HomeMy WebLinkAboutClay_300_PA-T3-2024-00010
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 11, 2025
REGULAR MEETING
Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street. Commissioner Perkinson attended the meeting via Zoom.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Eric Herron Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Gregory Perkinson Carmel Zahran, Assistant City Attorney
Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Susan MacCracken Jain
Kerry KenCairn
John Maher
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Doug Knauer
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Staff Announcements - None
2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None
III.CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
a. January 14, 2025, Regular Meeting
Commissioners Phillips/KenCairn m/s to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Voice Vote:
All AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None
V.INFINISHED BUSINESS
Approval of Findings for PA-T1-2024-00254, Sutton Place TL 1600, The Oaks of Ashland
Subdivision
Page 1 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was disclosed.
Deliberations
Chair Verner asked if Commissioner Maher had reviewed the January 14, 2025 Regular meeting
recording, minutes, and materials in order to vote on the findings. Commissioner Maher confirmed
that he had.
Commissioners KenCairn/Herron m/s to approve the findings as presented. Roll Call Vote: All
AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING – CONTINUED
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2024-00255
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 110 Terrace St.
OWNER: Shirley D Patton Trust
APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development
DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a formal interpretation of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance as it applies to how a Peer Respite Home (as defined at ORS 430.626) are
regulated. The interpretation requests that the proposed Peer Respite Home in the existing
residence at 110 Terrace Street be classified as a similar use to types of Group Living that are
permitted in all residential zones, and that such interpretation would provide a reasonable
accommodation consistent with the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disability Act.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family; ZONING: RR-.5; MAP: 39-1E-09-BC; TAX
LOT: 8000
A. Settlement of the Record
Chair Verner stated that the Public Hearing had been closed at the January 14, 2025 meeting but
that the record had been left open at the request of the applicant to allow for additional comments
to be submitted. The Public Record was left open such that only parties-of-record - defined as
individuals or entities who have previously provided written or oral testimony on the matter – would
be permitted to submit written testimony by 4:30 p.m. on January 22, 2025. Any party-of-record
would have until 4:30 p.m. on January 30, 2025 to offer a rebuttal to those comments received by
January 22. The applicant would have until 4:30 p.m. on February 7, 2025 to offer final arguments or
comments on any materials submitted.
Chair Verner asked the Commission to determine whether written testimony received by non-
parties-of-record between January 15, 2025 and January 22, 2025 should be included in the record
(see attachment #1).
Page 2 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Commissioners Phillips/Maher m/s to include written testimony received by non-parties-of-
record between January 15, 2025 and January 22, 2025 in the record. Roll Call Vote: All AYES.
Motion passed 7-0.
Chair Verner asked the Commission to determine whether written testimony received by non-
parties-of-record between January 23, 2025 and January 30, 2025, after the record was closed,
should be included in the record (see attachment #2).
Commissioners KenCairn/Phillips m/s to exclude written testimony received by non-parties-of-
record between January 23, 2025 and January 30, 2025 from the record. Roll Call Vote: All AYES.
Motion passed 7-0.
Chair Verner stated that the applicant had submitted materials challenging four comments that
had been submitted into the record and had requested that those comments be stricken or
redacted from the record as they contained new evidence(see attachment #3).
Commissioner Phillips noted that the Commission had received a request from Rob Patridge to
extend the comment period to allow for additional testimony, and asked how an extension would
affect the project’s application timeline (see attachment #4). Mr. Goldman explained that a further
extension of the timeline could push the application past the 120-day deadline for the City to render
a decision, which could result in the application automatically being approved. The Commission
determined that the record should not be reopened.
Commissioners Phillips/KenCairn m/s to exclude portions of the January 29, 2025 letter from
Sydnee Dreyer, an attachment to a letter submitted on January 29, 2025 by Maylee Oddo and
Brock Dumont, Exhibit C of a January 30, 2025 letter from Rob Patridge, and the January 30, 2025
memorandum from the City of Ashland Planning Staff.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner MacCracken Jain requested clarification regarding Mr. Patridge’s
January 30 submittal and his contention that it should be retained in the record. Mr. Goldman
responded that Mr. Patridge had submitted a records request to the Oregon Health Authority seeking
information regarding the applicant’s project, but had not received the requested information until
January 24. Mr. Patridge argued in a February 11, 2025 letter to staff that the information he submitted
on January 30th should be included in the record since the lateness of the submittal was outside of
his control, and because the information contained within was already known to the applicant. Mr.
Goldman pointed out that, while this information was known to the applicant, it was not known to the
Commission, and thus constituted new information submitted into the record after the January 22
deadline had expired. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
Page 3 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was disclosed.
B. Deliberations
Commissioner MacCracken Jain motioned that a Peer Respite Center most closely resembled a
Group Living facility. The motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioners KenCairn/Maher m/s that the application most similarly resembled a travelers
accommodations, which is a short-term stay of less than 30 day and does not qualify as
residential dwelling. DISCUSSION: Commissioner MacCracken Jain stated that the short-term
duration is a singular disqualifier in terms of reasonable accommodation, and is overly harsh as
there are additional aspects to it, including the collection of fees or whether food or services are
provided. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners KenCairn, Maher, Phillips, Herron, Perkinson, and Verner:
AYE. Commissioner MacCracken Jain: NAY. Motion passed 6-1.
The Commission considered the applicant’s request for a reasonable accommodation. Regarding
this issue, Commissioner KenCairn noted that cities are not required to disregard their own land use
ordinances in order to grant reasonable accommodation requests and suggested that the
application failed the two tests required for approval. Chair Verner stated that approving the
proposal would alter RR.5 Zones, adding that the purpose of zones is to have orderly locations of uses
after logical review and that allowing particular uses in zones where they would otherwise be
unpermitted would alter the zone and require a code amendment process.
Commissioners Perkinson/Phillips m/s to deny the application on the basis that a reasonable
accommodation does not apply to traveler’s accommodations. DISCUSSION: Chair Verner
requested clarification on why a reasonable accommodation would not apply. Commissioner
Phillips responded that the facility would not be a residence. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed
7-0.
VII.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2024-00010
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 300 Clay St.
OWNER: Bentella LLC
APPLICANT: Rogue Development
DESCRIPTION: A request for annexation and zone change for a 4.8-acre property, along with
adjacent Right-of-Way (ROW), for the property located at 300 Clay Street. The application
also includes a request for a 25-lot (37 dwelling unit) Outline Plan Approval for a Performance
Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision, as well as a limited activities WRPZ permit.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Suburban Residential; ZONING: County RR-5 (R-1-3.5
requested); MAP: 39-1E-11-CB Tax Lot 1100; TAX LOT: 1100
Page 4 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Herron, Perkinson, Phillips, and Verner conducted site visits. No ex parte contact was
disclosed.
Staff Presentation
Planning Manager Derek Severson outlined the application as including the following requests: an
Annexation/Zone change for the 4.8-acre property and adjacent right-of-way (ROW), with eight
units designated as affordable housing; Outline Plan approval for a Performance Standards Options
(PSO) subdivision; a Limited Activities & Uses Permit for public utilities with the Water Resource
Protection Zone (WRPZ); and a Tree Removal Permit to remove four non-hazard trees. The
application also requested an Exception to AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 which requires the affordable units to
have a comparable mix of bedrooms to market-rate units. The applicant asserted that they are
building the proposed townhomes as rental units, but that they cannot control future developments
of attached single-family residential units (see attachment #5). Mr. Severson suggested that, if the
Commission were to reject the Exception request, it could add a condition of approval addressing
the Final Plan and requiring deed restrictions to meet the affordable bedroom maximum.
Mr. Severson stated that the existing wetland area is significantly smaller than it appears in the City’s
wetlands inventory, and therefore the applicant has proposed to treat the existing wetland area on
the north end of the property as a possible wetland, with a delineating line and 20ft open space
buffer. He stated that the Tree Management Advisory Committee recommended approval to remove
the four trees requested.
Staff recommended the Commission make a favorable recommendation to the City Council with the
six conditions suggested in the staff report.
Questions of Staff
The Commission questioned if the proposed development would satisfy its affordable housing
obligations. Commissioner MacCracken Jain questioned granting the applicant’s request for an
Exception to AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 due to their stated inability to control the future development of the
subdivision.
Applicant Presentation
Applicant Amy Gunter outlined the proposed annexation and subdivision, stating that this project
would provide needed housing, would allow for the future growth of Ashland as outlined in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and would comply with the applicable ordinance AMC 18.5.8.050. She stated
that the proposed development types include 21 lots for detached residential and attached
residential (duplex and/or accessory residential units), and four lots that accommodate four, four-
plex multi-family units, one on each lot for a total of 37 dwellings, and four open space parcels. She
Page 5 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
noted that the trip generation assessment found that the proposed development is below the
requirements for a complete Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to be conducted, but that a nearby bus-
stop and multiple dispersal points via adjacent neighborhoods would help alleviate traffic. She
stated that all required public infrastructure extensions for provisions of city water and electric
service are proposed (see attachment #6).
Questions of the Applicant
The Commission requested clarification regarding the affordable housing townhomes proposed by
the applicant. Ms. Gunter responded that all the 2-bedroom townhomes would likely be kept by the
owner as rental units, though they could be sold.
Public Comments
Public speakers Fred Stapenhorst, Suzanne Marie, and Pauline Short all expressed concerns
regarding traffic, fire evacuation access, and wetland protection.
Applicant Rebuttal
Ms. Gunter stated that the wetland was found to be smaller than earlier thought, which was codified
in a wetland map adoption in 2022. She added that a water-dispersal trench could be installed to
provide additional watering to the wetland areas. She noted that the wetland would not be bisected
by the proposed street.
She stated that the multi-family dwelling units would have fire suppression systems and fire-
resistant exteriors, though she could not speak to fires in the valley.
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 8:57 p.m.
Deliberations
Commissioner Phillips asked what the City’s responsibility is to man-made wetlands. Mr. Goldman
responded that the applicant is required to delineate the current wetland and provide a 20ft buffer.
Commissioners Perkinson/KenCairn m/s to accept staff’s recommendation and recommend that
the City Council approve the annexation and approve the outline plan with conditions as
proposed in the staff report, correcting a non-substantive error in the proposed conditions, and
with the addition of a 7 condition stating “that the final plan submittal shall identify a mix of
th
bedrooms for the affordable units comparable to the bedroom mix of the market rate units and
include necessary deed restrictions to ensure compliance.” DISCUSSION: Commissioner Phillips
noted that the applicant had mentioned a financial benefit for all the duplexes to be two-bedroom,
and expressed concern about creating additional restrictions to obtain financing for affordable
housing. Commissioner KenCairn responded that deed restrictions would only affect future single-
family homes and not the townhomes. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
Page 6 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
VIII.OTHER BUSINESS
Ashland Modified Flood Zone along Hamilton Creek
Staff requested that the Planning Commission initiate a planning action as allowed by AMC
18.5.8.040 to make an amendment to the officially adopted maps of the “Ashland Modified
Floodplain.” The reason for this amendment is that it has come to Staff’s attention that the
stretch of Hamilton Creek, while shown on the official maps, was adopted in error sometime
between 2008 and 2010. Direction from the Commission would initiate an amendment as a
city-initiated action to correct a mapping error effecting multiple properties along the full
length of the mapped Ashland modified floodplain corridor for Hamilton Creek but would not
alter the FEMA-regulated floodplain. If initiated, final approval would go back before the Commission
and Council for adoption.
Commissioners Phillips/Herron m/s for staff to prepare an amendment officially adopting maps
removing the Ashland modified floodplain from the subject portion of Hamilton Creek. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
IX.OPEN DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed the recent Commission and Committee Handbook updates and how
those effect term limits and members attending meetings virtually.
X.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 7 of 7
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Before the Planning Commission –February 11, 2024
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-T3-2024-00010
OWNER:
Bentella LLC
APPLICANT:
Rogue Planning &DevelopmentServices
LOCATION:
300 Clay Street.
39-1E-11-CBTax Lot 1100
ZONE DESIGNATION:
County RR-5 (R-1-3.5 requested)
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION:
Suburban Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:
18.2.4General Regulations for Base Zones
18.2.5Standards for Residential Zones
18.3.9Performance Standards Overlay
18.3.11Water Resources Protection Zones
18.4.5Tree Preservation and Protection
18.5.1General Review Procedures
18.5.3Land Divisions &Property Line Adjustments
18.5.7Tree Removal Permits
18.5.8Annexations
18.5.9Comp Plan, Zoning & LUOAmendments
18.6.1Definitions
APPLICATION DATE:
September18, 2024
APPLICATION COMPLETE:
December 20, 2024
DLCD NOTICE:
January6, 2025*36 days in advance*
PUBLICMEETINGNOTICE:
January22, 2025*20days in advance*
MEETING DATE:
February 11, 2025
120-DAY DEADLINE:
(*Type III applications not subject to 120-day limits)
PROPOSAL:
A request for annexation and zone changefora4.8-acre property,along with
adjacent Right-of-Way(ROW),for the property located at 300 Clay Street. The application also
includes a request for a 29-lot (37 dwelling unit) Outline Plan approval for a Performance
Standards Option (PSO) subdivision, as well as a limited activitiespermit for public utilities
within the Water Resource Protection Zone(WRPZ).Annexationsrequire that at least 25% of the
base density be affordable housing. In the present application there are eight affordable housing
unitsproposedat 80%area median income (AMI) to meet this requirement.
I.Introduction
The proposed PSO subdivision includes a total of 25-lots for residential development, 21 of them
are proposed for single family residential(SFR)development, four lots proposed with four-plex
townhomes, andfour additional lots to be dedicated asopen space area.The SFR lots may be
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
119
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
developed with either Accessory Residential Units (ARU) or duplexes as required by House Bill
2001.The 16 dwellings in the fourplexes plus the 21 SFR lots sums to a proposed density of 37
dwelling units. Because the proposal is an annexation there is also a requirement for affordable
housing which is discussed further below.The application also includes a request to remove four
trees.
The Ashland Land Use Ordinance requires a two-step procedure for subdivisionsfor
subdivisions greater than ten lots. This means that following this planning action an application
for Final Plan Approval will still be required prior to review and approval of the final plat. The
townhomes development is presented as a concept design and is not seeking Site Design Review
at this time, and instead the application indicates that the Site Design Review will be applied for
concurrently with the application for Final Plan approval.
1)Site Description
The subject property is Tax lot #1100 of Assessor Map 39-1E-11-CB and is addressed as 300
Clay Street. The subject property is 4.8 acres and gentle slopes to the northat approximately
three percent slope. The property has 328 feet of frontage along Clay St. which is fully improved
with curb, gutter, sidewalk and park row. Engle Street terminates on both the north and south
side of the property.
The property is mostly vacant with the exception of a small residence that the County Assessor
indicates was built in 1920. The residence is listed as 631 square feet and is indicated to be in
poor condition. The application materials indicate that to the east of the home that there is also
“an 819 square foot shed, a small horse shelter, and a 208 square foot carport structure.”
2)Natural Features
The application explains that the trees on the property consist of “a 16-inch diameter at breast
height (DBH) conifer tree directly adjacent to the southwest corner of the existing residence. A
16-inch DBH Cottonwood tree in the northwest corner of the property and grouping of willows
including a 16-inch DBH, 15-inch DBH and 18-inch DBH willow tree.” The application explains
that “The majority of trees are landscape trees on the adjacent properties. There is a row of
Leyland Cypress along the east property line and shade trees in the yards of the properties to the
north of the subject property.”
The adopted Wetland Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ)maps indicate wetlands in two
locations; however, the application materials include a wetland delineation, reviewed and
approved by the Department of State Lands(DSL),whichdeterminedthat the actual area of
wetland is much smaller than on the City’s adopted WRPZ maps. The application notes that over
the years as development has occurred more of the irrigation waters that used to be in open
ditches have instead been rerouted to pipe and other storm draininfrastructure. This has caused a
great reduction in water that has historically fed some of these wetlands and resulted in a
reduction intheir size over the years.In 2022 the most recent wetland delineation was performed
and approved by the DSL. The map from the approved wetland delineation showsthe extent of
the wetland at the north of the subject propertyand indicates thatthe area of the wetland is
0.0096 acres or 418 square feet.The application materials propose a twenty-foot buffer around
the identified wetland to be dedicated as an open space amenity.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
219
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
II.Project Proposal –Annexation and Outline Plan Subdivision
1)Annexation
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.
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 property is both within the UGB and contiguous with the city limitsas shown inthe City
geographic information system (GIS)and shown below.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
319
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
The UGB runs along East Main Street which is0.2 milesto the north demonstrating that the
property is within the UGB. The subject property is immediately adjacent to City Limits to the
north, south and eastas shown above. This satisfies the first and third 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 suburban residential, and the property does not yet have an assigned zone. The
application requests a zone change to R-1-3.5 which would be appropriate for the comprehensive
plan designation of suburban residential. AMC 18.3.9.050 which provides the residential density
for a PSO subdivision. For the R-1-3.5 zone it specifies aresidentialdensity of 7.2 dwelling unit
per acre. The Comprehensive Plan requires thata proposal in this zone to develop with at least
90% of the base density (4.8x 7.2 = 34.56 * 0.9 ~ 31dwelling units).
The present proposal leverages affordable housing density bonus, discussed further below,to
exceed the base density for a total of 37 dwellings. Based on the allowed 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 property,and the requested zoning,that
findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met.
The fourth approval criterion for annexation is that “Adequate City facilities as determined by the
Public Works Department.” The property is served by all city utilities. Clay Street contains an
eight-inch water main, eight-inch sewer main, and an 18” storm water main. Engle has eight-inch
water mains at both the north and south of the property as well as an eight-inch sewer main and a
ten-inch sewer main at the north stub of Engle Street. Due to the nature of gravity systems and
the topography of the siteno sewer or storm is needed on the southern stub of Engle Street. The
Public Works Department has confirmed that there are no concerns regarding the capacity of any
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
419
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
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 for annexation is that “Adequate transportation can and will be
provided to serve the annexed area.” The application material includesa trip generation
assessment and Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) findings prepared by Southern Oregon
Transportation and Engineering. These materials detail the expected trip generation of the
proposed development and show that the proposed developmentis below the requirements for a
complete Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) as the development is expected to only generate 30
weekday peak hour trips where the threshold for a TIA is 50 newly generated vehicle trips.The
proposed development includes the creation of new local neighborhood roads connecting Engle
Street, as well as a new neighborhood street connecting to Clay Street. All proposed public
facilities are proposed to be constructed to City of Ashland Standards. Staff conclude that based
on the proposed facilities as well as the engineering memo that findings can be made that this
approval criterion will be met.
The sixth approval criteria for annexation is “That 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 90% of the base density for the property is 31 units (4.8x 7.2 = 34.56 * 0.9 ~
31). The present proposal leverages affordable housing density bonus to exceed the base density
for a total of 37 dwellings. Staff notes that 37 exceeds 31 and conclude that findings can be made
that this approval criterion is 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.””AMC 18.5.8.050.G.1 provides
that “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 area including wetlands.
Additionally, AMC 18.5.8.050.G.7 provides that“The total number of affordable units described
in this subsection shall be determined by rounding up fractional answers to the nearest whole
unit.As discussed above the wetland delineation determined that the area of the wetland is 0.12
acres. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the total number of affordable units we calculate
the density excluding the wetland area,as follows: 4.8acres-0.012acres= 4.788acresx 7.2
dwelling units per acer= 34.47dwelling unitsx 0.25 = 8.6 ~ 9affordable dwelling units.
The application materials propose eight units targeted to households earning 80% area median
income (AMI) or less.Affordable units at80% AMI units have an ‘equivalent value’ of 1.25. To
determine how many 80% AMI units are required to meet the calculated number of affordable
units you take the calculatedvalue, in this case ninedwelling units, and divide by 1.25which is
the ‘equivalent value’for units restricted to 80% AMI.The quotient provides the number of 80%
AMI units required to meet that value which is then rounded up (9affordable units/ 1.25the
80% equivalent value= 7.2 ~ 8). Therefore, a total of eight 80% AMI units satisfies the nine
affordable units required. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion
will bemet.
The eighth approval criterion for annexation is a provision to allow properties to annex even if
their development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Planin particular circumstances.
The criterion requiresat least one of five standards to be met.The first of these is that “The
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
519
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
*
annexation proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.050.B, above.”The
citationto AMC 18.5.8.050.B is actuallythe secondapproval criterion. As discussed above, the
secondapproval 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
eighthapproval criterion is also satisfied.
The ninth and final approval criterion for annexation relates to requested exceptions. The present
application includes no requests for exceptions or variances and can be found to be satisfied.
Finally, the Land Use Ordinance 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 Plan Approval
The Purpose of the Performance Standards Option is set out at AMC 18.3.9.010 and states that
“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 onthe 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 2acres and also greater than 200’ in average width. The subject property meets both of
these requirements to utilizethe PSO standards outsideof the overlay.
The proposal includes twenty-one lots for single family homes, and four lots in the east of the
subdivision that will be each developed with fourplex townhomes. There is a private street that
extends into the development to provide rear-loadedaccess to six of the single-family lots as well
as private parking for the town homes.There are also four lots providing open space one of
*
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-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
619
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
which includes the delinated wetland and another for storm water retention. The proposed
subdivision Site Plan is shown below:
The approval criteria for outline plan include eight itemswhich 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.
3)The natural features,such as wetlands andlarge 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 applicablestandards.
The first approval criterion is that “the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements
of the city.”This is an all-encompassing criterionthat allows the Planning Commission to make
findings that it has considered which City Ordinances are applicableand how the requirements of
them 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.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
719
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
First, we address AMC 18.3.9.050 which provides for residential density for a PSO subdivision.
As discussed above, for the R-1-3.5 zone is a density of 7.2 dwelling unit per acre.As discussed
further below in the sixth approval criterion,this section also provides the details for Density
Bonus Point Calculations and provides that “a maximum bonus of 35 percent is allowed.
Developments shall receive a density bonus of two units for each affordable housing unit
provided.”The base density for the zone is 34.56 . The proposed 37 dwellings utilize only 3 of
the available bonus units.
Next, AMC 18.3.9.060provides the requirements for the provision of on-street parking which
requires one parking space per lot, with the exception that “the total number of on-street spaces
required should not surpass the available street frontage.” The proposed site plans show a total
of 21 parking spaces along one side of both streets throughout the subdivision.
Finally, AMC 18.3.9.070provides for the setback standards for a PSO subdivision. The Code
requires that “Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as
required in the parent zone.” Staff notes that Clay Street is the ‘front yard’ frontage for the parent
parcel, as such a fifteen foot setback along Clay Street is required, which is what is shown in the
applicants site plan. For the PSOSolar Setback the section invokes the standards at AMC 18.4.8.
which requires that “land divisions which create new lots shall be designed to permit the location
of a 21-foot high structure with a setback which does not exceed 50 percent of the lot's north-
south lot dimension” when taking into account the slope of the property. Based on the slope of
the property and the equations in the code this requires a North-South dimension of at least 71.9-
feet. Lots #1 through #15 all have a N/S dimension of over 100-feet meeting this requirement.
Lots #16 through #21, due to their orientation, do not meet this standard and instead have a N/S
dimension of roughly 40-feet, and multi-family lots #24 and #25 also fail to meet this standard.
The code provides that “If the applicant chooses not to design a lot so that it meets the standards
set forth in subsection A, above, a solar envelope shall be used to define the height requirements
that will protect the applicable solar access standard.” In the present application the applicant
proposes what has historically been referred to as the ‘MillPond standard’ and states that “the
request would be to allow a five-foot shadow up the adjacent south wall of the structure to the
north.” and suggests that this will allow for the construction of two-story homes on these lots. A
condition of approval invoking the ‘MillPondstandard’has been included below,butstaff has
reservations that it will enable two story construction on these lots. Staff believe that the multi-
family fourplexes and two-storyconstruction on lots #17-#21 may require solar variances to
enable two story construction.Because lots #16 and #25 are adjacent to the perimeter of the
property they will either need to meet SolarStandardAorsecure a solar variance from the
property to the north.
The applicant has provided findings addressing each of the approval criteria in detail, and by
their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. With the application materials fully
considered staff concludedthat findings can be made that all applicable ordinance requirements
have been metand that the firstcriterion of approval has been met.
The second approval criterion is that “adequate key City facilities can be provided including
water, sewer, paved access.”As discussed in the fourth approval criteria for annexation above the
property is served by all city utilities. Clay Street contains an eight-inch water main, eight-inch
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
819
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
sewer main, and an 18” storm water main. Engle has eight-inch water mains at both the north
and south of the property as well as an eight-inch sewer main and a ten-inch sewer main at the
north stub of Engle Street. Due to the nature of gravity systems and the topography of the site no
sewer or storm is needed on the southern stub of Engle Street. The Public Works Department has
confirmed that there are no concerns regarding the capacity of any 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 featureson the site are adelineatedwetland
that was discussed aboveand several trees.The map from the approved wetland delineation
shows the extent of the wetland at the north of the subject property and indicates that the area of
the wetland is 0.0096 acres or 418 square feet. The application materials propose a twenty-foot
buffer aroundthe identified wetland to be dedicated as an open space amenity. In addition to the
wetland there are a number of significant tree on the property including: “a 16-inch diameter at
breast height (DBH) conifer tree directly adjacent to the southwest corner of the existing
residence. A 16-inch DBH Cottonwood tree in the northwest corner of the property and grouping
of willows including a 16-inch DBH, 15-inch DBH and 18-inch DBH willow tree nears the north
property line, east of Engle Street intersection into the property.” Four of thesetreesare
proposed for removal as they are in conflict with the proposed street right-of-way (ROW)and
building envelopes. When considering the wetland delineation and the open space being
dedicated for its protection Staff conclude that, based on the proposed facilities, 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 surrounded bylands that are fully developed. To
the north is Bud’s Dairy Subdivision, to the south is the Snowberrybrook development,andto
the eastis a manufacturedhome park. The western side of the project fronts Clay Street. Based
on the above 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 application states that “With the Final Plan application, the
subdivision Homeowners Association formation documents and Covenants, Conditions &
Restrictions will be provided. The CC&Rs will provide details regarding the maintenance of the
open spaces, common areas, wetlands area and buffer maintenance and management within the
subdivision.”A condition of approval has been included below that will require the applicant to
provide CC&R’s for review that include sufficient maintenance for the private drive and all
common area amenities. The CC&Rs shall also address fence standards adjacent to open space.
Staff conclude that with the creation of the HOAwith binding CC&R’sfindings 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 the second approval criteria for annexation the application requests a
zone change from the county zone to R-1-3.5.As discussed above, the base density for the zone
is 34.56(4.8x 7.2 = 34.56). AMC 18.3.9.050.B.3 provides a density bonus of two units for each
affordable housing unit provided up to maximum bonus of 35-percent, this would allow for up to
an additional 12 units over the based density. The proposed 37 dwellings utilize only 3 of the
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
919
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
available bonus units for calculated bonus of 8.7%,which is well below the 35 percent available.
Staff conclude that the proposed37dwellings 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.”The
application includesdetailed civil engineering plans including street cross sections showing a 47’
ROW, 22’ paved width including seven-foot planter strip and five-foot sidewalk which meets the
standards shown in Figure 18.4.6.040.G.4.b.’Neighborhood Street, Parking One Side.’ There
are however two locations on the preliminary plat and civil site plans that show only 46’ feet of
proposed ROW dedication. A condition of approval is included below that will require the
revised civil plans at Final Plan approval to indicate 47’ of ROW dedication. Staff conclude that
with the condition of approval added below 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 four open space areastotaling 16,102
square feet. The requirement for minimum open space for a PSO subdivision is five percent of
total lot area for developments with a base density of 10 units or more. The subject property is
209,088 square feet in size, five percent of that is 10,454. Based on the above the applicant is
providing a total of 7.7% in open spacewhich exceeds the required minimum. Staff conclude
that findings can be made that this approval criterion is met
3)Limited Activities And Uses in the WRPZ
As explained above the property has locally identified wetlands from the City’s Local Wetland
Inventory (LWI). Since that time there have been two separate wetland delineations performed
by qualified environmental specialists. The first was conducted in 2015 and was approved by the
Department of State Lands (DSL), however wetlanddelineations expire after five years. Because
the 2015 delineation expired an additional delineation was conducted and approved by the DSL
in 4/10/2023 (see DSL WD# 2022-0352).Theapplication statesthat based on the area of the
wetland, the wetland is nota Significant Wetland, but a small, 418.76 square foot (.0096 acre)
wetland area,as such they propose a twenty-foot bufferaround this 419 square foot area.
Among the listed “limited activities and uses” that are allowed in the WRPZ area is the
Installation of public and private storm water treatment facilities. The application states that “The
proposed stormwater lateral dispersal trench is a permitted use within the Water Resource
Protection Zone. The utility is outside of the wetland area and is proposed at the outer edge of
the 20-foot wetland buffer zone.”, and that “The areas of disturbance will be reseeded with a
native grass mix that is appropriate for planting in the wetland buffer zone.” The application
suggests that the installation of the storm water dispersal may in fact actually help preserve the
wetland whileso many wetlands are starved from their natural water sources.
4)Site Design Concept
Attached townhome style housing requires Site Design Review. In the present application no Site
Design Review approval is being requested, instead the Site Design Review will be conducted
concurrently with the second step of the PSO subdivision which is Final Plan Approval. For this
reason, we do not dwell on the details of the four proposed four-plexbuildings other than to
remark that this is consistent with the proposed density.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
1019
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
5)Tree Removal
The application includes a request to remove four trees. The application describes the removals
as follows: “There are three deciduous trees that have a DBH of 12-inches or more that are
proposed for removal and one tree conifer tree greater than 16 inches DBH. These trees are
within the area of the public streets, the alley and within the building envelope area of the
development area of the lots. The tree removal is necessitated by the construction of public
streets, an alley and residential dwellings.” (Applicant findings p. 46).
To approval the removalof a non-hazard tree it needs to be shown that “The tree is proposed for
removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use
Ordinance requirements and standards.” When considering the location of these trees being
within the proposed street dedication and building envelopes, the proposed removals are, in staffs
view, found to meet the standards. Pursuant to AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2.e the applicant will be
required to mitigate for the removal of each tree. In review of the preliminary landscape plan,it
is demonstratedthat the number of trees to be plantedfar exceeds the four that are required to
mitigate these proposed removals.
The application will be reviewed by the Tree Management Advisory Committee at their February
th
6meeting, and their findings will be presented at the hearing before the Planning Commission.
6)Public Input
Notice was posted at the property frontage, as well at the end of each street stub,and mailed to
all properties of record within 200’ of the subject property onJanuary22, 2025.At the time of
this writing no formal public comment has been received.
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
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
1119
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
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.
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.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
1219
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
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.
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.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
1319
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
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.
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.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
1419
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
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
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
1519
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
development and significant features have been included in the common open space,
common areas, and unbuildable areas.
d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for
the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e.There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and
common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that
the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire
project.
f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under
this chapter.
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)Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ)
AMC 18.3.11.060.D provides the approval criteria and standards for a WRPZ Limited Activities
and Uses Permit.
D.Limited Activities and Uses Permit. All limited activities and uses described in section
18.3.11.060 shall be subject to a Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050. An application for a
limited activities and uses permit shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following
criteria:
1.All activities shall be located as far away from streams and wetlands as practicable,
designed to minimize intrusion into the Water Resource Protection Zone and disturb as
little of the surface area of the Water Resource Protection Zone as practicable.
2.The proposed activity shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize
excavation, grading, area of impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and
other adverse impacts on water resources.
3.On stream beds or banks within the bank-full stage, in wetlands, and on slopes of 25
percent or greater in a Water Resource Protection Zone, excavation, grading, installation
of impervious surfaces, and removal of native vegetation shall be avoided exceptwhere
no practicable alternative exists, or where necessary to construct public facilities or to
ensure slope stability.
4.Water, storm drain, and sewer systems shall be designed, located and constructed to
avoid exposure to floodwaters, and to avoid accidental discharges to streams and
wetlands.
5.Stream channel repair and enhancement, riparian habitat restoration and
enhancement, and wetland restoration and enhancement will be restored through the
implementation of a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and
requirements in section 18.3.11.110, Mitigation Requirements.
6.Long-term conservation, management and maintenance of the Water Resource
Protection Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of a management
plan as described in subsection 18.3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not
required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a single-family dwelling and
accessory structures.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
1619
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
4)Tree Removal
AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 provides the approval criteria and standards for a Tree Removal Permit for
anon-hazardous tree.
2.Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be
granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or
can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a.The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not
limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical
and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10.
b.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
c.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City
shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as
permitted in the zone.
d.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below
the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may
consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping
designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to
comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
IV.Conclusion and Recommendations
Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommendto the city councilapproval the
annexation and Outline Plan for the subdivision.If the Planning Commission recommends
approval ofthe application,staff recommendsincluding the following conditions of approval
below:
1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
2)That the applicant apply for final plan approval pursuant to AMC 18.3.9.040.B within 18
months of this outline plan approval. The application for Final Plan approval will be
required to include the following:
a.That the revised civil and site plans that are to be submitted with Final Plan
approval indicate 47’ of ROW for both Engle and Street and Caldera Lane.
b.Provide CC&R’s for review that include sufficient maintenance for the private
drive and all common area amenities.
c.That pursuant to AMC 13.24.010.C that the applicant shall consult with the Public
Works Director for approval of the proposed street name of Calera Lane.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
1719
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
3)That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any
additional work in the public right of way.
4)That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months of Final Plan approval and
approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. Prior to submittal of
the final subdivision survey plat for signature:
a.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, 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.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities,
driveways, streets and common area improvements shall be completed according
to approved plans, inspected and approved.
c.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and
approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to
installation.
d.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with
meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase,
inspected and approved.
5)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.
6)That the building permit submittals shall include the following:
a.Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public and private
utility easements, mutual access easements, and fire apparatus access easements.
b.For Lots #1-16& 25 Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units
comply with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height –6) / (0.445 +
Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly
identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural
grade.
c.For Lots #16-24Demonstrate compliance with the approved solar setback
showing that any shadows cast do not exceed fivefeet above the finished floor
elevation of the main level of a house on the respective lots to their north,
assuming the affected house is built six feet from the shared property line.
d.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with
the applicable coverage allowances of the R-1-3.5zoning district. Lot coverage
includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation
areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping.
e.That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with
peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water
collection system through the curb or gutter at a public street, a public storm pipe,
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
1819
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of
an approved public drainage way, or through an approved alternativein
accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site
collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
Planning Action: PA-T3-2024-00010Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report(aha)
1919
Owner:Bentella LLCPage of