HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-22_Planning PACKET
ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃
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.
October 8, 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
Doug Knauer Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
Susan MacCracken Jain Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Eric Herron
Russell Phillips
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt
Gregory Perkinson
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
The City will be hosting an Open House on October 9, 2024 regarding the 2200 Ashland Street
Masterplan. It will be held from 5:30-7:30 p.m. at the Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist
Fellowship Church at 87 Fourth Street.
ˑ̄ ̄˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾Ͻ̃ ˟˳̄˿˲˵̂ ˂˂ʼ ˂ˀ˂˄ ˣ̄̅˴̉ ˣ˵̃̃˹˿˾ ˃˚ ˓˿˾̃̅˼̄˱˾̄̃ ̇˹˼˼ ˿˶˶˵̂ ˱ ̀̂˵̃˵˾̄˱̄˹˿˾
on their progress regarding Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs), which included a code audit.
The Commission will have its annual retreat on November 7, 2024 from 12:00-4:00 p.m. They
will visit manufactured homes parks, as well as other sites around the valley. The City has
rented a van for this purpose.
III.CONSENT AGENDA
1.Approval of Minutes
a.August 13, 2024 Regular Meeting
b.August 27, 2024 Study Session
c.September 10, 2024 Regular Meeting
Commissioners Knauer/Herron m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote: All
Page 1 of 8
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).
ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃
AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM Ϻ ˞˿˾˵
V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings PA-T2-2024-00049, 2308 Ashland Street
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Phillips and Herron disclosed site visits. No ex parte contact was disclosed.
Deliberation and Decision
Commissioners Phillips/Herron m/s to approve the Findings as presented. Commissioner
MacCracken Jain abstained due to her absence from the September 10, 2024 meeting. Roll Call
Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 4-0.
VI.TYPE I PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2024-00245
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 329 Granite Street
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
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Knauer and Verner disclosed site visits. Commissioner Herron stated that he visited
the site with the rest of the Commission during its 2022 annual retreat. No ex parte contact was
disclosed.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Goldman provided a brief history on the development of the site, and explained that the current
application had been submitted as a Type I planning action, which are typically reviewed at the staff
level, but that staff determined that a review by the Commission was warranted due to a number of
smaller changes that had been made to the original application since it was approved in March of
2022. He stated that the request is for a minor change to improve maneuverability and safety of the
Page 2 of 8
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).
ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃
driveway without any greater impact on the natural features on the property. He added that the
original application requested exceptions to existing standards due to the difficulty in developing the
site, and that a potential approval by the Commission of the current application would not
necessarily constitute a precedent for future developments.
Senior Planner Aaron Anderson described the difficulty in developing the subject site, pointing to its
severely constrained slopes. He provided a brief history of changes to the application that had been
approved by staff, which began in August, 2022 with a request to remove three additional trees and
culminating with the current proposal (see attachment #1). He displayed several aerial photos and
plans of the site and described how the proposal would effectively combine two retaining walls,
creating additional turnaround space at the top of the driveway near the dwelling. He noted that the
gradient between the driveway and the house would be unchanged from the original application.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Phillips asked if combining the retaining walls would require them to be reengineered.
Mr. Anderson responded that they would likely require minor changes and that the applicant had
been working with their project engineer to address any necessary changes.
Commissioner Herron asked what the elevation of the two combined retaining walls would be, to
which Mr. Anderson responded that they would come to approximately 11ft.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain noted that drainage considerations had not been addressed in the
current proposal. Mr. Anderson responded that all drainage is provided by the engineer and is
required for all retaining walls to prevent collapse. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if the
driveway would accommodate ambulance access, to which Mr. Anderson responded that it would.
Commissioner Phillips asked if a guardrail would be installed at the top of the retaining wall. Mr.
Anderson responded that no guard rail was included in the renderings but that the applicant could
speak to that.
Applicant Presentation
Chris Hearn represented the applicants as their attorney, reiterating that the proposal is a request
was for a minor modification to an approved plan and would not create any visual difference when
viewing the property from the surrounding area. He stated that the changes would also create a
greater safety consideration, including access to the site in the case of a wildfire.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner MacCracken Jain expressed concern that these changes had not been considered
before. Mr. Hearn stated that the difficulty in developing the site made these design changes
necessary.
Page 3 of 8
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).
ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 7:26 p.m.
Deliberation and Decision
Commissioner Knauer pointed to the difficulty in developing the site and stated that the changes
made sense to provide greater safety and access.
Commissioner Phillips noted the height of the proposed retaining wall and suggested that a guard
rail be installed. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if guard rails are required. Mr. Goldman
responded that rails are not required by planning code but that the Commission could make the
addition of a rail to delineate the edge a condition of approval. Commissioner Herron pointed out
that Building code may require the installation of a safety rail.
Commissioner Knauer/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the application with the added condition
that the installation of a rail be investigated, if not already planned, for the protection of residents
and automobile drivers by creating a clearly delineated edge. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion
passed 5-0.
VII.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED
A.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
̃˵̆˵˾̄˵˵˾ ̄̂˵˵̃ʼ ˶˹̆˵ ˿˶ ̇˸˹˳˸ ˱̂˵ ϼ̃˹˷˾˹˶˹˳˱˾̄Ͻʾ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; MAP: 39-1E-08-AD; TAX LOT: 2600
Chair Verner stated that this item was continued from the September 10, 2024 Planning Commission
meeting, where the Public Hearing was closed and the Public Record was left open to allow time for
parties of record to provide additional evidence and public comments.
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was disclosed. Commissioner Phillips was absent from the September 10, 2024
˽˵˵̄˹˾˷ ˲̅̄ ̂˵̆˹˵̇˵˴ ̄˸˵ ̂˵˳˿̂˴˹˾˷ ˱˾˴ ˽˹˾̅̄˵̃ ̀̂˹˿̂ ̄˿ ̄˿˾˹˷˸̄Ͻ̃ ˽˵˵̄˹˾˷ ˹˾ ˿̂˴˵̂ ̄˿ ̀˱̂̄˹˳˹̀˱̄˵ ˹˾
the proceedings.
Page 4 of 8
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).
ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃
Staff Presentation
Mr. Anderson recounted how the record was left open until September 17, 2024 to allow parties of
record to submit additional comments or evidence into the record, after which the applicant had
until September 24, 2024 for rebuttal and until October 1, 2024 to submit any final arguments (see
˱̄̄˱˳˸˽˵˾̄ ʳ˂ʹʾ ˝̂ʾ ˑ˾˴˵̂̃˿˾ ˾˿̄˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ̃̄˱˶˶ ̂˵˳˵˹̆˵˴ ˱ ̀̅˲˼˹˳ ˳˿˽˽˵˾̄ ˶̂˿˽ Ͽ˖˱̂˽˵̂ ˚˱˽˵̃ʼЀ
though he is not believed to be a party of record. His comments were included in the packet as due
diligence and the Commission can determine if they should be included in the record.
˝̂ʾ ˑ˾˴˵̂̃˿˾ ̃̄˱̄˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ̃̄˱˶˶ ˸˱˴ ̂˵̆˹̃˵˴ ˳˿˾˴˹̄˹˿˾̃ ˿˶ ˱̀̀̂˿̆˱˼ ʳ˂ ˱˾˴ ʳ˄ ˶˿̂ ̄˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾Ͻ̃
consideration:
Condition #2: That the building envelope on lot three be modified to protect the Critical Root
˪˿˾˵ ˿˶ ˤ̂˵˵̃ ʳ˂˃ˈˆ ʸˁ˅Ѐ ˧˱˼˾̅̄ʹ ˱˾˴ ʳ˂˃ˆˁ ʸˁˆЀ ˟˱˻ʹ ˱˾˴ ̄˸˱̄ ̄˸˵ ̂˵̆˹̃˵˴ ̀˼˱˾ ˲˵ ̃̅˲˽˹̄̄˵˴
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.
Mr. Anderson stated that staff added the following potential conditions of approval to the staff report
˶˿̂ ̄˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾Ͻ̃ ˳˿˾̃˹˴˵̂˱̄˹˿˾ ˶˿˼˼˿̇˹˾˷ ̄˸˵ ˣ˵̀̄˵˽˲˵̂ ˁˀ
meeting:
th
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 the decision of the Planning Commission is to remove the open space lot from the
subdivision that 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
Page 5 of 8
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).
ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃
easement shall be established and shown on the Final Survey, covering the proposed
open space area and all 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 area
in equal parts
c. That each of the lots be limited to a Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) as
proposed by the applicant with the open space lot as follows:
i. Lot 1: 9291 x 0.75 x 0.38 = 2,648 square feet.
ii. Lot 2: 10705 x 0.68 x 0.38 = 2,766 square feet.
iii. Lot 3: 10,587 x 0.65 x 0.38 = 2,735 square feet.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Knauer asked if the area of the property that is considered unbuildable space was
included when calculating lot coverage. Mr. Anderson responded that the Maximum Permitted Floor
Area (MPFA) is used for residential use as measured from the exterior surface of each floor of the
˲̅˹˼˴˹˾˷ʾ ˝̂ʾ ˗˿˼˴˽˱˾ ˱˴˴˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ˝ˠ˖ˑ ˿˾˼̉ ˱̀̀˼˹˵̃ ̇˹̄˸˹˾ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˸˹̃̄˿̂˹˳ ˴˹̃̄̂˹˳̄̃ ̄˿ ˵˾̃̅̂˵ ̄˸˱̄
new developments are commensurate with existing dwellings.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if the revised conditions of approval addressed Peter
˞̉̃̄̂˿˽Ͻ̃ ˳˿˾˳˵̂˾̃ ̂˵˷˱̂˴˹˾˷ ˱ ̄̂˵˵ ˿˾ ˸˹̃ ̀̂˿̀˵̂̄̉ʼ ̇˸˹˳˸ ˹̃ ˱˴˺˱˳˵˾̄ ̄˿ ̄˸˵ ̃̅˲˺˵˳̄ ˼˿̄ʾ ˝̂ʾ
Anderson responded that it was included, but noted that this concern was raised by Anne Schreiber
on behalf of Mr. Nystrom as he was not a party of record.
Deliberation and Decision
˓˸˱˹̂ ˦˵̂˾˵̂ ̀̂˿̀˿̃˵˴ ̄˸˵ ˶˿˼˼˿̇˹˾˷ ˳˸˱˾˷˵̃ ̄˿ ̃̄˱˶˶Ͻ̃ ˳˿˾˴˹̄˹˿˾̃ ˿˶ ˱̀̀̂˿̆˱˼ˊ
4) That any excavation within the critical root zones (CRZ) of trees #2339 #2421, #2439 and
#2443, be supervised by the project arborist. Should any of these 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.
7) That the fire truck turnaround located at the southern property line terminus of the
driveway in Lot 2 shall be shortened and limited in length to the minimum necessary to
accommodate a fire truck turnaround or staging area, as required by Ashland Fire and
Rescue.
8) The if the decision of the Planning Commission is to remove the open space lot from the
Page 6 of 8
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).
ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃
subdivision that the following three conditions of approval be added:
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 and all
lands with slopes exceeding 35%. This easement shall restrict development in the designated
area and be maintained in perpetuity for conservation purposes.
9) That a private maintenance agreement between the three lots be created to ensure
continued maintenance of the private drive, all storm drain infrastructure, and conservation
area in equal parts.
10) That each of the lots be limited to a Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) as proposed
by the applicant with the open space lot follows:
i.Lot 1: 9291 x 0.75 x 0.38 = 2,648 square feet.
ii.Lot 2: 10705 x 0.68 x 0.38 = 2,766 square feet.
iii.Lot 3: 10,587 x 0.65 x 0.38 = 2,735 square feet.
Regarding condition #4, Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if the code specifies how any
damaged trees would be replaced with. Mr. Goldman responded that applicant would have to
replace any trees damaged by the development, but would need to do so in coordination with the
neighbor whose tree was damaged. So the neighbor could choose to not have the tree replaced. If
̄˸˵̉ ˴˹˴ ̇˱˾̄ ˱˾̉ ̄̂˵˵̃ ̂˵̀˼˱˳˵˴ ̄˸˵̉ ̇˿̅˼˴ ˳˿˾̄˱˳̄ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˔˵̀˱̂̄˽˵˾̄ ̄˿ ˹˾̆˿˻˵ ̄˸˵
condition. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if there is a size requirement for the replacement
tree. Mr. Goldman responded that the standards call for a 2inch caliper tree at breast height to be
planted as mitigation when a tree is removed.
Commissioner Herron pointed out that two public comments received from property owners
adjacent to the subject property emphasized the need to retain the subject property as open wildlife
space, while their properties had 6ft high fences that kept wildlife out. He mentioned that denying
̄˸˹̃ ̀̂˿˺˵˳̄ ̇˿̅˼˴ ̀̂˿˸˹˲˹̄ ˽˿̂˵ ̀˵˿̀˼˵ ˶̂˿˽ ˵̈̀˵̂˹˵˾˳˹˾˷ ̄˸˵ ˱̂˵˱Ͻ̃ ˾˱̄̅̂˱˼ ˱˽˵˾˹̄˹˵̃ʼ ̇˸˹˳˸ ˱
resident stated was one of the benefits of the neighborhood. He pointed out that the Council and
Commission have encouraged greater density in the City, which this project would provide.
˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˵̂ ˛˾˱̅˵̂ ̂˵́̅˵̃̄˵˴ ˳˼˱̂˹˶˹˳˱̄˹˿˾ ˿˾ ̄˸˵ ˱̀̀˼˹˳˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ̂˵́̅˵̃̄ ˶˿̂ ˱˾ ˵̈˳˵̀̄˹˿˾ ̄˿ ̃˹˴˵̇˱˼˻
standards. Mr. Anderson responded that the exception would allow for the continuous curbline to not
be disturbed and allow the existing sidewalk to be retained and dedicating it as public right-of-way
(ROW). Commissioner Knauer suggested that a condition be included requiring that an existing,
protruding rosemary bush be removed for a safe and walkable sidewalk. Chair Verner suggested
that the dedication of a 7ft-wide strip of ROW along Pine Street be included in Condition #6, and a
new condition be added requiring the sidewalk to be maintained as safe and freely walkable.
Page 7 of 8
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).
ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃
Commissioners MacCracken Jain/Herron m/s to approve the application with the revised
conditions presented by staff with the amendments suggested by Chair Verner, including the
changes to Condition #6 and the added condition of maintaining the sidewalk in a safe and
walkable state. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
V.OPEN DISCUSSION
Chair Verner reminded the Commission that its annual retreat will take place on November 7, 2024,
and will begin at the Phoodery in Phoenix before moving on to site visits. The Commission agreed to
utilize a van for the afternoon.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain commented that the reference to the occupations of the owners of
˃˂ˉ ˗̂˱˾˹̄˵ ˣ̄̂˵˵̄ ˴̅̂˹˾˷ ̄˸˵ ˱̀̀˼˹˳˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ̀̂˵̃˵˾̄˱̄˹˿˾ ̇˱̃ ̃̀̅̂˹˿̅̃ ˿̂ ˹̂̂˵˼˵̆˱˾̄ ̄˿ ̄˸˵ ˴˹̃˳̅̃̃˹˿˾ʾ
There was general agreement from the rest of the Commission.
Commissioner Herron suggested that the Commission discuss the allowances and criteria for the
general public to request the record be left open. Mr. Goldman pointed out that state law requires
the City to leave the record open if requested by a party of record, and is typically done by closing
the Public Hearing but leaving the Public Record open for seven days for additional comments to be
̃̅˲˽˹̄̄˵˴ʾ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˵̂ ˠ˸˹˼˼˹̀̃ ˱̃˻˵˴ ˹˶ ˽˵˵̄˹˾˷̃ ˳˿̅˼˴ ˲˵ ˳˿˾̄˹˾̅˵˴ ̄˿ ̄˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾Ͻ̃ ˣ̄̅˴̉
Sessions instead of the next Regular Meeting for the sake of expediency. Mr. Goldman responded
that this could be done.
ˢ˵˷˱̂˴˹˾˷ ̄˸˵ ̀̅˲˼˹˳ ˳˿˽˽˵˾̄ ̂˵˳˵˹̆˵˴ ˶̂˿˽ Ͽ˖˱̂˽˵̂ ˚˱˽˵̃ʼЀ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˵̂ ˝˱˳˓̂˱˳˻˵˾ ˚˱˹˾
asked if those submitting public comments are prohibited from anonymity. Mr. Goldman responded
that anyone submitting a public comment is required to provide their name. The Commission
agreed that hi public comment should be dismissed as irrelevant.
The Commission discussed bringing findings for 113 Pine Street to the October 22, 2024 Commission
Study Session in the form of a Special Meeting. Mr. Goldman remarked that this could be possible
and that he would discuss it with the Planning Manager.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 8 of 8
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
COMMISSION
329 Granite Street
OCT 10, 2024
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.
PLANNING
COMMISSION
113 Pine Street
OCT 8, 2024
ORS 197.797.6.a-e
Requests to Continue or Leave The Record Open
Pursuant to ORS 197.797.6.a-e
Preferred Approach
Close the public hearing, but leave the record open until:
ˤ̅˵̃ʾ ˁˀʿˈ ˇˊˀˀ ̀˽
ˤ̅˵̃ʾ ˁˀʿˁʼ ˄ˊ˃ˀ ̀˽
ˤ̅˵̃ʾ ˉʿ˂˄ʼ ˄ˊ˃ˀ ̀˽
ˤ̅˵̃ʾ ˉʿˁˇʼ ˄ˊ˃ˀ ̀˽
PC Deliberations at
Final Legal Arguments
Rebuttal of
New Evidence/Argument
Next Regular Meeting
(No New Evidence)
New Evidence/Argument
From Parties
from Applicant
From Parties
Questions?
6)
Rogue Valley Associationof Realtors v. City of Ashland.
The purpose of
this chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the
conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity,
and innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage; provide
a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard
zoning codes; be aesthetically pleasing;provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the
impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood
That development
under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from
Warren v. Washington. Countyaff'daff'd
Rogue Valley
Assoc. of Realtors v. City of Ashlandaff'drev den
1) The parcel is larger
than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width. 3) The property is zoned R-2, R-3, or CM. 4)
The property is developed as a cottage housing development …
degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under
subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact.
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
††
development to the maximum density allowed,
maximum density allowed
The development meets all
applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
Adequate key City facilities
can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity,
urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the
development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
The existing and natural features
of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have
been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open
space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.
The development of the land will
not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of
open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases
that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards
established under this chapter.
The development complies with the Street
Standards.
The proposed development meets the common open space
standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied
by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland.
The tree is proposed for
removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use
Ordinance requirements and standards.
Memo
DATE: October 22, 2024
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Derek Severson, Planning Manager
RE: Climate Friendly Area Adoption
Public Engagement Summary & Next Steps
Background
ˤ˸˵ ̃̄˱̄˵Ͻ̃ ˓˼˹˽˱̄˵ ˖̂˹˵˾˴˼̉ ʶ ˕́̅˹̄˱˲˼˵ ˓˿˽˽̅˾˹̄˹˵̃ ʸ˓˖˕˓ʹ ̂̅˼˵˽˱˻˹˾˷ ̂˵́̅˹̂˵̃ ˳˹̄˹˵̃ ̄˿
select and rezone Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs) capable of accommodating 30 percent of
future population in pedestrian friendly, mixed-use areas as a key strategy for reducing
˷̂˵˵˾˸˿̅̃˵ ˷˱̃ ˵˽˹̃̃˹˿˾̃ ̃̄˱̄˵̇˹˴˵ʾ ˓˹̄˹˵̃ ˱̂˵ ̂˵́̅˹̂˵˴ ̄˿ ˶˿̂˽˱˼˼̉ ˴˵̃˹˷˾˱̄˵ ˓˖ˑ̃ ˱̃ ˱ Ͽ̀˿̃̄
˱˳˻˾˿̇˼˵˴˷˵˽˵˾̄ ̀˼˱˾ ˱˽˵˾˴˽˵˾̄Ѐ ˱˾˴ ˱˴˿̀t updated maps and zoning ordinances.
ˑ̃˸˼˱˾˴Ͻ̃ ˴˵˱˴˼˹˾˵ ˶˿̂ ̄˸˵ ˳˿˽̀˼˵̄˹˿˾ ˿˶ ̄˸˵ ˓˖ˑ ˱˴˿̀̄ion has been extended to June 30, 2025.
ˤ˿˾˹˷˸̄Ͻ̃ ̃̄̅˴̉ ̃˵̃̃˹˿˾ ̃˵̂̆˵̃ ˲˿̄˸ ̄˿ ̅̀˴˱̄˵ ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˵̂̃ ˿˾ ̄˸˵ ̀̅˲˼˹˳
engagement process that has been underway for the past six weeks and to seek some
guidance from Commissioners as staff and the consultant team begin codework to move the
project forward.
Public Engagement Summary
Public meetings to date discussing the current Climate Friendly Area project have included:
2024-0904 Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC)
HPAC was supportive of the purpose and intent of the Climate
Friendly & Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules and specifically
with the Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs) project and believed that
the three potential CFAs at the Railroad Property, the Transit
Triangle and the former Croman Mill site all seemed to make sense
in the big picture for Ashland.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashlandoregon.gov
TTY: 800.735.2900
While they felt that new development in the Downtown would likely
to be limited to a few vacant lots and parking lots, the new CFA
requirements would nonetheless pose concerns for HPAC if they in
any way supplanted existing Historic District and Downtown
Design Standards which have been crafted over the years in
cooperation between the City and the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) to minimize the impacts of new development on the
National Register-listed Downtown Historic District.
HPAC members generally seemed willing to support the new CFA
requirements in terms of heights and densities for the vacant lots
within the downtown but noted that they would have concerns if
the new requirements increased pressures to re-develop existing
historic resources downtown.
HPAC members also expressed concerns that, if the goal of the
CFEC rules is to provide housing within CFAs, allowances for short-
term rentals in the form of Travelers Accommodations or
Hotel/Motel uses should be restricted or townhomes and
apartment buildings developed as single-use residential would
quickly convert to short-term rentals and the intended climate-
friendly benefits of the district designation to house people nearer
to where they work and play would be lost.
HPAC ultimately voted to support the designation of the Downtown
as a secondary Climate Friendly Area provided that such a
designation would not result in the alteration of existing approval
criteria or design standards.
2024-0912 Climate and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (CEPAC)
Staff and the consultant team explained that the CFEC rules for
˓˖ˑ̃ ˱̂˵ ˷˵˾˵̂˱˼˼̉ ˳˿˾̃˹̃̄˵˾̄ ̇˹̄˸ ̄˸˵ ˳˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˓˼˹˽˱̄˵ ˕˾˵̂˷̉ ˑ˳̄˹˿˾
ˠ˼˱˾Ͻ̃ ʸ˓˕ˑˠϽ̃ʹ ˷˿˱˼̃ ˱˾˴ ̃̄̂˱̄˵˷˹˵̃ ˶˿̂ ϼ˥̂˲˱˾ ˖˿̂˽ʼ ˜˱˾˴ ˥̃˵ ʶ
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashlandoregon.gov
TTY: 800.735.2900
ˤ̂˱˾̃̀˿̂̄˱̄˹˿˾ ʸ˥˜ˤʹϽʾ ˔̅˵ ̄˿ ˱ ̆˵̂̉ ˶̅˼˼ ˱˷˵˾˴˱ʼ ̄˸˵̂˵ ̇˱̃ ˼˹˽˹̄˵˴
opportunity for questions or comments from CEPAC members.
2024-0917 Public Open House
ˤ˸˵ ̀̂˿˺˵˳̄Ͻ̃ ̀̅˲˼˹˳ ˟̀˵˾ ˘˿̅̃˵ ˸˱˴ ˂˅ʽ˃ˀ ˱̄̄˵˾˴˵˵̃ ˿̆˵̂ ˂̬
hours and included a presentation by the project consultants from
3J Consulting, LLC; JET Planning; and ECOnorthwest discussing the
process and potential CFAs followed by a question-and-answer
session. An on-line survey was created in conjunction with the
Open House to solicit comments on potential CFAs; preliminary
results of that survey are attached here. The survey will remain
open until the November 4 Council study session.
th
At the Open House, there were questions as to whether the
designation of the former Croman Mill site as a CFA would be
detrimental to downtown businesses; whether affordable housing
could be made a requirement of development in the CFAs; and
whether taller buildings on the Railroad Property would adversely
impact the solar installations already in place on businesses
immediately to the north.
2024-0919 Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC)
The TAC discussion noted that while there would be a multi-modal
gaps analysis and highway impacts study completed in
conjunction with the CFA designation(s), the coming
Transportation System Plan (TSP) process to begin in mid-2025
would include much more detailed analyses of transportation
needs to serve the CFAs. There was also discussion of concerns
over the increased number of units anticipated in the CFAs and
how this might affect evacuation efforts in the event of a wildfire,
with staff noting that the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the
upcoming TSP process had been tailored to specifically seek a
consultant with experience in addressing emergency evacuation
planning.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashlandoregon.gov
TTY: 800.735.2900
2024-0926 Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee (HHSAC)
Key questions from HHSAC focused on the trickle-down approach
of providing paper capacity in anticipation of developers building
more needed housing, and whether this would actually result in
any housing that was available and affordable to local people
who need it, and an emphasis on the need to create more deed-
restricted affordable housing. There were specific concerns
expressed with regard to the added heights in the Railroad CFA
affecting views in the historic Railroad District, but also recognition
that a Railroad CFA to some degree countered perceptions of
some that objectionable development is often forced upon the
southside of town.
2024-1003 Social Equity and Racial Justice Advisory Committee (SERJAC)
Key questions from SERJAC had to do with whether the Climate
Friendly & Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules included sufficient
anti-displacement considerations to address concerns with
gentrification, particularly with regard to the manufactured home
parks in and around the potential Transit Triangle CFA (i.e.
Wingspread and The Upper Pines). Staff noted that the anti-
displacement strategies prescribed by the state had already been
considered and incorporated in the Housing Production Strategy
and would be revisited with CFA designation. Staff further
explained that a Manufactured Home Park Zoning Ordinance is in
process in specifically seeking to provide zoning protections for
the existing manufactured home parks.
Code Audit
A preliminary code audit of the potential Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs) prepared by Elizabeth
Decker of JET Planning has been provided as an attachment.
Market Analysis
A summary of the market analysis prepared by ECOnorthwest has been provided here as an
attachment.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashlandoregon.gov
TTY: 800.735.2900
Survey Results
Preliminary survey results have been provided here as an attachment. The survey will remain
open at http://www.ashlandoregon.gov/climatefriendly through the October 22
Planning
nd
Commission and November 4 City Council study sessions.
th
Next Steps/Discussion Items
˖˿˼˼˿̇˹˾˷ ̄˸˵ ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾Ͻ̃ ˣ̄̅˴̉ ˣ˵̃̃˹˿˾ ̄˿˾˹˷˸̄ʼ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉ ˓˿̅˾˳˹˼ ̇˹˼˼ ˱˼̃˿
conduct a study session on November 4. In considering potential discussion items for
th
tonight and next steps, staff and the consultant team have the following recommendations
for Planning Commission consideration:
CFA regulations should be adopted as a CFA Overlay which could be applied across
existing zoning districts and other design overlays, rather than creating a new zoning
district specific to CFAs from the ground up.
The Planning Commission and Council should consider an option to allow additional
height (i.e. five stories or more) for projects which provide deed-restricted affordable
housing.
The existing Transit Triangle (TT) Overlay ceases to be relevant with the creation of a
CFA overlay, and the TT Overlay should be eliminated entirely.
The Railroad Property & the commercial portions of the Transit Triangle should be
adopted as Climate Friendly Areas.
The Downtown is already largely developed in keeping with the CFA vision, and
o
staff do not believe that designation as a CFA provides any real benefit while
raising questions about potential adverse impacts to the National Register-
˼˹̃̄˵˴ ˸˹̃̄˿̂˹˳ ˴˹̃̄̂˹˳̄Ͻ̃ ˳˸˱̂˱˳̄˵̂ʾ
Townmakers LLC continues to move forward with a master plan vision for the
o
65-acre former Croman Mill site. Given that a formal application has not yet
been reviewed, it is difficult to move forward with two parallel re-zonings of the
same property at once and staff believe that it would be more prudent to delay
CFA designation. Townmakers could propose designating the property as a
CFA as part of their application once they have reviewed the specifics of a new
CFA Overlay, or the city could opt to apply the new CFA Overlay at a later date
˿˾˳˵ ̄˸˵ ˤ˿̇˾˽˱˻˵̂̃Ͻ ˽˱̃̄˵̂̀˼˱˾ ˸˱̃ ˲˵˵˾ ˳˱̂˵˶̅˼˼̉ ˳˿˾̃˹˴˵̂˵˴ʾ
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashlandoregon.gov
TTY: 800.735.2900
Staff and the consultant team look forward to ̄˿˾˹˷˸̄Ͻ̃ ˴˹̃˳̅̃̃˹˿˾ˋ ˲˱̃˵˴ ˿˾ ̄˸˵ ˹˾̀̅̄ ̄˿˾˹˷˸̄
the project team will prepare draft ordinances for review by Commission and Council, along
with state-required supporting elements included final capacity calculations for the selected
CFAs, walkable design standards code revisions, highway impact studies, multi-modal gaps
analyses and written findings addressing all elements of the adoption package.
REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1: DLCD Overview of Climate Friendly Areas
Attachment #2: Final CFA Study prepared with RVCOG
Attachment #3: CFA area maps
Attachment #4: Survey Results
Attachment #5: Code Audit Memo from JET Planning
Attachment #6: Market Analysis from ECOnorthwest
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashlandoregon.gov
TTY: 800.735.2900
Overview of CFA Designation Page 1
Overview of CFA Designation Page 2
o
o
o
o
o
o
Overview of CFA Designation Page 3
Overview of CFA Designation Page 4
Overview of CFA Designation Page 5
Overview of CFA Designation Page 6
155 N First St
P.O. Box 3275
Rogue Valley
Central Point, OR 97502
(541) 664-6674
Council of Governments
Fax (541) 664-7927
City of Ashland
Climate Friendly Area
Study
Produced by the Rogue Valley Council of
Governments, in collaboration with the City
of Ashland and 3J Consulting
2023
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of GovernmentsCouncil of Governments
Rogue ValleyRogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Council of Governments
Rogue Valley
Climate Friendly Areas Study
City of Ashland, OR
R
ogue Valley
Council of Governments
155 N First St
P.O. Box 3275
Central Point, OR 97502
(541) 664-6674
Fax (541) 664-792
l
l
i
)
M
y
t
r
c
n
i
a
r
a
t
m
s
i
i
m
r
D
o
P
r
(
C
e
l
g
)
yn
y
t
r
a
r
i
r
a
e
T
)
p
m
y
t
i
i
o
r
r
r
s
a
P
P
n
(
m
a
d
i
r
r
a
T
P
o
(
r
l
i
a
R
)
y
n
r
w
a
o
d
t
n
n
o
w
c
o
e
D
S
(
g
d
n
i
e
:s
p
o
y
u
t
.
y
o
8
l
l
s
e
sg
o
t
s
r
0
s
e
e
o
h
n
el
s
c
r
0
v
e
t
e
i
o
lg
2c
d
a
e
c
r
n
rn
d
a
e
r
a
o
d
d
t
r
u
u
o
a
e
d
n
e
5
o
p
c
h
h
t
e
p
t
U
g
6
t
c
pe
.
n n
s
s
C
e
y
i i
lxt
l
n
o
L
i
ee
l
m
L
e
ro
f
n
d
n
e
d
r
,
c
g
o
a
A
u
s
w
o
e
rp
l
r
a
t
v
c
P
p
na
i
dg
e
n
2L t
t
k
a a
n
p
e
l
i
w
9
p
a
sl
a
i
l
U
.c
p
p
r
e
n
r
r
x
m
-
ie
g
o
c
n
le
e
o
n w
a
n
s
t
r
i
n
e
p
2
a
m
e
sk
d
w
p
v
r
4
e
8
o
a
1
l
e
p
,
e
9
o
p
4
o
M
C
A
RTld571
y
B
:64 percent of needed housing.
y
g
o
l
o
58 dwelling units per acre
d
2,226 new dwelling units
o
h
t
e
m
e
v
i
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
r
p
e
T
F
h
t
A
y
R
B
D
.
d
e
t
p
o
d
a
n
a
l
.
p
d
t
e
.
e
t
p
e
n
o
r
l
t
e
e
S
m
v
,
e
p
d
d
o
e
l
t
n
e
up
v
o
y
e
l
d
d
e
a
r
g
t
r
e
o
a
d
l
n
.
n
sn
u
n
eo
i
a
r
n
tl
r
c
a
p
l
or
a
P
e
p
7
t
p
5
s
n
.r
u
a
x
-
e
oM
n
h
r
t
1
a
p
u
0
e
l
p
o0
ASC2
d
207 percent of needed housing.
n
e
i
:
h
p
y
t
s
o
g
l
e
w
n
s
o
e
ol
r
vu
r
o
e
52 dwelling units per acre
t
e
t
g
s
d
t
7,524 new dwelling units
n
e
d
l
ee
o
r
a
e
rr
g
h
e
p
d
c
u
t
n
t
d
Ѐ
n
ae
t
a
u
n
i
e
f
n
7
r
m
u
p
f
e
T
6
r
1
e
e
o
t
i
m
o
v
d
r
y
i
s
l
-
t
p
e
d
n
e
t
oo
p
t
e
l
i
t
a
n
r
ra
p
e
u
e
c
T
v
o
m
a
l
c
s
i
e
e
e
x
y
a
l
r
d
v
o
e
p
r
y
e
p
l
i
g
p
d
r
e
e
r
t
n
pk
h
ai
s
t
AULϿL
y
B
Giventhelevelofdevelopment
Downtownisbeinglookedatas
prescriptiveCFAmethodology
underthelensofthe
andthehistoricstatus,the
aCFA,butwasnotanalyzed
t
u
o
givenitisnearlybuiltout.
d
h
t
e
i
t
w
s
i
n
L
d
w
-
r
g
e
o
e
n
t
p
i
t
t
k
n
o
s
l
c
i
r
s
i
w
t
r
e
g
a
t
n
ov
e
p
s
i
e
e
D
R
t
D
l
m
D
e
a
e
c
y
e
i
l
r
n
r
r
t
i
e
o
s
o
i
u
g
t
t
-
r
q
f
s
ai
f
a
e
LorNH
Ashland Climate-Friendly Areas
Q1 Do you support the following changes needed to implement the CFA
zoning in this area?
Answered: 45 Skipped: 0
Maintain
apartment uses
Introduce
townhouse uses
Expand
commercial,
oce and...
Increase
maximum height
from 40 to a...
Introduce
minimmdensit
1 / 12
Ashland Climate-Friendly Areas
minimum density
of 15 du/ac
Remove current
maximum density
of 15 du/ac
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
kw
`ws~`V9 \]
YESNEUTRALNODON'T KNOWTOTAL
Maintain apartment uses75.56%6.67%15.56%2.22%
3437145
Introduce townhouse uses66.67%15.56%15.56%2.22%
3077145
Expand commercial, office and civic uses66.67%17.78%13.33%2.22%
3086145
Increase maximum height from 40 to at least 50 feet48.89%8.89%40.00%2.22%
22418145
Introduce minimum density of 15 du/ac48.89%22.22%26.67%2.22%
221012145
Remove current maximum density of 15 du/ac51.11%17.78%28.89%2.22%
23813145
2 / 12
Ashland Climate-Friendly Areas
Q2 Overall, do you support making the code changes and designating the
Railroad Property as a CFA?
Answered: 45 Skipped: 0
Do not support
Neutral
Somewhat
support
Strongly
support
Don't know
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICESRESPONSES
17.78%8
Do not support
8.89%4
Neutral
24.44%11
Somewhat support
46.67%21
Strongly support
2.22%1
Don't know
TOTAL45
3 / 12
Ashland Climate-Friendly Areas
Q3 Any questions or comments about these changes?
Answered: 13 Skipped: 32
#RESPONSESDATE
1Concerned about impact on current businesses and residents in the general area.10/9/2024 12:04 PM
2If townhouse is the main goal, is there a plan to include accessible units? These proposed10/5/2024 8:54 AM
changes would allow me to use my electric wheelchair to easily access my housing and
community amenities. Would the area all have sidewalks?
3I support all but the height changes in the RR property. There are gorgeous views there.10/2/2024 11:32 AM
4Ok for this area.10/2/2024 11:23 AM
5I think if the City really wants something to happen in this CFA, it's going to need to evaluate9/30/2024 2:01 PM
the desirability of its minimum first floor commercial standard for mixed use buildings. As
someone who represents a property owner in this area, I can say with confidence that this
requirement complicates development and reduces the amount of housing that could be
developed. The 65% standard is a blunt instrument that may be easy to apply, but it's too
crude to achieve what I assume the City's goal to be: to provide adequate neighborhood-
serving goods and services and employment opportunities to the residents. Great (old) mixed
use neighborhoods didn't become great mixed use neighborhoods because of regulations. The
current density maximum absolutely must go as well, especially if there will continue to be a
minimum first floor commercial requirement for mixed use buildings (which at present is the
only way to do any residential).
6The RR property is by far the most ideal location for a CFA. It's central location and close9/29/2024 10:09 AM
proximity to infrastructure, public and private services and "flat" topography makes it the most
important CFA area to consider.
7Ensure any plans for increased density of housing includes planning for wildfire evacuation. I9/29/2024 1:08 AM
support flexibility on minimum/maximum density requirements and am opposed to increasing
maximum height limits to 50 plus feet. Too many tall buildings would make Ashland feel more
like a city rather than a small town.
8Cost of hazard cleanup? Is necessary.9/28/2024 8:48 PM
9When you raise buildings to 3+ stories, you inhibit solar capacity on those of us who live in 1-29/28/2024 5:36 PM
story homes.
10It is myopic and insane to increase any development in a town with so few main arterial9/28/2024 8:51 AM
streets. Who will be able to evacuate in any disaster? The elderly, mothers with small children
can't bike or walk to the grocery store. Sometimes good ideas on paper, even if they come
from the state, are not applicable to certain towns. You should also revisit the road diet and the
planting of way too many trees as you consider catastrophic wildfire. You should stand up to
the state and say No!
11The railroad property is a fantastic location for CFA9/27/2024 6:48 PM
12The city should consider revising solar setback and building step back standards to allow for9/27/2024 4:06 PM
the CFA to meet its full potential.
13While there are challenges with this neighborhood (RR, access, etc.) the proximity to9/27/2024 4:03 PM
downtown is a positive and the development of this underused / industrial feel would be
welcomed
4 / 12
Ashland Climate-Friendly Areas
Q4 Do you support the following changes needed to implement the CFA
zoning in this area?
Answered: 44 Skipped: 1
Expand
apartment uses
in employmen...
Introduce
townhouse uses
(beyond curr...
Expand
commercial,
oce and...
Increase
maximum heights
to 50 ft fro...
Increase
minimum
5 / 12
Ashland Climate-Friendly Areas
minimum
densities to...
Remove current
maximum
densities...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
kw
`ws~`V9 }
YESNEUTRALNODON'TTOTAL
KNOW
Expand apartment uses in employment areas72.73%9.09%15.91%2.27%
3247144
Introduce townhouse uses (beyond current residential areas)76.74%9.30%11.63%2.33%
3345143
Expand commercial, office and civic uses, especially in residential52.27%15.91%27.27%4.55%
areas23712244
Increase maximum heights to 50 ft from 35-50 ft currently50.00%18.18%29.55%2.27%
22813144
Increase minimum densities to at least 15 du/ac50.00%18.18%29.55%2.27%
22813144
Remove current maximum densities (15-30+ du/ac)50.00%20.45%27.27%2.27%
22912144
6 / 12
Ashland Climate-Friendly Areas
Q5 Overall, do you support making the code changes and designating the
Transit Triangle as a CFA?
Answered: 44 Skipped: 1
Do not support
Neutral
Somewhat
support
Strongly
support
Don't know
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICESRESPONSES
15.91%7
Do not support
15.91%7
Neutral
27.27%12
Somewhat support
38.64%17
Strongly support
2.27%1
Don't know
TOTAL44
7 / 12
Ashland Climate-Friendly Areas
Q6 Any questions or comments about these changes?
Answered: 8 Skipped: 37
#RESPONSESDATE
1Concerned about impact on current businesses and residents10/9/2024 12:07 PM
2Again, will there be accessible units and sidewalks?10/5/2024 8:57 AM
3I want to be careful not to increase gentrification in this area. I want to be sure not to eliminate10/4/2024 6:44 PM
mobile home parks for example
4So much of the southern end of the Siskiyou Boulevard is built out, that I don't think there's9/30/2024 2:11 PM
much potential to accommodate future population growth. If the City wants this to be a
meaningful CFA, it's going to have to get serious about supporting infill housing development;
$100K/year in the housing trust fund is not going to cut it, and CDBG can only be used for
regulated affordable housing. Also, I'm skeptical the "corridor" portion of this CFA would meet
the 750' minimum "width". On the other hand, the stretch of 66 from the railroad overcrossing
to I-5 is interesting. If the City did some area planning, maybe established an Urban Renewal
district to provide some economic resources for infill development and redevelopment, that
might actually go somewhere. Auto-oriented land uses would be a little bit of challenge, but
there are some real opportunities there.
5See previous comments. For this area in particular, there is a significant population of9/29/2024 1:21 AM
homeless individuals and a general decline of businesses which needs to be addressed in any
future planning. How would future plans include increased resources and supports to meet the
mental health needs of the homeless population as well as insure the safety and success of
new and existing businesses and residential areas? The goal being a heathy and vibrant
community for everyone.
6The elongated walking area, is un friendly to pedestrian focused goal9/28/2024 8:52 PM
7Has no one learned any lessons from over development ruining town after beautiful town? Can't9/28/2024 8:58 AM
even one jewel, like Ashland be saved? Can't our possible water shortage even be considered?
Can't our probable fire disaster be put at the top of priorities? The fact that most of Ashland is
built on hills doesn't bother you? All this biking and walking?
8The city should consider revising solar setback and building step back standards to allow for9/27/2024 4:07 PM
the CFA to meet its full potential.
8 / 12
Ashland Climate-Friendly Areas
Q7 Do you support the following changes needed to implement the CFA
zoning in this area?
Answered: 43 Skipped: 2
Expand
apartment uses
in employmen...
Introduce
townhouse uses
district wide
Expand
commercial,
oce and...
Increase
maximum heights
to 50 ft...
Introduce
ii
9 / 12
Ashland Climate-Friendly Areas
minimum
densities of...
Remove current
maximum
densities...
Align with
pending land
use applicat...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
kw
`ws~`V9 }
YESNEUTRALNODON'TTOTAL
KNOW
Expand apartment uses in employment areas65.12%11.63%20.93%2.33%
2859143
Introduce townhouse uses district wide65.12%11.63%20.93%2.33%
2859143
Expand commercial, office and civic uses60.47%11.63%23.26%4.65%
26510243
Increase maximum heights to 50 ft (currently 35-40, remove bonus height51.16%2.33%44.19%2.33%
structure)22119143
Introduce minimum densities of at least 15 du/ac41.86%23.26%32.56%2.33%
181014143
Remove current maximum densities (15-60 du/ac)45.24%14.29%38.10%2.38%
19616142
Align with pending land use application for district39.53%20.93%13.95%25.58%
17961143
10 / 12
Ashland Climate-Friendly Areas
Q8 Overall, do you support making the code changes and designating
Croman Mill as a CFA?
Answered: 43 Skipped: 2
Do not support
Neutral
Somewhat
support
Strongly
support
Don't know
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICESRESPONSES
25.58%11
Do not support
11.63%5
Neutral
16.28%7
Somewhat support
41.86%18
Strongly support
4.65%2
Don't know
TOTAL43
11 / 12
Ashland Climate-Friendly Areas
Q9 Any questions or comments about these changes?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 35
#RESPONSESDATE
1Insufficient information regarding impacts of changes.10/9/2024 12:08 PM
2Will there be accessible units and sidewalks?10/5/2024 8:59 AM
3I do not support expanding thr UGB.Z10/2/2024 11:34 AM
4This is kind of a blank slate, kind of, and it could really be a good thing for Ashland, overall.9/30/2024 2:14 PM
I'm interested to know about the "majority property owner's plans."
5The Croman Mill area has multiple challenges which make it the least acceptable CFA for9/29/2024 10:25 AM
consideration. This area is has limited circulation now and little improved circulation
opportunities and would be a hazardous trap during any catastrophe. This area has extremely
limited infrastructure and would put a burden on the undersized infrastructure that exists on the
southern side of Ashland (sewer, transportation, specifically). A TIA is necessary before any
further consideration, but its results will likely illustrate multiple intersection failures and
conflicts (Mistletoe Road and Tolman Creek Road, Tolman Creek Road turning movements
near Ashland Street - Bi-Mart, Shop n Kart). The inclusion of the Croman area as a CFA will
lessen the demand of growth in the other, most logical, identified CFA areas and should not be
considered at this time.
6See previous comments for transit area9/29/2024 1:23 AM
7Making a 2nd node o Of centralizes density 3 miles from down town is risky because the9/28/2024 8:57 PM
development will make 2nd down town. But is flat and walkable.
8Too far from downtown9/28/2024 9:24 AM
9Who among you would want to live next to industrial uses? Who among you want every9/28/2024 9:03 AM
building blocking your view? The people in your residential areas will have to go to work
somewhere, most likely in Medford. You can't keep them all day in their little residential areas.
10The city should consider revising solar setback and building step back standards to allow for9/27/2024 4:07 PM
the CFA to meet its full potential.
12 / 12
MEMO
DATE:October 10, 2024
TO: Brandon Goldman and Derek Severson, City of Ashland
FROM: Elizabeth Decker, JET Planning
SUBJECT: Climate-Friendly Area Code Analysis
ATTACHED: Comparative Review of State Rules and City Development Code
SUMMARY
This analysis is developed to inform the City of actions to implement new planning
rules for Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs)
Equitable Communities (CFEC) program that aims to reduce climate pollution, provide more
transportation and housing choices, and promote more equitable land use planning outcomes.
The City must take action to amend the development code, zoning maps and Comprehensive
Plan to adopt one or more CFAs that meet applicable rules.
This code audit is the first step to identify needed code, map and plan updates and policy
options for City to consider how best to meet the state regulations within the preliminarily
identified Climate Friendly Areas (CFA) for the Croman Mill District, the Railroad Property,
and the Transit Triangle Overlay, building upon the CFA Study completed in 2023. The code
audit incorporates input from a public open house and online survey, City advisory
committees, City staff input, and stakeholder interviews with local developers. A concurrently
developed market study on the existing market conditions and potential effects of code
changes also informed the recommendations in this report. Input from Planning Commission
and City Council on preferred policy direction will inform the draft code updates to be
developed for adoption and compliance with state CFA requirements by June 2025.
This project is partially funded by a grant from the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) financed in part by State of Oregon funds. The contents of this document do not
necessarily reflect views or policies of the State of Oregon.
2712 SE 20 Ave / Portland, OR 97202 edecker@jetplanning.net / 503.705.3806
th
Total Page Number: 127
Climate Friendly Area Code Analysis Page 2 of 9
October 10, 2024
I. CFA BACKGROUND
Climate-friendly areas (CFAs) are a key feature of the new Climate-Friendly and Equitable
Communities (CFEC) rules that are planned urban mixed-use areas with a mixture of higher-
density housing, jobs, businesses, civic institutions, and services, served by robust multimodal
transportation options that reduce dependence on auto travel. The City completed a CFA Study
in 2023 identifying potential climate-friendly areas, initial consideration of required land use
rules within the CFAs, and the residential capacity of the CFAs, to help inform selection of one
or more CFAs.
The final CFA(s) must meet the CFA housing capacity requirements to allow zoned capacity for
a minimum of 3,469 housing
units. Together the three potential CFAs have a capacity of 14,892 units based on preliminary
1
calculations using the CFA methodology, however, the City has noted that development at the
minimum allowed densities—rather than the maximums assumed—would result in a lower
total capacity nearer to 3,469 units. Some of the policy choices to address CFA rules such as
lower height limits may have different implications for housing capacity, and would need to be
reviewed further before fully implementing.
The three identified CFAs are planned for a mix of uses with enhanced transportation options,
which broadly overlaps with the CFA intent, as follows:
Croman Mill is an approximately 92-acre master-planned site in the southeastern
corner of the City; the former sawmill site is undergoing a DEQ-led environmental
cleanup for development. The District is intended to host a mix of employment,
recreation and residential opportunities supported by transportation options and open
spaces.
2
Railroad Property is 57 acres in the center of the city, just north of downtown and the
historic Railroad District on the south side of the tracks. The current zoning permits
1
Housing Needs Analysis (HNA). (OAR 660-012-0315(1)) Both existing and future development within
CFA(s) is intended to contribute towards the housing supply, such that an entirely developed area like
downtown or an undeveloped area like Croman Mill with future development potential can fulfill the
CFA intent. However, only the zoned capacity rather than the actual development present is calculated
for purposes of compliance with CFA rules. There has been some criticism of this methodological
approach for overestimating likely density of both existing and future development, but it is was
intended to be more feasible for cities to calculate and implement.
There are concurrent efforts by a developer representing the District, Townmakers LLC, to submit a
2
refined master plan and implementing zoning code amendments that would introduce two new zones
and significantly more residential uses to the area. Those amendments are not yet available for review
.
Total Page Number: 128
Climate Friendly Area Code Analysis Page 3 of 9
October 10, 2024
limited commercial and residential mixed-use development in addition to employment
uses. DEQ and the Railroad have approved plans to remediate the former brownfield
prior to redevelopment.
Transit Triangle is a large, 167-acre area east of downtown along major transit
corridors on Siskiyou Boulevard, Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road. There are
broad opportunities for a mix of housing and commercial development.
The zoning standards for the zoning districts and overlays within the three potential CFAs, as
summarized in Table 1 below, were reviewed in detail for this code analysis, along with
relevant Comprehensive Plan policies and zoning maps.
Table 1: Zoning Districts and Overlays Applicable to CFAs
Croman MillRailroad PropertyTransit Triangle Overlay
Croman Mill District zones: Employment (E-1) base Base zones: Employment
Neighborhood Center (MC), zone (E-1), Commercial (C-1),
Mixed Use (MU), Residential Low Density
Residential (R) Overlay
Office/Employment (OE), Multiple Family (R-2),
applies to a large
Compatible Industrial (CI), Residential High Density
portion of the site
Open Space (OS) Multiple Family (R-3)
Detail Site Review
Two additional zones to be Optional Transit Triangle
Overlay also applies to a
proposed by District (TT) Overlay with
large portion of the site
property owner: Compatible standards specific to each
Industrial and Commercial—base zone
Mixed Use, Residential—
Detail Site Review Overlay
Mixed Use (not yet available
applies to a large portion
for review)
of the overlay
If not developing under the
TT provisions, Pedestrian
Place Overlay and
Residential Overlay apply
to portions of the overlay
Outside of this specific CFA work, additional aspects of the CFEC rules apply to both the CFA
and across the city relating to parking (OAR 660-012-0400), bicycle parking (OAR 660-012-0630),
and pedestrian-friendly and connected neighborhoods (OAR 660-012-0330), as well as new rules
for future Transportation System Plans (TSPs). Ashland already adopted code amendments
eliminating off-street parking requirements and establishing design standards for parking lots
by the June 30, 2023 deadline to satisfy the requirements of OAR 660-012-0400, as well as
updated bicycle parking standards.
Total Page Number: 129
Climate Friendly Area Code Analysis Page 4 of 9
October 10, 2024
II. KEY AUDIT FINDINGS
The key findings from the detailed CFA code analysis provided in Attachment A include:
A. Zoning Districts Uses, Density and Height
The core CFA rules for zoning districts generally require:
Use standards that permit multi-family housing (5+ units), attached townhomes, office
uses, non-auto dependent commercial uses, child care, schools and other public/civic
uses, either as single-use or mixed-use development.
Density standards that require a minimum density of at least 15 units per net acre
(du/ac) with no maximum density, maximum FAR or minimum lot sizes that would
function as a maximum density.
Height standards that allow a maximum height of at least 50 feet.
As summarized in Table 2 below and detailed in Attachment A, none of the three preliminary
CFAs currently align with all of the CFA zoning requirements. The intent of the Croman Mill
District, the Residential Overlay for the Railroad Property, and the Transit Triangle Overlay
generally aligns with the mixed-use character for CFAs but the specific mix of uses and the
scale of development are generally more restricted.
Table 2: Summary of Core CFA Requirements by Area
CFA Standard Croman Mill Railroad Property Transit Triangle
Overlay
Permit multifamily Yes in NC, MU YesYes in R-2, R-3, C-1 and
dwellings, with or TT overlay
without ground-
No in CI, OE No in E-1
floor nonresidential
Permit townhomesNo No Yes in R-2, R-3
No in E-1, C-1 and TT
overlay
Permit office, Partially PartiallyPartially: most
commercial and permitted in C-1, some
civic usesin E-1 and TT overlay,
and fewest in R-2, R-3
Allow at least 50-Partially, maximums No, maximum Yes in TT overlay for C-
foot building height 35-40 feet with bonus height of 40 feet 1, E-1, maximum height
heights up to 50-75 of 50 feet
feet
No in TT overlay for R-
2, R-3 and all base
zones, maximum
heights of 35-42 feet
Total Page Number: 130
Climate Friendly Area Code Analysis Page 5 of 9
October 10, 2024
CFA Standard Croman Mill Railroad Property Transit Triangle
Overlay
Require at least 15 No, no minimum No, no minimum No, no minimums for
du/ac minimum density and and maximum of C-1, E-1 with 15-30
density and no maximums of 15-60 15 du/ac du/ac maximums
maximum density du/ac No, minimums 10.8-16
for R-2, R-3 with
maximums of 13.5-30
du/ac
Nearly in TT overlay: no
maximums and
minimums 13.5-30
du/ac
Other District generally Standards noted TT overlay intent
considerations appears consistent above for R overlay generally aligns with
with CFA intent apply to majority CFA intent, but
but not entirety of specifics of TT overlay
Representatives for
proposed CFA; may not currently be an
large portion of the
boundaries would incentive relative to
district are proposing
need to be adjusted base zones
two new zones for a
significant portion of Multiple overlays
the district later this present within district,
year, further review creating overlapping
and coordination and distinct standards,
required which would need to be
resolved to uniformly
implement CFA
standards
B. Additional Code Standards
Other aspects of code identified in the analysis that relate to CFA standards and/or additional
state requirements for local land use include:
Walkable design standards. Another key aspect of the CFEC rules are standards for
walkable urban design, including bike, pedestrian and transit access to and within sites
and neighborhood block layouts; these standards apply citywide including within CFAs.
(OAR 660-012-0330) The City has both area-specific design standards (such as for
Croman Mill District) that address many of these issues, and citywide design standards,
that apply to all new development except single-family homes and duplexes; it is
difficult to compare these standards to some of the more general language in these
CFEC rules. DLCD has developed a Walkability Model Code to help cities and counties
implement these rules and the City will be working with a separate consultant to review
Total Page Number: 131
Climate Friendly Area Code Analysis Page 6 of 9
October 10, 2024
and implement aspects of
standards.
Site Design Review requirements. Nearly all new development requires a Type I or
Type II (quasi-judicial) Site Design Review; this project could look for opportunities to
expand Type I reviews for CFA development especially residential projects. The site
design standards applied through SDR, including the additional standards applied
within the Detail Site Review Overlay, should also be reviewed to ensure they apply only
“clear and objective” standards and review procedures for residential and mixed-use
development, consistent with ORS 197A.400(1).
Tenancy restrictions. The TT overlay and CM District include residential standards that
differentiate between rental or ownership multifamily units. The CFA rules require
both types of multifamily uses to be permitted outright.
Scale of uses. Many of the existing mixed-use provisions in the overlay and base zones
include limitations on the scale of a different uses, as a maximum square footage or
percentage of the building area. Permitting uses outright as either single-use or mixed-
use developments could increase flexibility to better implement the intent of CFAs.
Bonus height and density. The TT overlay and CM District offer bonus height and
density for some projects that include affordable housing and/or meet other local
priorities; those bonuses would be significantly less effective relative to the base CFA
allowances for height (at least 50 feet) and density (no maximum). Bonus height
beyond 50 feet could be explored, but may not be an effective incentive given that few
recent developments in Ashland have exceeded three stories.
Building scale standards. Several of the base zones and overlays employ step backs for
upper stories and/or setbacks scaled to building height to modulate the effects of
height, which may limit ability to achieve building heights of at least 50 feet as required
by CFA rules. There is an option within the CFA rules to modulate height from the
prescribed 50-foot standard with additional analysis of resulting residential capacity, if
there is interest to retain some or all of these standards.
Solar setbacks. The required setbacks along northern property lines to guarantee solar
access could exceed 50 feet—or even 100 feet—for structures utilizing the 50-foot height
allowance within the CFAs, which may limit feasibility of taller buildings contrary to
the intent of the CFA rules.
Total Page Number: 132
Climate Friendly Area Code Analysis Page 7 of 9
October 10, 2024
III. POLICY & IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS
There are several aspects of CFA implementation that call for City input on a range of policy
options, and direction from City decision makers will be important to identify the preferred
policy direction to be implemented through the code updates.
A. Scope of Code Changes Needed
Significant changes would be needed for the zoning in all three areas to address issues
summarized in Table 2 above, specifically:
Permitting townhomes outright. Townhomes are currently limited to only the R-2 and
R-3 base zones that are one option with the Transit Triangle, but would otherwise be a
new use in all of the CFAs. The residential character and scale of townhomes may or
may not be compatible with the intent for these three areas, though applying minimum
densities of 15 du/ac or higher could result in more urban forms or make other
development types more competitive.
Requiring minimum densities of at least 15 du/ac with no maximum densities.
Simplifying density standards may or may not result in projects at densities higher than
currently permitted maximums, depending on market demand and construction costs,
but it would require retiring or recalibrating bonuses for smaller units, affordable
housing, open space and/or green building.
Permitting a full mix of residential, commercial, office and civic uses. There is some
flexibility within the rules to designate some portions of the CFA(s) for primarily
residential use as an alternative. Each of these areas has various provisions for mixed
use, most of which establish desired ratios and/or selective uses; the City may wish to
retain this fine-grained approach or could adopt the more open CFA approach that
could remove barriers to development feasibility. There appear to be limited areas
where the alternative provision for primarily residential uses would be a good fit,
potentially including the R-2 and R-3 zoned portions of the Transit Triangle.
Establishing a minimum allowed height of 50 feet, increasing from the current 35-42-
foot standards in some areas. There is some flexibility in the CFA rules to vary this if
the City can demonstrate that it would still retain sufficient building capacity at lower
heights.
All three areas are intended to support mixed-use development in line with the CFA intent, but
the City should consider whether to pursue full CFA compliance in all three areas or to pick
one or two areas to fully meet the CFA rules while being more selective with code changes in
Total Page Number: 133
Climate Friendly Area Code Analysis Page 8 of 9
October 10, 2024
the remaining areas to better support climate-friendly development with more Ashland
characteristics.
B. Consideration of Candidate CFAs
The most significant choice for the City is which of the preliminary CFAs to move forward
with, after considering the scope of code changes identified in this audit that would be
required to comply with the CFA rules. The City has considerable flexibility to amend the
boundaries and/or prioritize one or more CFAs because the three preliminary CFAs together
greatly exceed the required housing capacity; under the CFA methodology, Croman Mill or the
preliminary interest to move forward with all three areas because the combined development
capacity at minimum densities would meet the housing capacity target, rather than relying on
the much higher capacity calculations under the CFA rules. Additional considerations specific to
each of the candidate areas include:
Croman Mill: CFA code changes would introduce significantly more residential options
to Croman, similar to aspects of a separate, anticipated Master Plan amendment
request for the site. However, the CFA approach would generally permit a mix of all
uses across the site, rather than a fine-grained site planning approach. The City may
legislative process rather than implementing CFA requirements directly, with potential
for confusion trying to align the two processes. Croman is also the farthest site from
downtown, which could draw attention away from the center of town.
Railroad Property: The Railroad Property is the closest area to downtown, and is
surrounded by established development. The site itself includes a mix of existing
employment and mixed-use development as well as significant undeveloped land with
development capacity following planned environmental remediation. The existing
zoning has been unchanged since 2000, and the relatively low densities permitted there
could be limiting development opportunities. CFA zoning could unlock further
development potential, particularly once the environmental remediation is completed.
We heard some concerns about the possible impacts of higher building heights in this
area on viewsheds to the north, which could be addressed through modeling and height
refinements if warranted. The residential capacity here is less than the full
requirement, so the Railroad Property on its own would not fully meet the CFA target.
Transit Triangle Overlay: The Transit Triangle compromises both
commercial/employment areas as well as primarily residential areas, and the CFA
requirements would generally allow a blurring between the two, at least in terms of
zoning regulations if not future development patterns. The CFA standards are generally
Total Page Number: 134
Climate Friendly Area Code Analysis Page 9 of 9
October 10, 2024
consistent with the intent of the Transit Triangle overlay, and would function as a
timely refresh to those standards which have become less effective in their current
format following repeal of parking minimums citywide. Because the area contains
more than twice the needed CFA housing capacity, there is significant flexibility to
draw a tighter CFA boundary focusing on the commercial/employment area and
excluding the primarily residential stretch along Siskiyou Boulevard that is already
largely committed to residential development patterns.
Our initial recommendation is to move forward with the Railroad Property as a CFA because
of its proximity to downtown and development potential, as well as with the
commercial/employment core area of the Transit Triangle to update the zoning for the area
without significantly impacting existing residential areas. Croman Mill has significant potential
to be developed with climate-friendly development patterns, but may not benefit from CFA-
specific zoning at this point in time given the simultaneous efforts
Plan that warrant separate review and refinement.
C. Implementation Structure
The recommended implementation approach, for whichever areas are selected, is to develop a
CFA overlay zone rather than changing bases zones. The CFA overlay will replace some of
the existing overlays, such as the Transit Triangle overlay and the Residential overlay in the
Railroad Property, for an opportunity to reduce or at least not increase the number of overlays
applying to the selected properties. An overlay would be more targeted and provides an
additional tool that the City could expand in the future, as needed or desired.
There could also be an option to make limited changes to base zones, such as increasing height
to 50 feet, with no maximum density and a minimum density of 15 du/ac, across the C-1 and E-1
zones citywide. However, this project does not include analysis of the full extent of those
changes nor are they required for CFA compliance.
IV. FUTURE DIRECTION
Planning Commission and City Council will review these initial CFA code audit and market
feasibility findings in study sessions this fall and provide direction on the preferred CFA
implementation approach. City direction will inform the approach to the code updates, which
will be drafted for Planning Commission and City Council review in early 2025 prior to
refinements during the adoption phase by June 2025. We look forward to developing code
updates that implement climate-
overall planning and community priorities.
Total Page Number: 135
136
Number:
Page
Tables A1 to A3 are specific to each of the CFAs, and Table
Total
24
may create barriers for all
judicial, with public hearing)
of
applicable Comprehensive Plan policies.
intersect OS zone is exempt and can be
A1
While uses are permitted, the Type II review
analysis
, including
Further
Page needed
Ashland
Friendly Areas
-012-0320)
excluded from further CFA analysis.
of the
to implement the state rules
8
Title 1
OAR 660
needed to consider
0320) for Croman Mill Area
-
for uses over 15,000 SF
Policy direction
for Climate
,
-
(quasi
(ALUO)
s (
alternatives
-
Climate Friendly Area
Meets rule; CM
requirement
.
Land Use Ordinance
Meets rule
Analysis
Code Standards
any
are needed
and
service, community and public utility facilities
s
Allowed uses are permitted individually or in
No residential, commercial or office uses are
-
CFA
combination with one another in the same
18.3.2.040(C)
Areas zoned for Open Space/Conservation
012
in
OS zone; only public
changes to the code or policies
Does not
meet rule
land use requirements
.-
Ashland
for the zoning districts within the three candidate
OS) are to be dedicated as park or 18.3.2.070
(OAR 660
Table 18.3.2.040
Development
the
A4 analyzes CFA rules that apply citywide to each of the CFAs.
Friendly Areas
ALUO
ALUO
existing zoning code standards in
.
common open space.
structure or same site
additional factors for
-
and City
meets rule;
ALUO
& Policies
permitted in the CM
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
coded as follows:
state rules for
are permitted.
-
consideration
Land Use Requirements in Climate
whether
City Code
Partially
Rules
-
(CM
of State
analysis of
detail how the
-
The code audit findings are color
compliance with the land use
within individual buildings
commercial, or office uses.
from
-
use development
zoning standards do not
requirements in OAR 660
Public parks and open
0315(2)(d)
0320 if the existing
and development sites.
s use and
)
Comparative Review
also include
exempt
AMC
s
Meets rule
allow residential,
table
Attachment A:
Municipal Code (
with the City of
-
October 10. 2024-
single
The following
space areas
012
alternatives
s
-
:
OAR 660
Permit
The table
-
A1
-
mixed
Table
Climate
Rule
012-
137
Number:
Page
not offer a clear and objective
to define and permit triplex and quadplex middle
Total
24
review requirement for residential uses 046), City is not required
restricted
of
Does not meet, use must be permitted with or
meets rule, need to add exception to
A2
Does not meet, use must be permitted in all
.
zones. Consider whether to introduce new
Page
Remove rental unit requirement to allow
neutral approach for multifamily
review procedure, as required by ORS
-
residential
floor requirement for income
-
housing types separately.
floor non
-
housing rules (OAR 660
does
.
-
affordable units
-
without ground
over 10,000 SF
requirement.
197A.400(1).
uses and
-
Analysis
Partially-
tenancy
ground
ALUO Table
Table 18.3.2.040
included in the definition of
Table 18.3.2.040
18.3.2.040Table 18.3.2.040
ALUO Table 18.3.2.040Table 18.3.2.040
and duplex exempt). All developments over
more units on a lot or parcel. Triplexes and
family detached
18.5.2.020,
zones
Development requires Site Design Review
ALUO
residential developments over 10,000 SF,
designate at least 25% of units as rentals.
Permitted with requirement for
Developments of 4 or more units must
and Croman Mill districts, as well as
-1
ALUO Table quadplexes not defined separately.
residential use.
1, E
ALUO
-
ALUO
15,000 SF gross floor area in C
attached and detached units.
ALUO
ALUO
ALUO
-
(Type I or II review, single
subject to Type II review.
ALUO 18.3.2.060(C)(2)(b)
Not permitted.
3.2.040, 18.3.2.040(D)(1).
Not permitted.
Not permitted. Not permitted.
Same as aboveNot permitted. Not permitted.
& Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
-
Townhomes are
floor non
18.5.2.03018.6.1.030
MU: MU:
City Code
NC: NC:
OE: OE:
-
CI: CI:
-
ground
--------
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
as 5 or more units on a single
unit
site attached horizontally or
vertically, excluding middle
may be required, unless the
commercial and office uses
*
restricted affordable units.
unit housing
-
building includes income
-012-0320(2)(a) -012-0320(2)(a)
-
floor
attached single
)
townhomes
0005(27)
0320(2)
-
outright. Ground
-
October 10. 2024-
multi
012
-
12
housing (
--
outright.
housing.
OAR 660OAR 660OAR 660OAR 660
-
Permit Permit
-
Climate
Rule
138
Number:
Page
Total
24 Note: Opportunity to use the same use categories
Retail Sales
size explore refining size
of
story unit such as a live/work unit.
Does not meet, use must be permitted outright
ALUO
housing subtype could likely be removed with
here as in the base zones for consistency and
A3
townhomes
multifamily, though could be also include a
Page
could explore refining
.
Does not conflict with rule, but employee
limits if needed to support intended uses.
intended uses
Does not meet, use must be permitted.
introduction of multifamily and
s if needed to support
Substantially meets; could
without size limitations.
Substantially meets;
permitted outright.
Table 18.2.2.030.
-
single upper
Meets rule.Meets rule.
Analysis
limit
ALUO
, excluding fuel sales,
Permitted ancillary to a permitted use,
up to
Table 18.3.2.040
ALUO
ALUO up to
-
Stores, restaurants, and shops less
excludes
excludes
ALUO Table
Table
Table
residential use are permitted.
permitted, with density and occupancy Stores, restaurants, and shops . .
Stores, restaurants, and shops
fuel sales, automobile sales and repair
fuel sales, automobile sales and repair
in
ALUO
Table 18.3.2.040
ALUO
15% of gross floor area permitted 15% of gross floor area permitted;
a permitted use;
Table 18.3.2.040, 18.3.2.040(D)(4)Table 18.3.2.040, 18.3.2.040(D)(4)
up to 50% of gross floor area.
.
ALUO
automobile sales and repair
18.3.2.040, 18.3.2.040(D)(5)
Not permitted.
Same as above.
SF permitted
Same as above
Same as above.Same as above.
& Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
ALUO
18.3.2.040
conjunction with
Table 18.3.2.040
restrictions.
than 3,000
-
18.3.2.04018.3.2.040
MU: MU: MU:
City Code
floor non
NC: NC: NC: NC:
OE: OE: OE:
CI: CI: CI:
ALUO
-------------
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
dependent
Other housing types may be
retail, services, and other
-012-0320(2)(a) -012-0320(2)(d)
-012-0320(2)(b)
-012-0320(2)(c)
.
type uses
uses
child care
commercial uses.
-
auto
-
October 10. 2024
office
-
non
allowed.
outright.
OAR 660OAR 660OAR 660OAR 660
Permit Permit Permit
-
Climate
Rule
139
Number:
Page
to classify as a Public and Institutional Use rather
, and Total
24
without size limitations. Requirement for use to
The City could permit
of
Consider using the same use categories as used
should
Does not meet; use must be permitted outright
Because the CFA is largely vacant,
A4
residential areas
hese and some other uses within the
mixed use as detailed above throughout the
.
facilities required by state law are permitted
within the CFA that may qualify under this
entire CFA, or it could selectively consider
Page
twice in the table, and could be cleaned up
Does not meet; uses should be permitted
should also be
uses without office space
reviewed; consider removing.
be permitted outright.
citywide for greater clarity.
planned
to the building
Policy direction needed:
.
than Commercial Use
whether there are
Does not meet;
alternative.
be interior
outright.
Analysis
T
Note:
also
residential focus that would seem to merit this
program activities must be integrated into the
up to 15%
Croman Mill District is largely undeveloped;
existing areas do not meet the residential or
without office space allowed conditionally.
None of the existing zones have a primary
office space permitted, and without office
Table
primary
Public service or community
Table
ALUO
Child or daycare facilities
ALUO
consistent with ORS 329A.440.
of gross floor area permitted;
ALUO
space allowed conditionally.
18.3.2.040, 18.3.2.040(D)(4)
interior of the building.
Same as above.Same as above.
Same as above.
employment density.
Same as above
Table 18.3.2.040
& Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
alternative.
18.3.2.040
18.6.1.030
MU: MU:
City Code
NC:
OE: OE:
CI: CI:
ALUO
-------
CMCMCMCMCMCMCM
cities may permit the
serving government
other facilities), which must
(all
ORS
(care for up to
be permitted in residential
permitting full mix of uses
following to be counted as
required by subsection (2)
schools and other
16 children in a dwelling)
part of the CFA if located
-012-0320(2)(d)
and commercial areas.
public uses including
to
As an alternative
Includes both
October 10. 2024
329A.440
.
facilities
OAR 660
Permit
-
above,
public
-
Climate
and
Rule
140
Number:
Page
any
within this district, as existing areas do not appear to
Total
24
-
The City could add this exemption
added along with residential uses do not include
and
full mix of CFA uses
height bonuses above a 50
of
Does not meet; maximums should be removed.
Meets standard; ensure that any new standards
use development
ft maximum height. Absence of minimum lot area standard supports full range of densities
incentive without maximum density; remove
A5
with
future Master Plan updates if there is interest to
Does not meet; minimum density should be
Density bonuses would no longer offer any
Page
This alternative could be considered
there are few or no areas with existing
employment job density to qualify.focused areas.
Recommendation to permit the
-
as a way to encourage mixed
-
retaining the
create more residential
added for all zones.
with no maximum.
maximum density.
:
option
consider
Analysis
.
Policy
qualify
.
60 employees
Maximum density of 30 units/acre or Maximum density of 15 units/acre or
Table
structured parking and/or affordable housing
for green building,
.
30 units/acre with bonus. No minimum lot
There is no minimum density and thus no
Table
No maximum density; residential
No minimum density is required.
permitted
There do not appear to be any existing
ALUO
employment uses, however, there are
ALUO
Table 18.3.2.050
uses are not allowed in this zone.
ALUO
exceptions to minimum density
-
employment density goals of 20
No minimum lot area applies.
per acre across the district.
60 units/acre with bonusSame as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.Same as above.
Table 18.3.2.050
& Policies
ALUO
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
18.3.2.060(C)(14)
area applies.
18.3.2.05018.3.2.050
City Code
MU: MU:
NC:NC:
OE: OE:
CI:CI:
ALUO
--------
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
that provide at least 20 jobs
or existing residential
minimum density
density of 15 units per net
use areas:
Existing employment uses
15 units per net
mile walking
may be permitted
maximum
that
development at those
Exception to minimum
a minimum
-012-0320(8),
-012-0320(6)
0320(3)
esidential areas
densities; and/or
.
-
distance of mixed
density standard
, except for:
Do not apply a
per net acre.
-
October 10. 2024-
within a half
012
at least
Require a
require
-
(8)(a)(A)
OAR 660OAR 660OAR 660
density
acre
-
Climate
Rule acre
for:
R
of
141
Number:
Page
back requirements
Total
24
4 stories/50 feet outright for all zones. (Note: The
The City could add this exemption Does not meet, maximum should be increased to
because they only apply to buildings over 50 feet
City standard aligns with CFA rules establishing
as a way to allow more flexible reuse of existing
of
alternative height standards within those areas.
for
-012-
, which
Explore whether to retain and recalibrate the
A6
. buildings. However, there are relatively few
so such
Explore other ways to achieve transition to
this option
that adds some housing but would not add
enough units to meet the minimum density
and/or to pursue
Page
OAR 660
Residential Buffer Zone to replace height
could partially replace the density bonus.
Recommendation to continue exploring the
for heights above 50 feet
District
provisions may have limited utility.
.
that 50 feet allows for four floors.
Ashland
Recommendation to explore adding
No changes needed to the step
existing buildings within the
usefulness of this option for
with step back
)
:
0315(2)(b)(C)
option
height bonus
limitation
.
Analysis
Ashland
Policy
tall.
affordable housing. Bonus height limited to 40
Table
feet in Residential Buffer Zone, with step back
or 4 stories/50 feet with bonus, except limited or 5 stories/75 feet with bonus, except limited or 5 stories/75 feet with bonus, except limited
Maximum height is 2.5 stories/35 feet, Maximum height is 3 stories/40 feet,
, 18.3.2.B.7.b
Maximum height is 3 stories/40 feet,
Maximum height is 3 stories/40 feet,
ALUO
exceptions to minimum density permitted.
There is a minimum FAR of 0.6 (0.5 for the
Buildings over 50 feet require a step
no minimum density and thus no
foot maximum in Residential Buffer foot maximum in Residential Buffer foot maximum in Residential Buffer
or 4 stories/50 feet with bonus for green
ALUO
back of 6 ft for fourth story and above.
buildings, structured parking and/or
Table
CI zone) for all developments.
, Figure 18.3.2.060.B.7.c
ALUO
Table 18.3.2.050Table 18.3.2.050
.
required for third story
Table 18.3.2.050
& Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
Table 18.3.2.050
ALUOALUO
18.3.2.050
18.3.2.050
City Code
There is
MU:
NC:
OE:
CI:
Zone. Zone.
Zone.
---
ALUO
to 40to 40to 40
-
----
CM CMCMCMCM
use building meets a
existing buildings that adds
maximum building
use buildings if the
residential units, but does
.
not add new units outside
-012-0320(8)(a)(B)
height no less than 50 feet
floor area ratio of 2.0, or
Redevelopment within
the existing building.
-012-0320(8)
October 10. 2024
-
-
Apply a
OAR 660
OAR 660
Mixedmixed
-
Climate
Rule
142
Number:
Page
determine zoned building capacity under existing across the CFA as a simpler “safe harbor” rather than
not offer a clear and objective
meeting the CFA height standards, particularly in
(including Residential Overlay,
Total
24
judicial, with public hearing)
ft height limit
uses and review requirement for residential uses
zoned capacity requirements as an alternative to
The City could explore
of
standards (the CM/NC zone and the Residential may create barriers for all
whether existing standards meet the minimum
(10,000 SF for the Detail
A7
While uses are permitted, the Type II review
the areas within the CFA with lower height
Page
Additional analysis would be needed to
review procedure, as required by ORS
or modified dimensional standards.
-
Recommendation to implement the 50
analyze alternative standards.
Policy direction needed:
for uses over 15,000 SF
Site Review Overlay)
-
requirement (quasi
does
0320) for Base Zones
over 10,000 SF
).
197A.400(1).
Buffer Zone
Meets rule.
AnalysisAnalysis
the District have been designated for common
individual developments, rather, areas within
There are no open space standards specific to
There are existing setbacks and heights for all
Allowed uses are permitted individually or in are subject to Type II review.
residential development over 10,000 SF gross
floor area, and any development over 10,000
and duplex exempt). All developments over
-
family detached
No minimum parking requirements apply.
combination with one another in the same
2.2.030(G)
012
Development requires Site Design Review
SF gross floor area within the Detail Site
, 18.3.12.030
-
Friendly Areas (OAR 660
-1,
1, E
Table 18.3.2.050
ALUO 18.
-
15,000 SF gross floor area in C
8.3.2.070
ALUO 18.5.2.020, 18.5.2.030
-
(Type I or II review, single
structure or same site.
8.4.3.040
Pedestrian Place Overlay, Detail Site Review Overlay)
& PoliciesCity Code & Policies
1
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
ALUO
ALUO
Review Overlay
-
Table 1
.
Table A2: Land Use Requirements in Climate
zones.
open space
City Code
ALUO
CM
cumulatively permit a zoned
to at least a
y be
within individual buildings
parking requirements that
required by subsection (8)
capacity of at least 60,000
foot maximum height
space requirements and
use development
setbacks, heights, open
and development sites.
square feet per acre ma
use and
-012-0320(9) -012-0320(2)
above, development
standards including
As an alternative
-
October 10. 2024
single
.
OAR 660OAR 660
Permit
-
applied
-
mixed
Climate
RuleRule
50-
143
Number:
Page
floor requirement
Total
24
rule, need to add exception to
restricted
of
either expanding R Overlay or allowing in base
outright
A8
Does not meet, permit throughout CFA(s) by
category or to permit as a subset of existing
Page
Does not meet, use must be permitted
-
floor requirement for income
.
use requirements
-
zone, with exception to ground
Substantially meets
for affordable units.
affordable units.
-
without mixed
.Meets rule..
Meets ruleMeets rule
Analysis
-
-
ground
use development with at least 65% of
, with same
floor and 50% of total lot area used for
-
as part
use site with
family use
at least 65% of ground floor and 50% of total
mixed
ALUO Table
2.2.030, ALUO
ALUO
Townhomes only permitted within the
Townhomes are permitted as a type of
family dwellings only permitted
family detached dwellings and family detached dwellings and
(applies to
ALUO Table
-
mixed
ed.
permitted,
same
-
lot area used for nonresidential uses.
ALUO Table
2.2.030
duplexes permitted only within the
Table 18.
permitt
18.2.2.030, 18.2.3.130(A) and (B)(1)18.2.2.030, 18.2.3.130(A) and (B)(1)
(Railroad CFA)
duplexes are also permitted, with
, with
ALUO Table 18.2.2.030
-
-1.
Only permitted as part of mixed
Table 18.
within the Residential Overlay
attached and detached units.
use requirements as C
family dwellings
family dwellings
)
ALUO
-1.
CFA
large part of Railroad
use requirements as C
.
18.2.2.030, 18.6.1.030
.
ALUO
City Code & Policies
nonresidential uses
Residential Overlay
Same as aboveSame as above
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
18.2.3.130(B)(1)18.2.3.130(B)(1)
2.2.030
.
requirements
--
-
-
-
Single
Single
Multi
Multi
Multi
-
Table 18.
of mixed
-
-
ground
mixed
1: 1: 1:
2:3:2:3:
1:1:1:
----
---
---
CERRCERRCE
unit
Other housing types may be
may be required, unless the
commercial and office uses
*Defined as 5 or more units
*
restricted affordable units.
excluding middle housing.
unit housing
-horizontally or vertically,
building includes income
on a single site attached
-012-0320(2)(a) -012-0320(2)(a) -012-0320(2)(a)
-
floor
attached single
)
townhomes
-12-0005(27)
-
outright. Ground
-
October 10. 2024
multi
housing (
allowed.
outright.
OAR 660OAR 660OAR 660OAR 660
Permit Permit
-
Climate
Rule
144
Number:
Page
Total
24
or restrictions to overlay
Meets rule. Consider removing overlapping use
must be permitted outright.
of
Does not meet, use must be permitted outright Does not meet, use must be permitted outright
A9
Page
without size limitations.
without size limitations
s
Does not meet, use
Meets rule.
Analysis
.
zone
conditionally permitted in base zone, all other
development with at least 50% residential use
Retail, service and restaurant uses up to 2,500
up
and duplexes are
ALUO Table 18.2.2.030,
use development with at least
to 20,000 SF gross leasable floor area per lot
.
use
permitted in the Pedestrian Place Overlay
(overlaps with portion of Transit Triangle ,
in base zone
Pedestrian Place Overlay (overlaps with
Personal and professional services
Table
,
-
2.2.030
family detached dwellings
ALUO Table 18.2.2.030
2.2.030ALUO Table 18.2.2.030
Residential Overlay, with same mixed
use
50% residential use permitted in the
-
2.2.030
ALUO
Offices up to 2,500 SF in a mixed Table 18.
Table 18.
ALUO 18.3.12.060(E)
Permitted conditionally
.
accessory residential units,
Table 18.
and restaurants permitted
18.2.3.130(A) and (B)(1)
ALUO
ALUO Table 18.2.2.030
1.
ALUO
Same as above.
City Code & Policies
-
Same as above
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
requirements as C
.
ALUO
also permitted. Permitted.
Permitted.
uses prohibited
-
SF in a mixed
-
.
restaurants
Single
Overlay).
18.2.2.030
permitted
1: 1:
2:3:2:3:2:
1:1:
-----
--
--
RRCERRCER
dependent
retail, services, and other
-012-0320(2)(b)
-012-0320(2)(c)
type uses
commercial uses.
-
auto
-
October 10. 2024
office
-
non
outright.
OAR 660OAR 660
Permit Permit
-
Climate
Rule
145
Number:
Page
selectively consider whether there are residential
Total
24
Does not meet, both child care centers and family
Does not meet, uses must be permitted outright.
The City could permit
of
government offices, or a subset
, or it could
child care homes should be permitted outright.
use categories
or employment areas within the CFA that may
10
mixed use as detailed above throughout the
A
Page
s
be permitted outright.
CFA
parks and school
Railroad and Transit Triangle
Policy direction needed:
Does not meet; Does not meet;
also
Meets rule.
outright.
Analysis
should
Not permitted in base zone; permitted in
of the Railroad Property supports mixed use, employment uses otherwise permitted in the
ALUO Table
The Residential Overlay that applies to most
0
ALUO
2.2.03
allowing additional residential beyond the
Pedestrian Place Overlay as noted above.
exempt from land use review; child care
Family child care homes permitted
2.2.030
Table 18.
ALUO Table 18.2.2.030
portion of Transit Triangle Overlay). ALUO
Table
.
ALUO 18.2.2.030, 18.3.12.060(E)
centers permitted conditionally
consistent with ORS 329A.440.
Table 18.
ALUO
ALUO
.
.
ALUO
City Code & Policies
Same as aboveSame as above
Same as above
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
ermitted. Permitted.
18.3.12.060(E)
18.6.1.03018.2.2.0300
2.2.03
P
1:
1:
3:2:3:2:3:
1:1:
18.
-----
C--
--
RERRCERR
government above, cities may permit the
other facilities), which must
(all
ORS
(care for up to
be permitted in residential
permitting full mix of uses
following to be counted as
required by subsection (2)
schools and other
16 children in a dwelling)
-012-0320(2)(d) -012-0320(2)(d)
and commercial areas.
.
public uses including
uses
to
child care
As an alternative
serving
Includes both
October 10. 2024
329A.440
.
facilities
OAR 660OAR 660
Permit Permit
-
public
-
Climate
and
Rule
146
Number:
Page
where there are core areas that the City wishes to
Total
is required, it may be more relevant to focus on a
24
create significant housing capacity beyond what
rule may be useful for existing developments and/or bonus structure would need to be reconsidered, bonus structure would need to be reconsidered,
designate additional residential or employment
of Does not meet; no maximum should be applied.Does not meet; no maximum should be applied.
and permitted. However, limited utilization of this
prioritize those portions of the TT
overlay where the full mix of uses would be desired
as additional density is no longer an incentive. as additional density is no longer an incentive.
designating the three preliminary CFAs would
minimum lot sizes should be applied. Density minimum lot sizes should be applied. Density
rather than utilizing this provision to
Railroad Property CFA, consistent with existing
-
more compact geography within those CFAs
11
designate for the full mix of CFA uses under
use for
A
Page
qualify under this alternative. Given that
Does not meet; no maximum density or Does not meet; no maximum density or
to connect areas within the TT overlay.
of
mix
full
.
areas as part of the CFA(s)permit
Recommendation to
, and to
Analysis
0320(2)
direction
15 units/acre minimum existing or as required
Job densities are not immediately clear for the
Up to 60% bonus density can be added for
for
meet the
green building, common open space, and/or
density, and effectively 8.7 du/ac maximum
family units, and effectively 8.7 du/ac
ALUO
existing commercial and employment uses.
Maximum base density of 20 du/ac for
18.2.5.080(D)(1)
for townhomes (minimum lot size of 5,000
1 zone, but is not intended for primarily
, where
Areas within the Transit Triangle Overlay
family units, with up to 60% bonus
du/ac
ALUO
.
permitted in the Residential Overlay
Maximum base density of 13.5
.
could potentially
du/acdu/ac
18.2.3.130(B), 18.3.13.010(C)(2)
Maximum density of 30
Maximum density of 15
ALUO
City Code & Policiesaffordable housing.
-3
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
13.2.3.130(B)(2)
by zoning code.
residential use.
2 and R
R-
and (E)
--
zoned
multimulti
1:
.
2:3:
1:
SF)
--
--
-
E CERR
that provide at least 20 jobs
acre or existing residential
density of 15 units per net
use areas:
housing with a minimum
Existing employment uses
mile walking
maximum
part of the CFA if located
that
unit and
development at those
unit attached
-012-0320(3) -012-0320(6)
Residential areas
densities; and/or
.
-
distance of mixed
density standard
-
Do not apply a
permit multi
per net acre.
-
October 10. 2024
within a half
-
OAR 660OAR 660
single
-
Climate
Rule
147
Number:
Page
None
specific density, rather than tied to percentage of Total
24
The City could add this exemption
base density since maximum densities would be
exemption as a way to allow more flexible reuse
this
of these zones use FAR standards currently, but
Does not meet, minimum should be increase to
of
Does not meet, minimum of 15 du/ac should be
use development
this
enough units to meet the minimum density.
12
Standard should be rewritten as
and written as numerical standard the applicability of
that adds some housing but would not add
A
Page
/expand
Recommendation to continue exploring the
.
rather than percentage of base density
The City could add
.
FAR is used elsewhere in code
-
as a way to encourage mixed
explore
introduced for the CFA.
usefulness of this option.
of existing buildings.
eliminated for CFAs.
Recommendation to
::
optionoption
rule.
Analysis
15 du/ac
Policy Policy
.
Meets
option
bring the lot closer to conformance even if the
du/ac, calculated 1 zones,
ALUO 18.2.5.080(C)(1)
density for townhomes (minimum lot size of
standards that allow enlarging or altering an
existing development through a Conditional
minimum density standard to add units that
3 zones, exception to allow
existing developments may fall
.
including within the Residential Overlay;
ALUO -3
under the Nonconforming Development
ALUO
none of the zones include FAR standards
use development is not
ALUO 18.2.5.080(D)(1) and (E)
2 or R
an existing lot that does not meet the
-
Minimum density of 10.8 du/ac,
1 or E
ALUO 18.1.4.040
No minimum density applies.
calculated as 80% of base density.
ALUO
ALUO 18.2.5.080(C)(2)
-
No relevant exceptions for the R
-
No relevant standard for the C
2.3.130, 18.3.13.010
6
.
Minimum density of 1
minimum is not fully met
as 80% of base density.
Use Permit review.
City Code & Policies
18.2.5.080(C)(2)(g)
Same as above
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
-
-
18.2.5.080(C)(1)
zones, as mixed2 and R
permitted.
other
5,000 SF).
18.2.3.130
ALUO 18.
-
In the R
Some
1:
2:3:
1:
--
-
-
CERR
use building meets a
existing buildings that adds
minimum density
use buildings if the
residential units, but does
not add new units outside
15 units per net
may be permitted
floor area ratio of 2.0, or
Redevelopment within
Exception to minimum
the existing building.
-012-0320(8),
-012-0320(8)
, except for:
October 10. 2024
at least
Require a
(8)(a)(A)
-
-
OAR 660
OAR 660
Mixedmixed
density
-
Climate
Rule acre
for:
of
148
Number:
Page
and could trigger revised capacity calculations for
justification of alternative height standards rather
determine zoned building capacity under existing
large setbacks could limit development feasibility height standards, particularly
Total
than simply excluding areas where lower heights
24
are desired from the Railroad or Transit Triangle
alternative use standards, it is unclear whether it
Does not meet rule. Up to 50 feet/4 stories should zoned capacity requirements as an alternative to
The City could explore
Does not meet, height limit should be increased Does not meet, height limit should be increased
of
-
whether existing standards meet the minimum
. Consider feasibility
story, 50
h
Does not meet rule. Allowed height should be
foot
in the areas within the CFA with lower height
Consider
13
However, similar to discussion above about
c
: su
A
Page
-
implications of rear setbacks, where a 40
Additional analysis would be needed to
would be worthwhile to go through the
foot building abutting a residential zone
-
rear setback would be required for a 4
or modified dimensional standards.
.
outright
3 zones).
setbacks.
increased to 50 feet/4 stories.
/4 stories/4 stories
Policy direction needed:
-
2 and R
be permitted outright.
implications of rear
foot
-
to at least 50 feetto at least 50 feet
standards (the R
50-
meeting the
.
Analysis
the CFA
.
s
CFA
.
setback requirements from residential zones
setbacks of 10 feet per story required where
40 feet, or up to 55
stories. Maximum height of 35 feet/2.5 stories,
Maximum height of 40 feet, with same
No minimum parking requirements apply.
Rear
ALUO
feet with a conditional use permit if more
except up to 50 feet with conditional use
There are existing setbacks, heights and
s 18.2.5.030 (residential), 18.2.6.030
ALUO Table
.
landscaping standards for all zones.
than 100 feet from a residential zone
2.5
feet/
ALUO Table 18.2.5.030
abutting a residential zone.
35
Maximum height of
Maximum height of
ALUO Table 18.2.6.030ALUO Table 18.4.3.040
2.5.030
City Code & Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
(nonresidential)
ALUO Table 18.
18.2.6.030
permit.
Table
1:
2:3:
1:
--
-
-
CERR
cumulatively permit a zoned
to at least a
maximum building
y be
.
-012-0320(8)(a)(B)
parking requirements that
required by subsection (8)
height no less than 50 feet
capacity of at least 60,000
foot maximum height
space requirements and
setbacks, heights, open
square feet per acre ma
-012-0320(9)
above, development
standards including
As an alternative
October 10. 2024
Apply a
.
OAR 660OAR 660
applied
-
Climate
Rule
50-
149
Number:
Page
not offer a clear and objective
for uses over 15,000 SF may create barriers for all
Total
24
judicial, with public hearing)
ft height limit
uses and review requirement for residential uses
Substantially meets rule, need to add exception to
restricted
density bonus for rental units beyond base zone
as a simpler Substantially meets rule, with change to permit
of
both multifamily rental and purchase options.
standards, but application of CFA rules would
Distinction in overlay was based on offering a
s outright and should no
Permit both multifamily rental and purchase
While uses are permitted, the Type II review
neutral approach.
14
“safe harbor” rather than analyze alternative
A
longer distinguish between tenancy types.
Page
review procedure, as required by ORS
-
floor requirement for income
s
-
Recommendation to implement the 50
across all or a core portion of the CFA
-
options to ensure tenancy
0320) for Transit Triangle
allow higher densitie
-
requirement (quasi
does
affordable units.
over 10,000 SF
197A.400(1).
Meets rule.
standards.
AnalysisAnalysis
-
ground
ALUO
Allowed uses are permitted individually or in
residential development over 10,000 SF gross
and duplex exempt). All developments over Table 18.3.14.040
14.040(B)
family dwellings for
-
family detached
combination with one another in the same
012
Development requires Site Design Review
family
-
1 and
ALUO
subject to Type II review.
floor non
-
Friendly Areas (OAR 660
family dwellings for rent
family dwellings for rent
dwellings for purchase prohibited.
-
-
Table 18.3.14.040, 18.3.14.040(C)(1)
residential use requirement. Multi
ALUO 18.3.
1, E
-
-
permitted, with partial ground
15,000 SF gross floor area in C
-
ALUO
(Type I or II review, single
-
structure or same site.
permitted, while multi
purchase prohibited.
18.5.2.020, 18.5.2.030
Same as above.
City Code & PoliciesCity Code & Policies
Same as above
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
are
-
: Land Use Requirements in Climate
-
-
Multi
Multi
floor area
1:
2:3:
1:
--
-
-
CERR
may be required, unless the
commercial and office uses
*Defined as 5 or more units
within individual buildings
*
restricted affordable units.
middle housing.
unit housing
-horizontally or vertically,
building includes income
use development
on a single site attached
-012-0320(2)(a)
floor
and development sites.
use and
-012-0320(2) -12-0005(27)
-
outright. Ground
-
-
October 10. 2024
single
multi
excluding
OAR 660OAR 660OAR 660
Permit Permit
-
3
-
mixed
Table A
Climate
RuleRule
150
Number:
Page
removing overlapping use categories in base zone
Total
24
of
Does not meet, use must be permitted outright Does not meet, use must be permitted outright Does not meet, use must be permitted outright
, no other housing types need to be
--
Meets rule. To simplify, consider permitted Meets rule. To simplify, consider permitted
15
Does not meet, use must be permitted in all crossoutright in these standards rather than cross
zones. Consider whether to introduce new referencing base zone use table. Consider
alternative to the TT overlay; see Table A2.
A
Page
3 zones as an
Other residential uses can be
outright in these standards rather than
referencing base zone use table.
-
2 and R
without size limitations.without size limitations.without size limitations.
-
use table for both
developed in the R
-
.
Meets rule
permitted
Analysis
up
gross floor area per residential unit included gross floor area per residential unit included
Table 18.3.14.040Table 18.3.14.040
Table 18.3.14.040Table 18.3.14.040
to 20,000 SF gross leasable floor area per lot
Table 18.3.14.040Table 18.3.14.040
Table 18.3.14.040Table 18.3.14.040
Table 18.3.14.040
Table 18.3.14.040
Permitted, up to a maximum of 60 SF Permitted, up to a maximum of 60 SF
Table 18.3.14.040,
Table
18.3.14.040, referencing Table 18.2.2.03018.3.14.040, referencing Table 18.2.2.030
Table
ALUO
ALUO
.
ALUOALUO
ALUO
ALUO
referencing Table 18.2.2.030
ALUOALUO
and restaurants permitted
ALUOALUO
ALUO
ALUO
.
None permitted. None permitted.
None permitted. None permitted.
ermitted
ALUO in the development. in the development.
Not permitted. Not permitted.
Not permitted. Not permitted.
Same as above.Same as above.
Same as above.
City Code & Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
Permitted.
restaurants p
1: 1: 1: 1:
2:3:2:3:2:3:2:3:
1:1:1:1:
--------
----
----
CERRCERRCERRCERR
dependent
unit
Other housing types may be
retail, services, and other
-012-0320(2)(a) -012-0320(2)(a)
-012-0320(2)(b)
-012-0320(2)(c)
-
type uses
attached single
)
townhomes
commercial uses.
-
auto
-
October 10. 2024
office
-
non
housing (
allowed.
outright.outright.
OAR 660OAR 660OAR 660OAR 660
Permit Permit Permit
-
Climate
Rule
151
Number:
Page
of the TT overlay that the City wishes to designate
Total
24
areas within the CFA that may qualify under this
relevant to discuss whether there are core areas
significant zoned capacity in the three potential
The City could permit
of
prioritize those portions of the
use
employment areas under this rule to add more
0320(2) and
categories, as categorized in the base zone use
CFAs, it is unclear what additional value there
whether there are residential or employment
code must be permitted outright in all zones.
16
capacity to the calculations. It may be more
mixed use as detailed above throughout the
TT overlay where the full mix of uses would be
Given that the City would have
entire CFA, or it could selectively consider
Offices and
would be to designating residential and/or
A
Page
move forward with a more compact CFA.
should be permitted outright.
-
for the full mix of CFA uses under
Policy direction needed:
Emergency Services
Recommendation to
alternative.
Analysis
table,
meet the 15 units/acre minimum existing or as
Job densities are not immediately clear for the
in particular might
within the TT area, and some portions may meet these
existing commercial and employment uses.
Table 18.3.14.040Table 18.3.14.040Table 18.3.14.040Table 18.3.14.040
Table 18.3.14.040
Table 18.3.14.040Table 18.3.14.040Table 18.3.14.040
ALUO
development
consistent with ORS 329A.440.
3 portions
ALUOALUOALUOALUO
ALUO required by zoning code.
ALUOALUO
ALUO
Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted.
Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted.
significant
City Code & Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
.
-
requirements
2 and R
F
are
18.6.1.030
There is
C
-
The R
1: 1:
2:3:2:3:
1:1:
----
C-
-
--
ERRCERR
acre or existing residential
above, cities may permit the
serving government
other facilities), which must
density of 15 units per net
use areas:
(all
housing with a minimum
ORS
(care for up to
be permitted in residential
permitting full mix of uses
mile walking
following to be counted as
required by subsection (2)
schools and other
16 children in a dwelling)
part of the CFA if located
that
unit and
development at those
660-012-0320(2)(d)
and commercial areas.
.
0320(2)(d)
public uses including
unit attached
uses
to
Residential areas
densities; and/or
-
child care
distance of mixed
As an alternative
-
permit multi
Includes both
-
October 10. 2024-
within a half
012
.
-
-
329A.440 facilities
660
single
Permit Permit
-
public
-
OAR OAR
Climate
and
Rule
152
Number:
Page
and limit development at the intensities intended Note
Total
1.5 permitted
24
Does not meet; maximum FARs are relatively low Does not meet rule, minimum should be increase The City could add this exemption The City could add this exemption
that the minimum FAR of 2.0 in the rule exceeds
Higher FAR
However, limited utilization
as a way to allow more flexible reuse of existing
of
of this rule may be useful for existing developments
for
use development
enough units to meet the minimum density.
17
and/or to connect areas within the TT overlay.
this option
that adds some housing but would not add
A or no FAR (relying on height and setbacks
Page
story development.
-
the current maximum FARs of 1.25
Recommendation to explore adding
instead) should be considered.
-
as a way to encourage mixed
.
permitted
-
for CFAs, e.g., 4
in these zones.
::
.
Exceeds rule.Exceeds rule.
optionoption
the TT overlay
to 15 du/ac.
desired and
Meets rule.
buildings.
Analysis
Policy Policy
in TT standards. Some existing developments
Table Table
Redevelopment scenarios are not addressed
Table
ALUO Table
Table
ALUO
No maximum density applies, but a
No maximum density applies, but a
ALUO
ALUOALUO
Minimum density of 13.5 du/ac.
ALUO
may fall under the Nonconforming
Minimum density of 20 du/ac.
for
.
Minimum density of 15 du/ac.
ALUO
Minimum density of 30 du/ac
maximum FAR of 1.25 applies.
s.
5
maximum FAR of 1.5 applies.
There is a minimum FAR of 0.
in all four zone
Same as above.
Same as above.
City Code & Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
Table 18.3.14.050Table 18.3.14.050
development
18.3.14.05018.3.14.05018.3.14.050
0.050
5
18.3.14.0
18.3.14
1: 1:
2:3:2:3:
1:1:
----
--
--
CERRCERR
that provide at least 20 jobs
use building meets a
existing buildings that adds
minimum density
use buildings if the
residential units, but does
Existing employment uses
15 units per net
may be permitted
maximum
floor area ratio of 2.0, or
Redevelopment within
Exception to minimum
-012-0320(8),
-012-0320(6)
0320(3)
.
density standard
, except for:
Do not apply a
per net acre.
October 10. 2024-
012
at least
Require a
-
(8)(a)(A)
-
-
OAR 660OAR 660OAR 660
Mixedmixed
density
-
Climate
Rule acre
for:
of
153
Number:
Page
standards rather
determine zoned building capacity under existing
meeting the CFA height standards, particularly in
Total
than simply excluding areas where lower heights
24
alternative use standards, it is unclear whether it
ft height limit could
May need to adjust
zoned capacity requirements as an alternative to
are desired from the CFA. Identifying core areas
The City could explore
Meets rule. Façade offsets provide alternative to
of
whether existing standards meet the minimum
be applied may be more feasible, resulting in a
residential capacity calculations for step backs.
Does not meet rule. Allowed height should be
18
However, similar to discussion above about
the areas within the CFA with lower height
A
Page
Recommendation to continue exploring the
.
Additional analysis would be needed to
would be worthwhile to go through the
the TT overlay
or modified dimensional standards.
).
height
3 zones
step back for taller buildings.
increased to 50 feet/4 stories.
-
of the TT overlay where a 50
justification of alternative
usefulness of this option for
Policy direction needed:
-
2 and R
more compact CFA.
R-
standards (the
Analysis
Portions of the building over 25 feet tall near a
or altering an existing development through a
in the TT
Development standards that allow enlarging
residential zone or facing a street require a
No minimum parking requirements apply.
ALUO
Maximum height of 42 feet/3 stories.
.
and
Maximum height of 50 feet/4 stories
ALUO
step back of 10 feet or façade offsets.
heights
for all zones
.050
Conditional Use Permit review.
,
14
There are existing setbacks
ALUO Table 18.3.
Table 18.3.14.050
landscaping standards
ALUO Table 18.4.3.040
.
Same as above.
City Code & Policies
above
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
Table 18.3.14.050
Same as
18.1.4.040
.
overlay
ALUO
1:
2:3:
1:
--
-
-
CERR
cumulatively permit a zoned
to at least a
maximum building
y be
.
not add new units outside
-012-0320(8)(a)(B)
parking requirements that
required by subsection (8)
height no less than 50 feet
capacity of at least 60,000
foot maximum height
space requirements and
setbacks, heights, open
square feet per acre ma
the existing building.
-012-0320(9)
above, development
standards including
-012-0320(8)
As an alternative
October 10. 2024
Apply a
.
OAR 660OAR 660
OAR 660
applied
-
Climate
Rule
50-
154
Number:
Page
Total
24
ft height limit
amended to identify CFA as priority location for
of
CFA as a simpler
Does not meet rule, Plan Element should be
19
“safe harbor” rather than analyze alternative
A
Page
-
Recommendation to implement the 50
.
where it is feasible
all or a core portion of the
0320) Applicable Citywide
new facilities
standards.
AnalysisAnalysis
across
fire or police stations, or civic service facilities
sufficient quantity to meet city needs now and
Comprehensive Plan includes a primary goal
There are no government facilities
locating facilities within CFAs, seeing that it
-
There are no school, library,
012
Ashland Fire & Rescue Station No. 2 is
The City sites fire, police and government
Southern Oregon University and Bellview There is no language specific to prioritize
services, schools are sited by the Ashland
currently located within or near the CFA.
“To provide public utilities, services and
School District and libraries by Jackson
-
located on Ashland St within the CFA.
Friendly Areas (OAR 660
environmentally sensitive way and in
facilities in an orderly, efficient and
Elementary are adjacent to the CFA.
of the
Public Services ElementGoal 9.01.02
County Library Services.
within or near the CFA.
City Code & PoliciesCity Code & Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
in the future.”
:
-
Mill
Table A4: Land Use Requirements in Climate
Railroad:
Croman
The
TT:
.
Comprehensive Plan policy
within CFAs, per
-
public
serving government
-012-0320(4)
Prioritize locating
October 10. 2024
facilities
OAR 660
-
Climate
RuleRule
155
Number:
Page
Total
24
parks and open space
acquisitions, supported by Comprehensive Plan
of
20
s, both with individual
developments and as planned or potential
A
Page
providing for
throughout the CFA
Meets rule by
Analysis
.
policy
) require a minimum 8% of the site
Tolman Creek/Mistletoe Road Area
3 developments (base zones within
for potential acquisition on the western edge
one SF of plaza space per 10 SF of gross floor
parks within
Railroad and
potential neighborhood park site identified Space
. ; Willows are potential trail connection
developments over 10,000 SF at the ratio of .
ALUO Table 18.2.5.030,
(Railroad
Within the Detail Site Review Overlay that
required to be dedicated as parks or open
CFA), Croman Mill District, or TT overlay
ALUO 18.3.13.010, Table 18.3.2.050, Table
acquisition on the eastern edge of the CFA
and riparian area identified for potential
ALUO
throughout the District, and spaces are
specific open space not
Parks Trails and Open
Open space is planned
, plaza space is required for
Parks Trails and Open Space Map
was written well before CFAs were
space at the time of development.
required for Residential Overlay
applies to large portions of the
existing
ALUO 18.4.2.040(D)(2)
no
There are
area as open space.
City Code & Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
2024
contemplated.
-
Croman Mill:
Development
18.3.14.050 .
18.4.4.070
TT CFA
-
of the CFA Railroad:
18.3.2.070
2 and R
TT CFAs
area.
2024
Map
the
CFA
-
R
in
contain sufficient facilities,
and near CFAs that do not
parks,
per Comprehensive Plan
similar public amenities
open space, plazas and
-012-0320(4)
Prioritize locating
October 10. 2024
OAR 660
policy.
-
Climate
Rule
156
Number:
Page
use path
Total
24
option rather than full street, accessways would
of
Further analysis needed to determine whether
21
A
Page
-
, with both code standard and
adopted Croman Mill grid pattern meets
minimum spacing. If developed as multi
not meet the requirement for streets.
.
Comprehensive Plan policy
Meets rule
Analysis
use path option or
required an average Parks, Open Space, and Aesthetics
the CFA, but not within the CFA: Garden Way
As part of the overall goal to provide “variety,
mapped street improvements to create a grid
All street cross sections within
adjacent or near orientation, including several classifications
Parks, Open Space,
Hunter Park and Mountain View Cemetery.
quantity and quality” of parks, the City will
d but appear to be less than 400 ft.
of streets. Accessway classification can be
-
ALUO
foot
accordance with community growth and
District standards include
wide planting strips on both sides of the
Street trees shall be required in all new
Park, Clay Street Park, Sherwood Park,
full street option. Dimensions are not
-8-
acquisition and development plan in
develop and accomplish a “parkland
and Aesthetics Element, Policy 8.16(1)
of 30 feet apart along all frontages.
the District include allowance for 5
There are several parks
-
developed as either a multi
ALUO 18.3.2.060(A)
projected park demand.”
treet trees are
Element, Policy 8.16(13)
City Code & Policies
ALUO 18.3.2.060(A)
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
development.
Croman Mill:
Croman Mill:18.4.4.030(E)
S
:
Citywide
indicate
street.
TT:
For development sites less
, where
length with requirement
street trees and
ft block
maximum block
than 5.5 acres in size,
feasible, in streetscape
requirements for CFAs.
for public pedestrian
-012-0320(4)
:
other landscaping
length standards
-
maximum 500
October 10. 2024
Include
OAR 660
Apply
-
Climate
Rule
157
Number:
Page
Total
24
CFA. Such a summary is being prepared
Croman Mill CFA
Additional detailed analysis needed to determine
and subsequent plan or code
specific
will help
requirement for multimodal transportation gap
of
by the RVCOG to support the initial adoption of
CFAs specifically or as amendment to citywide
compliance with this rule. DLCD is working to
A highway impacts summary may be required
.
Does not meet rule, standards should address
foot maximum
summary with any plan or code amendments
Explore block length standards for either this
and/or Highway 66/Ashland Street
exceptions meet allowed exceptions in rules.
22
Citywide standard does not meet the rule.
A
Page
Highway 99/Siskiyou
-
that
rather than existing range. Existing site
Walkability Model Code
-
/or
rules to apply a consistent 350
if final TT and
boundaries include
with CFA adoption
amendments
.
(s)
Boulevard
develop a
a
Analysis
within the CFA
amendments to the Croman Mill District Plan.
required where block lengths exceed 400 feet.
maximum of 300 to 400 feet for public streets
-
within developments and redevelopments of
Block spacing may be modified based on site
standards address street design and access,
transportation gap summary or a highway
There are no provisions for a multimodal
lock lengths are subject to a
use paths are
ALUO 18.4.6.040(E)(9)
Detailed district design
site and building design, and green
impacts summary for plan or code
CFA, or for
ALUO 18.5.9, 18.3.2.030(C)
-
block multi
a
amendments within
City Code & Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
factors.
Croman Mill:
-
all size. Mid
B
:
Citywide
specific
accessways through the site
Exceptions may be permitted
regulations to implement the regulations to implement the
gap summary and a highway
2 acres or more that do not
For redevelopment of sites impacts summary if the CFA
meet the standard, require
comprehensive plan or land
for amendments to
-012-0325.
multimodal transportation
includes highway facilities.
spaced no more than 350
For development sites of
use regulations to adopt a
CFA or within an adopted
in
accessway where block
-012-0330(2).
length exceeds 350 feet.
ft block
Findings must include a
transportation review
0320(7)(a)
land use requirements
0320(5)
5.5 acres or more,
public pedestrian
Adopt policies and Adopt policies and
-CFA per OAR 660
maximum 350
October 10. 2024--
012012
feet apart.per OAR 660
length.
--
OAR 660OAR 660
process
-
Climate
Rule
158
Number:
Page
opportunities to consolidate design standards and
Design standards should also be further reviewed
Total
direction for the CFEC rules, but analysis relative
24
to determine if there are only clear and objective
hat is expected to be
standards is generally consistent with the
of
standards applied to residential development.
Meets rule by removing all parking mandates
There may also be
23
various
to the Model Code will help to identify any
A
Page
ready in Fall 2024. The intent of the
t
these rules
.
needed
specific changes
cities implement
ORA 197A.400(1)
remove overlap.
Meets rule.
citywide.
Analysis
design
and materials standards apply, per Detail Site
materials, site design, scale, streetscape, and
2 sheltered spaces
development to provide a district with a mix
per unit, based on size), commercial, office,
scale, streetscape, buffering and screening, use development
Additional orientation and
Design standards for residential
No minimum parking requirements apply
18.3.2.060
of jobs, mixed use, and open space with
family and duplexes),
address building orientation, building
ALUO 18.4.2
Minimum bicycle parking ratios for
ALUO 18.4.2.040
ALUO Table 18.4.3.040
ALUO
-
-
landscaping/open space.
nonresidential and mixed
multifamily residential (1
transportation options.
City Code & Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
-
Review Overlay.
Parts of RR, TT:
(excluding single
Citywide:citywide.
regulations to implement the regulations to implement the
-
However, this rule does not
removed parking mandates
bicycle parking
use land use development
friendly, mixed
-
-
in OAR 660
012
management strategies.
apply to cities that have
-012-0320(7)(b)
0320(7)(c)
0330 that
mandates for CFAs or
-
removing all parking
0435 that require
citywide per OAR 660
parking
Adopt policies and Adopt policies and
compact,
citywide.
adopting parking
requirements
October 10. 2024-
-
012
012
-
applicable applicable
pedestrian
-
-
support
patterns 0420(1).
OAR 660 OAR 660OAR 660
-
Climate
Rule
012-
159
Number:
Page
Total
24
policies that could meet this rule based on input
of
Does not meet rule. Explore standards and/or
24
A
Page
from DLCD about expectations.
Meets rule.
Analysis
institutional and transit stations apply to new
larger spaces for cargo bikes. Rack standards
lit. Spaces must be arranged
bicycle racks in the ROW; all spaces must be
Design standards allow bike parking outside
the main building, inside the building, or at
conveniently located to building entrances,
o include
There are no provisions for these facilities.
ALUO 18.4.3.070
ALUO Table 18.4.3.040
to allow maneuvering room and t
require secure designs.
City Code & Policies
Friendly Area Code Analysis: Comparative Review
-
visible and well
development.
bicycle parking and shared
OAR
Minimums for multifamily
-0630(4)
Cities to provide for public
lit facilities within CFAs and
locking without conflicts,
Spaces that allow secure
two units), commercial,
-
office, institutional and
residential (1 space per
--larger spaces for cargo
in OAR 660
in convenient and welllocations, and include
near key destinations.
OAR 660
660-012-0320(7)(d)
Requirements include:
parking and related
bicycle and scooter
012
0630(2) to (3)
-
0630(5)
transit station
OAR 660
development.
requirements
October 10. 2024
012-0630. -
012
bikes.
--
-
OAR 012660
Climate
Rule
DATE: 10/15/2024
TO:City of Ashland
FROM: ECOnorthwest, Becky Hewitt and Mackenzie Visser
SUBJECT: Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
Purpose
The City of Ashland is in the process of selecting its Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs) and
adopting land use code changes to meet Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities
(CFEC) rules. The City is considering three CFAs: the Railroad Property, Transit Triangle,
and Croman Mill. At a minimum, zoning standards within the CFA must allow a minimum
density of at least 15 dwelling units per acre and a maximum height of at least 50 feet. To
support this process, the City contracted with 3J Consulting (3J), ECOnorthwest (ECO), and
JET Planning (JET) to draft new zoning and development standards for its CFA.
JET completed an audit of the City's existing code and identified required changes and
flexibility within the rules where the City has options for implementing the new CFA
standards. Based on the findings from the code audit, ECO prepared this market
assessment to inform the City's policy decisions for selecting and implementing its CFA(s).
This analysis provides information on the relative market strength of different types of
development, market considerations for the potential CFAs, and possible market
implications of upcoming code amendments.
This analysis has two components: assessing the relative market strength of various
development types and analyzing market considerations and development potential for each
potential CFA.
Market Analysis by Development Type
Informed by the code audit and conversations with City staff, ECO identified various
development types that CFA zoning changes could impact. ECO evaluated each of these
development types’ marketstrengthbased ondeveloper interviews, analysis of the City's
existing building stock and development trends, regional development patterns, and
available market data.
Broader Real Estate Market Trends
Broadly, development feasibility in the region, state, and country has been challenging in
recent years. Currently, some development barriers across development types include:
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
1
Total Page Number: 160
Cost of borrowing: Higher interest rates have substantially increased developers'
borrowing costs, affecting the cost of construction loans and their ability to secure
long-term financing that makes projects feasible.
Construction Costs: Inflation has driven up the cost of construction materials and
labor. Supply chain disruptions have further exacerbated these issues, making
materials more expensive and delivery timelines less predictable.
Financing challenges for small markets: Banks are often hesitant to provide
financing for certain types of projects perceived as higher risk in a small market,
including commercial, mixed-use, and denser development. Interest from investors
can also be limited in small markets, which makes it difficult to raise the equity
needed to fund larger projects.
Developers working in Ashland and Southern Oregon reported these trends as barriers to
development in Ashland. However, some types of development are less impacted and are
more feasible overall than others. The following section discusses specific market
considerations for different commercial and residential development types. The greater a
development type's market strength, the more likely it is to be developed if permitted.
Commercial Development
Market strength: Depends on type and location
Ashland’s economy is largely driven by accommodations, food services, retail, and
healthcare. Ashland has a strong tourism market, and its amenities attract both residents
1
and visitors, particularly its access to outdoor recreation, a robust wine and food scene, and
a small-town feel. In 2022, Ashland’s Economic Diversification Strategy identified small
businesses as a key asset for Ashland’s economy and recommended investing in the
downtown area, enhancing recreational options and amenities, and supporting small
businesses. Strategic development in the CFAs can align with these strategies by supporting
mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented community areas with neighborhood-focused commercial
spaces.
The strongest opportunities for standalone commercial exist in areas that already have a
strong concentration of activity and visibility. Areas near I-5 offer strong visibility and vehicle
access that supports businesses that depend on pass-by customers and those arriving to the
area via the highway. Larger national companies can often afford to spend more to be in
locations offering the highest levels of access and visibility and tend to outbid smaller
businesses for such locations. Areas near the downtown offer a concentration of foot traffic
that can support smaller businesses and experiential retail. Stakeholders interviewed for this
market analysis shared that rents for the existing commercial inventory are often too high
for small businesses, partly because spaces are often larger than necessary. Vacancy rates
1 QCEW 2019 data, per Ashland’s 2022 Economic Diversification Strategy
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
2
Total Page Number: 161
for commercial (retail and office) space are also low in Ashland, hovering between 1.5% and
2.5% since 2017 (Exhibit 1), limiting opportunities for new businesses to find viable space.
2
As illustrated in Exhibit 1, commercial rents in Ashland have remained relatively flat in
recent years, even with a low vacancy rate. Currently, commercial rents average around $18
per square foot, though national companies can often afford to pay higher rates. Despite
3
the need for smaller, more affordable spaces, developers highlighted the difficulties in
developing new commercial properties, which tend to require relatively high rents compared
to the surrounding market to provide a return on the cost of new construction.
Exhibit 1: Rent and Vacancy Trends for Commercial Development in Ashland, 2014-2024
Source: CoStar
Although Ashland and Medford have distinct market situations, their markets are
interconnected to some extent. Ashland's commercial market is relatively limited, with
about 1.4 million square feet available, compared to Medford's 9.6 million square feet.
4
Developers indicated that the commercial space availability and employment
concentrations in Medford and Phoenix offer comparative advantages over Ashland, making
additional commercial development in Ashland less desirable.
Residential Development
Ashland’s housing market is very different for rental housing than for ownership housing, as
illustrated below.
2 Source: CoStar, Retail and Office Space in Ashland, 2014 to 2024
3 Source: CoStar, Retail and Office Space in Ashland, 2024
4 Source: CoStar, Retail and Office Space in Ashland and Medford, 2024
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
3
Total Page Number: 162
Renter marketFor sale market
Affordability based on Affordability based on
income both income and
wealth
Income tied to local
wages for many More wealth / home
rentersequity translates to
higher ability to pay
Often local or
regional young Demand at higher
professionals, service prices from those
industry workers, or seeking a 2home
nd
students -lower and based on recreational
moderate incomes/ scenic amenities
This split in the housing market has implications for housing development and for the type
and scale of housing that is most likely to be feasible to build because there are strong
associations between housing type/form and tenure (e.g., rental vs. ownership).
Single-dwelling detached and middle housing that is attached side-by-side (e.g.,
rowhouses) or detached (e.g., cottage cluster) are more likely to be built as
ownership housing rather than rental housing because the underlying land can be
divided and sold with the unit, providing a simpler path to individual ownership.
Multiunit housing with vertically stacked units is often more likely to be built as
rental housing than as condominiums. Condo construction is inhibited by the risk
and costs associated with Construction Defect Liability laws, which allow
condominium associations to hold developers liable for issues with the building (e.g.,
water intrusion) for years after completion, and which have been the source of many
lawsuits. Many developers and homebuilders avoid condominium development as a
result. However, some developers are more comfortable with condo development
than others, and in Ashland’s housing market, condo construction is more common
than in many other areas due to strong demand for ownership housing.
The relative market strength of various residential development types is discussed below.
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
Market strength: Very strong
Local developers stated in interviews that single-detached housing is likely the strongest
development type in the area. They felt that homebuyers in Ashland are primarily interested
in detached housing with private outdoor space. Over the past decade, the average home
sales price increased roughly 67%; in August 2024, the median sale price for detached
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
4
Total Page Number: 163
homes in Ashland was approximately $615,000.5 Most new homes are larger and more
expensive than the average of existing homes. Acknowledging high housing prices,
developers suggested there could be a market for smaller single detached homes, which
could potentially be built at a density up to 15 or 20 dwelling units per acre if zoning
standards allow. These homes would likely be 1,300 to 1,400 square feet at this density,
smaller than the current average single-detached unit size of roughly 1,800 square feet.
Because of the size difference, these homes could be sold at a lower cost. This unit size and
density are also similar to what has been built under middle housing regulations in some
larger communities, sometimes referred to as cottage housing.
TOWNHOMES AND MIDDLE HOUSING
Market strength: Strong
Like single-detached housing, local developers noted a market for certain types of middle
housing in the area, often sold at a lower price than larger single-detached units. In August
of 2024, Ashland townhomes were sold at an average price of $391,000, compared to
$615,000 for single-family homes. This is partly due to their smaller size: the average
townhome sold was approximately 1,400 square feet, roughly 400 square feet smaller than
the average single-detached home. In recent years, there has been some townhome and
middle housing development in the City, generally on the west side closer to downtown.
MULTIFAMILY
Market strength: Moderate to Weak
Because demand for rental housing is largely linked to local workers and some students, the
demand for higher-rent units that can cover the cost of new construction is relatively limited.
Student-oriented housing has been most financially viable in recent years, because some
students are able to spend more on housing and some developments have designed units
that allow renters to pool costs (e.g., units with multiple bedrooms and a shared kitchen),
keeping individual costs lower but overall rents higher.
Many areas in Ashland already allow taller, denser developments, but development has been
relatively limited. Currently, no market-rate or affordable multifamily buildings exceed three
stories; the only taller residential structures built recently are the four-story Southern
Oregon University dorms. Certain areas, such as near Southern Oregon University, could
potentially support denser multifamily development, but lower-density options are generally
more feasible in the City overall due to their lower construction costs.
Three-story walk-up construction is most likely to be cost-effective. Above three stories,
building code requirements and the need for elevators increase construction costs.
Developers typically cannot charge significantly higher rents for four-story apartments,
5 Per Redfin, August 2014 to August 2024.
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
5
Total Page Number: 164
decreasing overall development feasibility. This was also echoed in interviews with local
developers, who emphasized that even if they were interested in building multifamily
apartments, they would only build up to three stories.
Financing barriers also typically increase with the scale of development; for example, an
apartment building would require a larger total investment than a smaller middle housing
type development, even if costs are more efficient on a per-square-foot basis. As noted
previously, larger investments are more difficult to finance in a small market. Even if banks
or equity investors are willing to lend to or invest in these types of projects, they are more
likely to do so at higher interest rates or with higher financial return expectations.
Developers, particularly smaller firms, are less likely to be able to raise (and pay back) the
capital required to fund larger projects.
MIXED-USE
Market strength: Weak
In many markets, single-use multifamily developments are more feasible than mixed-use
multifamily developments because the achievable retail rents are not high enough to offset
the added construction costs of incorporating retail into the building. While horizontal
mixed-use development can be more financially feasible than vertical (because the uses are
not combined in a single building), a horizontal mixed-use project is still more complex than
a single-use development. There are a few reasons for this trend:
Mixed-use development often involves higher construction costs compared to
standalone apartments, both in materials and overall complexity of the process.
As discussed above, new commercial space often costs more to build (even on its
own) than market retail rents can cover in Ashland. Mixed-use development also
works best in areas where there is already a pedestrian-oriented environment that
supports walkable ground floor retail space, which are often in areas where land is
more expensive (relative to areas that are more vacant or less central).
Lenders may see mixed-use developments as riskier investments than standalone
residential projects because they involve different types of tenants (commercial and
residential) with varying revenue streams.
Mixed-use buildings are more complex to manage, as they require different leasing
agreements, property management, and maintenance for residential and commercial
spaces. The additional operational complexity can be costly and time-consuming,
making developers more cautious about pursuing these projects than standalone
residential developments.
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
6
Total Page Number: 165
Other Considerations
FIRE RISK
Developers shared that fire risk is a major deterrent to developing in Ashland. Developers
must account for fire-resistant building materials and locations, and fire risk affects where
housing can be safely built to allow for evacuation routes and emergency access. Especially
for higher-density housing, developers must carefully consider the safety of the tenants and
potential evacuation risks. Additionally, developers shared that recent fires have significantly
impacted fire insurance availability and costs as premiums rise. In some cases, insurance
companies have reduced coverage options or declined to offer policies altogether, making it
difficult for homeowners and developers to secure the necessary insurance to proceed.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUSES
Ashland currently offers density bonuses in the Transit Triangle overlay and Croman Mill
District in exchange for certain public benefits, including providing affordable units within
their development. The elimination of maximum densities removes density bonuses as a
potential incentive. Given the height limits needed to comply with CFA rules, height bonuses
are also unlikely to be an effective incentive for market-rate development. However, the City
could offer additional height for affordable housing as a way to provide further flexibility to
affordable housing development. Affordable housing development is financed differently than
market-rate construction, and affordable projects may benefit from being able to
accommodate more units on site to better qualify for certain funding sources and/or to
spread land and other fixed costs across more units. Recent changes to state law may also
require the City to provide flexibility on certain key standards—including height—for
affordable and/or mixed-income housing.6 Any updated bonuses for affordable housing
should be designed with those state requirements in mind.
6
Fully affordable housing development in areas zoned for residential use must be allowed density and height
bonuses: 125% to 200% density increases and 12- to 36-foot height increases depending on the starting density
maximum. (ORS 197A.445(9))
In addition, cities must allow adjustments on certain standards for affordable housing, mixed-income housing,
and other qualifying housing development. The adjustments can include standards like setbacks, lot
dimensions, parking, open space, building height, maximum density, some limitations on ground-floor
residential, design standards, and other requirements. There are limitations on the number of adjustments that
must be granted and on how much flexibility the adjustment must provide. Affordable and mixed-income
housing development and housing developments where the adjustment will enable building more units, lower-
priced units, or will make development more feasible are generally eligible for these adjustments. (SB 1537
(2024), Sections 38-41.)
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
7
Total Page Number: 166
Market Considerations for Potential CFAs
Using the strength of different development types as a basis, ECO analyzed each potential
CFA's strengths and limitations and assessed each area's development potential under
potential zoning changes. The City is considering three potential CFAs:
The Railroad Property is near downtown but separated by the railroad tracks.
The Transit Triangle along Siskiyou Blvd and Ashland Street.
The Croman Mill area at the southern end of Siskiyou Blvd near I-5.
The potential for (re)development with a mix of uses and a range of densities is summarized
below for each area.
Railroad Property
The railroad property is
about a fifteen-minute
walk north of downtown
and is surrounded by
lower-density residential
neighborhoods and
smaller commercial
developments. While the
southeastern portion of
the area is vacant, there is
commercial and light
industrial development on
the northern half. These
buildings generally date
back to the 1990s and early 2000s, with minimal recent construction. Existing roads
primarily serve these commercial buildings, but additional infrastructure would be necessary
to access and serve the vacant area. Proximity to the rail line limits the area’s desirability
for some uses, and lack of access and visibility to the interior create challenges for
development. A portion of the site is subject to on-going environmental remediation, but
those efforts are estimated to be complete by early 2025.7
MARKET CONSIDERATIONS
In interviews, developers felt the railroad property had the most opportunity for
redevelopment as a CFA. The railroad property’s strengths include its proximity to
downtown, which makes it attractive for development types that benefit from and
complement the downtown area, such as multifamily housing and commercial. Because of
7 Ashland Rail Yard Cleanup, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
8
Total Page Number: 167
its location, development in this area could obtain higher rents that could make
development viable.
The site’s strongest development areas are along the main roads (Hersey and Oak Street),
which are more visible and accessible. However, these sites are largely developed. To
redevelop one of these properties, a developer would need to acquire the land (which would
likely be more expensive than vacant land) and tear down or remodel the existing building,
which adds to project costs. The main vacant area on the southwest corner is tucked back
along the railroad tracks and is less accessible from main roads, making it less appealing
for commercial and residential development.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
If designated as a CFA, the primary zoning changes that could impact development patterns
in the Railroad Property are allowing townhomes and removing the current density
maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre. While apartments are currently allowed and the
maximum height in the area is 40 feet, it is unlikely that any form of multifamily housing
could be efficiently constructed at less than 15 dwelling units per acre, effectively limiting
development to single-family housing under the existing regulations.
Without these restrictions, the area could see increased housing development, particularly
on the east and west sides of the area closer to downtown. On the west side, particularly
along Oak Street, access to downtown and existing commercial development could support
smaller multifamily or mixed-use development on lower-value sites. The eastern side of the
area has a more residential context, and could be desirable for townhomes, middle housing
types, or single detached housing (on small lots to meet minimum density requirements).
Proximity to the railroad and limited access make the southeastern corner more complex to
develop, but if a development were able to overcome these challenges, the site could
potentially accommodate multifamily or denser townhouse development in this area.
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
9
Total Page Number: 168
Transit Triangle
The Transit Triangle is a mixed-use area located about 1.5 miles from downtown Ashland,
with access to public transit along Siskiyou Boulevard and proximity to I-5. It features a
combination of denser residential developments, including multifamily housing, alongside
smaller commercial businesses, schools, and churches along Siskiyou Boulevard. Recent
industrial
developments are
situated closer to the
highway, with hotels
and larger auto-
oriented commercial
developments located
nearby along Ashland
Street. Southern
Oregon University is to
the northwest, near
larger commercial
development in the
northwest corner of the
Triangle.
MARKET CONSIDERATIONS
The Transit Triangle's size and variety of market contexts makes it a potential area to
support a range of land uses:
The northwestern portion of the site has the strongest market potential for
multifamily and mixed-use development in the Triangle. The area’s visibility,
proximity to Southern Oregon University (SOU), and upgraded streetscape could
support potential for commercial, multifamily, or mixed-use redevelopment on
underutilized sites. The existing concentration of commercial space creates an
attraction that could be expanded over time with additional commercial space.
The northeastern area closer to I-5 could be appealing for auto-oriented standalone
commercial, flex, or multifamily housing catering to commuters. The existing mix of
auto-oriented commercial businesses and industrial developments near I-5 could
present challenges for creating a more cohesive, pedestrian-friendly environment
that supports denser mixed-use development.
The less busy southern stretch of Siskiyou Boulevard could have potential for
multifamily and middle housing infill similar to some of the existing development in
the area. Existing parcels are relatively small, which may limit the scale of potential
developments. The southern portion of Siskiyou Boulevard is more auto-oriented
than other stretches, but also has less activity that would support commercial
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
10
Total Page Number: 169
development—these factors combine to make mixed-use development challenging on
this stretch.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
If designated as a CFA, the major zoning changes that would impact development patterns
in the transit triangle are:
Establish a minimum density of 15 dwelling units per acre and remove density any
density maximums. In the Transit Triangle, base zone maximum densities range
from 13.5 to 30 dwelling units per acre; with the Transit Triangle Overlay, there are
no maximum dwelling units per acre, but density is regulated by floor area ratio
(FAR), which cannot exceed 1.25 to 1.5. This is a relatively low FAR limit, and
eliminating this limitation could allow multifamily in more areas and continue to
allow middle housing.
Expand commercial allowances in residential areas, especially along Siskiyou
Boulevard.
In the northwest corner, the main zone in this area (C-1) requires multifamily buildings to
have a portion of the ground floor dedicated to nonresidential uses and limits maximum
density for multifamily. These restrictions limit potential for multifamily development. While
this area is relatively strong for commercial, sites with less-than-ideal access or visibility
may be more feasible as stand-alone multifamily than as commercial or mixed use if this
option is allowed.
The northeastern area closer to I-5 would also get the option of stand-alone multifamily
developments and increased density allowances. Because mixed-use development works
best with pedestrian-oriented ground-floor commercial, even areas with strong market
conditions for auto-oriented commercial space may not have the surrounding amenities or
customer base to create demand for ground-floor retail space in a mixed-use development.
Some stand-alone multifamily may be possible on sites with less access and visibility than
the rest of the area if this becomes an option.
On the southern stretch of Siskiyou Boulevard, removing density maximums could allow
more flexibility for multifamily and middle housing development. While CFA rules would also
allow commercial in this area, it is less likely to support substantive commercial
development or vertical mixed-use because there is not enough other commercial
development to support it. However, some smaller-scale development catering to these
neighborhoods may be possible in this stretch over time.
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
11
Total Page Number: 170
Croman Mill
Croman Mill is approximately three miles from
downtown Ashland, near Siskiyou Boulevard
and I-5. The site is primarily near industrial
and commercial land uses. Although the City
implemented zoning for a master plan in
2008, the site has remained largely
undeveloped. Environmental remediation on
this site is underway. Townmakers LLC has
proposed a new master-planned, mixed-use
development that includes single and multi-
family residences, retail spaces, and light
industrial sites, although no formal
application has been submitted as of this
memo. This plan would require modifications
to the approved master plan.
MARKET CONSIDERATIONS
The main limitation of development in Croman
Mill is its current lack of infrastructure and
the need for site cleanup and preparation, which would require significant investment.
Because of the site’s large size and master-planning, there are opportunities to incorporate
a broader mix of uses than the site’s less central location would otherwise support,
including multifamily and neighborhood-serving commercial. As discussed below, master
planning can increase efficiency and help ensure that the mix of uses supports the larger
development. However, developing a large master-planned project is typically much more
complicated than smaller or infill development.
MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES
Master-planned communities (larger, integrated developments delivered by a master developer)
can often more effectively support an integrated mix of uses and housing types than piece-meal
development by different parties.
»
Developers may be more willing to integrate parks and walkable, locally serving commercial
uses because of the amenity value they create for the surrounding residential development,
even if the commercial development is only marginally financially viable.
»
There is an incentive to offer a range of price points and housing options to appeal to a
broader range of potential buyers compared to delivering units for a single market segment.
»
Larger development projects may be better able to absorb infrastructure costs and achieve
cost efficiencies in development.
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
12
Total Page Number: 171
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Due to its size, vacant status, and strategic positioning near major transportation routes like
I-5, Croman Mill offers the potential for a large-scale, master-planned development with a
mix of uses. With focused infrastructure investments and planning, it could evolve into a
walkable, mixed-use neighborhood consistent with the intention of CFAs. Because current
rules would require updates to master planning that would go through a discretionary review
process and would likely include a development agreement, the City has the opportunity to
influence development to make it more consistent with CFA intentions or regulations.
However, this discretionary process may also create a barrier to development and make it
more difficult for the developer to move forward. CFA-compliant regulations for this area
would allow for greater flexibility about where different uses are located and an overall
minimum density that would ensure efficient use of residential portions of the site without
the need for a discretionary process. This could facilitate development of the site but would
reduce the City’s influence over the details of the development.
Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Market Analysis
13
Total Page Number: 172