Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-12_Planning PACKET Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, August 12, 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.July 22, 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 10:00 a.m. on August 12, 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/91057141502 V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of revised Findings on remand from City Council for PA-T2-2024-00053, 231 Granite Street VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00059 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 39-1E-04-AD Tax Lot 8600 OWNER/APPLICANT: PDK Properties LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Final Plan approval for a 15-lot Performance Standard Option (PSO) subdivision. The Subdivision Outline Plan was approved by the Ashland Planning Commission adopted findings approving PA-T2-2024-00054, on January 14, 2025. The Proposed final plan come before the Planning Commission because a section that was approved as an alley is now proposed to be pedestrian access due to the existing adjacent grade. The application also includes a modification to the previous Site Design Review. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain l; ZONING: NM-MF; MAP: 39 1E 04 AD; TAX LOTS: 8600 VII.OPEN DISCUSSION VIII.ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: August 26, 2025 Page 1 of 2 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. July 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT Minutes I.CALL TO ORDER: Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Susan MacCracken Jain Derek Severson, Planning Manager Eric Herron Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Russell Phillips Absent Members: Council Liaison: Jeff Dahle (absent) II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements: Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: The Council passed first reading of an ordinance to adopt the SOU Master Plan on July 15th with amendments: Maximum height for solar installations was increased from 25 feet to 38 feet o Climate Friendly Area height was modified to allow 60-foot height outright o and 70-foot height with a conditional use permit (different from Planning Commission's recommendation of 50 feet with 60 feet for affordable housing with CUP) The Ashland Street corridor would follow the Planning Commission's o recommendation of 50-foot height, 60-foot with affordable housing and CUP Second reading scheduled for August 5, 2025 o The Council also approved first reading of an ordinance amending the Hamilton Creek-Ashland modified floodplain, with second reading scheduled for August 5, 2025 Commissioner Phillips asked if the Council's amendments to the SOU Master Plan would affect the ability to develop a building on the corner of Walker and Ashland Street up to 110 feet. Director Goldman confirmed that there was no height cap proposed in the amendments for developments with a conditional use permit. Page 1 of 4 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 3 Planning CommissionMinutes 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None III. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1.June 24, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes Commissioners MacCracken Jain/Phillips m/s to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 4-0. IV.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2025-00056, 120 Westwood Street Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact or site visits were disclosed. Decision Commissioners Phillips/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the Findings as presented. Roll Call Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4-0. B.Approval of Findings for PA-T3-2024-00011, 1511 Highway 99 North Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact or site visits were disclosed. Decision Commissioners Herron/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the Findings as presented. Roll Call Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4-0. V.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 Page 2 of 4 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 4 Planning CommissionMinutes Staff Presentation Planning Manager Derek Severson explained that the proposal was for vacation of a section of Fern Street right-of-way to the east of Roca Street. He noted that the existing right-of-way would never be extended through due to grade, the presence of a creek, and lots on the east side. The request was to vacate it to SOU, who owns the properties to the north and south. Mr. Severson noted that the Comprehensive Plan seeks to retain public bicycle and pedestrian access when vacating public right-of-way. Mr. Severson explained that the area has been used by the public with numerous trails through it. SOU had improved it as an arboretum as intended in their last master plan and installed a frisbee golf course that is popular in the community, along with a trail system used by neighbors for recreation (see attachment #1). Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council and ask that public pedestrian access and public utility easements be retained to provide a connection from Roca Street to Madrone Street, and to accommodate existing utilities in place within the segment of right-of-way to be vacated. Questions of Staff In response to questions from Commissioners, Severson clarified: An existing sewer line runs diagonally across lot 628 in the Roca Park subdivision and continues north to Ashland Street, but it already has an easement The land would be split equally between the abutting SOU properties The water resource protection zone extends 30 feet on either side of the creek, and severe constraint lands with slopes over 35% are considered unbuildable A pedestrian easement would likely be 8-10 feet wide but given the steep terrain, it would not be accessible to all users Applicant Presentation Alan Harper and Rob Patridge represented SOU. They reported investigating the trails and access to Roca Canyon since the last meeting. Harper stated that SOU's preference for the pedestrian easement would be to link it to the parking lot and go back up, noting that many people use the parking lot to access the trails (see attachment #2). Mr. Harper and Mr. Patridge proposed gifting to the City the riparian corridor and steep slope areas where the trails are located, explaining that the University doesn't maintain these areas but they are used by the public. They showed photos of the area and explained that SOU would retain some access rights for maintaining equipment like a seismic monitoring device. Public Comments The following submitted public comments which highlighted the ecological and recreational Page 3 of 4 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 5 Planning CommissionMinutes importance of maintaining pedestrian access through a natural trail system in the Roca Canyon area, expressing concerns over potential impacts of the proposed right-of-way changes: Alison Laughlin Bruce Bergstrom (see attachment #3) Jeannine Grizzard (see attachment #4) Amy Swan Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 8:11 p.m. Deliberations and Decision The Commission discussed SOU's proposal to dedicate the riparian area to the City. Commissioner Phillips asked for clarification on where the dedication line would exist in relation to the creek, riparian setback, and unbuildable lands. SOU representatives confirmed it would encompass the riparian corridor and steep slope areas. Commissioner Herron expressed concern about recommending vacation of the storm drain easement without confirmation from Public Works Director Scott Fleury about whether the infrastructure exists or is needed. Chair Verner questioned whether the Parks Department would want to accept the proposed riparian area, with Mr. Goldman noting that the City would need to consider maintenance costs, including wildfire and riparian mitigation. Commissioners Herron/MacCracken Jain m/s to reopen the Public Record for written testimony to be accepted through August 26, 2025, and to continue the Public Hearing to August 26, 2025, at 7:00 PM to deliberate on the proposal. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners MacCracken Jain, Herron, and Verner: AYE. Commissioner Phillips: NAY. Motion passed 3-1. VI.OPEN DISCUSSION - None VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 4 of 4 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 6 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 7 Total Page Number: 8 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 9 Total Page Number: 10 Memo DATE: August 12, 2025 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Derek Severson, Planning Manager RE: 231 Granite Street Remand from Council to Amend Findings Background Planning Action PA-T2-2024-00053 requested the construction of a new single-family residential home on hillside lands at 231 Granite Street. This required a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit due to the site’s topography, and also includes requests for a Variance to the flag drive standards in AMC 18.5.3.060.F, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 74 trees including nine significant trees, and an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application subject to a number of conditions on April 8, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. Written findings were adopted on April 22, 2025 and a Notice of Decision mailed. On May 2, 2025, a timely appeal of Planning Action #PA-T2-2024-00053 was filed by appellants Leonard Eisenberg and Kent and Pamela McLaughlin, represented by attorney Zack P. Mittge of Hutchinson Cox. The appeal challenged the Planning Commission’s April 22, 2025 decision to approve a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit, a Variance to the flag drive standards, an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands, and a Tree Removal Permit for development of a single-family residence at 231 Granite Street. The City Council held a hearing on July 15, 2025, to consider the appeal (PA-APPEAL-2025- 00021) of the Planning Commission’s approval of PA-T2-2024-00053. Upon review of the 25 assignments of error raised by the appellants, the Council determined that the Planning Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record and did not involve legal or procedural errors. As part of its decision, the Council settled the record and excluded untimely written submittals in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.060.I.5. The Council COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 11 affirmed the Planning Commission’s decision and rejected the appeal, however at the applicant’s request - and with an extension of the 120-day rule - the Council remanded the matter back to the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of amending its April 22, 2025 findings to provide some more specific and detailed findings in support of the approval based on the established and settled record. The Council’s Findings dated July 15, 2025 are attached to this memorandum for reference. Amended Findings The applicant’s team has presented some relatively minor requested revisions to amend the previously adopted findings which they believe will assist in defending the matter on appeal. An extension of the 120-day rule has been provided to allow the Commission’s review and adoption of the amended findings. In the marked-up findings attached, the original adopted findings which are amended are in strike-out with the proposed language from the applicant’s team (which incorporates a significant amount of the previously adopted findings language) in red. A clean copy incorporating all of the proposed amended language is also provided. Next Steps Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the amended findings as submitted. The Commission’s decision will be the final decision of the City in this matter pursuant to AMC 18.5.1.060.I.5.c, and any further appeal would be directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1: July 15, 2025 Signed Council Appeal Findings Attachment #2: Clean Copy of Amended Findings for Signature Attachment #3: Mark Up Amended Findings for Review See https://ashlandoregon.gov/1094/231-Granite-PA-APPEAL-2025-00021 PLANNING ACTION MATERIALS PA-T2-2024-00053_Applicant Submittal (PDF) o PA-T2-2024-00053_Planning Commission Hearing Notice (PDF) o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 12 PA-T2-2024-00053_Planning Commission Hearing Staff Reports (PDF) o PA-T2-2024-00053_Planning Commission Public Comments (PDF) o PA-T2-2024-00053_Findings (PDF) o PA-T2-2024-00053_Notice of Decision (PDF) o PA-APPEAL-2025-00021_Appeal Submittal (PDF) o PA-APPEAL-2025-00021_City Council Appeal Hearing Notice (PDF) o PA-APPEAL-2025-00021_Applicants' Written Argument (PDF) o MEETING INFORMATION City Council Findings Adoption Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 6:00PM Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street 7/15/2025 City Council Packet (PDF) o 7/15/2025 City Council Recording (Video) o 7/15/2025 City Council Minutes (PDF) o City Council Appeal Hearing Tuesday, June 17, 2025 at 6:00PM Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street 6/17/2025 City Council Packet (PDF) o 6/17/2025 City Council Recording (Video) o 6/17/2025 City Council Minutes (PDF) o Planning Commission Special Meeting for Findings Adoption Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 7:00PM Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street 4/22/25 Planning Commission Packet (PDF) o (Special Meeting Materials are on pages 231-256) 4/22/25 Planning Commission Recording (Video) o 4/22/25 Planning Commission Minutes (PDF) o Planning Commission Public Hearing Tuesday, March 11, 2025 at 7:00PM Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 13 03/11/25 Planning Commission Packet (PDF) o Materials Submitted into the Record at 03/11/25 Planning Commission Meeting (PDF) o 03/11/25 Planning Commission Recording (Video) o 03/11/25 Planning Commission Minutes (PDF) o Planning Commission Meeting - Continued Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 7:00PM Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street Public Comments from Parties-of-Record Received Between 03/11/25 - 03/18/25 (PDF) o Rebuttals from Parties-of-Record Received Between 03/18/25 - 03/25/25 (PDF) o Applicant's Final Written Materials Received Between 03/25/25 - 04/01/25 (PDF) o 04/08/25 Planning Commission Packet (PDF) o 04/08/25 Planning Commission Recording (Video) o 04/08/25 Planning Commission Minutes o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 14 Total Page Number: 15 Total Page Number: 16 Total Page Number: 17 Total Page Number: 18 Total Page Number: 19 Total Page Number: 20 Total Page Number: 21 Total Page Number: 22 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2024-00053,) INCLUDING REVIEW ON REMAND PURSUANT TO #PA-APPEAL-2025-) 00021, A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL(P&E) CONSTRAINTS ) REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-) FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME ON A VACANT PARCEL AT 231) GRANITE STREET.IN ADDITION TO THE P&EPERMIT, THE ) FINDINGS, DEVELOPMENT REQUIRESA VARIANCE TO FLAG DRIVE) CONCLUSIONS & STANDARDS OF AMC 18.5.3.060.FFOR BOTH MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY ) ORDERS. GRADE AND LENGTH, A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE ) REMOVAL OF74 TREES INCLUDING NINE SIGNIFICANT TREES,AND) ANEXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE ) LANDS. ) ) OWNERS: BRYAN & STEPHANIE DEBOER) APPLICANT: CARLOS DELGADO,ARCHITECT _______________________________________________________________ RECITALS: 1)The subject property is tax lot #1800 of Assessor’s Map 39-1E-08-DA and has a site address of 231 GraniteStreet. 2)The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR-.5) andis 2.182 acres in size. 3)The subject property was created prior to the current Physical & Environmental Constraints Ordinance (AMC 18.3.10) and has an average slope ofapproximately 27 percent. As provided at AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1.a, “Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35-percent shall be considered buildable for one single-family dwelling and an accessory residential unit or a duplex…” 4)The application proposes the construction of a new single-family residential home which requires a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit due to thesite’s topography.The application also requires aVariance to the flag drive standards in AMC 18.5.3.060.F, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 74 trees including nine significant trees, and an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. 5)On January 31, 2025, the applicationwas deemed complete, and in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.050.B.4 a Notice of Complete applicationand public meetingwas posted on February 19, 2025 at theentrance of the access easement along Granite Streetin clear view from the public right-of-waythat accesses the subject property. Notice was also mailed to all property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject parcel. 6)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held apublic hearing on March 11, 2025. The meeting was conducted in person and electronically via Zoom. Public testimony PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 1 Total Page Number: 23 was received,and exhibits were presented.Prior to the closing of the public hearing, members of the public requested that the hearing be continued. As provided under ORS 197.767.6.a-e, the Planning Commission voted to close the hearing but leave the public record open to allow for new information from parties of record for seven days (until March 18 at 4:30 p.m.), rebuttal from parties of record for the next seven days (until March 25 at 4:30 p.m.), and for a final seven days, only the applicant could provide their final legal arguments, but not new evidence, in response to all previously submitted information(until April 1 at 4:30 p.m.). The Planning Commission reconvened for deliberation on April 8, 2025at 7:00 p.m.The Chair provided her summation of all conditions of approval recommended by the Staff Advisor, Commissioners and through public comments contained within the whole record. Following deliberations, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to a numberof modified conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. 7)On May 2, 2025, a timely appeal of Planning Action #PA-T2-2024-00053 was filed by appellants Leonard Eisenberg and Kent and Pamela McLaughlin, represented by attorney Zack P. Mittge of Hutchinson Cox. The appeal challenged the Planning Commission’s April 22, 2025 decision to approve a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit, a Variance to the flag drive standards, an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands, and a Tree Removal Permit for development of a single-family residenceat 231 Granite Street. 8)The City Council held a hearing on July 15, 2025, to consider an appeal (PA-APPEAL-2025- 00021) of the Planning Commission’s approval of PA-T2-2024-00053 for development at 231 Granite Street. Upon review of the 25 assignments of error raised by the appellants, the Council determined that the Planning Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record and did not involve legal or procedural errors. As part of its decision, the Council settled the record and excluded untimely written submittals in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.060.I.5. The Council affirmed the Commission’s decision and rejected the appeal, and remanded the matter to the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of amending its April 22, 2025 findings to provide more specificand detailed findings in support of the approval based on the established and settled record. The Council’s Findings dated July 15, 2025, are incorporated into the record of decision. 9)The criteria for approval for a Physical& Environmental (P&E)Constraints Review Permit are described inthe AshlandMunicipal Code (AMC) 18.3.10.050 which requires that all of the following criteria are met: A.Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B.That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C.That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 2 Total Page Number: 24 10)The criteria for approval for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands are described in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.10.090.H which require that all of the following criteria are met: 1. 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. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10, Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay, and section 18.3.10.090, Development Standards for Hillside Lands. 11)The criteria for approval for a Variance are described in the AshlandMunicipal Code (AMC) 18.5.5.050 which require that all of the following criteria are met 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. 12)The criteria for approval of a Tree Removal Permit are described in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.7.040.B.2 which require that all of the following criteria are met: a. The treeis proposed forremovalin order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. b. Removalof thetreewill not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacenttrees, or existing windbreaks. c.Removalof thetreewill not have a significant negative impact on thetreedensities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to thetree removalhave been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 3 Total Page Number: 25 d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscapingdesigns that would lessen the impact ontrees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for theremovalof eachtree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 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 FINDINGS Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, and recommends as follows: 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all the informationnecessary to render a decision based on thecomplete application materials,staff report, public hearing testimonyand exhibits; and by theirreference each of these are incorporated hereinas if set out in full. 2..2The Planning Commission findsthatAMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the development of land envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan to encourage efficient use of land resources among other goals. The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of the requestedactions has been shown to meet the relevant approval criteria or to meet those approval criteria through the imposition of certain binding conditions of approval. 2.3. The Planning Commission finds that the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to: “Provide for safe, orderly, and beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment and to provide for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features.” The Planning Commission finds that the proposed site development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, or severe cutting or scarring. The Commission finds that the intent of the hillside development standards are to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the City. PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 4 Total Page Number: 26 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development complies with the criteria from AMC 18.3.10.050.A., B., and C., for the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit for the development of hillside lands that include areas of greater than 35 percent. The Commission finds that through the implementation of the proposed erosion control, wildfire hazard mitigation, including tree removal and tree preservation, for hillside development, with the development of areas with more than a 35 percent slope. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1 generally provides that all development is to occur on lands defined as having a buildable area. Slopes greater than 35 percent are considered to be unbuildable, except that existing parcels without adequate buildable area, less than or equal to 35 percent, shall be considered buildable for one single-family dwelling and an accessory residential unit or a duplex. The Commission finds that the subject parcel was created prior to the adoption of the hillside regulations and the standard AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1. The Commission finds that the subject property does not have adequate building area of less than or equal to 35percent when considering the need to minimize broader disturbance by limiting development of the site to an area as near the existing driveway location as possible while also providing for site access and vehicular circulation. The Commission finds that, consistent with AMC 18.3.10.090.A.3, the portion of the driveway on land greater than 35 percent does not exceed 100 feet in length. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed home and outdoor area have been located in the northeast portion of the property to minimize hillside disturbance by limiting cuts and fill for construction. The Commission finds the proposed building design with the approved exception, reduces hillside disturbance through slope-responsive design, and that the height, roof forms, and off-sets reflect the irregular form of the property consistent with the building design standards from AMC 18.3.1.090.E. The Commission finds that through the application of the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, under the oversight of a geotechnical expert, a civil engineer and a structural engineer, with the implementation of erosion control measures, preservation of a substantial area of the property in a natural state, tree protection/preservation, selected tree removal for site access and implementation of a wildfire fuels management plan, potential adverse impacts have been minimized. The Commission recognizes that development of the 2.18-acre site is focused on in the area nearest the location of the vehicular access easement, therefore retaining the majority of the large property in an undeveloped state. The construction of a single-story residence with a basement reduces the building height and limits visual impacts to adjacent properties. The residence is cut into the hill's slope without the use of substantial amounts of fill. The Commission finds that the proposed cut slopes are retained PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 5 Total Page Number: 27 and terraced with the terraces planted with erosion control vegetation, and do not exceed the maximum allowed vertical height as allowed in AMC 18.3.10.090.B.4. The Commission finds proposal minimizes slope failure and potential impacts to the subject property or adjacent properties through the implementation of appropriate drainage and retaining wall construction. The proposed development has stepped structural retaining walls to lessen the impact of a structure on the lot through the use of terracing and erosion control plant materials. The Commission finds that the proposed site disturbance is substantially less than allowedper AMC 18.3.10.090.B.3. To ensure the development is balanced with environmental preservation, by limiting excessive grading and modification of hillside slopes, the required percentage of the site to remain undisturbed is 52 percent \[27% average slope + 25% = 52% required to be retained in a natural state\]. The Commission finds that the site grading has been proposed, considering the factors found in AMC 18.10.090.B.8. The area of the proposed patio, pool, and pool deckiswithin an area of excavation for the construction of the residence that will provide a contractor staging area during the construction of the residence. The Commission finds that the pool is a lap pool, proposed in an area where the majority of the existing grade is slopes of less than 25 percent. The Commission finds that pools are not prohibited. The Commission finds that the proposed location of the proposed building pad, the patio area, and the pool are within an area of least slope, closest to the driveway access location, with as much of the remaining lot area as possible retained in the natural state of the original slope. The Commission finds that the proposed developmentreduces adverse impacts, potential hazards, and limits the amount of hillside disturbance. The Commission finds that there is 18,738 square feet of disturbance proposed on the 94,960 square foot lot, which equates to 80 percent (75,969 square feet) of the lot being retained in a natural state.This is substantially greater than the minimum percentage required. The Commission finds that the site is heavily treed, and the plan seeks to reduce fuel loads in the wildfire land overlay adjacent to the construction, while protecting healthy, preservable trees to reduce adverse impactsto the subject property or to adjacent properties.The Commission finds that the proposed development minimizes fire hazard through the implementation of a fire management plan. The Commission finds the proposed tree removal is consistent with AMC 18.3.9.110 requirements for wildfire hazards mitigation plan and an adequate wildfire mitigation zone surrounding the development area. The Commission finds that under the oversight of the city of Ashland Fire Marshal, adequate fire truck apparatus access has been proposed. The proposed paved driveway with pull-outs and adequate turning radius provides adequate fire apparatus access. In addition to the fire apparatus access, there will be residential fire sprinklers, and a nearby private fire hydrant is present within the neighborhood, accessed from the shared, private driveway. An outdoor pool can provide emergency firefighting water outflow. The proposed fire safety measures demonstrate that all reasonable steps have been taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment and potential PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 6 Total Page Number: 28 impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered and impacts minimized. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal meets all applicable criteria and standards for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit as provided at AMC 18.3.10. The proposed area of development is in the least-steep portion of the lot, near the end of the private drive, and the application has made every effort to minimize the impacts to the site by locating the home as close to the driveway access as possible, in this area of least-steep slopes. The Planning Commission finds that the application includes erosion and sediment control plans as well as a geotechnical report and that by following the recommendations in both, the potential hazards will have been mitigated. The Planning Commission findsthat the landscaping plan and erosion control plan will minimize any adverse impactsthrough the control of storm water drainage upon the subject property and prevention of off-site drainage, with temporary and permanent erosion control measures,and preservation of a substantial amount of trees upon the subject propertyirreversible actions have been considered more seriously than reversible actions, and that the single-family home retains substantially more of the site in its natural state than required by ordinance. 2.4 The Planning Commission notes that the application, as originally submitted, involved two Exceptions to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. The first of these was to AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2.c requires that downhill building wall heights greater than 20 feet require at least a six-foot step back. The Commission rejects the applicant's assertion that this standard was limited to the wall face, and that the height measurement considered in the standard did not include the fascia androofing above. As such, while they had proposed an 18-foot 9-inch wall face, with the inclusionof the fascia and roof above, the total height above natural grade was 23- feet 10-inches tall withoutthe requisite setback. The Planning Commission, however, finds that excluding the fascia and roof measurements from the wall height would run counter to the intent of the standard, which seeks to have the structure step back meaningfully with the hillside. The Commission therefore finds that the proposal as presented requires an Exception. In considering this Exception, the Commission notes that the application asserts that the building step backs are minimal to keep the building shorter and closer to parallel with the slope of the lot, without interfering with the ridgeline, explaining that the lot is one long, consistent linear hill with rock outcroppings, and the proposed structure has differentiated it's masses to mimic these smaller masses. The applicantfurther asserts that the design minimizes alteration of the area of natural slope retention and protects thetopographic character and integrity of the hillside lands. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the Exception allows for a reasonable use that complements the natural and aestheticcharacter of the city on a challenging site. The Commission finds that there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the design standard for a six-foot step back. The Commission finds that the proposed development area in the area of the site nearest the driveway access and reduced step back due to thesteep slopes in excess of 35 percent on the uphill side of the house. The proposed structure i where the A larger step back into the hillside would disturb a greater area of the property and areas of steeper slopes. The Commission finds the structure requests an exception to the standards in one portion of the structure where the grade is steeper, and the exception does not apply to the entire PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 7 Total Page Number: 29 downhill wall. The Commission finds that the exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The Commission concludes that in this instance, the Exception is merited subject to a condition that with final grading, the total height of the wall, fascia, and foot above shall not exceed 25 feet. The second Exception requested involved AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2.d, which requires that, "Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet." The applicant had initially requestedan Exception to provide only a four- to five-foot offset where six feet was required; however,subsequent to the close of the public hearing, the applicant provided revised designs providing thefull required offset while the record remained open to the submittal of new materials. As such, thePlanning Commission finds that the second Exception is no longer necessary and has included acondition (#9e) below requiring that the building permit drawings reflect the revised design. 2.5 The Planning Commission further notes that the application requiresa Varianceto the flag drive standards in AMC 18.5.3.060.F which speaks to the maximum grade and length of flag driveways. AMC 18.5.3.060.F specifically provides that, “Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent; provided, that the cumulative length of such variances across multiple sections ofthe flag drive does not exceed 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances.” The Planning Commission finds that the proposed driveway is via an existing shared access easement toutilize an existing long, steep, partially paved private driveway. The proposed driveway extension to serve the subject property is approximately 197 feet in total lengthfrom the terminus of the existing drivewayand has anaverage slope of approximately 24 percent. The Planning Commission finds that the lot configuration, site topography, existing driveway grade and existing naturalfeatures are unique circumstances that prevent meeting the standard. The existing drivewayserving the lot and the adjacent properties to the east exceeds a 15 percent grade and is a legal, non-conforming situation. The average existing property grade before driveway construction is 27 percent, and there is no feasible area to mitigate the driveway grade withswitchbacks, given the narrow 33.04-foot width of the flagpole portion of the lot configuration and the location of the accesseasementto the property. The Commission finds that noalternative driveway access is available. The Commission further finds that allowing access via the existing easement to this otherwise landlocked parcel for the development of a residential dwelling on an existing legal lot of record utilizing the shared driveway is the minimum necessary to address the unique physical circumstances related to accessingthe subject property. The Commission further notes that the proposal has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, and as proposed the residence will have a fire suppression system to mitigate fire risk, and that the driveway grade and the final driveway design will be reviewed by theFire Marshal for compliance with all applicable fire codes. To ensure compliance with the requirements for a fire PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 8 Total Page Number: 30 suppression system, driveway grade and turnoutdimensions and location, adequate hydrant pressure, and fuels management, the Commission has included conditions ofapproval ( #10, 11, &12) addressing these criteria. The Commission notes that staff have provided a March 22, 1992, letter from the Planning Director,John McLaughlin, to the record, which discussed access to the subject property in the early 1990s. This letter stated that access from Granite Street would be the "most appropriate" means to accessthe subject property if an access easement were to be acquired. The alternative access consideredat the time, via a driveway from Strawberry Lane, was noted as requiring a Variance to allow formore parcels to take access off a private easement than was allowed. A subsequent August 12,1992 letter from McLaughlin stated, "To summarize the above statements, if an easement isgranted for access to lot 1800 from the existing drive from Granite Street, the City will allow thisas the driveway to this parcel, even though it exceeds the current allowable grades. Further, aminor land partition survey will be required for the parcels to approve the boundary lineadjustment previously made illegally. Once these are complete, parcels 1800 and 1801 becomebuildable parcels, subject to all development requirements of the City regarding drivewaysurfacing and hydrant/sprinkler requirements. " The required partition plat was recorded as P-43-1996 on April 12, 1996. Based on this historical information, the Commission finds that thedriveway grade was recognized as an issue with the lot's creation, that the lot creation predates thecurrent hillside standards, and that the need for a Variance has not been self-imposed by the currentproperty owners nor the applicants. The Commission finds that the driveway's location is determined by the existing private drive andthe lot's flagpole configuration, which extends to the established driveway access. The naturalslope within the flagpole area averages 27 percent, making it impossible for the applicant to comply withthe standard requirement for a driveway on slopes less than 15percent for a flag driveway, 18 percent with a variance to the flag driveway standards.The Commission finds the property grades prevent development of a driveway that complies with the maximum grade, and is a unique circumstance that applies to this property and the proposed driveway extension of the existing shared driveway. The Commission finds that, as the proposed building area is situated immediately adjacent to the end of the flag pole along the east property line, it is evident that the proposed building location minimizes the length of the driveway to the greatest extent feasible while still providing necessary vehicular and emergency vehicle access to the property. The Commission finds that the existing driveway accessing the adjacent properties and the subject property leading to the proposed driveway is in excess of 15 percent. The Commission finds the only way to access the legal, developable lot of record is via the existing driveway connecting to the proposed driveway. Because the existing grade and the proposed grade exceed 18 percent, the variance to increase the grade to the proposed approximately 24 percent is the minimum necessary. The Commission finds that the proposal’s benefit of development of a permitted residential dwelling on a residentially zoned, legal lot of record with access via the existing access easement and the existing shared driveway benefitting the subject propertyand the adjacent properties PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 9 Total Page Number: 31 furthers the purpose of the land development ordinance which is to encourage the most appropriate and efficient use of the residentially zoned land with a residential home.The Commission finds that the development of residentially zoned property, utilizing a legal access easement and the development of a driveway, will not have a substantial negative impact on the adjacent properties. The Commission finds that the city of Ashland Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposed driveway grades, turnout locations, and hydrant access and has indicated that the proposal with the fire suppression system provides adequate fire apparatus access and does not substantially increase fire-fighting response times or emergency vehicle access to the adjacent properties. The Commission concludes that the requested flag drive Variance is the minimum necessary deviation to facilitate development of the site while ensuring compliance with safety and accessibility requirements. The Variance criteria are met, as the standard code provisions for maximum driveway grade and length do not account for the unique physical characteristics and topography of the site, which is recognized as a pre-existing legal lot of record. 2.6 The Planning Commission notes that there are 74 tree removals proposed as part of the application, including nine significant trees. The application materials explain that there are hundreds of trees on the property and the adjacent properties and that the design of the project has sought to minimize required tree removals. The application states that those trees identified for removal are being removed because they are" ... within the building envelope/footprint ... within the proposed driveway or within the identified area of disturbance. " The application asserts that, "The tree assessment retains most of the siteslope stabilizing trees ... The property will remain heavily treed following the removal of the small-diameter fuels, the dead trees, and the trees in poor condition. Tree protection zones are included on the tree protection plan, including preservation plans for tree conservation during construction." With that said, the application includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit consistent with the standards from AMC 18.3.10.090.D.5, and AMC 18.5.7.404 to remove 74 trees, including nine significant trees, to develop the site and reduce wildfire fuels in the area of disturbance, with the majority of the property and the majority of the trees preserved as they are outside of the area of proposed development. The Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) reviewed the initial application which identified the removal of 67 trees at their regular monthly meeting. While expressing that the number of trees proposed for removal was substantial, the TMAC recognized that all trees proposed for removal were either within the building envelope or very close to the excavation required for the construction of the proposed site development. The most significant tree near the project, a 36-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Madrone is partially on an adjacent property, and it initially appeared that the Tree Protection Plan provided adequate protection to its critical root zone. Revised submittals received on March 18, 2025 included several trees that were not originally identified on the tree inventory, including two ten- to 12-inch d.b.h. Madrones on the property line, as well as a revised location for the 36-inch Madrone that is also on or near the property line, but within the access easement, thus necessary to remove. The Planning Commission finds that while the 36-inch d.b.h. Madrone and seven additional trees that were to be removed were not initially identified in the applicant's submittals; PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 10 Total Page Number: 32 their presence was raised during the hearing, and subsequent to the close of the hearing, they were identified in revised submittals while the record remained open and therefore received due process. The applicant's narrative and final argument submittals made clear that the 36-inch d.b.h. Madrone tree was within the driveway easement, and that its removal was necessary to construct the driveway and to provide access to the property. The Planning Commission concludes that the driveway construction will significantly impact the 36-inch d.b.h. Madrone's root system, and that its removal is necessary in order to provide driveway access to this otherwise landlocked property. The Commission finds that the removal of the trees will not have significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, protection of adjacent trees or windbreaks. The Commission finds that the trees proposed for removal consists of primarily small-diameter trees within the development area and removed for wildfire fuels reduction and nine significant trees that are within areas of development where a structure, patio, driveway, retaining wall, erosion control vegetation adjacent to the areas disturbed by construction that will not be subject to erosive action due to construction/development. The Commission finds that the removal of the nine significant trees and the smaller diameter trees will not have a significant negative impact on tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species within 200 feet of the subject property. The Commission finds that there are hundreds of trees upon the subject property and within 200 feet of the subject property. There are numerous large-stature madrone trees upon the subject property and on the adjacent properties. There are numerous ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and oak trees, the removal of the nine significant trees and the small diameter trees will not have a significant negative impact on the tree canopies, species, and treedensity. The Commission finds that the proposal mitigates for each significant tree proposed for removal and proposes twelve mitigation trees. 2.7 The Planning Commission discussed the applicant’s voluntary proposal to provide a public pedestrian access easement across the property along the TID Trail. While such a dedication is not a requirement for the development of a single-family home, the Commission recognized the public benefit of formalizing trail access in this location. As a result, the proposal has been included as Condition of Approval #14, reflecting the applicant’s willingness to dedicate the easement and the Commission’s support for securing long-term public access along the trail corridor. 2.8 The Planning Commission notes that after the hearing was closed but while the record remained open, six comments were received from non-parties of record.The Planning Commission finds that because the hearing was closed and the record left open to new submittals only from parties of record who had participated orally or in writing while the hearing was open, these six comments must be excluded from the record and were not considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission further notes that while the record remained open to new submittals, th on March 18Planning staff provided memos to the record responding directly to a number of public comments that had been submitted. Staff responses are adopted here as findings of the Commission as if set forth in full. PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 11 Total Page Number: 33 2.9 In summary, the applicants have submitted substantial findings addressing allthe relevant approval criteriaand applicable standards for the planning action, the requested Exception and the Variances. The application addresses the unique factors requiring the need for the requested Variance due to the site’s topography and the fact that the lot is pre-existing with little to no slopes under 25percent to develop, and much of the lot having 25to 30percent slopes, or greater, along with the requirementto take access via a pre-existing easement from Granite Street, which is an existing driveway with aconsiderable slope, greater than the maximum allowed 15percent driveway grade.This driveway location allows for access to an otherwise landlocked property from an existing driveway. 2.10 The Commission finds that with the conditions below attached, the proposal satisfies the applicable approval criteria. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable criteria for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit as provided at AMC 18.3.10.050, for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands in AMC 18.3.10.090.H, for a Variance as provided at AMC 18.5.5.050, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 74 trees, including nine significant trees, as provided at AMC 18.5.7.040. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the whole record of the public hearing on this matter, and all materials submitted by staff, the applicant and other participants, the Planning Commission concludes that the applicant's site planning, building design, engineering and landscape planning have adequately addressed the criteria and standards for the approval of a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit with an associated Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to allow a downhill wall height exceeding 20 feet, a Variance to the flag drive standards for maximum grade and length in AMC 18.5.3.060.F, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove a total of 74 trees, including nine significant trees. Therefore, the Planning Commission approves the application, with the attached conditions of approval, noting that this decision is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. 1.Thatall proposals of the applicantbecome conditions of approval. 2.A VerificationPermitshall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior tosite work, treeremoval, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The VerificationPermitistoinspect the identification of the 74 treesto be removedand the installation of tree protection fencingfor the remainingtrees on andadjacentto the site. The tree protection shall be chainlinkfencingsixfeettallandinstalledinaccordancewith 18.61.200.B. 3.All recommendations of the TreeManagement Advisory Committee,where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards andwithfinal approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modifiedherein. 4.Prior to building permitissuance: a.The plans submitted for the building permitshall be in substantial conformancewith those approved aspart of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved aspart of thisapplication, an applicationto modify the VarianceandPhysicaland Environmental Constraints PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 12 Total Page Number: 34 Reviewpermit approval shall be submittedand approved priortoissuance of a building permit. b.Identificationofalleasements, including public and private utilityeasements, mutual accesseasements, public pedestrianaccesseasements,andfireapparatusaccess easementsshall be identified on building permit plans. c.Solarsetbackcalculations demonstrating thatallnew construction complieswithSolar SetbackStandard A in the formula \[(Height –6)/(0.445 + Slope) = RequiredSolar Setback\]andelevations or crosssection drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) fromnatural grade shall be met. d.Lotcoveragecalculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulationareas.Lotcoverageshall be limitedto no more than 20 percentasrequired inAMC 18.2.5.030.C. e.Storm waterfromallnew impervious surfacesand runoff associatedwithpeakrainfalls must be collected on siteandchanneledto the Citystormwatercollectionsystem(i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternativeinaccordancewith Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP- 0029. On-sitecollectionsystemsshall be detailed on the building permitsubmittals. f.A revisedTreeProtectionPlan consistent withthe standards describedin 18.4.5 be submitted for approval by the Staff Advisor. Thetree protection fencingshall be installedaccordingto the approved plan prior toanysitework, storage of materials onsite or issuance of the building permit. The planshall identify the locationand placement of fencing around the driplinesoftreesidentified for preservation. The amount of filland grading within the drip lineshall be minimized.Cutswithin the drip lineshall be noted on the treeprotectionplanandshall be executed by handsaw and kept to a minimum.Nofillshall be placed around the trunk/crown root. g.No construction shalloccurwithin the tree protection zone including dumping or storage of materialssuchas building supplies, soil,waste, equipment, or parked vehicles. h.A landscaping andirrigationplanto include irrigationdetailssatisfying the requirements of the SiteDesignandUse Standards Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines andPoliciesshall be provided. i.The tree protection and temporary erosion control measures(i.e.siltfenceandbale barriers)shall be installedaccordingto the approved planand approved by the Staff Advisor priortoanysite work, storage of materials,issuance of anexcavationpermit andissuance of a building permit. The erosion control measuresshall be installedas identifiedin the Marquess & Associates’ report datedDecember 5, 2024 andas approved by Public Works. j.A writtenverificationfrom the projectgeotechnicalexpert addressing the consistency of the building permitsubmittalswith the geotechnical report recommendations (e.g. grading plan, stormdrainage plan, foundation plan, etc.)shall be submittedwiththe building permit. PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 13 Total Page Number: 35 k.Applicant shall provide documentation for the accesseasement. l.Applicant shall have the retainingwall designed by the projectengineerto conform withAMC 18.3.10.090.B. 5.Mitigationtrees,to be planted on-site,off-site, or payment inlieu,shall be plantedat the rate of 1:1 ofregulatedtreeremovals. 6.A preconstruction conferencetoreview the requirements of the Hillside Development Permit shall be held prior tositework, the issuance of anexcavationpermit or the issuance of a building permit,whicheveractionoccursfirst.Theconferenceshallinclude the Planning Department, Building Department, the project engineer, projectgeotechnicalexperts(i.e. Marquess & Associates),landscape professional, arborist (i.e. Canopy) and the general contractor. The applicant or applicant’s’representativeshallcontact the Planning Department to schedule the preconstruction conference. 7.The foundation plans of the house shall be stamped by anengineer or architectwith demonstrable geotechnical design experienceinaccordancewithAMC 18.3.10.090.F. 8.Allmeasuresinstalled for the purposes of long-term erosion control andfiremitigation, including but not limitedtovegetativecover,rockwalls,retainingwallsand landscaping shall be maintainedinperpetuity on allareasinaccordancewith 18.3.10.090.B.7.a. 9.Prior toCertificate of Occupancy: a.The landscaping andirrigation for re-vegetationofcut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be installedinaccordancewith the approved plan. Vegetationshall be installedin such a mannerasto be substantiallyestablishedwithin one year of installation. b.All landscaping in the newlandscapedareasshall be installedaccordingto the approved planandtiedinto the onsite irrigationsystem. c.Marquess & Associatesshall provide a final report indicatingthat the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measureswereinstalledasper the approved plans, andthatallscheduled inspections were conducted by the projectgeotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. d.The flag drive shall be pavedto 12 feet, have a verticalclearance of 13-feet, 6-inches and be abletowithstand 44,000 lbs.ofpressure.Theflagdriveshall be constructedso asto prevent surfacedrainagefrom flowing over the private property linesand / or public wayinaccordancewith 18.76.060.B. e.The house shall be constructedas shown on the amended plans submitted on March 12, 2025, with the 6-foot horizontal offset,perAMC 18.3.10.090.E.2. f.Applicant shall provide a surveyor’s mapthatconfirms the driveway grade does not exceed 24 percentandthat the length of the portion of the drivewayinexcess of 35 percent slopes does not exceed 100 feet,perAMC 18.3.10.090.A.2. 10.Requirements of the Ashland FireDepartmentshall be met, including thatall addressing shall be approved, thatfireapparatusaccess be provided, that a final approval of the accessplan (turnouts, etc.) be obtained, that a fires suppression system be installedin the home, that a new fire hydrant and pump be installed,ifnecessary,andthat a fuelbreakisrequired. PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 14 Total Page Number: 36 11.Prior to bringing combustible materials on site,applicantsshall provide documentation of fire hydrant locationwithin 600 feetof the southwest corner of the house and of the access (easement). 12.A Fire Prevention and Control Planaddressing the GeneralFuelModificationArea requirementsinAMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property. New landscaping proposed shall comply withthese standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited FlammablePlantListper Resolution 2018- 028. 13.Final grading andretainingwall plans shallmeet the terracingrequirements of AMC 18.3.10.090.B.4.b to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisor. 14.Prior toissuance of building permits for the proposed residence, applicants/property owners shallexecuteanddeliverto the City a perpetual public traileasementin favor of the City of Ashland along the existing“DitchTrail”,whichgenerally follows the TalentIrrigation District’s(TID)“AshlandCanal”asittraverses the subject property (TaxLot 1800). Applicants shallalso provide a centerlinelegal description of the EasementAreato be appended to the easement document andreflectinganeasementarea 10-feetinwidthandshall include the traveled portion of the existingDitchTrailcrossing the property. This condition was voluntarily offered by the applicants/property owners andthis public traileasementis not anexactionrequired by the Cityandis not subjectto constitutional takings concernsor nexus/proportionality analysis. August 12, 2025 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2024-00053 August 12, 2025 Page 15 Total Page Number: 37 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2024-00053, ) INCLUDING REVIEW ON REMAND PURSUANT TO #PA-APPEAL-2025-) 00021, A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL (P&E) CONSTRAINTS ) REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-) FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME ON A VACANT PARCEL AT 231 ) GRANITE STREET. IN ADDITION TO THE P&E PERMIT, THE ) DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES A VARIANCE TO FLAG DRIVE )FINDINGS, STANDARDS OF AMC 18.5.3.060.F FOR BOTH MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY ) CONCLUSIONS & GRADE AND LENGTH, A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE ) ORDERS. REMOVAL OF 74 TREES INCLUDING NINE SIGNIFICANT TREES, AND ) AN EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE ) LANDS. ) ) OWNERS: BRYAN & STEPHANIE DEBOER ) APPLICANT: CARLOS DELGADO, ARCHITECT _______________________________________________________________ RECITALS: 1) The subject property is tax lot #1800 of AssessorÓs Map 39-1E-08-DA and has a site address of 231 Granite Street. 2) The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR-.5) and is 2.182 acres in size. 3) The subject property was created prior to the current Physical & Environmental Constraints Ordinance (AMC 18.3.10) and has an average slope of approximately 27 percent. As provided at AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1.a, Ð Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35-percent shall be considered buildable for one single-family dwelling and an accessory residential unit or a duplexÈ Ñ 4) The application proposes the construction of a new single-family residential home which requires a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit due to the siteÓs topography. The application also requires a Variance to the flag drive standards in AMC 18.5.3.060.F, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 74 trees including nine significant trees, and an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. 5) On January 31, 2025, the application was deemed complete, and in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.050.B.4 a Notice of Complete application and public meeting was posted on February 19, 2025 at the entrance of the access easement along Granite Street in clear view from the public right-of-way that accesses the subject property. Notice was also mailed to all property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject parcel. 6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on March 11, 2025. The meeting was conducted in person and electronically via Zoom. Public testimony PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 1 Total Page Number: 38 was received, and exhibits were presented. Prior to the closing of the public hearing, members of the public requested that the hearing be continued. As provided under ORS 197.767.6.a-e, the Planning Commission voted to close the hearing but leave the public record open to allow for new information from parties of record for seven days (until March 18 at 4:30 p.m.), rebuttal from parties of record for the next seven days (until March 25 at 4:30 p.m.), and for a final seven days, only the applicant could provide their final legal arguments, but not new evidence, in response to all previously submitted information (until April 1 at 4:30 p.m.). The Planning Commission reconvened for deliberation on April 8, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. The Chair provided her summation of all conditions of approval recommended by the Staff Advisor, Commissioners and through public comments contained within the whole record. Following deliberations, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to a number of modified conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. 7) On May 2, 2025, a timely appeal of Planning Action #PA-T2-2024-00053 was filed by appellants Leonard Eisenberg and Kent and Pamela McLaughlin, represented by attorney Zack P. Mittge of Hutchinson Cox. The appeal challenged the Planning CommissionÓs April 22, 2025 decision to approve a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit, a Variance to the flag drive standards, an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands, and a Tree Removal Permit for development of a single-family residence at 231 Granite Street. 8) The City Council held a hearing on July 15, 2025, to consider an appeal (PA-APPEAL-2025- 00021) of the Planning CommissionÓs approval of PA-T2-2024-00053 for development at 231 Granite Street. Upon review of the 25 assignments of error raised by the appellants, the Council determined that the Planning CommissionÓs decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record and did not involve legal or procedural errors. As part of its decision, the Council settled the record and excluded untimely written submittals in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.060.I.5. The Council affirmed the CommissionÓs decision and rejected the appeal, and remanded the matter to the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of amending its April 22, 2025 findings to provide more specific and detailed findings in support of the approval based on the established and settled record. The CouncilÓs Findings dated July 15, 2025, are incorporated into the record of decision. 7)9) The criteria for approval for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit are described in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.10.050 which requires that all of the following criteria are met: A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 2 Total Page Number: 39 8)10) The criteria for approval for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands are described in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.10.090.H which require that all of the following criteria are met: 1. 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. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10, Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay, and section 18.3.10.090, Development Standards for Hillside Lands. 9)11) The criteria for approval for a Variance are described in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.5.050 which require that all of the following criteria are met 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 proposalÓs 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. 10)12) The criteria for approval of a Tree Removal Permit are described in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.7.040.B.2 which require that all of the following criteria are met: a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 3 Total Page Number: 40 zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, and recommends as follows: 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all the information necessary to render a decision based on the complete application materials, staff report, public hearing testimony and exhibits; and by their reference each of these are incorporated herein as if set out in full. 2..2 The Planning Commission finds that AMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the development of land envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan to encourage efficient use of land resources among other goals. The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of the requested actions have has been shown to meet the relevant approval criteria or to meet those approval criteria through the imposition of certain binding conditions of approval. 2.3. The Planning Commission finds that the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to: Ð Provide for safe, orderly, and beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment and to provide for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features.Ñ The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1 generally provides that all development is to occur on lands defined as having a buildable area. Slopes greater than 35 percent are considered to be unbuildable except that existing parcels without adequate buildable area less PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 4 Total Page Number: 41 than or equal to 35 percent shall be considered buildable for one single-family dwelling and an accessory residential unit or a duplex. In this instance, the subject parcel was created prior to the adoption of the hillside regulations, and the Commission finds that it does not have an adequate building area of less than or equal to 35 percent when considering the need to minimize broader disturbance by limiting development of the site to an area as near the driveway as possible while also providing for access and circulation. The Planning Commission finds that the home has been located to minimize hillside disturbance by limiting cuts and fill for construction. The application notes that through the application of the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance; the oversight of a geotechnical expert, a civil engineer and a structural engineer; and the implementation of erosion control, tree protection/preservation, and wildfire fuels management plans, potential adverse impacts have been minimized. The Commission recognizes that development of the 2.18-acre site is focused in the area nearest the location of the vehicular access, and this retains the majority of the large property in an undeveloped state. The construction of a single-story residence with a basement reduces the building height and limits visual impacts to adjacent properties. The residence is cut into the hillÓs slope without the use of substantial amounts of fill. The proposed development minimizes fire hazard through the implementation of a fire management plan, minimizes slope failure through the implementation of appropriate drainage and retaining wall construction. The proposed development has stepped structural retaining walls to lessen the impact of a structure on the lot through the use of terracing, and erosion control plant materials. The application notes that the site is heavily treed, and the plan seeks to reduce fuel loads in the wildfire land overlay adjacent to the construction while protecting healthy, preservable trees to reduce adverse impacts. Adequate fire truck apparatus access is proposed. There will be residential sprinklers, and a nearby private fire hydrant is present within the neighborhood accessed on the private driveway. The property owners have proposed an outdoor pool area that can provide emergency firefighting water outflow. The proposed fire safety measures demonstrate all reasonable steps have been taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment. The application further notes the pool is a lap pool, and the majority of the area where the pool is placed has existing grade slopes of less than 25 percent and is within an area of excavation for the construction of the house that will provide a contractor staging area during the construction of the residence. The Commission finds that the proposed site disturbance is substantially less than allowed. For this property, the required percentage of the site to remain undisturbed is 52 percent \[27% average slope + 25% = 52% required to be retained in a natural state\], ensuring that development is balanced with environmental preservation by limiting excessive grading and modification of the site. For the proposal, there is 18,738 square feet of disturbance proposed on the 94,960 square foot lot, which equates to 80 percent (75,969 square feet) of the lot being retained in a natural state. This is substantially greater than the minimum percentage required. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal meets all applicable criteria and standards for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit as provided at AMC 18.3.10. The least-steep portion of the lot is near the end of the flag drive and the application has made every PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 5 Total Page Number: 42 effort to minimize the impacts to the site by locating the home as close to the driveway access as possible, in this area of least-steep slopes. The Planning Commission finds that the application includes erosion and sediment control plans as well as a geotechnical report and that by following the recommendations in both, that the potential hazards will have been mitigated. The Planning Commission finds that the landscaping plan and erosion control plan will minimize any adverse impacts, that irreversible actions have been considered more seriously than reversible actions and that the single-family home retains substantially more of the site in its natural state that required by ordinance. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed site development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, or severe cutting or scarring. The Commission finds that the intent of the hillside development standards are to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the City. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development complies with the criteria from AMC 18.3.10.050.A., B., and C., for the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit for the development of hillside lands that include areas of greater than 35 percent. The Commission finds that through the implementation of the proposed erosion control, wildfire hazard mitigation, including tree removal and tree preservation, for hillside development, with the development of areas with more than a 35 percent slope. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1 generally provides that all development is to occur on lands defined as having a buildable area. Slopes greater than 35 percent are considered to be unbuildable, except that existing parcels without adequate buildable area, less than or equal to 35 percent, shall be considered buildable for one single-family dwelling and an accessory residential unit or a duplex. The Commission finds that the subject parcel was created prior to the adoption of the hillside regulations and the standard AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1. The Commission finds that the subject property does not have adequate building area of less than or equal to 35 percent when considering the need to minimize broader disturbance by limiting development of the site to an area as near the existing driveway location as possible while also providing for site access and vehicular circulation. The Commission finds that, consistent with AMC 18.3.10.090.A.3, the portion of the driveway on land greater than 35 percent does not exceed 100 feet in length. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed home and outdoor area have been located in the northeast portion of the property to minimize hillside disturbance by limiting cuts and fill for construction. The Commission finds the proposed building design with the approved exception, reduces hillside disturbance through slope-responsive design, and that the height, roof forms, and off-sets reflect the irregular form of the property consistent with the building design standards from AMC 18.3.1.090.E. PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 6 Total Page Number: 43 The Commission finds that through the application of the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, under the oversight of a geotechnical expert, a civil engineer and a structural engineer, with the implementation of erosion control measures, preservation of a substantial area of the property in a natural state, tree protection/preservation, selected tree removal for site access and implementation of a wildfire fuels management plan, potential adverse impacts have been minimized. The Commission recognizes that development of the 2.18-acre site is focused on in the area nearest the location of the vehicular access easement, therefore retaining the majority of the large property in an undeveloped state. The construction of a single-story residence with a basement reduces the building height and limits visual impacts to adjacent properties. The residence is cut into the hill's slope without the use of substantial amounts of fill. The Commission finds that the proposed cut slopes are retained and terraced with the terraces planted with erosion control vegetation, and do not exceed the maximum allowed vertical height as allowed in AMC 18.3.10.090.B.4. The Commission finds proposal minimizes slope failure and potential impacts to the subject property or adjacent properties through the implementation of appropriate drainage and retaining wall construction. The proposed development has stepped structural retaining walls to lessen the impact of a structure on the lot through the use of terracing and erosion control plant materials. The Commission finds that the proposed site disturbance is substantially less than allowed per AMC 18.3.10.090.B.3. To ensure the development is balanced with environmental preservation, by limiting excessive grading and modification of hillside slopes, the required percentage of the site to remain undisturbed is 52 percent \[27% average slope + 25% = 52% required to be retained in a natural state\]. The Commission finds that the site grading has been proposed, considering the factors found in AMC 18.10.090.B.8. The area of the proposed patio, pool, and pool deck is within an area of excavation for the construction of the residence that will provide a contractor staging area during the construction of the residence. The Commission finds that the pool is a lap pool, proposed in an area where the majority of the existing grade is slopes of less than 25 percent. The Commission finds that pools are not prohibited. The Commission finds that the proposed location of the proposed building pad, the patio area, and the pool are within an area of least slope, closest to the driveway access location, with as much of the remaining lot area as possible retained in the natural state of the original slope. The Commission finds that the proposed development reduces adverse impacts, potential hazards, and limits the amount of hillside disturbance. The Commission finds that there is 18,738 square feet of disturbance proposed on the 94,960 square foot lot, which equates to 80 percent (75,969 square feet) of the lot being retained in a natural state. This is substantially greater than the minimum percentage required. The Commission finds that the site is heavily treed, and the plan seeks to reduce fuel loads in the PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 7 Total Page Number: 44 wildfire land overlay adjacent to the construction, while protecting healthy, preservable trees to reduce adverse impacts to the subject property or to adjacent properties. The Commission finds that the proposed development minimizes fire hazard through the implementation of a fire management plan. The Commission finds the proposed tree removal is consistent with AMC 18.3.9.110 requirements for wildfire hazards mitigation plan and an adequate wildfire mitigation zone surrounding the development area. The Commission finds that under the oversight of the city of Ashland Fire Marshal, adequate fire truck apparatus access has been proposed. The proposed paved driveway with pull-outs and adequate turning radius provides adequate fire apparatus access. In addition to the fire apparatus access, there will be residential fire sprinklers, and a nearby private fire hydrant is present within the neighborhood, accessed from the shared, private driveway. An outdoor pool can provide emergency firefighting water outflow. The proposed fire safety measures demonstrate that all reasonable steps have been taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment and potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered and impacts minimized. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal meets all applicable criteria and standards for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit as provided at AMC 18.3.10. The proposed area of development is in the least-steep portion of the lot, near the end of the private drive, and the application has made every effort to minimize the impacts to the site by locating the home as close to the driveway access as possible, in this area of least-steep slopes. The Planning Commission finds that the application includes erosion and sediment control plans as well as a geotechnical report and that by following the recommendations in both, the potential hazards will have been mitigated. The Planning Commission finds that the landscaping plan and erosion control plan will minimize any adverse impacts through the control of storm water drainage upon the subject property and prevention of off-site drainage, with temporary and permanent erosion control measures, and preservation of a substantial amount of trees upon the subject property irreversible actions have been considered more seriously than reversible actions, and that the single-family home retains substantially more of the site in its natural state than required by ordinance. 2.4 The Planning Commission notes that the application as originally submitted involved two Exceptions to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. The first of these was to AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2.c which requires that downhill building wall heights greater than 20 feet require at least a six-foot step back. The applicant had asserted that this standard was limited to the wall face, and that the height measurement considered in the standard did not include the fascia and roofing above. As such, while they had proposed an 18-foot 9-inch wall face, with the inclusion of the fascia and roof above, the total height above natural grade was 23-feet 10-inches tall without the requisite setback. The Planning Commission, however, finds that excluding the fascia and roof measurements from the wall height would run counter to the intent of the standard which seeks to have the structure step back meaningfully with the hillside. The Commission therefore finds that the proposal as presented requires an Exception. In considering this Exception, the Commission notes that the application asserts that the building step backs are minimal to keep the building PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 8 Total Page Number: 45 shorter and closer to parallel with the slope of the lot, without interfering with the ridgeline, explaining that the lot is one long, consistent linear hill with rock outcroppings, and the proposed structure has differentiated itÓs masses to mimic these smaller masses. The applicant further asserts that the design minimizes alteration of the area of natural slope retention and protects the topographic character and integrity of the hillside lands. The proposal reduces the amount of cutting and scarring, and when considering the difficulty of constructing in the neighborhood, the proposal is sensitive to the adjacent properties and the impacts of construction by locating the residence on the lesser slopes of the property. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the Exception allows for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city on a challenging site. The Planning Commission concludes that in this instance, the Exception is merited subject to a condition that with final grading, the total height of the wall, fascia and foot above shall not exceed 25 feet. The second Exception requested involved AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2.d, which requires that, Ð Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet.Ñ The applicant had initially requested an Exception to provide only a four- to five-foot offset where six feet was required, however subsequent to the close of the public hearing, the applicant provided revised designs providing the full required offset while the record remained open to the submittal of new materials. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the second Exception is no longer necessary and has included a condition (#9e) below requiring that the building permit drawings reflect the revised design. 2.4 The Planning Commission notes that the application, as originally submitted, involved two Exceptions to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. The first of these was to AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2.c requires that downhill building wall heights greater than 20 feet require at least a six-foot step back. The Commission rejects the applicant's assertion that this standard was limited to the wall face, and that the height measurement considered in the standard did not include the fascia and roofing above. As such, while they had proposed an 18-foot 9-inch wall face, with the inclusion of the fascia and roof above, the total height above natural grade was 23- feet 10-inches tall without the requisite setback. The Planning Commission, however, finds that excluding the fascia and roof measurements from the wall height would run counter to the intent of the standard, which seeks to have the structure step back meaningfully with the hillside. The Commission therefore finds that the proposal as presented requires an Exception. In considering this Exception, the Commission notes that the application asserts that the building step backs are minimal to keep the building shorter and closer to parallel with the slope of the lot, without interfering with the ridgeline, explaining that the lot is one long, consistent linear hill with rock outcroppings, and the proposed structure has differentiated it's masses to mimic these smaller masses. The applicant further asserts that the design minimizes alteration of the area of natural slope retention and protects the topographic character and integrity of the hillside lands. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the Exception allows for a reasonable use that complements the natural and aesthetic character of the city on a challenging site. The Commission finds that there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the design standard for a six-foot step back. The Commission finds that the proposed development area in the area of the site nearest the driveway access and reduced step back due to the steep PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 9 Total Page Number: 46 slopes in excess of 35 percent on the uphill side of the house. The proposed structure i where the A larger step back into the hillside would disturb a greater area of the property and areas of steeper slopes. The Commission finds the structure requests an exception to the standards in one portion of the structure where the grade is steeper, and the exception does not apply to the entire downhill wall. The Commission finds that the exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The Commission concludes that in this instance, the Exception is merited subject to a condition that with final grading, the total height of the wall, fascia, and foot above shall not exceed 25 feet. The second Exception requested involved AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2.d, which requires that, "Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet." The applicant had initially requested an Exception to provide only a four- to five-foot offset where six feet was required; however, subsequent to the close of the public hearing, the applicant provided revised designs providing the full required offset while the record remained open to the submittal of new materials. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the second Exception is no longer necessary and has included a condition (#9e) below requiring that the building permit drawings reflect the revised design. 2.5 The Planning Commission further notes that the application requires a Variance to the flag drive standards in AMC 18.5.3.060.F which speaks to the maximum grade and length of flag driveways. AMC 18.5.3.060.F specifically provides that, Ð Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent; provided, that the cumulative length of such variances across multiple sections of the flag drive does not exceed 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances.Ñ The Planning Commission notes that the driveway is via an existing shared access easement to utilize an existing long, steep, partially paved private driveway. The proposed driveway improvement to serve the subject property is approximately 197 feet in total length and has an average slope of approximately 24 percent. The Planning Commission finds that the lot configuration, site topography and existing natural features are unique circumstances which prevent meeting the standard. The existing driveway serving the lot exceeds 15 percent grade and is a legal, non-conforming situation. The average existing grade is 27 percent, and there is no feasible area to mitigate the driveway grade with switchbacks given the narrow 33.04-foot width of the flagpole access to the property and no alternative access available. The Commission further finds that allowing access via the existing easement to this otherwise landlocked parcel is the minimum necessary to address the unique physical circumstances related to accessing the subject property. The Commission finds that allowing the driveway will provide access to serve a single-family residence on a legal, residentially-zoned lot of record. The Commission notes that with the proposal, one additional home serving a lot with a pre-existing PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 10 Total Page Number: 47 easement, will be served from the shared driveway. The Commission further notes that the proposal has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, and as proposed the residence will have a fire suppression system to mitigate fire risk, and that the driveway grade and the final driveway design will be reviewed by the Fire Marshal for compliance with all applicable fire codes. To ensure compliance with the requirements for a fire suppression system, driveway grade and turnout, adequate hydrant pressure, and fuels management, the Commission has included conditions of approval ( #10, 11, &12) addressing these criteria. The Commission notes that staff have provided a March 22, 1992 letter from Planning Director John McLaughlin to the record which discussed access to the subject property in the early 1990Ós. This letter stated that access from Granite Street would be the Ð most appropriate Ñ means to access the subject property if an access easement were to be acquired. The alternative access considered at the time, via a driveway from Strawberry Lane, was noted as requiring a Variance to allow for more parcels to take access off a private easement than was allowed. A subsequent August 12, 1992 letter from McLaughlin stated, Ð To summarize the above statements, if an easement is granted for access to lot 1800 from the existing drive from Granite Street, the City will allow this as the driveway to this parcel, even though it exceeds the current allowable grades. Further, a minor land partition survey will be required for the parcels to approve the boundary line adjustment previously made illegally. Once these are complete, parcels 1800 and 1801 become buildable parcels, subject to all development requirements of the City regarding driveway surfacing and hydrant/sprinkler requirements.Ñ The required partition plat was recorded as P-43- 1996 on April 12, 1996. Based on this historical information, the Commission finds that the driveway grade was recognized as an issue with the lotÓs creation, that the lot creation predates the current hillside standards, and that the need for a Variance has not been self-imposed by the current property owners. The Commission finds that the drivewayÓs location is determined by the existing private drive and the lotÓs flagpole configuration, which extends to the established driveway access. The natural slope within the flagpole area averages 24%, making it impossible for the applicant to comply with the standard requirement for a driveway on slopes less than 15%. The Commission finds that as the proposed building envelope is situated immediately adjacent to the end of the flag pole along the east property line, it is evident that the proposed building location minimizes the length of the driveway to the greatest extent feasible while still providing necessary vehicular and emergency vehicle access to the property. The Commission concludes that the requested flag drive Variance is the minimum necessary deviation to facilitate development of the site while ensuring compliance with safety and accessibility requirements. The Variance criteria are met, as the standard code provisions for maximum driveway grade and length do not account for the unique physical characteristics and topography of the site which is recognized as a pre-existing legal lot of record. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed driveway is via an existing shared access easement to utilize an existing long, steep, partially paved private driveway. The proposed driveway extension to serve the subject property is approximately 197 feet in total length from the terminus of the existing driveway and has an average slope of approximately 24 percent. PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 11 Total Page Number: 48 The Planning Commission finds that the lot configuration, site topography, existing driveway grade and existing natural features are unique circumstances that prevent meeting the standard. The existing driveway serving the lot and the adjacent properties to the east exceeds a 15 percent grade and is a legal, non-conforming situation. The average existing property grade before driveway construction is 27 percent, and there is no feasible area to mitigate the driveway grade with switchbacks, given the narrow 33.04-foot width of the flagpole portion of the lot configuration and the location of the access easement to the property. The Commission finds that no alternative driveway access is available. The Commission further finds that allowing access via the existing easement to this otherwise landlocked parcel for the development of a residential dwelling on an existing legal lot of record utilizing the shared driveway is the minimum necessary to address the unique physical circumstances related to accessing the subject property. The Commission further notes that the proposal has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, and as proposed the residence will have a fire suppression system to mitigate fire risk, and that the driveway grade and the final driveway design will be reviewed by the Fire Marshal for compliance with all applicable fire codes. To ensure compliance with the requirements for a fire suppression system, driveway grade and turnout dimensions and location, adequate hydrant pressure, and fuels management, the Commission has included conditions of approval ( #10, 11, &12) addressing these criteria. The Commission notes that staff have provided a March 22, 1992, letter from the Planning Director, John McLaughlin, to the record, which discussed access to the subject property in the early 1990s. This letter stated that access from Granite Street would be the "most appropriate" means to access the subject property if an access easement were to be acquired. The alternative access considered at the time, via a driveway from Strawberry Lane, was noted as requiring a Variance to allow for more parcels to take access off a private easement than was allowed. A subsequent August 12, 1992 letter from McLaughlin stated, "To summarize the above statements, if an easement is granted for access to lot 1800 from the existing drive from Granite Street, the City will allow this as the driveway to this parcel, even though it exceeds the current allowable grades. Further, a minor land partition survey will be required for the parcels to approve the boundary line adjustment previously made illegally. Once these are complete, parcels 1800 and 1801 become buildable parcels, subject to all development requirements of the City regarding driveway surfacing and hydrant/sprinkler requirements. " The required partition plat was recorded as P-43-1996 on April 12, 1996. Based on this historical information, the Commission finds that the driveway grade was recognized as an issue with the lot's creation, that the lot creation predates the current hillside standards, and that the need for a Variance has not been self-imposed by the current property owners nor the applicants. The Commission finds that the driveway's location is determined by the existing private drive and the lot's flagpole configuration, which extends to the established driveway access. The natural slope within the flagpole area averages 27 percent, making it impossible for the applicant to comply with the standard requirement for a driveway on slopes less than 15 percent for a flag driveway, 18 percent with a variance to the flag driveway standards. The Commission finds the PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 12 Total Page Number: 49 property grades prevent development of a driveway that complies with the maximum grade, and is a unique circumstance that applies to this property and the proposed driveway extension of the existing shared driveway. The Commission finds that, as the proposed building area is situated immediately adjacent to the end of the flag pole along the east property line, it is evident that the proposed building location minimizes the length of the driveway to the greatest extent feasible while still providing necessary vehicular and emergency vehicle access to the property. The Commission finds that the existing driveway accessing the adjacent properties and the subject property leading to the proposed driveway is in excess of 15 percent. The Commission finds the only way to access the legal, developable lot of record is via the existing driveway connecting to the proposed driveway. Because the existing grade and the proposed grade exceed 18 percent, the variance to increase the grade to the proposed approximately 24 percent is the minimum necessary. The Commission finds that the proposalÓs benefit of development of a permitted residential dwelling on a residentially zoned, legal lot of record with access via the existing access easement and the existing shared driveway benefitting the subject property and the adjacent properties furthers the purpose of the land development ordinance which is to encourage the most appropriate and efficient use of the residentially zoned land with a residential home. The Commission finds that the development of residentially zoned property, utilizing a legal access easement and the development of a driveway, will not have a substantial negative impact on the adjacent properties. The Commission finds that the city of Ashland Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposed driveway grades, turnout locations, and hydrant access and has indicated that the proposal with the fire suppression system provides adequate fire apparatus access and does not substantially increase fire-fighting response times or emergency vehicle access to the adjacent properties. The Commission concludes that the requested flag drive Variance is the minimum necessary deviation to facilitate development of the site while ensuring compliance with safety and accessibility requirements. The Variance criteria are met, as the standard code provisions for maximum driveway grade and length do not account for the unique physical characteristics and topography of the site, which is recognized as a pre-existing legal lot of record. 2.6 The Planning Commission notes that there are 74 tree removals proposed as part of the application, including nine significant trees. The application materials explain that there are hundreds of trees on the property and that the design of the project has sought to minimize required tree removals. The application states that those trees identified for removal are because they are ÐÈ within the building envelope/footprintÈwithin the proposed driveway or within the identified area of disturbance.Ñ The application asserts that, Ð The tree assessment retains most of the site slope stabilizing treesÈThe property will remain heavily treed following the removal of the small diameter fuels, the dead trees and the trees in poor condition. Tree protection zones are included on the tree protection plan including preservation plans for tree conservation during construction.Ñ With that said, the application includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 74 trees including nine significant trees to develop the site and reduce wildfire fuels in the PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 13 Total Page Number: 50 area of disturbance. The Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) reviewed the initial application which identified the removal of 67 trees at their regular monthly meeting. While expressing that the number of trees proposed for removal was substantial, the TMAC recognized that all trees proposed for removal were either within the building envelope or very close to required excavation. The most significant tree near the project, a 36-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Madrone, is partially on an adjacent property and it initially appeared that the Tree Protection Plan provided adequate protection to its critical root zone. Revised submittals received on March 18, 2025 included several trees that were not originally identified on the tree inventory, including two ten- to 12-inch d.b.h. Madrones on the property line, as well as a revised location for the 36-inch Madrone that is also on or near the property line but within the access easement and thus necessary to remove. The Planning Commission finds that while the 36-inch d.b.h. Madrone and seven additional trees that were to be removed were not initially identified in the applicant's submittals, their presence was raised during the hearing and subsequent to the close of the hearing, they were identified in revised submittals while the record remained open and therefore received due process. The applicantÓs narrative and final argument submittals made clear that the 36-inch d.b.h. Madrone tree was within the driveway easement, and that its removal was necessary to construct the driveway and to provide access to the property. The Planning Commission concludes that the driveway construction will significantly impact the 36-inch d.b.h. MadroneÓs root system, and that its removal is necessary in order to provide driveway access to this otherwise landlocked property. 2.6 The Planning Commission notes that there are 74 tree removals proposed as part of the application, including nine significant trees. The application materials explain that there are hundreds of trees on the property and the adjacent properties and that the design of the project has sought to minimize required tree removals. The application states that those trees identified for removal are being removed because they are" ... within the building envelope/footprint ... within the proposed driveway or within the identified area of disturbance. " The application asserts that, "The tree assessment retains most of the site slope stabilizing trees ... The property will remain heavily treed following the removal of the small-diameter fuels, the dead trees, and the trees in poor condition. Tree protection zones are included on the tree protection plan, including preservation plans for tree conservation during construction." With that said, the application includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit consistent with the standards from AMC 18.3.10.090.D.5, and AMC 18.5.7.404 to remove 74 trees, including nine significant trees, to develop the site and reduce wildfire fuels in the area of disturbance, with the majority of the property and the majority of the trees preserved as they are outside of the area of proposed development. The Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) reviewed the initial application which identified the removal of 67 trees at their regular monthly meeting. While expressing that the number of trees proposed for removal was substantial, the TMAC recognized that all trees proposed for removal were either within the building envelope or very close to the excavation required for the construction of the proposed site development. The most significant tree near the project, a 36-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Madrone is PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 14 Total Page Number: 51 partially on an adjacent property, and it initially appeared that the Tree Protection Plan provided adequate protection to its critical root zone. Revised submittals received on March 18, 2025 included several trees that were not originally identified on the tree inventory, including two ten- to 12-inch d.b.h. Madrones on the property line, as well as a revised location for the 36-inch Madrone that is also on or near the property line, but within the access easement, thus necessary to remove. The Planning Commission finds that while the 36-inch d.b.h. Madrone and seven additional trees that were to be removed were not initially identified in the applicant's submittals; their presence was raised during the hearing, and subsequent to the close of the hearing, they were identified in revised submittals while the record remained open and therefore received due process. The applicant's narrative and final argument submittals made clear that the 36-inch d.b.h. Madrone tree was within the driveway easement, and that its removal was necessary to construct the driveway and to provide access to the property. The Planning Commission concludes that the driveway construction will significantly impact the 36-inch d.b.h. Madrone's root system, and that its removal is necessary in order to provide driveway access to this otherwise landlocked property. The Commission finds that the removal of the trees will not have significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, protection of adjacent trees or windbreaks. The Commission finds that the trees proposed for removal consists of primarily small-diameter trees within the development area and removed for wildfire fuels reduction and nine significant trees that are within areas of development where a structure, patio, driveway, retaining wall, erosion control vegetation adjacent to the areas disturbed by construction that will not be subject to erosive action due to construction/development. The Commission finds that the removal of the nine significant trees and the smaller diameter trees will not have a significant negative impact on tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species within 200 feet of the subject property. The Commission finds that there are hundreds of trees upon the subject property and within 200 feet of the subject property. There are numerous large-stature madrone trees upon the subject property and on the adjacent properties. There are numerous ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and oak trees, the removal of the nine significant trees and the small diameter trees will not have a significant negative impact on the tree canopies, species, and tree density. The Commission finds that the proposal mitigates for each significant tree proposed for removal and proposes twelve mitigation trees. 2.7 The Planning Commission discussed the applicantÓs voluntary proposal to provide a public pedestrian access easement across the property along the TID Trail. While such a dedication is not a requirement for the development of a single-family home, the Commission recognized the public benefit of formalizing trail access in this location. As a result, the proposal has been included as Condition of Approval # 14, reflecting the applicantÓs willingness to dedicate the easement and the CommissionÓs support for securing long-term public access along the trail corridor. 2.8 The Planning Commission notes that after the hearing was closed but the while the record remained open, six comments were received from non-parties of record. The Planning PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 15 Total Page Number: 52 Commission finds that because the hearing was closed and the record left open to new submittals only from parties of record who had participated orally or in writing while the hearing was open, these six comments must be excluded from the record and were not considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission further notes that while the record remained open to new submittals, th on March 18 Planning staff provided memos to the record responding directly to a number of public comments that had been submitted. Staff responses are adopted here as findings of the Commission as if set forth in full. 2.9 In summary, the applicants have submitted substantial findings addressing all the relevant approval criteria and applicable standards for the planning action, the requested Exception and the Variances. The application addresses the unique factors requiring the need for the requested Variance due to the siteÓs topography and the fact that the lot is pre-existing with little to no slopes under 25 percent to develop, and much of the lot having 25 to 30 percent slopes, or greater, along with the requirement to take access via a pre-existing easement from Granite Street, which is an existing driveway with a considerable slope, greater than the maximum allowed 15 percent driveway grade. This driveway location allows for access to an otherwise land-locked property from an existing driveway. 2.10 The Commission finds that with the conditions below attached, the proposal satisfies the applicable approval criteria. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable criteria for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit as provided at AMC 18.3.10.050, for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands in AMC 18.3.10.090.H, for a Variance as provided at AMC 18.5.5.050, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 74 trees, including nine significant trees, as provided at AMC 18.5.7.040. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the whole record of the public hearing on this matter, and all materials submitted by staff, the applicant and other participants, the Planning Commission concludes that the applicant's site planning, building design, engineering and landscape planning have adequately addressed the criteria and standards for the approval of a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit with an associated Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to allow a downhill wall height exceeding 20 feet, a Variance to the flag drive standards for maximum grade and length in AMC 18.5.3.060.F, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove a total of 74 trees, including nine significant trees. Therefore, the Planning Commission approves the application, with the attached conditions of approval, noting that this decision is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. 1. That all proposals of the applicant become conditions of approval. 2. A Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, tree removal, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the 74 trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the remaining trees on and adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 16 Total Page Number: 53 3. All recommendations of the Tree Management Advisory Committee, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 4. Prior to building permit issuance: a. The plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Variance and Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. b. Identification of all easements, including public and private utility easements, mutual access easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements shall be identified on building permit plans. c. Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height Î6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade shall be met. d. Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 20 percent as required in AMC 18.2.5.030.C. e. Storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP- 0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. f. A revised Tree Protection Plan consistent with the standards described in 18.4.5 be submitted for approval by the Staff Advisor. The tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials onsite or issuance of the building permit. The plan shall identify the location and placement of fencing around the drip lines of trees identified for preservation. The amount of fill and grading within the drip line shall be minimized. Cuts within the drip line shall be noted on the tree protection plan and shall be executed by handsaw and kept to a minimum. No fill shall be placed around the trunk/crown root. g. No construction shall occur within the tree protection zone including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles. h. A landscaping and irrigation plan to include irrigation details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies shall be provided. i. The tree protection and temporary erosion control measures (i.e. silt fence and bale barriers) shall be installed according to the approved plan and approved by the Staff PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 17 Total Page Number: 54 Advisor prior to any site work, storage of materials, issuance of an excavation permit and issuance of a building permit. The erosion control measures shall be installed as identified in the Marquess & AssociatesÓ report dated December 5, 2024 and as approved by Public Works. j. A written verification from the project geotechnical expert addressing the consistency of the building permit submittals with the geotechnical report recommendations (e.g. grading plan, storm drainage plan, foundation plan, etc.) shall be submitted with the building permit. k. Applicant shall provide documentation for the access easement. l. Applicant shall have the retaining wall designed by the project engineer to conform with AMC 18.3.10.090.B. 5. Mitigation trees, to be planted on-site, off-site, or payment in lieu, shall be planted at the rate of 1:1 of regulated tree removals. 6. A preconstruction conference to review the requirements of the Hillside Development Permit shall be held prior to site work, the issuance of an excavation permit or the issuance of a building permit, whichever action occurs first. The conference shall include the Planning Department, Building Department, the project engineer, project geotechnical experts (i.e. Marquess & Associates), landscape professional, arborist (i.e. Canopy) and the general contractor. The applicant or applicantÓsÓ representative shall contact the Planning Department to schedule the preconstruction conference. 7. The foundation plans of the house shall be stamped by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience in accordance with AMC 18.3.10.090.F. 8. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control and fire mitigation, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas in accordance with 18.3.10.090.B.7.a. 9. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy: a. The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. b. All landscaping in the new landscaped areas shall be installed according to the approved plan and tied into the onsite irrigation system. c. Marquess & Associates shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. d. The flag drive shall be paved to 12 feet, have a vertical clearance of 13-feet, 6-inches and be able to withstand 44,000 lbs. of pressure. The flag drive shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over the private property lines and / or public way in accordance with 18.76.060.B. PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 18 Total Page Number: 55 e. The house shall be constructed as shown on the amended plans submitted on March 12, 2025, with the 6-foot horizontal offset, per AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2. f. Applicant shall provide a surveyorÓs map that confirms the driveway grade does not exceed 24 percent and that the length of the portion of the driveway in excess of 35 percent slopes does not exceed 100 feet, per AMC 18.3.10.090.A.2. 10. Requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met, including that all addressing shall be approved, that fire apparatus access be provided, that a final approval of the access plan (turnouts, etc.) be obtained, that a fires suppression system be installed in the home, that a new fire hydrant and pump be installed, if necessary, and that a fuel break is required. 11. Prior to bringing combustible materials on site, applicants shall provide documentation of fire hydrant location within 600 feet of the southwest corner of the house and of the access (easement). 12. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property. New landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018- 028. 13. Final grading and retaining wall plans shall meet the terracing requirements of AMC 18.3.10.090.B.4.b to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisor. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed residence, applicants/property owners shall execute and deliver to the City a perpetual public trail easement in favor of the City of Ashland along the existing ÐDitch TrailÑ, which generally follows the Talent Irrigation DistrictÓs (TID) ÐAshland CanalÑ as it traverses the subject property (Tax Lot 1800). Applicants shall also provide a centerline legal description of the Easement Area to be appended to the easement document and reflecting an easement area 10-feet in width and shall include the traveled portion of the existing Ditch Trail crossing the property. This condition was voluntarily offered by the applicants/property owners and this public trail easement is not an exaction required by the City and is not subject to constitutional takings concerns or nexus/proportionality analysis. April 22, 2025 August 12, 2025 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2024-00053 April 22, 2025August 12, 2025 Page 19 Total Page Number: 56 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 57 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00059 SUBJECT PROPERTY:39-1E-04-AD Tax Lot 8600 OWNER/APPLICANT: PDK Properties LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Final Plan approval for a 15-lot Performance Standard Option (PSO) subdivision. The Subdivision Outline Plan was approved by the Ashland Planning Commission adopted findings approving PA-T2-2024-00054, on January 14, 2025. The Proposed final plan come before the Planning Commission because a section that was approved as an alley is now proposed to be pedestrian access due to the existing adjacent grade. The application also includes a modification to the previous Site Design Review. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain l;ZONING: NM-MF;MAP: 39 1E 04 AD;TAX LOTS: 8600 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday August 12, 2025at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 58 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 EastMain Street, Ashland, Oregon. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at “What’s Happening in my City” at https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Andersonat 541-488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). Enter Criteria MAJOR MODIFICATIONS (AMC 18.5.6.030.C.) Major Modification Approval Criteria. A Major Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1.Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development’s parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. 2.A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3.The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings. OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3) Approval Criteria for Outline Plan.The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a.The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b.Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c.The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings,etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e.There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 59 phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g.The development complies with the Street Standards. h.The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section18.4.4.070if approved by the City of Ashland. APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAN 18.3.9.040.B.5 Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria. a.The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b.The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c.The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d.The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e.The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f.That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g.The development complies with the Street Standards. h.Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone:The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to:building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones:The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards:The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities:The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E.Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards:The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1.There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2.There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 60 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 61 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Before the Planning Commission – August 12, 2025 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00059 OWNER: CMK Development LLC APPLICANT: Taylored Elements LOCATION: 39-1E-04-AD Tax Lot 8600, 4700, 7800, & 4900 ZONE DESIGNATION: North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain ORDINANCE REFERENCES: 18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood District 18.3.9Performance Standards Overlay 18.5.1General Review Procedures 18.5.2Site Design Review 18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments 18.5.6Modifications to Approved Applications 18.6.1Definitions APPLICATION DATE: June 30, 2025 APPLICATION COMPLETE: July 11, 2025 PUBLIC NOTICE: July 22, 2025 MEETING DATE: August 12, 2025 120-DAY DEADLINE: November 8, 2025 PROPOSAL: A request for Final Plan approval for a 15-lot Performance Standard Option (PSO) subdivision. The Subdivision Outline Plan was approved by the Ashland Planning Commission who adopted findings for PA-T2-2024-00054 on January 14, 2025. The application also includes two requested modifications to the previously approved planning action: 1)A modification to the Site Design Review approval as it relates to the layout and design of the buildings as well as the design of the parking areain “Area Six”, and 2)A modification to the Outline Plan Approval as it relates to the road design, the application proposes to change what was understood to be a vehicle alley to pedestrian connection from Patton Lane to the Julian Court Alley. These changes have been proposed to better address the topography of the site, and the existing developments’ adjacent grade. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00059Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 111 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 62 I.Application 1)Introduction Final Plan approval is a type-1 planning action and therefore would not typically come before the Planning Commission. Becauseof the proposed modifications to the Site Design Review approval involve changes in the building envelopes and elevations it qualifies as a “major modification.” AMC 18.5.6.030(A) requires that “The approval authority and review procedure for Major Modification applications is the same as for the original project or plan approval.” Therefore, review and approval by the Planning Commission is required because the Planning Commission originally approved the application. 2)History and Background The Staff Report dated December 10, 2024 that was prepared for the Outline Plan approval and Site Design Review (PA-T2-2024-00054) has an extensive history of the planning approvals relating to previous phases of Kestrel Park as well as background for the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP). Rather than repeat or to attempt to summarize those items here, that staff report has been included in this meeting packet in its entirety. 3)Previous Final Planapplication On May 12, 2025, an application for final plan approval was submitted (PA-T1-2025-00268). During the review for completeness of the application staff became aware of some outstanding items that needed to be addressed including modifications to the survey plat, and concerns regarding grading. It was during this review process that staff alsobecame aware that the engineering plans proposed a pedestrian connection between Julian Court and Patton Lane. The plans indicated a six-foot gravel path as opposed to the alley standard of a twelve-foot paved surface with four-foot clearance area on either sidethat was illustrated in the prior approval. At Outline Plan approval the Civil Engineering plans had shown the proposed pedestrian connection in the grading plan, however during review of the application there was a reliance on the architectural and landscaping site plans as the main exhibits which both indicated an alley improved to vehicle standards. As the details of the existing adjacent grade and civil engineering plans were further explored it became apparent that the Site Plan and common improvements previously approved were incompatible with the site topography. A formal letterraisingthese issues was sent by Ashland Planning Staff to the applicant on June 3, 2025. Staff continued to work with the applicant and suggested that for the purpose of timelines (the 120-day rule; see ORS 227.178), and clarity of what constitutes the record,that the application be withdrawn and that a new application be submitted when those issues were resolved. On June 25, 2025, the applicant sent staff an email formally requesting to withdraw the application. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00059Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 211 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 63 4)Major Modification to previously approved plan There are two significant modifications from the design that was approved in January: 1.The Alley between Julian Court and Patton Lane is now proposed to be a pedestrian path instead of a vehicle alley due to the existing adjacent grade immediately to the north, and 2.The Area Six building design and associated site improvements and parking area have been modified to better respond to the change in elevation across the site. In the original approval the parking for the buildings was intended to be tucked under the second floor. As work was being done to address the design as it related to the change in grade across the site it became apparent the parking design would need to change. This also caused the layout of the buildings in the northeast corner to change to make space for additional parking area immediately adjacent to the alley. Note that the existing alley is being improved to the North Mountain standard width of 20’ with a paved travel lane 12’ wide and 4’ clearance area on each side. Shown below is the site plan for Area Six with dimensions showing that all of the building, parking and driving areas meet the required separation and landscaping screening requirements. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00059Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 311 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 64 For comparison the Site Plan as previously approved is shown below. Remember that the parking was proposed to be located under the units in this approval. Shown below is a portion of the Civil Engineering / grading plans showing the improvement to the existing Alley as well as the proposed pedestrian connection. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00059Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 411 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 65 Shown below are several renderings showing the buildings on Area Six and the proposed buildings. In the previous approval the renderings did not accurately reflect the existing topography. Note the relationship in elevation between the proposed buildings, in the previous approval they appeared to be very similar in elevation as opposed to the actual finished floor elevation as shown below. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00059Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 511 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 66 5)Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision – Final Plan Approval 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 Final Plan Approval Citeria can be summarized as the following: a)The number of dwelling units varies by no more than ten percent. b)The yard depths and building separation vary no more than ten percent c)The common open spaces vary no more than ten percent d)The building size does not exceed by more than ten percent. e)The building elevations are in conformance with the approved plan. f)Addresses additional standards required based on the awarding of bonus points. g)The development complies with the street standards. h)Nothing in this section shall limit the reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space. Staff have conducted a comprehensive review of the application materials and have determined the following. a)The number of dwelling units / lots is identical to the previous approval and therefore is within the tenpercent allowance. b)The yard depths and building separation is virtually identical to those on the Outline Plan. The site plan on the previous page shows that all setback requirements are met and where there are changes,they are within the tenpercent allowance. c)The application included no open space other than the parking facilities associated with the multi-family development. As the Outline Plan Staff Report explains the previous phases of the Kestrel Park subdivision, all the required open space was provided in the Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00059Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 611 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 67 flood plain during the first phase and therefore itis manifest that it is within the ten- percent allowance. d)The building size does not exceed by more than ten percent. e)That while the building elevations and envelopes are not in conformance with the approved plan, that is the purpose of the requested modification of the approval accompanying the application. The proposed exterior materials and design are identical to what was previous approved. With the approval of the modification this standard can be found to have been met. f)There were no additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points therefore this standard is met g)That the street standards have all been met based on the ROW width and proposed improvements on the Civil Engineering plans therefore this standard is met. h)That there is no reduction in the number of units or open space and therefore this standard is met. 6)Public Input Notice was posted at the terminus of each road that abuts the subject property and mailed to all properties within 200’ on July 22, 2025. At the time of this writing there were no written comments received. II.Procedural –Approval Criteria 1)Major Modification of a previously approved plan AMC 18.5.6.030 provides the approval criteria and standards for Major Modifications to previously approved plans. C.Major Modification Approval Criteria. A Major Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1.Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development’s parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. 2.A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3.The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00059Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 711 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 68 2)Outline Plan AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 provides the approval criteria and standards for Outline Plan approval: A.3 Approval criteria for Outline Plan. The planning commission shall approve the Outline Plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: A.the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city. B.adequate key city facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity. C.the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. D.the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the comprehensive plan. E.there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. F.the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. G.the development complies with the street standards. H.the proposed development meets the common open space standards established under 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. 3)FinalPlan AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 provides the approval criteria and standards for Final Plan approval: 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 vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b.The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c.The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d.The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e.The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00059Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 811 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 69 f.That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g.The development complies with the Street Standards. h.Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. 6.Any substantial amendment to an approved Final Plan shall follow a Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria. 4)Supplemental Approval Criteria AMC 18.3.5.030.C provides the approval criteria and standards for development in the NMNP. C.Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet all of the following criteria. 1.The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. 2.The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. 5)Site Design Review AMC 18.5.2.050 provides the approval criteria and standards for Site Design Review: An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria. A.Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B.Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C.Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D.City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, andadequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E.Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist. 1.There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00059Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 911 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 70 existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; 2.There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards; or 3.There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 18.2.3.090. III.Conclusion and Recommendations Staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve the modification to the OutlinePlan and Site Design Review, as well as Final Plan approval. Ifthe Planning Commission approves the application, staff recommends including the following conditions of approval below: 1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2)That the applicant apply for final plan approval pursuant to AMC 18.3.9.040.B within 18 months of this outline plan approval. The application for Final Plan approval will be required to include the following: a.That the revised civil and site plans that are to be submitted with Final Plan approval indicate 47’ of ROW for both Engle and Street and Caldera Lane. b.Provide CC&R’s for review that include sufficient maintenance for the private drive and all common area amenities. c.That pursuant to AMC 13.24.010.C that the applicant shall consult with the Public Works Director for approval of the proposed street name of Caldera Lane. 3)That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any additional work in the public right of way. 4)That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months of Final Plan approval and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. Prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for signature: a.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, public pedestrian and public bicycle access, drainage, irrigation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. b.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities, driveways, streets and common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved. c.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00059Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1011 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 71 Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. d.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved. 5)That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. 6)That the building permit submittals shall include the following: a.Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public and private utility easements, mutual access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. b.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units comply with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height –6) / (0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. c.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the applicable coverage allowances of the zoning district. Lot coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping. d.That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system through the curb or gutter at a public street, a public storm pipe, an approved public drainage way, or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00059Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1111 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 72 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Before the Planning Commission – December 10, 2024 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00054 OWNER: CMK Development LLC APPLICANT: Taylored Elements LOCATION: 39-1E-04-AD Tax Lot 8600, 4700, 7800, & 4900 ZONE DESIGNATION: North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain ORDINANCE REFERENCES: 18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood District 18.3.9Performance Standards Overlay 18.5.1General Review Procedures 18.5.2Site Design Review 18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments 18.6.1Definitions APPLICATION DATE: November 1, 2024 APPLICATION COMPLETE: November 15, 2024 PUBLIC NOTICE: November 19, 2024 MEETING DATE: December 10, 2024 120-DAY DEADLINE: March 1, 2025 PROPOSAL: A request for Outline Plan approval for a 15-lot Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision anda request for residential Site Design Review approval. The application also includes a request for a variancetodriveway widthas well asa request to remove a single non-hazard tree that is within a proposed building envelope. I.Introduction The property was created as lot-31 of Kestrel Park Phase II and was reserved for this final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision. The property is zoned “North Mountain-Multi Family” (NM- MF) and isregulated by the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP). The NMNP is codified at Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.5, and applies to all properties within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area (adopted by Ordinance 2800 in April 1997). The AMCrequires that all applications involving the creation of three or more lots in the NMNP to be processed in accordance withAMC 18.3.9 the ‘Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay’ chapter(see: AMC 18.3.5.040.K). There are two required steps to a PSO subdivision; firstOutline Plan, followed by Final Plan. For developments of fewer than ten lots, the Outline Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 116 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 73 Plan may be filed concurrently with the Final Plan, however for developments of ten or more lots, separate Outline Plan approval is mandatory prior to Final Plan. The code requires a type-1 land use action for Final Plan approval to ensure that there are findings of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan prior to construction and the recording of the final plat. The proposed PSO subdivision includes a total of 15-lots for residential development, ten of the lots are proposed for single-family residential (SFR) development, and fivelots for multifamily housing. The application includes a request for Site Design Review approval for four multifamily buildings with a total of 28-units of multi-family housing. Combined, this is a development density of 38 dwellings for the purposes of determining allowed density. In accordance with HB2001 and the adopted duplex standards at AMC 18.2.3.110 each of the SFR lots can be developed with two dwellings. 1)North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) The NMNPArea is approximately 53 acres and is located betweenInterstate-5 and Bear Creek and west of North Mountain Avenue. The Neighborhood Plan and related implementation standards were adopted by the City Council by Ordinance 2800 on April 2, 1997. Development located within the NMNP area is required to meet all applicable sections of AMC 18.3.5, except as otherwise allowed. The subject property is shown in dashed outline at right along with most of the NMNP area. This proposed subdivision will complete the northern portion of the NMNP area leaving only the 11-acre parcel to the south (tax lot #2800) to complete the implementation of the NMNP. 2)Background rd This is the 3 Phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision which began in 2018. The subject property is Lot 31 of Phase 2 andwas reserved for this final phase. The proposed subdivision will connect both Nandina Street and Patton Lane / Mountain Meadows Drive to create four blocks that have been identified previously as areas 4, 5, 6, and 7. Phase 1 was the extension of Kestrel Parkway and Stoneridge Ave., as well as the construction of Nandina Street. It consisted of 15 residential lots and was approved as Outline Plan PA-T2-2018- 00005 in December 2018 followed by Final Plan PA-T1-2019-00075 in November 2019. The final platwas recorded as CS23143 in September of 2020. The application also included Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 216 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 74 amendments to the NMNP to modify the street network and address the ‘Civic Space’ shown on the adopted map. A portion of the phase 1 plat is shown below. Phase 2 which consisted of the “cottage development” and was approved as Outline Plan PA-T2- 2020-00016 in March of 2020 followed by Final Plan PA-T1-2020-00113 in June of 2020. The final plat was recorded as CS23242 in December of 2020, and reserved lot 31 for phase 3. The plat is shown below. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 316 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 75 3)Site Description The subject property is Tax lot #8600 of Assessor Map 39-1E-04-AD, it does not presently have an assigned street address. The application also includes three tax lots owned by the City of Ashland; tax lot 4700 a 0.05 acre strip of land along the north, as well as tax lots 7800 & 4900 which are both ‘street plugs’ to be vacated. The property was created as lot-31 of Kestrel Park Phase II and was reserved for this final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision. The property is 2.27 acres in size and slopes from east to west at approximately 15% and is zoned North Mountain Multi-Family(NM-MF). II.Project Proposal – Outline Plan Subdivision and Residential Site Design Review. 1)Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision – Outline Plan Approval The North Mountain Neighborhood District regulations require that all applications involving the creation of three or more lots shall be processed under chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option Overlay (AMC 18.3.5.040.K). The proposed subdivision, shown below, will create 15 new lots and connect Nandina and Patton Streets. Because of survey regulations regarding multi-phased subdivisions lot numbers need to be sequential through all phases. Because the parent lot was #31 of Phase 2, now the numbers for the 15 lots in Phase 3 are #32 through #46. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 416 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 76 The approval criteria for Outline Plan include eight items which are summarized as follows: 1)The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city. 2)Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access. 3)The natural features, such as wetlands andlarge trees, are included in unbuildable areas. 4)The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed. 5)There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space. 6)The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards. 7)The development complies with the street standards. 8)The proposed development meets the common open space standards. The application includes detailed written responses to each of the approval criteria and design standards, and by their reference they are incorporated herein as if set out in full. Next, we briefly address each of the approval criteria, and any needed conditions of approval to demonstrate compliance with the applicablestandards. The first approval criterion is that “the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city.”This first approval criterion is all-encompassing allowing the Planning Commission to address all city standards, even outside of Chapter 18 of the AMC. The application materials explain that the proposal utilizes the Performance Standards Option Chapter 18.3.9, and that the development demonstrates compliance with the standards from AMC 18.3.9.050 – 18.3.9.080. The application materials emphasize 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. With the application materials fully considered staff concluded that findings can be made that all applicable ordinance requirements will be met. The second approval criterion is that “adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access.” Staff would reiterate that this is the third phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision and that all city facilities were sized with the capacity for the third phase in mind. The application includes preliminary Civil Plans that illustrate the various city utilities including sewer, water and storm drainage.The plans indicate that the available utilities include eight-inch water and sewer mains, and twelve-inch storm drain. Staff has consulted with the engineering department in Public Works regarding the civil plans and have confirmed that the proposed infrastructure will meet all city standards, and that there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development. Staff believe findings can be made that this approval criterion is met. The third approval criterion is that “the natural features, such as wetlands and large trees, are included in unbuildable areas.” The previous phases of the subdivision have addressed flood plain and wetland areas. For this phase the subject property has no identified natural features or wetlands to consider with the exception of the single multi branched tree that is proposed for removal and is discussed further below. Staff believe findings can be made that this approval criterionismet. The fourth approval criterion is that “the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed.” The subject property is surrounded by land that have already fully Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 516 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 77 developed. It is manifest that the proposed development will not prevent adjacent land from developing and that findings can be made that this approval criterion is met. The fifth approval criterion is that “there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space.” The application discusses the existing HOA’s that have been formed from the earlier phases of the Kestrel Park, and further states that “The three phases are also tied together through monetary commitments (HOA Dues) for the maintenance of common areas and improvements such as the site’s wetlands, common spaces, park benches, park row vegetation and irrigation and street trees.” Staff conclude that the HOA provides sufficient evidence of the provisions for the ongoing maintenance for the common open space and that findings can be made that this approval criterion is met. The sixth approval criterion is that “the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards.” The application explains in detail that the Kestrel Park Subdivision has two zones, NM-R-1-7.5 and NM-MF with a minimum density requirement between 75% and 110% of each zone’s base density. The table (page 6 in the application findings) shows that with the dwelling units developed in previous phases the proposal is within the required / allowed density. During the application review staff became aware of an error in the area of the two different zones. This error was in the original 2018 application materials and has been carried forward without notice. There are two errors in the table as it underrepresents the land zoned NM-R-1-7.5 and overstates the land zoned NM-MF. Shown below is a screen capture from the City GIS clipping the NMNP zones and calculating the area of each zone in the Kestrel Park subdivision. Note that there is a small portion of the original portion the lot that was dedicatedas open space in phase 1 that is just outside of the NMNP zoning district which is why these values sum just short of the project size of 13.48 acres. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 616 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 78 The table below sets out the correct sizes of land for each zone per City GIS and the number of dwellings approved in each zone per phase. NM ZONENM-R-1-7.5NM-MF Acres4.594.16 Dwelling units per acre3.612 Base Density(acres x units per acre)16.5249.92 minimumdensity(x 0.75 –1.1)12.39–18.1837.44–54.91 Phase 1114 Phase 2 (Cottages)510 Total Dwellings (Phase 1 + 2)1614 Remaining Density from allowedmax2.1840.91 Proposed Phase 338 As stated above, the application is for 28 multi-family dwellings, and 10 lots for single family * housing. Combined these represent 38 dwelling units for the purposes of density for the subdivision which is less than the 40 which could be allowed. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The seventh approval criterion is that “the development complies with the street standards.” The preliminary civil plans provide cross sections showing proposed improvements that meet all of the NMNP street standards including park row, sidewalk as well as paved and ROW width. The only exception to this is a portion of Stoneridge which has a 46’ wide ROW. However, as the application makes clear, this was previously approved during the first phase of the subdivision. During the original Kestrel Park subdivision approval process, concerns were raised during public testimony that emergency access and evacuation routes were limited to the bridge on Mountain Avenue over Bear Creek or to indirect access via county roads to Oak Street, the Commission found that in response to similar concerns for previous development of the North Mountain Neighborhood, all properties were required to sign in favor of and agree to participate in a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future construction of a bridge across Bear Creek to connect Nevada Street to Oak Street. As such, a condition was included to require that all properties within the Kestrel Park Subdivision sign a similar agreement prior to signature of the final survey plat. The subject properties here are within the subdivision and are subject to that original condition which has been included below. Staff conclude that with the condition of approval findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The eighth and final approval criterion is that “the proposed development meets the common open space standards.” The application notes the following: “The Kestrel Park Subdivision is 13.48 acres in size of which 5.13 acres was dedicated as open space (Bear Creek Riparian Area) and another .7 acres was platted as private open space for the subdivision’s on-site wetlands and a couple of smaller landscape areas - located at various street corners as common neighborhood landscaping, for a total of 5.82 acres or roughly 43% of the subdivision’s acreage of which only 8% is required with Performance Standard Subdivisions and an additional 4% for Site Review * The application makes clear,and staff agree, that each of the 10 ‘single family’ lots may or may not build out with ARU’s or duplexes in accordance with HB2001 and COA Ord. 3229 § 3, 12/19/2023. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 716 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 79 applications. Additionally, each of the proposed multi-family units do include an additional 8% recreational space (porches/patios).” Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The NMNP also included Supplemental Approval Criteria that require that there is conformity with both the “general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation” as well as the “specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.”The NMNP includes detailed Design standards for both roads and architectural design. The application states that the NMNP design standards are fully met and include detailed dimensions on the site plan showing that porches meet the correct size and that garages are appropriately setback from the front of the homes. The remainder of the architectural standards are discussed below under the Site Design Review approval criteria. As mentioned at the outset, the application includes a variance to driveway width from the NMNP standard. The NMNP standards requires 9’ driveways for single homes and allows 12’ for shared drives. The reason for the variance is a combination of driveway spacing standards and that Public Works will not allow nine-foot driveways. Instead, the application proposes 12’ driveway width (the public works minimum for a single lot) for the SFR lots, and 18’ driveway width for shared driveways. Staff believes that based on the topography that functionally a 12’ wide driveway can not effectively serve two – two car garages as there is not sufficient depth for the driveway to widen out. Staff believethat when one considers how cars have increased in size over the years, and the site topography that the proposal for 12’ driveways and 18’ for shared driveways can be supported. The approval criteria for the variance are discussed further below. Staff conclude with the approval of the variance that findings can be made that the Supplemental Approval Criteria criterion will be met. 2)Residential Site Design Review The applicability section of Site design review is provided at AMC 18.5.2.020.B and requires Site Design Review for both “Three or more dwelling units on a lot” as well as “Construction of attached (common wall) single-family dwellings” as is proposed here. The first criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.”PSO subdivisions are not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setback standards of part 18.2, and other standards as specifically provided by AMC 18.3.9. By virtue of being a PSO development this approval criterion iseffectively not applicable.Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The second criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).”The only applicable overlay zone is the North Mountain Neighborhood District at AMC 18.3.5 which governs all development in the NMNP area. Included in the NMNP standards are the Site Development and Design Standards at AMC Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 816 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 80 18.3.5.100. When printed these standards occupy 30 pages, so we do not address each item individually. That saidthe building elevations and renderings make clear that the architectural design requirements are clearly met as the proposed buildings features include covered porches, eves, and building offsets. The Site plans have dimensions shown that the three single family common wall buildings each include the required setback and offset for the garages as illustrated in AMC 18.3.5.100.A.4.a.Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The third criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided below.” Because the development is regulated by the NMNP many of the regulations in 18.4 are not in effect. AMC 18.3.5.020 provides in part that “where the provisions of this chapter conflict with comparable standards described in any other ordinance, resolution or regulation, the provisions of the North Mountain Neighborhood district shall govern.” That said, the site plan clearly demonstrates that the driveway spacing meets or exceeds the 24’ requirement as well as details on recycling and refuse area. The application materials include a detailed landscaping plan showing that all portions of a lot not otherwise developed are to be landscaped. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The fourth criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.”As discussed above the proposed street network and proposed City facilities have been sized specifically for the proposed density. The application includes detailed civil plans and staff are confident that findings can be made that this approval criterion has been met. The last criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsections below, are found to exist…”There are no exceptions requested to the above standards and staff is confident that findings can be made that this criterion of approval has been met. 3)Tree removal The application includes a request to remove what is described as a ‘multi stem’ cherry tree which is located in the proposed building envelope of the multi family housing. Staff have doubts about whether the proposed tree is regulated based on the photos and site visits. Based on the trees form it presents more like a shrub rather than a dominate trunk that then splits. The Tree Management Advisory Committee (MAC) reviewed the application also questioned if the proposed tree removal was in fact a regulated tree, while also unanimously recommending approval of the proposed removal. Based on the location the proposed removal meets the criteria of approval for removal as it is located within the building envelope. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 916 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 81 4)Variance As discussed above, the application includes a variance request to depart from the NMNP driveway standard of 9’ wide for single lot and 12’ for shared access. The Public Works standards provide both a minimum driveway width of 12’ and a maximum of 18’. Staff would note that vehicle size has increased over the years and would further note that a shared drive of 12’, which can then widen to a wider drive on the lot, only works when there is sufficient depth. Based on the topography and proposed lot layout the proposed 18’ shared drive is essentially meeting the standard of 9’ for each home. The variance is necessary because the public works standards do not allow a driveway as narrow as the code dictates. The 18’ is the minimum necessary when one considers that each lot would be allowed a 9’ driveway however the spacing won’t allow for it. The benefit of the 18’ shared drive reduces the curb cuts and allows for a majority of the block to be landscaped park row. Staff believe that the proposal provides an engaging streetscape while reducing curb cuts and support the variance to the NMNP standard. 5)Public Input Notice was posted at the property frontage and mailed to all properties within 200’ on November 19, 2024. On Friday 11/29 two public comment emails were received raising concerns about the proposed subdivision. Both emails raise concerns regarding the sufficiency of vehicle access to the apartment building in area 7, as well as concerns about the size of the parking areas. The second email also raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of the multifamily housing as it relates to the surrounding development. Staff would first note that the alley in question was created as a 16’ wide alley when the Plum Ridge Subdivision was created (see: CS 16571, PA2000-007), and the present proposal includes an additional dedication of 4 additional feet to meet the NMNP standards for alley width of 20’. Staff would highlight that AMC 18.3.5.040.D provides that “If an alley serves the site, access and egress for motor vehicles shall be to and from the alley. In such cases, curb openings along the street frontage are prohibited.” Staff would further note that AMC 18.3.5.100.C.3 which provides details on Street Types and Design standards in the NMNP states the following: “One of the most important features making up the neighborhood is the alley. Alleys allow parking to be located at the property’s rear and diminish the negative impact of garages proliferating along street frontages, reduces pedestrian and vehicle conflicts at curb-cuts, and reduces impervious hard surface. In addition, homes, instead of garages, fill the street frontages, providing maximum opportunity for social interaction…” Finally, Staff would note that the proposal only includes a total of six driveway curb cuts on street frontages for the entire proposal for all 38 dwelling units providing uninterrupted landscaped park row creating an engaging streetscape consistent with the rest of the NMNP area. With regard to the concern of street frontage for each lot. The email states that lots 43 and 44 lack street frontage, however it is clear that each of these lots have frontage on Patton Lane and Stoneridge Ave respectively. Next it is also clear that lot 38 does not have street frontage but is served by a multifamily parking area which will be required to have reciprocal access easements. It has long been common practice in performance subdivisions to allow the creation of lots not Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1016 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 82 meeting the minimum frontage standard provided that access can be provided over easements. In the alternative the lot could be reconfigured to have a flagpole touching the street frontage. Lastly, with regard to neighborhood compatibility staff first note that the proposed application is zoned multi-family and is required top meet a certain density as has been reviewed and approved in the previous phases of this subdivision. It is true that the size of the units in multi-family buildings is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, but again staff would point out that the zoning to the east is single family, while the subject property is multi-family. Staff believe that the intent of the neighborhood compatibility is met as it relates to the architectural features of the proposed buildings. III.Procedural –Approval Criteria 1)Outline Plan AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 provides the approval criteria and standards for Outline Plan approval: A.3 Approval criteria for Outline Plan. The planning commission shall approve the Outline Planwhen 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 with the street standards. H.the proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the city of Ashland. 2)Supplemental Approval Criteria AMC 18.3.5.030.C provides the approval criteria and standards for development in the NMNP. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1116 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 83 C.Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet all of the following criteria. 1.The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. 2.The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. 3)Site Design Review AMC 18.5.2.050 provides the approval criteria and standards for Site Design Review: An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria. A.Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B.Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C.Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D.City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E.Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist. 1.There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; 2.There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards; or Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1216 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 84 3.There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 18.2.3.090. 4)Tree Removal AMC 18.5.7.040 provides the approval criteria and standards for tree removal. 2.Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a.The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. b.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 5)Variance AMC 18.5.5.050 provides the approval criteria and standards for a variance. 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. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1316 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 85 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 landdivision approval previously granted to the applicant. B. In granting a variance, the approval authority may impose conditions similar to those provided for conditional uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners, the neighborhood, or the City as a whole. IV.Conclusion and Recommendations Staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve Outline Plan for the PSO subdivision including the requested variance to driveway width and the requested tree removal. Staff also recommend that The Planning Commission approve Site Design Review for the four proposed buildings in areas six and seven, and the three common wall single family homes. Ifthe Planning Commission approves the application, staff recommends including the following conditions of approval below: 1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2)That allnew addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Planning Department. 3)That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for driveway approaches, street improvements, utilities or any necessary encroachments. 4)That the properties within the project sign in favor and agree to participate in a local improvement district (LID) for future construction of the Nevada Street bridge across Bear Creek. The agreement shall be prepared by the City of Ashland and signed by the property owner prior to signature of the final survey plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. 5)That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. 6)That the Final Plan application shall include: a.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 with the Final Plan submittal. The street Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1416 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 86 system plan shall include full street designs with cross-sections consistent with the City’s Street Design Standards for the proposed residential neighborhood streets and alleys, as approved. 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 (to scale), 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 on the civil plans. All civil infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. b.That the applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets, street lights and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 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 within the applicable phase prior to signature of the final survey plat. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to installation of facilities. c.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 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. d.A final grading and erosion control plan. e.That the parking lot tree canopy plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect or International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist, and include certification that the plan is consistent with ANSI A300 standards. f.Calculations demonstrating that the proposed new lots have been designed to permit the location of a 21-foot high structure with a solar setback that does not exceed 50 percent of the lot’s north-south dimension based on Solar Standard A, or identification of a solar envelope for each lot which provides comparable solar access protections, as required in AMC 18.4.8.040 Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1516 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 87 g.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire apparatus access, fire apparatus access approach, aerial ladder access, firefighter access pathways, and fire apparatus turn-around; fire hydrant distance, spacing and clearance; fire department work area; fire sprinklers; limitations on gates, fences or other access obstructions; and addressing standards for wildfire hazard areas including vegetation standards and limits on work during fire season shall be satisfactorily addressed in the Final Plan submittals. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the civil drawings. h.That draft CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the Final Plan submittal. 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. i.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. 7)That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 18 months of Final Plan approval. Prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for signature: a.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, public pedestrian and public bicycle access, drainage, irrigation and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. b.The final survey plat shall include the dedication of right-of-way necessary to accommodate the proposed street system. c.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities, driveways, streets and common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved. d.Irrigated street trees selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide and planted according to city planting and spaces standards shall be planted along all street frontages pursuant to the proposed landscape plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. e.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. f.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1616 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 88 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 89 Total Page Number: 90 Total Page Number: 91 Total Page Number: 92 Total Page Number: 93 Total Page Number: 94 Total Page Number: 95 Total Page Number: 96 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 97 Total Page Number: 98 Total Page Number: 99 Total Page Number: 100 KESTREL PARK, PHASE 3 - Areas 4, 5, 6 & 7 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW PERMIT MODIFICATION, OUTLINE PLAN MODIFICATION AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 13-LOT / 16 UNIT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION SUBDIVISION SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASHLAND FOR TAYLORED ELEMENTS Subject Site (approximate area within approved Kestrel Park Subdivision) Bear Creek TH JULY 9, 2025 1 | Page Total Page Number: 101 I.PROJECT INFORMATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Area 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Kestrel Park Subdivision APPLICANT: LAND USE PLANNING: ENGINEER: PDK Properties, LLC Urban Development Services, LLC CEC Engineering 1679 Jackson Road 670 Nepenthe Road 132 W. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, Oregon 97501 ZONING: As illustrated in the inserted Zoning Map (above), the property is zoned North Mountain NM- MF (multi-family). The subject property is part of the Kestrel Park Subdivision and is referenced as Areas 4, 5, 6 & 7 on those plans. Areas 1, 2 & 3 have been recorded, public infrastructure completed, and single family and cottage housing construction has occurred. This particular proposal is regulated by the AMC, Chapters 18.3.5 (North Mountain Neighborhood District), 18.3.9 (Performance Standards Option Subdivision), 18.5.2 (Site Review) and 18.5.6.030 C. (Modifications to Approved Planning Actions). PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: -1E-04-AD. The property was created as lot-31 of Kestrel Park Phase II and was reserved for this final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision. The application also includes three tax lots owned by the City of Ashland; tax lot 4700 a 0.05-acre strip of land along the north of the subject property, as well as tax lots 7800 & 4900 2 | Page Total Page Number: 102 --MF) and is regulated by the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) which is codified at Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.5. This chapter applies to properties within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area adopted by Ordinance 2800 in April 1997. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The proposal is for a Site Review Permit Modification, Outline Plan Modification and Final Plan adoption for a 13-Lot Performance Standards Option Subdivision. On March th 10, 2025, the Ashland City Council adopted and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders for a 15- Lot Performance Standards Option Outline Plan Subdivision, including Site Design Review and a Variance (PA-T2-2024-00054). The applicants are now seeking Final Plan approval and have included civil engineering specifications, revised landscape plans and preliminary survey maps that have incorporated each of the conditions of approval. However, with the civil engineering details, various design elements of the subdivision and Site Review plan have changed and thus the current application includes a Modification request of both the Outline Plan and the Site Review Permit. It should also be clarified that Area 7, previously removed from the Site Review Permit submittals, is now identified as a single parcel and will remain vacant for the foreseeable future. Overall, the proposal remains consistent with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including the roads, alleys, open spaces and infrastructure. A total of 24 units are proposed, consisting of a mixture unit sizes and housing types, including multi-family apartments which are subject to a Site Review Permit. Of the proposed 24 units, 16 are apartment units less than 1,000 square feet and eight are single family residences, six of which share a common wall. Kestrel Park Subdivision Plan (portion of) 3 | Page Total Page Number: 103 PROJECT HISTORY:Beginning in 1995, the City of Ashland held a number of neighborhood meetings, including a design charrette, between property owners and neighbors of the North Mountain area which included City staff and Professional Land Use Consultants. The effort eventually culminated in a master plan called the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan which was adopted in 1997 (Ord #2800) Design and Use Standards to guide the eventual development. The expected build-out period at that time was estimated at 20 years. In 2004, a large portion of the North Mountain Neighborhood was approved for an 81-lot subdivision by a few homes, but later sold the property due to the poor economy. The remaining areas of the North Mountain Neighborhood are either pending eventual development or were developed between 2005-2017 by other property owners, including the Julian Square Mixed-Use Development, Great Oaks Subdivision, Plumb Ridge Subdivision, Mountain Meadows Retirement Center and the newly constructed three-story condominium building on the corner of Plum Ridge Court and Fair Oaks Avenue. In December of 2019, the Planning Commission approved a Final Plan proposal for a 15-unit, 17-lot subdivision for Areas 1 and 2 of the Kestrel Park Subdivision, including a remainder parcel which included identified future phasing Areas #3 - #7 (PA-T1-2019-00075). This area or phase of the master plan consists of single family detached homes which are predominately completed. In July of 2020, the Planning Commission approved a Final Plan proposal for a 15-unit, 16-lot subdivision for Area 3 of the Kestrel Park Subdivision, including a remainder parcel which included identified future phasing Areas #4 - #7 (PA-T1-2020-00113). This area or phase of the master plan consists of attached and detached cottage homes which have been completed. th On January 14, 2025, the Planning Commission approved a 13-Lot Performance Standards Option Subdivision, Site Review Permit for 16 multi-family apartments and Variance to driveway width. The Site Review Permit was modified, at the request of the applicants, to remove proposed units until a future date. The total number of units approved at this time was 16 multi-family apartments and 8 single family residences. th On March 4, 2025, the Ashland City Council adopted -T2- 2024-0054). PROJECT DETAILS: Subdivision: As illustrated within the attached Preliminary PUD Map (Kestrel Park, Phase III), the applicants are proposing Tract B (as illustrated within the insert on Page 3 (Areas #4, #5, #6 and #7)) be divided into 13 lots. These areas will be divided by public streets which will extend to and through the - hi-lighted areas). There are two existing alleys abutting the property that will eventually be extended or widened to 4 | Page Total Page Number: 104 connectivity. Area 4 will be divided into 2 lots, Area 5 will be divided into 6 lots, Area 6 will be divided into 3 lots and Area 7 will remain as a single parcel. The existing alley (Julian Court) within the northeast corner of the property will provide ingress/egress opportunities to the property and continue to function as it currently does for the neighboring properties. At the terminus point of the alley, roughly ½ of the subject property (Area 6) it will connect with a proposed two-way drive which extends to Nandina Street. NOTE: As previously stated, the initial application proposed the alley to connect with Patton Lane but do to excessive slopes where the subject alley intersect with Patton, this section of alley was deemed no longer feasible, but instead replaced with a pedestrian path. NOTE2: No alley improvements are proposed at this time for the alley abutting Area 7. A future Site Review application will be submitted separately for Area 7 and will address any necessary alley improvements at that time. Grading, drainage, street, and utility plans are included in this submittal. Such plans have been coordinated and designed in concert with various service agencies and City staff. 5 | Page Total Page Number: 105 Density (As approved with the Kestrel Park Subdivision - PA-2018-00005): The Kestrel Park Subdivision was approved as a Performance Options Standard Subdivision in compliance with the North Mountain Park Subdivision has two zones, NM-R-1-7.5 and NM-MF with a minimum and maximum density -down approvals: Kestrel Park - Density Allocation Table NM Zone NM-G NM-R-1-7.5 NM-MF Acres 5.99 ac 2.76 ac 4.74 ac Dwelling Units Per Acre - 3.6 12 75% to 110% Base Density Requirement - 7.4211.02 42.66 62.56 ((56.88 - base)) Approved Density (Phase I Areas 1 & 2) - 11 4 Approved Density (Phase II Area 3) - - 15 Permitted Density (Phase III Areas 4 - 7) - 23.66* 43.56** Minimum vs. Maximum Density: within the North Mountain Neighborhood District are complied with, the following explanation has been provided: *Minimum Density: The minimum density in Areas 4 7 is 23.66. As proposed, there are a total 8 single family units and 16 multifamily units for a total of 24 units planned within Areas 4, 5 and 6. The minimum eventually developed, a total of developed. **Maximum Density: The maximum permitted density with standard sized units in Areas 4-7 is 43.56 units Areas 4, 5 & 7: Areas 4, 5, & 7 remain as originally approved. Area 6: Area 6 has changed significantly, thus the request for a Site Review and Outline Plan Modification. -step process Plan) to a more refined state (Final Plan) prior to eventual roads being constructed and infrastructure installation. The primary difference between the two stages is the inclusion of civil engineering details for the proposed grades, roads, building elevations, water lines, sewer lines, etc. With the engineering details design that are necessary to review with the neighbors and Planning Commission to ensure the various standards remain complied with. engineering process and existing and proposed grades were further analyzed in relation to building elevation grades, sidewalk grades, and street/alley connections, a few key modifications to the plan were deemed necessary, all of which were in the vicinity of Area 6 due to the excessive grade change along the 6 | Page Total Page Number: 106 east side of Patton Lane. Unfortunately, the buildings illustrated with the initial Outline Plan and the preliminary drawings of the abutting unit and public alley / Patton Lane intersection did not account for the degree of grade change in these areas and thus various revisions were necessary. Outline Plan Approval Proposed Modification 7 | Page Total Page Number: 107 The proposed modification of Area 6 continues to illustrate housing units fronting both Patton Lane providing access to the north (existing) and access to the south into the center of Area 6. The parking spaces have also been revised with 4 head-in parking spaces directly from the existing alley and 8 parking spaces, one of which is a handicap space, on either side of the driveway that connects to Nandina Street. Architectural Design: Again, Areas 4 and 5 have previously been approved and Area 7 will currently remain vacant. The proposed Modification requests are specifically related to Area 6. Building elevations are attached to the submittal with Area 6 building elevations illustrated on Pages 13 20. various design standards and consideration of neighborhood context has significantly influenced the -story near the top of the property (least sloping area) and one-and-a-half story designs from the middle to the bottom floor above which allows units to nestle into the hillside similar to many other existing houses within the North Mountain neighborhood (see illustration below). Architectural elevations illustrate attractive facades for all of the proposed units and reflect designs that include a variety of architectural elements that break-up the facades such as added gables, windows, porches, decks, changes in materials, inset and reset volumes, etc. All of the proposed designs are similar to what can be found within the North Mountain Neighborhood. The design team has considered neighborhood input which have included changes to include shallow roof pitches to reduce building mass and to preserve views. II. PROJECT FINDINGS OF FACT: The following Findings of Fact in response Performance Options Subdivision Criteria for an Outline Plan Subdivision (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.9.040 A.3), Final Plan Subdivision (AMC 18.3.9.040 B.5.), Modifications (to an approved application) Criteria (AMC 18.5.6.030.C.) and Site Review Criteria (AMC 18.5.2.050) have been provided by the applicants to ensure the conditions from previous approvals. approval criteria and conditions of approval noted in BOLD regular font. Also, there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of fact are complete. Major Modification Approval Criteria (AMC 18.5.6.030.C.). 8 | Page Total Page Number: 108 A Major Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1. Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request t shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. an Outline Plan and Site Review Permit. The previously requested driveway Variance has not deviated and therefore is not applicable. The proposed Outline Plan and Site Review modifications are primarily limited to Area 6. Areas 4 and 5 remain as originally approved and Area 7 was previously withdrawn from consideration and continues to remain as a vacant parcel. The proposed modifications are primarily in Area 6 and primarily due to additional engineering and survey data provided since the initial Outline Plan. These include: Building modifications along the 8-plex building fronting Patton Lane. This change removed the rear loaded parking bays under the building. Julian Court Alley The extension of the existing public alley no longer intersects with Patton 5, the vehicular section of the alley will narrow to a pedestrian only connection. The pedestrian The building designs, building footprints and parking locations within Area 6 have all changed to The public street rights-of-way have been changed That is reflected in both the PUD map, civil, and all architectural drawings. Parking bays along Patton have been shown on civil drawings for four on-street spaces. 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements. triggered by the proposed design modifications. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings. standards. 9 | Page Total Page Number: 109 Site Review Approval Criteria (AMC 18.5.2.050 B. and C.) 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, 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 subject application complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone, including but building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, solar access and all other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements. The subject property does lay within the North Mountain Neighborhood District and subject to the standards thereof (AMC 18.3.5). The applicants contend the proposal complies with the North Mountain Neighborhood District standards, including all dimensional, building orientation standards, off-street parking, density minimums and maximums, etc. Further, supplemental approval criteria as outlines in AMC 18.3.5.030 C. for Site Plan and Architectural Review have been provided as follows: AMC 18.3.5.030 C. Site Plan and Architectural Review C. Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet all of the following criteria. 1. The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. spelled out and illustrated within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. The Kestrel Park Subdivision, a three-phased subdivision, is methodically developing as envisioned by the North Mountain Neighborhood Master Plan, including density (as demonstrated within density table on Page 6), transportation (as demonstrated on the site plan), building design and building orientation (as illustrated in the site plan and architectural building elevations). 2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. 10 | Page Total Page Number: 110 As noted in the Finding above, the proposal complies with the design requirements in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. At the time of individual building permit applications, verification of such requirements by City staff will occur. C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. The proposed application complies with all applicable Site Development and Design Standards of Chapter 18.4, where applicable. Additional Findings have been included below (See on Page 11). 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. and street rights-of way surrounding the site. Existing public utilities with capacity to service the proposed housing units have been designed and installed during the construction of the abutting streets and alleys. The attached Civil Plans illustrates the various utilities and their extension to the proposed units. The City standards and address all capacity requirements. At the time of the Final Engineering Plan submittal, final sign-off of the street construction drawings, the plans will be further refined but remain consistent with the drawing included herein. Water: The property is currently served by eight-inch water mains that will be able to connect into the proposed layout. The existing water lines extend to and through Stoneridge Avenue, Nandina Street, and Patton Lane. Sewer: The property is currently served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer main extending from Stoneridge Avenue, Nandina Street, and Patton Lane. Electricity: The applicants have met with the Electric Department and discussed the backbone installation of a three-phase system to serve the development. The Electric Department has suggested that the applicant carefully consider the needs for later phases of the development, including such details as accessory units and chargers for electric vehicles, will be provided, up front as addressing these in the initial infrastructure design will be more efficient and less costly than adding them after the fact in a later phase. The applicants indicate that a final electrical distribution will be provided for review with the Final Engineering Plan details. Urban Storm Drainage: rights-of-way abutting the property which collect urban run- 11 | Page Total Page Number: 111 in the Bear Creek open space area. Overall, the applicants contend 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. The development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. Other than a future Site Review application for Area 7, this is the final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision and all infrastructure installed in the previous phases were sized based on the total planned density. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist. Not applicable. The applicants are not requesting any exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards. AMC 18.4 - Additional Site Design and Development Standards Chapter 18.4.3 PARKING, ACCESS, AND CIRCULATION 18.4.3.030 General Automobile Parking Requirements and Exceptions This project provides 12 off street vehicle parking places and 16 sheltered bicycle spaces. Multi-family development allows for a maximum of two (2) spaces per unit, this project provides less than one (1) space per unit on average. 18.4.3.040 Vehicle and Bicycle Quantity Standards Multi-family development allows for a maximum of two (2) spaces per unit, this project provides less than one (1) space per unit. 18.4.3.050 Accessible Parking Spaces One accessible parking space has been provided within the proposed parking lot that includes a total of twelve (12) spaces. The accessible parking space will be signed and meets all of the required dimensional and slope criteria and is adjacent to pedestrian access to the buildings. 18.4.3.070 Bicycle Parking Standards One space per unit is required for this portion of the greater Kestrel multi-family development. Bicycle parking is provided with one eight (8) space shelter adjacent to the main parking lot and eight (8) dispersed spaces within the 8-plax building. The shelter parking includes 4 loops with standard spacing between (30 inches), this allows for the two furthest spaces to accommodate larger bicycle trailers. There are no obstructions to bicycle parking within the shelter. The overhead structure is oversized to allow for maximum for weather protection. The Shelter will have lighting in the ceiling and is located for maximum visibility from most of the site. The bike parking within the eight-plex includes four interior hanging spaces in closets in the downstairs entries and four sheltered loop parking places on the upper floor accessed from the drive entry. All bicycle parking spaces are easily accessed from all parts of the site. Please see sheet P L.1 B. Bicycle Parking Design Standards. Bicycle parking spaces that are outdoors are undercover and very visible from all the access points of the 12 | Page Total Page Number: 112 site. Bicycle parking spaces that are interior to buildings, the spaces provided in a closet for the lower units of the eight-plex are within the entry ways to the units they serve. The bicycle parking is centrally located to all buildings, this is a multi-building project, and the location of the bike shelter is provided for high visibility and adjacent to drive path access. The shelter will be well lit and will be very visible from all the parking spaces on the site. The bicycle parking locations, other than those interior to the buildings, are located on concrete There is only one row of bicycle parking, the walkways around the parking structure are oversized to accommodate easy maneuverability and multiple users. The 2 outer spaces of the shelter parking would easily accommodate larger family bicycles; the porch parking places allow for any size of bike to easily park under cover. C. Bicycle Parking Rack Standards. This project makes use of inverted U steel racks as specified by the City of Ashland code excluding the four (4) hanging racks that are intended for use by the lower floor residents of the eight-plex structure. All locations met the criteria of lockability and stability. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design All parking spaces, except for the 6 compact spaces, are nine 9() feet by eighteen (18) feet. The compact spaces are eight (8) feet by sixteen (16) feet. All spaces have a minimum back up of twenty-two (22) feet. There are two parking areas, one with four (4) spaces and one with a drive aisle down the middle of eight (8) spaces. The parking areas are designed to mitigate environmental impacts through the use of the following strategies: Solar energy-generating carports cover seven (7) of the parking spaces, this coupled with shade from tree canopy (cover the parking area surface within five years of project occupancy) will create 59.8% shade cover over the lots. These two combined strategies will shade more than 50% of the parking lot. This project is part of a larger development that incorporates alternative stormwater management into its stormwater system through the use of treatment swales, detention and percolation prior to the entry into Bear Creek. Trees chosen to shade the parking lots are trees are planted in a location that provides the best soil volume, where this was not possible solar carports are shown to provide the additional needed shade. There are not any conflicts with electrical supply as this project has an underground power supply. D. Driveways and Turn-Around Design. The proposed driveway is eighteen (18) feet wide and there is only one curb at each end of the parking lot. The width of the driveway has been minimized to protect the aesthetic aspects of the park row and sidewalk. A 13.5-foot vertical clearance shall be maintained throughout the parking lot excluding where the solar carports are proposed. Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area except as set forth in section. The grades of the parking lot and drive aisle have been kept to 10% or less throughout. E. Parking and Access Construction. The lot and drive aisles for this project will be asphalt, all walkways and the drive approach will be concrete. 13 | Page Total Page Number: 113 Stormwater will be removed from the parking areas via catch basins at the low points in the paving. Driveway approaches will be built to the City of Ashland Public Works criteria. All parking spaces will be striped in a permanent manner. ars from overhanging into landscape and walkways. The total parking lot area including paving and landscape is 7,023 square feet. The landscape area is 2,053 square feet which equals 29% of the parking lot areas in landscape. Six out of twelve parking spaces will be EV ready, which is 50% of the provided parking. All lighting will comply with dark sky criteria and be shielded per City of Ashland ordinance. 18.4.3.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation All walkways within the development are continuous and designed to get pedestrians safely to their front doors, the bike parking shelters, and/or the trach enclosure. All walkways connect to the street sidewalks and to the pedestrian way to the North of the site. Applicants met all applicable standards in AMC 18.4.3 and 18.4.4. AMC 18.3.9.040 A.3. Outline Plan Approval Criteria Approval Criteria for Outline Plan: The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. Unless otherwise noted herein, the applicants contend the proposed subdivision meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. That said, the Purpose Statement of the Performance Standards Option Subdivision (AMC 18.3.9.010) permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity, and innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage; provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes; be aesthetically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the impact of . As such, the proposal has: 1) Stressed energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation: The applicants are proposing to construct Earth Advantage homes with an architectural style that provides for a variety of housing types that are consistent with the volume and mass of housing in the adjoining subdivisions. 2) Used the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage: Phase III of the Kestrel Park Subdivision has the least number of natural features, compared to Phases I and II which included the Bear Creek Greenway dedication, improvements, numerous trees and wetlands. said, the proposed streets and house plans are designed to terrace themselves into the slopes in an 14 | Page Total Page Number: 114 patterns remain consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Further, the applicants have purposefully placed the densest housing type (rental apartments) on the least sloping areas of the property (east side Areas 6 and 7). 3) Provide for a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes: Subdivisions which have produced neighborhoods such as the North Mountain Neighborhood, Kestrel Park, Ashland Village, Beach Creek and Clay Creek Gardens neighborhoods which include various neo-traditional elements such as porches, street connectivity, use of alleys where possible, mitigated garage façades, street facing homes, etc.; 4) Provide for more efficient land use: The mixture of housing types within the planned range of densities in an integrated pattern improves transportation options and maximizes community interaction. 5) Reduces the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood: As noted, this particular phase is part of the Kestrel Park Subdivision which incorporated multiple preservation efforts in both Phase I and II. Phase III does not really have any significant natural features, but does include climate friendly construction techniques including full utilization of the property with small to medium sized housing units with the densest housing being constructed on the least sloping areas of the property (east side). Further, it has been the primary goal of the application to mitigate impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods by ensuring street, alley and pedestrian applicants contend the overall design of the Kestrel Park Subdivision and inclusion of these elements noted herein reduce the impacts of development on the natural environment and surrounding neighborhoods. 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. and street rights-of-way surrounding the site. Existing public utilities with capacity to service the proposed housing units have been designed and installed during the construction of the abutting streets and alleys. The attached preliminary Civil Plans illustrate the various utilities and their extension to the proposed ensure the subject infrastructure needs meet City standards and address all capacity requirements. At the time of the Final Plan submittal, as well as the Engineering Departments final sign-off of the street construction drawings, the plans will be further refined and formalized. Water: The property is currently served by eight-inch water mains that will be able to connect into the proposed layout. The existing water lines extend to and through Stoneridge Avenue, Nandina Street, and Patton Lane. 15 | Page Total Page Number: 115 Sewer: The property is currently served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer main extending from Stoneridge Avenue, Nandina Street, and Patton Lane. Electricity: The applicants have met with the Electric Department and discussed the backbone installation of a three-phase system to serve the development. The Electric Department has suggested that the applicant carefully consider the needs for later phases of the development, including such details as accessory units and chargers for electric vehicles, will be provided, up front as addressing these in the initial infrastructure design will be more efficient and less costly than adding them after the fact in a later phase. The applicants indicate that a final electrical distribution will be provided for review with the Final Plan submittal. Urban storm drainage: rights-of-way abutting the property which collect urban run- in the Bear Creek open space area. 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. open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas of the Kestrel Park Subdivision, specifically in the riparian corridor traversing through the property and the numerous mature trees within the corridor and open space areas and have not only incorporated such features into the design, but have also made such extending from the top of the subdivision (east side) down to the Bear Creek Greenway and Kestrel Park (west side). d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan, including existing residential subdivisions to the north, east and west. As such, the development of the subject property 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. and Phase II areas. No open space areas are proposed in Phase III, but common areas do exist in Areas #6 16 | Page Total Page Number: 116 for shared driveways, common landscaping and irrigation as it relates to the individual parcels occupied with multi-family housing. Lastly, it should be noted the property owners within the Phase III area are included in the overall Kestrel Park Homeowners Association, subject to Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CCRs), financial dues CC&Rs has previously been provided with the Phase I Final Plan application submittal. f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. As noted on Page 5 within the Kestrel Park Density Allocation Table, the proposed density meets the base density standards for the zone and remains in compliance with the original density allocations provided for in the Kestrel Park Subdivision approval documents. No density bonuses have been applied for since the initial inception of the Kestrel Park Subdivision. g. The development complies with the street standards. -T1-2019-00075). 17 | Page Total Page Number: 117 18 | Page Total Page Number: 118 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. The Kestrel Park Subdivision is 13.48 acres in size of which 5.13 acres was dedicated as open space (Bear Creek Riparian Area) -site wetlands and a couple of smaller landscape areas - located at various street corners as common only 8% is required with Performance Standard Subdivisions and an additional 4% for Site Review applications. Overall, the proposal complies with the open space provisions noted in Chapter 18.4.4.070. residents, neighbors and community as they provide for both natural preservation and physical recreational opportunities for pedestrian walking, active hiking, wading in creek, bird watching and for bicycling once the future extension of the Bear Creek Greenway is realized. AMC 18.3.9.040 B.5. Final Plan Approval Criteria 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 varies no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. The number of dwelling units remains the same as originally proposed and adopted with 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. The yard depths and distances between buildings have not changed from the Outline Plan, but for in Area 6. Such changes in Area 6 have been addressed herein and included with the Modification Findings as well as the Site Review Findings. All proposed setbacks along the perimeter of all the proposed buildings comply with the North Mountain Neighborhood District dimensional and Solar Access standards. 19 | Page Total Page Number: 119 c. The common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. The common open spaces have not changed from the Outline Plan to the Final Plan and in no case greater than 10%. The common open space within Area 6 has changed, but not more than 10%. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. In Areas 4 and 5, noriginal adoption and the proposed Final Plan. However, the building sizes have changed in Area 6 and have been addressed through the Modification and Site Review criteria noted herein. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. All building elevations and exterior materials will be very similar to the existing elevations and materials found in the adjacent neighborhood. All choices will be in conformance with the purpose and intent of the 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. No density bonus points are being requested. g. The development complies with the street standards. Engineering staff have also occurred to make sure safe and orderly turning movements are provided. 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. The proposed plan has not been changed as it relates to density allocations. No density is being transferred from any of the planned phases. 6. Any substantial amendment to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria. The applicants have proposed amendments to Area 6 and have responded to all applicable criteria herein. 20 | Page Total Page Number: 120 Response to Outline Plan Conditions PA-T2-2024-00054 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. Outline Plan submittal, will or have been included within the attached submittals and will be installed accordingly. 2. That the applicant apply for final plan approval pursuant to AMC 18.3.9.040.B within 18 months of this outline plan approval prior to any development or construction. The applicants are filing for Final Plan approval pursuant to AMC 18.3.9.040B within 18 months of the th , 2025. 3. The conceptual plans for area #7 are not approved here and have been provided for illustrative purposes only. Development of areas #7 shall require Site Design Review approval. The ultimate development of areas #7 shall comply with the minimum density standards of the NMNP. The applicants are aware of this condition relating to Area #7 and have made all of the necessary adjustments to plan submittals. 4. That all proposed public improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, park row landscaping/irrigation and alley be installed, including surrounding area 7, prior to the recording of final plat. Per the final civil drawings, all public improvements have been designed to City Standards and will be 5. That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any additional work in the public right of way. The applicant will obtain all necessary permits from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any additional work in the public right of way. 6. That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. A final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018- 028. 21 | Page Total Page Number: 121 7. That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months of Final Plan approval and approved by the City of Ashland. Prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for signature: a. All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, drainage, irrigation, mutual access, conservation area easements, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. b. Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities, driveways, streets, and conservation area easements, shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected, and approved. c. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected, and approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. d. That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved. The applicants will be submitting a final survey plat, completed by a local licensed Surveyor within 12 months of Final Plan. All items identified in Condition #7 a-d., will be included. A preliminary plat as 8. That the building permit submittals shall include the following: a. Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public and private utility easements, mutual access easements, conservation area easements, and fire apparatus access easements. b. Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units comply with the performance Solar Setback Standard as approved in the outline and final plans. c. Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage complies with the lot coverage approved in the outline and final plans. d. That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system through the curb or gutter at a public street, a public storm pipe, an approved public drainage way, or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP- 0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. The applicants are aware of Condition #8, and all identified under subsections a-d will be identified on all building permit submittals. List of attachments: 1 - Site plan 2 - PUD Map 3 - Civil Drawings 4 Elevations 5 Planting Plan 6 Parking and Shade Plan 7 Setback Calculations 22 | Page Total Page Number: 122 Number: 123 Page Total Number: 124 Page Total Number: 125 Page Total Number: 126 Page Total Number: 127 Page Total Number: 128 Page Total Number: 129 Page Total Number: 130 Page Total Number: 131 Page Total Number: 132 Page Total Number: 133 Page Total Number: 134 Page Total Number: 135 Page Total Kvmz!:-!3136 Number: 136 Page Total Number: 137 Page Total Number: 138 Page Total Number: 139 Page Total Number: 140 Page Total Number: 141 Page Total Number: 142 Page Total Number: 143 Page Total Number: 144 Page Total Number: 145 Page Total Number: 146 Page Total Number: 147 Page Total Number: 148 Page Total Number: 149 Page Total Number: 150 Page Total Number: 151 Page Total Number: 152 Page Total Number: 153 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC PAGE:20 PROJECT INFORMATION Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 1 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE KESTREL PARK PHASE THREE artments & Townhouses Schematic Design THESE CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS & RENDERINGS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © 2024 DE'ZIN LLC & LINDEMANN DESIGN LLC AND LINDEMANN DESIGN LLC 11 x 17 Format - Over/Under Ap Number: 154 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC PAGE:20 AREA 4 - LOTS 31 + 32 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE:PAGE: 2 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: View from N. Nandina Street Aerial View sement, i.e., 50% subterranean. NOTE: Lower level is daylight ba View from S. Nandina Street Rear View Number: 155 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC PAGE:20 AREA 4 - LOTS 31 + 32 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 3 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: HARDIE MULTI-GROOVE PANEL COMPOSITE SHINGLES CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING Lot 31 + 32 - South Elevation Lot 31 + 32 - West Elevation (Rear) Lot 31 + 32 - Patton Lane ViewLot 31 + 32 - Patton Lane View STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 12:1 HARDIE MULTI-GROOVE PANEL Lot 31 + 32 - Nandina Street View (North) NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, i.e., 50% subterranean. 10'-0 3/4" +/- (A.F.F.) A.F.F. ) A.F.F. 2nd LEVEL CEILING ) ( 19'-0 3/4" +/- F.F. ( ) 27'-11" +/- 2nd LEVEL ( 12 0'-0" +/- 1st LEVEL RIDGE 5.5 Number: 156 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC PAGE:20 AREA 5 - LOTS 33 + 34 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 4 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: View from S. Stoneridge Avenue Rear View Aerial View % subterranean. sement, i.e., 50 View from N. Stoneridge Avenue NOTE: Lower level is daylight ba View from Stoneridge Avenue Rear View Number: 157 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC PAGE:20 AREA 5 - LOTS 33 + 34 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 5 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING Lot 33 + 34 - South Elevation COMPOSITE SHINGLES dge Avenue View (West) Lot 33 + 34 - East Elevation (Rear) A.F.F. A.F.F. ) ) 2nd LEVEL CEILING A.F.F. ) ( ( 10'-0 3/4" +/- 0'-0" +/- (F.F.) 19'-0 3/4" +/- ( 26'-7" +/- 1st LEVEL 2nd LEVE L RIDGE Lots 33 + 34 - Stoneri Lots 33 + 34 - North Elevation CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING HARDIE STUCCO 50% subterranean. daylight basement, NOTE: Lower level is 12 5.5 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 12:1 , i.e. Number: 158 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC PAGE:20 AREA 5 - LOT 35 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 6 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: View from Julian Court Alley Aerial View Rear View basement, i.e., 50% subterranean. NOTE: Lower level is daylight View from N. Stoneridge Avenue View from S. Stoneridge Avenue View from Stoneridge Avenue Number: 159 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC PAGE:20 AREA 5 - LOT 35 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 7 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: 50% subterranean. daylight basement, NOTE: Lower level is , Lot 35 - South Elevation i.e. Lot 35 - North Elevation HARDIE STUCCO 27'-0" +/- (A.F.F.) 12 2nd LEVEL C. 5.5 +/- (A.F.F.) +/- (A.F.F.) 10'-0 3/4" 19'-0 3/4" 2nd LEVEL 1st LEVEL RIDGE 0'-0" ue View (West Elevation) COMPOSITE SHINGLES Lot 35 - Stoneridge Aven Lot 35 - East Elevation CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING Number: 160 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC PAGE:20 AREA 5 - LOT 36 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 8 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: View from Julian Court Alley Rear View Aerial View basement, i.e., 50% NOTE: Lower level subterranean. View from S. Patton Lane is daylight View from N. Patton Lane Rear View (South) Number: 161 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC PAGE:20 AREA 5 - LOT 36 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 9 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: 50% subterranean. daylight basement, NOTE: Lower level is HARDIE STUCCO , i.e. Lot 36 - South Elevation Lot 36 - West Elevation HARDIE STUCCO CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING 27'-0" +/- (A.F.F.) 2nd LEVEL C. +/- (A.F.F.) +/- (A.F.F.) 10'-0 3/4" 19'-0 3/4" 2nd LEVEL 1st LEVEL RIDGE 0'-0" Lot 36 - North Elevation Lot 36 - Patton Lane View (East Elevation) COMPOSITE SHINGLES 12 CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING 5.5 HARDIE STUCCO Number: 162 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC PAGE:20 AREA 5 - LOT 37 + 38 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 10 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: View from N. Patton Lane Aerial View % subterranean. sement, i.e., 50 NOTE: Lower level is daylight ba View from S. Patton Lane View from Patton Lane Number: 163 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC PAGE:20 AREA 5 - LOT 37 + 38 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 11 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: Rear View (South) NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, i.e., 50% subterranean. Rear View (North) Rear View Number: 164 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC PAGE:20 AREA 5 - LOT 37 + 38 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 12 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING Lot 37 - North Elevation Lots 37 + 38 - Patton Lane View (East Elevation) Lots 37 + 38 - Rear View (East Elevation) 27'-10" +/- (A.F.F.) COMPOSITE SHINGLES 2nd LEVEL C. +/- (A.F.F.) +/- (A.F.F.) 10'-0 3/4" 19'-0 3/4" 2nd LEVEL 1st LEVEL RIDGE 0'-0" 50% subterranean. daylight basement, NOTE: Lower level is Lot 38 - North Elevation HARDIE MULTI-GROOVE PANEL CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING , i.e. 12 5.5 Number: 165 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC LOTS 39, 40, 41, & 42 PAGE:20 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 AREA 6 - 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 13 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: Aerial View from North East View from Nandina Street View from Patton Lane View from Julian Court Alley SHADOW HEIGHT SHOWN ON 6'-0" FENCE, AT NOON ON DECEMEBER 21ST. SHADOW SHADOW Number: 166 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC LOTS 39, 40, 41, & 42 PAGE:20 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 AREA 6 - 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 14 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: View from Nandina Street View from Patton Lane Rear View (East) View from Julian Court Alley Number: 167 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC LOTS 39, 40, 41, & 42 PAGE:20 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 AREA 6 - 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 15 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: Rear View Aerial View from North East Side View Alley and Nandina Street Aerial View from South East View from Julian Court Number: 168 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC LOTS 39, & 40 PAGE:20 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 AREA 6 - 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 16 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: ex - Rear Elevation COMPOSITE SHINGLES Plex - Front Elevation COMPOSITE SHINGLES Area 6 - Paton Eight Pl Area 6 - Patton Eight STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF CEMENTITIOUS SIDING STUCCO Area 6 - Patton Eight Plex - Side Elevation CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING Plex - Side Elevation Area 6 - Patton Eight 25'-11" +/- (A.F.F.) 2nd LEVEL C. 12 +/- (A.F.F.) +/- (A.F.F.) 19'-0 3/4" 10'-0 3/4" 2nd LEVEL 1st LEVEL 5.5 RIDGE 0'-0" Number: 169 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC LOTS 41, & 42 PAGE:20 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 AREA 6 - 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 17 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: CEMENTITIOUS SIDING Plex - Rear Elevation Plex - Side Elevation COMPOSITE SHINGLES Area 6 - Nandina Eight Area 6 - Nandina Eight 12 5.5 Plex - Side Elevation COMPOSITE SHINGLES CEMENTITIOUS SIDING Area 6 - Nandina Eight Plex - Front Elevation Area 6 - Nandina Eight STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF STUCCO 26'-7 1/4" +/- 2nd LEVEL C. +/- (A.F.F.) +/- (A.F.F.) 19'-0 3/4" 10'-0 3/4" 2nd LEVEL 1st LEVEL A.F.F. RIDGE ) 0'-0" ( Number: 170 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC Section Views PAGE:20 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 AREA 6 - 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 18 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: 5.5 12 Area 6 - Paton Eight Plex - Section 2 Unit 14 Unit 16 5.5 12 Unit 4 Area 6 - Nandina Eight Plex - Section Unit 2 2nd LEVEL C. +/- (A.F.F.) +/- (A.F.F.) A.F.F. 19'-0 3/4" 10'-0 3/4" 2nd LEVEL ) (1790.3') 1st LEVEL 25'-11" RIDGE ( +/- 0'-0" ex - Section 1 (North) 5.5 12 Unit 1 Unit 10 Unit 3 Area 6 - Patton Eight Pl Unit 12 26'-7 1/4" +/- 0'-0" (1804.5') 2nd LEVEL C. +/- (A.F.F.) +/- (A.F.F.) 19'-0 3/4" 10'-0 3/4" 2nd LEVEL 1st LEVEL A.F.F. RIDGE ) ( 0'-0" (1789.5') 2nd LEVEL C. +/- (A.F.F.) +/- (A.F.F.) 19'-0 3/4" 10'-0 3/4" A.F.F. 2nd LEVEL ) 1st LEVEL 25'-11" RIDGE ( +/- Number: 171 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC Section Views PAGE:20 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 AREA 6 - 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 19 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: ex - Section 1 (North) 5.5 Area 6 - Patton View - Walking Path 12 Unit 10 Area 6 - Patton Eight Pl Unit 12 Area 6 - Patton View - Walking Path PARKING LOT 1799.5' +/- 1789.5' +/-1786.5' +/- SIDEWALK 1st LEVEL View - Walking Path ew - Walking Path PEDESTRIAN PATH Area 6 - North Patton PEDESTRIAN PATH Area 6 - Aerial Vi Number: 172 +1 541-690-161 7 LLLL +1 541-690-161 7+1 503-917-026+1 503-917-02677CC Section Views PAGE:20 Page 97520 LINDEMANN DESIGNLINDEMANN DESIGN 97520 9752097520 AREA 6 - 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR OFOF Total 1679 Jackson Rd, Ashland, OR Ashland, ORAshland, OR DATE: 9th of July, 202 5 CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION, LLC. PAGE: 20 CONSTRUCTION, LLC. 170 Harrison Street, 170 Harrison Street, AREAS 4, 5, & 6 TAYLORED ELEMENTS AREA 4, 5, 6 - CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE TAYLORED ELEMENTS DE'ZIN LLCDE'ZIN LLC PAGE:PAGE: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT: KESTREL PARK - PHASE 3 OWNER/CLIENT:HOME DESIGNER:HOME DESIGNER: Area 6 - Aerial View - Solar Area 6 - Patton View - Solar SHADOW LINE SHADOW HEIGHT SHOWN ON 6'-0" FENCE, AT NOON ON DECEMEBER 21ST. View - Solar Area 6 - Aerial SHADOW LINE SHADOW LINE Number: 173 Page Total Number: 174 Page Total 175 Number: Page Total 176 Number: Page Total 177 Number: Page Total