HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-14 Planning PACKET
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, January 14, 2025
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you
wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and
complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony
may be limited by the Chair.
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Staff Announcements
2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports
III.CONSENT AGENDA
1.Approval of Minutes
a.November 12, 2024 Regular Meeting
b.December 10, 2024 Regular Meeting
IV.PUBLIC FORUM
Note: To speak to an agenda item in person you must fill out a speaker request form at the meeting
and will then be recognized by the Chair to provide your public testimony. Written testimony can be
submitted in advance or in person at the meeting. If you wish to discuss an agenda item
electronically, please contact PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by January 14, 2025 to register to
participate via Zoom. If you are interested in watching the meeting via Zoom, please utilize the
following link: https://zoom.us/j/97429109938
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2024-00054, Kestrel Park Phase III
VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2024-00255
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 110 Terrace St.
OWNER: Shirley D Patton Trust
APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development
DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a formal interpretation of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance as it applies to how a Peer Respite Home (as defined at ORS 430.626) are regulated.
The interpretation requests that the proposed Peer Respite Home in the existing residence at 110
Terrace Street be classified as a similar use to types of Group Living that are permitted in all
residential zones, and that such interpretation would provide a reasonable accommodation
consistent with the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disability Act. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single-Family; ZONING: RR-.5; MAP: 39-1E-09-BC; TAX LOT: 8000
Page 1 of 2
Total Page Number: 1
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2024-00254
SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Oaks of Ashland Open Space - Sutton Place (Tax Lot #1600)
554 Sutton Place (Tax Lot #1500)
562-570 Sutton Place (Tax Lot #1800)
PROPERTY OWNERS: The Oaks of Ashland Homeowners Association(HOA)(Tax Lot #1600)
Mukesh & Sheetal Sheoran (554 Sutton Place, Tax Lot #1500)
Bruce A. Theisen Trust (562-570 Sutton Place, Tax Lot #1800)
APPLICANTS: Vincent Haynes, Michael Thornton and Fred Frantz for The Oaks of
Ashland HOA
DESCRIPTION: A request for an amendment of The Oaks of Ashland subdivision
approval (PA #2000-127) to remove a condition of approval which required that a Public
Pedestrian Access Easement (PPAE) be provided to connect Highway 66 to Sutton Place through
the subdivision open space and continuing on between the properties at 554 Sutton Place and
562/570 Sutton Place. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family; ZONING: R-1-
10; MAP: 39 1E 11 DD; TAX LOTS: 1500, 1600 & 1800
VII.OPEN DISCUSSION
VIII.
ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting Date: January 28, 2025
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please email planning@ashlandoregon.gov. 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).
Page 2 of 2
Total Page Number: 2
Planning CommissionMinutes
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you
have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the
public testimony may be limited by the Chair.
November 12, 2024
REGULAR MEETING
DRAFT Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street. Commissioners Perkinson and KenCairn attended the meeting via Zoom. Chair Verner
congratulated Commission Knauer on being elected to City Council. Commissioner Knauer thanked
the Commission and expressed appreciation for the knowledge and experience he gained while
serving on it.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Eric Herron Veronica Allen, Associate Planner
Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Susan MacCracken Jain
Gregory Perkinson
Doug Knauer
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Paula Hyatt
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Staff Announcements:
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
He thanked the Commission and the Housing Authority of Jackson County for the
rewarding experience of the annual Planning Commission retreat which took place on
November 7, 2024.
The November 26, 2024 Study Session was cancelled and he inquired if the December 24
Study Session should likewise be cancelled.
The December 10, 2024 Regular Meeting will review the third phase of the Kestrel Park
subdivision.
The City Council will hold its annual appreciation event and annual updates for all City
Commissions and Committees. All members of these volunteer groups are invited to
attend.
2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None
Page 1 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 3
Planning CommissionMinutes
III.PUBLIC FORUM – None
IV.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.Approval of Findings for PA-T1-2024-00245, 329 Granite Street
Commissioners/Phillips/Knauer m/s to approve the findings as proposed. Commissioner
KenCairn abstained from the vote due to her past involvement with the project. Roll Call Vote: All
AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
V.OTHER BUSINESS
1.Economic Opportunities Analysis Public Engagement Plan
Mr. Goldman acknowledged and expressed appreciation for the work that one of the City’s Associate
Planners, Veronica Allen, did on this project. He introduced ourtney Cena and Elliot Weiss of
Community Attributes Inc (CAI), who worked as consultants on this project and were attending the
meeting via Zoom in order to present the team’s findings. He noted that the consultant team and the
City’s Economic Development Specialist, Jordan Rooklyn, were able to tour various sites around the
Rogue Valley to examine their economic development and also reviewed employment data
focusing on employment needs of particular groups and on centers with greater employment
opportunities.
Mr. Weiss stated that this meeting would focus on community engagement, particularly major
employers and community members, and provided the following overview and timeline of the
Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA):
Ongoing - Project Kickoff
Aug-Nov - Inclusive Outreach Plan
Sept-Jan - Ashland/Medford Joint Analysis – National, State & Regional
Oct-Feb - Ashland Community Outreach, Goals and Strategies
Sept-Nov - Industrial and Commercial Buildable Lands Inventory
Oct-Feb - Ashland Local EOA with Equity Considerations
Mar-Apr - Comprehensive Plan Update to Goals, Policies, or Actions
Mar-May - Final EOA Document Deliverable
Jan-Mar - Equity and Inclusion Self-Assessment
Mr. Weiss stated that an EOA is a technical study that compares a city’s land needs for industrial and
Page 2 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 4
Planning CommissionMinutes
other employment uses to the existing supply of such land, and can help communities implement
their local economic development objectives and forms the basis for industrial and other
employment development policies in the comprehensive plan (see attachment #1). Mr. Weiss
emphasized the importance of coordination between the consultants, the Commission, and City
staff to ensure the optimization of public engagement activities, adding that the EOA was being
done in conjunction with the City of Medford. He added that the priority populations for such
outreach should represent geographic diversity across the City, while other groups could include the
following:
Migrant, foreign born, and non-citizen communities
Communities of color, including Ashland’s Hispanic community
Seniors
Differently-abled community
Young people
Workers with high school degree or less
Veterans
Mr. Weiss stated that the planned outreach projects included the following: discussions with focus
groups; interviews with key stakeholders; public hearings with the Commission and Council; business
and resident surveys; and a studio/pop-up event to allow widespread public participation. He then
offered the following questions to help guide the Commission’s discussion:
1. What populations, communities, or groups in Ashland should be prioritized for targeted
outreach in this EOA process?
2.What other equity considerations should be front and center during the implementation of this
Inclusive Outreach Plan?
Mr. Weiss concluded by offering a working draft schedule of CAI’s public outreach activities:
October
o Draft Inclusive Outreach Plan
o Field Work & City Tour (10/21, in-person)
November
o Deliver CCI materials (11/5)
o CCI meeting (11/12)
o Determine priority populations / equity targets
o Launch business and resident survey
o Begin orientation interviews
December
Page 3 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 5
Planning CommissionMinutes
o Close business and resident survey
January
o Begin focus groups
February
o Studio / pop up meetings
o Pop-ups and focus groups (in-person)
March
o Draft and Final Engagement Summary
o Final presentation (in-person)
Questions of the Consultants
Commissioners KenCairn and Perkinson emphasized the importance of including in the study those
who work in Ashland but are unable to afford to live there and instead reside in Talent, Phoenix, and
Medford. Commissioner Perkinson also suggested that the study utilize the Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion study that was presented to the Council earlier in the year. Regarding the SOU focus group,
Commissioner Perkinson recommended that CAI reach out to SOU after January and advised them
to also contact the SOU student government.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain noted that several surrounding cities such as Yreka, Gold Hill, and
Grants Pass have depressed economies and whose residents often commute for better work
opportunities. She asked if there was a methodological imperative to focus on underrepresented
populations and if there was an assumption that larger populations had already provided feedback.
She also noted that the work that the Chamber of Commerce had done was not clear or how it
weighed into the analysis. Mr. Weiss responded that CAI is receptive to additional forms of data
gathering, such as travel data to see who commutes to the City for work. He stated that
underrepresented peoples are not given preference in the analysis, but that CAI wants to ensure
they are included. Mr. Goldman pointed out that the Chamber of Commerce recently conducted an
Economic Diversification Study that will help inform the EOA. He added that the contract with CAI
included developing the EOA, reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, and making recommendations, but
not amending the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission discussed the scale of the study and the wider economic development objectives
for the City in the Rogue Valley. They emphasized the need to study the entirety of the City’s
population while not losing sight of small business owners, hospitality workers, and those who
commute to the City for work but live elsewhere. The Commission cautioned against focusing too
heavily on businesses that cater to tourists or omitting businesses stationed in Ashland but which
export their services or products elsewhere. Mr. Weiss stated that the consultant team is open to all
sources of data collection, but that the findings must be submitted to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (6DLCD) by June, 2025. The Commission reiterated the importance
Page 4 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 6
Planning CommissionMinutes
of contacting the SOU student government and examining the number of young, educated residents
who cannot afford to live in the City.
Mr. Goldman stated that staff engages in bi-weekly meetings with the consultants to discuss the
analysis, and that the scope of work includes a future Study Session with the Commission and
another with the Council. He added that staff could provide additional information in the near future
independent of the consultants. Chair Verner suggested that the Commission receive another
update at the beginning of 2025.
VI.DISCUSSION ITEM
1.2025 Priorities & Workplan Discussion
Mr. Goldman stated that there are some issues listed in the packet that are outside of the City’s
control in terms of timing, such as the Croman Mill Site and Railroad Property cleanup projects, while
the City can more directly impact certain items like the Housing Production Strategy project. He
added that some items like the EOA are ongoing.
Mr. Severson described how the Planning Department has experienced a higher volume of planning
actions than normal, including two annexation requests and Phase III of the Kestrel Park Subdivision.
Commissioner Knauer suggested that the Manufactured Home Park Zone Ordinance be moved out
of the Long-Range planning status and be completed in a more timely manner. Mr. Goldman
responded that Long-Range are items that are typically completed in the near future, such as the
EOA, which will be completed by June of 2025. He explained that these items are designated as
Long-Range because they are subject to legal processes outside of the Planning Department’s
control, such as new ordinances.
Commissioner Knauer inquired why the Homeless Services Action Plan was included on the list. Mr.
Goldman responded that it was included as work that City staff is currently working on, even if it may
not be reviewed by the Commission.
Commissioner Herron advised caution when using the term “walkability” in regards to the Walkable
Design Standards Ordinance recently introduced by the state. He advised that the term
“accessibility” would be more inclusive of those who are differently-abled. He suggested that the City
work closely with the Transportation Advisory Committee to improve human-powered
transportation in the City. Mr. Severson responded that the state had instituted the guidelines for
walkable communities, and therefore it is a specific design standard and terminology that cities
must adopt.
Page 5 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
Commissioner MacCracken Jain noted that the description of Climate-Friendly Areas (CFAs) and its
timeline had not been updated and required more specificity. Mr. Goldman responded that there
would be ongoing discussions regarding CFAs and more detail would be added in the future.
Commissioner Knauer asked why the CFA overlay for the Railroad Property was larger than the area
itself. Mr. Goldman responded that the overlay would also include Hersey Street since it contains
redevelopment potential. He added that it would also include areas of Clear Creek Drive that have
already been developed.
Commissioner Herron asked if there was an update to the designation of the CFAs from Council. Mr.
Goldman responded that the Council concurred with the amendment to remove the Croman Mill
Site from the list of potential CFAs, and that an overlay should be utilized to designate the CFAs to
more easily adjust their number or scale in the future. Regarding the designation of the Downtown,
the Council had directed staff to develop language within the existing C-1-D zone that would afford
areas within the Downtown the same allowances that would exist within proposed CFAs. The Council
also discussed the inclusion of the Railroad Property as a CFA, but expressed concern over whether
townhomes would be allowed in this area given the deed restriction status, and the remediation plan
from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Councilor Hyatt noted that the Council also discussed including the Downtown as a potential CFA,
but expressed concern about redevelopment of the Downtown with the townhome provision in mind.
The Commission discussed the inclusion of the Downtown as a CFA, with Commissioner Herron
relating how it could be excluded from grants and other economic opportunities if not included.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain remarked that the inclusion of the Downtown area may not have
been adequately considered by the Council.
Chair Verner asked if the CFA project would come back to the Commission. Mr. Goldman responded
that it would go to both the Commission and Council for review and approval, and that the Council
had made no formal decision as this item was reviewed at a Study Session. He clarified that, with the
Council’s decision to not include the Downtown as a CFA, the City would not be utilizing the
consultant services to study and develop a code analysis of the Downtown for what changes to
make, other than those code changes to make it correspond with CFAs without an overlay. He noted
that there is a clear distinction that the City would be reviewing the Railroad Property and the Transit
Triangle as primary CFAs.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if there is anything precluding the City from seeking grants or
funding to study the feasibility of designating the Downtown as a CFA. Mr. Goldman responded that
the primary restrictions are funding, staff availability, and timelines, as this project must be
concluded by June, 2025. He stated that there is nothing precluding the Downtown from being
included in the future and that the Council could include funding for its inclusion in the next biennial
budget. He reiterated that no formal decision has been made since the Council reviewed this at a
Page 6 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 8
Planning CommissionMinutes
Study Session.
Commissioner Herron asked why the Council rejected the Rogue Valley Council of Government’s
(RVCOG) recommendation to include the Downtown. Mr. Goldman responded that the Council had
directed staff to conduct a study of the Transit Triangle, Railroad Property, and Croman Mill Site back
in early summer of 2024. He noted that RVCOG identified the Downtown area as a potential
secondary CFA, not as a primary CFA, and that the Council packet included RVCOG’s
recommendation. Mr. Severson added that the Downtown was discussed early on to include as a
CFA without encouraging redevelopment of existing buildings, but the use of secondary sites wasn’t
further developed by the state.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked how the Commission could keep the discussion of including
the Downtown area as a CFA active. Mr. Goldman responded that this item could be included in the
Commission’s annual update and workplan presentation to Council, which would allow Chair Verner
to make this recommendation. Councilor Hyatt emphasized that the current Council cannot prohibit
future Council decisions and recommended that the Commission’s advocacy for the inclusion of the
Downtown area as a CFA be included in the workplan. She cautioned that funding may not be
available for another study.
The Commission generally agreed to advocate for the inclusion of the Downtown area as a CFA.
Commissioner Perkinson advised accepting the consultant’s recommendation to not include it, and
Commission KenCairn stated her neutrality on the subject.
VII.OPEN DISCUSSION
thth
The Commission decided to cancel the November 26 and December 24 Study Sessions.
Councilor Hyatt reminded the Commission that all Commissions and Advisory Committees are
invited to the December 16, 2024 Council Study Session that will include an appreciation event for
these groups.
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 7 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 9
Planning CommissionMinutes
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you
have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the
public testimony may be limited by the Chair.
December 10, 2024
REGULAR MEETING
Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street. Commissioner Perkinson attended the meeting via Zoom. Chair Verner expressed
appreciation to Councilor Hyatt for her service on the City Council and as Liaison to the Planning
Commission. She also wished Commissioner Knauer luck with his Council appointment.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Doug Knauer Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Gregory Perkinson Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Susan MacCracken Jain
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt
Eric Herron
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Staff Announcements:
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcement:
He reminded the Commission that the City would be holding its annual appreciation
event for the City’s Commissions and Advisory Committees on December 16, 2024.
2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None
III.CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
a. October 12, 2024 Regular Meeting
Commissioners Knauer/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None
Page 1 of 5
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 10
Planning CommissionMinutes
V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00054
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax lot 8600 of assessor’s map 39-1E-04-AD
OWNER: PDK Properties, LLC
APPLICANT: Taylored Elements Construction
DESCRIPTION: 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: 39-1E-04-AD; TAX LOT: 8600, 4700,
7800
Chair Verner noted that staff had received several public comments since the meeting packet had
been distributed, as well as informational materials distributed by a member of the public prior to
the meeting (see attachment #1).
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Phillips and Verner disclosed site visits. Chair Verner disclosed two ex parte contacts
with members of the public, who informed her that this item was on the agenda. She responded that
she could not discuss this item due to her presence on the Commission. No other ex parte contact
was disclosed.
Mr. Goldman noted that Commissioners KenCairn and Herron had recused themselves from the
proceedings due to their past involvement with the applicant.
Staff Presentation
Senior Planner Aaron Anderson provided a brief presentation on the proposal, which included a
request for Outline Plan Approval for a 13-lot Performance Standards Option subdivision, as well as
Site Design Review, Tree Removal, and a Variance regarding required driveway width of the
proposed units (see attachment #2). He stated that this project would be processed as part of the
North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and noted that the applicant had voluntarily removed Area 7
from the proposal, citing the need to further develop the proposal for this area. The removal of Area 7
reduced the number of proposed lots from 15 to 13, and the total number of units from 28 to 16. Mr.
Anderson added that staff had included 2 potential conditions of approval to account for the
withdrawal of Area 7 from the application:
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 #7 shall comply with the minimum density
Page 2 of 5
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
standards of the NMNP.
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.
Questions of Staff
Commissioners Knauer and MacCracken Jain asked if the density of the project is met with the
removal of Area 7, and if a future phase would now have the required density for approval. Mr.
Anderson responded that the current proposal meets required density standards and that Area 7
would also meet this standard as part of a future application.
Applicant Presentation
Mark Knox introduced himself as the representative of the applicant, and a member of the North
Mountain neighborhood. Also in attendance was Kyle Taylor, the contractor involved in the project.
Mr. Knox emphasized the high density of the proposed neighborhood and the accessibility of the
associated alleyways. He related the difficulty in developing in Area 7, which resulted in that area
being removed from the current application. Mr. Knox showed how the proposed houses in Areas 5
and 6 were designed to conform to the existing neighborhood, and how the designs were changed
based on feedback from neighbors (see attachment #3). He added that the existing 16ft-wide
alleyways would be expanded to 20ft wide and how the applicants worked to preserve the nearby
riparian areas.
Questions of the Applicant – None
Public Comments
Lee Bowman/Mr. Bowman stated that his comments were focused on Area 7 of the application, and
with its removal from the proposal ceded the remainder of his time.
Robert Tower/Mr. Tower stated that his comments were focused on Area 7 of the application, and
with its removal from the proposal ceded the remainder of his time.
Lola Egan/Ms. Egan stated that her comments were focused on Area 7 of the application, and with its
removal from the proposal ceded the remainder of her time.
Barbara Patridge/Ms. Patridge requested clarification regarding the North Mountain Neighborhood
Plan that was approved in 1997. She stated that the proposed 16ft-wide carports would not be
adequate for the residents to navigate, nor would they have the necessary depth to adequately park
a vehicle. Mr. Anderson stated that the 1997 approval was by City ordinance and would stay in effect
until the neighborhood fully manifests.
Page 3 of 5
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 12
Planning CommissionMinutes
Melissa Adams/Ms. Adams expressed concern about the limited fire evacuation routes from the
neighborhood, drawing attention to the one egress/ingress point and requested that this be
reviewed by the City.
Maggie Thompson/Ms. Thompson requested further clarification on why Area 7 was withdrawn from
the application and what the future density of that are would be. She also requested clarification on
why some of the proposed units would only have vehicular access from alleys. Chair Verner
responded that the applicant had stated why Area 7 had been withdrawn. Mr. Anderson stated that
the density of Area 7 would depend on the application presented, but that it could be up to 18-units.
He added that this is unlikely as the applicant had originally proposed 12 units before removing the
area from the current application. Regarding alley access, Mr. Anderson responded that the code
requires that vehicle access come from alleys instead of street frontage when available, and that it
is not uncommon for dwellings in infill neighborhoods like the one discussed to have their driveways
removed in favor of alley access.
Jeff Askenas/Mr. Askenas asked what the timing of the construction would be and if the existing
alleys would be accessible during development.
Ronald Vandervort/Mr. Vandervort expressed concern about the lack of evacuation routes in the
neighborhood, and asked why the Nevada Bridge project had never been completed. Mr. Goldman
responded that the bridge was left undeveloped by the Council due to testimony given by nearby
residents at the time expressing concern with the bridge’s scale, which resulted in grant funds being
used to locate a location for a bridge near Tolman Creek Road. He added that the Nevada Bridge is
still part of the Transportation System Plan (TSP), and that a condition of approval signed by
members of the community as part of their development had them enter into a Local Improvement
District (LID) agreement which required that they pay a proportional share of those improvement
costs when the City moves forward with that capital project. He emphasized that concerns over
evacuation have been made a priority in the TSP.
Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. Knox stated that the density of Area 7 could be increased if desired, but that this is unlikely due to
the layout of the area. He stated that the applicants support the installation of the bridge, and that
those wishing to see it completed should petition the Council to add it to the list of future capital
improvements. He stated that the layout of the neighborhood is within safety standards, and Mr.
Taylor added that the team wants to build a safe neighborhood. Mr. Taylor stated that the
development would likely begin in middle of 2025, and that the team would work and communicate
with residents to ensure that alley access is not inhibited during construction. Mr. Knox added that
development would add more access points through Nandina Street and Mountain Meadows Drive
that would filter traffic more evenly throughout the neighborhood.
Page 4 of 5
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 13
Planning CommissionMinutes
Public Comments
Robert Tower/Mr. Tower stated that the Mountain meadows subdivision had historically been in
favor of the bridge installation.
Maggie Thompson/Ms. Thompson stated that Nandina Street is not an ingress/egress point and that
those seeking to evacuate still need to take Mountain Meadows Drive or Fair Oaks Avenue to reach
the exit from the neighborhood.
Chair Verner provided the applicant the opportunity to respond to these public comments that were
received after the applicant team had submitted their rebuttal. The applicant team declined.
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 8:06 p.m.
Deliberation and Decision
Mr. Anderson reminded the Commission that two additional conditions of approval had been
proposed by staff to account for the withdrawal of Area 7 from the application.
Commissioners MacCracken Jain/Knauer m/s to approve the Kestrel Park Phase III application for
areas 4, 5, and 6, for a 13-lot subdivision with conditions as proposed and inclusive of those
conditions just presented by staff. Roll Call Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
VI.OPEN DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed the relationship between the Commission and the TSP. Mr. Goldman
explained that the TSP is a supporting document of the Comprehensive Plan and that the City
recently received a grant to update the TSP, which includes funds to hire a consultant to help with its
development. He stated that evacuation access is a priority for the new TSP. Commissioner Knauer
asked if there is an avenue for the Nevada Bridge to be built before the TSP is completed. Councilor
Hyatt responded that it would need to be done as a capital improvement project and that interested
parties could petition for it to be included in the next biennial budget. The Commission discussed
how an LID could be created to pay for this project, which would require a public input process and
grant requests.
VII.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 5 of 5
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 14
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 15
Total Page Number: 16
FINDINGS
_________________________________
Approvalof Findings forPA-T2-202-00,
Total Page Number: 17
Total Page Number: 18
THE CITY OF ASHLAND
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY14, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2024-00054A)
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PERFORMANCE )
STANDARDS OPTION (PSO) SUBDIVISION, AND A REQUEST FOR )
RESIDENTIAL SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL. THE APPLICATION )
FINDINGS,
ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO DRIVEWAY )
CONCLUSIONS,
WIDTH AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.)
AND ORDERS.
)
OWNER: CMK DEVELOPMENT LLC)
APPLICANT:TAYLORED ELEMENTS)
_______________________________________________________________)
RECITALS:
1)The subject property is tax lot #8600of Assessor’s Map 39-1E-04-AD (it does not presently
have a streetaddress). 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
Total Page Number: 19
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 6, but
will eventually re-apply for entitlements for area 7 in the future.”
6)The request, after the removal of area 7,isfor 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
atotal of 16-units of multi-family housing (area 6), as well as three buildings of
attached single family (areas 4 and 5). The thirteenthlot 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 requestfor a variance to driveway width.
7)The applicant’sproposal is detailed in plans which are on file at the Department of Community
Developmentand 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
Total Page Number: 20
G.the development complies with the street standards.
H.the proposed development meets the common open space standards establishedunder 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)Thesupplemental approval criteria of the NMNP are described in AMC 18.3.5.030.Cas
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 18.5.2.050as
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
Total Page Number: 21
11)The criteria of approval for a Varianceare 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
and Physical and
applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part18.4
Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10.
b.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
c.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an
exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removalhave been considered and no
reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider
alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscapingdesigns that would
lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other
provisions of this ordinance.
e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval pursuant to section18.5.7.050
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
Total Page Number: 22
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 MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGSOF 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
th
render a decision based on the applicationitself,the December 10Staff 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
th
prior to the December 10Meeting).
2.3 The Planning Commission notes thatthe 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 Planof a Performance
Standard Option (PSO) subdivision meets all applicable criteria for described in AMC
18.3.9.040.A.3and detailed below.
2.4.1The 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-T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 5
Total Page Number: 23
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
th
Report dated December 10. The Planning Commission notes that with the findings that
are set out below, the approval of the exception to street standardsdiscussed below, and the
adopted conditions of approval that the proposal will meet all applicable ordinance
requirements andfinds that this criterion of approval is satisfied.
2.4.2The 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 NandinaSt. that there is a maintenance holewhere 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 drainconnectsinto
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 loopsystem.The Planning Commission notes that the application materials assert
that adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the developmentbased on
consultations with representatives of the various City departments (i.e. water, sewer, streets
and electric), and thatthe proposed developmentwill 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 findsthat with the foregoing that this criterion of
approval is satisfied.
2.4.3The 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.
2.4.4The 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 andfinds that this criterion of approval is satisfied.
2.4.5The fifth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is that “There are adequate
PA-T2-2024-00054
January 14, 2025
Page 6
Total Page Number: 24
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 andfinds that
this criterion of approval is satisfied.
2.4.6The 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 parcelsincluding 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.’
`NM-R-1-7.5NM-MF
Acres4.594.16
Dwelling units per acre3.612
Base Density (acres x units per acre)16.5249.92
Minimum Density (x 0.75 –1.1)12.39–18.1837.44–54.91
Phase 1114
Phase 2 (Cottages)510
Total Dwellings (Phase 1 + 2)1614
Remaining minimum density rangeup to 2.1823.44-40.91
*
Proposed Phase 322
Required minimum range for Area 7Full developed1.44–18.91
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 twobut not more than eighteenunits, and a condition of approval to
that effect has been included below. The Planning Commission findsthat, with the condition
of approval included belowensuring that area seven will meet the required minimum
density, that this criterion of approval is satisfied.
2.4.7The 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
Total Page Number: 25
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 eachroad 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.
2.4.8The final criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is that “The proposed
development meets the common open spacestandards 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 eightpercent 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 ampleamount
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.
2.5The 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.C 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
Total Page Number: 26
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 thatat
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 requirementfor garages requires that
“Where no alleys are present, garages shall be located a minimum of 15 feet behind
the primary façade 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 casemeet 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-footdriveways 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
Total Page Number: 27
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
containingdetailed civil plans showing that the proposed cross sections meet these
design standards and conclude that this standardhas 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.
2.6The 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.
2.6.1The 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)Theproposal’sbenefits will begreaterthan any negative impacts, and 4)
thatheneed for thevariance is notself-imposed.
2.6.2The 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
January 14, 2025
Page 10
Total Page Number: 28
2.7.1The 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.
2.7.2The 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.
2.7.3The 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 of part 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.
2.7.4The 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.
2.7.5The 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
Total Page Number: 29
and Design Standards of part 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.
2.8The 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
OutlinePlan 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 andare 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 requestfor a13-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
Total Page Number: 30
2-That the applicant apply for final plan approval pursuant to AMC 18.3.9.040.B 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 #7 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
Total Page Number: 31
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
Total Page Number: 32
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PA-T-202-00
Total Page Number: 33
Total Page Number: 34
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 43
Total Page Number: 44
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
December 6, 2024
City of Ashland Planning Division
Attn: Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
20 E Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
This is a request for a formal interpretation of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as it applies to a Respite
Home. This application is made a as request for a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing
Act and Americans with Disability Act.
The interpretation is requested to find that the proposed use of the existingresidence at 110 Terrace
Street can be classified as a similar use to Group Living that is permitted in all residential zones and such
interpretation would result in a reasonable accommodation consistent with the Fair Housing Act and
Americans with Disability Act.
We are seeking Planning Commission review of the interpretation request.
Thank you,
Amy Gunter
Amy Gunter
Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
Attachments:
Letter from Jennifer Bragar, Tomasi Bragar DuBay with Reasonable Accommodation Request and Findings
Addressing Code Interpretation Criteria
1314-B Center Dr. PMB #457
Medford, OR 97501 www.rogueplannning.com amygunter.planning@gmail.com
Total Page Number: 45
12.6.2024
Total Page Number: 46
ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
5
APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner.
5
PLANNING FEES FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner.
5
FINDINGS OF FACT – Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or
findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include
information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre-Application Comment document.
TRUE SCALE PDF DRAWINGS – Standard scale and formatted to print no larger than 11x17 inches. Include site
plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details.
5
FEE (Check, Charge or Cash)
LEED® CERTIFICATION (optional) – Applicant’s wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall
provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps:
Hiring and retaining a LEED® Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and
construction of the project; and
The LEED® checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued.
NOTE:
Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis.
Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property
owner(s), all required materials and full payment.
All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance
with ORS 227.178.
The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission
meeting. (Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which
meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St).
A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns.
If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions.
Total Page Number: 47
Total Page Number: 48
Total Page Number: 49
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
December 6, 2024
City of Ashland Planning Division
Attn: Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
20 E Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
This is a request for a formal interpretation of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as it applies to a Respite
Home. This application is made a as request for a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing
Act and Americans with Disability Act.
The interpretation is requested to find that the proposed use of the existingresidence at 110 Terrace
Street can be classified as a similar use to Group Living that is permitted in all residential zones and such
interpretation would result in a reasonable accommodation consistent with the Fair Housing Act and
Americans with Disability Act.
We are seeking Planning Commission review of the interpretation request.
Thank you,
Amy Gunter
Amy Gunter
Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
Attachments:
Letter from Jennifer Bragar, Tomasi Bragar DuBay with Reasonable Accommodation Request and Findings
Addressing Code Interpretation Criteria
1314-B Center Dr. PMB #457
Medford, OR 97501 www.rogueplannning.com amygunter.planning@gmail.com
Total Page Number: 50
Jennifer M. Bragar 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1850
AttorneyPortland, Oregon 97204
Admitted in Oregon, Washington, Tel503-894-9900
and CaliforniaFax 971-544-7236
jbragar@tomasilegal.comwww.tomasilegal.com
December 6, 2024
City of Ashland Planning Division
Attn: Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
20 E Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: Reasonable Accommodation Request and Code Interpretation
Dear Mr. Goldman,
Thisoffice represents Stabbin' Wagon ("Applicant"), a grant recipient ofthe Oregon Health
Authority ("OHA"). The OHA grantenablesApplicant to operate a respite home at property
located at 110 Terrace Street, Ashland, Oregon (the "House"). This letter is submitted in
conjunction with Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC's application materials to provide
additional support for the requested code interpretation coupled with a reasonable accommodation
request under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and Americans with Disability Act ("ADA").
I.Applicant's request for a Reasonable Accommodation
Under Ashland Municipal Code ("AMC") 18.1.5.040 Similar Uses, the code states,
"Where a proposed use is not specifically identified by this ordinance or the ordinance is
unclear as to whether the use is allowed in a particular zone the Staff Advisor may find the
use is similar to another use that is permitted, allowed conditionally or prohibited in the
subject zone and apply the ordinance accordingly."
Ashland's Group Living definition statesthat "Group living is characterized by the long-term
residential occupancy of a structure by a group of people… Group Living structures do not include
self-contained units but rather have common facilities for residents including those for dining,
social and recreational, and laundry." AMC 18.6.1.030. The definition then lists some types of
Group Living facilities, including Residential Care Home, Residential Facility, and Room and
Board Facility. Nothing in the definition language states that the list is exhaustive.
The Applicant intends to use the House for long-term residential occupancy by a group of
people, with the group changing periodically. Applicant's peer respite housing OHAgrant allows
up to four (4)to six (6) individuals to stay at the House for up to fourteen (14) days for individuals
experiencing mental illness. This respite allows individualsto be housed and providestime to
reset their mental and/or physical state and be linked to other services to help them out of their
crisis.
Total Page Number: 51
T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY
December 6, 2024
Page 2
ORS 430.275(1) defines peer respite services:
"(a) 'Peer respite services' means voluntary, nonclinical, short-term residential peer support
provided:
(A) In a homelike setting to individuals with mental illness or trauma response symptoms
who are experiencing acute distress, anxiety or emotional painthat may lead to the need
for a higher level of care such as psychiatric inpatient hospital services; and
(B) By a peer-run organization and directed and delivered by individuals with lived
experience in coping with, seeking recovery from or overcoming mental illness or trauma
response challenges." (Emphasis added).
Therefore, by definition, the individuals who will reside in the House qualify as disabled under the
FHA and ADA, and state law. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-19, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010, 12132, ORS
659A.145(2)(c).
The respite service use of the House is most similar to the definition ofGroup Living, with
individual rooms and communal space as contemplated in the City code. Further, during the
respite, individuals will treat the House as a dwelling. Courts have given the FHA's definition of
dwelling a generous construction, where the length of stay is not the only factor, rather the intended
use of the property is included in the determination. Louisiana Acorn Fair Housing v. Quarter
House, 952 F. Supp. 352, 359 (E.D. La. 1997). As the individuals who will reside at the House
have an intent to treat the House as a temporary dwelling place, the House is a dwelling under the
FHA. Woods v. Foster, 884 F. Supp. 1169, 1173 (N.D. Ill. 1995). The fact that the Oregon Health
Authority is funding the useof the House so that residents will not be required to pay rentdoes not
defeat the protection of the individuals who will reside therein. Id. at 1175.
When requested, the ADA and FHA require municipalities to make reasonable
modifications to their zoning laws to allow housing for people with disabilities. Onbehalf of
disabled individuals who will reside in the House that would be allowed after this similar use
interpretation, the Applicant makes this reasonable accommodation request. If the City enforces
AMC requirements that place additional burdens on properties designated for people with
disabilities or allows discrimination in zoning against people with disabilities, they are deemed
invalid, or otherwise need to be modified to allow the proposed housing to be accommodated. The
Applicant requests a reasonable accommodation and asks that theCitynot apply any vague or
discretionarystandards, including any conditional use criteria, to approve this application and
allow respite at the House as a permitted use, and to find the use is similar to Group Living facilities
allowed as permitted uses in residential zones.
II.Applicant's request for a Similar Use Interpretation
With this introduction and justification for a reasonable accommodation, the following are
the Applicant's proposed findings for an interpretation to allow the respite use of the House. The
code provisions are italicized and the proposed findings in regular font.
Total Page Number: 52
T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY
December 6, 2024
Page 3
AMC 18.1.5.030 Interpretation Criteria
Any interpretation made through the foregoing procedures shall be based on the following
criteria:
A.The interpretation is consistent with applicability policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Finding:
Therequested interpretation is consistent with applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan
relevant to Land Use Classifications which speak to the purpose of the residential categories as
establishing land use intensity by assigning different densities to different areas. Comprehensive
PlanSection 2.04 (Land Use Classifications). The residential classifications are not intended to
specify types of uses but rather the number of dwelling units per gross acre.
The use does not impact the density, or intensity of use in the neighborhood as nothing prevents a
similar residential house in this zone from having visitors stay at their house for up to two weeks
at any time throughout the year with no other regulation.Other family use of dwellings in this
zone place no limit on occupancy as families can be as large as desired, and often married couples
share rooms, as do children. In contrast to how a typical family is allowed to intensely use their
house in this zone,theApplicant proposes to limit the maximum respite useof the House to four
individuals to sleep in each available bedroom. Further, the use of a four bedroom dwelling for
four individuals does not impose a greater demand on public facilities than anticipated when the
home at 110 Terrace Streetwas originally built, which is also consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. As imagined in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, density regulations are adopted in the
code, and this House is a pre-existing house that meets the City's density requirements.
Comprehensive Plan Section 2.04.
As the City considers the Applicant's request and these findings, it should continue to keep in mind
the Applicant's reasonable accommodation request. The FHA prohibits disability-related
discrimination in housing matters, including the zoning and land use process. 42 U.S.C. § 3604.
Title II of the ADA also prohibitsgovernment agencies from discriminating against people with
disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Instead of engaging ina notion that the proposed interpretation
should not be granted, the City should consider the effect on people with disabilities who would
be denied housing when families residing in residentially zoned areas are not treated to the same
type of restrictions and monitoring of its occupants as a respite home.
Further, the Comprehensive Plan at Section 5.21 recognizes that Ashland has some of the lowest
incomes in Jackson County, and Section 5.23 recognizes that population growth will increase the
cost of housing. Thus, when low income people experience mental illness, they also lack the
personal financial strength to find care, housing,and services. The Applicant's peer respite
proposal is consistent with the types of solutions necessary to address the stated Goal at
Comprehensive Plan Section 5.25 by providing for the needs of the expected population growth,
including low income individuals through this housing opportunity and connection to services for
such low income individuals.
Total Page Number: 53
T OMASI B RAGAR D U B AY
December 6, 2024
Page 4
Allowing use of an existing dwelling ona pre-existing residential lot is consistent with the Housing
Element. Further, the Housing Element, Comprehensive Plan Section 6.04, recognizes that
subsidized housing would be used to meet the needs of low income residents. See also
Comprehensive Plan Section 6.11(4)(b). OHA's grant for the House is an example of such
subsidized housing and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's anticipated method of
providing low income housing. Moreover, the Comprehensive Plan states thatdetached single
family housing will"unfortunately only be available to persons of relatively high income."
Comprehensive Plan Section 6.05. Applicant's proposal broadens the opportunity for low income
people to access otherwise exclusionary housing types. The stated goal in the Housing Element
is, "Provide Housing Opportunities For The Total Cross-Section Of Ashland's Population,
Consistent With Preserving The Character And Appearance Of the City." Comprehensive Plan
Section 6.10. Since no outward changes are required to the façade of the House,except for some
ADA-accessible adjustments,and the proposed respite use provides housing opportunities for an
often ignored segment of the population, thisgoal of the Comprehensive Plan will also be
achieved.
The proposed use of the House as a peer respite is most similar in type, kind and function as a
Group Living use, which includes a type of group living use that is permitted in all residential
areas. For example, a similar use, Residential Care Homes, are permitted in all residential zones.
AMC Table 18.2.2.030. From an intensity of use perspective, Residential Care Homes, house five
or fewer individuals, and would be allowed at 110 Terrace Street. AMC 18.6.1.030 and ORS
443.400. From a land use and housing perspective, the use by individuals who benefit from peer
respite are not significantly different from residents of Residential Care Homes. Based on this
context, Applicant's reasonable accommodation request and interpretation should be approved.
B.The interpretation is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance provision
that applies to the particular ordinance section, or sections, in question.
Proposed Finding:
The requested interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the residential zones, which is linked
1
to the general purpose of the Land Use Ordinance under AMC 18.2.2.010 and 18.1.2.020.Under
AMC 18.1.2.020,
"The purpose of the Land Use Ordinance is to encourage the most appropriate and efficient
use of land; to accommodate orderly growth; to provide adequate open space for light and
air; to conserve and stabilize the value of property; to protect and improve the aesthetic and
visual qualities of the living environment; to aid in securing safety fromfire and other
dangers; to facilitate adequate provisions for maintaining sanitary conditions; to provide
for adequate access to and through property; and in general to promote the public health,
safety, and the general welfare, all of which is in accordance with and in implementation
of the Comprehensive Plan. Race, color, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity,
1
AMC 18.2.2.010 is essentially a cross reference to AMC 18.1.2.020 where it states, "Chapter 18.2.2 regulates allowed
land uses pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this ordinance, per chapter 18.1.2." As stated under
subsection A, the Applicant's requested interpretation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Total Page Number: 54
Total Page Number: 55
Total Page Number: 56
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 57
Total Page Number: 58
Memo
To: City of Ashland Planning Commission
From: Carmel Zahran, Assistant City Attorney
Date: 1/3/2025
Re: Letter of Interpretation – Re. 110 Terrace Street, Ashland OR
Introduction
This matter was introduced to the City of Ashland (“City”)’s legal department by Rogue Planning
and Development (the “Applicant”), who requested a land use interpretation according to the
procedure outlined in Ashland Municipal Code (“AMC”), Chapter 18.1.5 regarding the
Applicant’s request to operate a “Peer Respite Center” (as defined in ORS 430.275.1) at 110
Terrace Street, Ashland, Oregon, within an R-1 zone.
Issue:
The Applicant asserts that the use is permissible under the Ashland Municipal Code, specifically
arguing it falls under the definition of "group living." It is this office’s opinion that the structure
and 14-day maximum occupancy for those individuals who might utilize the Peer Respite Center
does not constitute a “long-term residential occupancy,” which is a key component of the
“group living” definition:
“Group Living. Group living is characterized by the long-term residential occupancy of a
structure by a group of people. The size of the group typically is larger than the average
size of a household. Group Living structures do not include self-contained units but
rather have common facilities for residents including those for dining, social and
recreational, and laundry. Residential Care Homes, Residential Care Facilities, and Room
and Board Facilities are types of Group Living.” AMC 18.6.1.030.
Application:
The Applicant’s central argument hinges on the interpretation of “long-term residential
occupancy.” They contend that while the individuals served by the respite center will stay only
up to 14 days, the consistency of the group served (individuals experiencing mental health
challenges) equates to long-term occupancy in a functional sense. However, it is a
misapplication to apply the consistency of a group, rather than the individual, to the legal
standard of who constitutes to be a “long-term” resident.
The definition of “group living” is anchored in the duration and permanency of individuals’
residency, which is supported by a plain reading of the ordinance and its surrounding context.
1
Total Page Number: 59
Memo
The three specific examples provided in the code as forms of “Group Living” are “Residential
Care Homes,” “Residential Care Facilities,” and “Room and Board Facilities.” The first two
examples contain the word “residential” in their titles, implying that these homes and care
facilities serve as the permanent residences of the individuals who live and receive professional
care at these facilities. Similarly, the definition of Room and Board Facilities also implies a level
of permanency, citing examples such as dormitories, fraternities, sororities, and boarding
houses, and explicitly statesthat these facilities must have a minimum stay of 30 days.
While it's true that individuals served by the respite center may share common characteristics,
this does not negate the temporary nature of an individual’s stay. The Applicant's argument
more appropriately applies to short-term rentals or other temporary accommodations, which
are not considered “long-term” residential occupancies. Notably, thedefined terms “Travelers’
Accommodation” and “Travelers’ Accommodations” specify that the duration of occupancy is
to be less than 30 days. AMC 18.6.1.030.
The Applicant points to the context behind the program, which is funded by the Oregon Health
Authority (OHA), implying that this funding demonstrates the long-term nature of the
operation. However, this funding merely supports the project's temporary operational goals,
which are aligned with a short-term program. The 14-day limit explicitly defined in the OHA
grant contradicts the notion of long-term residency. This limitation indicates a temporary,
short-term service model that is incompatible with the definition of “group living,” as provided
in the AMC. The nature of the OHA grant strengthens the argument that this is a short-term
assistance program.
The Applicant raises concerns regarding FHA and ADA compliance, suggesting that the City's
denial amounts to discriminatory housing and disability rights practices. The City fully
acknowledges the importance of ensuring equal and non-discriminatory housing and zoning
practices. However, the City's denial is not based on the Applicant's outreach goals but rather
on a reasonable interpretation of the existing zoning regulations. In other words, the City is not
rejecting the Applicant but is instead rejecting the proposed use based on existing land use
code (i.e., the interpretation of short-term versus long-term).
The two cases cited by the Applicant exhibit significant differences from the subject application.
In Louisiana Acorn Fair Housing v. Quarter House, 952 F. Supp. 352 (E.D. La. 1997), the
defendant, Quarter House, operated as a timeshare resort that engaged marketing
representatives to recruit prospective residents. However, their qualification criteria were
discriminatory against various protected categories, explicitly stating that prospective buyers
could not be “1) African American; 2) aliens; 3) of mid-Eastern or Indian cultures or religions; 3)
physically unable to climb stairs; and pregnant women, families with more than two children or
families with children under the age of 10” (Id. at 354). In Woods v. Foster, 884 F. Supp 1169
(1995), the Defendant was a homeless shelter where Plaintiff’s ability to stay and receive
2
Total Page Number: 60
Memo
assistance depended on providing sexual favors to facility managers. In both cases, the court
recognized the clear and overt discrimination against these vulnerable individuals, extending
FHA protection to the Plaintiffs based on their interpretation of the term "dwelling."
However, the Applicant's assertion that the ADA and FHA "require municipalities to make
reasonable modifications to their zoning laws," using these two cases as a basis for their
conclusion, is misleading because neither case involved the court instructing a municipality to
change existing zoning regulations. In fact, the terms "zone" and "zoning" were not mentioned
once in either case. The Applicant's argument would be more appropriately applied if the City
were, hypothetically, denying individuals access to a properly-zoned shelter care in a
discriminatory manner—which the City neither does nor would ever do.
The City's commitment to providing reasonable accommodations under the ADA and its
obligations to comply with applicable FHA regulations are distinct from the proposal to
fundamentally alter zoning regulations to accommodate a specific use that does not conform to
existing definitions. The Applicant is encouraged to seek alternative locations that are properly
zoned to accommodate the services they provide. Although arguments regarding the FHA's
applicability to “dwellings” may be valid in contexts involving discriminatory treatment of
individuals or groups denied housing access, this particular scenario does not fit that
framework.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Applicant’s proposed use of the property does not meet the definition of
"group living" as defined in the Ashland Municipal Code. This determination is supported by the
temporary nature of the occupancy, the 14-day residency limit imposed by the OHA grant, and
the lack of evidence to support a "long-term" residential interpretation.
Additionally, while the City is committed to ensuring compliance with the FHA and the ADA, the
interpretation of zoning regulations must remain consistent with established definitions. This
conclusion in no way diminishes the value of the program and the benefit it would likely
provide to members of the community. Rather, it is through a fair, impartial, and neutral
reading of the ordinance and its surrounding context that we disagree with the Applicant’s
interpretation of “group living” to authorize the Peer Respite Center in an R-1 zone.
3
Total Page Number: 61
Total Page Number: 62
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PA-T-202-00
Total Page Number: 63
Total Page Number: 64
Total Page Number: 65
Total Page Number: 66
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 67
Total Page Number: 68
Total Page Number: 69
Total Page Number: 70
Total Page Number: 71
Total Page Number: 72
Total Page Number: 73
Total Page Number: 74
Total Page Number: 75
Total Page Number: 76
Total Page Number: 77
Total Page Number: 78
Total Page Number: 79
Total Page Number: 80
Total Page Number: 81
Total Page Number: 82
Total Page Number: 83
Total Page Number: 84
Total Page Number: 85
Total Page Number: 86
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 87
Total Page Number: 88
Total Page Number: 89
Total Page Number: 90
Total Page Number: 91
Total Page Number: 92
Total Page Number: 93
Total Page Number: 94
Total Page Number: 95
Total Page Number: 96
Total Page Number: 97
Total Page Number: 98
Total Page Number: 99
Total Page Number: 100
Total Page Number: 101
Total Page Number: 102
Total Page Number: 103
Total Page Number: 104
Total Page Number: 105
Total Page Number: 106
Total Page Number: 107
Total Page Number: 108
Total Page Number: 109
Total Page Number: 110
Total Page Number: 111
Total Page Number: 112
Total Page Number: 113
Total Page Number: 114
Total Page Number: 115
Total Page Number: 116
Total Page Number: 117
Total Page Number: 118
Total Page Number: 119
Total Page Number: 120