An Approved PSO Variance
Results from Geotechnical study have not been shared (Potential impacts for surrounding
properties uphill and downhill of proposed development – erosion, drainage and foundations of existing
homes. Homeowners, 68 Scenic Dr., request developer to complete a Geotechnical study and share with
homeowner and Planning Committee for LOT 3, prior to PSO variance approval by independent Engineer –
selection approval to include homeowners.
Due to length of driveway and access points to LOT 3, Fire prevention control plan needs to be shared due to
and surrounding neighbors.
Code
to surrounding homeowners.
Approval of PSO variance has the potential to negatively impact 68 Scenic property value. Current study
underway to capture current property value and the impact of LOT 3 building site based on 68 Scenic’s
downhill sloped design and panoramic views. Homeowners request architectural plans and building site
Architecture plans need to show
environmental and sustainable advantages for PSO approval. If it is determined that LOT 3 has negative
Please.see.appraiser"s.
Due to the residential development codes of Ashland and non-PSO overlay zone, homeowners purchased
68 Scenic Dr. knowing that it could not be developed.
68.Scenic.CommentaryRegardingAdjacentSubdivision2
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
September 24, 2024
Final Argumentsregarding the proposed MidtownTerraces Subdivision, a request for concurrent Outline
and Final Plan approval for a four-lot Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The proposed
subdivision includes three residential lots and one open space lot for the property located at 113 Pine
Street. The applicationincludes a request for an exception to street standards to not install standard
street improvements due to the existing sidewalk. The application also includes a request to remove four
significant trees. (PA-T2-2024-00050_SR)
Performance Standards Subdivision Request:
The request is to utilize the Performance Standards Option Subdivision to allow for a four-lot subdivision.
Utilization of the Performance Standards Subdivision Option to divide the property is requested which
is 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 than the standard subdivision or land division process.
As noted in the applicant findings and during the September 10, 2024, Planning Commissionpublic
hearing, a similar, three lot partition can be achieved using a flag lot layout without any variances.
Because the standard lot layout requires the street frontage lot (Lot 1) to be deeper than wide, this
creates an overly deep lot due to the narrow frontage width. A similar layout can be achieved with the
application of the Performance Standards Optionbecause the PSO Subdivision allows for the same lot
(Lot 1)to be slightly wider because it eliminates the flagpole connection to the public street of the
driveway for Lots 2 and 3 and allows the driveway access via an easement.
The proposed three lots are consistent size, similar in area and dimensions as the lots in the surrounding
neighborhood which leads to similar home sizes based the maximum permitted floor area, similar
coverage, and the result is equal in its environmental and aesthetic impact.
The PSO Subdivision provides additional protections through the creation of the proposed open space
which will include the limited portions of the property that are considered Severe Constraints per AMC
18.3.10.110 than is required for a standard partition or subdivision.There are no construction
disturbances proposed to the limited areas of Severe Constraints that are proposed for protection.
1
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Open Space:
As discussed during the public hearing, the proposed open space lot and areas of 35 percent slope that
were protected within an open space lot, through deed restriction and by the ordinance which prohibits
development of the severely constrained slopeswill be eliminated and the area of the open space lot
will be incorporated into Lots 2 and 3 with a conservation / open space easement area that will provide
the same protections as a separate tax lot for both the open space area and the severed constraints lot.
Driveway location:
Although the driveway separation along Pine Street between the subject property and the property to
the south is pre-existing, non-conforming situation. The driveway separation will be improved with the
reconstructed driveway apron by shifting the driveway to the north so it does not cross the south
property line. But 24-feet of separation cannot be provided. As noted during the hearing the topography
along the north side of the property as it slopes does to Pine Street the grade between the street and
the property is steep and retained behind a tall retaining wall that is behind the sidewalk. The existing
driveway and the location of it provides adequate width and grade for the proposed lot access.
The existing driveway to the south and the reconstructed driveway apron proposed will not meet a 24-
foot separation. The code does not require full conformity with development in non-conforming
situations but requires that the non-conforming situation not become worse or more non-conforming.
Stormwater or other surface hydrology:
The are no identified City of Ashland stormwater systems or easements through the property. The gully
is not an identified creek system, nor is identified hydrological feature.
The video presented demonstrates violation of Oregon Building and Plumbing Code which does not allow
for captured storm or surface waters to trespass onto adjacent properties without proper easement and
does not demonstrate a natural feature or public utility that require preservation and / or protection.
Wildfire Hazards Plan:
Per the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (18.3.10.100), it is not always required to submit a separateWildfire
Hazards plan when the information provided addresses the requirements of the plan; and a separate
plan is not reasonably necessary in order to make a decision on the application.
The requirements of the Wildfire Hazards plan includes inventory of the trees and shrubbery and that a
“fuel modification area” where material capable of allowing a fire to spread unchecked has been treated,
cleared or modified to slow the rate and intensity of an advancing wildfire and to create an area for fire
suppression operations.
2
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Material capable of allowing a wildfire to spread unchecked does not exist on the property. The proposed
removal of the dead and dying trees,removal of the prohibited tree, pruning and maintenance of the
remaining trees and mowing of the grass address the Wildfire Hazard Plan requirements. Th standards
of AMC 18.3.10.100.C. will be addressed prior to installation of the infrastructure, utilities and prior to
the storage of combustible materials on-site. Furthermore, the wildfire hazards are minimized because
redevelopment does not allow for landscaping with trees or plants from the City’s Prohibited Plant List
within the open space or within the general fuel modification area as stated during the public hearing.
Tree Removals:
Though the Notice of Application states there are 17 trees proposed for removal, on R-1 zoned
properties, trees between the sizes of 6-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) to 12-inches DBH for
deciduous trees and 16-inches DBH for conifer trees are not subject to tree removal permits
(AMC18.5.020.B.3/C.2). The notice further notes that five significant trees are proposed for removal.
As discussed during the hearing, there are only four significant trees proposed for removal.
One of the trees, a 14-inch DBH Incense Cedar (#2362) was listed as significant on the tree inventory
but falls under the DBH threshold for significant tree removal permit. There are two other significant
trees identified on the tree inventory as dead. An 18-inch DBH Cottonwood tree (#2365) shared with
the property to the north has fallen and is on the ground of the subject property. The 14-inch Plum
tree (#2411) on the south property line is also dead. Dead trees are also exempt from tree removal
permits (AMC18.5.7.020.C.7).
Based on the Ashland Municipal Code and what constitutes tree removal, the proposal calls for the
removal of two significant stature trees, a Norway Maple and a Walnut in poor health.
The Planning Commission can make findings that there is a substantial canopy coverage from a large
number of Oak, Walnut, Incense Cedars, Maple, Pear, Apple and Plum trees remaining on the subject
property and within 200-feet of the subject property. The removal of the two living significant trees
and two dead significant trees will not have a substantial negative impact on the density, canopy
coverage or species diversity within the impact area.
As addressed at the public hearing additional protections are provided for the trees on the adjacent
properties that are near the improved and extended driveway through the implementation of tree
protection plan and observation of excavation by the project arboristin accordance with 18.4.5.030.
3
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the proposed Performance Standards Subdivision allows for the division of the parent
parcel through the useof a private driveway instead of a flag lot layoutor, the maximum density of four
lots as noted in the staff report and during the public hearing. There are no requests for variance to the
standards.
The use of the Performance Standards Option is supported by the property location in a largely
developed area, on a lot that has natural features preserved, a narrow frontage upon the public street
that could present access limitations or possible lot configuration issues that are not factors when the
property is dividedthrough the application of 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 an area ofopen space that is deed restricted for no development,
including slope easement upon the unbuildable areas that are in excess of 35 percentand considered
severely constrained.
The minimum number of significant trees are preserved with the proposal and that the small stature
trees not regulated by ordinance are also being preserved. It can be found that there are substantial
numbers of deciduous and conifer trees within 200-feet of the property and that the proposed tree
removal will not have an impact on species diversity or canopy when considering the proximity to the
substantially treed neighborhood and the proximity to thousands of acres of forestland.
Each proposed lot area substantially exceeds the minimum lot area in the R-17.5 zone while preserving
the natural features though the creation of open space, and deed restricted, unbuildable areas which
include the preservation of large stature trees. Further environmental protection is provided because
the proposed homes are to be constructed to Earth Advantage Standards. The proposed homes willbe
architecturally creative, historically compatible with the impact area, and aesthetically pleasing. The
proposed subdivision of the property allows for urbanization of a developable residential lot in a manner
that provides for an efficient use of the land, limited impacts to the natural environment and creates
needed housing in an established neighborhoodof similar size area lots, and similar size and stature
homes as what can be constructed within the impact area.
Thank you,
Amy
Amy Gunter
Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
Amygunter.planning@gmail.com
4