Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-22_Planning PACKET Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, July 22, 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 Approval of Minutes 1.June 24, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes 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 July 22, 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/97038589791 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2025-00056, 120 Westwood Street B. Approval of Findings for PA-T3-2024-00011, 1511 Highway 99 North VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT PROPERTY: Fern Street Public Right-of-Way north of 648 Roca Street OWNER / APPLICANT: City of Ashland/Public Works Department DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider a request to vacate a portion of the Fern Street right-of-way just north of 648 Roca Street and make a recommendation to the City Council. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; MAP & TAX LOT: Public Right of Way VII.OPEN DISCUSSION VIII.ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: August 12, 2025 If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Derek Severson at planning@ashlandoregon.gov or 541.488.5305 (TTY phone number Notification at least three business days before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Page 1 of 1 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. June 24, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT Minutes I.CALL TO ORDER: Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioner Perkinson attended the meeting via Zoom. Chair Verner thanked Commissioner Perkinson for his outstanding service as he exits the commission. She noted that Greg was leaving because he no longer resides in Ashland, which is a requirement for being on the Commission. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Planning Manager Eric Herron Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Gregory Perkinson Russell Phillips John Maher Susan MacCracken Jain Absent Members: Council Liaison: Jeff Dahle (absent) II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements: Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcement: The Council reviewed the appeal of 231 Granite Street at its recent meeting and remanded it to the Planning Commission to review and adopt more substantive findings related to the approval criteria. This matter will be coming back to the Planning Commission in August, 2025. 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None III.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1.April 29, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes 2.May 27, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes 3.June 10, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 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 Commissioners Phillips/Perkinson m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None V.LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2025-00016 APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University LOCATION: The Southern Oregon University District ZONE DESIGNATION: SO (Southern Oregon University) COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University District ORDINANCE REFERENCES: 15.04.210-.216 Demolition or Relocation of Structures 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District 18.4.7 Signs 18.5.2.030 Review Procedures 18.5.7.020 Applicability & Review Procedure 18.5.9 Comprehensive Plan, Zoning & Land Use Ordinance Amendments 18.6.1 Definitions DESCRIPTION: Ashland’s Planning Commission and City Council will conduct public hearings to consider a legislative amendment to the Southern Oregon University Facilities Master Plan. This amendment includes proposed zone changes for properties identified on the attached map that may be sold into private ownership by Southern Oregon University. With adoption of this Master Plan amendment, the zoning for these properties will be changed as noted on the attached map, however they would remain subject to the SOU Masterplan and SO zoning overlay while under SOU-ownership. Once under private ownership, these properties would be subject to the zoning regulations of the underlying zoning proposed here. Commissioner Perkinson recused himself from reviewing this action and left the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Ex Parte Contact No conflicts of interest, ex parte contact, or site visits were disclosed. Staff Presentation Planning Manager Derek Severson presented the staff report on the proposed adoption of the 2025 Southern Oregon University (SOU) Facilities Master Plan as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, along with amendments to the city's land use ordinance and zoning code. The Page 2 of 6 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 proposal also included zone changes for properties identified on the proposed zoning for transferred properties map (see attachment #1). Staff recommended that the Commission recommend that the Council adopt the SOU Masterplan update. Questions of Staff Commissioner Herron asked about how parking maximums are currently calculated, focusing on whether they are specific to the university or vary by zone. Mr. Severson explained that the parking maximums are consistent across zones and are not specific to SOU. Questions were raised about the redundancy of demolition and relocation codes between local regulations and state requirements. Mr. Severson noted that there is overlap, but state requirements are more comprehensive. Clarifications were sought regarding the alignment of the proposed facilities plan with existing site review processes, specifically concerning the public hearings related to zoning and conditional use permits. Mr. Severson stated that the process aims to provide clarity and align more closely with existing zoning regulations. Mr. Goldman addressed a query about the implications of converting from conditional uses to site review for properties near private boundaries. He indicated that the change would streamline the approval process while considering compatibility with the surrounding area. Commissioner Phillips asked about the details of parking standards, particularly concerning the potential impact of new solar installations on existing parking lots and how those would align with environmental goals. Mr. Severson clarified that the solar installations would not trigger new parking lot standards unless pavement is significantly altered, but they could enhance environmental sustainability. Applicant Presentation Alan Harper and Rob Patridge presented further details of Southern Oregon University's proposal and outlined pending property sales, building height limitations, and community concerns. Mr. Harper detailed SOU's strategy to sell certain properties, addressing public concerns over future land use and neighborhood impact, and highlighted the following aspects of the proposed update: SOU's shift to being an independent university and associated funding changes Declining enrollment and housing numbers on campus Plans for new student housing and academic building projects Goals for increasing solar power generation on campus Proposed zoning changes for properties that may be sold Requests for more flexibility in development standards within the SOU zone Page 3 of 6 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 Questions of the Applicant The Commission asked the following questions: Timeline for solar array installations. Mr. Harper explained that they do not have a specific timeline for installation due to funding challenges and dependency on available grants. The intended use of the proposed tall "University District" building Mr. Harper responded that the tall building at the corner of Walker and Ashland is envisioned as potentially mixed-use, though specific plans are not yet determined. He elaborated that the intention is to explore development options that could benefit both Ashland and the university economically. Clarification on proposed parking standards Mr. Harper stated that parking maximums would apply according to the planned future uses, though the university is reportedly over-parked and has reduced the need for student parking permits due to changing student behaviors and arrangements. Details of the proposed sign code changes Mr. Harper and Mr. Patridge clarified that the master plan includes a detailed sign code to ensure consistent design and sizes across campus, with no large digital signs allowed. New sign codes would ensure compliance with both university and ODOT standards while maintaining aesthetics in line with the university's vision. The lack of communication with surrounding neighbors about the proposed Masterplan updates Mr. Harper responded that SOU hosted forums and conducted public relations outreach but that no direct mailings were sent to neighbors. It was noted that City staff sent mailings before this meeting to properties within 200 feet of campus, and Mr. Harper and Mr. Patridge agreed to improve direct communication with neighbors in the future. Public Comments The following community members expressed concerns regarding the proposed update, particularly potential zone changes, the lack of communication from the applicant, and the loss of Roca Park: Jeannine Grizzard (see attachment #2) Beth Remington Bruce Bergstrom Sydnee Dreyer Kathy Uhtoff Amy Swan Alyse Emdur Jay Harrower Pat Ajemian Alison Laughlin Page 4 of 6 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 Discussion The Commission engaged in a comprehensive discussion about the SOU Master Plan, including: Zoning Changes: Many public comments, particularly concerned with the designation of zoning changes, addressed potential impacts on surrounding areas and emphasized the importance of ensuring that new zoning aligns with neighborhood characteristics. SOU's properties on Liberty Street and Roca Street were particularly notable, with the applicant maintaining the alignment of zoning with neighboring areas (R-2 for Liberty Street, R-1-7.5 for Roca Street). Use of Solar Arrays: The Commission discussed the possibility of exempting solar arrays installed over existing parking lots from thorough land use reviews, contending they are significant improvements offering sustainable solutions without creating excessive infractions, referring to standards for parking provision to be unaffected by these installations. Height Restrictions: Debate centered on aligning building height within the CFA framework, limiting most buildings to standard allowances while maintaining the potential for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for structures up to 110 feet, especially focused on the significant site at Walker and Ashland Streets if warranted by future proposals. Conditional Use Permits: Commissioners concluded that neighborhood engagement was critical, thus emphasizing retaining CUP protocols for substantial construct proposals entering proximity borders within 50 feet. Exemption of Tree Removal Permits: Recognizing SOU's aim to streamline processes while noting obligations to licensed evaluations guided decision towards forest ecosystem management in SOU's jurisdiction without a strict permit system. Public Outreach: Concerns from speakers about a lack of adequate communication from SOU informed an outlook that direct community communication standards regarding future developments should be incorporated, ensuring that residents within 200 feet receive direct mailers notifying of impact opportunities regarding university-led projects. Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 9:36 p.m. Deliberations and Decision The Commission further discussed incorporating better community communication into SOU's master plan requirements. They deliberated on maintaining alignment with Ashland's standards, especially concerning building heights and conditional use permits, focusing on consistency with existing climate-friendly area regulations. The Commission proposed various amendments such as requiring CUPs for developments over certain heights to ensure community interest is considered. They also advocated for height restrictions similar to those within CFA regulations and necessitated licensed arborists manage tree removals. Page 5 of 6 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 The commission encouraged allowing adjustments to parking standards for enhanced solar projects but expressed concerns about zoning consistency and green space preservation. Commissioners Phillips/KenCairn m/s to recommend adoption of the 2025 SOU Master Plan amendment including zoning for transferred properties and zoning map amendments, with the following adjustments: 1.Any project within 50 feet of private property would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit, with notice to properties within 200ft, a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and the potential for an appeal to the City Council. 2.Exempting solar arrays over parking lots from land use review when they meet specific criteria. 3.To allow proposed height allowances consistent with Climate Friendly Area standards, with conditional use permits required over 50 feet up to a 110 foot maximum 4.Parking lot design requirements not triggered by solar arrays and new parking lots to comply with existing design standards. 5.Proposed buildings with gross habitable floor area of 15,000sqft or more automatically triggering a Type II Site Design Review. 6.Allow SOU to be exempt from Tree Removal permits processes when contracting a licensed arborist or when using a licensed arborist on staff. 7.Allow adoption of the new sign code into the SOU Masterplan. 8.Establish a standard of direct communication from SOU with neighbors before the construction of new buildings, sales of university property, or Master Plan updates. 9.That SOU be subject to the Water Resource Protection Zone ordinance. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0. IV.OPEN DISCUSSION - None V.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 6 of 6 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 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 11 Total Page Number: 12 THE CITY OF ASHLAND BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY22, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2025-00056A) REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO MAXIMUM ALLOWED LOT ) COVERAGE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE.) FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS, OWNER: IAN J CRISP & AMIE FRANCES CRISP ) AND ORDERS. REV LIVING TRUST) APPLICANT: ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES) _______________________________________________________________) RECITALS: 1)The subject property is 120 Westwood Street and is assessor map number 39-1E-08-BA tax lot 904. The property is located on the west side of Westwood Street and is 0.5 acres in size. It is presently developed with a large home, a three-car garage with living space above, outdoor patio area, and a pool. 2)The request is to add a 322 square foot addition to the garage requiring a variance to lot coverage. The applicant proposes to remove 949 square feet of the existing hardscape such that when the project is complete there will be a net reduction in lot coverage reducing the extent of the nonconformity. It is estimated that the lot presently has 54-percent lot coverage where the standard allowed by the zone is 20-percent. 3)The applicant’s proposal is detailed in plans which are on file at the Department of Community Development and by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. 4)The property was created as lot 4 of the Placer Run Subdivision which was approved as PA 98-005 and recorded as CS 15706. A review of the staff reports for both outline and final plan approval for the subdivision makes no mention of lot coverage. 5)The subject property is zoned RR-.5 which allows a total of 20% lot coverage. The property is 0.50 acres (21,780square feet). The maximum allowed lot coverage would be 4,356 square feet. The parent parcel of the Placer Run Subdivision (excluding the ROW for Westwood Street) was 14.01 acres in size. 6)It was common in the 1990’s to analyze lot coverage holistically across the entire subdivision rather than each specific lot. To that end 20% lot coverage of the entire 14.01 acres would be 122,055 square feet, or if spread equally to each parcel 11095 sq. ft. per. 7)The property is developed with a single-family home (building permit #9906108), and a garage with additional living space / guest house (building permit #9906109). Both of these permits were issued in April of 1999. The SDC page from the building permit indicates that PA-T2-2025-00056 July 22, 2025 Page 1 Total Page Number: 13 there were 5,844 square feet of impervious surface for the home and another 1,262 square feet for the garage. Together this is a combined 7,106 square feet and calculates to 32.6- percent lot coverage. This exceeds the allowed amount by 2,750 square feet or put another way 163-percent of allowed lot coverage. 8)In May of 1999, shortly after the building permits were issued an additional planning action took place and was described as “a modification of a previously approved subdivision to allow for two driveway cuts for two adjacent lots … of the Placer Run Subdivision.” The findings are very brief, and they make no mention of lot coverage, but it is obvious the additional access point would add additional impervious surface to the driveway above and beyond what was indicated on the building permits. 9)In 2003 permit #BD-2003-00639 was issued for a swimming pool. It received initial inspections, but there is no record of a final sign off. AMC 18.5.5.030 10)The criteria of approval for a Varianceare described in as follows: A. The approval authority through a Type I or Type II procedure, as applicable, may approve a variance upon finding that it meets all of the following criteria. 1.The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3.The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. 11)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on June 10, 2025. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application subject to conditions of approval. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M" PA-T2-2025-00056 July 22, 2025 Page 2 Total Page Number: 14 SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGSOF FACT 2.1 The Planning Commission notes that chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) is the City’s Land Use Ordinance (LUO). The LUO regulates the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and encourages efficient use of land resources among other goals. The Planning Commission notes that when considering the decision to approve or deny an application the Planning Commission considers the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in the LUO. 2.1.2 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to th render a decision based on the applicationitself,the June 10Staff Report, the applicant’s testimony,the exhibits received, and public testimony received both written and at the public hearing. 2.2 The Planning Commission notes that the application was deemed complete and that the notice for the public hearing was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within 200-feet of the subject property on, May 21, 2025 (20 days prior to th the June 10Meeting). 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a variance meets all of the applicable criteria described in AMC 18.5.5.050 and as detailed below. 2.3.1 The Planning Commission notes that the first criteria of approval for a Variance is: “The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance.” The Planning Commission notes that the subject code provision limiting lot coverage to 20% does not reasonably account for the site’s unique development history, in which permitted and inspected improvements substantially exceeded code limits without correction. Additionally, the surrounding development pattern exhibits comparable coverage percentages, which further supports that the site is uniquely constrained in relation to the current code. The Planning Commission notes that a strict application of the lot coverage standard would prevent the modest improvements proposed. The Planning Commission notes that the area for the proposed construction is on impervious hard packed gravel and further notes that the applicant is proposing to remove 949 square feet of hardscape. The Planning Commission notes that that the net result of the approval of the variance is a reduction in lot coverage, reducing the nature of the non- conformity as it relates to lot coverage. Finally, the Planning Commission note that in the era of this subdivision it was common to address lot coverage holistically across the entire subdivision even if that is not well documented. The Planning Commission finds that the existing lot coverage and development of the property constitutes a unique circumstance for which the code did not account. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing that this approval criterion is satisfied. 2.3.2 The Planning Commission notes that the second criteria of approval for a PA-T2-2025-00056 July 22, 2025 Page 3 Total Page Number: 15 Variance is: “The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site.” The Planning Commission notes that the variance request is strictly limited in scope and results in a net improvement to the lot’s compliance with coverage standards. The modest size of the garage addition and the removal of other hardscaped areas demonstrate that the variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the project. The Planning Commission notes that the proposed addition is a modest 322 square feet and that the applicant proposes to remove 949 square feet of the existing hardscape thereby reducing the total lot coverage and reducing the nonconformity. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing that this approval criterion is satisfied. 2.3.3 The Planning Commission notes that the third criteria of approval for a Variance is: “The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.” The Planning Commission notes that the proposal provides a net improvement by reducing lot coverage and does not cause any adverse impacts to neighbors or public resources. The reduction in impervious surface aligns with Comprehensive Plan goals related to environmental quality and stormwater management. The Planning Commission notes that the proposal is for a modest addition for an existing garage on an area that is essentially already impervious hard packed gravel. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing that this approval criterion is satisfied. 2.3.4 The Planning Commission notes that the fourth criteria of approval for a Variance is that the “The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant.” The Planning Commission notes that the need for the variance stems from long-standing, city- sanctioned development that occurred well before the applicant’s ownership. There is no evidence of a self-imposed hardship, on the contrary, the applicant is proactively reducing existing impervious areas while pursuing reasonable improvements. The Planning Commission notes that the current property owners purchased the property in July of 2024 long after the most recent increases in lot coverage happened, as such it is clear that they are not responsible for the property being in excess of allowed lot coverage. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing that this approval criterion is satisfied. 2.4 The Planning Commission notes that following proper public notice, a public hearing was held on June 10, 2024 where testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. 2.4.1 The Planning Commission deliberated, and a motion was made to approve the OutlinePlan as well as Residential Site Design Review. The application was approved subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Reportwith the modified conditions of approval specifying that the lot coverage is not to exceed 51-percent. 2.4.2 The Planning Commission notes that the record includes the applicant’s submittal, the Staff Report dated December 10, as well as the testimony received at the public hearing, each of these by theirreference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. PA-T2-2025-00056 July 22, 2025 Page 4 Total Page Number: 16 2.4.3 The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to approval make findings that each of the criteria of for Outline Plan and Residential Site Design Review have been met. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the requestfor a variance to lot coverage is supported by evidence contained approved within the whole record and is including the conditions of approval below. 1)All proposals of the applicants shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2)A deed restriction be recorded to the property to memorialize this planning action and to limit the lot coverage to no more than 51-percent per the applicant’s proposal. 3)Prior to final approval of the project removal of the proposed hardscape proposed to be removed has been confirmed by an inspection by City Staff. Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2025-00056 July 22, 2025 Page 5 Total Page Number: 17 Total Page Number: 18 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 19 Total Page Number: 20 THE CITY OF ASHLAND BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T3-2024-00011A) REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE CHANGE FOR 8.53-ACRES) OFPRIVATE PROPERTY, RAILROAD PROPERTY, AND ADJACENT ) RIGHTS-OF-WAY (ROW), FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1511 ) HIGHWAY 99 N. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDESCONCURRENT ) OUTLINE PLANAND FINAL PLANAPPROVAL FOR A ) FINDINGS, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION (PSO) SUBDIVISIONAND ) CONCLUSIONS, SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALFOR TEN APPARTMENT ) AND ORDERS. BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVMENTS.) ) OWNER: LINDA ZARE) APPLICANT: KENDRICK ENTERPRISE LLC) CASITA DEVELOPMENTS LLC) _______________________________________________________________) RECITALS: 1)The subject property is Tax lot #1700 of Assessor Map 38-1E-32 and is addressed as 1151 Highway 99 N. The property will be 8.53 acres following approval of a pending Property Line Adjustment that is being processed with Jackson County (File #439-25-00027-SUB – application submitted May 15, 2025). 2)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 3)The application is a request for annexation and concurrent outline plan and final plan approval for a Performance Standard Option (PSO) subdivision and Site Design Review approval. The applicant provided detailed responses to all applicable approval criteria in the form of findings of fact, traffic impact analysis, legal description and survey of the property, landscaping and civil engineering plans, and architectural plans. These materials are on file at the Department of Community Development and by theirreference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. a.The proposed PSO subdivision includes a total of 9-lots for residential development, and a single common area. b.Each building is proposed to have 21 one-bedroom apartments across three floors for 210 apartments in total. c.Annexations require that at least 25% of the base density be deed-restricted affordable housing. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 1 Total Page Number: 21 4)The subject properties are shown outlined in black on the map below. The map is from the City of Ashland Geographic Information System (GIS). The purple dashed line is the UGB, and the red line is the existing city limits. 5)The total area to be annexed includes 8.53 acres of private property in a single tract of land that is the result of a recently approved but not yet recorded property line adjustment. The proposed annexation also includes 4.33 acres of railroad right-of-way (ROW), and 6.60 acres of ODOT ROW. The total area proposed to be annexed is 19.46 acres and is shown below: PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 2 Total Page Number: 22 6)The Planning Commission Staff Report (dated May 13, 2025), incorporated by referenceherein as if set out in full, includes an extensive background discussion on land use approval historyof this project. For succinctness it is not repeated here. In brief, twice substantially similar proposals have been approved by the City of Ashland each time being appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). These decisions are referred to as Casita I&Casita IIin LUBA documents, for that reason we do the same herewhen necessary to refer to the previous approvals. a.Rogue Advocatesv. City of Ashland,Reversed(LUBA No. 2021-009, May 12, 2021) b.Rogue Advocates v. City of Ashland, Remanded (LUBA No. 2023-007, May 9, 2023) 7)The approval of the PSO subdivision, and Site Design Review approval are Type II Procedures which are Quasi-Judicial. Type II decisions are made by the Planning Commission after a public hearing, with an opportunity for appeal to the City Council. 8)The approval of the annexation is a Type III procedure. Type III planning actions are legislative decisions by definition. Type III reviews are considered by the Planning Commission, who makes a recommendation to City Council. The Council makes the final decision on a legislative proposal through the enactment of an ordinance. 9)The application is for 210 apartments;however,the calculated regulatory density is 170 for purposes of administrating the Land Use Ordnance(LUO). a.AMC 18.2.5.080.B.2 allows units less than 500 square feetare counted as 0.75 dwellings units for the purposes of density calculations. b.One-bedroom affordable housing units must be at least 500 square feet. c.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. d.This calculates to a density of 170 dwellings: (50 + (160 * 0.75) = 170). 10)The 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-Family Residential. 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. 11)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). a.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. 12)The affordable housing requirement is 25-percent of the base density and is calculated as follows: 115.15 x 0.25 = 28.8. In the present application, the affordable housing is proposed PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 3 Total Page Number: 23 to be restricted to households earning at or below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). Affordable units that are restricted to households earning at or below 80 percent of the AMIhave an ‘equivalent value’ of 1.25 units. Therefore, the affordability requirement is calculated as follows: 28.8 / 1.25 = 23.02 , with fractional answers rounded up to the nearest whole number, thus 24 affordable housing units are required. 13)The adopted Wetland Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) maps the presence of a small ‘possible wetland.’ The application includes a wetland report, however the official concurrence by the Department of State Lands (DSL) is still pending. AMC 18.5.8.050 14)The criteria of approval for Annexation are described in as follows: 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. 2.For bicycle transportation, safe and accessible bicycle facilities according to the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction of the facility or PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 4 Total Page Number: 24 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 destinationsafter 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 PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 5 Total Page Number: 25 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. 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. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 6 Total Page Number: 26 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. 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: PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 7 Total Page Number: 27 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. AMC 15)The criteria of approval for the Outline Plan of a PSO subdivision are described in 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows: 3.Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commissionshall 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 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 withthe street standards. H.the proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the city of Ashland. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 8 Total Page Number: 28 AMC 16)The criteria of approval foran Exception to Street Standards are described in 18.4.6.020.B.1 as follows: 1.Exception to the Street Design Standards.The approval authority may approve exceptions to the street design standards in section18.4.6.040if the circumstances in either subsectionB.1.aorb, 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 minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and the exception is consistent with the purpose, intent, and background of the street design standards in subsection18.4.6.040.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 subsection18.4.6.040.A. AMC 17)The criteria of approval for the Final Plan of a PSO subdivision are described in 18.3.9.040.B.5 as follows: 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 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 varyno 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. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 9 Total Page Number: 29 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. AMC 18.5.2.050 18)The criteria of approval forSite Design Review are described in as follows: An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria. A.Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part18.2), including but not limited to: building and yardsetbacks, 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 (part18.3). C.Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part18.4, 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 part18.4if 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 substantiallynegatively 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 PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 10 Total Page Number: 30 exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section18.2.3.090. 19)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. 20)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on May 13, 2025. 21)Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission deliberated and made a recommendation to the City Council to approval the Annexation and related exceptions outlined above. The Planning Commission also conditionally approved, concurrent outline and final plan approval for the proposed PSO subdivision and Site Design Review including the required exceptions predicated on the City Council’s approval of the annexation. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGSOF FACT 2.1 The Planning Commission notes that chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) is the City’s Land Use Ordinance (LUO). The LUO regulates the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and encourages efficient use of land resources among other goals. The Planning Commission notes that when considering the decision to approve or deny an application the Planning Commission considers the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in the LUO. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to th render a decision based on the applicationitself,the May 13Staff Report, the applicant’s testimony,the exhibits received, and public testimony received at the public hearing. 2.3 The Planning Commission notes that the application was deemed complete and that the notice for the public hearing was posted on April 22 (21 days prior to the May 13 Meeting)at the frontage of the subject property. Notice was also mailed to all property owners within 200- feet of the subject property. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 11 Total Page Number: 31 2.4 Annexation 2.4 AMC 18.5.8.050 provides the following: “An application for an annexation may be approved if the proposal meets the applicable criteria in subsections A through H below. 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.”The Planning Commissionfinds that the proposal for Annexation meets all applicable approval criteria described in AMC 18.5.8.050 and detailed below. 2.4.1The first approval criterion for annexation is that “The annexed area is within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).”The Planning Commission notes that the subject property showing the City Limits and UGB wasincluded above. The Planning Commission notes that 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 (as shown in the fourth recital above on page 2). The Planning Commission concludes that the property is within the UGB and finds that this approval criterion has been met. 2.4.2 The second approval criterion for annexation is that “The annexation proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations applicable to the annexed area.” The Planning Commission notes that the comprehensive plan designation of the property is multi- family, and the property does not yet have an assigned zone. The application requests a zone change to R-2 which is appropriate for the comprehensive plan designation of multi-family residential. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.3.9.050 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 and requires that the property develop to at least 90-percent of the allowed density. The Planning Commission notes that the property is 8.53 acres, which provides a base density of 115.15 dwelling units (8.53 x 13.5 = 115.15). The Planning Commission notes that the 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. The Planning Commission conclude that the proposed density of residential development that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Designation and concludes that based on the proposed number of dwellings, the size of the property, and the requested zoning, that this approval criterion has been met. 2.4.3. The third approval criterion for annexation is that “The annexed area is contiguous with the City limits.”The Planning Commission notesthat the proposed area of annexation was included above (as shown in the fifth recital above on page 2). The Planning Commission notes that the area of annexation includes the railroad property and ODOT right of way. The Planning Commissionnotes that the City limitsrun along the south side of the railroad property and thereforeitis contiguous with the city limitsand finds that this approval criterion has been met. 2.4.4 The fourth approval criterion for annexation is that “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 PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 12 Total Page Number: 32 determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided from the annexed area.”The Planning Commission notes that 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 newwater 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. The Water Division of the Public Works Department has indicated that, with the extensionof a new main and other proposed facilities, that 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 PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 13 Total Page Number: 33 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, 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. The Planning Commission conclude that based on the proposed facilities, the civil engineering drawings, and communication with both ODOT and RVSS that adequate capacity exists. The Planning Commission concludes that based on the existing and proposed improvements that this approval criterion is met. 2.4.5 The fifth approval criterion for annexation is that “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.” The Planning Commission notes that the LUO requires a minimum of 22-foot- wide paved access for vehicles, and that for both bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be safe and accessible pursuant to the governing jurisdiction. The Planning Commission notes that in Casita IIthe 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 Planning Commission has determined that these prior findings also pertain to the adequacy of the current applications transportation facilities as proposed. 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 PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 14 Total Page Number: 34 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- 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 also ADA-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 to be provided at the curb has been proposed (although this is not a city requirement). This will provide a safer, well-lit area, increasing the comfort and safety for cyclists and pedestrians 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. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 15 Total Page Number: 35 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 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 accessGrand 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. The Planning Commission notes that 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. The Planning Commission concludes 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 this approval criterion is met. 2.4.6 The sixth approval criteria for annexation is that “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 Planning Commission notes, as stated above, that the subject property is 8.53 acres which provides a base density of 115.15 dwelling units (8.53 x 13.5 = 115.15). The Planning Commission notes that 90% of the base density is ~104 dwelling units. (115.15 x 0.9 = 103.6). The Planning Commission notes that the proposed density for the proposal is 210 dwellings which exceeds theminimum requirement of 104 dwellings and therefore finds that this approval criterion is met. The code also requires that “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”. A condition of approval has been included below requiring such an agreement to be completed prior to first reading of the Ordinance approving the annexation. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 16 Total Page Number: 36 2.4.7 The seventh approval criteria for annexation are the provisions governing the affordable housing requirements. This section isat AMC 18.5.8.050.G and states the following: “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:” The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.5.8.050.G. has seven subsections each of which are addressed in turn below. 2.4.7.1The first standardis at AMC 18.5.8.050.G.1 and specifies the number of affordable units required. Itstates that “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 Planning Commission notes that the applicant proposes affordable housing restricted to households earning at or below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), and that such units each have an equivalent value of 1.25/unit. The Planning Commission notes that 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.” The Planning Commission notes that the applicant has proposed providing 24 apartments to be deed-restricted to households that earn at, or below, 80-percent of the AMI. 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 at households earning 80- percent AMI or less. Affordable units at 80-percent AMI units have an ‘equivalent value’ of 1.25. To determine how many 80-percentAMI units are required to meet the calculated number of affordable units the calculated value, in this case 28.8 dwelling units, is divided by 1.25, which is the ‘equivalent value’ for units restricted to 80-percent AMI. The quotient provides the number of 80-percent AMI units required to meet that value which is then rounded up to the nearest whole number (28.8 affordable units / 1.25 the 80-percent equivalent value = 23.02 ~ 24). Therefore, a total of 24 - 80-percent AMI units satisfy the 29 affordable units required. The Planning Commission concludes that this standard is met. 2.4.7.2 The second standard is at AMC 18.5.8.050.G.2 and provides “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 456.055 to 456.235.”The Planning Commission notes that the applicant here proposes building the affordable housing units throughout each of the ten buildings and for that reason there is no need to further address this standard. The Planning Commission concludes that this standard is met. 2.4.7.3 The third standard is at AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 states “The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix with the market rate units in the development.” The Planning Commissionnotes that in the proposed application all of the 210 proposed apartments are to be one bedroom. The Planning Commission concludes that because all of the apartments are one- bedroom it is axiomatic that the bedroom-mix between the market rate and affordable units is PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 17 Total Page Number: 37 ‘comparable.’ The third standard also has a subsection at AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3.a which provides a minimum square footage for affordable units based on the number of bedrooms. The table at 18.5.8.050.G.3 requires a minimum square footage of 500 square feet for 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 application and record contain a spread sheet detailing the specifics of each of the 24 affordable units, showing that all buildings have at least two affordable units. A condition of approval has been added to memorialize the applicant’s spread sheet detailing exactly how many units are to be deed-restricted as affordable housing in each building. The Planning Commission concludes that based on the fact that all apartments are one bedroom, and with the spread sheet memorialized in the record of how many units will be in each building that this standard is met. 2.4.7.4 The fourth standard is at AMC 18.5.8.050.G.4 requires a development schedule be provided to meet the following two requirements: a.That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuanceof 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. The Planning Commission notes that 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 second phasing standard is unable to be met and that an exception to this standard will be required. The Planning Commission notes that this exception is addressed in section 2.4.7.6 below. 2.4.7.5 The fifth standard is at AMC 18.5.8.050.G.5 and states: “That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units.”The Planning Commission note that because the affordable units are spread throughout the buildings which are being built to a single standard the Planning Commission finds 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. The Planning Commission concludes that this standard is met. 2.4.7.6 The sixth standard is at AMC 18.5.8.050.G.6 and allows the City Council to grant exceptions to the requirements of subsections 18.5.8.050.G.2 through 18.5.8.050.G.5 upon consideration of certain circumstances. The second of these 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.” The Planning Commission finds 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 which benefits the timely development of the affordable units. The Planning Commission notes that the City Council will ultimately make a decision with regard to the Annexation criteria, including this Exception request, and will rely on the Planning Commission’s recommendation. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 18 Total Page Number: 38 2.4.7.7 The seventh standard is at AMC 18.5.8.050.G.7 and provides the following: “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.”The Planning Commission notes that a condition of approval has been included below requiring such an agreement to be completed prior to council approval and first reading of the ordinance approving the annexation. The Planning Commission finds that,with the condition of approval included below, this standard is met. 2.4.7.8 Finally, the Planning Commission concludes that each of the seven standards that relate to affordable housing are met,that the bedroom mix is identical to the market rate units, that the units meet the square footage requirements, and that by providing 24 units at 80% AMI fulfills the requirement for 29 affordable units. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that this approval criterion is met. 2.4.8 The eighth approval criterion for annexation requires at least one of five standards to * be met.The first of these standards isthat “The annexation proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.050.B, above.” The referenced section is the second approval criteria which states, “that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations” and was discussed in section 2.4.2 above. The Planning Commission notes again that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and finds that since the second approval criterion was satisfied that this approval criterion has also been met. 2.4.9 The ninth, and final, approval criteria for annexation states that “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.” The Planning Commission notes that the application included a total of three exceptions: 1) an exception to the phasing requirements for the affordable housing, 2) an exception to certain street standards, and 3) and exception to the Site Design Review standard that prohibits parking to be located between the building and the street. * 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. † Amended by Ordinance 3204 § 3, 12/21/2021 in response to LUBA’s holding in Casita Iwhere they found that “that the city may not rely on the exception standards to approve an annexation application that fails to comply with the applicable approval criteria.”This was because at that time the approval criteria for annexation did not allowexceptions or variances. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 19 Total Page Number: 39 The Planning Commission notes that the ultimate decision maker regarding the exception to the affordable housing phasing is the City Council, however the Planning Commission endorses the exception and recommends to the City Council that it be approved. The Planning Commission notes that the exception to street standards have been addressed above, and that the exception to site design standards isaddressed in findings further below. The Planning Commission concludes that, presuming that the City Council approve of the affordable housing phasing standard that this standard will be met. 2.4.10 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 proposed for annexation, the Planning Commissionfinds that this standard is met. The Planning Commission concludes based on the above that all applicable approval criteria for annexation approval have been satisfied. 2.5Outline Plan –Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision 2.5 AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 provides the following: “The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met:”The Planning Commissionfinds that the proposal for Outline Planof a Performance Standard Option (PSO) subdivision meets all applicable criteria for described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3and detailed below. 2.5.1The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that “The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.”The Planning Commissionnotes that this is an all- encompassing criterion and that it has considered which City Ordinances are applicable. The Planning Commissionnotes that for the purposes of resolving this criterion we rely on the entirety of the record including the applicant’s submittal, the Staff Report, and testimony provided. The Planning Commission notes that the application proposes to use 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 Planning Commission 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, the Planning Commission 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 criterion but 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). PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 20 Total Page Number: 40 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 would allow 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-percent which exceeds the 48-percent required, for this reason we do not address potential open-space density bonus. The Planning Commission concludes based on the above that this standard is 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 therefore exempt 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 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 required 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. Buildings 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. The Planning Commission notes that with theapplication materials fully considered, thefindings that are set out below, and the adopted conditions of approval that the proposal will meet all applicable ordinance requirements andfinds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 21 Total Page Number: 41 2.5.2The second approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that “Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.” The Planning Commission notes that city facilities were discussed at length in the fourth approval criterion for annexation, and do not restate them here. The Planning Commission concludes that based on the findings above, the civil plans, and the existing and proposed improvements, this approval criterion is met. 2.5.3The third criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that “The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.” The Planning Commissionnotes that the only other natural feature to address is the delineatedwetland.The Planning Commissionnotes that the wetland along with a twenty-foot buffer is proposed to be in a lot dedicated to open space. The Planning Commission notes that there are no other natural features to address and find that this approval criteria is met. 2.5.4The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that “The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.”The Planning Commissionnotes that the subject property is bordered on the western side by railroad property 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 zone 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. The Planning Commission conclude that the proposal does not prevent any adjacent land from being developed and find that this approval criterion is met 2.5.5The fifth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is that “There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.” The Planning Commissionnotes that thedraftHOA governing instruments have obligations for the maintenance of the open space and other common amenities. The Planning Commissionfinds that there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of the open space and common areas andfinds that this criterion of approval is met. 2.5.6The sixth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is that “The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter.” The Planning Commission notes that density was discussed in the second approval criterion of annexation and the first approval criterion of outline plan which provided detail regarding the calculated density and earned bonuses do not restate restate those findings again here. The Planning Commission concludes that based on the findings above that this approval criterion is met. 2.5.7The seventh Outline Plan approval criterion is that “The development complies with the Street Standards.” The Planning Commission notes that transportation facilities were discussed at length in the fifth approval criterion for annexation and restate them here. The Planning Commissionfinds based on the findings above and with the included conditions of approval PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 22 Total Page Number: 42 below that all proposed transportation facilities are to be built to the City Standards that this approval criterion is met. 2.5.8The final criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is that “The proposed development meets the common open spacestandards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland.” The Performance Standards Option Chapter requires that at least eightpercent of the total lot area be provided in common open space for developments with a base density of ten units or greater. The 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 dedicated functional open-space areasexceed the requirement of 5-percent. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed 78-percent of common open area exceeds the required 8-percent and finds that this criterion of approval is met. The Planning Commission concludes based on the above and finds that all applicable approval criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval have been satisfied. 2.6Exception to street standards 2.6As discussedabove in the fifth approval criterion for annexation the project required certain exceptions to street standards. The Planning Commission again notes that Casita II litigated the safety of the proposed street improvements including the required exceptions. The Planning Commission notes that LUBA held that the proposed improvements provided “safe and accessible bicycle and pedestrian facilities” and that it was feasibleto install them. The Planning Commission finds that since LUBA held that those findings set out above showed that the approval criteria were satisfied and that they were supported by substantial evidence. The current application is supported by the same findings and conclusions previously affirmed, based on the application materials and the proposed street improvements. The Planning Commission concludes that approval criteria for an exception to street standards have been satisfied. 2.7Final Plan –Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision 2.7 AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 provides the following: “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:” The Planning Commission finds that the approval criteria for Final Plan are intended to insure substantial conformance between Outline Plan approval and Final Plan approval when the two are requested as separate procedural steps. The Planning Commission finds that 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 PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 23 Total Page Number: 43 materials, standards resulting in density bonuses, and street standards. The Planning Commission concludes that the final plan approval criteria are satisfied. 2.8Site Design Review 2.7 AMC 18.5.2.050 provides the following: “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.” The Planning Commissionfinds that the proposal for Site Design Review approval meets all applicable approval criteria described in AMC 18.5.2.050 and detailed below. 2.8.1The first approval criterion for Site Design Review approval is with regard to the Underlying Zone “” and provides: “The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.” The Planning Commission notes that 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 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. The Planning Commission concludesthat based onthe foregoingthat this approval criterionismet. 2.8.2The second approval criterion for Site Design Review approval is with regard to the Overlay Zones “” and provides: “The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).” The Planning Commission notes that 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 third approval criteria for outline plan above as it addressed the identified wetland and its required buffer zone. The Planning Commission concludes that based on the foregoing that this approval criterion is met. Site 2.8.3The third approval criterion for Site Design Review approval iswith regard to the “ Development and Design Standards ” and provides: “The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.” The Planning Commission notes that 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 18.4.3 Parking, Access, And Circulation 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting, And Screening PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 24 Total Page Number: 44 The application findings and other exhibits include 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.The Planning Commission concludes that with the foregoing, as well as the application materials fully considered, it can be found that this approval criterion is met. 2.8.4The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review approvalis with regard to the City Facilities “” and provides: “The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.” The Planning Commission notes that this was discussed in great detail above in the fourth approval criteria for annexation above the development has considered all city facilities. The Planning Commission concludes that, based on the proposed facilities in the engineering plan and discussion above that this approval criterion ismet. 2.8.5The fifthapproval 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. The Planning Commission notes that 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. The Planning Commission notes that the shape and topography of the property, along with the resulting site layout, provide a sound basis for granting the exception. The Planning Commission conclude that based on the distance from the road, and the landscape and other screening elements that granting 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. The Planning Commission concludes that based on the foregoing that this approval criterion is met. The Planning Commission finds that it has addressed each of the five of the approval criteria for Site Design Review approval and finds that each have been satisfied. 2.9 The Planning Commission notes that following proper public notice, a public hearing was held on May 13, 2025, where testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission deliberated, and a motion was made to recommend approval to the City Council. The recommendation to approve the application was subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report along with the following additional conditions of approval: •Prior to any work within the right-of-way the civils plans shall be updated to show the actual property line of the property occupied by Anderson Auto Body and Paint (1383 Hwy 99, Map #39 1E 32 tax lot 1900) and how the proposed frontage improvements do not conflict with the existing parking area. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 25 Total Page Number: 45 •Prior to any site work the final construction drawings shall show fire drives C and D as proposed to be 26ft-wide instead of 24ft. •Prior to the City Council public hearing and first reading of the annexation Ordinance the applicant shall demonstrate that the Property Line Adjustment has been approved by Jackson County. •That condition of approval #6 identified in the Planning Staff Report dated 5/13/2025 be amended to include the specific details presented by the applicant regarding the number of affordable units in each building. 2.9.2 The Planning Commission notes that the record includes the applicant’s submittal, the Staff Report,as well as the testimony received at the public hearing, each of these by their reference are incorporated herein 2.9.3 The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to approval make findings that each of the criteria of for annexation,Outlineand FinalPlan, and Site Design Reviewhave been met. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, The Planning Commission concludes that the request Annexation, Outline& Final Plan Approval and Site Design Reviewis supported by evidence contained within the whole record. 3.2 The Planning Commission herebyrecommend approval to the City Council approval of the annexation. The Planning Commission conditionally approve both Outline and final plan for the subdivision, grants the exception to street standards, and also conditionally approve the request for Site Design Review, including the exception to allow parking between the road and the buildings, predicated on the ultimate approval of the annexation by City Council. 3.3 The Planning Commission additionallyrecommends 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. Prior to City Council approval and first reading of the ordinance for annexation of the property, the applicant shall provide: 3)A 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. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 26 Total Page Number: 46 4)A final, signed irrevocable consent to annexation as required in AMC 18.5.8.020.A. 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. 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. 8)The applicant shall demonstrate that the Property Line Adjustment submitted to Jackson County (File #439-25-00027-SUB)has been approved. Prior to any work within the right-of-way, the applicant shall: 9)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 Transportation District (RVTD), or Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (CORP) prior the commencement of site work on the property or within the rights-of-way. 10)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 approval granted here, or modifications shall be requested. 11)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. 12)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. 13)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 14)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 PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 27 Total Page Number: 47 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. 15)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. 16)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 clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots prior to signing 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. 17)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. 18)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 PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 28 Total Page Number: 48 corridor. The property line of Anderson Auto Body and Paint located at 1383 Hwy 99, Map #39 1E 32 taxlot 1900) shall be clearly indicated on the civil drawings to demonstrate the proposed frontage improvements do not conflict with the existing parking. The required improvements shall be as described herein and illustrated in the applicant’s civil drawings submitted with the application. 19)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. Prior to any Site Work / Excavation, the applicant shall: 20)The tree protection plan (Sheet L1.1 of the landscaping set) shall be modified to include fencing around the entire wetland to ensure protection during construction and site work. 21)The Civil Engineering drawings shall be modified to show fire drives C and D be increased in width to 26ft-wide instead of 24ft. 22)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 23)The 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. 24)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. 25)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 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. 26)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. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall: 27)The 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. PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 29 Total Page Number: 49 28)The 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. 29)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. 30)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. 31)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. 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, PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 30 Total Page Number: 50 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. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall: 32)Thebuilding 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. 33)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). Prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall: 34)Demonstrate that the bicycle parking facilities shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved. Inverted u-racks shall be used for bicycle parking. All bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack 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. 35)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. 36)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 Commission Approval Date PA-T3-2024-00011 July22, 2025 Page 31 Total Page Number: 51 Total Page Number: 52 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 53 Total Page Number: 54 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 Total Page Number: 63 Total Page Number: 64 Total Page Number: 65 Total Page Number: 66 Number: 67 Page Total Number: 68 Page Total Number: 69 Page Total Total Page Number: 70 Total Page Number: 72 Total Page Number: 73 Total Page Number: 74 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 75 Total Page Number: 76 Total Page Number: 77 Total Page Number: 78 Total Page Number: 79 Total Page Number: 80 Total Page Number: 81 Total Page Number: 82 Total Page Number: 83 Total Page Number: 84 Total Page Number: 85 Total Page Number: 86 Total Page Number: 87 Total Page Number: 88 Total Page Number: 89 Total Page Number: 90 Number: 91 Page Total Number: 92 Page Total Total Page Number: 95 Number: 96 Page Total Number: 97 Page Total Number: 98 Page Total Number: 99 Page Total 100 Number: Page Total 101 Number: Page Total 102 Number: Page Total