HomeMy WebLinkAboutKestrel Park_Ph3_PA-APPEAL-2025-00020ASHLAND
March 10, 2025
Taylored Elements Construction
1679 Jackson Rd
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Planning Action 9PA-T2-2024-00054
Notice of Decision
At its meeting of March 4, 2025, based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter, the
Ashland City Council approved your request for a request for outline plan approval for a 15 -lot Performance
Standards Option (PSO) subdivision, and a request for residential Site Design Review approval. The application
also includes a request for a variance to driveway width. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North
Mountain Plan; ZONING: NM -MF; MAP: 39 -IE -04 -AD; TAX LOT: 8600, 4700, 7800
The Ashland City Council adopted and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document on March 10,
2025.
Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and
evidence submitted and applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community
Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
Please note that all of the conditions imposed by the Ashland City Council must be fully met and that the Ashland
City Council approval is valid for a period of eighteen months only, after which time a new application would
have to be submitted.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Ashland Community Development
Department between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305.
This decision may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in accordance with Oregon
State Law. Please contact LUBA for specific appeal information, httL)://www.oregon.�4ov/LTJBA/F'AQ.shtmlor 503-
373-1265. They are located at 550 Capitol Street N.E., Suite 235, Salem, Oregon 97301-2552.
Enclosure
cc: Taylored Elements Construction
Parties of Record
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900
THE CITY OF ASHLAND
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 14, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA -T2-2024-00054 A
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS OPTION (PSO) SUBDIVISION, AND A REQUEST FOR
RESIDENTIAL SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL. THE APPLICATION
ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO DRIVEWAY
WIDTH AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
CMK DEVELOPMENT LLC
TAYLORED ELEMENTS
FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS,
AND ORDERS.
1) The subject property is tax lot 48600 of Assessor's Map 39 -1E -04 -AD (it does not presently
have a street address). The property was created as lot -31 of Kestrel Park Phase II and was
reserved for this final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision.
a. The application also includes three tax lots owned by the City of Ashland; tax lot
4700 a 0.05 acre strip of land along the north of the subject property, as well as
tax lots 7800 & 4900 which are both `street plugs' to be vacated.
b. The main property is 2.27 acres in size and slopes from east to west at
approximately 15% slope.
2) The property is zoned "North Mountain -Multi Family" (NM -MF) and is regulated by the
North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) which is codified at Ashland Municipal Code
(AMC) 18.3.5. This chapter applies to properties within the North Mountain Neighborhood
Plan area adopted by Ordinance 2800 in April 1997.
3) The North Mountain Neighborhood District regulations require that all applications involving
the creation of three or more lots shall be processed under chapter 18.3.9 Performance
Standards Option (PSO) Overlay (AMC 18.3.5.040.K).
4) On November 4, 2024 the application was submitted and described as follows:
a. The proposed PSO subdivision includes a total of 15 -lots for residential
development, ten of the lots are proposed for single-family residential (SFR)
development, and five lots for multifamily housing. The subdivision will connect
both Nandina Street and Patton Lane / Mountain Meadows Drive to create four
blocks that have been identified previously as areas 4, 5, 6, and 7. The application
includes a request for Site Design Review approval for four multifamily buildings
with a total of 28 -units of multi -family housing. Combined, this is a development
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 1
density of thirty-eight dwellings for the purposes of determining allowed density.
5) On December 9, the day before the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant informed
staff that they were removing `area 7' and its proposed development from the application,
and instead would plat the area as a single lot reserved for future development.
a. On December 10, 2024 the applicant informed staff in writing that "Based on
comments received from the neighboring property owners of the proposed Kestrel
Park, Phase III application, the applicants have decided to withdraw area 7 from
the application, including all associated entitlement requests such as the
proposed property lines, tree removal and site review proposal. The applicants
are still proposing to move forward with the remaining areas, area 4, 5 and b, but
will eventually re -apply for entitlements for area 7 in the future."
6) The request, after the removal of area 7, is for outline plan approval for a 13 -lot PSO
subdivision and Site Design Review approval.
a. Proposed is a total of twelve -lots for residential development, eight of the lots are
proposed for single-family residential (SFR) development (which may or may not
eventually develop with ARU's). The Site Design Review includes four lots with
a total of 16 -units of multi -family housing (area 6), as well as three buildings of
attached single family (areas 4 and 5). The thirteenth lot will be reserved for the
future development of area 7.
b. Combined, this is a development density of twenty-two dwellings for the purposes
of determining allowed density. (In accordance with HB2001 and the adopted
duplex standards at AMC 18.2.3.110 each of the SFR lots can be developed with
two dwellings.)
c. The application also includes a request for a variance to driveway width.
7) The applicant's proposal is detailed in plans which are on file at the Department of Community
Development and by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full.
8) The criteria of approval for Outline Plan are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows:
A. the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city.
B. adequate key city facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate
transportation; and that the development will not cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity.
C. the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large
trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant
features have been included in the common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.
D. the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses
shown in the comprehensive plan.
E. there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and common areas, if
required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the
same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
F. the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter.
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 2
G. the development complies with the street standards.
H. the proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section
18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in
accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the city of Ashland.
9) The supplemental approval criteria of the NMNP are described in AMC 18.3.5.030.0 as
follows:
C. Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections
of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet all of the following criteria.
1. The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building
orientation.
2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North
Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
10) The criteria for approval for Site Design Review are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as
follows:
An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in
subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose
conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria.
A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the
underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area
and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation,
architecture, and other applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part
18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6
Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity,
urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may
approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the
circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing
structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not
substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is
consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the
exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty;
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but
granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated
purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards; or
3. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a
cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that
equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 18.2.3.090.
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 3
11) The criteria of approval for a Variance are described in AMC 18.5.5.030 as follows:
A. The approval authority through a Type I or Type II procedure, as applicable, may approve a
variance upon finding that it meets all of the following criteria.
1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for
special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural
features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be
sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance.
2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical
circumstances related to the subject site.
3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of
the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For
example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land
division approval previously granted to the applicant.
12) The criteria of approval for removal of a Tree that is Not a Hazard are described in AMC
18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if
the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made
to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with
other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to
applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and
Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an
exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no
reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider
alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would
lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other
provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
13) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on
December 10, 2024.
a. At the beginning of the hearing, it was announced that `Area 7' was no longer part
of the proposal and that the Planning Commission would only be considering the
public improvements and Site Design Review for Areas 4, 5 and 6.
14) Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission deliberated
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 4
and approved the application subject to conditions of approval.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, and
recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and
testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS OF FACT
2.1 The Planning Commission notes that chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
is the City's Land Use Ordinance (LUO). The LUO regulates the development pattern
envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and encourages efficient use of land resources among
other goals. The Planning Commission notes that when considering the decision to approve or
deny an application the Planning Commission considers the application materials against the
relevant approval criteria in the LUO.
2.1.2 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to
render a decision based on the application itself, the December 10th Staff Report, the
applicant's testimony, the exhibits received, and public testimony received both written
and at the public hearing.
2.2 The Planning Commission notes that the application was deemed complete and that the
notice for the public hearing was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed
to all property owners within 200 -feet of the subject property on, November 19, 2024 (21 days
prior to the December 10th Meeting).
2.3 The Planning Commission notes that the property is in the NMNP and as provided at AMC
18.3.5.040.K, "All applications involving the creation of three or more lots shall be processed under
chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option Overlay."
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Plan of a Performance
Standard Option (PSO) subdivision meets all applicable criteria for described in AMC
18.3.9.040.A.3 and detailed below.
2.4.1 The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that "The development meets
all applicable ordinance requirements of the City." The Planning Commission notes that
this is an all-encompassing criterion and that it has considered which City Ordinances are
PA -T'2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 5
applicable. The Planning Commission notes that for the purposes of resolving this criterion
we rely on the entirety of the record including the applicant's submittal, and the Staff
Report dated December 10th. The Planning Commission notes that with the findings that
are set out below, the approval of the exception to street standards discussed below, and the
adopted conditions of approval that the proposal will meet all applicable ordinance
requirements and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied.
2.4.2 The second approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that "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 Planning Commission notes that this is the final phase of the Kestrel Park
Subdivision and all infrastructure installed in the previous phases were sized based on the
total planned density. The Planning Commission notes that at the intersection of Stoneridge
Ave. and Nandina St. that there is a maintenance hole where an eight -inch sanitary sewer
will connect. The Planning Commission notes that at the same intersection there is also a
storm drain catch basin that feeds into a twelve -inch main. The storm drain connects into
existing retention facilities that were constructed in the first phase of the subdivision. The
Planning Commission notes that each road that is proposed to be extended through the
subdivision has either a six- or eight -inch water main that will all connect, providing a
closed loop system. The Planning Commission notes that the application materials assert
that adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the development based on
consultations with representatives of the various City departments (i.e. water, sewer, streets
and electric), and that the proposed development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity. The Planning Commission notes that the Staff Report stated that "Public
works has confirmed that there are no concerns regarding the capacity of any of these
services." The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing that this criterion of
approval is satisfied.
2.4.3 The third criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that "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
Planning Commission notes that the wetlands, floodplain corridors and large trees were
previously addressed in the earlier phases of the subdivision. The Planning Commission
notes that the only natural feature that has been identified is the cherry tree that is requested
to be removed and is addressed further below. The Planning Commission notes that there
are no other natural features to address and that this approval criteria is satisfied.
2.4.4 The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that "The development of the
land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the
Comprehensive Plan." The Planning Commission notes that the surrounding property is
fully developed, and that there is no adjacent vacant land. The Planning Commission finds
that the proposed subdivision will not prevent the adjacent lands from being developed as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied.
2.4.5 The fifth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is that "There are adequate
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 6
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 Planning Commission notes again
that this is the final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision and that the HOA governing
instruments have obligations for the maintenance of the open space and other common
amenities. The Planning Commission notes that all of the open space for the subdivision
were dedicated in the previous phases and concludes that the earlier phases had a higher
ratio of amenities than this final phase. The Planning Commission finds that there are
adequate provisions for the maintenance of the open space and common areas and finds that
this criterion of approval is satisfied.
2.4.6 The sixth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is that "The proposed
density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter." The
Planning Commission reiterates that this is the third phase of the subdivision and the density
considered has been tracked over the previous phases and includes all area of the previous
parent parcels including lands dedicated to Rights of Way. The Planning Commission takes
note of the spread sheet that was provided in the staff report and also set out below. This
spreadsheet has been updated based on the removal of `Area 7.'
The Planning Commission notes that the required minimum density for the remaining
subdivision is between 24 and 40 units. The Planning Commission further notes that the
present proposal is for 22 units of density, and the Planning Commission further notes that 8
of the proposed MFR units are below 500 sq. ft. they are counted as 0.75 units [SFR: 8,
MFR 8+(8*0.75)=14, 8+14=22]. The Planning Commission concludes that Area 7 will need
to develop with at least two but not more than eighteen units, and a condition of approval to
that effect has been included below. The Planning Commission finds that, with the condition
of approval included below ensuring that area seven will meet the required minimum
density, that this criterion of approval is satisfied.
2.4.7 The seventh Outline Plan approval criterion is that "The development complies with
* Eight of the proposed multi family units are less than 500 square feet so for the purposes of density they
only count as 0.75. [8 SFR + ((8 x 0.75) + 8) MFR = 22]
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 7
' NM -R-1-7.5
NM -MF
Acres
4.59
4.16
Dwelling units per acre
3.6
12
Base Density (acres x units per acre)
16.52
49.92
Minimum Density (x 0.75 —1.1)
12.39 —18.18
37.44 — 54.91
Phase 1
11
4
Phase 2 (Cottages)
5
10
Total Dwellings (Phase 1 + 2)
16
14
Remaining minimum density range
up to 2.18
23.44 - 40.91
Proposed Phase 3
22*
Required minimum range for Area 7
Full developed
1.44-18.91
The Planning Commission notes that the required minimum density for the remaining
subdivision is between 24 and 40 units. The Planning Commission further notes that the
present proposal is for 22 units of density, and the Planning Commission further notes that 8
of the proposed MFR units are below 500 sq. ft. they are counted as 0.75 units [SFR: 8,
MFR 8+(8*0.75)=14, 8+14=22]. The Planning Commission concludes that Area 7 will need
to develop with at least two but not more than eighteen units, and a condition of approval to
that effect has been included below. The Planning Commission finds that, with the condition
of approval included below ensuring that area seven will meet the required minimum
density, that this criterion of approval is satisfied.
2.4.7 The seventh Outline Plan approval criterion is that "The development complies with
* Eight of the proposed multi family units are less than 500 square feet so for the purposes of density they
only count as 0.75. [8 SFR + ((8 x 0.75) + 8) MFR = 22]
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 7
the Street Standards." The Planning Commission notes that the street network and road
cross-sections have been planned from the earlier phases of the subdivision. The Planning
Commission notes that the application materials include civil drawings and road cross
sections for each road and alley meeting the standards provided in the NMNP. The Planning
Commission concludes that the street standards are met and finds that this criterion of
approval is satisfied.
2.4.8 The final criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is that "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 Performance Standards
Option Chapter requires that at least eight percent of the total lot area be provided in
common open space for developments with a base density of ten units or greater. The
Planning Commission notes that the firsts two phases dedicated nearly 50% of the total
project land area to dedicated open space including the floodplain and wetland areas as well
as additional open space provided in phase 2 of the project. The Planning Commission
conclude that with the previous phases of the subdivision considered and the ample amount
of land dedicated that this criterion of approval has been found to be satisfied.
2.4.9 The Planning Commission concludes based on the above and finds that all
applicable approval criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval have been satisfied.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for development in the NMNP meets all
of the supplemental applicable criteria described in AMC 18.3.5.030.0 and detailed below. There
are two supplemental approval criteria for the NMNP. The first is to ensure conformity with the
"general design requirements" and second that the proposal meets the "specific design
requirements" of the NMNP Design Standards. The general design requirements include
`density, transportation, building design, and building orientation.' The specific design
requirements include all of the standards provided in AMC 18.3.5.100 "Site Development and
Design Standards"
2.5.1 The Planning Commission notes that the "general design requirements" include
`density, transportation, building design, and building orientation." Included in the
discussion of the Outline Plan approval, above, there are findings addressing the required
minimum density, and that the road system connecting four road stubs completing the
original road design that was approved in conjunction with the first phase of Kestrel Park
Subdivision. The Planning Commission notes that each of the proposed buildings
provides pedestrian connectivity to the proposed facilities and satisfies the building
orientation. The Planning Commission concludes that with the foregoing discussion that
the Planning Commission finds that this approval criterion is met.
2.5.2 The Planning Commission notes that the "specific design requirements" include
all of the standards provided in AMC 18.3.5.100 "Site Development and Design
Standards." The Planning Commission notes that the Site Development and Design
Standards includes four primary sections: A.) Housing, B.) Neighborhood Central, C.)
Street Types and Design, and D.) Open Space and Neighborhood Focal Point. There are
no applicable portions of sections B or D and they are not discussed further.
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 8
AMC 18.3.5.100 A "Housing"
The Planning Commission notes that first the first standard is `Architectural
Design.' This standard provides a list of architectural features and requires that at
least two listed features from the section be included in each home design.
The Planning Commission notes that the application materials include extensive
drawings of the proposed buildings with each having eaves, covered porch
entries, gables and in some cases dormers. The Planning Commission concludes
that each proposed building design includes at least two of the required features
satisfying the `Architectural Design.' Requirements.
The Planning Commission notes that the building orientation standards require
that "Dwellings shall be designed with a primary elevation oriented towards a
street." The Planning Commission notes that the site plan clearly shows that each
proposed building has its primary orientation to the street and finds that the
orientation standard is met.
The Planning Commission notes that the requirement for garages requires that
"Where no alleys are present, garages shall be located a minimum of 15 feet behind
the primary fa(ade and a minimum of 20 feet from the sidewalk." The Planning
Commission, in evaluating the main site plan, note that the garages are properly
setback and that this standard is met.
The Planning Commission notes that the standards require that "Grading for new
homes and accessory structures shall be minimized and building designs shall
respond to the natural grade." The Planning Commission again notes the
comprehensive design package for each of the three areas and notes that care has
been given in having each of these homes have a daylight basement and are
responsive to the existing grade, and that this standard has been met.
The Planning Commission notes that the design standards specify that porches shall
be incorporated into buildings and be a minimum of six -feet by eight -feet in size.
The Planning Commission notes that the detailed site plan of each area includes
details on the porch size and in every case meet or exceed this requirement, and that
this standard has been met.
The Planning Commission notes that the design standards include that driveways for
single family homes be limited to nine -feet in width, and that shared driveways be
no more than twelve -feet. The Planning Commission notes that the application
includes a variance to this standard which is discussed below. The Planning
Commission further notes that the Public Works department has a standard that
requires that the minimum driveway width be twelve feet, and that the application
proposes twelve -foot driveways for the single-family homes and combined 18' -wide
for the shared driveways. The Planning Commission concludes that if the variance is
approved below then this standard will be satisfied.
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 9
AMC 18.3.5.100 D "Street Types and Design."
The Planning Commission notes that this section provides many types of streets for
the NMNP area with the primary type being a "neighborhood access street" which is
composed of "a 48 foot right-of-way, which provides for a 15 -foot travel surface,
seven foot parking bays, and eight foot planting strips and five foot sidewalks on
each side." The project also includes alleys which are "a 20 foot wide right-of-way
which contains a 12 foot wide improved alley and four foot planted or graveled
strips or shoulders." The Planning Commission once again notes that this is the third
phase of the Kestrel Subdivision, and the extension of the street system approved at
that time. The Planning Commission further notes that the application materials
containing detailed civil plans showing that the proposed cross sections meet these
design standards and conclude that this standard has been met.
2.5.3 The Planning Commission concludes based on the above and finds that all design
standards are met and that therefore this approval criterion has been met.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a variance meets all of the applicable
criteria described in AMC 18.5.5.050 and as detailed below.
2.6.1 The Planning Commission notes that the approval criteria for a variance include that
1) variance is necessary special or unique circumstances, 2)The variance is the minimum
necessary, 3)The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts, and 4)
that the need for the variance is not self-imposed.
2.6.2 The Planning Commission notes that the NMNP master plan was adopted in
1997, and that in the decades since cars have gotten larger. The Planning Commission
also notes that there is no evidence that nine -foot driveways have ever been constructed
in the NMNP area. The Planning Commission notes that the Public Works department
will not authorize a driveway as narrow as the code requires, making a unique
circumstance. The Planning Commission notes that the proposal for 12' and 18' shared
driveways is the minimum necessary in both cases, because Public Works will not allow
anything less than 12', and that the application materials demonstrate that 12' is two
narrow for a shared drive. The Planning Commission further notes that based on a single
driveway requirement for a nine foot it is perfectly reasonable that a shared driveway for
two shared wall garages be allowed to be twice that. The Planning Commission notes that
based on the topography and lot sizes it is unreasonable to expect a 12' wide shared drive
to functionally serve two 2 -car garages. The Planning Commission further notes that the
benefit of the variance allows for long stretches of uninterrupted streetscape that would
not otherwise be possible. Finally, The Planning Commission notes that the inability to
build the required driveway width based on City of Ashland policy demonstrates that the
need for the variance is not self-created. The Planning Commission concludes that based
on the above that each of the approval criteria for a variance is satisfied and that the
variance should be approved.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review approval meets
all applicable criteria for described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as detailed below:
PA -T2-2024-00054
Januaiy 14, 2025
Page 10
2.7.1 The Planning Commission notes that the first criterion of approval for Site Design
Review is that "The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the
underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot
area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building
orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards." The Planning Commission
notes that the property is in the NMNP and is required to be processed in accordance with
the Performance standards of AMC 18.3.9. The Planning Commission further notes that
the PSO applicability provides "that developments subject to [the PSO] chapter are not
required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setback standards of part
18.2." The Planning Commission concludes that based on the PSO standards this
approval criteria is met.
2.7.2 The Planning Commission notes that the second criterion of approval for Site
Design Review is that "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements
(part 18.3)." As mentioned above in 2.5.2, the Planning Commission again notes that the
only overlay is the city-wide wildfire overlay and that all proposed construction will meet
the adopted wildfire standards. The Planning Commission finds that this criterion of
approval is met.
2.7.3 The Planning Commission notes that the third criterion of approval for Site Design
Review is that "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design
Standards ofpart 18.4, except as provided below." The Planning Commission notes that
the application includes detailed responses to each of the Site Development and Design
Standards. The Planning Commission notes that the building orientation, garage
standards, proposed building materials, preliminary landscape plan and open space
standards are all met. The Planning Commission notes that a final landscaping plan with
irrigation details will be required and a condition of approval to that effect has been
included below. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing that this
criterion of approval is met.
2.7.4 The Planning Commission notes that the fourth criterion of approval for Site
Design Review is that "The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section
18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer,
electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property." The Planning
Commission reiterates that this is the third phase of the subdivision and that all city
facilities were sized for the expected density during the first phase. The Planning
Commission further notes that all city utilities are available and installed in the adjacent
rights -of -ways. The Planning Commission notes that Staff have communicated with the
Public Works Department and that there are no known capacity issues to any of the
utilities. The Planning Commission notes that the application includes details on the
electrical plan and that the storm drain will be designed for Low Impact in accordance
with the RVSS stormwater quality design manual. The Planning Commission finds that
this criterion of approval has been met.
2.7.5 The Planning Commission notes that the last criterion of approval for Site Design
Review is that "The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 11
and Design Standards ofpart 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsections below, are
found to exist..." The Planning Commission notes that there are no requested exceptions
to the above standards and finds that this criterion of approval has been met.
2.7.6 The Planning Commission concludes based on the above and finds that all
applicable approval criteria for Site Design Review approval have been satisfied.
2.8 The approval criteria for "Tree that is not a hazard" first require that "The tree is
proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable
Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards." The Planning Commission notes that the
only tree proposed for removal is within a building envelope of a proposed building in area 7.
The Planning Commission notes that without considering the proposed development it is
impossible to address the relevant findings for a non -hazard tree removal. The Planning
Commission concludes that the tree removal in area seven must be denied at this time.
2.9 The Planning Commission notes that following proper public notice, a public hearing was
held on December 10, 2024 where testimony was received, and exhibits were presented.
2.9.1 The Planning Commission deliberated, and a motion was made approving the
Outline Plan as well as Residential Site Design Review. The application was approved
subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report along with added conditions of
approval presented by staff regarding the removal of consideration of area 7. The
amendments were read into the record and are set out below as conditions of approval #3
and #4.
2.10 The Planning Commission notes that the record includes the applicant's submittal, the
Staff Report dated December 10, as well as the testimony received at the public hearing, each of
these by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full.
2.10.1 The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to
make findings that each of the criteria of approval for Outline Plan and Residential Site
Design Review have been met.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission
concludes that the request for a 13 -lot unit Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision
Outline, as well as residential site design review for areas 4, 5, and 6 is supported by evidence
contained within the whole record and is approved including the conditions of approval below.
The conditions of approval are below:
1- That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 12
2- That the applicant apply for final plan approval pursuant to AMC 18.3.9.040.13 within 18
months of this outline plan approval prior to any development or construction.
3- The conceptual plans for area #7 are not approved here and have been provided for
illustrative purposes only. Development of areas #7 shall require Site Design Review
approval. The ultimate development of areas 47 shall comply with the minimum density
standards of the NMNP.
4- That all proposed public improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, park row
landscaping/irrigation and alley be installed, including surrounding area 7, prior to the
recording of final plat.
5- That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any
additional work in the public right of way.
6- That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification
Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be
provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new
landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants
listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028.
7- That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months of Final Plan approval and
approved by the City of Ashland. Prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat
for signature:
a. All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, drainage,
irrigation, mutual access, conservation area easements, and fire apparatus access
shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the
Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments.
b. Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities,
driveways, streets, and conservation area easements, shall be completed according
to approved plans, inspected, and approved.
c. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected, and
approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to
installation.
d. That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with
meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase,
inspected and approved.
8- That the building permit submittals shall include the following:
a. Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public and private
utility easements, mutual access easements, conservation area easements, and fire
apparatus access easements.
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 13
b. Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units comply with the
performance Solar Setback Standard as approved in the outline and final plans.
c. Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage complies with the
lot coverage approved in the outline and final plans.
d. That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with
peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water
collection system through the curb or gutter at a public street, a public storm pipe,
an approved public drainage way, or through an approved alternative in
accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD -PP -0029. On-site
collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
Planning Commission Approval
Date
PA -T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 14
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On March 10, 2025 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice
to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on
this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -APPEAL -2025-00020,
Kestrel Park Phase III, TL 8600.
. MichaeCSuCCivan
Signature of Employee
G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\PAs by StreeflK\Kestrel\Kestrel Park Subdivision Phase3\Kestrel_Park_ Sub_3_PA-APPEAL-2025-00020\Noticing\NOD\Kestrel Park—PA-APPEAL-2025-
00020—NOD—Affidavit of Mailing.docx 4/4/2025
PA -T2-2024-00053
Kestrel Park Phase III
Public Comment - Email List Emailed 03/10/25 by Michael Sullivan
Date Received Name Email
2/17/2025 Charlene Kenny 7.(1
gLI ail.com
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD4800 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DB2005 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
ABELLE NANCY & MARK ADAMS JONATHAN/MELISSA AL SKLENKSY
902 PATTON LN 806 KESTREL PKY 549 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD4500
ASKENAS NELSON REVOCABLE TRUS
246 STREET IVES DR
TALENT, OR 97540
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DA2400
BOWMAN LEE ELLSWORTH TRUSTEE
554 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
CEC ENGINEERING
132 W MAIN ST STE 103
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
DIANA O'FARRELL
929 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS CR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
HOLEMAN DENNIS
822 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
KINSINGER TRUSTEE
591 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
MICHAEL/CLAIRE KOTOWSKI
812 BOULDER CREEK LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
POLARIS SURVEY
151 CLEAR CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
ASKENAS NELSON REVOCABLE TRUS
911 PATTON LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
CATHERINE HICKLING
833 PAVILION PL
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
DANIEL DEROUX & JOANN GRADY
909 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
EGAN LOLA
836 PAVILION PL
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
KATHI BOWEN-JONES
2000 TAMARACK PL
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
KNOX MARK
670 NEPENTHE RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
PATRIDGE BARBARA
794 KESTREL PKY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD7300
RUNKEL DAVID/DONNAN
893 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
BOB POHL
843 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
CATHY GEORGE
832 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
DENNIS KNAUERT/FRANCISCAVAN LITH
862 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
FROSTAD KEVIN/TINA
793 N. MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
KEILA MIRAMONTEZ
855 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
LIA BYERS & STEPHEN BRUMMER
544 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
PAUL/NINA WINANS
802 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
SUZANNE MITCHELL
892 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
SYDNEE DREYER TAYLOR DONNA/JOEL TAYLORED ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTION
670 G ST, STE B 590 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR 1679 JACKSON RD
JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD7500 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD8300 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD7400
THOMPSON JEFFREY/MAGGIE TOWER ROBERT D TRUSTEE ET AL VANDERVORT RONALD/CAROL
863 PLUM RIDGE DR 812 PLUM RIDGE DR 583 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
VIDA TAYLOR
913 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
Kestrel Phase III NOD
03/10/25
34
El
70 C/)
.O N
O N
N
CD
N 7C3
CD
Z
U
_0
O
N
L
�O
�O
0,
Cli a--,
U
cn
O N
+- L
N oo
-0(�
M
O
O
+-,
0
E
cn N
O
O
cn — p
cn
Q
j
O
M
U
L
O
>✓ +
cn
O
I
Q
N
U
U
—
M O
m
N
N
N 0-0
c
0700
p-0
+J
O
cn
N
Q
-
�
E
>✓ >✓
Q
>✓
cn
N
to
>✓
O
��
U)
Q O
E
N
N
O
>✓
N
u)
- c}n
U
U
U
m
w
0
a) a) Ia
-o
-0 E
c6
-6
6
N
O1
-r-
—
c
V)
•0
4
�,
O
(U
U
E
MY
Ln
,4�
V
�`
•
�
V
• u
W
c
p�
V
re
N , _0 0
to C
O L C
O-0 row CI
N N N CLM
VOI a-+
4-
E M
N
C
tn j tn
O t _�� C
,n .v L in U (6 p
C:4 -U
p C
t7; a) N -0•-+'U
L ++ .� m > J
m L E U
a 0 H n 4- .LA al
N w cn O N
Y.2-00
a� ami
� a 0 C:
OE in W
Q O O
O lfl >m Y in
cn N40- ro D a
U L
vOj a0- (6 (C6 a0' O C p
L
N 4O F N Q O
CM M C 0_ a
MY
p�
V
u
a
°
Z
z
N , _0 0
to C
O L C
O-0 row CI
N N N CLM
VOI a-+
4-
E M
N
C
tn j tn
O t _�� C
,n .v L in U (6 p
C:4 -U
p C
t7; a) N -0•-+'U
L ++ .� m > J
m L E U
a 0 H n 4- .LA al
N w cn O N
Y.2-00
a� ami
� a 0 C:
OE in W
Q O O
O lfl >m Y in
cn N40- ro D a
U L
vOj a0- (6 (C6 a0' O C p
L
N 4O F N Q O
CM M C 0_ a
Q y 9 n,. d,;"° V 'i"",',��:tl
71
4 lit
r.
1.
9e"
n4
EM
� .AJ' QA
l ") J" Kiri° i a W III
C CD' ,
y�
"" r 7 �+" � � 4w + VIII
M
r � � ar„u�ry°� „gyp 'b'rvb C„��r CD
r2
tier 99l aJ a w .I w a "�uw� ”"�" „"' ✓
e�
1,77 AY ��, ,GG Pr r , ° �. M, ""•ti. M, ". , "'w M.,""""?
d" m o q r'
My iei or, )r._ t r 8 Ing
"�"�"'�
U"Q
'r0 0 ("; (11 ➢illJ its s 11 F, oTMB Q irr✓ III
�Yl"O'
���1�'`f
h
6/" a uli III y III '' IIII
09(".
"„ 8
� ��
1.
�u T
,. rJ
r
CJ
14
q 64
..
IN �
bf.� ortr 'i Y r Y n•^s� w, z, u� �,k �s +;0 J
rlvv; (7� C) %.
C!] a t
� d,".:�
�?
CID r .
- a "l I v � VA
4� a s
"'%
Ol
"o
� U O
N �
� X �
Q 0 c%
WA
mm
H
Ldp
N
0
C3
a
(1)
U)
C3
r
C3
r
c�
Q
Q
go
go 1r)
by
�q
gr` by
Own
j
7
.4
I
All
i
CUM
CUM
4
.50
,„.,4
",
to
by
CD
V41
CUM
go
71.
"
by
03
by
"
go
w� �q
go
to
„.4
goml
by
i
to
a
to
C)
"
by
by
II„q mmi
'4-4
by
�wq
�wq
go
go 1r)
by
�q
go
7
.4
I
All
03
CUM
4
,„.,4
PIT
by
V41
go
1
"
7.1
03
by
"
co
by
i
to
a
to
C)
"
by
by
by
"
I; CD
q
go
go 1r)
by
go
7
.4
I
All
03
4
by
7.1
w
71
by
i
to
a
to
1..4
"
by
by
Aj 0.4
I; CD
q
co
mu 1..4
�wq co
All
CDCC)
by,,
a
A.14 co
1..4
„.4
4
"".4
cc)
by
a
0
t
w
m
All
mr•
�'
mo
go
all
ORi
�q
u w
„ a
I
I
as
ci
tau
;I
�a
vtau
.
63
,•,,,
�i
to
0�
CDCD
no
�V,
170
oI
to>
CUM
U�
.0
si
Ldp
N
0
C3
a
(1)
U)
C3
r
C3
r
m
Form,
i
;,
,.
��
.. ,
,, �.4
I
�.
�tid;`�
� w
�r�°"��.
j 4 ��
� h
rY TW
u ��
-1 Y
4
�.
0 AI
L
0-
cS ry I Y
fz, w
< �"o
e,
Lu Uj
< <r G/
............ . ... ............ . ... . .... ................... ....................
NI
.. ..... ..... ... .
C)
w r1
b
LLJ iCL
. ... ......
iLU
LIJ
Z�)
ULJ
Ja
:..
/`
� �
.
\ K \ z
°\
°° 2
\
r a..
�Zoz lot, Kqgy()
L V Vft UDI " q V3HV qmwanl;
11 H S NZ W,
.............
v .vmv� mvmvmvm vmvm mvmvmvmvmv�m mvmvm � vmv mvmvmvm ._ �.mvmvm.�
S IIA MiAdW ► �� NMI
t7
I
0
N
c -I
E
Z3
E
E
IIS
............
Ln
ULI
A
L
0-
cS
fz,
Uj
zu3
U�
1e
oeto
0
u
L
< 71
ISI P
&
IIS
............
Ln
ULI
. . . ..... . .
00
zo
0
iCL
LU
BO
iLU
0 1 . . ..... .........
LLJ
Z^+b)
A
L
fz,
&
....................
. . . ..... . .
00
zo
0
iCL
LU
BO
iLU
0 1 . . ..... .........
LLJ
Z^+b)
c�
Q
Q
go
go
�q
gr` by
Own
4
7
c
.4
All
03
CUM
CUM
4
�m
,„.,4
PIT
by
CD
go
�i SO
CUM
go
1
”
by
ct
03
by
"
w�
�
ct
„.4
co
a
",
by
i
a
to
"
by
by
II„q Ali
.-4
by
�wq
�wq
go
go
�q
7
.4
All
03
CUM
4
,„.,4
PIT
by
V41
go
1
”
03
by
"
ct
co
a
",
by
i
a
to
"
by
by
by
"
I; CD
q
by
�q
go
go
to
7
.4
All
03
4
by
ct
71
a
by
i
a
1..4
"
by
by
Aj 0.4
I; CD
q
co
�wq co
All
CD CC)
a go
A.14 co
1..4
„.4
4
"".4
cc)
go
by go
a
N
t
w
I
All
mr•
�'
mo
go
all
ORi
�q
u w
„ a
I
I
as
ci
tau
;I
�a
vtau
.
63
,•,,,
�i
to
0�
CDCD
no
�V,
170
oI
to>
CUM
U�
.0
si
COIN
Q
Q
Q
i.;
• .,
co E
a , '
cl)• 0- "' 0
*,
•
Co ., a)
Co +�
•, , , ., CL 0 Cl) co
.; •
0 co C:., , , ,
,� ,,
cn
0 co
* , ,
'
,�70
,. ,
'
* , . ' .,
• '
• , ,
*. , „ a, ,
,� . ' , ., 6
a. .
• , + ' , ., .
Co 0.� #
' * 'o ,
Co 1Cl)
. *co � �, ,�
� •,
E cu
• * ,cL
CU =,� „ * •
Co� , C.,
70
. a) CCU0•. , • ' -0' .•
•
L
,, , ,.Co
' �
� ' '
co c,
' , , , .
+�*� 0
4-0
* ' •
co
o.
se
'.Co , 'Co
co 0 COO.-
CL cu CL co cD
�, , 0,.
0—
CL •
,'*; , ,
Co co 70 • ,
+ • ., "
' ' co ui�;Co ' '
CL •
' 0270��
CL -0.�
. , , '
.-
00 �5 • .• Co
• a . ' •Co •
• • � • * •CL
cn
o a �
•CoCo ,
� , ,
r � �.
Co Co 70 70
�,
0, •
,� ,
76 E + . ,Co* ,.
•
Co .• •
• 0 + , ,
. . co •• ' , ,�Co 'CD- Co
+ ► ,
• . L - ' ' ' . �, a' • +
+ , e • , . '
•,
Lf 07070 • ,
► CD
,Co
+ cno
• a ' , „Co
.• '
co
,
*, •
, 0I w o " ", • �►ai
m
rij
III 1 CONNOR WESTILLO
541,702 5350 1 070 G Gy..1.F�E . V, SUITE Ifs„ JACK 03(1lWILL.Ilf � OR 9 7530
February 21, 2025
Via Email Only :a l c te,sti���c��; y �Jfl �d..cit ��:�.
City of Ashland City Council
c/o Ashland Planning Department
Re: Applicant's Legal Argument
File No.PA-T2-2024-00054/PA-APPEAL-00020
Dear Council:
Our office represents the applicant, Taylored Elements Construction. This letter is submitted for
the record on appeal. Applicant contends there is substantial evidence in the record to support the
decision of the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission did not commit errors of
law in approving the subject application.
Appellants raise multiple arguments on appeal which are summarized by staff in its Notice of
Application. Applicant has limited its responses to those arguments that are directed to Areas 4, 5
and 6, as Area 7 was withdrawn from the application prior to the hearing. Each of the Appellants'
arguments as summarized by staff is italicized, with the Applicant's response in regular font below:
1) "That the standard provided at AMC 18.3. S. 030. Care not met. This section of code is the
"Supplemental Approval Criteria" for the North Mountain Neighborhood plan. The
appellant specifically cites densiLr building designbuilding orientation, and concerns
about increased tra ic. "
With respect to the first assignment of error, the record contains substantial evidence to
find these criteria are met. In particular:
Densi : The record establishes that permitted density in Phase III' is a minimum of 23.44
and a maximum of 40.91 (12-10-24 StaffReport p.7). These calculations were tabulated for
the Kestrel Park Subdivision as a whole. The proposed density for Areas 4-6 is 22
dwellings. The Planning Commission found that while 22 units is below minimum density,
this criterion can be met with a condition of approval requiring that Area 7 develop a
minimum of 2 and a maximum of 18 dwellings. (Final Decision, p.7). As conditioned, the
application meets density requirements as a matter of law and there is substantial evidence
in the record to make this finding.
I Density of Area 7 is not at issue on appeal though the density calculations include all areas within
Phase III.
Page 1
Building Design: AMC 18.3.5.030.C. requires in part that the application complies with the
North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. The Planning Commission found in
relevant part:
"The Planning Commission notes that [first] the first standard is 'Architectural Design.'
This standard provides a list of architectural features and requires that at least two listed
features from the section be included in each home design.
The Planning Commission notes that the application materials include extensive drawings
of the proposed buildings with each having eaves, covered porch entries, gables and in
some cases dormers. The Planning Commission concludes that each proposed building
design includes at least two of the required features satisfying the 'Architectural Design
Requirements.
EEA
The Planning Commission notes that the design standards specify that porches shall be
incorporated into buildings and be a minimum of six -feet by eight -feet in size. The Planning
Commission notes that the detailed site plan of each area includes details on the porch size
and in every case meet or exceed this requirement, and that this standard has been met."
(Decision and Findings, p. 9).
The findings by the Planning Commission are supported by extensive design information
submitted by the Applicant depicting these required features (see Applicant's Power Point
Presentation Slides). No evidence was presented by Appellants that these features do not
exist or that they do not comply with code standards. As such, Planning Commission's
finding that this criterion was satisfied is supported by substantial evidence in the record,
and was not an error of law.
Building Orientation: AMC 18.3.5.030.C. requires in part that the application complies
with the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. The Planning Commission
found in relevant part:
"The Planning Commission notes that the building orientation standards require that
`Dwellings shall be designed with a primary elevation oriented towards a street.' The
Planning Commission notes that the site plan clearly shows that each proposed building has
its primary orientation to the street and finds that the orientation standard is met.
The Planning Commission notes that the requirement for garages requires that "Where no
alleys are present, garages shall be located a minimum of 15 feet behind the primary facade
and a minimum of 20 feet from the sidewalk." The Planning Commission, in evaluating the
main site plan, note that the garages are properly setback and that this standard is met."
(Decision and Findings, p. 9).
Appellants contend that the buildings in Area 6 are oriented to an alley (Lots 38 & 39)
and therefore do not meet the requirement to front a street. However, there is evidence
in the record that the parking area will have reciprocal access easements to the street.
Page 2
Staff noted that it is common practice in performance subdivisions to "allow the
creation of lots not meeting the minimum frontage standard provided that access can be
provided over easements." (StaffReport, pp. 10-11).
Based on the foregoing there is substantial evidence in the record to find that the
building orientation criteria are met.
Increased Traffic: The Applicant consulted with two independent traffic engineers who
concluded that "no intersection traffic impacts occur or mitigations are necessary as each
operate at above Level of Service B or higher currently and after the Kestrel Park Subdivision
is fully developed. Furthermore, during informal discussions, both Traffic Engineers
stated the subdivision's "street connectivity" design is a means to spread not only proposed
vehicular trips, but also existing vehicle trips that are currently concentrated at Fair Oaks
Avenue and North Mountain Avenue, but with the proposed street connections with Nandina
Street and Plum Ridge Drive as well as Patton Lane/Mountain Meadows Drive and
North Mountain Avenue, traffic (vehicle trips) will be spread more evenly throughout
the North Mountain Master Plan area AND give alternative means for ingress/egress of
emergency vehicles. Lastly, all of the planned streets, alleys and private driveways have been
designed in accordance with City Street Standards, including on -street parking dimensions,
curb radius, street widths, etc., all of which "mirror" existing streets within the Master Plan
Area." (Applicant's Findings p. 8; Memorandum Southern Oregon Transportation
Engineering, LLC dated 912912004). Further, the results of the trip generation for Phase III
(which includes Area 7) establish that it is estimated to generate 26 p.m. peak trip, which when
combined with Phases 1 and 2, is one less trip than the original 2018 study. SOTE Memo. at
2).
The law is well settled that the City is entitled to rely on expert testimony when countered only
by lay evidence. No one provided any expert evidence to rebut or otherwise undermine the
testimony and evidence of Applicant's several experts, which means there is insufficient
evidence in the record to find that the traffic memorandum and study were inadequate. See
Oregon Coast Alliance v. City of Brookings, 72 Or LUBA 222 (2015) (Where the record
includes expert testimony, some level of scientific or professional expertise is necessary to
rebut that testimony in order to provide supporting evidence for a contrary conclusion. A letter
from a non -expert attorney is not substantial evidence to rebut the expert's conclusion). In the
absence of conflicting expert evidence, the City may rely on the testimony of Applicant's
experts. Anderson v. Lane County, 54 Or LUBA 669 (2007) (A county reasonably relies on a
forester's opinion that Ponderosa pine is a more valuable species than Douglas fir, over
conflicting opinions by non -experts); Wetherell v. Douglas County, 60 Or LUBA 131 (2009)
(When ranchers submit evidence that conflicts with expert testimony, even though that
evidence could constitute substantial evidence, the county was entitled to rely on the
conflicting expert evidence).
2) That the standard provided at AMC 18.3.5.100. C.3 are not met. This section of code is
specific to the design requirements of alleys for the North Mountain Neighborhood. The
appellant raises concerns with the number of units taking vehicular access from an extension
of existing alleys.
Page 3
The record contains substantial evidence that all alleys within the project meet or exceed City
standards. In particular the Appellants contend the Julian Court Alley is only 12 -feet wide;
however, the staff notes that the alley in question is 16 -feet wide and was created with Plum
Ridge Subdivision (StaffReport, p. 10) and that the subject application proposes to widen the
alley with dedication of an additional 4 -feet as well as vacation of the street plug "to meet
the NMNP standards for alley width of 20'." (Preliminary PUD Map, Kestrel Park Phase
III, p. 4 ofStaffReport). Additionally with the dedication requirements, Mariposa Court will
be widened to 20 -foot right-of-way. Id.; see also Civil Improvement Plans, Alley]
(Applicant's Findings, p. 84).
Additionally, Appellants argue the alleys already serve 10 -homes and increasing the number
of homes that take access would increase traffic problems. However, the Appellants provided
no evidence that the alleys cannot accommodate the additional traffic. The purpose of alleys
is to provide vehicle access to limit curb openings along streets (AMC 18.3.5.040.D). And as
argued above, the Applicant's traffic engineers found that the subject application complies
with all street standards without mitigation and further noted that once fully developed will
spread the traffic providing more access and evacuation routes for the area. (See Response to
Argument No. 1).
Lastly, as found by the Planning Commission (Decision and Findings, p. 10) this is the third
phase of Kestrel Park Subdivision, and the extension of the street system that was approved
at that time. Further the application materials included detailed civil plans showing that the
proposed cross sections meet the design standards. Appellants did not provide any expert
evidence to challenge the detailed civil plans, and therefore, Appellants have failed to provide
substantial evidence in the record that street requirements are not met. See Oregon Coast
Alliance v. City of Brookings, supra.
3) The third appeal issue restates the concern that the standard provided at AMC
18.3.5.030.0 are not met. The appellant then specifically cites concerns with the
multifamily development building design, andap rking being 'Infront of the buildings.
Appellants contend that the buildings in Area 6 are not consistent with size, height,
density and building orientation with the North Mountain Neighborhood Design
Standards, that the buildings cannot front an alley (Lots 38 & 39) and must front on a
street, and that with only one entrance to the parking area presents a fire hazard.
This argument has been addressed in response to argument No. 1 above and is
incorporated herein by reference. Moreover, the Applicant submitted significant
documentation to depict the size, height, density and building orientation consistent
with the North Mountain Design Standards and neighboring structures (See Applicant's
Power Point Presentation Slides).
With regard to street orientation, staff noted that the parking area will have reciprocal
access easements and that it is common practice in performance subdivisions to "allow
the creation of lots not meeting the minimum frontage standard provided that access
can be provided over easements." (Staff Report, pp. 10-11). This is supported by the
Page 4
purpose statement of the PSO-Overlay which is designed for areas that have been
largely developed, have sloping topography or other factors that are more suitable for
development under the PSO. AMC 18.3.9.030. Here, Area 6, Lot 38 is a corner lot which
is surrounded by public right-of-way, but both rights of way are alleys. As such, the
"street" frontage is on an alley, with an access easement to the street. Given the flexible
nature of the PSO, the topography and infill development this site presents, the Planning
Commission found that there was substantial evidence in the record that building
orientation was satisfied.
Lastly with regard to neighborhood compatibility, the proposed application is zoned
multi -family, whereas the neighboring properties are zoned single-family, and the
applicant must meet the density requirements for the zone. This is consistent with the
rules of statutory construction which require that:
"where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible,
to be adopted as will give effect to all," ORS 174.010, and that "a particular intent
shall control a general one that is inconsistent with it," ORS 174.020 and that "a
particular intent shall control a general one that is inconsistent with it," ORS
174.020.
Here, a general rule requiring neighborhood compatibility, must be read in the context
of the more specific requirements regarding zoning and minimum and maximum
permitted densities within a zone. While the size of the proposed dwellings is smaller
than the surrounding neighborhood, that difference is due to zoning and density
requirements, rather than a lack of neighborhood consistency and therefore, there is
substantial evidence for the Planning Commission to find that there is neighborhood
compatibility. This is particularly true given the design of the buildings which are
consistent with the North Mountain Neighborhood design requirements and existing
architectural styles of the surrounding neighborhood.
4) That the standard provided at AMC 18.3.9.040 are not met. This section address
"Adequate key City facilities " and the appellant raises concerns with police and fire
protection, and adequate transportation.
Appellants' arguments regarding the "apartment buildings in Area 6" are based on
conjecture as to future police, fire and transportation risks. To the contrary, there is
substantial evidence in the record that: 1) the application meets the density requirements
for the zone; 2) streets meet City standards and traffic does not require mitigation; 3) once
the project is fully built out traffic will spread over a greater number of streets thereby
increasing traffic flow; 4) the properties within the project will be required to sign in favor
of, and agree to participate in a local improvement district (LID) for future construction of
the Nevada Street bridge across Bear Creek to establish an additional access; 5) the fire
department did not raise objections to this application; 6) a Fire Prevention and Control
Plan will be required and the applicant will be prohibited from planting certain flammable
plants; 7) the application must meet all fire department requirements regarding access,
turn-arounds, etc.; and 8) there is no evidence from the police department that it will be
unable to adequately serve this property.
Page 5
Based on the foregoing there was substantial evidence in the record to find that Area 6,
and this criterion was met, and the Planning Commission's decision did not err as a matter
of law.
5) That the standard provided at AMC 18.5.2.050.0 are not met. This section addresses
compliance with Chapter 18.4. The appellant then specifically cites concerns regarding
denstra is and evacuation.
Appellants contend that there are no grocery stores or other kinds of services that individuals
in small apartments will need, and that "this is at odds with AMC 18.5.2.050.C." They also
argue Kestrel Park subdivision should be redesigned to reduce density in this area. However,
it is unclear how a lack of grocery stores or other kinds of services on the subject property is
inconsistent with the cited provision. The subject property is zoned multi -family, and the
project proposes density within the permitted range for the zone. Moreover, as argued above,
there is substantial evidence in the record that the proposal meets street standards, the design
is consistent with the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards, and while the size
of the units is smaller than the neighboring single-family zones, they are consistent with the
zoning for the property.
The City's decision must be based upon "standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in
the development ordinance ...." ORS 227.173(l). The applicant is not required to rezone or
reduce the density of the property as argued by Appellants. Rather, it must comply with the
current code. Density for Phase III could include up to 40 dwelling units. The applicant
proposes 22 units in areas 4, 5 and 6 and as such complies.
Based on the foregoing, there is substantial evidence in the record to find that this criterion
is met and that the Planning Commission did not err as a matter of law.
6) That the standard provided at AMC 18.3.5.1OO.A are not met. This section address "Site
Development and Design Standards for `Housing' for the North Mountain Neighborhood.
The appellant then specifically cites building orientation, building designn,ap rking, and ire
protection.
To the extent that this argument duplicates Argument Nos. 1 and 3, Applicant incorporates
its responses to those arguments above by reference.
To the extent that Appellants argue the design of the buildings in Area 6 is a fire danger,
they fail to present any expert testimony that the design or access to the buildings does not
meet building code. The plans submitted by Applicant were prepared by a professional
design company and are required to meet the building code, as approved by the City's
Building Official before any Building Permits are issued. See AMC 18.1.2.080. As noted
above, where there is expert testimony in the record, which is countered only by lay
testimony, the City can rely upon the expert testimony to find there is substantial evidence
in the record regarding building design and compliance with all applicable building code
regulations, including fire, life, safety requirements.
Page 6
As there is no evidence in the record to establish that the proposed design is in violation of
applicable building code or other fire, life, safety regulations, the Council can find there was
substantial evidence to support the Planning Commission's decision, and that it did not
commit errors of law.
7) That the standard provided at AMC 18.4.4.070 are not met. This section addresses the
required open space. The appellant then specifically cites concerns regarding lot -coverage,
building design views, and generally the development ofmultie amily housing.
To the extent that Appellants arguments relate to Area 7 those arguments must be
disregarded as that area is no longer part of the subject application. To the extent that they
relate to Area 6, Applicant responds as follows:
Building_Height. The proposed dwellings are within maximum building height under City
code. Additionally, a condition has been imposed requiring that the applicant provide
"Calculations demonstrating that the proposed new lots have been designed to permit the
location of a 21 -foot high structure with a solar setback that does not exceed 50 percent of
the lot's north -south dimension based on Solar Standard A, or identification of a solar
envelope for each lot which provides comparable solar access protections, as required in
AMC 18.4.8.040." As such, the application meets this requirement as conditioned.
Stormwater. There is substantial evidence in the record that there is adequate stormwater
facilities to handle all the run-off from the subject properties, and the project is conditioned
upon providing final civil plans for all utilities including storm drainage. The Public Works
Department did not raise concerns regarding the capacity of these services. Further, the
application is conditioned upon providing a storm drainage plan to demonstrate that post -
development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre -development peak flow for the
site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final
design. As such, the application, as conditioned, can be found to meet this requirement.
Required Open Space. Phase III is part of the 13.48 -acre Kestrel Park Subdivision. Of that
13.48 acres, the record contains evidence that 5.13 acres is dedicated as open space (Bear
Creek Riparian Area) and another .7 acres was platted as private open space for wetlands.
In total nearly 43% of the subdivision's acreage is open space, whereas the Performance
Standards Subdivision requires 8%. Additionally, all of the multi -family units include an
additional 8% recreational space (porches/patios). The Planning Commission found that
the open space requirement is applicable to the subdivision as a whole and is not determined
on a lot -by -lot basis (in other words some lots may be over 8%, some may be over 8% as
long as the subdivision as a whole meets the requirements set forth in AMC 18.4.470). Such
interpretation is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is consistent with the
purpose statement of the Performance Standards Option (AMC 18.3.9.010) to allow a
"flexible design" which "uses the natural features of the landscape to their greatest
advantage... provides for more efficient land use; and reduce[s] the impact of development
on the natural environment and neighborhood".
Page 7
8) The eighth appeal issue does not include a code citation but raises concerns with ire sa e
and evacuation.
In their final assignment of error, Appellants acknowledge that it does not relate to any specific
criteria. In raising assignments of error, an appellant must establish that the arguments relate to
specific criteria applicable to the application, as that is the basis upon which the Planning
Commission may approve or deny an application. ORS 227.173(l). As such, this argument fails
as a matter of law.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, and without waiving the argument herein above, the record
contains substantial evidence that:
"During the original Kestrel Park subdivision approval process, concerns were raised
during public testimony that emergency access and evacuation routes were limited to the
bridge on Mountain Avenue over Bear Creek or to indirect access via county roads to Oak
Street, the Commission found that in response to similar concerns for previous
development of the North Mountain Neighborhood, all properties were required to sign in
favor of and agree to participate in a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future
construction of a bridge across Bear Creek to connect Nevada Street to Oak Street. As such,
a condition was included to require that all properties within the Kestrel Park Subdivision
sign a similar agreement prior to signature of the final survey plat. The subject properties
here are within the subdivision and are subject to that original condition which has been
included below. Staff conclude that with the condition of approval findings can be made
that this approval criterion will be met." (12-10-24 Staff Report, p. 7).
Additionally, the application is conditioned upon submission of a Fire Prevention and
Control Plan and requirements to prohibit certain flammable plants. (Decision and
Findings, p. 13).
Based on the foregoing there is substantial evidence in the record to find that as
conditioned, the application satisfies any fire safety and evacuation route requirements.
Conclusion:
The Council should affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and reject the appeal for the
reasons that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission's
decision, and it did not commit any errors of law.
O'CONNOR WEST, LLC
/s/ Sydnee Dreyer
Sydnee B. Dreyer, OSB No. 954710
sbd@PacificLand.law
SSD:
C: Client via email only
Michael Sullivan via email only
Michael Sullivan
From: Cathy Hickling <hicklings@jeffnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 2:45 PM
To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony
Subject: Kestrel Hillside Development Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Ashland Planning Dept.,
I object to the project as planned.
Catherine J. Hickling, 833 Pavilion Place,Ashland, OR 97520
Michael Sullivan
From: Claire D Kotowski <ckotowski@live.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 3:56 PM
To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony
Subject: Kestrel Hillside Project Public Hearing, Tuesday, March 4th, 7pm PA-
T2-2024-00054/PA-APPEAL-2025-0002024
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
My wife Claire and I are residents at 812 Boulder Creek Lane, Ashland, Oregon.
We are ademantly opposed to the proposed Kestrel Hillside Development Project.
As a former Council Member (17years), 3 time Mayor, former Planning Commission Chair, and Santa
Clara County Transportation Commissioner, I find your support of the incredibly dense plans for this
construction to be appalling. You ignore Ashland City Code enabling violations dealing with density,
inadequate parking Fire Safety and Evacuation as well as Emergency vehicles and utility vehicle access.
I urge you to refer this ill -planned project to the City Council for review.
Sincerely,
Past Mayor Michael F and Claire D Kotowski
mfkcdk@ live.com
408 679-1172
Get Outlook for iOS
Michael Sullivan
From: janet w dolan <janetwdolan@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 4:21 PM
To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony
Subject: Kestrel Hillside Development Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
I object to the Kestrel Hillside Development Project as it is now planned. -Janet Dolan
Michael Sullivan
From: KAREN HEMAN <heman.karen4656@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 6:38 AM
To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony
Subject: PA-T2-2024-00054/PA-APPEAL-2025-00020
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
I object to the Kestrel Hillside Development as planned. Karen Heman Mt Meadows property owner.
Michael Sullivan
From: Charlene Kenny <kennycharlene537@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 8:23 AM
To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony
Subject: Kestrel Hillside Development Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Ashland Planning Commission
I strongly object to the plans as the project will add too many cars and congestion in our lovely neighborhood. Thank
you, Charlene Kenny
Michael Sullivan
From: Dinah O'Farrell <dinahofarrell@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 9:43 AM
To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony
Subject: Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054/PA-APPEAL-2025-00020
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
I support the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the plans for the Kestral Park addition. it should go back
to the Commission for further review.
Diana O'Farrell
929 Mountain Meadows Circle. Ashland
Michael Sullivan
From: ken deveney <kenndev@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 3:59 PM
To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony
Subject: Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054/PA-APPEAL-2025-00020
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
I am against the project as planned, with all its violations of code. I recommend its
being sent back to the Planning Commission.
Kenneth Deveney
Ashland OR
Michael Sullivan
From: REK <rek@kinsinger.us>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1:59 PM
To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony
Cc: Lee Bowman; Dennis Holeman; Ron Vandervort; Jeff Thompson; David Runkel
Subject: Statement re Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054/PA-APPEAL-2025-00020
Attachments: Statement regarding Kestrel appeal.docx; Kestrel testimony final.docx
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Please enter the attached statement and referenced testimony from the Planning Commission hearing
as support for the appeal redevelopment of Kestrel III scheduled for March 2025. Planning Action: PA-
T2-2024-00054/PA-APPEAL-2025-00020
Richard Kinsinger
591 Nandina Street
Ashland
Statement Regarding Appeal of Kestrel III Development Plans to Ashland City Council
We were principal authors of written testimony to the Planning Commission regarding the Kestrel III
development along with Dave Runkel. This testimony is attached. The testimony with almost 200
signatures of nearby residents was submitted to the Planning Department on the Friday before the
Tuesday hearing so we assume it was available before the hearing to both to the applicant and the
Commissioners. At the hearing the applicant withdrew Area 7 of the proposed development from
consideration, perhaps in response to statements made in that testimony.
Our written testimony also included most of the objections cited in the current appeal to the Council,
concerns which are relevant to the remainder of the proposed development. However, these grounds
were not addressed in the presentation by the Planning Department or in the questions and discussion
by the Commissioners at their hearing. We believe they were not satisfactorily taken into consideration
in the Commission's decision to approve the applicant's proposal. Therefore, we endorse this appeal to
the Council and ask that the applicant's proposal be resubmitted to the Commission with instructions to
specifically address the objections cited in the appeal.
The last of the points made in the appeal does not concern failures to meet Ashland Municipal Code.
However, it does raise the issue of fire safety and the limited evacuation routes for residents of the
North Mountain community, an issue which we believe should be of great importance in decisions made
by the Council. This issue and the added traffic burden on North Mountain Avenue were also raised in
the written testimony. We ask that you give weight especially to our concerns regarding a widespread
fire in your decisions on this and other questions before you.
Richard Kinsinger 591 Nandina Street
Dennis Holeman 822 Plum Ridge Drive
Lee Bowman 554 Mountain Meadows Drive
Testimony on Kestrel Park Phase III Site Development
The first two phases of the Kestrel Park development built in conformance with North
Mountain Neighborhood District zoning have added greatly to our community. They've
taken advantage of the relatively flat land along Bear Creek and Kestrel Parkway and
have given the new residents generous yards and green common space. That has left
to the proposed Phase III of the Kestrel Park development the remaining steep and
barren hillside portion and the constraint of building very high-density housing to meet
the City's desired overall density for the whole Kestrel development. Taylored
Elements Construction has taken on this remaining Phase III, proposing a design with
high density so that the entire Kestrel Park meets density regulations.
The proposed Kestrel Phase III design follows the pattern of Kestrel Phases I and II in
siting larger units, some as large as 1,700 sq.ft., lower on the hill (Areas 4, 5, and the
lower part of Area 7)). To meet density requirements this forces units at the top of the
hill (Areas 6 and 7) to be as small as 400 sq.ft. Particularly constrained is Lot 36 which
has 12 studio rental apartments (6 over 6) in a 10,026 sq.ft. footprint. As measured by
average area per housing unit, the density of Lots 36 through 38 at the top of the
development is 2-1/2 times greater than the rest of the Kestrel III homes.
Access for 12 studio apartment units through Mariposa Court alley Mariposa
Court is an Alley that was constructed during the building of the Plum Ridge
Subdivision of Mountain Meadows in 2001. In compliance with Ashland Municipal
Code, North Mountain Neighborhood District (AMC 18.3.5.100.C.3) the designed
purpose of the Mariposa Court/alley was to serve as garage and garbage truck access
for five Mountain Meadows homes at 863, 843 and 823 Plum Ridge Drive and 539 and
549 Mountain Meadows Drive. All other vehicular access to those homes (emergency
vehicles, visitors, mail and package deliveries, moving vans, etc.) use their frontages
on Plum Ridge and Mountain Meadows Drives. The paved alley is 12 feet wide as
specified in the code. This is only slightly wider than a single lane so cars must queue
and Recology garbage and recycling trucks have a difficult time navigating the alley as
it is. There is room to widen the paved north -south surface on the downhill or west
side. The east -west stub connecting the south end to Plum Ridge Drive has residential
properties on either side, thus no room for widening.
We disagree with the Finding of Fact 3.g, that states the development complies with
Ashland street standards.
If the planned building at the top of Area 7 is built and inhabited, all vehicular access
to those 12 apartments would be through Mariposa Court/alley. This is in violation of
AMC 18.3.5.100.C.3 which describes an Alley as servicing the rear of a property to
diminish use of the main access at property frontage. For the new units the alley must
serve their personal car parking, visitor parking, emergency vehicle access and
parking during the emergency, garbage and recycling trucks, mail and package
delivery, and parking for any other services to those homes, e.g., utility service or
equipment installation and repair.
AMC 18.3.5.100.C.3 specifies the standard paved width for an Alley as 12 feet with 4 -
foot clearances on either side. In the plan there is a 16 -foot width reserved for the
Alley which is thus 4 feet less than code. The short east -west stub off Plum Ridge
Drive cannot be widened beyond its 12 -foot current width. The North Mountain
Neighborhood District code takes precedence over Ashland Street Standards, but the
same problems requiring only secondary access and limits on width exist with respect
to that code.
There is no possibility of converting Mariposa Court into a Neighborhood Street per
AMC 18.3.5.100.C.2 which requires a 48 -foot right-of-way including sidewalks and
planter strips.
Parking spaces provided for 12 studio apartment units
We contend that the Planning Commission cannot make the findings required by AMC
18.3.9.040 A.3 or AMC 18.5.2.050.
The 12 -unit apartment building is squeezed into a too small parcel and as such does
not comply with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of AMC 18.4
as follows:
(1) All parking is pull -in spaces all sized for compact cars but it is not reasonable to
expect all occupants to have compact cars. Longer vehicles would stick out
into the alley.
(2) AMC 18.4.2.030 Residential Development Sec. A 1.a. Parking Layout....
"However, avoid designs where the parking areas are immediately abutting
dwelling units..." The design shows parking immediately abutting the wall of the
building.
(3) The accessible parking space does not meet the criteria for access to the
entrance to the building. Will the unit adjacent to the accessible parking space
be reserved for a disabled person?
(4) Since the plans do not include a section of the alley with the adjacent buildings
shown it's difficult to determine if the minimum dimensions required by AMC
18.4.3.080 are achieved.
(5) The designed parking does not meet the landscaping and screening
requirements of AMC 18.4.4.030.
(6) The 12 -unit apartment building does not comply with the common and private
open space requirements in AMC 18.4.4.070.
Appropriateness of the proposed 12 studio apartment units
We contend that the lower units of the 12 -apartment building fail to meet AMC
18.3.5.100.A.2. The front or primary elevation of these units faces west, away from
any street and in fact into the rear of two larger single-family homes below them.
These units will have access to vehicles only via an external flight of stairs. All goods
from furniture to groceries to front door deliveries will have to be carried via those
stairs. More importantly, ambulance or other emergency transport must use those
stairs.
The 12 -studio apartment building at the top of Area 7 would be closely surrounded by
homes of a completely different nature. The 12 proposed studios apartments are
sized at approximately 500 sq.ft. To the east are three single family homes with
greater than 1,500 sq.ft. To the south are two single family homes with greater than
1,500 sq.ft. To the west will be, according to the submitted plan, two single family
homes with greater than 1,500 sq.ft. While higher density, smaller homes can be
designed to blend in with larger single-family homes, the disparity of design in this
case is enormous.
Access to Area 6 homes through the unnamed east -west Alley
We again disagree with the Finding of Fact 3.g, that states the development complies
with Ashland street standards. The 12 -foot wide one -lane alley off Plum Ridge Drive
which would be extended west beyond Patton Lane would serve as one of two points
of access to 16 additional units. The alley does not meet AMC 18.3.5.100.C.2
standard width provisions in that there is no 4 -foot wide clearance space on either
side. There is no room for widening or for sidewalks. The alley currently serves as
access to three garages with vehicles backing out onto the alley. In addition, it is used
by some vehicles coming from an unnamed alley parallel to Plum Ridge Drive. The
Julian Court alley was not designed to handle a large number of vehicles, oversize
trash removal or delivery trucks, or fire and rescue vehicles. At present, Recology and
large delivery trucks cut into Lot 38 property to make the turn at the end of the alley.
Appropriateness of Proposed Homes in Lots 37 and 38 to their Surroundings
The proposed units on Lots 37 and 38 do not meet the common and private open
space requirements in AMC 18.4.4.070. The plan would cover two-thirds of Lots 37
and 38 with structures or pavement. This does not, as the petitioners claim, reduce
the impact on the natural environment, but rather increases runoff down the steep
slope. The proposed four two-story buildings west of the houses on Plum Ridge Drive
and south of the alley marked as Julian Court would be the tallest structures on the
west end of the entire Kestrel development area. With the exception of one house at
Nadina Street and Plum Ridge Drive in the Mountain Meadows development, other
two-story structures are spaced down the slope and don't interfere with existing views
of other houses which are primarily owner occupied. The plan would cover two-thirds
of Lots 37 and 38 with structures or pavement.
Other considerations
Although it is not the Planning Commissions purview to look at specific traffic
problems with a proposed development, section D of the AMC 18.5.2.050 Site Design
Review Approval Criteria does state in part that adequate paved access to and
through the property is to be provided. The new development will add 38 homes to the
North Mountain Neighborhood District which now has approximately 440 independent
living homes plus 91 assisted living and memory care apartments in Skylark Senior
Living. With the addition of Kestrel Phase III the population of the North Mountain
Neighborhood District can be estimated at over 600 people, more than 5 percent of
the city of Ashland. Yet the North Mountain community has only a single paved
access to the city, North Mountain Avenue with its narrow bridge over Bear Creek. A
bridge over Bear Creek at Nevada Street is in the 2012 Ashland Transportation System
Plan, but there is no current plan for its construction. Public transport into the
community now must retrace its route out of the community. Whether this is a factor
or not, the community has no regular public transportation. We contend there is not
adequate transportation to the property as the Finding of Fact on AMC 18.5.2.050.D
states.
It is also not the purview of the Commission to consider provisions for evacuation of
the development should that be needed in an emergency. This provision is not a part
of the Ashland Municipal Code, but the recent Almeda fire has brought great attention
to the need for providing evacuation routes. The North Mountain community has only
two evacuation routes, along North Mountain Ave south to the city or north across the
1-5 overpass out of the city. An emergency onramp to 1-5 south has been built, but
there has been no clear information on when and how it can be used. Adding 38 units
to an area with over 440 homes adds significantly to our evacuation concerns.
Dennis Holeman
822 Plum Ridge Drive
Dave Runkel
893 Plum Ridge Drive
Richard Kinsinger
591 Nandina Street
Bobbie Kinsinger
591 Nandina Street
Lee Bowman
554 Mountain Meadows Drive
Roberta Bowman
554 Mountain Meadows Drive
Cathy George
832 Plum Ridge Drive
Jeffrey Thompson
863 Plum Ridge Drive
Maggie Thompson
863 Plum Ridge Drive
Ron Vandervort
583 Nandina Street
Carol Vandervort
583 Nandina Street
Bob Pohl
843 Plum Ridge Drive
Alden Sklensky
549 Mountain Meadows Drive
Lia Byers
544 Mountain Meadows Drive
Stephen Brummer
544 Mountain Meadows Drive
Suzanne Mitchell
892 Plum Ridge Drive
Paul Winans
802 Plum Ridge Drive
Nina Winans
802 Plum Ridge Drive
Robert Tower
812 Plum Ridge Drive
Kevin Frostad
793 North Mountain Avenue
Tina Frostad
793 North Mountain Avenue
Donna Taylor
590 Mountain Meadows Drive
Joe[ Taylor
590 Mountain Meadows Drive
Dennis Knauert
862 Plum Ridge Drive
Francisca Van Lith
862 Plum Ridge Drive
Kara Keeling
823 Plum Ridge Drive
Genie Anderson
598 Nandina Street
Bethany Hall
584 Great Oaks Drive
Grace Martin
596 Mariposa Court
Chris Lewis
802 Mountain Meadows Drive
Anna Lewis
802 Mountain Meadows Drive
Cathy Armstrong
837 North Mountain Avenue
Paula Phillips
785 North Mountain Avenue
Nancy Wilkinson
852 Mountain Meadows Drive
Thomas Boudrot
857 North Mountain Avenue
Alice Diefenbach
801 North Mountain Avenue
Sherwood Goozee
595 Great Oaks Drive
Germaine Goozee
595 Great Oaks Drive
David Lane
464 Golden Aspen Place
Catherine Hickling
833 Pavilion Place
Janet Dolan
963 Golden Aspen Place
Jim Robertson
962 Golden Aspen Place
Linda Robertson
962 Golden Aspen Place
Robert Carter
838 Cobblestone Court
Laurie Carter
838 Cobblestone Court
Candis Fugitt
959 Golden Aspen Place
Susan Stoehr
977 Golden Aspen Place
Mary K. King
907 Mountain Meadows Circle
Maureen Wallace
838 Pavilion Place
Edwin Miller
971 Golden Aspen Place
Motley Tinsley
971 Golden Aspen Place
Janice Trieglaff
875 Bolder Creek Lane
Michelle Indianer
915 Mountain Meadows Circle
Joan Tschalaer
902 Mountain Meadows Circle
Roy Sutton
989 Golden Aspen Place
Dena Amtman
905 Mountain Meadows Circle
Dorothy Brooks
979 Golden Aspen Place
Dena Bates
846 Stony Point
Anna Gove
947 Mountain Meadows Circle
Martin Thommes
564 Great Oaks Drive
Hal Hayes
941 Mountain Meadows Circle
Nancy Bringhurst
785 Creek Stone Way
Diana O'Farrell
929 Mountain Meadows Circle
Terry Ansnes
988 Golden Aspen Place
Michael Kotowski
812 Boulder Creek Lane
Edward Busby
904 Mountain Meadows Circle
Shelley Busby
904 Mountain Meadows Circle
Susanne Krieg
900 Skylark Place #316
Betsy McLane
819 Boulder Creek Lane
Olive Johnson
986 Golden Aspen Place
Barbara Cross
952 Golden Aspen Place
Arlene Mueller
826 Boulder Creek Lane
Roger Mueller
826 Boulder Creek Lane
Ann Dick Wilson
821 Pavilion Place
J. Marlene Baker
816 Boulder Creek Lane
Karin Bolling
816 Boulder Creek Lane
Helen Molz
842 Stony Point
Charlotte Silbaugh
914 Mountain Meadows Circle
Morgan Silbaugh
914 Mountain Meadows Circle
Charlene Kenny
863 Stony Point
Jeannine Bertrand
823 Boulder Creek Lane
Ian Couchman
919 Mountain Meadows Drive
Judith Sundaram
833 Cobblestone Court
Nathanae[Sundaram
833 Cobblestone Court
Carol Nosko
824 Pavilion Place
Juan Quesada
824 Pavilion Place
Pamela Newton
975 Golden Aspen Place
Shoshanah Dubiner
922 Mountain Meadows Circle
Paul Boon
855 Stony Point
Suzanne Smith-Hammerli
991 Golden Aspen Place
Mary Ferrari
936 Mountain Meadows Circle
Dave Seiden
838 Pavilion Place
Cassie Conner
735 Meadowlark Way
Gloria Junkermann
906 Mountain Meadows Circle
Bill Walker
844 Stony Point
Anita Walker
844 Stone Point
Alan Berman
817 Pavilion Place
Harriet Berman
817 Pavilion Place
Lola Eagan
836 Pavilion Place
Lucy Strasburg
935 Mountain Meadows Circle
Mary Hunt
580 Mountain Meadows Dr
Judith Milburn
840 Pavilion Place
Kate Thi It
921 Mountain Meadows Circle
Sarah Tozier
957 Golden Aspen Place
Amelia Franke
980 Golden Aspen Place
Jim Cornelius
822 Boulder Creek Lane
Carolyn Herb
911 Mountain Meadows Circle
Linda Sussman
910 North Mountain Avenue
Jo Ann Grady
909 Plum Ridge Drive
Daniel DeRoux
909 Plum Ridge Drive
Vida Taylor
913 Plum Ridge Drive
Vincent Chabot
919 Plum Ridge Drive
Nancy Shubert
919 Plum Ridge Drive
Ross Gillanders
Plum Ridge Drive
Ginny Gillanders
Plum Ridge Drive
Loretta Barlow
921 Patton lane
Dennis Tetz 638 Fair Oaks Court
Barbara Ricketts 638 Fair Oaks Court
Joyce Leighton
626 Fair Oaks Court
Gail Engblom
636 Fair Oaks Court
Jill Chabers
654 Fair Oaks Court
Joy Dobson
624 Fair Oaks Court
Frances Brandt
634 Fair Oaks Court
Brad Bodzin
616 Fair Oaks Court
Fanda Bender
612 Fair Oaks Court
Lotus Gabriel
606 Fair Oaks Court
John Sells
608 Fair Oaks Court
Sally O'Brien
618 Fair Oaks Court
Jeremey Dailly
628 Fair Oaks Court
Miyo Ishihara
628 Fair Oaks Court
Michael Sullivan
From: Jared N Crawford <jarednec@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 7:28 PM
To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony
Subject: PA-T2-2024-00054/PA-APPEAL-2025-00020
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commission,
am a resident of Julian Court, which is next to the proposed Kestrel Hillside project.
I am writing in support of PA-T2-2024-00054/PA-APPEAL-2025-00020 and opposition to the current
proposal for the Kestrel Hillside project.
believe that the additional density implied by this proposal is inconsistent with current fire risks,
which have increased dramatically since this project was originally designed. Evacuation of this
neighborhood during a fire emergency is extremely problematic. Even the recent snowstorm made
the neighborhood's streets completely dysfunctional due to the narrow pavement widths, curbs,
sidewalks, tight turns at alley connections, and so on. These streets clearly lack the capacity to safely
evacuate the proposed increase in residents.
The plan mentions the "future construction of a bridge across Bear Creek to connect Nevada Street to
Oak Street. As such, a condition was included to require that all properties within the Kestrel Park
Subdivision sign a similar agreement prior to signature of the final survey plat." If the bridge is needed
for proper evacuation, why is its construction not required before the construction of the proposed
homes?
Thank you,
--Jared Crawford
917 Plum Ridge Dr.
Ashland OR 97520
jarednec@yahoo.com
ASHLAND
CORRECTED NOTICE
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00054/PA-APPEAL-2025-00020
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax lot 8600 of assessor' map 39-1 E -04 -AD
OWNER: PDK Properties, LLC
APPLICANT: Taylored Elements Construction
DESCRIPTION: An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval for outline plan approval of a 15 -lot Performance Standards
Option (PSO) subdivision, and a request for residential Site Design Review approval. The application also includes a request for a
variance to driveway width. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain Plan; ZONING: NM -MF; MAP: 39 -1E -04 -AD;
TAX LOT: 8600, 4700, 7800
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday t4areti 4, 2024 at 6:00 PSN# etdaa4 Civic Center, 11 East A#ain Stiect
This appeal will be processed on the record according to AMC 18.5.1.060.1. The grounds for the appeal as identified by the appellant
are:
1) That the standard provided at AMC 18.3.5.030.0 are not met. This section of code is the "Supplemental Approval Criteria" for the
North Mountain Neighborhood plan. The appellant specifically cites density, building design, building orientation, and concerns
about increased traffic.
2) That the standard provided at AMC 18.3.5.100.C.3 are not met. This section of code is specific to the design requirements of alleys
for the North Mountain Neighborhood. The appellant raises concerns with the number of units taking vehicular access from an
extension of existing alleys.
3) The third appeal issue restates the concern that the standard provided at AMC 18.3.5.030.0 are not met. The appellant then
specifically cites concerns with the multifamily development building design, andap rking being `Infront of the buildings.
4) That the standard provided at AMC 18.3.9.040 are not met. This section address "Adequate key City facilities" and the appellant
raises concerns withop lice and fire protection, and adequate transportation.
5) That the standard provided at AMC 18.5.2.050.0 are not met. This section addresses compliance with Chapter 18.4. The appellant
then specifically cites concerns regarding density, traffic, and evacuation.
6) That the standard provided atAMC 18.3.5.100.A are not met. This section address "Site Development and Design Standards for
`Housing' for the North Mountain Neighborhood. The appellant then specifically cites building orientation, building design,ap rking,
and fire protection.
7) That the standard provided at AMC 18.4.4.070 are not met. This section addresses the required open space. The appellant then
specifically cites concerns regarding lot -coverage, building design, views, and generally the development of multi -family housing.
8) The eighth appeal issue does not include a code citation but raises concerns with fire safety, and evacuation.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305��
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900
ASHLAND
Notice is hereby given that the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL will meet to consider an Appeal on the Record for Planning Action PA -T2-2024-00054 on the
meeting date and time shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
Review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission in
accordance with 18.5.1.060.1. The record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits and materials
submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when
available), the executed decision of the Planning Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of City Council review, the
notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the
appeal proceeding. The record and appeal materials are available for review at https://ashiandoregon.gov/107 /estral®Park®Development or can be
reviewed in the Planning Department offices at no cost. Copies will be provided at a reasonable cost, if requested.
Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if
different, and three minutes for any other Party who participated. A party shall not be permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely
submitted. Written arguments shall be received in the Planning Department on or before 4:30 p.m., February 21, 2025. Written and oral arguments on the
appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth above in this Notice of Appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance
of the written argument. Statements of support or opposition are not argument. The record on this matter remains closed and no new evidence may be
submitted. Argument may be submitted only by parties to the planning action and is to be directed to the Ashland Planning Department, Community
Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 or e-mailed to PC®public-testimonyCe�as iand,or,us.
Submissions which do not constitute legal argument on identified issues in the notice of appeal will not be forwarded to City Council.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's
office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the assigned staff planner, Aaron Anderson in the Ashland Planning
Department at 541-488-5305 or via e-mail to pianning6as iand,or,us. Participating parties wishing to provide their oral testimony electronically can contact
the assigned staff planner after February 21, 2025 to make arrangements.
OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3)
Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have
been met.
a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage,
police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
C. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified
in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.
d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in
phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
h. The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements
may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland.
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and
yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305��
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900
,,C II T Y
ASHLAND
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as
provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water,
sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject
property.
E. Fxceptfion to the Site Development and Design Standards, The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design
Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect
of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and
approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum
which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves
the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.13
Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application
meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements
and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental
Constraints in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees,
or existing windbreaks.
C. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of
the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no
reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making
this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen
the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
VARIANCE
18.5.5.050
The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as
topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for
purposes of approving a variance.
The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site.
The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property
line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant.
NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD
SECTION 18.3.5.030 Site Plan & Architectural Review Procedure
C. Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM
district shall also meet all of the following criteria.
1. The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density,
transportation, building design, and building orientation.
2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305��
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900
ASHLAND
APPEAL OF TYPE 11 DECISION (AMC 18.5.1.060.1
Appeal of Type II Decision. The City Council may call up a Type II decision pursuant to section 18.5.1.060.J. A Type II decision
may also be appealed to the Council as follows.
1. Who May Appeal. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following.
a. The applicant.
b. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing,
either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council.
C. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.1.1, above, may appeal
a Type 11 decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this
subsection.
b. Time for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten days of the date the notice
of decision is mailed.
C. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision
sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being
appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed
or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the City as a
jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered.
3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time, and place to consider the
appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.1.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
4. Scope of Appeal.
a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.1.4.b, below, the review of a
decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before
the Commission. The record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary
evidence, exhibits, and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the
Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the
Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of Council review, the notice of
appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall
become part of the record of the appeal proceeding.
b. Reopening the Record. The City Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if
such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator together with the filing of the notice of appeal
and the City Administrator determines prior to the Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has
demonstrated one or more of the following.
i. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the requesting party, that
prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the
only means of correcting the error.
ii. That a factual error occurred before the Commission through no fault of the requesting party which is
relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision.
iii. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the
requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting
party could have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or
she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305��
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900
,,C tl T Y
ASHLAND
This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and
testimony is submitted to the hearing body.
iv. Re -opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional written testimony
and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the Council.
5. Appeal Hearing Procedure. The decision of the City Council is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type II
decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission.
a. Oral Argument. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited
to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different, and three minutes for any other party who
participated below. A party shall not be permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted.
Written arguments shall be submitted no less than ten days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written
and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of
appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the written argument.
b. Scope of Appeal Deliberations. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the
Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining whether there is substantial
evidence to support the findings of the Planning Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by
the Commission. Review shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of
appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Commission with sufficient
specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond.
C. Council Decision. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the decision and may approve or deny the
request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision
based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent
to all parties participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may elect to
summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the Council elects to remand a decision to the
Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless
the Council calls the matter up pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.060.J.
6. Record of the Public Hearing. For purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments
submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal
proceeding.
The public hearing record shall include the following information.
a. The notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal.
b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the application that the City
mailed or received.
C. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials submitted with it.
d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before
the Planning Commission was open.
e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available).
f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application;
g. The minutes of the hearing.
g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions.
7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type II applications are final
the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council decisions on Type II applications must be filed with the
State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305��
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900
ASHLAND
Appeal on the Record
Frequently Asked Questions
A recent land use decision of the Planning Commission has been appealed to the City Council. The appeal of a Planning
Commission decision is handled according to the procedures found in AMC 18.5.1.060.1 as "An Appeal on the Record."
What is "An Appeal on the Record"?
An "Appeal on the Record" is an appeal of a land use decision where the City Council must consider the same facts and information
(i.e. "the record") that the Planning Commission saw. The City Council may not consider new facts or information.
Prior to 2008, City Council appeals were handled through a de novo hearing process and the City Council was able to consider new
information during an appeal that was not previously included in the record upon which the Planning Commission based their
decision. Since 2008, City Council appeals have been handled through an appeal on the record.
What are the steps to appeal?
Once the Planning Commission makes a decision on a land use matter, a party to the original decision may appeal that decision to
the City Council. The appellant must identify, in writing, specific areas where they think the Planning Commission made a mistake.
The mistake has to be an error in interpretation of a fact, an interpretation of a rule or regulation, or in procedure. The City Council
will review only those specific issues raised as "errors."
The Council will decide: 1) whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the Planning Commission, and 2) if the
Planning Commission committed an error.
What will happen at the hearing?
At the City Council meeting, the only people who will be allowed to talk directly to the Council will be the City staff; the applicant;
people who have filed the written appeal; and participants who provided oral or written testimony during the original Planning
Commission hearing and who submit written arguments at least 10 days in advance of the City Council meeting. The applicant will
be allowed 10 minutes and the people who have filed the written appeal will be allowed 10 minutes. Participants who have filed
written arguments will be allowed 3 minutes to summarize their argument for the City Council. No one can introduce new information
nr farts
What may the Council consider in reaching a decision?
Except when limited reopening of the record is allowed as provided in AMC 18.5.1.060.1.4.b., the Council shall not re-examine issues
of fact and shall limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning
Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. City Council review is limited to the issues clearly
and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the
Planning Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Planning Commission and the parties to respond.
Ultimately, the Council may:
• Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and reject the appeal;
• Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and support the written appeal;
• Modify the decision of the Planning Commission; or
• Send the decision back to the Planning Commission with instructions for further proceedings. In this case, subsequent
actions by the Planning Commission will be the final decision of the City.
• The final decision of the City can be appealed to the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305��
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On February 12, 2025 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action
notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set
forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -APPEAL -2025-
00020, Kestrel Park Phase III, TL 8600.
. MichaeCSuCCivan
Signature of Employee
G\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\PAs by StreeWKestrel\Kestrel Park Subdivision Phase3\Kestrel_Park_ Sub_3_PA-APPEAL-2025-00020\Noticing\Kestrel Park_PA-APPEAL-2025-00020_NOC_Affidavit of
Mailing.docx 4/4/2025
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DB2005 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD5700
ABELLE MARK ADAMS JONATHAN/MELISSA AFI PROPERTIES LLC
902 PATTON LN 806 KESTREL PKY 695 SE J ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 GRANTS PASS, OR 97526
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
ALBERTSON LORAINE
644 FAIR OAKS CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD44018
AYALA PROPERTIES LLC
132 W MAIN ST STE 202
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD5300
BELENKY DANIEL NATHAN
73 UNION ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC440
BOENITZ DAVID J TRUSTEE ET AL
903 STONERIDGE AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD5400
BROWN KATHLEEN G TRUSTEE ETA
25 SAN FELIPE WAY
NOVATO, CA 94945
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD4300
BUCK GAYLORD W/BETTY D
931 PATTON LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD6900
CARIAD FAMILY LLC
2000 TAMARACK PL
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
CHAPPELL SCOTT
602 FAIR OAKS CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
ANDERSON EUGENIA KRAUS TRUSTEE
598 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
AYALA PROPERTIES LLC
584 FAIR OAKS AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
BENDER FANDA
612 FAIR OAKS CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
BOWEN-JONES KATHI & DAVID
2000 TAMARACK PL
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DA2500
BRUMMER STEPHEN DAVID ET AL
544 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
BURTON BOBBY L SEP IRA
654 FAIR OAKS CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
CATHERINE GEORGE TRUSTEE
832 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
CORNELIUS JAMES
822 BOULDER CR LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD4500
ASKENAS NELSON REVOCABLE TRUS
246 STREET IVES DR
TALENT, OR 97540
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD4400
BARLOW LORETTA A
921 PATTON LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD66002
BENTON KENNETH L ET AL
115 S LA VERNE WAY
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DA2400
BOWMAN LEE ELLSWORTH TRUSTEE
554 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DA4300
BUCHANAN MARY JANE INGALLS TR
542 W NEVADA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
BYERS LIA
544 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
CEC ENGINEERING
132 W MAIN ST STE 103
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD6400
CRAWFORD JARED N ET AL
917 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD4800 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD6700 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
CROWLEY NANCY C DEROUX DANIEL ET AL FROSTAD TINA & KEVIN
902 PATTON LN 909 PLUM RIDGE DR 793 N. MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD6500 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DA4500
GILLANDERS ROSS J TRUSTEE ET GRADY JOANN GREENWOOD PAMELA KAY
915 PLUM RIDGE DR 909 PLUM RIDGE DR 422 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD6800
GUTIERREZ LYNDA GAYLE
907 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
HOLEMAN DENNIS
822 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD98003
HRDLICKA MITCHELL E TRUSTEE E
586 FAIR OAKS AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD44000
JULIAN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM
663 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD98000
KDA HOMES LLC
132 W MAIN ST STE 202
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC5300
KEENER SUSAN G TRUSTEE ET AL
PO BOX 1856
ROSS, CA 94957
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
KINSINGER TRUSTEE
591 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD8601
LARKIN CASSANDRA L ET AL
434 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC436
HASSELMAN LYNNE ET AL
916 STONERIDGE AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DAl 100
HOLLY S. MCCORMACK TRUST ET A
803 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC923
JAMES FOREST
967 PATTON LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD66006
JURICKOVICH GAYLE M TRUSTEE E
821 SATSUMA CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD98004
KDA HOMES LLC
123 W MAIN ST 202
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD8603
KENNY JANIS M TRUSTEE ET AL
998 OVERLOOK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD55003
KNAUERT DENNIS D TRUSTEE ET A
862 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD8604
LARSON SUSAN MURPHY TR
444 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD8200
HOADLEY JEANNE LYNN
813 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC919
HOW JOHN & WENDREA LIVING TRU
842 KESTREL PKY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD5000
JOHNSON CARL ANDREW TRUSTEE E
46 16TH AVE
SAN MATEO, CA 94402
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC922
KDA HOMES LLC
604 FAIR OAKS CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD8602
KEENER SUSAN G TRUSTEE
PO BOX 1856
ROSS, CA 94957
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DB2000
KESTREL PARK SUB PH 2 HOA
604 FAIR OAKS CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
KNOX MARK
670 NEPENTHE RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD6100
LASH STEPHANIE
925 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD7900 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC5200 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DA4400
LENTFER JACK W TRUST ET AL LINDE ROSWITHA ET AL MACNICHOLS JAMES WARD
539 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR 438 NANDINA ST 424 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD8605 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC441
MARTIN/GEIGEL MCCOLLUM JUSTIN G ET AL MCGUIRE BRIAN REV LIV TRUST
596 MARIPOSA CT 450 NANDINA ST 57 GRACELAND DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD4900
MEDINGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
PO BOX 702
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD5500
MITZEL STEVEN D/MICHELE A
532 FAIR OAKS AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DA2600
MT MEADOWS OWNERS ASSOCIAT
950 GOLDEN ASPEN PL
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DA4100
NEUMANN DAVID TRUST ET AL
430 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD8600
PDK PROPERTIES LLC
1679 JACKSON RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD7700
POLLARD SCOTT T/KEELING KARA
33 WESTOVER RD
NEWPORT NEWS, VA 23601
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD6200
RALSTON DAVID B TRUSTEE ET AL
369 N LAUREL ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
REILICH KIMBERLY
622 FAIR OAKS CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DAl200
MILLER EDWARD R TRUSTEE
161 BROWNS RD
WILLIAMS, OR 97544
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
MORAN MERVIN
813 BOULDER CR LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC429
MURPHY CHARLES J FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 15217
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC918
ORR HELEN & JAMES FAMILY TRUS
854 KESTREL PKY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD7600
POHL ROBERT L TRUSTEE ET AL
843 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DA4000
PRICE JEROME/DEBORAH
432 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD44031
READEJEFFREY
614 FAIR OAKS CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD5800
RENNIE CAROLYN
562 FAIR OAKS AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD7200
MITCHELL TRUSTEE
892 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD66001
MOUNTAIN MEADOWS PLUM RIDGE C
PO BOX 1334
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC437
NASIN MICHAEL E ET AL
913 STONERIDGE AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC5400
PALMESANO THOMAS
448 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
POLARIS SURVEY
151 CLEAR CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DA4200
PRICE JESSICA EDITH
426 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD5200
REICH CHRISTOPHER B/ANGELA L
502 FAIR OAKS AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC435
ROBERTS HILLERY B TRUSTEE ET
923 STONERIDGE AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD5100 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD7300 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD4600
ROGERS TEAL ET AL RUNKEL DAVID/DONNAN SCHWEIZER MEGAN C/CHARLES
922 PATTON LN 893 PLUM RIDGE DR 905 PATTON LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC913 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD6300 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
SHERBOURNE CHRISTIN CAROLINE SHUBAT VINCENT P TRUSTEE ET A SIEGEL FAMILY TRUST
889 STONERIDGE AVE 919 PLUM RIDGE DR 610 FAIR OAKS CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD8100
SKLENSKY ALDEN F TRUSTEE ET A
549 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD6600
TAYLOR VIDA SUMNER TRUSTEE ET
913 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD8300
TOWER ROBERT D TRUSTEE ET AL
812 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD7400
VANDERVORT RONALD/CAROL
583 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD5600
SPOONER RAYMOND M/PAMELA
542 FAIR OAKS AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
TAYLORED ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTION
1679 JACKSON RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
TURNER HELEN
877 N. MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
WAY ANTHONY TRUSTEE
624 FAIR OAKS CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
TAYLOR DONNA & JOEL
590 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AD7500
THOMPSON JEFFREY/MAGGIE
863 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
VAN LITH FRANCISCA
862 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020
WEST CHARLES ARTHUR TRUSTEE
592 NANDINA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04AC915 PA -APPEAL -2025-00020 391 E04DAl000 Kestrel ph3 Appeal NOC
WILSON JOHN & TERESA TRUST ET WINANS PAUL L JR & REGINA A T 02/12/25
866 KESTREL PKY 802 PLUM RIDGE DR 107
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
Notice of Land Use Appeal — Type 1
Ashland Municipal Code § 18.5.1.050.G.
A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal:
B. Address(es):
2, t�
Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the dppeal. A
C. Decision Being Appealed
Date of Decision:
PI nning Action #f:
Title of planning action:
D. How Person(s)
Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party
For each person
listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below.
The person named in
❑ 1 am the applicant.
Box A.1. above
V4 received notice of the planning action. .
qualifies as a party
❑ 1 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
because:
notice due to error.
The person named in
❑ 1 am the applicant.
Box A.2. above
I received notice of the planning action.
qualifies as a party
01 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
because:
notice due to error.
Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as
a party.
E. Specific Grounds for Appeal
l
1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary):
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
§ or other law in § requires that
attach additional pages if necessary):
2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary): 07117Ke ._, Ce
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
§ or other law in § requires that
attach additional pages if necessary):
3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary):
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
§ or other law in § . requires that
(attach additional pages if necessary):
3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary): 06 a
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
§ or other law in § requires that
attach additional pages if necessary):
4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that exist. For
each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other
law that were violated.
Appeal Fee
With this notice of appeal I(we) submit the sum of $325,00 which is the appeal fee required by
§18.5.1.060.1 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Date:
Signature(s) of person(s) filing appeal (attach additional pages if necessary):
Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed
with the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone
541.488-6002, prior to the effective date of the decision sought to be reviewed. Effective
dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Municipal Code Section 98.5.1.060.
G:\comm-dev\planning\Forms & Handouts\Appeal Form to Council Updated
1.2017.docx
Final Plan with Outline
$3,516.00 + $176.00 per lot
Commercial Site Review'
$2,756.25 + 0.5% .005 of value`
Any other T e, 11 Review
$2,756.25
Independent Review of Wireless Communication Facilities'
$5,000.00
Tvpe III Reviews
Zone / Comprehensive Plan Map Chane
$3,515.75
Comprehensive Plan Chane
$3,515.75
Annexation
$5,288,75
Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
$5,288.75
ALty other Type III Review
$3,515.75
Leuislative Amendments
Comprehensive Platt Ma / Large Zoning Map Amendment
$6,172.00
Land Use Ordinance Amendment
$6,172.00
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
$6,172.00
Ci Sponsored Legislation (City Council Directive
$0
Appeals
Appeal for initial Public Hearing (Building Appeals Board/
$150
Demolition Review BOa)dlPlanninl Commission)
$51.75
Appeal for Final Decision of City (Planning Commission or City
$325
Council
Solar Access
Solar Access Permit not a Solar Variance $62.50 + $14.25 per lot affected
Cammunity Develonlinent Fee
Conununity Development Fee 1.2% of value of new construction
This fee is charged concurrently with Building Permit Fees at the time of building (012)
permit application for all projects for which the City issues building permits. Fee
shall not exceed $30,000 per building permit for the Ashland School District.
Enaineerinu Development Fee
Engineering Development Fee M5% of value of new construction
This fee is charged concurrently with Building Permit Fees at the time of building (.0075)
permit application for all projects for which the City issues building permits. Applies
to all new residential dwelling units and commercial developments. Remodels,
additions and accessory buildings are not assessed this fee.
Other
Mari'uana/Hei-a /PsiloC bin Land Use Compatibility Statement
$234.75
Zoning Verification Letter
$51.75
'Project value includes the estimated valuation of all structures (per State of Oregon Building Code), as well as all related project site improvements, such as
grading, paving, landscaping, bioswales, etc,
'The initial deposit required with an application for a new wireless communication facility that is not collocated is S5,000 and shall be used by the City for
the costs of expert review of the application. If anytime during the planning application process the account balance is less than $1,000, Ilse Applicant shall
upon notification by the City replenish the account so the balance is at least $5,000. The maximum total consultant fees to be charged to the Applicant shall
be S 15,000 and any unused portion of fee will be refunded.
'A middle housing land division appeal must be filed within 14 days of mailing of the notice of the decision and be accompanied by a $300.00 deposit
towards the cost of an appeal bearing before a referee. This deposit shall be refunded if the applicant materially improves their position from the Staff
Advisor's decision. The appeal referee shall access the cost of the appeal in excess of the initial deposit for costs, up to a maximum US500,00, against an
appellant who does not materially improve their position from the decision of flue Staff Advisor.
January 30, 2025
Ashland City Council
Community Development Dept.
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Or. 97520
NOTICE OF APPEAL: Kestrel Park Phase 111 development
We are residents of North Mountain and Julian Square townhomes whose homes are within a
200 feet radius of the proposed development of the phase III of the Kestrel Park subdivision in
the Mountain Meadows community. We believe the proposed development does not meet the
building codes and standards of the city of Ashland and the North Mountain Neighborhood
building codes and standards, and request a delay and reconsideration of the following
concerns:
These concerns were submitted at the Ashland Planning Commission prior to their meeting on
December 10, 2024, per an agreement among the signatories at the end of this letter. However,
a decision was made before the meeting by Taylored Elements Construction to withdraw section
7 from the current application.This agreement was not announced before the meeting, and
attendees were not prepared to present the remaining concerns regarding sections 4, 5, and 6.
The following concerns were sent to the council prior to the meeting which we believe require
additional consideration and adjustments to the plan in order to conform to the City of Ashland
and the North Mountain building codes as follows:
We do not believe this design conforms to requirements of AMC 18.3.5.030.0 relating to
the N. Mountain neighborhood plan in regards to density, building design and building
orientation. The currently proposed Kestrel Park hillside subdivision will add 43 units to
the streets system with the possibility of adding another 10 ADUs. Mountain Meadows
streets will not accommodate the increased traffic flow and parking. The streets are
narrow, with cars parked on either side, causing one way traffic which is further impaired
by large trucks and service vehicles that need access.
2. We do not agree that AMC 18.3.5.100_C3 is met in this design. In area 6, eight units are
proposed with access onto Julian Court alley, which already serves another 10 homes
that have driveways and garages on the alley. The code describes an alley as a paved
surface serving the rear of a property to diminish use of the main access as property
frontage. The alley adjacent to the two proposed apartment buildings in area 6 is
supposed to serve the residents who have driveways either side of of the alley, and is 12
feet wide. It cannot be widened due to property lines and required setbacks and
easements. Currently, cars exiting the alley have to back up in order to allow cars to
enter from Plum Ridge Drive.-Nidening the alley next to the apartment buildings in lots
37 and 38 to 20 feet will create a bottleneck, causing a danger to property owners on the
west end of the alley as well as anyone trying to enter or exit from the East, including fire
trucks, service vehicles and ambulance services in addition to a large number of
residents, many of whom would live next to the alley.
3. Supplemental criteria described in AMC 18.3.5.030.0 are not met by the design of
apartment buildings in area 6. The buildings are very different in size, height, density and
building orientation from other buildings in the neighborhood. The building designs do not
comply with the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards, requiring all buildings
to face a street, not an alley. The apartments face Julian Court alley, but require
residents to enter and exit through the rear door, into the parking lot, with no entrance on
the other side of the building.This is a fire danger that is at odds with the North Mountain
Design Standards. Car parking is in front of the buildings, and are sized for compact
cars, which is not adequate for most vehicles used in our area. This is again at odds with
the North Mountain standards.
4. The proposed apartment buildings in area 6 do not meet city of Ashland standard AMC
18.3.9.040, requiring adequate police and fire protection, and adequate transportation.
The density of the project is over 2 Y2 times greater than the density of phases I and Ii,
with larger units sited lower down the hill, requiring some of the apartments at the top of
the hill to be less than 300 square feet, and the rest to be less than 500 square feet. This
results in having a large number of people crammed into the buildings with the least road
access, causing a dangerous situation in the event of a fire or earthquake, and causing
rescue vehicles to compete with residents trying to exit the premises. Some of these
residents are expected to be elderly and some may be handicapped, needing more
services than those at the bottom of the hill, in single family dwellings.
5. Transportation is very limited in the N. mountain neighborhoods_ In addition, there are no
grocery stores or other kinds of services that residents of these very small apartments
need to access to meet their daily needs if they do not have automobiles. This is at odds
with AMC 18.5.2.050 C. We request that the Kestrel Park subdivision be redesigned with
a reduced density appropriate for the existing streets as well as future extensions. We
would support building homes at a lower density on the hillside, but the current plan is
not seen as appropriate for the Neighborhood Design Standards for the above reasons.
The planned multi family super dense buildout of small units is not compatible with the
character of the rest of the neighborhood. The zoning's multi -family provisions could be
met by a project half the size of the proposed project.
6. AMC 18.3.5.100 A We believe the proposed development does not meet the general
design requirements for the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. They do
not have street frontage as required in the above. The two apartment buildings abutting
Julian Court Alley have only one door for entrance and exit. This is a fire danger. The
Parking area blocks over 50% of the front of the building, which is not in compliance
with the above standards. Access to these buildings is limited by the fact that they are
not situated on a road, but rather are on an alley that does not have two way access to
the nearest street, hampering services including fire and emergency services.
7. The proposed apartment buildings do not meet common and private open space
requirements in 18.4.4.070. The plan would cover 68% of the lots with pavement or
structures. This would increase runoff down the steep hill onto the residences below. The
building design and parking areas, combined with new roads, would increase the already
high temperatures in the summers, and the crowding of a large number of residences
into a too small area would reduce air flow causing loss of air circulation and raising
already high temperatures for all residences in the area. The apartment buildings would
be the tallest structures in the area, and their design is not compatible with other
residences nearby. They will interfere with the views of residents on Plum Ridge Drive,
who purchased their homes with assurances that the lots below were zoned for single
family homes. They also will interfere with the views of residents across Julian Court
alley, who had the same assurances when purchasing their homes.
8. Fire Safety: In today's world, this density is a serious safety issue. The very worrisome
annual fire danger is an issue we cannot avoid. High density coupled with narrowed
streets is a recipe for catastrophe. The proposed streets in Kestrel Park and surrounding
N. Mountain Neighborhood do not have the capacity to evacuate residents in a timely
fashion. We believe the evacuation study done recently by the city indicates it would take
4.5 hours to evacuate the city in case of fire. The North Mountain roads would become
congested within 15 minutes. We have all seen recent fires where all homes in a
neighborhood were burned in a very short time, including in our own area. The Alameda
Fire started not half a mile from this neighborhood, and we have seen the destruction first
hand. A similar occurrence here would be devastating to not only residents of this
community, but the entire city of Ashland.
We believe the city needs to take another look at fire safety in this area before granting
permission to build on this small property at the proposed density. There is other open space
and more buildable land in and near Ashland that would not cause these serious impacts on the
community. Please do not put our community in jeopardy by proceeding with this project as
presented.
Vida Taylor, 913 Plum Ridge Dr.
Daniel DeRoux, 909 Plum Ridge Dr.
David Runkel. 893 Plum Ridge Dr.
Ronald K. Vandervort, 583 Nandina St
Carol Vandervort. 583 Nandina St.
Jeffrey Thompson, 863 Plum Ridge Dr.
Maggie Thompson, 863 Plum Ridge Dr.
Mark Abelle, 902 Patton Lane
Nancy Crowley, 902 Patton Lane
I -D
t —�o
C,V4W��oa
Te -
,in (0-6 rL.VfA
Ohl .5otj 'Uaa
CY, 2-6
P)6 W JY)
VULV��
Testimonv on Kestrel Park Phase III Site Development
The first two phases of the Kestrel Park development built in conformance with
North Mountain Neighborhood District zoning have added greatly to our community.
They've taken advantage of the relatively flat land along Bear Creek and Kestrel
Parkway and have given the new residents generous yards and green common
space. That has left to the proposed Phase III of the Kestrel Park development the
remaining steep and barren hillside portion and the constraint of building very high-
density housing to meet the City's desired overall density for the whole Kestrel
development. Taylored Elements Construction has taken on this remaining Phase
III, proposing a design with high density so that the entire Kestrel Park meets
density regulations.
The proposed Kestrel Phase III design follows the pattern of Kestrel Phases I and II
in sifting larger units, some as large as 1,700 sq.ft., lower on the hill (Areas 4, 5, and
the lower part of Area 7)). To meet density requirements this forces units at the top
of the hill (Areas 6 and 7) to be as small as 400 sq.ft. Particularly constrained is Lot
36 which has 12 studio rental apartments (6 over 6) in a 10,026 sq.ft. footprint. As
measured by average area per housing unit, the density of Lots 36 through 38 at
the top of the development is 2-112 times greater than the rest of the Kestrel III
homes.
Access for 12 studio apartment units through_ Mariposa Court alley Mariposa
Court is an Alley that was constructed during the building of the Plum Ridge
Subdivision of Mountain Meadows in 2001. In compliance with Ashland Municipal
Code, North Mountain Neighborhood District (AMC 18.3.5.100.0.3) the designed
purpose of the Mariposa Court/alley was to serve as garage and garbage truck
access for five Mountain Meadows homes at 863, 843 and 823 Plum Ridge Drive
and 539 and 549 Mountain Meadows Drive. All other vehicular access to those
homes (emergency vehicles, visitors, mail and package deliveries, moving vans,
etc.) use their frontages on Plum Ridge and Mountain Meadows Drives. The paved
alley is 12 feet wide as specified in the code. This is only slightly wider than a
single lane so cars must queue and Recology garbage and recycling trucks have a
difficult time navigating the alley as it is. There is room to widen the paved north -
south surface on the downhill or west side. The east -west stub connecting the
south end to Plum Ridge Drive has residential properties on either side, thus no
room for widening.
We disagree with the Finding of Fact 3. that states the develo ment com lies with
Ashland street standards.
If the planned building at the top of Area 7 is built and inhabited, all vehicular
access to those 12 apartments would be through Mariposa Court/alley. This is in
violation of AMC 18.3.5.100.C.3 which describes an Alley as servicing the rear of a
property to diminish use of the main access at property frontage. For the new units
the alley must serve their personal car parking, visitor parking, emergency vehicle
access and parking during the emergency, garbage and recycling trucks, mail and
package delivery, and parking for any other services to those homes, e.g., utility
service or equipment installation and repair.
AMC 18.3.5.100.0.3 specifies the standard paved width for an Alley as 12 feet with
4 -foot clearances on either side. In the plan there is a 16 -foot width reserved for
the Alley which is thus 4 feet less than code. The short east -west stub off Plum
Ridge Drive cannot be widened beyond its 12 -foot current width. The North
Mountain Neighborhood District code takes precedence over Ashland Street
Standards, but the same problems requiring only secondary access and limits on
width exist with respect to that code.
There is no possibility of converting Mariposa Court into a Neighborhood Street per
AMC 18.3.5.100.0.2 which requires a 48 -foot right-of-way including sidewalks and
planter strips.
Parking spaces provided for 12 studio apartment units
We contend that the Planning Commission cannot make the findin s re uired b
AMC 18.3.9.040 A.3 or AMC 18.5.2.050.
The 12 -unit apartment building is squeezed into a too small parcel and as such
does not comply with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of
AMC 18.4 as follows:
(1)AII parking is pull -in spaces all sized for compact cars but it is not reasonable
to expect all occupants to have compact cars. Longer vehicles would stick
out into the alley.
(2)AMC 18.4.2.030 Residential Development Sec. A 1.a. Parking Layout....
"However, avoid designs where the parking areas are immediately abutting
dwelling units..." The design shows parking immediately abutting the wall of
the building.
(3)The accessible parking space does not meet the criteria for access to the
entrance to the building. Will the unit adjacent to the accessible parking
space be reserved for a disabled person?
(4)Since the plans do not include a section of the alley with the adjacent
buildings shown it's difficult to determine if the minimum dimensions required
by AMC 18.4.3.080 are achieved.
(5)The designed parking does not meet the landscaping and screening
requirements of AMC 18.4.4.030.
(6)The 12 -unit apartment building does not comply with the. common and private
open space requirements in AMC 18.4.4.070.
Appropriateness of the proposed 12 studio apartment units
We contend that the lower units of the 12 -apartment building fail to meet AMC
18.3.5.100.A.2. The front or primary elevation of these units faces west, away from
any street and in fact into the rear of two larger single-family homes below them.
These units will have access to vehicles only via an external flight of stairs. All
goods from furniture to groceries to front door deliveries will have to be carried via
those stairs. More importantly, ambulance or other emergency transport must use
those stairs.
The 12 -studio apartment building at the top of Area 7 would be closely surrounded
by homes of a completely different nature. The 12 proposed studios apartments
are sized at approximately 500 sq.ft. To the east are three single family homes with
greater than 1,500 sq.ft. To the south are two single family homes with greater
than 1,500 sq.ft. To the west will be, according to the submitted plan, two single
family homes with greater than 1,500 sq.ft. While higher density, smaller homes
can be designed to blend in with larger single-family homes, the disparity of design
in this case is enormous.
Access to Area 6 homes through the unnamed east -west Alley
We again disagree with the Finding of Fact 3a that states the development
complies with Ashland street standards. The 12 -foot wide one -lane alley off Plum
Ridge Drive which would be extended west beyond Patton Lane would serve as
one of two points of access to 16 additional units. The alley does not meet AMC
18.3.5.100.C.2 standard width provisions in that there is no 4 -foot wide clearance
space on either side. There is no room for widening or for sidewalks. The alley
currently serves as access to three garages with vehicles backing out onto the
alley. In addition, it is used by some vehicles coming from an unnamed alley
parallel to Plum Ridge Drive. The Julian Court alley was not designed to handle a
Targe number of vehicles, oversize trash removal or delivery trucks, or fire and
rescue vehicles. At present, Recology and large delivery trucks cut into Lot 38
property to make the turn at the end of the alley.
Appropriateness of Proposed Homes in Lots 37 and 38 to their Surroundings
The proposed units on Lots 37 and 38 do not meet the common and private open
space requirements in AMC 18.4.4.070. The plan would cover two-thirds of Lots 37
and 38 with structures or pavement. This does not, as the petitioners claim, reduce
the impact on the natural environment, but rather increases runoff down the steep
slope. The proposed four two-story buildings west of the houses on Plum Ridge
Drive and south of the alley marked as Julian Court would be the tallest structures
on the west end of the entire Kestrel development area. With the exception of one
house at Nadina Street and Plum Ridge Drive in the Mountain Meadows
development, other two-story structures are spaced down the slope and don't
interfere with existing views of other houses which are primarily owner occupied.
The plan would cover two-thirds of Lots 37 and 38 with structures or pavement.
Other considerations
Although it is not the Planning Commissions purview to look at specific traffic
problems with a proposed development, section D of the AMC 18.5.2.050 Site
Design Review Approval Criteria does state in part that adequate paved access to
and through the property is to be provided. The new development will add 38
homes to the North Mountain Neighborhood District which now has approximately
440 independent living homes plus 91 assisted living and memory care apartments
in Skylark Senior Living. With the addition of Kestrel Phase III the population of the
North Mountain Neighborhood District can be estimated at over 600 people, more
than 5 percent of the city of Ashland. Yet the North Mountain community has only a
single paved access to the city, North Mountain Avenue with its narrow bridge over
Bear Creek. A bridge over Bear Creek at Nevada Street is in the 2012 Ashland
Transportation System Plan, but there is no current plan for its construction. Public
transport into the community now must retrace its route out of the community.
Whether this is a factor or not, the community has no regular public transportation.
We contend there is not adequate transportation to the property as the Finding of
Fact on AMC 18.5.2.050.D states.
It is also not the purview of the Commission to consider provisions for evacuation of
the development should that be needed in an emergency. This provision is not a
part of the Ashland Municipal Code, but the recent Almeda fire has brought great
attention to the need for providing evacuation routes. The North Mountain
community has only two evacuation routes, along North Mountain Ave south to the
city or north across the 1-5 overpass out of the city. An emergency onramp to 1-5
south has been built, but there has been no clear information on when and how it
can be used. Adding 38 units to an area with over 440 homes adds significantly to
our evacuation concerns.
Dennis Holeman
822 Plum Ridge Drive
Dave Runkel
893 Plum Ridge Drive
Richard Kinsinger
591 Nandina Street
Bobbie Kinsinger
591 Nandina Street
Lee Bowman
554 Mountain Meadows Drive
Roberta Bowman
554 Mountain Meadows Drive
Cathy George
832 Plum Ridge Drive
Jeffrey Thompson
863 Plum Ridge Drive
Maggie Thompson
863 Plum Ridge Drive
Ron Vandervort
583 Nandina Street
Carol Vandervort
583 Nandina Street
Bob Pohl
843 Pium Ridge Drive
Al Sklensky
549 Mountain Meadows Drive
Lia Byers
544 Mountain Meadows Drive
Stephen Brummer
544 Mountain Meadows Drive
Suzanne Mitchell
892 Plum Ridge Drive
Paul Winans
802 Plum Ridge Drive
Nina Winans
802 Plum Ridge Drive
Robert Tower
812 Plum Ridge Drive
Kevin Frostad
793 North Mountain Avenue
Tina Frostad
793 North Mountain Avenue
Donna Taylor
590 Mountain Meadows Drive
Joel Taylor
590 Mountain Meadows Drive
Dennis Knauert
862 Plum Ridge Drive
Francisca Van Lith
862 Plum Ridge Drive
Daniel DeRoux
909 Plum Ridge Drive
JoAnn Grady
909 Plum Ridge Drive