HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-13 Planning PACKET
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, May 13, 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.April 22, 2025 Study Session
b.April 22, 2025 Special 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 May 13, 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/96672253968
V. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2024-00011
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511 Highway 99 North
APPLICANT/OWNER: Casita Developments, LLC
Kendrick Enterprises LLC (Robert Kendrick)
Linda Zare, Property Owner
DESCRIPTION: A request for the Annexation of 8.62 acres located at 1511 Highway 99 North
into the City of Ashland, along with 6.6 acres of adjacent Oregon Department of Transportation state
highway right-of-way and 7.68 acres of California Oregon & Pacific/Gennesse-Wyoming Railroad
Company railroad property. The property is currently located in Jackson County and zoned Rural
Residential (RR-5); with Annexation the property would be brought into the City as Low Density, Multi-
Family Residential (R-2). Concurrent with Annexation, the application also requests: a Property Line
Adjustment to adjust the boundary between Lots 1700 and #1702 (only Tax Lot #1702 is proposed to
be annexed); Outline & Final Plan subdivision approval to create nine lots; Site Design Review to
construct 210 apartments in ten buildings including at 24 affordable units; an Exception to the Site
Development and Design Standards; an Exception to the Street Design Standards; and Tree
Removal Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing County RR-
5 Rural Residential , Proposed – City R-2 Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 38
1E 32; TAX LOT #’s: 1702 (boundary adjusted with 1700)
VI.OPEN DISCUSSION
VII.ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting Date: May 27, 2025
Total Page Number: 1
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.
February 25, 2025
Planning Commission & City Council Joint Study Session
DRAFT Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the joint meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175
E. Main Street. Commissioner Perkinson attended the meeting via Zoom.
Commissioners Present: Councilors Present:
Lisa Verner Tonya Graham
Eric Herron Eric Hansen
Gregory Perkinson Gina DuQuenne
Russell Phillips Bob Kaplan
Susan MacCracken Jain Jeff Dahle
Kerry KenCairn
John Maher
Absent Commissioners: Absent Councilors:
None Dylan Bloom
Council Liaison:
None
Staff Present:
Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Sabrina Cotta, City Manager
Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Veronica Allen, Associate Planner
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Staff Announcements:
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
He reminded the Commission that it will have a Special Meeting on April 29, 2025 to review
the upcoming Climate Friendly Areas (CFA) zoning and code updates.
The Commission will review an application for the annexation of 1511 Highway 99 North
and its proposed 210-unit development on May 13, 2025.
Page 1 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 3
Planning CommissionMinutes
The City has begun developing a Transportation System Plan (TSP) update.
Terms for Planning Commissioners and Advisory Committee members now expire on
December 31, previously April 30.
Councilor Doug Knauer resigned from the Council on April 15, 2025, leaving the Council
Liaison position on the Commission vacant. The Council will appoint a new liaison at a
future meeting.
rdth
May 3 is Hazardous Waste Day for the City, with Green Debris Day on May 4, and Spring
th
Clean Day on May 14.
2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None
IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None
V.DISCUSSION ITEMS
1.Economic Opportunity Analysis – CAI Consultant Presentation
Mr. Goldman stated that the EOA was being initiated in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 9
and forecasts future employment and economic growth for the City and would help inform decisions
going forward. It is a result of regional and local collaboration with the consultant group Community
Attributes Inc (CAI) conducting an analysis with Medford to align data to predict the next 20 years of
growth. The EOA’s next steps will include City staff input and public outreach, including meetings with
th
focus groups and a Public Hearing with the Commission on May 27 and another with the Council on
rd
June 3.
Consultant Presentation
Elliot Weiss and Kourtney Cena of CAI described an EOA as a technical study that compares
projected demand for land for industrial and other employment uses to the existing supply of such
land, while assisting communities in implementing their local economic development objectives and
forms the basis for industrial and other employment development policies in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Weiss detailed how CAI reviewed the City’s Buildable Land Inventory (BLI), and found that the City
had a total of 542 acres of employment land and 630 net buildable acres within the Urban growth
Boundary (UGB). The consultant team described the City’s population as growing at a .6% annual
rate, with the demographics tending towards older, more educated, and less diverse than that of the
region’s average. Mr. Weiss concluded by describing the various opportunities, threats, strengths,
weaknesses the City has, such as a workforce that largely works outside the City, but that the City
has access to regional attractions and outdoor recreation (see attachment #1).
Page 2 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 4
Planning CommissionMinutes
Discussion
The Commission and Council discussed a number of topics related to CAI’s findings, including:
The data used to create this 20-year forecast.
Land that is partially developed and could accommodate new developments or
redevelopment.
The decline of IT jobs within the City as it relates to the rest of the region.
Which sectors the City can focus on to improve growth, such as childhood development.
Whether there are any pitfalls of conducting a joint study with Medford versus other cities of a
comparable size to Ashland.
The number of residents who commute to jobs outside the City or are retired from the
workforce.
How the City’s relative homogeny and large population of senior residents effects things like
homeownership.
The need to encourage more opportunity for people to live and work in the City.
The large number of renters who are cost-burdened.
The perceived difficulty of developing in the City and the high cost of building materials.
2.Southern Oregon University Masterplan “Light Update”
Planning Manager Derek Severson explained that state law requires the City to work with universities
to develop their Masterplans and outlined the timeline of this project going forward.
Alan Harper and Robert Patridge introduced themselves as representatives of SOU and outlined the
difficulties the university has faced in recent years, including decreases in enrollment, student
housing, and the number of students seeking parking permits. They spoke about facilities with
inadequate living standards, such as the Greensprings Housing complex which has unusable piping
and is not ADA compliant, and also the recently demolished Cascade building. Mr. Harper related
how SOU is requesting that the City allow for buildings of up to 70ft within the SOU district.
They emphasized the importance of connectivity between the various SOU facilities, stating that
many residents are unaware that the Pavilion and the Farm by Science-Works are part of SOU. Mr.
Harper stated that connectivity and open-space will help build culture and character for SOU, and
that there is also a strong emphasis on sustainability in the new Masterplan. He stated that SOU
owns various unused parcels that it has begun to sell near campus which could be turned into
needed housing for the City, and that developing mixed-use buildings on campus could help retain
students.
Page 3 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 5
Planning CommissionMinutes
Discussion
The Commission and Council discussed various aspects of the SOU Masterplan, including:
The potential for an increased building height of 70ft on campus and how this could
potentially lead to greater student retention. It was suggested that SOU should seek private
funding for such a project.
Encouraging and incentivizing alternative modes of transportation to campus, such as public
transit and cycling.
The proposed Cascade project oriented towards housing more senior residents, as well as
the importance of seeking and retaining a more youthful student body too. Mr. Patridge
emphasized that senior students would be fully integrated into the SOU community as full-
time students and that there will be a series of public hearings as SOU selects a partner to
develop this plan.
The concern about the strain that future developments could put on City facilities, such as
Parks and the Fire and Police Departments, particularly since SOU does not pay property tax
to offset the potential new demand for services.
The increase of proposed and aspirational solar facilities provided that there is adequate
utility capacity.
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Joint Meeting with City Council adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 4 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 6
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.
April 22, 2025
Special Meeting
DRAFT Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the Special Meeting to order at 9:27 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers,
1175 E. Main Street. Commissioner Perkinson attended the meeting via Zoom.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Eric Herron Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Gregory Perkinson Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Russell Phillips
Susan MacCracken Jain
John Maher
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairn None
II.CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
a. February 25, 2025 Special Meeting
b. April 8, 2025 Regular Meeting
Commissioners Perkinson/Phillips m/s to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Voice Vote:
All AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
III.PUBLIC FORUM – None
IV.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2024-00053, 231 Granite Street
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was disclosed.
Page 1 of 2
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
Deliberation and Decision
Mr. Goldman stated that several small revisions had been made to the Findings, including: the
removal of the term “small” in reference to the proposed pool; various instances of correcting
references to “Exceptions” to the singular “Exception”; on page 250 of the packet, Section 2.4, Line 6:
"The applicant concludes that the Exception..." should instead be "The Planning Commission finds
that the applicant has demonstrated that the Exception allows..."; to remove the redundancy of both
Conditions 10 and 11 referring to the fire suppression or fire sprinkler system.
Commissioner MacCracken Jain suggested that the Madrone tree mentioned on page 8 of the
Findings be specified as also being partially on an adjacent property.
Commissioner Maher asked if there are any circumstances under which this project would come
back to the Commission for review. Mr. Goldman responded that amendments to an approved plan
can result in a project going back to the Commission for further review and approval.
Commissioners MacCracken Jain/Perkinson m/s to approve the Findings as amended by staff
and including the amendment from Commissioner MacCracken Jain that the Madrone tree
mentioned on page 8 of the Findings be specified as also being partially on an adjacent property.
Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
V.OPEN DISCUSSION – None
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 2 of 2
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
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 9
Total Page Number: 10
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 11
Total Page Number: 12
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.usTTY: 1-800-735-2900
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T3-2024-00011
SUBJECT PROPERTY:1511 Highway 99 North
APPLICANT/OWNER: Casita Developments, LLC
Kendrick Enterprises LLC (Robert Kendrick)
Linda Zare, Property Owner
DESCRIPTION: A request for the Annexationof 8.62acres located at 1511 Highway
99North into the City of Ashland, along with 6.6 acres of adjacent Oregon Department of
Transportation state highway right-of-way and 7.68 acres of California Oregon & Pacific/Gennesse-
Wyoming Railroad Company railroad property. The property is currently located in Jackson County
and zoned Rural Residential (RR-5); with Annexationtheproperty would be brought into the City
as Low Density, Multi-Family Residential (R-2). Concurrent with Annexation, the application also
requests: aProperty Line Adjustmentto adjust the boundary between Lots 1700 and #1702 (only
Tax Lot #1702 is proposed to be annexed); Outline & Final Plansubdivision approval to create
nine lots; Site Design Reviewto construct 210 apartments in ten buildings including at 24affordable
units; an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards; an Exception to the Street
Design Standards; and Tree Removal Permitsto remove two trees greater than six-inches in
diameter at breast height.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing –County
RR-5 Rural Residential, Proposed – City R-2 Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ASSESSOR’S
MAP:38 1E 32; TAX LOT #’s: 1702(boundary adjusted with 1700)
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: May 13, 2025 at 7:00 p.m.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1175 EAST MAIN STREET, ASHLAND OR 97520
Total Page Number: 13
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE
ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will
be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 EastMain Street, Ashland, Oregon. You can watch the meeting on local channel
9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to
https://rvtv.sou.eduand selecting ‘RVTV Civic.’ Join the Zoom meeting at:https://zoom.us/j/96672253968
All application materials are available on-line and written comments will be accepted via e-mail to PC-public-
testimony@ashlandoregon.govor can be provided in person or via Zoom during the public hearing. A copy of the application,
including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria will be available on-line at “What’s Happening in my City” at
https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/no less than 20 days prior to the meeting date shown above. A copy of the
staff report will be available on-line in the Commission packet at: https://ashlandor.portal.civicclerk.com/?category_id=30
seven days prior to the meeting date shown above. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if
requested. Application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person during business hours at the Ashland Community
Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305
or emailing planning@ashlandoregon.gov.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an
objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision
maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that
issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on
that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with
sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashlandoregon.govwith the
subject line “May 13 PC Hearing Testimony” by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, May 12, 2025. If the applicant wishes to provide a
rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashlandoregon.govwith the subject
line “May 13 PC Hearing Testimony” by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 13, 2025. Written testimony received by these deadlines
will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes.
Oral testimony will be taken both in person and via Zoom during the public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony via
Zoom, please send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashlandoregon.govby 10:00 a.m. on Monday, May 12, 2025. In order
to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email “May
13PC Speaker Request”, 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you will be
participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you
will use if participating by telephone. Join the Zoom meeting at: https://zoom.us/j/96672253968
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request.
The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria.
Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open
for at least seven days after the hearing.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Planning Manager Derek Severson,
the staff planner assigned to this project, at 541-552-2040or via e-mail to:derek.severson@ashlandoregon.gov.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-
35.104 ADA Title I).
Total Page Number: 14
AMC 18.5.8.050 AnnexationApproval Criteria &Standards
An application for an annexation may be approved if the proposal meets the applicable criteria in subsections Athrough Hbelow. The approval
authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval consistent with the applicable criteria and standards, and grant
exceptions and variances to the criteria and standards in this section in accordance with subsection I.
A. The annexed area is within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary.
B. The annexation proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations applicable to the annexed area, including any applicable
adopted neighborhood, master, or area plan, and is an allowed use within the proposed zoning.
C. The annexed area is contiguous with the City limits.
D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the annexed area as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage
from the annexed area to an approved waste water treatment facility as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to
the annexed area as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will
be provided from the annexed area. Unless the City has declared a moratorium basedupon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is
recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. All required public facility improvements shall be constructed and installed
in accordance with subsection 18.4.6.030.A.
E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to serve the annexed area. For the purposes of this section, “adequate transportation” for
annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit transportation meeting the following standards:
1. For vehicular transportation a minimum 22-foot-wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, providing access to the annexed
area from the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets bordering on the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum,
to an applicable City half-street standard. The approval authority may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full
improvement of streets bordering on the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to City standards
unless exception criteria apply. Where future street dedications are indicated on the Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions
shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation.
2. For bicycle transportation, safe and accessible bicycle facilities according to the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction
of the facility or street (e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation) exist, or can and will be constructed.
Should the annexed area border an arterial street, bike lanes shall be constructed along the arterial street frontage of the annexed area.
Likely bicycle destinations within a quarter of a mile from the annexed area shall be determined and the approval authority may require the
construction of bicycle lanes or multiuse paths connecting the annexed area to the likely bicycle destinations after assessing the impact of
the development proposed concurrently with the annexation.
3. For pedestrian transportation, safe and accessible pedestrian facilities according to the safety analysis and standards of the governing
jurisdiction of the facility or street (e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation) exist, or can and will be
constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side of all streets bordering on the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks
shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the annexed area is within a quarter of a mile of an
existing sidewalk system or a location with demonstrated significant pedestrian activity, the approval authority may require sidewalks,
walkways or multiuse paths to be constructed and connect to either or both the existing system and locations with significant pedestrian
activity.
4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the annexed area, or be likely to be extended to the annexed area in the
future based on information from the local public transit provider, the approval authority may require constructionof transit facilities, such as
bus shelters and bus turnout lanes.
5. Timing of Transportation Improvements.All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance with
subsection 18.4.6.030.A.
F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the annexed area will ultimately occur at a
minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units are necessary to accommodate
significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the annexed area shall sign an
agreement, to be recorded with the County Clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the
Total Page Number: 15
minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing
unbuildable lots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area such as existing streets and associated rights-of-way, railroadfacilities and property,
wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a public park, shall not be included.
G. Except as provided in subsection 18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and
involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet the following
requirements:
1. The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the
base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein. The base density of the annexed areafor the purpose of
calculating the total number of affordable units in this section shall exclude any unbuildable lots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area
such as existing streets and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and property, wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, water resource
areas, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a public park.
a. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120 percent of the area median income shall have an equivalency
value of 0.75 unit.
b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100 percent of the area median income shall have an equivalency
value of 1.0 unit.
c. Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 80 percent of the area median income shall have an
equivalency value of 1.25 unit.
2. As an alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of
buildable land for development complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable
housing developer or public corporation created under ORS 456.055to 456.235.
a. The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the standards set forth in sections 18.5.8.050.G.5and
18.5.8.050.G.6.
b. All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer.
c. Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred to the City, an affordable housing developer which must
either be a unit of government, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, or a public corporation created under ORS 456.055to 456.235.
d. The land to be transferred shall be deed restricted to comply with Ashland’s affordable housing program requirements.
e. Transfer of title of buildable land in accordance with this subsection shall exempt the project from the development schedule
requirements set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G.4.
3.The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix with the market rate units in the development.
a. The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the residential development shall be in equal proportion to
the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the market rate units within the residential development. This provision is notintended to
require the same floor area in affordable units as compared to market rate units. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit
shall comply with the minimum required floor area based as set forth in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3, or as established by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for dwelling units developed under the HOME program.
Table 18.5.8.050.G.3.Minimum Required Floor Area for Affordable Units
Unit TypeMinimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet)
Studio350
1 bedroom500
Total Page Number: 16
Unit TypeMinimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet)
2 bedroom800
3 bedroom1,000
4 bedroom1,250
4.A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that the affordable housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.Gshall be
developed, and made available for occupancy, as follows:
a. That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
last of the first 50 percent of the market rate units.
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units
shall have been issued certificates of occupancy.
5.That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market
rate units.
a. The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development shall be visually compatible with the market rate units
in the development. External building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type and quality for affordable units as
for market rate units.
b. Affordable units may differ from market rate units with regard to floor area, interior finishes and materials, and housing type; provided,
that the affordable housing units are provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and shall have generally comparable
improvements related to energy efficiency, including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems.
6. Exceptions to the requirements of subsections 18.5.8.050.G.2through 18.5.8.050.G.5, above, may be approved by the City Council upon
consideration of one or more of the following:
a. That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of
this chapter, than would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.2.
b. That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.4provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance
that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion.
c. That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the development, that are not equivalent to the market rate
units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5, are necessary due to local, state, or federal affordable housing standards or financing limitations.
7.The total number of affordable units described in this subsection shall be determined by rounding up fractional answers to the nearest
whole unit. A deed restriction or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less
than 60 years for units qualified as affordable rental housing, or 30 years for units qualified as affordable for-purchase housing.
H. One or more of the following standards are met:
1. The annexation proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.050.B, above.
2.A current or probable danger to public health exists within the proposed area for annexation due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water
services in accordance with the criteria in ORS chapter 222or successor state statute.
3.Existing development in the proposed area for annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service, or the service will become
inadequate within one year.
4. The proposed area for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed
consent to annexation agreement has been filed and accepted by the City.
Total Page Number: 17
5.The proposed area for annexation is an island surrounded by lands within the City limits.
I. Exceptions and Variances to the Annexation Approval Criteria and Standards.The approval authority may approve exceptions to and
variances from the approval criteria and standards in this section using the criteria in section 18.4.6.020.B.1, Exceptions to the Street Design
Standards, or chapter 18.5.5, Variances. (Ord. 3204 §3, amended, 12/21/2021)
AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3Performance Standards Options Subdivision/Outline Plan Approval Criteria & Standards
Approval Criteria for Outline Plan.The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have
been met.
a.The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
b.Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity.
c.The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings,etc., have
been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, commonareas, and
unbuildable areas.
d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e.There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments
are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter.
g.The development complies with the Street Standards.
h. The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section18.4.4.070. Common open space
requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section18.4.4.070if approved by the City of Ashland.
AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 Performance Standards Options Subdivision/Final Plan Approval Criteria & Standards
Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is
intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of
the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria.
a.The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of
units exceed those permitted in the outline plan.
b.The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no
case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance.
c.The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan.
d.The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent.
e.The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
f.That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan
with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved.
g.The development complies with the Street Standards.
h.Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase,
the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan.
AMC 18.5.2.050 Site Design Review Approval Criteria & Standards
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. Underlying Zone:The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to:
building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture,
and other applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones:The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
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 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1.There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or
unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact
adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the
exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2.There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or
better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
Total Page Number: 18
AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1Exception to the Street Design Standards
Exception to the Street Design Standards.The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design
Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist.
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed
use of the site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts
with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and
efficiency crossing roadway.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
AMC 18.5.7.040.B Tree Removal Permit Approval Criteria & Standards
1.Hazard Tree.A Hazard Tree Removal Permit 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 applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likelyto fall
and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard
or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b.The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
2.Tree That is Not a Hazard.A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the
application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a.The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance
requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and
Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10.
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 diversitywithin
200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have
been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone.
In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping
designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this
ordinance.
e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050.
Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
AMC 18.5.3.120.BProperty Line Adjustment Approval Criteria & Standards
The Staff Advisor shall approve or deny a request for a property line adjustment in writing based on all of the following criteria.
1.Parcel Creation.No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment.
2.Lot Standards.Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots
and parcels conform to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and coverage, per part
18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lots standards of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conformingby the property line
adjustment. As applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable areafree of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood
plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource protection zones).
3.Access Standards.All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not
conform to the access standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment.
Total Page Number: 19
Total Page Number: 20
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 21
Total Page Number: 22
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Before the Planning Commission – May 13, 2025
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T3-2024-00011
OWNER: Linda Zare
APPLICANT: Kendrick Enterprise LLC &Casita Developments LLC
LOCATION: 1151 Highway 99 N
38-1E-32 Tax Lot 1700 & 1702
ZONE DESIGNATION: County RR-5 (R-2 requested)
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION:Multi-Family Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCES: 18.2.2 Zoning Regulations and General Provisions
18.2.4General Regulations for Base Zones
18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones
18.3.9Performance Standards Overlay
18.3.11 Water Resource Protection Zones
18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation, and Design
18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation
18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting, and Screening
18.4.6Public Facilities
18.5.1General Review Procedures
18.5.2Site Design Review
18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments
18.5.8 Annexations
18.5.9 Comp Plan, Zoning & LUO Amendments
18.6.1Definitions
APPLICATION DATE: October 4, 2024
APPLICATION COMPLETE:April 1, 2025
DLCD NOTICE:April 7, 2025 *36 days in advance*
PUBLICMEETINGNOTICE:April 22, 2025 *21 days in advance*
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2025
120-DAY DEADLINE:(*Type III applications are not subject to 120-day limits)
PROPOSAL: A request for annexation of 8.53-acres of land for the property located at 1511
Highway 99 North, along withthe adjacent Rights-of-Way(ROW) and railroad property. The
application also includes a request for concurrent outline plan and final plan approval for a
Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision consisting of nine lots for residential
apartment buildings, and one common open space area. The Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
requires a two-step process for subdivision: first outline plan followed by final plan. For
developments of fewer than ten lots, the outline plan may be filed concurrently with the final
plan, which is the case in the present application.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 1of 33
Total Page Number: 23
The application also includes a request for a SiteDesign Review approval for ten apartment
buildings and associated site improvements. Each building is proposed to have 21 one-bedroom
apartments across three floors for 210 apartments intotal.Annexations require that at least 25-
percent of the base density be affordable housing. In the present application there are 24
proposed affordable housing units proposed at 80-percentarea median income (AMI) to meet
this requirement. This is discussed in great detail below in the seventh approval criterion of
annexation. The affordable housing units are proposed to be spread throughout the development
and will be constructed using identical materials and have an identical bedroom mix as the
market rates units (all units are proposed to be one-bedroom).
I.Introduction
1)Background
In December of 2020, the City Council approved PA-T3-2019-00001 which was a request for
annexation of 16.87 acres of land (Ord. 3194 12/15/2020). The application did not include Site
Design Review or a subdivision proposal and instead included a conceptual future development
plan. The approval of the annexation was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)
where they sustained the first assignment of error andreversed the city’s decision Rogue
Advocates v. City of Ashland, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2021-009, May 12, 2021)(Casita I).
In the Casita I final opinion LUBA heldthat “the city's decision improperly construed the
relevant provisions of the AMC, and that the city may not rely on the exception standards to
approve an annexation application that fails to comply with the applicable approval criteria.”
Because LUBA held that the city’s decision was prohibited as a matter of law, they did not
resolve the second and third assignments of error. In response to this holding the City Council
amended the Land Use Ordinance (LUO)to specifically allow variances and exceptions with an
annexation (Ord. 3204 § 3, amended, 12/21/2021).
Following the amendment of the LUO another application was submitted. This application was
PA-T3-2022-00004 and was a request for annexation of the same land but this time included a
request for outline plan approval for a Performance Standard Option (PSO) Subdivision and Site
Design Review for 230 apartments in ten buildings with a mix of studio and one bedroom units.
The application received final city approval in December of 2022 (Ord. 3215 12/20/2022).
Following the City’s approval, the applicationwasagain appealed to LUBA where it was
remanded back to the City. Rogue Advocates v. City of Ashland, __ Or LUBA __(LUBA No.
2023-007, May 9, 2023) (Casita II).
In the Casita II final opinion LUBA found in favor of the city on the second and third
assignments of error. The second assignment of error of addressed the improvements proposed
along the Highway 99 N frontage and if the application provided “safe and accessible bicycle
and pedestrian facilities.” and if the findings were supported by substantial evidence. The third
assignment of error raised concerns with the feasibility of installing the proposed frontage
improvements. LUBA found that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the
findings and denied the second and third assignments of error. However, LUBA sustained the
second sub assignment of the first assignment of error, agreeing that the City’s interpretation of
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 2of 33
Total Page Number: 24
its provisions for allowing exceptions to on-street parking was inconsistent with the express
*
language of the code.LUBA also sustained the second sub assignment of the fourth assignment
of error, which had to do with arguments regarding compliance with AMC 18.5.8.050(G)(3)
which are the affordable housing standards for bedroom mix between the affordable and market
†
rate housing and required minimum square footage.
Following proper public notice on October 3, 2023, the City Council held a remand hearing to
address the issues that were sustained on appeal.Becausethe application was subject to the ‘goal
post’ rule (which has since been amended by SB5703) the applicant considered it impossible to
proceed with remand proceedings as the application needed substantial modification.As a result,
at the start of the hearing the applicant stated that based on legal advice from his attorney he
requested to withdraw the application.
As it relates to the LUO and the regulations governing annexation, itshould be noted that since
the Casita II remandthe Ordinance has again been amended to be compliant with Oregon’s
‡
Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) regulations which, among other things,
removed the requirements for off street parking requirements city wide, and removed the
requirement of on-street parking for Streets outside the City of Ashland’s jurisdiction, such as
those overseen by the State of Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)(Ord. 3229 § 7,
amended, 12/19/2023).
2)Present Application
The present application is for annexation of 8.53 acres of land and includes concurrent outline
and final plan approval for a PSO Subdivision and Site Design Review for tenidentical
apartment buildings. Despite the fact that this application isfor substantially less acreage to
annex, fewer apartments, different bedroom mix, and includes final plan approval the applicant
states that the application is “the same as the ones approved before except for updating to the
§
new Climate Friendly Act of the State of Oregon.”
While the specific details of the planning action are clearly different, it is true that a substantial
portion of the project is identical or nearly identical in terms of street frontage and civil
improvements as it relates to required capacity and the provisioning of “adequate transportation”
for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit transportation. Becausethese have already been litigated in
Casita IIwhere LUBA held that the previous findings support the conclusion that“safe and
*
At issue was that 18.4.6.020.B only authorizes exceptions to standards only within 18.4.6.040et. seq., and the
standard that the exception was being grantedwas within the PSO chapter at 18.3.9 which requiredon-street
parking. The code has since been amendedallowing exceptions to this standard.
†
LUBA “agree\[ed\] with petitioner that the city council's interpretation of AMC 18.5.8.050(G)(3) as being satisfied
where the proposed square footages are "comparable" or "similar" to those set forth in AMC Table 18.5.8.050(G)(3)
is inconsistent with the express language of AMC 18.5.8.050(G)(3), which provides that the proposed square
footages "shall" comply with those set forth in AMC Table 18.5.8.050(G)(3).”
‡
the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules were developed by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission(LCDC) in response to the March 2020 executive Order 20-04 directing state agencies to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These were litigated and in March of 2024 the Oregon Court of appeals upheld 87
of the 89 rules. This was subsequently appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court where they denied review without
explanation leaving the lower court’s decision in place.
§
Staff understand this to be a reference totheCFECrules.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 3of 33
Total Page Number: 25
accessible bicycle and pedestrian facilities” could be provided and that those findings were
supported by substantial evidence many portions from the previous findings will be repeated
here.
The application was received on October 4, 2024. Because of the previous planning applications,
the applicant included a request for an application fee waiver, which requires City Council
approval. This essentially put the application on hold at the applicant’s request until the fee
waiver could be put on the City Council agenda. In addition to the application fee upon review of
the applicationmaterialsitwas determined there were other missing items as well. A formal
notification was sent to the applicant on December 24, 2024, detailing the missing items and
other deficiencies.
On February 4, 2025, the City Council reviewed the request for a fee waiver and partially
approved the waiver of most of the application fees. Following the City Council meeting the
applicant returned the ‘statement of completeness’ indicating that all of the missing information
had now been provided, including the outstanding fees.
The application includes 83 pages of written findings and a number of additional exhibits
including civil, landscaping, and architectural plans, and by their reference are incorporated
herein as if set out in full. Also included with the application isa ‘tabulation spreadsheet’
addressing density, density bonuses, and affordable housing requirements. The application also
includes:
Surveys of both the proposed property line adjustment and subdivision plat
Traffic Impact analysis and engineering memos.
Letters regarding service capacity for all utilities
Proposed CC&R’s for the Grand Terrace HOA
Consent to annexation forms
All of these materials are on file in the office of Community Development and by their reference
are incorporated herein.
3)Property Description
The subject properties are Tax lot #1700 & 1702 of Assessor Map 38-1E-32 and is addressed as
1151 Highway 99 North. The two lots combined are 16.86 acres; however, the application
indicates that a Property Line Adjustment (PLA) has been proposed to increase the size of tax lot
#1702 and that tax lot 1700 will not be part of the application (It is presumed that the PLA will
be processed separately with Jackson County, because the properties are outside of the City of
Ashland, we would be unable to approve such an application). With the approval of the PLA the
proposed annexation would be for 8.53 acres not including the ROW.Staff have advised the
applicantthat if it is theirintent to plat the subdivision and PLA concurrently, they should be sure
to coordinate closely with Jackson County.
The subject property is located in Jackson County within the city’s Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB). The current zoning within the County is RR-5 (Rural Residential, with a five-acre
minimum lot size) and the city Comprehensive Plan designation is Multi-FamilyResidential.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 4of 33
Total Page Number: 26
The applicant proposes to annex the properties as R-2, a Low-Density Multi-Family Residential
zoning which allows for a base density of 13.5 dwelling units per acre.
The property is situated between Highway 99 to the north and the Central Oregon & Pacific
Railroad to the south. The property has approximately 900 feet of frontage along the highway.
The property slopes to the north at roughly 6-percent dropping approximately 35-feet from the
railroad down to the highway. The property is mostly vacant with the exception of a small
residence that the County Assessor indicates was built in 1948. The residence is listed as 1,182
square feet and is indicated to be in poor condition. Following the completion of the proposed
PLA the residence will remain in Jackson County.
In terms of natural features on the site the application materials explainthat there is adelineated
wetland that is approximately 0.1 acres. The application includes a detailed wetland delineation
from 2018 and a 2021 update as well however these have not received concurrence from the
Department of State Lands (DSL) which will be required as a condition of approval. The
landscape and civil engineering plans show a 20’ buffer around the wetland and no construction
is proposed to encroach in the buffered area.
4)Details of the Proposed Development
The application is a proposal for annexation and concurrent outline and final plan for a
Performance Standard Option (PSO) subdivision. The subdivision includes a total of nine-lots
for residential development and a tenth lot of common area space. Because the proposal is an
annexation there is also a requirement for affordable housing which is discussed further below.
The application also includes Site Design Review for ten apartment buildings.
Each of the proposed apartment buildings has 21 apartments. The three apartments on the first
floor are 587 square feetand are numbered units #1 - 3. The second and third floor each have
nine apartments with units #4 – 12 on the second floor, and units #13 – 21 on the third floor. All
units on the second and third floors are proposed to be 499 square feet with the exception of units
#5 & #14 which are proposed to be greater than 500 square feet.While the notes are specific of
which units are to be greater than 500 square feet, rather than show the actual location of the
walls and where they would offset there is a dimensional notation in each porch areathat says:
‘5’-10” or 6’-0”’ and references a table called the “owner building unit number list” for the
contractor to understand which units are meant to be slightly larger.
Note:The description above is with regard to the architectural
plans originally submitted with the application.In review of the
application Staff determined that with either of the proposed entry
depths of either 5’-10” or 6’-0” result in apartments that are less
than 500 square feet. Staff believe that this is the result of a
rounding error: i.e. 5.833 ~ 5.8, 4.333 ~ 4.3; 5.8 x 4.3 = 24.94; 525
- 24.94 = 500.06 square feet, when in fact the measurement is
499.72 square feet when using three significant digits.
th
,as the staff report was being prepared for the packet
On May 6
deadline, the applicant responded to correspondence from staff and
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 5of 33
Total Page Number: 27
provided, among other things, revised architectural drawings for
buildings #1 and #5 (it is presumed that the other eight buildings
are still proposed to be identical). These plans no longer include
the owners building list or the variable dimensional notation, and
instead shows unit #8 & 17 with an entry porch of 5’-8” (making
them over the 500 square feet), and the remaining units with an
entry porch of 5’-10” (which makes them just under 500 square
feet). These drawings are included at the end of the application
materials.
5)Residential Density
While the project is for 210 apartments for the sake of density with regard to the LUO the
calculated density is less because of the size of the apartments. As stated above AMC
18.2.5.080.B.2 allows for units less than 500 square feet are counted as 0.75 dwellings units for
the purposes of density calculations.
Within each apartment building five apartments are proposed to be greater than 500 square feet
and therefore count as a whole dwelling. The other 16 apartments are to be less than 500 square
feet and therefore count as 0.75 dwellings. When accounting for all ten buildings, there is a total
of 50 units greater than 500 square feet, and 160 that are less than 500 square feet. This
calculates to a density of 170 dwellings (50 + (160 * 0.75) = 170).
The proposed zoning for the property is R-2, which allows for a density of 13.5 dwelling unit per
acre. The subject property is 8.53 acres and therefore has a calculated base density of 115.15
dwelling units (8.53 x 13.5 = 115.15). The proposed density of 170 exceeds the base density but
this is allowed through a leveraging of density bonuses as discussed in detail below in the first
and sixth approval criteria for outline plan approval below.
6)Affordable Housing
As mentioned at the outset all annexations with a density of four residential units or greater are
required to provide at least 25-percent of the base density as affordable housing. Affordable
housing units are required to have a equal proportion to the number of bedrooms per dwelling
unit in the market rate units and provides a table for the minimum square footage based on
bedrooms. For one-bedroom units (as are all of the proposed units in this proposal) the affordable
units must be at least 500 square feet.
As discussed above, the base density is 115.15. Therefore, the calculations are as follows: 115.15
x 0.25 = 28.8. Next, affordable units that that are restricted to households earning at or below 80
percent of the area median income have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. Here the applicant is
proposing to restrict the affordable housing to 80-percent AMI, therefore the affordable housing
requirement calculates as follows (28.8 / 1.25 = 23.02 ~ 24). Therefore, the calculated 29
affordable unit requirement is satisfied by the provision of 24 units targeted to households earing
80-percent AMI or less.
Affordable housing is also required to be provided in accordance with the following phasing
schedule. AMC 18.5.8.030.G4 requiresthat the applicant to provide a development schedule that
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 6of 33
Total Page Number: 28
demonstrates that the affordable housing units shall be developed, and made available for
occupancy, as follows:
a. That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50
percent of the market rate units
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market
rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued
certificates of occupancy.
Because the applicant intends to have at least two affordable units in each building the standard
that requires all affordable units to have C of O prior to the issuance of the last 10-percent of
market rate an exception to this standard is required and is addressed further below.
7)The 500-square foot threshold
Based on the discussion above regarding residential density and affordable housing it should be
*
clear that the exact details of the apartmentssizeis very important for those tworeasons:
1.AMC 18.2.5.080.B.2 provides that “Units less than 500 square feet of gross habitable
area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations.”
2.AMC 18.5.8.050(G)(3) requires that “the minimum square footage of each affordable
unit shall comply with the minimum required floor area based as set forth in Table
18.5.8.050.G.3, or as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for dwelling units developed under the HOME program.” The
table at 18.5.8.050.G.3 requires at least 500 square feetfor one-bedroom units.
Based on the revised architectural drawings unit #8 & #17 are now shown to have a decreased
entry porch to 5’-8” which calculates to a square footage of 500.44 which would then meet the
standard at AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 to be utilized as affordable housing.
With the apartments on the first floor exceeding 500 square feet this means that each of the
identical buildings will contain five apartments that qualify for affordable housing, for a total of
50 units within the development.
II.Project Proposal – Annexation and PSOSubdivision
1)Annexation
The Purpose of the Annexations chapter is set out at AMC 18.5.8.010 and states: “The purpose of
this chapter is to establish procedures and approval criteria for the annexation of land to provide
for the orderly expansion of the City and public facilities and services, consistent with the
*
AMC 18.6.1.030 provides the followingdefinition for “Floor Area”– The area of an enclosed floor measured from
the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the center line of walls separating two buildings.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 7of 33
Total Page Number: 29
provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) including ORS chapter 222 or successor state
statute.”
AMC 18.5.8.030 provides that: “all annexations shall be processed under the Type III
procedure.” A type III planning action is a legislative decision by definition. Legislative requests
are not subject to the 120-day review period under subsection 18.5.1.090.B (ORS 227.178). Type
III actions are reviewed by the Planning Commission, which makes a recommendation to the
City Council. The Council makes final decisions on legislative proposals through the enactment
of an ordinance.
The approval criteria for annexation can be summarized as follows:
A. That the annexed area is within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
B. That the annexation proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations.
C. That the annexed area is contiguous with the city limits.
D. That adequate City facilities are available as determined by Public Works.
E.That adequate transportation can and will be provided to serve the annexed area.
F.That the development of the annexed area will ultimately occur at a minimum density
of 90 percent of the base density for the zone.
G. The total number of affordable units shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base
density as calculated and meet all the other requirements for affordable units.
H. This is a provision to allow certain properties to annex even if their development is
not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Not applicable in the present case
as the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.)
I. Exceptions and Variances to the Annexation Approval Criteria and Standards
The first criteria of approval for annexation are that the “That the annexed area is within the
City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).”The property is within the UGB as shown inthe City
geographic information system (GIS) and shown on the following page. The UGB runs along the
North side of Highway 99 North and also along the western side of the subject properties
demonstrating that the property is entirely within the UGB.This satisfies the first approval
criteria.
The second criteria of approval for annexation are that the “proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designations.”As mentioned above, the comprehensive plan designation of
the property is multifamily residential, and the property does not yet have an assigned zone. The
application requests a zone change to R-2 which would be appropriate for the comprehensive
plan designation of multifamily. AMC 18.3.9.050 which provides the residential density for a
PSO subdivision. For the R-2 zone it specifies a residential density of 13.5 dwelling unit per acre
which provides a base density of 115.15 dwelling units (8.53 x 13.5 = 115.15). The present
proposal leverages affordable housing, Earth Advantage, and open space density bonuses which
are discussed further below, to exceed the base density for a total of 210 dwellings. Based on the
allowed density bonus findings can be made that the proposed density of residential
development, including the proposed affordable housing, is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan Designation. Staff conclude that based on the proposed number of dwellings, the size of the
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 8of 33
Total Page Number: 30
property, and the requested zoning, that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be
met.
The third approval criteria requiresthat “the annexed area is contiguous with the city limits.” In
the present application it is proposed that the adjacent Rights-of-way along both the railroad and
Highway 99 be included. With these rights-of-way included the annexed area is contiguous with
the present city limits as shown on the previous page. The application submission requirements
for annexation requires that it includes a “Boundary description and map prepared in accordance
with ORS 308.225. Such description and map shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor…”
(AMC 18.5.8.02). The application includes preliminary maps of both the property line
adjustment and the subdivision as well as an ALTA / ACSM land title survey, however there is no
map specifically of the land to be annexed along with the associated rights of way. Additionally,
there is no explanation of the proposed platting process with the county, and if it is the intent to
plat the subdivision and PLA concurrently or as separate actions, nor is there any mention of the
land use approval for the PLA. Conditions of approval have been included below addressing
these issues to be addressed prior to hearings before the City Council as the Ordinance would be
incomplete without the map and legal description of the land to be annexed. Staff conclude that
with the inclusion of the condition of approval below that findings can be made that this approval
criterion will be met.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 9of 33
Total Page Number: 31
The fourth approval criterion for annexation is that “Adequate City facilities as determined by the
Public Works Department.” The Public Works Department has confirmed that there are no
concerns regarding the capacity of any City facilities. Additionally, both ODOT and RVSS have
provided letters indicating that there are no concerns with regard to capacity. While there are
outstanding items that need to be resolved for final engineering between the applicant and ODOT
these are addressed through conditions of approval to ensure that those items are addressed.
What follows are lightly edited portions of the findings that were adopted by the City Council in
Casita II.
Water: The Water Division has noted that the property is not currently served by a water main,
and a new main will need to be installed to connect to the existing city water system. The nearest
point of connection is near the intersection of North Main Street and Highway 99 North. The
civil engineering plans show a proposed 12” water main is to be installed. The water main
terminates at a master water meter and PRV assembly. The plans show that the water main
extends through the property connecting to each building and to each fire hydrant. TheWater
Division of the Public Works Department has indicated that with extension of a new main, and
other proposed facilities there will be an adequate supply of potable water available to the site.
Sanitary Sewer & Storm Drainage: City code requirements typically necessitate that all utilities
transition to city services with annexation, however in this instance the property is well outside
and downhill of the city’s sanitary and storm sewer systems, and a significant extension of new
services would be needed and all sewage and stormwater would need to be pumped. However,
there is a “Cooperative Agreement/Urban Services Agreement” in place between the City of
Ashland, Jackson County and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority - now Rogue Valley
Sewer Service (RVSS) - which dates to November 8, 1995 and which provided that with
annexation, the sewer district shall continue to provide an urban level of sanitary sewer and/or
storm water services that it has historically provided to territory within the district’s existing
limits and that the City and the sewer district may agree to joint provision of service to areas
within the City or its UGB by contract, mutual agreement or other method. As proposed by the
applicant here, RVSS will continue to provide these services to the subject properties after
annexation, per the 1995 agreement.
RVSS has indicated that their sanitary sewer system has adequate capacity for the proposed
development, and there is an eight-inch main in the right-of-way due north of the project site.
On-site storm water drains to a roadside ditch that is within the state highway right-of-way and
maintained by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).The proposed development’s
physical improvements have been engineered to comply with the RVSS Stormwater Quality
Design Manual, which is used by the City of Ashland, Jackson County and RVSS. The project
Civil Engineer has determined the sizes and locations for on-site detention and treatment
facilities.
Electric: The application explains that the property is currently served by Pacific Power, but that
with the development the property will be served by the City of Ashland Electric Department
with the installation of new electrical infrastructure by the applicant. The application explains
that there is presently low-voltage city electric service in place to power street and landscape
lighting in and around the central median at the railroad trestle overpass. With the proposal,
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 10of 33
Total Page Number: 32
electric facilities are to be provided in or adjacent to the highway right-of-way to provide
adequate infrastructure to the proposed development and future development in the vicinity, and
an electric service plan has been provided with the application materials.
Staff conclude that based on the proposed facilities, the civil engineering drawings, and
communication with both ODOT and RVSS that findings can be made that this approval
criterion will be met.
The fifth approval criterion for annexation is that “Adequate transportation can and will be
provided to serve the annexed area” for “vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
transportation.” As discussed above in Casita II the second and third assignment of error
addressed the improvements proposed along the Highway 99 N frontage and if the application
provided “safe and accessible bicycle and pedestrian facilities” and the feasibility to install them.
LUBA held that the findings were supported by substantial evidence. As this has already been
litigated what follows are lightly edited portions of the findings that were adopted by the City
Council in Casita II regarding this approval criterion.
The application materials explain that the subject properties abut Highway 99 N, which is under
the jurisdiction of Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Highway 99 N is designated
by ODOT as an ‘Urban Fringe Highway’ and ODOT’s specific standards call for an eight-foot
curbside sidewalk and a six-foot bike lane. City of Ashland Street Standards call for a six-foot
bike lane, seven to eight-foot landscaped park row planting strip with irrigated street tress and a
six-foot sidewalk. ODOT accepts the sidewalk buffered by a park row as required by the city
standards as an alternative which exceeds the ODOT-standard eight-foot curbside sidewalk
minimum standard. In addition to a Traffic Impact Analysis the application materials also include
a “Technical Memo, Grand Terrace Development – Access Safety Evaluation” which provides
detailed safety findings from the project’s Transportation Engineer.
The application explains that a 22-foot-wide paved access exists along the full frontage of the
project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The full improvement of the
highway frontage adjacent to the development and in the annexed area is proposed to be
improved to ODOT and city standards. The full frontage of the project site is proposed to be
improved with bike lane, curb, gutter, seven-and-a-half-foot park row and a six-foot sidewalk,
except for the portion of the frontage where the bus pull out and transit-oriented plaza are to be
installed.
There are some areas where Exceptions to the Street Standards are requested due to
topographical difficulties, utility encroachments, and physical encumbrances in the form of the
railroad trestle, a drainage ditch, private driveway approaches and other private property
encroachments. The proposal seeks Exceptions to the Street Design Standards for the sidewalk
and bike lane under the overpass of the railroad trestle where a shared sidewalk will be installed,
and where city standard sidewalks are not possible due to physical constraints, ODOT-compliant
frontage improvements are proposed. In addition, on-street parking is not proposed.
The ODOT does not permit on-street parking on Highway-99 N, and as such none is proposed,
nor is it is a requirement as AMC 18.3.9.060.A.2 specifically exempts the requirements for on-
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 11of 33
Total Page Number: 33
street parking on Streets outside the City of Ashland’s jurisdiction as is the case here. Therefore,
no exception to on-street parking is necessary as was the case in Casita II.
With regard to bicycle transportation, the application materials explain that Highway 99N which
is an arterial street and state highway, currently has bicycle lanes buffered by striping along the
frontage of the property, with bicycle lanes on both sides of the highway extending north of
Valley View Road and south into downtown Ashland. The bike lanes are of typical width and the
striped buffer along the frontage provides an additional measure of safety. The proposal
maintains these bicycle lanes in accordance with City standards along the frontage with two
multi-use path connections into the site. A crossing will be installed on Highway 99N at
Schofield Street with pedestrian- or cyclist-activated rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) to
support crossing Highway 99N near RVTD’s northbound flag stop. The bicycle facilities that
exist or will be provided as part of the annexation comply with the design and safety criteria for
ODOT as the governing jurisdiction, and the applicant thus asserts that this criterion is satisfied.
In responding to the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities criterion, the applicant explains that
there are currently no sidewalks along Highway 99N on either side of the street between the
subject properties’ frontage and Schofield Street to the south which limits pedestrian access and
safety for north Ashland residents. The applicant proposes street frontage improvements
including sidewalk improvements which comply with the design and safety criteria of ODOT as
the governing jurisdiction, and as such asserts that this criterion is satisfied.
There are no interior streets proposed within the development; however, the site circulation
system includes pedestrian connections between the public sidewalks along the highway, the
apartments, parking areas and other areas of the site. These include two ADA-compliant multi-
use paths through the landscape open spaces into the site from the north and the south along the
highway frontage for pedestrians and bicycles, including the main entrance driveway with
adjacent sidewalks that are alsoADA-compliant.
To the south of the project, towards Ashland, the width of the highway is restricted to the single
travel lane, bike lane and shoulder by the railroad overpass. The railroad overpass currently lacks
any sidewalk or lighting, but a shared bicycle and pedestrian path with overhead lighting are
proposed with final designs to be approved by ODOT. As an extra measure of caution, a vertical
barrier will be provided at the curb has been proposed (although this is not a city requirement).
This will provide a safer, well-litarea, increasing the comfort and safety over what currently
exists.The applicant continues to work with ODOT Engineering staff on the details of the
pedestrian crossing, and a condition of approval has been included to ensure that all
improvements meet ODOT safety standards.
The application materials further explain that the applicant will be providinga high-visibility
crosswalk across Highway 99N with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). The
application further notes that mid-block crosswalks are dangerous, and RRFBs increase the
safety of pedestrians and cyclists crossing when compared to a traffic signal. The application
materials go on to indicate that studies have shown that RRFBs increase motorist yielding rates
because the lights are controlled by the pedestrian’s presence and will not go off until they are
safely out of the crosswalk. The proposed RRFB crossing is to be placed between North Main
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 12of 33
Total Page Number: 34
Street at Schofield Street, between the north- and south-bound bus stops. The RRFB crossing
will provide a safe pedestrian and bicyclist crossing for all the residents in north Ashland where
none existed before, both to access to Grand Terrace and to cross the highway to access these bus
stops safely. The applicant notes that local ODOT authorities have given preliminary approval to
install a crossing with RRFBs in this location, and that final approval will be subject to review of
the final engineered designs by the regional office in Salem. The developer will be responsible
for the design, cost and installation of the crosswalk and RRFBs.
Since the previous approval the applicant has done additional updates to the traffic analysis. The
applicant has provided a letter dated December 11, 2024, from Sandow Engineering which states
that “the year 2024 traffic volumes at this intersection are approximately 20% lower during the
AM peak hour and 8% lower during the PM peak hour than the year 2019 volumes.” The letter
concludes that since the traffic volumes have not increased there is no need for additional traffic
analysis.
Staff have been in contact with ODOT and understand that there are outstanding items as it
relates to storm drain calculations, the technical details of the RRFB, and the proposed vertical
barrier underneath the railroad crossing. A condition of approval has been included below that
requires the applicant to receive ODOT approval and permits prior to any work being done in
their right-of-way.
Staff conclude that based on the previous approved findings, proposed facilities, letters from
RVSS and ODOT, the civil engineering drawings, and the conditions of approval included below,
that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met.
The sixth approval criteria for annexation isthat “the development of the annexed area will
ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone.” As was
discussed above, the application requests a zoning as R-2 multi-family. For the R-2 zone it
specifies a residential density of 13.5 dwelling unit per acre. The proposed annexation is for 8.53
acres for a base density of 115.155. To ensure that the development occurs at least 90-percent the
calculations are as follows: 8.53 x 13.5 = 115.155 * 0.9 ~ 103.6 dwelling units. The application
is for 210 apartments, which as discussed above, based on the number of units that are less than
500 square feet, the proposal is for a calculated density of 170. The density of 170 is greater than
the requirement of 104. Therefore, Staff conclude that based on these calculations that findings
can be made that this approval criterion will be met.
The seventh approval criteria for annexation is that “The total number of affordable units shall be
equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated.” Here the applicant has proposed
to provide 24 apartments deed restricted to households earning at or below 80-percentof the area
median income. The calculations are as follows:As discussed above the base density is 115.155.
That calculates as follows: 115.15 x 0.25 = 28.8 ~ 29. The application materials propose 24 units
targeted to households earning 80-percentarea median income (AMI) or less. Affordable units at
80-percent AMI units have an ‘equivalent value’ of 1.25. To determine how many 80-percent
AMI units are required to meet the calculated number of affordable units you take the calculated
value, in this case 28.8dwelling units, and divide by 1.25 which is the ‘equivalent value’for
units restricted to 80-percentAMI. The quotient provides the number of 80-percentAMI units
required to meet that value which is then rounded up (28.8 affordable units / 1.25 the 80-percent
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 13of 33
Total Page Number: 35
equivalent value =23.02~24). Therefore, a total of 24 - 80-percentAMI units satisfythe 29
affordable units required.
Affordable units are required to be comparable in the mix of the number of bedrooms with the
market rate units in the development. In the proposed application all 210 units are one bedroom
satisfying this requirement. Affordable units are also required to meet the minimum required
floor area based as set forth in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3 which requires a minimum square footage of
500square feetfor one-bedroom units. The only units that exceed 500 square feet are the ground
floor units (30) and 2 other units in each building (20) for a total of 50 units that are large enough
for affordable housing. The applicant is providing 24 affordable units, but it is unclear which
specific units. A condition of approval has been added that the applicant will clarify exactly what
units are to be utilities and deed restricted as affordable housing so that findings can be made
clearly detailing which of the 24 units will be affordable.
The application states that there are no requested exceptions to the affordable housing standards,
however based on the applicants intent to spread the affordable housing units throughout each of
the ten buildings it is clear that the phasing standard are unable tobe easilymet and staff has
determined that an exception to this standard will be required. Affordable units are required to be
constructed so that “Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market
rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of
occupancy.”
The phasing standard above did not contemplate the development of apartment buildings that
contain both market rate and affordable housing units. Because the applicant proposes to have
the 24 affordable units spread throughout each of the ten buildings making compliance with this
phasing requirement unworkable, and instead an exception will be required. AMC
18.5.8.050.G.6 provides that “Exceptions to the requirements of subsections 18.5.8.050.G.2
through 18.5.8.050.G.5, above, may be approved by the City Council upon consideration” of
three different situations. The second of those is that “That the alternative phasing proposal not
meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.4 provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that
the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion.” Staff contend that the benefit
of allowing construction of all buildings simultaneously is sufficient justification for the
exception and also acknowledges that this allows having the affordable housing spread
throughout the development.
Finally, there is a requirement that affordable housing units shall be constructed using
comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units. The
proposal indicates that both market rate and affordable housing units will all be constructed using
the same materials as it relates to the construction of the buildings and related furnishing.
Staff conclude based on the above that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be
met.
The eighth approval criterion for annexation is a provision to allow properties to annex even if
their development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in particular circumstances and
requires at least one of five standards to be met. The first of these is that “The annexation
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 14of 33
Total Page Number: 36
*
proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.050.B, above.”The citation to AMC
18.5.8.050.B is the second approval criterion. As discussed above, the second approval criterion
provides that the “proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations.” Since the
second criterion of approval was satisfied above then it follows that this eighth approval criterion
is also satisfied.
The ninth and final approval criterion for annexation relates to requested exceptions. The present
application includes certain exceptions to street standards that are discussed in detail below. If
the exceptions are found to meet the relevant approval criteria and are approved, as is
anticipated, then staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met.
Finally, the LUO requires that “the applicant for the annexation shall also declare which
procedure under ORS chapter 222 the applicant proposes that the Council use, and supply
evidence that the approval through this procedure is likely” (AMC 18.5.8.070). The application
states that the annexation procedure outlined in ORS 222.125 should be utilized for the
annexation and goes on to say that “This procedure allows for annexation without the need for an
election when all landowners in the proposed territory, as well as a majority of the electors,
consent in writing. The applicant is the sole owner and can provide written consent within the
annexation territory.” Based on the fact that there is a single property being proposed to annex
Staff conclude that findings can be made that this standard is met.
2)Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision – Outline & final plan Approval
The Purpose of the Performance Standards Option is set out at AMC 18.3.9.010 and states: “The
purpose of this chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under
the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural
creativity, and innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage;
provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the
standard zoning codes; be aesthetically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce
the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood.”
The property is not within the PSO overlay however the code provides at AMC 18.3.9.030.D
four situations where the use of the Performance standard are allowed. The first of these is that
the property is greater than 2 acres and also greater than 200’ in average width. The subject
property meets both of these requirements to utilize the PSO standards outside of the overlay.
*
The other four options are for the situations where the annexation would be allowed even if the development is not
consistent with the Comprehensive plan:
2.A current or probable danger to public health exists within the proposed area for annexation due to lack of
full City sanitary sewer or water services in accordance with the criteria in ORS chapter 222 or successor
state statute.
3.Existing development in the proposed area for annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service,
or the service will become inadequate within one year.
4.The proposed area for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected,
and in use, and a signed consent to annexation agreement has been filed and accepted by the City.
5.The proposed area for annexation is an island surrounded by lands within the City limits.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 15of 33
Total Page Number: 37
The proposal includes nine lots for the proposed apartment buildings (one lot has two buildings)
and a common open space area. The preliminary subdivision plat is shown below:
The approval criteria for outline plan include eight items which are summarized as follows:
1)The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city.
2)Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved
access, electricity, storm drainage, police & fire protection, and adequate
transportation
3)The natural features, such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, are
included in unbuildable areas.
4)The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed.
5)There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space.
6)The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards.
7)The development complies with the street standards.
8)The proposed development meets the common open space standards.
Next, we briefly address each of the approval criteria, and any needed conditions of approval to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 16of 33
Total Page Number: 38
The first approval criterion is that “the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements
of the city.”This is an all-encompassing criterion that allows the Planning Commission to make
findings that it has considered which City Ordinances are applicable and how theirrequirements
have been met.The application materials explain that the proposal utilizes the Performance
Standards Option Chapter 18.3.9, and that the development demonstrates compliance with the
standards from AMC 18.3.9.050 – 18.3.9.070. The Staff notes that as a Performance Standards
Options proposal, the application is not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot
depth or setback standards of part 18.2.
First, we address AMC 18.3.9.050 which provides the base density and density bonuses for a
PSO subdivision. This is also covered below in the sixth approval criterionbut is repeated here
as well. The R-2 zone has a density of 13.5 dwelling unit per acre, and the subject property is
8.53 acres for a base density of 115 (8.53 x 13.5 = 115.155). The standards at AMC 18.3.9.050.B
allow for density bonuses up to 60-percent. The bonuses can be earned for Conservation Housing
(15-percent), additional common open space (10-percent), and for affordable housing (up to 35-
percent).
The affordable housing shall receive a density bonus of two units for each affordable housing
unit provided but not to exceed the maximum of 35-percent. In the present application there are
24 affordable units which in theory allows for 48 units of density bonus, however that would
exceed the 35-percent allowed which calculates to 40 dwelling units (115.16 x 0.35 = 40.3). The
conservation housing shall receive a maximum 15 percent bonus is allowed. As is the present
case one hundred percent of the homes or residential units approved are proposed to be certified
as an Earth Advantage home, as approved by the Ashland Conservation Division under the City’s
Earth Advantage program as adopted by Resolution 2006-06. This allows for 17 additional
dwelling units in terms of bonus density (115.16 x 0.15 = 17.3).
As was discussed above, the residential density of the project is 170 based on the number of units
that are below 500 square feet. To determine the amount of density bonus required we divide the
proposed density by the base density (170 / 115.15 = 1.48). Therefore, the project requires a 48-
percent density bonus. While there is obviously density bonus from the surplus open-space the
combination Earth Advantage, and affordability total 50-percentwhich exceeds the 48-percent
required, for this reason we do not address potential open-space density bonus. Staff conclude
based on the above that findings can be made that this standard will be met.
Next, AMC 18.3.9.060 provides the requirements for parking standards and requires that “all
performance standards subdivisions in R-2 or R-3 zones which create or improve city streets, at
least one on-street parking space per proposed lot shall be provided” with certain exceptions. In
the present application the subdivision is not creating any city streets. While the highway does
have proposed street improvements, it is outside of the City of Ashland’s Jurisdiction and is
thereforeexempt pursuant to AMC 18.3.9.060.A.2.
Finally, AMC 18.3.9.070 provides for the setback standards and building separation for a PSO
subdivision. The Code requires that “Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the
underlying district.” The R-2 zone, which is the underlying zone requires a front yard setback of
15.’ Each lot for the buildings measure 69’ x 116.5,’ the proposed building footprints are 42’x
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 17of 33
Total Page Number: 39
112.5.’ This provides a ‘front yard’ setback of 19’ exceeding the required 15’, and also an 8’
setback to the rear for porch areas.
The Code also requires that “minimum separation between two buildings must be half of the
height of the tallest building, where building height is measured at the two closest exterior walls,
and the maximum required separation is 12 feet.” An examination of the site plan shows that the
closest any building is to each other is 20-feet which exceeds that required maximum separation
of 12-feet.
The Code requires that “Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same
setbacks as required in the parent zone.”In the present application the front yard is along the
highway frontage. Building five is the closest to the ‘front yard’ and it is measured to be over
sixty feet away where a 15-foot setback would be required. Building seven and eight are the
closest to what would be considered the rear yard and they are shown to be over forty feet away.
The remaining yards would be considered side yards and require a six-foot setback. It is clear
from the site plan that there is more than a six foot setback along the entire perimeter meeting
this standard.
With the application materials fully considered staff concluded that findings can be made that all
applicable ordinance requirements have been met, and that findings can be made that the first
criterion of approval will bemet.
The second approval criterion is that “adequate key City facilities can be provided including
water, sewer, paved access.” As discussed ingreat detail above inthe fourth approval criteria for
annexation above the development has considered all city facilities. Staff conclude that, based on
the proposed facilities, that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met.
The third approval criterion is that “the natural features, such as wetlands and large trees, are
included in unbuildable areas.” The primary natural feature on the site is a smallwetland. The
entire wetland is protected in the open space area, and it is shown that no development is
proposed to encroach on the wetland. A condition of approval has been added below to modify
the tree protection plan (Sheet L1.1 of the landscaping set) to include fencing around the entire
wetland to ensure it protection during construction and site work. Staff conclude thatwith the
inclusion of the condition of approval that findings can be made that this approval criterion will
be met.
The fourth approval criterion is that “the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land
from being developed.” The subject property is bordered on the western side by railroadproperty
which prevents any further development. On the eastern side the property is either adjacent to the
highway frontage or fully developed parcels. To the north is the vacant remnant of land that will
retain its county zoning and is able to be developed in a limited manner under county
regulations, however due to the steep topography it is unlikely that it will develop to urban
levels. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion is met
The fifth approval criterion is that “there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of
common open space.” The applicationincludes a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&R’s) for the Grand Terrace Apartments which will be recorded concurrently
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 18of 33
Total Page Number: 40
with the subdivision plat. The CC&R includes provisions for architectural control, landscape
maintenance and other use restrictions. Staff conclude that with the creation of the HOA with
binding CC&R’s findings can be made that this approval criterion has been met.
The sixth approval criterion is that “the proposed density meets the base and bonus density
standards.” As discussed in detail in the firstapproval criteria above, the application is
leveraging density bonuses for conservation housing, and affordable housing. As set about above
the project has a base density of 115.15 and a proposed calculated density of 170 when
considering the units below 500 square feet. This requires a 48-percent density bonus. As was
explained above, the conservation housing and affordable housing bonuses total a 50-percent
bonus which exceeds the bonus required. Staff conclude that the proposed 210 dwellings
(regulated density of 170) are within the allowed base and bonus density standards and that
findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met.
The seventh approval criterion is that “the development complies with the street standards.” As
was discussed in detail above in the fifth approval criterion for annexation, with the exception to
the street standards being granted Staff concludethat findings can be made that this approval
criterion will be met.
The eighth and final approval criterion is that “the proposed development meets the common
open space standards.” The proposed subdivision includes a single open space lot that is 6.67
acres. The subject property is 8.53 acres. This means that 78-percent of the subject property is
being set aside as common open space lot not all of which is functional open space. The
tabulation sheets indicate that 58-percent (214,277 square feet) of the total site will be dedicated
to open space amenities including ‘kid only play areas,’ tennis courts, basketball courts, and a
significant area of landscaped open space. These dedications obviously exceed the requirement
of 5-percent. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met.
Lastly, the approval criteria for final plan are intended to ensure substantial conformance
between outline plan approval and final plan approval when the two are requested as separate
procedural steps. Where the two are allowed to be filed concurrently, as is the case here, there is
no procedural separation between the two and the concurrent final plan proposal is identical to
the outline plan in terms of number of dwelling units, yard depths, distances between buildings,
common open spaces, building sizes, building elevations and exterior materials, standards
resulting in density bonuses, and street standards. Staff conclude that findings can be made that
this approval criteria for final planare met.
3)Site Design Review
Multi-Family housing requires Site Design Review. The purpose of Site Design Review at AMC
18.5.2.010 provides the following: “The purpose and intent of this chapter is to regulate the
manner in which land in the City is used and developed, to reduce adverse effects on
surrounding property owners and the general public, to create a business environment that is
safe and comfortable, to further energy conservation efforts within the City, to enhance the
environment for walking, cycling, and mass transit use, and to ensure that high quality
development is maintained throughout the City”.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 19of 33
Total Page Number: 41
The approval criteria for Site Design Review include five items which are summarized as
follows:
1)The proposal complies with the underlying zone (part 18.2).
2)The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone (part 18.3)
3)The proposal complies with Site Development and Design Standards (part 18.4)
4)The proposal complies with the requirements for City Facilities in section 18.4.6
5)Addresses any required Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards.
The project site plan is shown on the following page. It shows the entire subject property area,
proposed buildings, walkways, parking area, vehicle access & parking areas, and open space
amenities.
The first approval criterion is that “The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of
the underlying zone (part 18.2).” In terms of the underlying zone, multi-family residential is a
permitted use outright, and the application, as has been discussed above exceeds the required
minimum density, but also does not exceed the maximum density through the use of bonuses and
the development of apartments that are under 500 square feet. AMC 18.2.5.030 provides the
“unified standards for residential zones” including setbacks, and the maximum allowed lot
coverage. In the R-2 zone the maximum lot coverage of impervious area allowed is 65-percent.
In terms of total impervious area, the landscape plans on sheet L1.0 indicate that all impervious
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 20of 33
Total Page Number: 42
area including driveways, parking areas, bike paths and buildings totals to 201,169 square feet
(the total proposed area for annexation is 375,792 square feet), so the total lot coverage is 53.5-
percent of the total project area and is less than the allowed limit of 65-percent. Staff conclude
that with the forgoing findings can be made that this approval criteria will be met.
The second approval criterion is that “The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone
requirements (part 18.3).” The overlay zones that relate to the subject property includes chapter
18.3.9 the “Performance Standards Option And PSO Overlay” and chapter 18.3.11 which is the
“Water Resources Protection Zones (WRPZ)” The PSO overlay was covered in detail above with
the responses to the approval criteria for outline and final plan. Similarly, WRPZ regulations
were addressed in the thirdapproval criteria for outline plan above as it addressed the identified
wetland and its required buffer zone. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval
criterion is met
The third approval criterion is that “The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development
and Design Standards of part 18.4.” As relevant to the Site Design Review approval the
following chapters of Part 18.4 apply and are addressed below:
18.4.2Building Placement, Orientation, And Design
18.4.3Parking, Access, And Circulation
18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting, And Screening
The application findings and other exhibits includes detailed responses to each of the Site
Development and Design Standards as well as comprehensive landscape, civil and architectural
plans. The building orientation, proposed building materials, landscape plan and open space
standards are all shown to be met, and staff conclude that with the foregoing, as well as the
application materials fully considered, findings can be made that this approval criterion will be
met.
The fourth approval criterion 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.” As discussed in great detail above in the fourth approval
criteria for annexation above the development has considered all city facilities. Staff conclude
that, based on the proposed facilities, that findings can be made that this approval criterion will
be met.
The fifth approval criterion provides “The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4.” if certain circumstances are found to exist.In
the present application they address a single exception to these standards to allow parking
between the face of the building and the highway. The application explains that due to the site
layout and the location of the wetland to provide vehicle access to the building necessitates
locating the parking between the road and the building. The application findings explain that the
building is over 200’ from the road, and the parking will ultimately be screened by both the
parking lot trees and landscaping associated with the wetland. Staff believe that when
considering the shape of the property and how the site layout relates to the topography and shape
of the property that the reason for the exception is sound. Staff conclude that based on the
distance from the road, and the landscape and other screening elements that granting the
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 21of 33
Total Page Number: 43
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.
4)Public Input
Notice was filed online with the DLCD on April 7, 2025, which meets the required statutory
deadline of 35 days prior to the first hearing. Notice was also posted on the property frontage and
mailed to all properties of record within 200’ of the subject property on April 22, 2025.
At the time of this writinga single written comment was received.The letter is general in nature
and while it does have “grand terrace” written near the ‘regarding’ line there are no specific
issues raised with the project other than the fact that it involves an annexation.
III.Procedural –Approval Criteria
1)Annexation
AMC 18.5.8.050 provides the approval criteria and standards for annexation:
An application for an annexation may be approved if the proposal meets the applicable criteria in
subsectionsAthroughHbelow. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose
conditions of approval consistent with the applicable criteria and standards, and grant exceptions and
variances to the criteria and standards in this section in accordance with subsectionI.
A.The annexed area is within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary.
B.The annexation proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations applicable
to the annexed area, including any applicable adopted neighborhood, master, or area plan, and is
an allowed use within the proposed zoning.
C.The annexed area is contiguous with the City limits.
D.Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the annexed area as determined by the
Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the annexed area to an approved waste
water treatment facility as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity
to the annexed area as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as
determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided from the annexed area.
Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity,
it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. All required public
facility improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance with
subsection18.4.6.030.A.
E.Adequate transportation can and will be provided to serve the annexed area. For the purposes
of this section, “adequate transportation” for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit transportation meeting the following standards:
1.For vehicular transportation a minimum 22-foot-wide paved access exists, or can and
will be constructed, providing access to the annexed area from the nearest fully improved
collector or arterial street. All streets bordering on the annexed area shall be improved, at
a minimum, to an applicable City half-street standard. The approval authority may, after
assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets
bordering on the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areasshall be fully
improved to City standards unless exception criteria apply. Where future street
dedications are indicated on the Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions
shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets andincluded with the
application for annexation.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 22of 33
Total Page Number: 44
2.For bicycle transportation, safe and accessible bicycle facilities according to the safety
analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or street (e.g., City of
Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation) exist, orcan and will be
constructed. Should the annexed area border an arterial street, bike lanes shall be
constructed along the arterial street frontage of the annexed area. Likely bicycle
destinations within a quarter of a mile from the annexed area shall be determined and the
approval authority may require the construction of bicycle lanes or multiuse paths
connecting the annexed area to the likely bicycle destinations after assessing the impact
of the development proposed concurrently with the annexation.
3.For pedestrian transportation, safe and accessible pedestrian facilities according to
the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or street
(e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of Transportation) exist, or
can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side of
all streets bordering on the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as
required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the annexed area is
within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system or a location with demonstrated
significant pedestrian activity, the approval authority may require sidewalks, walkways or
multiuse paths to be constructed and connect to either or both the existing system and
locations with significant pedestrian activity.
4.For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the annexed area, or
be likely to be extended to the annexed area in the future based on information from the
local public transit provider, the approval authority may require construction of transit
facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turnout lanes.
5.Timing of Transportation Improvements.All required transportation improvements
shall be constructed and installed in accordance with subsection18.4.6.030.A.
F.For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of
the annexed area will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for
the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units are necessary to accommodate significant
natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or
owners of the annexed area shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the County Clerk after
approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the
minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum
density, portions of the annexed area containing unbuildable lots, parcels, or portions of the
annexed area such as existing streets and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and
property, wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area
dedicated as a public park, shall not be included.
G.Except as provided in subsection18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or
potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or
commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet the
following requirements:
1.The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying
renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated using
the unit equivalency values set forth herein. The base density of the annexed area for the
purpose of calculating the total number of affordable units in this section shall exclude
any unbuildable lots, parcels, or portions of the annexed area such as existing streets
and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and property, wetlands, floodplain corridor
lands, water resource areas, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a
public park.
a.Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120 percent of
the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit.
b.Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100 percent of
the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit.
c.Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 80
percent of the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 23of 33
Total Page Number: 45
2.As an alternative to providing affordable units per section18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the
applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development
complying with subsection18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non-profit (IRC
501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under
ORS456.055to456.235.
a.The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the
standards set forth in sections18.5.8.050.G.5and18.5.8.050.G.6.
b.All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for
transfer.
c.Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred to
the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of
government, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, or a public corporation created
under ORS456.055to456.235.
d.The land to be transferred shall be deed restricted to comply with Ashland’s
affordable housing program requirements.
e.Transfer of title of buildable land in accordance with this subsection shall
exempt the project from the development schedule requirements set forth in
subsection18.5.8.050.G.4.
3.The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix with the market rate units in
the development.
a.The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the
residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number of bedrooms
per dwelling unit in the market rate units within the residential development. This
provision is not intended to require the same floor area in affordable units as
compared to market rate units. The minimum square footage of each affordable
unit shall comply with the minimum required floor area based as set forth in
Table18.5.8.050.G.3, or as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) for dwelling units developed under the HOME
program.
4.A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that the affordable
housing units per subsection18.5.8.050.Gshall be developed, and made available for
occupancy, as follows:
a.That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building
permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50
percent of the market rate units.
b.Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market
rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued
certificates of occupancy.
5.That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building
materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units.
a.The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development
shall be visually compatible with the market rate units in the development.
External building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type
and quality for affordable units as for market rate units.
b.Affordable units may differ from market rate units with regard to floor area,
interior finishes and materials, and housing type; provided, that the affordable
housing units are provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and
shall have generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency,
including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling
systems.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 24of 33
Total Page Number: 46
6.Exceptions to the requirements of subsections18.5.8.050.G.2through18.5.8.050.G.5,
above, may be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the
following:
a.That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional
benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would
development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of
subsection18.5.8.050.G.2.
b.That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting
subsection18.5.8.050.G.4provided by the applicant provides adequate
assurance that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion.
c.That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the
development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per
subsection18.5.8.050.G.5, are necessary due to local, state, or federal
affordable housing standards or financing limitations.
7.The total number of affordable units described in this subsection shall be determined
by rounding up fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction or similar
legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteriafor a
period of not less than 60 years for units qualified as affordable rental housing, or 30
years for units qualified as affordable for-purchase housing.
H.One or more of the following standards are met:
1.The annexation proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection18.5.8.050.B,
above.
2.A current or probable danger to public health exists within the proposed area for
annexation due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services in accordance with the
criteria in ORS chapter222or successor state statute.
3.Existing development in the proposed area for annexation has inadequate water or
sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year.
4.The proposed area for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service
extended, connected, and in use, and a signed consent to annexation agreement has
been filed and accepted by the City.
5.The proposed area for annexation is an island surrounded by lands within the City
limits.
I.Exceptions and Variances to the Annexation Approval Criteria and Standards.The approval
authority may approve exceptions to and variances from the approval criteria and standards in
this section using the criteria in section18.4.6.020.B.1, Exceptions to the Street Design
Standards, or chapter18.5.5, Variances.
2)Outline Plan
AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 provides the approval criteria and standards for outline plan approval.
3.Approval Criteria for outline plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it
finds all of the following criteria have been met:
a.The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
b.Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and
adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond
capacity.
c.The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds,
large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 25of 33
Total Page Number: 47
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.
g.The development complies with the street standards.
h.The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under
section18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in
accordance with section18.4.4.070if approved by the City of Ashland.
3)Final Plan
AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 provides the approval criteria and standards for final plan Approval.
18.3.9.040.B.5.Approval Criteria for final plan. Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of
substantial conformance with the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely
to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformanceshall exist
when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria:
a.The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved
outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan.
b.The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of
those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below
the minimum established within this ordinance.
c.The common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan.
d.The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than
ten percent.
e.The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent
of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
f.That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan
approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the
performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved.
g.The development complies with the street standards.
h.Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open
space; provided, that if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be
transferred to another phase, nor the common open space reduced below that permitted in the
outline plan.
4)Exception to Street Standards
AMC 18.4.6.020.B provides the approval criteria for exceptions to the street design standards.
1.Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the
street design standards in section 18.4.6.040 if the circumstances in either subsection B.1.a or b, below,
are found to exist.
a.There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site; and the exception is the
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 26of 33
Total Page Number: 48
minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and the exception is consistent with the purpose,
intent, and background of the street design standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A; and the
exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the
following factors where applicable:
i.For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii.For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii.For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
walking along roadway), and ability to safely and efficiently cross roadway; or
b.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 purposes, intent, and
background of the street design standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
5)Site Design Review
AMC 18.5.2.050 provides the approval criteria for Site Design Review approval.
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.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 27of 33
Total Page Number: 49
IV.Conclusion and Recommendations
Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the
annexation. Staff further recommend that the Planning Commission conditionally approve both
Outline and final plan for the subdivision, grant the exception to street standards, and also
conditionally approve the request for Site Design Review for the proposed buildings.
Ifthe Planning Commission recommends approval of the application,staff recommends
including the following conditions of approval below:
1)That all proposals of the applicants shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified herein.
2)That any new addresses shall be assigned by the City of Ashland. Street and subdivision
names shall be subject to City of Ashland review for compliance with applicable naming
policies.
That prior to City Council approval and first reading of the ordinance for annexation of the
property, the applicant shall provide:
3)A legal description (we have the map, but no legal description) of the properties to be
included in the annexation prepared by a registered Professional Land Surveyor. The
boundary shall be surveyed and monumented as required by statute subsequent to City
Council approval of the proposed annexation.
4)A final, signed irrevocable consent to annexation as required in AMC 18.5.8.020.A (we
have scans, need the original document).
5)A final, signed agreement to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding
indebtedness of special districts defined in ORS 222.510 as required in AMC
18.5.8.020.B (we have scans, need the original document).
6)A deed restriction agreement ensuring that any future development will occur in accord
with the minimum required 90 percent of the subject properties’ base density and to
ensure that the development is in keeping with the approved development plan, as
required in AMC 18.5.8.050.F and that development of the property shall comply with
the affordability requirements for annexations in AMC 18.5.8.050.G including specific
details on which units in which buildings will be reserved for affordable housing units
reserved for those at or below 80-percent AMI
7)A deed restriction agreement that the required utility infrastructure and street frontage
improvements required of annexation and approved herein shall be completed prior to
issuance of any building permits
That prior to any work within the right-of-way, the applicant shall:
8)The applicant shall obtain required federal, state or regional approvals including but not
limited to approvals from the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Talent Irrigation District
(TID), Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL), Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT & ODOT Rail), Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVSS), Rogue Valley
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 28of 33
Total Page Number: 50
Transportation District (RVTD), or Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (CORP) prior the
commencement of site work on the property or within the rights-of-way.
9)The applicants shall provide evidence of permit approval to the city, including copies of
all approved plans, for all work to be done within ODOT right-of-way prior to the
commencement of work. Approved plans will need to correspond to the land use
approval granted here, or modifications shall be requested.
10)The applicants shall also obtain any necessary plan and permit approvals from the City of
Ashland Public Works Department/Engineering Division. The applicants shall obtain all
required Public Works inspection approvals for work completed within City ROW.
11)That the applicant shall obtain and provide evidence of any necessary permits or
approvals from the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and/or Talent Irrigation District (TID)
for any work within the “Billings Siphon” irrigation easement.
12)That the applicant shall obtain and provide evidence of any necessary permits or
approvals from Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVSS) for the sanitary sewer connections
to the RVSS system
13)That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing;
fire apparatus access, fire apparatus access approach, aerial ladder access, firefighter
access pathways, and fire apparatus turn-around; fire hydrant distance, spacing and
clearance; fire department work area; fire sprinklers; limitations on gates, fences or other
access obstructions; and addressing standards for wildfire hazard areas including
vegetation standards and limits on work during fire season shall be satisfactorily
addressed in final civil drawings provided for permit review.
14)The applicant shall provide final electric service, utility and civil plans including but not
limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage, electric, street and driveway improvements
shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and
Public Works/Engineering Departments, Rogue Valley Sewer Services and Oregon
Department of Transportation for approval prior to permit issuance. The street
improvement plan shall include full designs with cross-sections consistent with city
standards, except where exceptions have been approved herein. Street lights shall be
included in keeping with city street light standards. The utility plan shall include the
location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and
meter sizes; fire hydrant; sanitary sewer lines, manholes and clean-out’s; storm drain
lines and catch basins; and locations of all primary and secondary electric services
including line locations, transformers, cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment.
Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets,
while considering the access needs of the utility departments. Any required private or
public utility easements shall be delineated in the civil plans. All civil infrastructure shall
be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final
survey plat.
15)The applicant shall submit a final electric plan including any necessary load calculations
and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets,
streetlights and all other necessary equipment. Transformers and cabinets shall be
located in areas least visible from streets and outside of the sidewalk corridor and vision
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 29of 33
Total Page Number: 51
clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric
services shall be installed underground to serve all lots prior to signature of the final
survey plat. With annexation, the property will no longer be served by Pacific Power and
Light; service will be provided by the City’s municipal electric utility and the necessary
services to make this transition will need to be installed at the applicant’s expense. This
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Engineering and Electric
Departments prior installation.
16)A final storm drainage plan detailing the location and final engineering for all storm
drainage improvements associated with the project shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The
applicant shall provide evidence that this plan has been reviewed and approved by the
Oregon Department of Transportation and Rogue Valley Sewer Services as well. The
storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or
equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water
quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design.
17)Engineered construction drawings for the required streetimprovements from the existing
terminus of the sidewalk south of the site near Schofield Street to the existing terminus of
the sidewalk north of the site near El Tapatio shall be provided for review and approval
by the Oregon Department of Transportation and the City of Ashland’s Planning and
Engineering Departments prior to any work within the street right-of-way or pedestrian
corridor. The required improvements shall be as described herein and illustrated in the
applicant’s civil drawingssubmitted with the application.
18)The final engineered designs shall include details of the transition from the existing
sidewalks, and any additional right-of-way necessary to accommodate these
improvements shall be provided through a right-of-way dedication if deemed necessary
by the Public Works/Engineering Department or Oregon Department of Transportation.
That prior to any Site Work / Excavation, the applicant shall:
19)That the tree protection plan (Sheet L1.1 of the landscaping set) shall be modified to
include fencing around the entire wetland to ensure it protection during construction and
site work.
20)The applicant shall provide evidence of concurrence from the Division of State Lands
(DSL) for the wetland delineation including any wetland area in the ODOT right-of-way
21)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.
22)Final construction drawings for the grading and erosion control plan shall be approved by
Public Works which includes the location of all erosion control measures and silt fencing
placement to protect the wetland and its protection zones during construction.
23)Permit submittals for common area and excavation permits shall include final lot
coverage calculations demonstrating that lot coverage is to comply with the applicable 65
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 30of 33
Total Page Number: 52
percent lot coverage allowance of the R-2. Lot coverage includes all building footprints,
driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than
natural landscaping.
24)That the tree protection fencing and fencing to delineate and protect the wetland water
resource protection zone shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and
approved by the Staff Advisor prior to any site work, storage of materials, staging or
issuance of a building or excavation permit. The tree protection fencing shall consist of
chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.4.5.030.C. No
construction activity, including dumping or storage of materials such as building
supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles, shall occur within the tree protection
zones.
That prior to final plat, the applicant shall:
25)That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months of this Final Plan approval
and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval.
26)That final CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and
approval of the Staff Advisor with the Final Plat. The CC&R’s shall describe
responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including driveway,
open space, landscaping, utilities, and stormwater detention and drainage system, and
shall include an operations and maintenance plan for the stormwater detention and
drainage system.
27)The approved Tree Protection Plan, Water Resource Protection Zone, and accompanying
standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that
deviations from the approved Tree Preservation and Protection Plan or disturbance of the
Water Resource Protection Zones shall be considered violations of the Planning approval
and subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code.
28)If fencing is proposed, a fencing plan which demonstrates that all fencing shall be
consistent with the provisions of the “Fences and Walls” requirements in AMC
18.4.4.060, and that fencing around common open space, except for deer fencing, shall
not exceed four feet in height. Fencing limitations shall be noted in the subdivision
CC&R’s. The location and height of fencing shall be identified at the time of building
permit submittals, and fence permits shall be obtained prior to installation.
29)The final subdivision plat shall include the following:
a.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, mutual
access and parking, public pedestrian and public bicycle access, drainage,
irrigation and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat
submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire
Departments.
b.Any necessary easements for transit amenities shall be identified in the final plat
submittal to allow for the placement of the Rogue Valley Transportation District
(RVTD) bus stop, transit-supportive plaza and bus pull-out lane. The final
easement details shall be mutually agreed upon with RVTD.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 31of 33
Total Page Number: 53
c.That the final subdivision name shall be approved by the City of Ashland.
d.That all infrastructure improvements associated with the annexation and
subdivision including but not limited to utilities, driveways, street improvements
including but not limited to all street lighting, and common area improvements
shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved.
e.That irrigated street trees selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide and
planted according to city planting and spaces standards shall be planted where
park row planting strips have been approved, inspected and approved by the Staff
Advisor.
f.That 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.
g.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. The applicant shall provide evidence from Rogue Valley
Sewer Services (RVSS) that the sewer laterals have been installed and paid for
with the plat submittal.
That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall:
30)That building permit submittals shall include:
a.Evidence that the Earth Advantage® certifications described in the application
materials and necessary to satisfy the requirements for the conservation housing
density bonus are being pursued.
b.Evidence that storm water from all new impervious surfaces and run-off
associated with peak rainfalls will be collected on site and channeled to the storm
water collection system 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.
c.The building permit submittals for each lot shall demonstrate compliance with the
outdoor lighting standards in AMC 18.4.4.050.C including but not limited to
directing outdoor fixtures downward and with full shielding to minimize
excessive light spillover onto adjacent properties.
31)As required in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.4.b, if the development is completed in phases, 50
percent of the value of the common open space shall be provided in the first phase and all
common open space shall be provided when two-thirds of the units are finished (i.e. prior
h
to the issuance of the seventcertificate of occupancy).
That prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall:
32)Demonstrate that the bicycle parking facilities shall be installed according to the
approved plan, inspected and approved. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle
parking. All bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 32of 33
Total Page Number: 54
standards in 18.4.3.070 prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The
building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing, and coverage
requirements are met in accordance with 18.4.3.070.
33)Prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide
evidence of having received the required Earth Advantage® certification for each
unit/building.
34)That all exterior lighting shall be selected, installed and or shrouded to avoid directly
illuminating adjacent residential proprieties. All lighting shall be verified to comply with
this requirement prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00011 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/DS)
Owner:Kendrick Enterprise LLC&Casita Developments LLCpage 33of 33
Total Page Number: 55
Total Page Number: 56
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 57
Total Page Number: 58
Total Page Number: 59
Total Page Number: 60
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 61
Total Page Number: 62
!
Applicant Submittal: 1 Total Page Number: 63
!
Applicant Submittal: 2 Total Page Number: 64
!
Applicant Submittal: 3 Total Page Number: 65
!
Applicant Submittal: 4 Total Page Number: 66
!
Applicant Submittal: 5 Total Page Number: 67
!
Applicant Submittal: 6 Total Page Number: 68
!
Applicant Submittal: 7 Total Page Number: 69
!
Applicant Submittal: 8 Total Page Number: 70
!
Applicant Submittal: 9 Total Page Number: 71
!
Applicant Submittal: 10 Total Page Number: 72
!
Applicant Submittal: 11 Total Page Number: 73
!
Applicant Submittal: 12 Total Page Number: 74
!
Applicant Submittal: 13 Total Page Number: 75
!
Applicant Submittal: 14 Total Page Number: 76
!
Applicant Submittal: 15 Total Page Number: 77
!
Applicant Submittal: 16 Total Page Number: 78
!
Applicant Submittal: 17 Total Page Number: 79
!
Applicant Submittal: 18 Total Page Number: 80
!
Applicant Submittal: 19 Total Page Number: 81
!
Applicant Submittal: 20 Total Page Number: 82
!
Applicant Submittal: 21 Total Page Number: 83
!
Applicant Submittal: 22 Total Page Number: 84
!
Applicant Submittal: 23 Total Page Number: 85
!
Applicant Submittal: 24 Total Page Number: 86
!
Applicant Submittal: 25 Total Page Number: 87
!
Applicant Submittal: 26 Total Page Number: 88
!
Applicant Submittal: 27 Total Page Number: 89
!
Applicant Submittal: 28 Total Page Number: 90
!
Applicant Submittal: 29 Total Page Number: 91
!
Applicant Submittal: 30 Total Page Number: 92
!
Applicant Submittal: 31 Total Page Number: 93
!
Applicant Submittal: 32 Total Page Number: 94
!
Applicant Submittal: 33 Total Page Number: 95
!
Applicant Submittal: 34 Total Page Number: 96
!
Applicant Submittal: 35 Total Page Number: 97
!
Applicant Submittal: 36 Total Page Number: 98
!
Applicant Submittal: 37 Total Page Number: 99
!
Applicant Submittal: 38 Total Page Number: 100
!
Applicant Submittal: 39 Total Page Number: 101
!
Applicant Submittal: 40 Total Page Number: 102
!
Applicant Submittal: 41 Total Page Number: 103
!
Applicant Submittal: 42 Total Page Number: 104
!
Applicant Submittal: 43 Total Page Number: 105
!
Applicant Submittal: 44 Total Page Number: 106
!
Applicant Submittal: 45 Total Page Number: 107
!
Applicant Submittal: 46 Total Page Number: 108
!
Applicant Submittal: 47 Total Page Number: 109
!
Applicant Submittal: 48 Total Page Number: 110
!
Applicant Submittal: 49 Total Page Number: 111
!
Applicant Submittal: 50 Total Page Number: 112
!
Applicant Submittal: 51 Total Page Number: 113
!
Applicant Submittal: 52 Total Page Number: 114
!
Applicant Submittal: 53 Total Page Number: 115
!
Applicant Submittal: 54 Total Page Number: 116
!
Applicant Submittal: 55 Total Page Number: 117
!
Applicant Submittal: 56 Total Page Number: 118
!
Applicant Submittal: 57 Total Page Number: 119
!
Applicant Submittal: 58 Total Page Number: 120
!
Applicant Submittal: 59 Total Page Number: 121
!
Applicant Submittal: 60 Total Page Number: 122
!
Applicant Submittal: 61 Total Page Number: 123
!
Applicant Submittal: 62 Total Page Number: 124
!
Applicant Submittal: 63 Total Page Number: 125
!
Applicant Submittal: 64 Total Page Number: 126
!
Applicant Submittal: 65 Total Page Number: 127
!
Applicant Submittal: 66 Total Page Number: 128
!
Applicant Submittal: 67 Total Page Number: 129
!
Applicant Submittal: 68 Total Page Number: 130
!
Applicant Submittal: 69 Total Page Number: 131
!
Applicant Submittal: 70 Total Page Number: 132
!
Applicant Submittal: 71 Total Page Number: 133
!
Applicant Submittal: 72 Total Page Number: 134
!
Applicant Submittal: 73 Total Page Number: 135
!
Applicant Submittal: 74 Total Page Number: 136
!
Applicant Submittal: 75 Total Page Number: 137
!
Applicant Submittal: 76 Total Page Number: 138
!
Applicant Submittal: 77 Total Page Number: 139
!
Applicant Submittal: 78 Total Page Number: 140
!
Applicant Submittal: 79 Total Page Number: 141
!
Applicant Submittal: 80 Total Page Number: 142
!
Applicant Submittal: 81 Total Page Number: 143
!
Applicant Submittal: 82 Total Page Number: 144
!
Applicant Submittal: 83 Total Page Number: 145
Applicant Submittal: 84 Total Page Number: 146
Applicant Submittal: 85 Total Page Number: 147
Applicant Submittal: 86 Total Page Number: 148
Applicant Submittal: 87 Total Page Number: 149
Applicant Submittal: 88 Total Page Number: 150
Applicant Submittal: 89 Total Page Number: 151
Applicant Submittal: 90 Total Page Number: 152
Applicant Submittal: 91 Total Page Number: 153
Applicant Submittal: 92 Total Page Number: 154
Applicant Submittal: 93 Total Page Number: 155
Applicant Submittal: 94 Total Page Number: 156
Applicant Submittal: 95 Total Page Number: 157
Applicant Submittal: 96 Total Page Number: 158
Applicant Submittal: 97 Total Page Number: 159
Applicant Submittal: 98 Total Page Number: 160
Applicant Submittal: 99 Total Page Number: 161
Applicant Submittal: 100 Total Page Number: 162
Applicant Submittal: 101 Total Page Number: 163
Applicant Submittal: 102 Total Page Number: 164
Applicant Submittal: 103 Total Page Number: 165
Applicant Submittal: 104 Total Page Number: 166
Applicant Submittal: 105 Total Page Number: 167
Applicant Submittal: 106 Total Page Number: 168
Applicant Submittal: 107 Total Page Number: 169
Applicant Submittal: 108 Total Page Number: 170