HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-09_Planning PACKET
Page 1 of 2
Total Page Number: 1
Page 2 of 2
Total Page Number: 2
Planning CommissionMinutes
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any PlanningCommission 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.
September 23, 2025
STUDY SESSION
DRAFT Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Vice-Chair KenCairncalled the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.at theCivic Center Council Chambers,
1175 E. Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Kerry KenCairn Brandon Goldman, CommunityDevelopment Director
Eric Herron Jordan Rooklyn, Deputy City Manager
Susan MacCracken Jain Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Russell Phillips
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
John Maher Jeff Dahle (absent)
Lisa Verner
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Staff Announcements:
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcement:
The Ashland Wildfire Emergency Drillisscheduled for October 11, 2025. Interested
participants should visit the City's webpage at ashlandoregon.govto sign up before
September 30.
A public meeting will be held at Hunter Parkregarding thetennis court restoration on
September 24 at 5:30p.m.at the Ashland Senior Center.
The "Coffee and Conversation with City Council and Staff" is scheduled for October 14 from
1:00 to 2:30p.m.at North Mountain Park.
The October 14, 2025Planning Commission Regular Meeting willinclude a site review for a
multifamily development at 300 Clay Street.
2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None
III.PUBLIC FORUM – None
Page 1 of 2
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail
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
IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS
1.Special Permits
Deputy City ManagerJordan Rooklynpresented on streamlining the City's special event permitting
process, explaining that currently there are 11 different short-term permits across 6 departments,
referenced in 3 different code locations includingLand Use underChapter 18 (see attachment).
The proposal would:
Create a new Chapter 2.69 "Special Event" in the city code
Consolidate all permits into one application and review process
Move certain special event permits from land use code to administrative code
Create a formal appeal process for denied permits
Remove the current rush fee for late applications
Provide more flexibility for downtown sidewalk sales
Codify First Friday events
The Commission recommended removing the limits on event occurrences to benefit the City, while
allowing administration to address any arising issues. The Commission highlighted safety concerns
about food trucks, such as extension cords, generators, and gas, with Ms. Rooklynconfirming that
inspectionswouldinvolve theCityFire Marshal. The Commission supported allowing food trucks in
public rights-of-way only with full street closures and proper safety measures, as well as permitting
them at block parties in residential areas if neighbors approve. Ms. Rooklynnoted plans to revisit the
Planning Commission for a public hearing in early 2026, aiming for a July 1, 2026, implementation.
IV.OPEN DISCUSSION – None
V.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:38p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 2 of 2
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail
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
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any PlanningCommission 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.
October 14, 2025
STUDY SESSION
DRAFT Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Vernercalled the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.at theCivic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street.She noted that Jay Lininger had been appointedto the Commission by the City Council,
but was absent from the meeting due to illness.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, CommunityDevelopment Director
Eric Herron Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor
Susan MacCracken Jain Veronica Allen, Associate Planner
Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
John Maher
Kerry KenCairn
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Jay Lininger Jeff Dahle (absent)
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Staff Announcements:
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
A community resource fair by the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committeeis being
heldon October 20, 2025at the Ashland Public Library from 4:00-6:00 p.m. It would provide
information on various community support resources.
On October 7, the City Council approved the Fern Street vacationwith the exception ofthe
public access easement, and the SOU master plan amendment removing conditional permit
requirements to aid Cascade Hall's redevelopment. SOUremains interested in providing a
public access easement, with the Public Works Department collaborating on this.
A retreat will be held on October 28 at 51 Windburn Way 11:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m., replacing the
regular Study Session. Presentations will include reviews on wildfire protection and
emergency evacuation planning. Tours of recent multifamily project developments in
Ashland have been arranged.
2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None
Page 1 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail
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
III.CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
1. August 26, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes
2. September 9, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes
Commissioners Phillips/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented.
Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed 6-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None
V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00060
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 300 Clay St. (Map 39 1E 11CB Tax Lot 1100)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for Bentella LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review permit approval to construct four four-
plex buildings as part of Phase 1 in the recently approved Caldera Oaks Subdivision at 300
Clay Street. Each four-plex consists of four two-story units. Eight of the 16 total units will be
deed-restricted affordable housing. The application includes a request for a Solar Setback
Exception to allow the northernmost four-plex building to cast a greater shadow on the
property to the north (2272 Dollarhide Way)than would be cast by a six-foot fence built on
the property line; the property owner to the north has agreed to the proposed shadowing.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Suburban Residential;ZONING: R-1-3.5;MAP: 39-1E-11-
CB;TAX LOT: 1100
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Herron and Maher disclosed site visits, with other Commissioners stating that they
were familiar with the property. No ex parte contact wasdisclosed.
Staff Presentation
Associate Planner Veronica Allen presented the application for 300 Clay Street, recently annexed
under the Caldera Oaks subdivision, comprising 29 lots and 37 units. The application focused on the
site design review for four 4-plex buildings (16 units total) at the rear, with eight units deed-restricted
for affordable housing. Two exceptions were sought: one to solar setbacks for lot 25 and another for
landscape buffer requirements. The property to the north agreed in writing to the additional
shadowing. The landscape buffer was proposed at five feet instead of the required eight, with a
suggestion to move a landscape bay to reduce headlight impact on the unit. Ms. Allen noted the
Page 2 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 6
Planning CommissionMinutes
solar exception for lot 25, where shadows would extend to 22 feet 1.5 inches into the northern
property, with photos indicating the shadow's base(see attachment #1).
Staff recommended approval of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the packet and
an additional condition to shift the landscape island three spaces north to minimize impacts to the
building on lot 25, if the Planning Commission deemed necessary.
Applicant Presentation
Amy Gunter from Rogue Planning and Development Services presented for the applicant. She
explained that TID ditches on the property had been converted to pipes, leading to reduced
wetlands. The soil was impermeable, causing perched water. Lots 24 and 25 would house the deed-
restricted affordable units. Development features included a private drive from Engle Street, bike
parking, a 5-foot walkway, EV chargers for 40% of parking, landscaping, a play area, picnic tables,
and a barbecuearea. Each home included a 10x10 patio and private yard. Initially designed with ski-
lodge roofs, the buildings had shed roofs due to solar constraints, and lot 25’s roof was altered to
reduce shadow on the neighboring property. All four-plexes were two stories, with identical floor
plans for 886 sq ft end units and 861 sq ft interior units. Ms. Gunter also agreed to shift the landscape
planter and use compact parking to improve the buffer area, and highlighted that the solar
exception mainly affected the yard, not the buildings(see attachment #2).
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public record at 7:35 p.m.
During discussions,theCommissionexpressedconcerns regarding compact spaces and landscape
buffer solutions to better manage impacts on nearby units. Confirmations were sought on
maintaining equal floor plans across all buildings and implementing necessary exceptions without
compromising unit integrity.
Commissioners Phillips/Maher m/s to approve planning action PA-T2-2025-00060 based on the
staff report, applicant materials, and testimony in the record subject to the conditions of approval
in the staff report as amended, specifically:
1.Correcting condition 8c to state the maximum lot coverage is 55 percent
2.Adding condition 10e: All fencing shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan
and shall be inspected and approved by the staff adviser prior to the final project approval
or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
3.Adding condition 10f: All other conditions of approval shall be satisfied to the staff adviser's
satisfaction prior to the final project approval or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
4.Adding a headlight mitigation condition: Landscape island and trees shall be shifted 3
spaces north adjacent to lot 25 as discussed in the staff report to provide screening and
prevent vehicle headlights from shining into the west facing window where the landscape
buffer is reduced. Final location and species subject to staff adviser approval
Page 3 of 4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 7
Planning CommissionMinutes
5.Grammatical correction to remove the word "that" from the beginning of conditions
Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
IV.OPEN DISCUSSION
The Commission expressed concerns about exceptions potentially setting a precedent, and
compact parking becoming problematic. The influence of insurance requirements on property
development was flagged as a topic for further discussion at theupcoming retreat.
Mr. Goldman stated that the November 11, 2025meeting might require adjustments due to the
Veterans Day holiday, with a potential need for special scheduling foranytime-sensitive
applications.
V.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:54p.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, pleaseemail
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 8
Planning CommissionMinutes
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any PlanningCommission 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.
October 28, 2025
SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Vernercalled the meeting to order at 11:02 a.m.at theSiskiyou Room at 51 Winburn Way.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, CommunityDevelopment Director
Eric Herron Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor
Susan MacCracken Jain Veronica Allen, Associate Planner
Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
John Maher
Kerry KenCairn
Jay Lininger
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Jeff Dahle (absent)
II.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2025-00060, 300 Clay Street.
Chair Verner noted that Commissioner Phillip had suggested minor changes to staff for clarity (see
attachment #1). Community Development Director Brandon Goldman stated that these changes
had been made and these updated Findings would be what the Commission would vote to approve.
Ex Parte Contact – None
Decision
Commissioners KenCairn/Phillips m/s to approve Findings with the amendments suggested by
Commissioner Phillips. Commissioner Lininger abstained from voting due to his absence from the
October 14, 2025 meeting. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
IV.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:08 a.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 1 of 1
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Total Page Number: 9
Total Page Number: 10
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 11
Total Page Number: 12
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 13
Total Page Number: 14
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2025-00061
SUBJECT PROPERTY:44 Scenic Drive & 0* Scenic Drive TL 7302
APPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development
OWNER: Stanley Family Trust & Suncrest Homes
DESCRIPTION: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO)
subdivision. The subdivision includes two parent parcels which are tax lots 5701 & 7302 of assessor’s map 39-1E-08-AD.
These are proposed to be subdivided into five new lots, one of which will retain the existing house at 44 Scenic, and four lots
for new residential construction. The application also includes a Physical and Environmental constraints review for the
proposed private drive to serve lots three, four and five. Additionally, a request to remove eleven trees, seven of which are
significant trees, and a request for an exception to street standards to not install standard street improvements due to the
existing sidewalk that was previously improved through an LID in the early 2000s.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; MAP:39-1E-08-AD; TAX LOT: 5701 & 7302
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday December 9, 2025at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic
Center, 1175 East Main Street
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 15
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 Veronica Allenat 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
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
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
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 16
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.
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
18.3.10.050
An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall beapproved if the proposal meets all
of the following criteria.
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 shallbe 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.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.B)
1.Hazard Tree.A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the followingcriteria, or
can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a.The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likelyto fall and injure
persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and suchhazard or danger cannot
reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b.The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
2.Tree That is Not a Hazard.A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application
meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinancerequirements
and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental
Constraints in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees,
or existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversitywithin 200 feet of
the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no
reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making
this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscapingdesigns that would lessen
the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 17
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.
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.4.6.020.B.1
Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all
of the following circumstances are found to exist.
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the
site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle
cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency
crossing roadway.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 18
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 19
Total Page Number: 20
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Before the Planning Commission - December 9, 2025
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00061
OWNER: Charlie Hamilton
APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
LOCATION: 40-44 Scenic Drive (39 1E 08AD Tax Lot 5701)
Vacant/Unaddressed Parcel (39 1E 08AD Tax Lot 7302)
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCES: 18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones
18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones
18.3.9 Performance Standards Overlay
18.3.10 Development Standards for Hillside Lands
18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation, and Design
18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation
18.4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection
18.4.6 Exception to Street Design Standards
18.4.8 Solar Access
18.5.1 General Review Procedures
18.5.3 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat
Criteria
18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments
18.5.7 Tree Removal Permits
18.6.1 Definitions
APPLICATION DATE: October 16, 2025
PUBLIC NOTICE: November 17, 2025
MEETING DATE: December 9, 2025
120-DAY DEADLINE: March 15, 2026
PROPOSAL: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance
Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The subdivision includes two parent parcels which are tax
lots 5701 & 7302 of assessor’s map 39 1E 08AD. These are proposed to be subdivided into five
new lots, one of which will retain the existing house at 44 Scenic Drive, and four lots for new
residential construction. The application also includes a Physical and Environmental Constraints
Review Permit to construct the proposed private drive to serve Lots 3, 4 and 5 on hillside lands; a
Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees, seven of which are significant trees; and an Exception
to the Street Design Standards to not install standard street improvements to retain the existing
curb-tight sidewalk that was installed through a Local Improvement District (LID) in the early
2000’s.
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 1 of 15
Total Page Number: 21
I.Introduction
Site Description
The subject properties are vacant Tax Lots #7302 and #5701, addressed as 40-44 Scenic Drive, of
Assessor’s Map 39 1E 08AD. The properties are 0.91 and 0.36 acres respectively and are zoned
R-1-7.5 (Single Family Residential). Both properties are located within the Skidmore Academy
Historic District; the existing house on Tax Lot #5701 was constructed in the 1990’s and is
considered “Non-Historic/Non-Contributing” in the Skidmore Academy Historic District survey
document.
The driveway for Tax Lot #5701 is non-conforming both for its width and for having two curb cuts
along the property’s Scenic Drive frontage. The applicant proposes to shift the southern curb cut
to the north to provide the requisite driveway separation from the new proposed private drive. The
existing frontage improvements along both properties include curb-tight sidewalks within the
public right-of-way (ROW) but no street trees or park row planting strips. The application includes
a request for an Exception to the Street Design Standards to retain the existing curb-tight sidewalk
without installing a park row planting strip.
Tax Lot #5701 was created in the 1800’s in its current size and rectangular shape with
approximately 167 feet of street frontage; the vacant property of Tax Lot #7302 came into its
present size and shape when it was partitioned in 2023 (PA-T1-2021-00168, recorded as County
Survey #23880) and is irregularly shaped with approximately 65-feet of frontage (the minimum
lot width for the zone is 65-feet). The property is approximately 211 feet in depth and is sloped at
approximately 14 percent. There is a steep incline along the west property line with slopes
exceeding 35 percent.
Application History
The property located at 44 Scenic Drive has previously received approval through a Type I
planning action for Site Design Review(PA-T1-2020-00112) to construct a 920 square foot ARU
in the basement of the existing home. The conversion has since been completed and addressed as
40 Scenic Drive.
The vacant property, referred to as Tax Lot #7302 was originally part of the parent parcel located
at 34 Scenic Drive. As part of the parent parcel at 34 Scenic Drive, an application was submitted
in 2021 as PA-T1-2021-00168 to partition the property into three parcels. This planning action was
appealed in 2022 as APPEAL-2022-00014. The appeal was upheld by the Planning Commission
in March of 2022 which included condition #2: “That any future developments of Parcel 3 shall
demonstrate compliance with vehicle standards of AMC 18.4. The applicant’s proposal to satisfy
this requirement by providing primary vehicular access from Scenic Drive will require a separate
approval of a Physical and Environmental constraints review.” The applicant has included a
physical and environmental constraints review as part of this application, as required by the 2021
application and subsequent appeal.
II. Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision – Outline and Final Plan
The Land Use Ordinance provides a Performance Standards Option (PSO) for subdivisions in
AMC Chapter 18.3.9. The purpose of the chapter is provided in AMC 18.3.9.010, which states:
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 2 of 15
Total Page Number: 22
The purpose of this chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is
permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy
efficiency, architectural creativity, and innovation; use the natural features of the
landscape to their greatest advantage; provide a quality of life equal to or greater
than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes; be
aesthetically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the impact
of development on the natural environment and neighborhood.
1) Applicability
The subject properties are not located within the PSO overlay; however, the land use ordinance
allows for the use of the PSO chapter outside of the overlay in certain circumstances. In this case
the application relies on AMC 18.3.9.030.D.2 which provides:
That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and
the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the
maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its
aesthetic and environmental impact.
In staff’s assessment, the subject property has limited street frontage for its relatively large area
and includes some steep slopes and mature trees within an existing, established historic
neighborhood, and the use of the PSO chapter is appropriate. ThePerformance Standards Options
Chapter provides flexibility to achieve more efficient land use while reducing impacts on the
environment and the neighborhood.
2) Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision – Outline Plan Approval
The proposed subdivision will create five lots, including four new residential lots. The application
also requests an Exception to the StreetDesign Standards to not install standard street frontage
improvements and to instead retain the existing curb-tight sidewalk.
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 and large trees, are included in unbuildable areas.
4) The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed.
5) There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space.
6) The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards.
7) The development complies with the street standards.
8) The proposed development meets the common open space standards.
Each of these approval criteria is briefly discussed below along with any conditions of approval
necessary to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards.
The first approval criterion is that “the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements
of the city.” 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
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 3 of 15
Total Page Number: 23
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. The applicant has provided written findings addressing
each of the approval criteria in detail, and by their reference the applicant’s findings are
incorporated herein as if set out in full.
For a Performance Standards Option Subdivision, standard setbacks only apply to the perimeter
of the parent parcel. Here, these setbacks would be based on the North and South property lines
being “sides,” the East property line being the “rear,” and the West property line - exclusive of
the flagpole - being the “front.” Typical setbacks for a historic district are 20 feet for the front
yard, six-feet for side yards, and ten-feet per story or five-feet per half story for rear yards. In this
case, the parent parcel’s 20-foot front setback would only apply to the parent parcel perimeter,
which is where the driveway and the tree protection for the existing pines are proposed.
In addition to parent parcel perimeter setbacks, PSO developments must also comply with the
minimum separation requirements of AMC 18.3.9.070. The separation between two buildings
must be at least half of the height of the tallest building, where building height is measured at the
two closest exterior walls, and the maximum required separation is 12 feet. Submittals indicate
approximately 12 feet proposed between buildable envelopes. Final building permit submittals
will be required to demonstrate compliance with this standard, as conditioned below.
Solar Access standards in a Performance Standard Options Subdivision provide for two options to
address solar access, either:
A. New lots shall be designed to permit the location of a 21-foot high structure with a
setback which does not exceed 50 percent of the lot's north-south lot dimension
or;
B.A solar envelope shall be used to define the height requirements that will protect
the applicable solar access standard
In this proposal the applicant has indicated how each lot will meet the solar access performance
standard outlined in A above: starting with Lot 1 with the existing house, there will be no changes
so solar will remain unchanged; Lot 2 is indicated to only accommodate a ten-foot tall structure
with an eight-foot setback or may need a solar access exception at the time of building permit
depending on design (using the same data, staff finds that a 21-foot tall structure would require a
38.76 foot setback); Lot 3 is proposed to need a 28.2-foot tall setback for a 21-foot tall structure;
Lot 4 indicates a ten-foot structure would require an 8.7-foot setback (using the same data, staff
finds that a 21-foot tall structure would require a 35.12 foot setback); and Lot 5 is proposed to need
a 9.7-foot setback for a ten-foot tall building (using the same data, staff finds that a 21-foot tall
structure would require a 36.41 foot setback). In staff’s assessment, all calculated setbacks for a
21-foot structure are less than half of the lot’s north-south dimension. A condition has been
recommended below to require that all building permit submittals demonstrate compliance with
Solar Access Standard A.
Each of the four new residential lots is over 7,500 square feet in area, and the application has
considered Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) calculations for future development. The
proposed buildable envelopes do not encroach on slopes that exceed 35percent which are defined
as ‘severely constrained’ and considered by code to be unbuildable.
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 4 of 15
Total Page Number: 24
The application explains that the existing driveway of 40 Scenic Drive encroaches onto the vacant
property to the south, and the creation of a new shared driveway would create non-conforming
driveway separation. The application proposes redeveloping the existing driveway approach by
shifting it to the north to reduce its width so that the required 24-foot separation is met from the
new driveway to the south. The land use ordinance requires that a driveway over 50 feet in length
shall meet the width and design requirements of AMC 18.5.3.060. Those standards require that
“Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20-feet, with a 15-foot paved driving
surface.” The application materials show a 20-foot wideaccess easement proposed to be improved
with a 15-foot paved driving surface and indicates a hammerhead turn-around area is proposed.
The grading plan indicates that no portion of the drive is proposed to be steeper than 15 percent.
The fire access and turnaround (hammerhead) will need to be verified by the Ashland Fire
Department at the time of building permit submittal, and this has been included as a condition of
approval. A condition has also been included that proposed screening be identified on the civil and
permit drawings to ensure that an adequate clear width is maintained and fire apparatus access will
not be obstructed. With these conditions, this approval criterion has been met.
The second approval criterion is that “Adequate key city facilities can be provided including water,
sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and
fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a city facility
to operate beyond capacity.” The subject property fronts on Scenic Drive, which is contains all
city utilities including water, sewer, storm drainage and electricity. The Public Works/Engineering
has reviewed the proposal and has identified no concerns regarding the capacity of any of these
services for the four newly created lots. Scenic Drive is paved and has a curb-tight sidewalk on the
subject property’s frontage. More specific details with regard to street standards are addressed in
the sixth approval criterion below.
The utility plan provided shows sewer, storm drainage, and water being installed to roughly
follow the private drive and branch to each of the individual lots. In staff’s assessment, there is
adequate information in the submitted materials to support a finding that this criterion has been
satisfied.
The third approval criterion is that “The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands,
floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan
of the development and significant features have been included in the common open space,
common areas, and unbuildable areas.” The application includes a tree inventory for all trees
greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); each tree on the inventory includes a
circle depicting the tree’s arborist-identified critical root zone (CRZ) which equates to one-foot in
radius for every inch of the tree's diameter at 54-inches above the ground. The plan shows that ten
trees are proposed for removal, seven of which are by definition considered to be significant (i.e.
conifers having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger in DBH, or deciduous trees having a trunk 12
caliper inches in DBH). All the trees that are proposed for removal are in the private drive area,
utility trenching area, or building envelopes, and several are noted as being in moderate or poor
health as discussed further below.
The arborist’s report provided by Chris John of Canopy LLC discussed the ten trees proposed for
removal. Three trees (#1121, 1122, and 1133) are within or immediately adjacent to the proposed
building envelopes, one tree (#1132) is within the proposed driveway, and six trees (#1138, 1148,
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 5 of 15
Total Page Number: 25
1161, 1162, 1163, and 1167) are in close proximity to proposed utility lines where excavation is
within their critical root zones and would “most likely cause irreparable damage to the trees’ health
and jeopardize their stability.” With regard to the trees in the envelopes, the arborist’s report
recommends to, “Remove the following trees due to unavoidable construction conflicts: Lot 4: One
24” DBH fir \[#1133\], Lot 3: Two 36” DBH cottonwoods \[#1121 & 1122\].” The applicant’s
narrative states that, “There are no reasonable alternatives to the removal of the trees located
within the building envelopes if the property is to be used as permitted.”
As this staff report is being prepared, the Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) has not
yet reviewed the application but is scheduled to do so after packets are to be distributed. Staff will
seek specific input on the proposed tree removals, including: 1) Whether there are options such as
directional boring which might reasonable enable the preservation of at least some of the trees
proposed for removal to accommodate utility trenching? And 2) Whether there are adjustments of
the proposed building envelopes that would enable the preservation of at least some of the trees
proposed for removal? TMAC recommendations will be provided to the Planning Commission at
the public hearing and discussed in detail in the staff presentation.
The fourth approval criterion is that “T he development of the land will not prevent adjacent land
from being developed for the uses shown in the comprehensive plan.” The subject property is
surrounded by medium- to large-sized parcels that are mostly fully built out and developed with
single family homes. There is one parcel immediately adjacent to the East that ismore than twice
the minimum lot size for the zone and not fully built out or developed. Development of the subject
parcels will not prevent the adjacent lot from further developing and could potentially make it
easier to do so by improving the easement that runs West from Granite Street along the southern
boundary of both parcels. Staff conclude that based on the existing pattern of development and
topography that findings can be made that the proposal will not prevent adjacent land from being
developed as envisioned in the comprehensive plan.
The fifth approval criterion is that “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.”
The application is not proposing common open space or common areas, and staff would note that
common open space is only a requirement when the base density for a PSO development is ten
units or more, which is more than proposed here.
The sixth approval criterion is that “The proposed density meets the base and bonus density
standards established under this chapter.” The application explains that the property is 1.26 acres,
and that the PSO standards allow for 3.6 dwelling units (du)/acre in the R-1-7.5 zone which
calculates to a base density of 4.5 \[3.6 du/acre x 1.26 acres = 4.536 du\]. The application materials
propose developing all residences with the Earth Advantage certification to receive the
Conservation Housing 15 percent density bonus, bringing the allowed density to 5.198 du (4.52
du x 1.15 = 5.198 du). The Conservation Housing density bonus requires “one hundred percent of
the homes or residential units approved for development…\[to\] meet the minimum requirements for
certification as an Earth Advantage home, as approved by the Ashland Conservation Division
under the City’s Earth Advantage program as adopted by Resolution 2006-06.” A condition of
approval has been added to require Earth Advantage certification for all proposed units. With the
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 6 of 15
Total Page Number: 26
conditions of approval included below, staff have determined that findings can be made that the
proposed density of five total residential lots meets the base and bonus density standards.
The seventh approval criterion is that “The development complies with the street standards.” The
current street standards require 47 feet as the minimum right of way (ROW) width for a
neighborhood street with 22 feet of pavement curb-to-curb plus park row planting strips, street
trees and sidewalks. The 2023 partition of Tax Lot #7302 noted that that Scenic Drive was
dedicated at only 40 feet wide. The subject property is developed withcurb-tight sidewalks within
the ROW created under an early 2000’s Local Improvement District that did not include park row
planting strips, or the addition ROW dedication to accommodate them. The applicant is requesting
an Exception to the Street Design Standards to retain the existing sidewalk as originally installed
rather than dedicating additional ROW to relocate the sidewalk to add a park row planting strip.
The Exception is discussed in detail below. With the Exception, this approval criterion is satisfied
as well.
The eighth and final approval criterion is that “The proposed development meets the common
open space standards.” In this instance, no open space dedication is required for a subdivision
of less than ten lots.
3) Final Plan Approval
The approval criteria for Final Plan are intended to ensure substantial conformance between
Outline plan approval and Final Plan approval when the two are requested as separate procedural
steps. Where the two are allowed to be filed concurrently, as is the case here, there is no procedural
separation between the two and the concurrent Final Plan proposal is identical to the Outline Plan
in terms of number of dwelling units, yard depths, common open spaces, standards resulting in
density bonuses, and street standards. Based on the concurrent request for Outline and Final Plan
approval, the Planning Commission may safely conclude that findings can be made that all Final
Plan approval criteria are satisfied.
4) Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit
The property is within the Hillside Overlay, and in some areas the topography exceeds a 35 percent
slope, which is considered “Severe Constraints” lands and is not developable.Because the
proposed driveway will encroach into these 35 percent slopes, a Physical & Environmental
Constraints Review Permit for Hillside Development is required. The proposed lots are situated
on hillside lands, and there are areas of steep slopes particularly along the frontage of Scenic Drive.
The applicant states that in response to these constraints, “the proposed driveway has been
carefully and strategically located and engineered to minimize environmental disturbance,” and
its placement is intended to avoid, “…the areas with the most severe slopes, thereby reducing
erosion risk, slope instability, and other associated hazards.”
Additionally, since the driveway will be constructed using a cut/fill method, retaining walls may
be needed in a limited capacity; the application indicates that proposed retaining walls will not
exceed the design standards of AMC 18.3.10. The applications materials also state that the
geotechnical expert “found no areas of slope failure, subsurface water, fissures, or other
indications that the slope where the driveway is proposed was not stable.” The application
materials further note that where the city’s geographic information system (GIS) maps show areas
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 7 of 15
Total Page Number: 27
of severely constrained slopes, there are anomalies
and (city maps) do not reflect the true natural topography.”In a site visit conducted by staff, the
lot appears to be generally gently sloping down to the east, with no obvious areas of steep slopes
except for the area near the front of the parcel along the property line where the new driveway is
proposed. The proposed area of disturbance to the hillside slopes is approximately 684 square feet,
and 78 linear feet of driveway will be located in the steep slopes. The application has provided a
geotechnical report and has been conditioned to be in substantial conformance with the measures
outlined therein, with periodic inspections to be conducted by the project geotechnical engineerto
ensure conformance.
5) Tree Removal
As discussed above, the application includes a request to remove ten trees, seven of which are
considered to be significant trees. Those trees proposed for removal are in the private drive area,
utility trenching area, or building envelopes, and several are noted as being in moderate or poor
health. The arborist’s report provided by Chris John of Canopy LLC discusses the ten trees
proposed for removal. Three trees (#1121, 1122, and 1133) are within or immediately adjacent to
the proposed building envelopes, one tree (#1132) is within the proposed driveway, and six trees
(#1138, 1148, 1161, 1162, 1163, and 1167) are in close proximity to proposed utility lines where
excavation is within their critical root zones and would “most likely cause irreparable damage to
the trees’ health and jeopardize their stability.” With regard to the trees in the envelopes, the
arborist’s report recommends to, “Remove the following trees due to unavoidable construction
conflicts: Lot 4: One 24” DBH fir \[#1133\], Lot 3: Two 36” DBH cottonwoods \[#1121 & 1122\].”
The applicant’s narrative states that, “There are no reasonable alternatives to the removal of the
trees located within the building envelopes if the property is to be used as permitted.” The Tree
Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) is scheduled to meet and review the application
th
materials on Thursday December 4, and their recommendations will be provided at the Planning
Commission hearing.
6) Exception to Street Standards
As mentioned above, this portion of Scenic Drive was improved through a Limited Improvement
District (LID) in the early 2000’s which created a continuous curb line along the entire street
with a paved width of nearly the entire ROW, but which did not include improvements for park
row or street trees. To improve the ROW to current standards, additional dedication for park row
and street trees on the subject property would be required, and due to the steep drop-off located
directly behind the sidewalk, full street improvements would prove difficult.
In AMC 18.4.6.040.A.2, the Street Design Standards provide:
All streets (are to) have parkrows and sidewalks on both sides. In certain situations
where the physical features of the land create severe constraints, or natural
features should be preserved, exceptions may be made. Exceptions could result
in construction of meandering sidewalks, sidewalks on only one side of the street,
or curbside sidewalk segments instead of setback walks. Exceptions should be
allowed when physical conditions exist that preclude development of a public
street, or components of the street. Such conditions may include, but are not
limited to, topography, wetlands, mature trees, creeks, drainages, rock
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 8 of 15
Total Page Number: 28
outcroppings, and limited right-of-way when improving streets through a local
improvement district (LID).
The standards explicitly provide for Exceptions for topography and for LID’s where limited
right-of-way is available, and in staff’s assessment the finding can be made that an
Exception was granted for this corridor with the approval of the LID in the early 2000’s.
7) Public Input
Notice was posted at the property frontage and mailed to all properties within 200’ on November
17, 2025. As this staff report is being prepared, no public comments on the application have yet
been received.
8) Procedural – Approval Criteria
1) Outline Plan
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
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) Final Plan
AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5. Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final plan approval shall be granted
upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. This substantial
conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 9 of 15
Total Page Number: 29
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 common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on
the outline plan.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan
by more than ten percent.
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the
purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in
the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail
to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be
achieved.
g. The development complies with the street standards.
h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or
increased open space; provided, that if this is done for one phase, the number of
dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the common open
space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan.
3) Exception to the Street Standards
AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority
may approve exceptions to the street design standards in section 18.4.6.040 if the
circumstances in either subsection B.1.a or b, below, are found to exist.
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this
chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site;
and the exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and the
exception is consistent with the purpose, intent, and background of the street
design standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A; and the exception will result in equal
or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following
factors where applicable:
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and
ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort
level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle
cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e.,
comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safely and efficiently
cross roadway; or
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 10 of 15
Total Page Number: 30
b.There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but
granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the
stated purposes, intent, and background of the street design standards in
subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
4) Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit
AMC 18.3.10.050. An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to
the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all
of the following criteria.
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.
5) Tree Removal
AMC 18.5.7.040.B.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.
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 11 of 15
Total Page Number: 31
III.Conclusion and Recommendations
In staff’s assessment, the application can be found to satisfy all applicable criteria and standards
as detailed above. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve the Outline and Final
Plan for the proposed five-lot subdivision and the associated Physical & Environmental
Constraints Review Permit to develop the proposed driveway on hillside lands. Should the
Planning Commission concur, staff recommend including the following conditions of approval:
All proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwisespecifically
modified herein.
All recommendations of the Ashland 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.
Any excavation within the critical root zone of protected trees shall be supervised by the
project arborist. 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.
Permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any
additional work in the public right of way or any modification or creation of curb cuts.
Requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met, including that all addressing
shall be approved prior to being installed, that fire apparatus access be provided, and that
a fuel break is required.
Prior to any site work, tree removal, building demolition, bringing combustible materials
onto the property, and/or storage of materials:
A Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning
Division. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the tree(s) to be
removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained
on and adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet
tall and installed in accordance with 18.4.5.030. The tree protection fencing and
any temporary erosion control measures (i.e. silt fence and straw bale barriers) shall
be installed according to the approved plan. The erosion control measures shall be
installed as identified in the William Fitzgerald Geotechnical Report dated October
16, 2025. Tree protection and temporary erosion control measures shall be
inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department.
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, 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.
The flag drive shall be paved to 15 feet within a 20-foot clear width and have a vertical
clearance of at least 13-feet, 6-inches and be capable of supporting 44,000 lbs. gross vehicle
weight prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 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 AMC 18.5.3.060.
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 12 of 15
Total Page Number: 32
8) A final survey plat shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City of Ashland
within 18 months of this 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. Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities and
driveways 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. 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.
9) Prior to building permit submittal:
a. The storm drainage plan shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner
that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties in
accordance with 18.3.10.090.C.1.f. If an alternate storm water system such as a dry
well system, detention pond and leach filed is used, the alternate system shall be
designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert. The storm drainage plan
shall be submitted for review and approval to the Ashland Engineering, Building
and Planning Divisions prior to application for a building permit.
b. The new driveway approaches shall be permitted through the Engineering Division
and are required to be separated from existing driveways and each other by a
minimum of 24-feet per City Street Standards. The driveway curb cuts shall be
inspected and approved by the Engineering Division prior to signature of the final
plat.
c. The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including the installation of any
required fire hydrants and fire apparatus access and turnaround (hammerhead)
requirements shall be complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the
use of combustible materials, whichever is applicable. Fire Department
requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public
facilities. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the
sidewalk.
10) The building permit submittals shall include the following:
a. Application for addresses for each new residential unit in the subdivision.
b. Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public and private
utility easements, mutual access easements, and fire apparatus access easements.
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 13 of 15
Total Page Number: 33
c. All residential units approved for development shall meet the minimum
requirements for certification as an Earth Advantage home, as approved by the
Ashland Conservation Division under the City’s Earth Advantage program as
adopted by Resolution 2006-06 (required for the density bonus of the subdivision).
d. 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.
e. Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with
the 45 percent maximum coverage allowance of the R-1-7.5 zoning district. Lot
coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other
circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping.
f. 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.
g. Verification that each new home in the subdivision complies with the Maximum
Permitted Floor Area requirements of AMC 18.24.040.I.
h. 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.
i. All fencing shall be consistent with the provisions of the “Fences and Walls”
requirements in AMC 18.4.4.060. 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.
11) Prior to Certificate of Occupancy:
a. The geotechnical engineer shall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule
of the engineering geology report by William Fitzgerald included in the application
and date stamped October 16, 2025. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy, the geotechnical engineer 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.
b. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, 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.
c. The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion
control shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 14 of 15
Total Page Number: 34
the certificate of occupancy. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be
substantially established within one year of installation.
Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00061 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (va)
Owner: Charlie Hamilton Page 15 of 15
Total Page Number: 35
Total Page Number: 36
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 37
Total Page Number: 38
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Memo
To:Planning Commissioners
From:Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
Date:November 19, 2025
Re:Granite Pines, A PerformanceStandards Subdivision
This memo provides clarification regarding the driveway access configuration for Lots 1–5 and
the proposed tree removal approach associated with the proposed Granite Pines, Performance
Standards Subdivision on Scenic Drive.
Driveway Access Configuration
During the staff review, it was noted that two different driveway access arrangements were
referenced in the submittal materials. To clarify:
Access for Lots 1 and 2
Lots 1 and 2 are proposed to take access from the existing driveway on 44 Scenic Dr.
This configuration is intentional and reflects the physical conditions and grading of that portion
of the site.
Access for Lots 3–5
Lots 3 through 5 will take access from the newly proposed driveway, which will cross a portion
of Lot 2.
Driveway Alignment Clarification
Page 14 references shifting the existing driveway south; however, the intended shift is north,
toward Lot 1.
This correction aligns with the design objective of achieving the required driveway separation
without modifying the access point for Lot 2.
Total Page Number: 39
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Tree Removal Clarification
The notice of public hearing references 11 trees proposed for removal, including 7 significant
trees. Staff requested clarification on whether additional trees beyond those listed may
ultimately require removal.
Trees Proposed for Removal withThis Application
The application identifies all trees that will needto be removed to accommodate the
subdivision infrastructure and driveway improvements as currently designed.
Potential Future Removals at Building Permit Stage
Because no home designs are proposed at this time, the full extent of tree impacts cannot be
determined until future building permits.
Once individual lot owners select building locations and designs, it is possible that additional
trees may need to be removed if they are located within future building envelopes.
The intent of the subdivision application is to identify only the known, unavoidable removals
required for infrastructure. All other trees are proposed to be retained unless or until a future
lot-specific building permit necessitates additional removal. Any additional removals will
comply with applicable tree removal permitting requirements at that time.
Thank you,
Amy Gunter
Rogue Planning & Development
2
Total Page Number: 40
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 43
Total Page Number: 44
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Granite Pines Subdivision on
Scenic Drive
A PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION BY SUNCREST HOMES
Total Page Number: 45
REQUEST FOR FIVE LOT
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION
Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 08AD Tax Lots: 5701 & 7302
Property Owners
(Tax Lot 5701): Richard Stanley
44 Scenic Dr
Ashland, OR 97520
Property Owner
(Tax Lot 7302): Charlie Hamilton
PO BOX 1313
Talent, OR 97540
Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services
1314-B Center Dr., PMB #457
Medford, OR 97501
Surveyor: L J Friar & Associates
2714 N Pacific Hwy
Medford, OR 97501
Civil Engineering: KAS and Associates
304 S Holly Street
Medford, OR 97501
PROPOSAL:
The request is for approval of an Outline and Final Plan of a five-lot, Performance Standards
Subdivision (AMC 18.3.9). Three of the lots will be accessed via a shared private driveway.
An exception to street standards retains the existing non-conforming Scenic Drive street improvements
and does not install a seven-foot landscape park row and a six-foot sidewalk on Scenic Drive is requested
(AMC 18.4.6.020.B).
A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is also requested for the construction of the
private driveway due to an area of steep slope.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 1 of 28
Total Page Number: 46
There are seven significant trees proposed for removal with the application.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS:
44 Scenic Drive (TL# 5701):
This property is in the R-1-7.5 zone,
positioned on the east side of Scenic
Drive, approximately 110 feet south of
the intersection with Nutley Street. It is
in the Skidmore-Academy Historic
District.
The subject property has 168.30 feet of
frontage on Scenic Drive and extends 92
feet to the east. The lot is a legal non-
conforming parcel, as the width of the
lot exceeds the lot
depth.Encompassing 0.36 acres
(15,681.6 SF), the parcel features a
2,790-square-foot, one-story residence
with a basement, built in 1968. The
primary living level is 1,680 square feet
with a 1,680 square foot basement.
Within the basement, there is a 540-
square-foot accessory residential unit (ARU) at 40 Scenic Drive. The existing residence is not considered
historic, nor does it contribute to the historic integrity of the historic district.
This property has public water, sanitary sewer, and electrical servicing for the two units.
The lot is in the Hillside Lands Overlay of Ashland and has slopes greater than 35% in some areas,
according to GIS mapping. The property is within the Wildfire Hazards Overlay. It also has a considerable
number of significant trees along the frontage of the property and along the south property line.
Access to the property from Scenic Drive is provided via a looping, 15-foot-wide paved driveway. The
driveway enters the property on the north side of the property, providing access to the main house, and
near the south side of the property, access to the south side of the existing structure is provided.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic DrivePage 2 of 28
Total Page Number: 47
Scenic Drive has a 40-foot public right-of-way. It is paved with curb and gutter. There is a curbside
sidewalk along the frontage of the property. The property's frontage along Scenic Drive is improved with
a curb and a five-foot-wide sidewalk. There is a substantial grade change on both sides of the street.
Scenic Drive was improved during a Local Improvement District (LID) project in the early 2000s.
Scenic Dr – Tax Lot 7302:
This 0.91-acre vacant lot is situated
within the R-1-7.5 zone and the
Skidmore-Academy Historic District of
Ashland.This lot was created via a
minor land partition in 2022 (PA-T1-
2022-00168).
The parcel is irregularly shaped, with
71.43 feet of frontage along Scenic
Drive. It extends 91.89 feet east before
widening 40 feet to the north, then
118.07 feet along the north property
line. The parcel extends to the south
approximately 291.7 feet. Theparcel
then extends back west, with an
additional depth of 110.69 feet. Then
north 180.38 feet, 100.36 feet west,
then north again to the Scenic Drive
frontage.
While there is no current existing driveway from Scenic Drive, a 15-foot-wide ingress/egress easement
in the southeast corner provides access from Granite Street. A conceptual driveway access from Scenic
Drive was provided at the time of the partition.
Located in the Hillside Lands Overlay of Ashland, GIS mapping indicates that the parcel has slopes
exceeding 35%, particularly along the Scenic Drive frontage and along the north property line. This
property is also within the Wildfire Hazards Overlay. There are several significant mature conifer trees
located along the south property line.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic DrivePage 3 of 28
Total Page Number: 48
DETAILED PROPOSAL:
The request is for an Outline and Final Plan for a five-lot, Performance Standards Subdivision. There are
five residential lots proposed – three created from tax lot 7302, one from tax lot 5701, separating the
south portion of the property from the existing residential home.
Utilization of the Performance Standards Subdivision Option is requested. The request for Performance
Standards Option use is consistent with the Purpose Statement from AMC 18.3.9.010. The
Performance Standards Option should be used to allow an option for a more flexible design than is
permissible under the conventional subdivision codes, when, due to the undeveloped nature of the
property, sloping topography, or the existence of vegetation, the result is equal in its environmental
and aesthetic impact as subdivision standards would allow, are more suitable for development under
Performance Standards.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 4 of 28
Total Page Number: 49
The Performance Standards Option - Overlay map does not include this property. Development under
the Performance Standards chapter is allowed when the development is necessary to protect the
environment from degradation and would be of equal aesthetic and environmental impact as allowed
through maximum density under subdivision standards (18.3.9.030.D.2). The lot area allows for five
lots, each more than 7,500 square feet in area with a lot layout that preserves the maximum number
of large stature trees.
The parent parcels both have areas of severely constrained slopes that will be protected from
disturbance except for the minor driveway crossing.
Shared driveways are permitted when a Performance Standards Subdivision is proposed to access up
to four lots. The proposal accesses three lots from the shared driveway, with Lot 2 also having frontage
on Scenic Drive.
No structures are located in the areas of hillside slopes.
Lot 1:
Lot 1 is proposed to be a 9,276 square feet (.213 acres). Lot 1 consists of the area of the existing
residence and ADU. This lot is 100.91 feet wide, reducing the non-conforming lot width. The maximum
permitted floor area (MPFA) of the proposed 9,276 sq ft is 2,783 sq ft. The current building size of
1,680 on the first floor and the other floor area of 1,680 including the basement. The structure
continues to be in compliance with the MPFA, even with the reduced lot size. This lot is subject to Solar
Setback Standard A, and the reduced lot width does not alter the solar setback on the built-out lot.
Lot 2:
Proposed Lot 2 is to the south of Lot 1 and will be accessed via the proposed shared driveway that will
provide primary access to Lots 3-5 as well. Lot 2 is proposed to be 7,502 square feet. Lot 2 complies
with the solar-factor requirement: with a 5.8% north-facing slope (under 15%) the north–south
dimension is 81.55 feet, exceeding the Formula I minimum of 59 feet and meeting 18.4.8.020.A.1.
Under Standard A setbacks, a 10-foot structure would require an 8-foot setback from the north
property line. Steep slopes on the middle/south portion of the lot limit practical buildable area to
about 700 sq ft and may necessitate a solar waiver or solar envelope at building permit if a two-story
structure is proposed, but these considerations do not affect subdivision-level compliance with the
solar factor.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 5 of 28
Total Page Number: 50
Large stature trees are present along the south side of the lot, and there are severely constrained
slopes that are not buildable along the south side of the lot. This requires all new development on the
north side of the proposed lot. The maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) for new construction is
2,336 square feet of floor area.
Lot 3:
Lot 3 is to the southeast of Lot 1. It is proposed to be 10,408 square feet in area. Proposed Lot 3 takes
access from the shared private driveway that starts on Lot 2. The driveway is proposed to start from
Lot 2 to avoid the most severe slopes that are found adjacent to the Scenic Drive frontage of Lots 3 and
4. The lot is shaped like a flag lot, with a 6.21-foot flagpole coming off Scenic. The pole extends 91.98
feet to the east, before widening.
Lot 3 complies with the solar-factor requirement: with an 8.6% north-facing slope (under 15%) the
north–south dimension is 90 feet, exceeding the Formula I minimum of 56 feet and meeting
18.4.8.020.A.1. Under Standard A setbacks, a 21-foot-tall structure would require a 28.2-foot setback
from the north property line. These conditions demonstrate subdivision-level compliance with the
assignment of solar factor. The maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) for the new construction is 2808
square feet of floor area.
There are two large-stature Cottonwood trees within the building envelope of Lot 3. These trees will be
removed to allow for the site development.
There are public utility easements along the north property line. The proposed building envelope does
not encroach on the easement area.
Lot 4:
Lot 4 is further south; it is proposed to be 13,469 square feet in area. Proposed Lot 4 also takes access
from the shared private driveway that starts on Lot 2. The lot is shaped like a flag lot, with a 31.51-foot
flagpole coming off Scenic. The pole extends 120.35 feet to the east, before widening and extending
89.64 feet more to the east.
Lot 4 complies with the solar-factor requirement: with a 1.3% north-facing slope (under 15%) the
north–south dimension is 95 feet, exceeding the Formula I minimum of 65 feet and meeting
18.4.8.020.A.1. Under Standard A setbacks, a 10-foot-tall structure would require an 8.7-foot setback
from the north property line. The maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) for the new construction is
3,070 square feet of floor area.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 6 of 28
Total Page Number: 51
Within the area of the driveway access and within the envelope of Lot 4, there will be two large stature
trees removed. A 24-inch DBH Almond Tree and a 24-inch DBH Douglas Fir tree, which is in the center
of the lot. An 18-inch DBH Oak tree is adjacent to the east property line. This tree will be preserved.
Lot 5:
Lot 5 is the southernmost lot. It is proposed to be 14,378square feet in area. It is 106.7 feet wide and
approximately 110 feet deep. Proposed Lot 5 has no frontage off Scenic; however, it also takes access
from the shared private driveway that starts on Lot 2. This lot also has secondary access to Granite
Street via an existing access easement. Lot 5 complies with the solar-factor requirement: with a 3.3%
downhill-to-the-north slope (mild, under 15%), the north–south dimension is 106.7 feet, exceeding the
Formula I minimum of 73 feet and meeting 18.4.8.020.A.1. Under Standard A setbacks, a 10-foot-tall
structure would require a 9.7-foot setback from the north property line. The maximum permitted floor
area (MPFA) for the new construction is 3,169square feet of floor area.
Four Oak trees, ranging from 8 inches DBH to 15 inches DBH on the south side of the property, will be
removed, as this is the area of secondary access from Granite St. Another Oak tree is planned for
removal along the east side of the property, as this is where utility trenching is proposed.
A small area of steep slopes appears on the south half of Lot 5. This is dirt piled by a previous property
owner and does not constitute steep slopes or severely constrained hillside slopes.
Home Design:
The proposed home designs will stress energy efficiency, with each new home constructed to Earth
Advantage Standards. The proposed homes are architecturally creative and are designed in a manner
that does not prevent the lot to the north from access to passive or active solar. Each lot includes a
building envelope for the future residence. Each residence is subject to the Maximum Permitted Floor
Area in the Historic District Standards.
Trees:
There are 26 significant trees on the subject properties in the area of the proposed driveway, building
envelope areas, and along Scenic Avenue. The trees within 15 feet of the areas of disturbance were
evaluated by a Licensed Arborist. Tree removal is proposed based on impacts from the shared
driveway, individual driveway locations, utility locations, and the locations of building envelopes. A
modest number of trees are proposed for removal, with the largest of the trees preserved in an
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 7 of 28
Total Page Number: 52
unbuildable area adjacent to the shared driveway, and where the property frontages of the three
parcels are provided.
Access:
As noted, access to the vacant lots will be via a shared private driveway. The proposed driveway has 20
feet of clear width and will have 15 feet of paved width. The shared driveway will comply with Fire
Apparatus Access Standards for a fire lane. A fire apparatus access hammerhead for a turnaround area
is proposed. This driveway also crosses slopes that exceed 35 percent, thus requiring the Physical
Constraints Review permit. The length of the driveway across the severely constrained slope is less
than 100feet in length. The proposed driveway will not exceed 15 percent.
The location of the shared driveway also preserves the majority of the large stature trees that are
present on both properties near Scenic Drive. A total of eleven trees are proposed for removal. Four of
these are significant trees: Two Cottonwoods (36" DBH), one Douglas Fir (24.5" DBH), and one dual-
stemmed Almond (averaging 15.5" DBH). The other nine trees slated for removal include various Black
and White Oak trees, a Mulberry, and a Japanese Maple, primarily due to utility trenching and building
envelopes.
On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are
provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Times New Roman font and the
applicant’s responses are in Calibri font.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 8 of 28
Total Page Number: 53
FINDINGS OF FACT
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OVERLAY
18.3.9
18.3.9.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to allow an option for a more flexible design than is
permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency,
architectural creativity, and innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest
advantage; provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under
the standard zoning codes; be aesthetically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the
impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood.
Finding:
This project involves the development of five lots, with one existing residential dwelling with two units
retained. All new residential developments will prioritize the use of Earth Advantage homes, reflecting
a commitment to energy efficiency, sustainable building practices, and environmental stewardship as
core project principles.
The design will utilize the natural features of the landscape, including existing slopes and large trees,
consistent with promoting harmony between the built environment and the natural surroundings. The
driveway is carefully designed to begin from proposed Parcel 2, strategically minimizing the impact on
severe slopes and reducing the need for extensive tree removal. This approach ensures the
preservation of mature trees and natural landforms, enhancing both the aesthetic appeal and
ecological integrity of the site.
By incorporating energy-efficient designs and reducing environmental impacts, the development aims
to create a sustainable, aesthetically pleasing, and community-oriented living environment.
Overall, this development exemplifies a balanced approach that respects natural landforms, utilizes the
land efficiently, promotes sustainable building practices, and aligns with the intent of the Performance
Standards subdivision permit.
18.3.9.020 Applicability
Developments exercising the Performance Standards option, including developments that are required to
apply the option pursuant to this ordinance, shall meet the provisions of this chapter and all other
applicable sections of this ordinance; except that developments subject to this chapter are not required to
meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setback standards of part 18.2, and other standards
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 9 of 28
Total Page Number: 54
as specifically provided by this chapter. The Performance Standards option may be used to divide
residential and non-residential zoned land.
Finding:
The proposed development seeks to utilize the Performance Standards Option, and the proposal
demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
18.3.9.030 PSO-OVERLAY
B.Applicability. This chapter applies to properties located in the Performance Standards Option
Overlay (PSO) as depicted on the Zoning Map. All developments in the PSO overlay, other than
partitions and development of individual dwelling units, shall be processed under this chapter. The
minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within residential zoning
districts is three.
Finding:
The property is not within the PSO–Overlayas depicted on the zoning map. The request is to allow for
the development of the subdivision to be processed under the PSO Standards as allowed per
18.3.9.030.D.
There are four new dwelling units proposed within the proposed Performance Standards Option
subdivision.
D. Development Outside PSO-Overlay. If a parcel is not in a PSO overlay, then development under
this chapter may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist.
2. That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the
neighborhood from degradation, which would occur from development to the maximum density
allowed under subdivision standards or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact.
Finding:
The proposed subdivision adheres to the Performance Standards Option, aiming to match or
exceed aesthetic and environmental quality compared to traditional maximum density
development:
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 10 of 28
Total Page Number: 55
Aesthetic Impact:
The layout prioritizes maintaining the natural landscape by preserving significant trees
and green spaces. These elements contribute to a visually appealing environment that
blends seamlessly with the existing neighborhood character.
The proposed homes will be built according to Earth Advantage Standards, combining
historic aesthetic appeal with sustainable building practices.
Environmental Impact:
Emphasis is placed on preserving as many existing trees as possible, maintaining the
natural landscape, and contributing to the area’s biodiversity and ecological health.
The layout minimizes environmental disruption by integrating sustainable construction
methods and materials, enhancing environmental resilience.
The impacts on the steep slopes are minimized through the development of a short
segment of driveway that encroaches on the slope-constrained land. Less than 100 feet
of driveway encroaches into the area of severe constraints.
Overall, the proposed subdivision aligns with both aesthetic and environmental requirements,
ensuring that it preserves the character and ecological integrity of the Historic District.
REVIEW PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
18.3.9.040
A. Outline Plan. A proposed outline plan shall accompany applications for subdivision approval under
this chapter. For developments of fewer than ten lots, the outline plan may be filed concurrently with the
final plan, as that term is defined in subsection 18.3.9.040.B.4. For developments of ten or more lots,
prior outline plan approval is mandatory.
Finding:
The attached subdivision plans, including topographical survey, building envelopes, conceptual
grading, erosion control, drainage, and utility plan, address the submittal requirements of the
Performance Standards Outline Plan and Final Plan.
The proposal is for concurrent review of the Outline and Final Plan because there are fewer
than ten lots.
The proposed subdivision utilizes conventional financing through FDIC lending institutions and
private financing. The propertiesproposed for development are owned by Charlie Hamilton and
the Stanley Family Trust.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 11 of 28
Total Page Number: 56
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.
Finding:
The proposed development is exercising the Performance Standards Option. The development
demonstrates compliance with the standards from 18.3.9.050 – 18.3.9.080 and the provisions
of this chapter. The other applicable sections of this ordinance, including: 18.4.3 Parking,
Access, & Circulation; 18.4.6 Public Facilities; 18.4.8 Solar Access Performance Standard, 18.5.3
Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments, etc., are addressed in these findings.
The PSO–Overlay development is subject to Chapter 18.3.9 and is not required to meet the
minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, coverage, and setback standards of part 18.2, and other
standards as specifically provided by this chapter. The proposed development complies with all
other applicable standards from the R-1-7.5 zone.
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.
Finding:
The proposed development includes the creation of four vacant parcels and ensures the
provision of adequate key city facilities, including water, sewer, paved access, electricity, urban
storm drainage, and public safety services.
Water Supply: The property is currently served by an 8-inch water main located along Scenic
Drive.
Sanitary Sewer: The four proposed parcels are served by an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main
along the northern boundary of what will be Parcel 3.
Storm Drainage: Stormwater management will be effectively handled by the existing 12-inch
storm sewer main along the northern boundary of Parcel 3.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 12 of 28
Total Page Number: 57
18.3.9.060
Parking Standards
All development under this chapter shall conform to the following parking standards, which are
in addition to the requirements of chapter 18.4.3, Parking, Access, and Circulation.
A. On-Street Parking Required. For all performance standards subdivisions in R-1 zones, and
for all performance standards subdivisions in R-2 or R-3 zones which create or improve city
streets, at least one on-street parking space per proposed lot shall be provided with the following
exceptions:
1. Where on-street parking is provided on newly created or improved streets, the total number of
on-street spaces required should not surpass the available street frontage, with each parking
space being considered equivalent to 22 feet in length without interruption and exclusive of
designated no-parking areas.
Finding:
No streets are proposed, and no street improvements are proposed. Not applicable.
18.4.3.080.
Vehicle Area Design
A. Parking Location
Finding:
Per 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design, each lot will have adequate parking with two vehicle spaces
within a garage accessed from the private drive either directly or from a driveway extension. The
residential parking is not within any required yard area.
B. Parking Area Design.
Finding:
Not applicable
C.Vehicular Access and Circulation.
a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the
existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 13 of 28
Total Page Number: 58
Finding:
The proposed driveways will be separated by 24 feet. The driveway serving the existing
residence will be reduced to 15 feet wide. The driveway will be moved to the south, off
the adjacent property, increasing the separation.
b. Partitions and subdivisions of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-1
zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access
easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can
be made from one or more points.
Finding:
The subject property is zoned R-1-7.5 and is not subject to the controlled access standards
per this section.
c. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-1 zone shall be
limited to the following.
Finding:
The property is zoned R-1-7.5 and not subject to the standards.
d. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. All multi-family developments
which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall
provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be
determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Finding:
Not applicable.
4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts.
a. Plans submitted for developments subject to a planning action shall indicate how
driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared
driveways and all necessary access easements. Where necessary from traffic safety and
access management purposes, the City may require joint access and/or shared driveways
in the following situations.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 14 of 28
Total Page Number: 59
i. For shared parking areas.
ii. For adjacent developments, where access onto an arterial is limited.
iii.For multi-family developments, and developments on multiple lots.
Finding:
The proposed access for Lots 2-5 minimizes the need for multiple driveway access points
off Scenic Drive and strategically avoids needing to fill in the more severe slopes and
weaves around trees to avoid excessive tree removals.
b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway
approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed
development. Curb cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and planter/furnishings strip as appropriate.
Finding:
The proposal is to develop a standard driveway approach where presently one does not
exist. There are no additional, unnecessary approaches.
c. If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from
the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage.
Finding:
The proposal is to create a shared access via a private drive.
5. Alley Access. Where a property has alley access, vehicle access shall be taken from the alley
and driveway approaches and curb cuts onto adjacent streets are not permitted.
Finding:
There is no alley access.
18.3.9.040A.3 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.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 15 of 28
Total Page Number: 60
Finding:
The existing and natural features of the land, including the significant trees and steep
topography, are shown on the plan maps.
d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses
shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding:
The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed.
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.
Finding:
The subdivision is not phased, and no common areas are proposed or required.
f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this
chapter.
Finding:
The PSO density for R-1-7.5 zones is 3.6 dwelling units per acre. The entire area is 55,034
square feet (1.26 acres). 1.26 X 3.6 = 4.5 is the base density.
The proposed density is five lots. Each new residence will be constructed to the Earth
Advantage Standards, which allows for a 15 percent density bonus (4.5 X 1.15 = 5.2).
The proposal complies with the minimum density and the bonus density standard for the
development of the Earth Advantage Certified dwelling units.
g. The development complies with the street standards.
Finding:
An exception to street standards is sought to avoid installing park rows and replacing sidewalks
along approximately 239 feet of frontage on Scenic Drive. The existing infrastructure includes a
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 16 of 28
Total Page Number: 61
paved road with curb and gutter and curbside sidewalks, which do not currently meet the City’s
standards. This request is justified by several key factors. The topography of the area presents
significant challenges, with gradients and natural features that would be difficult to alter
without causing substantial environmental and aesthetic impacts. The natural landscape and
mature trees, which contribute to the neighborhood's character, could be negatively affected
by extensive improvements. Additionally, the right-of-way along Scenic Drive is limited,
constraining options for standard street enhancements. Despite not conforming to the updated
standards, the existing curb, gutter, and sidewalks are functional and well-maintained,
providing adequate pedestrian and stormwater management. Implementing the full standard
improvements would likely result in unnecessary disturbance to the natural features and
existing infrastructure. Preliminary feedback from planning staff indicates that such exceptions
are appropriate in cases where physical topography and limited right-of-way create practical
barriers.
h. The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under
section 18.4.070. 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.
Finding:
No open space is required when the minimum density is less than 10 units
4. Approval of the Outline Plan.
a. After the City approves an outline plan and adopts any zone change necessary for the
development, the developer may then file a final plan in phases or in its entirety.
Finding:
The plan is filed in its entirety.
b. If an outline plan is phased, 50 percent of the value of the common open space shall be
provided in the first phase and all common open space shall be provided when two-thirds of the
units are finished.
Finding:
The application is not for a phased subdivision.
FINAL PLAN
18.3.9.040.B.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 17 of 28
Total Page Number: 62
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 common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than
ten percent.
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent
of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline
plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the
performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved.
g. The development complies with the street standards.
h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open
space; provided, that if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be
transferred to another phase, nor the common open space reduced below that permitted in the
outline plan.
Finding:
With the concurrent proposal, there are no intended modifications between the outline and
the final plan.
6. Any substantial amendment to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure in section
18.5.1.040 and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria.
Finding:
It is understood substantial amendment would require additional review.
LAND DIVISIONS AND PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENTS
18.5.3.020 Applicability and General Requirements
A. Applicability. The requirements for partitions and subdivisions apply, as follows.
1. Subdivisions are the creation of four or more lots from one parent lot, parcel, or tract, within
one calendar year.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 18 of 28
Total Page Number: 63
Finding:
The request is for approval of a Performance Standards subdivision. The proposed subdivision
creates five lots from two parent tract of land.
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT CRITERIA
18.5.3.070
A. Approval Criteria. The approval authority, pursuant to subsection 18.5.3.030.A, may approve,
approve with conditions or deny a preliminary subdivision plat on findings of compliance with all of the
following approval criteria.
1. The subdivision plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and
any previous land use approvals for the subject area.
Finding:
There are no city-adopted neighborhood or district plans. To the applicant’s knowledge, there are no
previous approvals for the subject properties that would prevent the proposed subdivision.
2. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable
overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g.,
parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation).
Finding:
The proposed lots conform to the requirements of the R-1-7.5 zone, where not subject to flexibility of
the Performance Standards Overlay. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the standards from
18.3.9 for Performance Standards Option Subdivision. The parcels for development will have more than
7,500 square feet of area.
18.2.2.030 Allowed Uses
A. Uses Allowed in Base Zones. Allowed uses include those that are permitted, permitted subject
to special use standards, and allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
Finding:
A Performance Standards Options Subdivision to create a five-lot residential subdivision is
permitted use in the zone. Four of the lots are proposed to be accessed via a shared private
driveway. Private driveways are allowed to access four lots within a Performance Standards
Option Subdivision.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 19 of 28
Total Page Number: 64
One- and two-family residences are permitted use in the zone.
18.2.5.090 Standards for Single-Family Dwellings
A. The following standards apply to new single-family dwellings constructed in the R-1,
R-1-3.5, R-2, and R-3 zones; the standards do not apply to dwellings in the WR or RR
zones.
B. Single-family dwellings subject to this section shall utilize at least two of the following
design features to provide visual relief along the front of the residence:
1. Dormers
2. Gables
3. Recessed entries
4. Covered porch entries
5. Cupolas
6. Pillars or posts
7. Bay window (min. 12" projection)
8. Eaves (min. 6" projection)
9. Off-sets in building face or roof (min. 16")
Finding:
The submitted concepts of residences and designs are of a similar aesthetic as the
adjacent property. There is an eclectic mix of architectural styles in this area of the
Skidmore-Academy Historic District. The conceptual elevations demonstrate that two or
more of the design features listed above will be provided on the proposed single-family
residential units.
3. Access to individual lots necessary to serve the development shall conform to the standards contained
in section 18.4.3.080Vehicle Area Design.
Finding:
The proposed private driveway accessing the proposed lots will be within a 20-foot-wide access
easement with a 15-foot-wide paved driveway and a 20-foot-wide clear easement width.
The proposed driveway apron will be 24 feet apart from the other existing driveway that serves the lot
with the existing building.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 20 of 28
Total Page Number: 65
The width (20-feet clear, 15-feet paved) and the grade of the driveway at no point exceeds 15 percent.
The proposed driveway is adequate to allow for a circulation system that will accommodate the
expected on-sitetraffic.
The future development proposal will provide adequate parking for the future houses.
The surface will be installed in a manner that does not allow for the surface waters to drain across any
public right-of-way or adjacent properties as per the civil drawings for the driveway construction.
4. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the standards in
chapter 18.4.6, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands.
The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications.
Finding:
There are no proposed streets. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access to
adjacent residential lands will not be impeded by the proposal. The development of adjacent
properties is limited due to the size of the properties, the existing structure locations, the lot
configurations, topography, access limitations, etc., of the adjacent properties, and is not impacted by
this proposal.
All of the proposed infrastructure and the driveway have been designed by an Oregon-licensed civil
Engineer. The utility plan conforms to the requirements of AMC 18.4.
No modifications are proposed to the street. The preliminary plat identifies the proposed dedication of
public right-of-way, a 10-foot Public Utility Easement behind the property, and preliminary easements
for private utilities within the easement areas.
Scenic Drive is improved with a curb, gutter, and curbside sidewalk. No changes to the right-of-way are
proposed.
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.4.6.020.B.1.
Finding:
The proposal does not include improvements to Scenic Drive thus an exception to Street
Standards is required.
1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to
the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following
circumstances are found to exist.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 21 of 28
Total Page Number: 66
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to
a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
Finding:
The code allows for the granting of exceptions when physical conditions exist that preclude
the development of a public street or components of the street. Such conditions may include
mature trees, topographical constraints, and limited right-of-way. Each of these conditions
are present on the frontage.
An exception to street standards is sought to avoid installing park rows and replacing
sidewalks along approximately 239 feet of frontage on Scenic Drive. The existing
infrastructure includes a paved road with curb and gutter, and curbside sidewalks, whichdo
not currently meet the City’s standards. The topography of the area presents significant
challenges, with gradients and natural features that would be difficult to alter without causing
substantial environmental and aesthetic impacts. The natural landscape and mature trees,
which contribute to the neighborhood's character, could be negatively affected by extensive
improvements. Additionally, the right-of-way along Scenic Drive is limited, constraining
options for standard street enhancements. Despite not conforming to the updated standards,
the existing curb, gutter, and sidewalks are functional and well-maintained, providing
adequate pedestrian and stormwater management. Implementing the full standard
improvements would likely result in unnecessary disturbance to the natural features and
existing infrastructure.
Along the frontage of the property and the adjacent properties to the north and south, there
is approximately five feetof right-of-way. This right-of-way width is not adequate to install
the required improvements. If the sidewalk were built to present standards, the existing
improvements would not connect. Additionally, along much of the frontage on Scenic Drive,
there is a retaining wall supporting the current sidewalk due to severe slopes. Extending a
park row and sidewalk beyond the property would require dedication of right-of-way by
adjacent property owners and a substantial alteration to the trees and utilities within the
right-of-way.
Overall, an inadequate right-of-way is present to provide the city standard improvements.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity,
considering the following factors where applicable.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 22 of 28
Total Page Number: 67
Finding:
No changes to the transportation facilities are proposed so they will remain equal to the
present improvements.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
Finding:
The proposed exception is not tomodify the sidewalk or install a park row. There is an
inadequate right-of-way to achieve park row and sidewalk improvements. Not installing
sidewalk alleviates the difficulty in extensions of said sidewalks in a logical and functional
manner on properties that are not associated with the proposed development and based on
existing development, will not redevelop in a manner that would require dedication of right-
of-way or removal of trees.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection
18.4.6.040.A.
Finding:
The Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards section speaks to connectivity and design
focus on a safe environment for all users, design streets as public spaces, and enhance the
livability of neighborhoods, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The lack of right-of-way
to install improvements and not installing a wider sidewalk and park row will not negatively
impact the vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian experience.
5. All proposed private common areas and improvements, if any, are identified on the preliminary plat
and maintenance of such areas (e.g., landscaping, tree preservation, common areas, access, parking, etc.)
is ensured through an appropriate legal instrument (e.g., Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&Rs).
Finding:
No private common areas or improvements are proposed.
6. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained
prior to development.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 23 of 28
Total Page Number: 68
Finding:
There are no required state and federal permits that need to be obtained prior to development.
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS OVERLAY
18.3.10.050
Approval Criteria
An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section
18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria.
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 has
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.
Finding: A geotechnical report is provided and is attached. The property is within the Hillside Overlay.
There are areas of topography that exceed 35 percent, which are considered Severe Constraints and are
not considered developable. The lots are situated on hillside lands characterized by steep slopes,
particularly along the frontage of Scenic Drive. In response to these constraints, the proposed driveway
has been carefully and strategically located and engineered to minimize environmental disturbance. Its
placement specifically avoids the areas with the most severe slopes, thereby reducing erosion risk, slope
instability, and other associated hazards. Because the driveway does encroach slightly into the areas of
35 percent slopes, which are considered severe constraints, the hillside development permit is
requested.
The design of the driveway intentionally avoids the removal of any existing mature trees along Scenic
Drive, preserving the natural landscape and maintaining the neighborhood’s aesthetic integrity. This
careful siting exemplifies an effort to reduce potential adverse impacts on the environment and
surrounding properties.
The driveway will be constructed using a cut/fill method. All retaining walls of any cut slopes will not
exceed the design standards of AMC 18.3.10. Limiting the height of cut slopes and, therefore, the use
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 24 of 28
Total Page Number: 69
of retaining walls will be limited. The limited impacts on the hillside slopes only from the driveway
reduce any potential hazards.
The geotechnical expert found no areas of slope failure, subsurface water, fissures, or other indications
that the slope where the driveway is proposed was not stable. According to the geotechnical engineer,
the site is suitable for the type of driveway construction proposed.
On proposed Lots 4 and 5, the city maps show areas of severely constrained slopes, but these appear
to be anomalies caused by fill or other man-made disturbances and do not reflect the true natural
topography.
The area of disturbance to the hillside slopes is 684 square feet. The distance of the driveway crossing
the steep slopes is approximately 78 feet. The area of disturbance and the length of the disturbance
are limited, greatly limiting impacts to any adjacent properties.
Potential impacts to the subject property and adjacent properties are considered and limited through
the use of a shared driveway, preservation of a substantial number of trees on the hillside slopes, and
limits on cuts and fills. No structures or other disturbances are proposed on the hillside slopes.
These measures all reduce potential adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT CRITERIA
18.5.7.040
B. Tree Removal Permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if
the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to
conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to
applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental
Constraints in part 18.3.10.
Finding:
There are eleven trees proposed for removal. Of these, seven trees are significant and require a
tree removal permit. Trees proposed for removal are within the area of the shared driveway,
future utility trenching, and the building envelope areas of Lots 3, 4, and 5. The tree removal
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 25 of 28
Total Page Number: 70
permit is necessitated by the construction of the shared driveway, utility extensions, and the
construction of the residential dwellings.
There are some trees within the proposed building envelopes that are not proposed for
removal. At the building permit, if a structure is requested to be placed in these areas, the
necessary tree removal permits for these trees will be applied for. Wildfire Safety Standards
will likely dictate what trees are retained, but this request seeks to leave as many trees as
possible for individual property owners to determine which trees should be preserved instead
of requesting removal at the subdivision.
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.
Finding:
The removal of the trees will not have a significant impact on erosion, soil stability, or the
protection of adjacent trees. The trees are not part of any windbreak. The removal of the trees
will be replaced with structures that limit the site erosion.
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.
Finding:
The removal of the seven trees represents a relatively small portion of the overall tree densities
and species diversity within a 200-foot radius of the property. The site plan demonstrates that
numerous trees will remain on the properties, ensuring that tree density and canopy coverage
in the area are not significantly diminished. The trees proposed for removal are representative
of several species already present on the site and in the surrounding area. The removal will not
eliminate any species from the local ecosystem and therefore will not negatively impact species
diversity. Significant effort has been made to minimize tree removal. The location of the shared
driveway was carefully considered to balance access requirements with tree preservation. The
proposed tree removal is essential to allow for the construction of permitted residential
dwellings and utilities. These are pre-existing, legally created lots. There are no reasonable
alternatives to the removal of the trees located within the building envelopes if the property is
to be used as permitted.
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 26 of 28
Total Page Number: 71
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.
Finding:
The tree removal facilitates the development of an oversized parcel with a small subdivision
and housing as envisioned by the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan. The trees are not
especially unique. All trees proposed for removal are within building envelopes or within the
impact area from driveway and utility construction.
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.
Finding:
The seven mitigation trees will be identified on the landscape and irrigation plans that will be
submitted with the building permit application.
Attachments:
Geotechnical Evaluation
Electric Distribution Plan
Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Subdivision Civil Engineering
Tree Inventory
Tree Protection &Preservation Plan
Conceptual Elevations
Performance Standards Option Subdivision
Granite Pines
Scenic Drive Page 27 of 28
Total Page Number: 72
Total Page Number: 73
Total Page Number: 74
Total Page Number: 75
Total Page Number: 76
Total Page Number: 77
Total Page Number: 78
n
ew
ea
s
em
e
nt
:1
0
't
yp
ic
al
81
Number:
Page
Total
82
Number:
Page
Total
83
Number:
Page
Total
Bscpsjtu!Sfqpsu
Usff!Qspufdujpo!Qmbo!Ä!Hsbojuf!Qjoft!Tvcejwjtjpo
2/!Jouspevdujpo
Uijt!sfqpsu!qsftfout!b!Usff!Qspufdujpo!Qmbo!gps!uif!Hsbojuf!Qjoft!Tvcejwjtjpo/!Jut!qvsqptf!jt!up!
pvumjof!qspufdujwf!nfbtvsft!gps!tjhojÑdbou!usfft!mpdbufe!po!ps!bekbdfou!up!uif!qspqfsuz-!bt!xfmm!bt!
up!jefoujgz!usfft!sfdpnnfoefe!gps!sfnpwbm!evf!up!vobwpjebcmf!dpotusvdujpo!jnqbdut/
Uijt!qmbo!ibt!cffo!efwfmpqfe!jo!bddpsebodf!xjui!joevtusz!tuboebset-!jodmvejoh!uif!JTB!Cftu!
Nbobhfnfou!Qsbdujdft;!Nbobhjoh!Usfft!Evsjoh!Dpotusvdujpo!)3oe!Fejujpo-!3128*!boe!BOTJ!
B411!)Qbsu!6*!tuboebset!gps!usff!qspufdujpo/
3/!Pctfswbujpot
Ofjhicpsjoh!Qspqfsuz!)55!Tdfojd!Es*;
¦29Ç!ECI!dpbtubm!sfexppe
¦Uxp!23Ç!ECI!Epvhmbt!Ñst
¦23Ç!ECI!rvbljoh!btqfo
¦:Ç!ECI!Qpoefsptb!qjof
Tvckfdu!Qspqfsuz;
¦Opubcmz;!hspvq!pg!4!mbshf!Qpoefsptb!qjoft/
¦Tff!bttpdjbufe!usff!jowfoupsz!mjtu/
Total Page Number: 85
Usfft!Sfdpnnfoefe!gps!Sfnpwbm;
¦!Usff!$2244;!!35Ç!ECI!Epvhmbt!Ñs/
¦Usfft!$2232!boe!$2233;!44Ç!ECI!dpuupoxppe!/
¦Usff!$2243;!Bmnpoe!usff!xjui!3!tufnt!26/6Ç!ECI-!sftqfdujwfmz/
¦Usff!$2249;!Cmbdl!pbl-!33Ç!ECI
¦Usff!$2259;!Nvmcfssz!25/6Ç!ECI
¦Usfft!$2272-!2273-!2276-!boe!2278;!Cmbdl!pbl!usfft!sbohjoh!gspn!:Ç!ECI!up!27/6Ç!ECI/
4/!Ejtdvttjpo
Ofjhicpsjoh!Qspqfsuz!Usfft
Dpotusvdujpo!pg!uif!qspqptfe!bddftt!spbe!xjmm!pddvs!xjuijo!bqqspyjnbufmz!9É!pg!uif!29Ç!sfexppe/!
Dvssfou!qmbot!joejdbuf;
¦Op!tjhojÑdbou!fydbwbujpo!jo!uijt!bsfb/
¦B!sfubjojoh!xbmm!xjmm!cf!dpotusvdufe!up!tubcjmj{f!uif!tmpqf/
¦Sppu!{pof!qspufdujpo!jt!bwbjmbcmf!po!uif!tjef!pqqptjuf!dpotusvdujpo/
Hjwfo!uiftf!gbdupst-!jnqbdut!up!nbkps!tusvduvsbm!spput!boe!uif!pwfsbmm!sppu!tztufn!bsf!fyqfdufe!up!
cf!njojnbm/!Uif!ofbscz!Ñst-!btqfo-!boe!qjof!bsf!mpdbufe!gbsuifs!gspn!dpotusvdujpo!boe!bsf!
vomjlfmz!up!cf!bggfdufe/!Xijmf!tpnf!sppu!mptt!nbz!pddvs!evf!up!uif!jotubmmbujpo!pg!bo!jnqfswjpvt!
tvsgbdf-!bmm!usfft!bsf!dvssfoumz!ifbmuiz!boe!tipvme!upmfsbuf!njops!ejtuvscbodf!xjuipvu!mpoh.ufsn!
efdmjof-!qspwjefe!uibu!qspufdujpo!hvjefmjoft!bsf!gpmmpxfe/
Tvckfdu!Qspqfsuz!Ä!41Ç!ECI!Qjoft
Uif!nbuvsf!qjoft!bsf!mpdbufe!cfzpoe!uif!qsjnbsz!dpotusvdujpo!{pof/!Ipxfwfs-!evf!up!uifjs!tj{f!
boe!tfotjujwjuz!up!sppu!mptt-!b!Usff!Qspufdujpo!\[pof!)UQ\[*!nvtu!cf!ftubcmjtife/
¦Qfs!JTB!CNQt-!uif!njojnvn!UQ\[!tipvme!fyufoe!2!gppu!pg!sbejbm!ejtubodf!gspn!uif!
usvol!gps!fwfsz!jodi!pg!ECI/
¦Xifsf!gfbtjcmf-!qspufdujpo!cfzpoe!uif!njojnvn!tipvme!cf!jnqmfnfoufe!up!nbyjnj{f!
sppu!qsftfswbujpo/
¦Nbjoubjojoh!mbshfs!dpoujhvpvt!sppu!{poft!jt!qbsujdvmbsmz!jnqpsubou!gps!nbuvsf!usfft-!xijdi!
ibwf!b!sfevdfe!bcjmjuz!up!sfdpwfs!gspn!sppu!ebnbhf/
Total Page Number: 86
Usfft!Sfdpnnfoefe!gps!Sfnpwbm
Uif!35Ç!ECI!Ñs!po!Mpu!5!)2244*!boe!uif!uxp!47Ç!ECI!dpuupoxppet!po!Mpu!4!)2232!boe!2233*!
bsf!fjuifs!xjuijo!ps!jnnfejbufmz!bekbdfou!up!qspqptfe!cvjmejoh!gppuqsjout/!
Usff!$2243!jt!xjuijo!uif!gppuqsjou!pg!uif!qspqptfe!esjwfxbz/
Usfft!$2249-!2259-!2272-!2273-!2274-!boe!2278!bsf!mpdbufe!jo!dmptf!qspyjnjuz!up!uif!qspqptfe!
vujmjuz!mjoft/!Uif!fydbwbujpo!sfrvjsfe!up!jotubmm!uiftf!mjoft!jt!xfmm!xjuijo!uif!dsjujdbm!sppu!{pof!pg!
uiftf!usfft!boe!xpvme!nptu!mjlfmz!dbvtf!jssfqbsbcmf!ebnbhf!up!uif!usfftÉ!ifbmui!boe!kfpqbsej{f!
uifjs!tubcjmjuz/
5/!Hfofsbm!Hvjefmjoft
Usff!Qspufdujpo!\[pof!)UQ\[*
¦B!UQ\[!tibmm!cf!ftubcmjtife!bspvoe!uif!sppu!{pof!pg!bmm!usfft!eftjhobufe!gps!qspufdujpo!
qsjps!up!boz!dpotusvdujpo-!fydbwbujpo-!mboe!dmfbsjoh-!ps!hsbejoh!bdujwjujft/
¦Uif!UQ\[!tipvme!cf!fodmptfe!xjui!ufnqpsbsz!7É!ubmm!gfodjoh!uibu!sfnbjot!jo!qmbdf!
uispvhi!qspkfdu!dpnqmfujpo/
¦Uif!UQ\[!tipvme!cf!ftubcmjtife!bu!b!njojnvn!ejtubodf!fyufoejoh!up!uif!gvsuiftu!fyufou!pg!
uif!esjq!mjof!ps!2!gppu!pg!sbejbm!ejtubodf!gspn!uif!usvol!gps!fwfsz!jodi!pg!ECI-!
xijdifwfs!jt!hsfbufs-!vomftt!puifsxjtf!ejsfdufe!cz!uif!qspkfdu!bscpsjtu/
Tpjm!Dpnqbdujpo
¦Ifbwz!nbufsjbmt!nvtu!opu!cf!tupsfe!xjuijo!UQ\[t/
¦Wfijdmft!tipvme!opu!nbofvwfs!ps!qbsl!jotjef!UQ\[t/
¦Op!hsbef!dibohft!ps!qbwfe!tvsgbdft!tipvme!cf!dpotusvdufe!xjuijo!UQ\[t/
Usff!Dbsf
¦Jg!nbdijofsz!nvtu!pqfsbuf!xjuijo!b!UQ\[-!qspufdujwf!nfbtvsft!tipvme!cf!ublfo!up!qsfwfou!
usvol!jokvsz/
¦Jg!jokvsz!pddvst-!bo!bscpsjtu!ps!rvbmjÑfe!mboetdbqf!qspgfttjpobm!tipvme!fwbmvbuf!uif!usff!
boe!qspwjef!usfbunfou!sfdpnnfoebujpot/
¦Boz!qsvojoh!sfrvjsfe!evsjoh!dpotusvdujpo!nvtu!cf!qfsgpsnfe!cz!b!rvbmjÑfe!bscpsjtu-!opu!
dpotusvdujpo!qfstpoofm/
Total Page Number: 87
Sppu!Qspufdujpo
¦Bwpje!dvuujoh!spput!hsfbufs!uibo!2Ç!ejbnfufs/
¦Jg!sppu!qsvojoh!jt!ofdfttbsz-!spput!tipvme!cf!dvu!dmfbomz!xjui!b!tbx!ps!czqbtt!qsvofst!bu!b!
:1¢!bohmf-!ofwfs!upso!cz!nbdijofsz/
¦Fyqptfe!spput!nvtu!cf!dpwfsfe!xjui!npjtu!tpjm!jnnfejbufmz!bgufs!qsvojoh!up!qsfwfou!
eftjddbujpo/
¦Jg!spput!mbshfs!uibo!3Ç!ejbnfufs!bsf!fodpvoufsfe!ofbs!uif!UQ\[-!dpotvmubujpo!xjui!uif!
qspkfdu!bscpsjtu!jt!sfrvjsfe/
¦Boz!fydbwbujpo!ps!usfodijoh!xjuijo!UQ\[t!nvtu!cf!sfwjfxfe!xjui!uif!qspkfdu!bscpsjtu!up!
efufsnjof!njujhbujpo!pqujpot/
Xbufs!Nbobhfnfou
¦Evsjoh!uif!esjftu!npouit!)KvmzÄTfqufncfs*-!jg!sppu!mptt!jt!boujdjqbufe-!tvqqmfnfoubm!effq!
xbufsjoh!tipvme!cf!qspwjefe/
¦Xbufsjoh!tipvme!pddvs!2Ä5!ujnft!qfs!npoui!efqfoejoh!po!tqfdjft-!fotvsjoh!tpjm!
npjtuvsf!qfofusbuft!up!b!efqui!pg!41!jodift/
6/!Sfdpnnfoebujpot
2/Ftubcmjti!boe!nbjoubjo!UQ\[t!qfs!JTB!CNQ!boe!BOTJ!B411!tuboebset-!fyufoejoh!gfodjoh!
up!uif!esjq!mjof!ps!hsfbufs!xifsf!gfbtjcmf/
3/Fogpsdf!sftusjdujpot!xjuijo!UQ\[t!up!qsfwfou!tpjm!dpnqbdujpo-!usvol!jokvsz-!ps!voofdfttbsz!
sppu!ebnbhf/
4/Jnqmfnfou!bscpsjtu.tvqfswjtfe!qsvojoh!boe!sppu!dbsf!qspdfevsft!evsjoh!dpotusvdujpo/
5/Qspwjef!tvqqmfnfoubm!xbufsjoh!evsjoh!tvnnfs!npouit!jg!sppu!jnqbdut!pddvs/
6/Sfnpwf!uif!gpmmpxjoh!usfft!evf!up!vobwpjebcmf!dpotusvdujpo!dpoÒjdut;
Mpu!5;!Pof!35Ç!ECI!Ñs
Mpu!4;!Uxp!47Ç!ECI!dpuupoxppet
7/!Dpodmvtjpo
Total Page Number: 88
Xjui!uif!jnqmfnfoubujpo!pg!uif!sfdpnnfoefe!Usff!Qspufdujpo!Qmbo!boe!beifsfodf!up!uif!hfofsbm!
hvjefmjoft!pvumjofe!bcpwf-!uif!nbkpsjuz!pg!tjhojÑdbou!usfft!po!boe!bekbdfou!up!uif!Hsbojuf!Qjoft!
Tvcejwjtjpo!qspqfsuz!dbo!cf!tvddfttgvmmz!qsftfswfe/!Ofjhicpsjoh!qspqfsuz!usfft!tipvme!sfnbjo!
ifbmuiz-!qspwjefe!uibu!joevtusz.tuboebse!qspufdujpo!hvjefmjoft!bsf!gpmmpxfe/!Pomz!uisff!usfftÅ
pof!Ñs!boe!uxp!dpuupoxppetÅsfrvjsf!sfnpwbm!evf!up!uifjs!mpdbujpo!xjuijo!qspqptfe!cvjmejoh!
gppuqsjout/
8/!Ejtdmbjnfs!boe!Mjnjubujpot
Uijt!sfqpsu!jt!cbtfe!po!wjtvbm!pctfswbujpot!pg!bddfttjcmf!qpsujpot!pg!uif!usfft!boe!tvsspvoejoh!
tjuf!dpoejujpot!bu!uif!ujnf!pg!jotqfdujpo/!Op!jowbtjwf!ps!eftusvdujwf!uftujoh!)jodmvejoh!sppu!dspxo!
fydbwbujpo-!joufsobm!efdbz!efufdujpo-!ps!tpjm!bobmztjt*!xbt!qfsgpsnfe!vomftt!tqfdjÑdbmmz!opufe/!
Usff!ifbmui!boe!tusvduvsbm!tubcjmjuz!dbo!dibohf!pwfs!ujnf!evf!up!xfbuifs!fwfout-!dpotusvdujpo!
jnqbdut-!qftut-!ejtfbtft-!ps!puifs!fowjsponfoubm!gbdupst!cfzpoe!uif!tdpqf!pg!uijt!bttfttnfou/
Sfdpnnfoebujpot!qspwjefe!bsf!joufoefe!up!sfevdf!sjtl!boe!tvqqpsu!usff!qsftfswbujpo!evsjoh!
dpotusvdujpo!cvu!dboopu!fmjnjobuf!bmm!sjtl!pg!gbjmvsf/!Uif!dpotvmujoh!bscpsjtu!bttvnft!op!
sftqpotjcjmjuz!gps!ebnbhf-!jokvsz-!ps!mptt!dbvtfe!cz!usff!gbjmvsf!ps!cz!sfmjbodf!po!uijt!sfqpsu!
cfzpoe!uif!tdpqf!pg!uif!tfswjdft!qspwjefe/!Jnqmfnfoubujpo!pg!usff!qspufdujpo!nfbtvsft!boe!
dpnqmjbodf!xjui!mpdbm!psejobodft!sfnbjo!uif!sftqpotjcjmjuz!pg!uif!qspqfsuz!pxofs-!dpousbdupst-!
boe!tjuf!nbobhfst/
Total Page Number: 89
Usff!Qspufdujpo!Hvjefmjoft!.!dpoefotfe!gps!kpctjuf!vtf
Hsbojuf!Qjoft!Tvcejwjtjpo!
Qsfqbsfe!cz!Disjt!Kpio-!Qspkfdu!Bscpsjtu
Usff!Qspufdujpo!\[pof!)UQ\[*
¦Ftubcmjti!UQ\[!gfodjoh!cfgpsf!boz!dpotusvdujpo-!fydbwbujpo-!mboe!dmfbsjoh-!ps!hsbejoh!
cfhjot/
¦Vtf!7É!ubmm-!ijhi.wjtjcjmjuz!gfodjoh<!lffq!jo!qmbdf!voujm!qspkfdu!dpnqmfujpo/
¦UQ\[!tipvme!fyufoe!up!uif!gvsuiftu!fyufou!pg!uif!usffÉt!esjq!mjof!)vomftt!ejsfdufe!
puifsxjtf!cz!uif!qspkfdu!bscpsjtu*/
Tpjm!Dpnqbdujpo
¦Op!tupsbhf!pg!nbufsjbmt!)hsbwfm-!tpjm-!mvncfs-!fud/*!jotjef!UQ\[t/
¦Op!wfijdmf!qbsljoh!ps!nbofvwfsjoh!xjuijo!UQ\[t/
¦Bwpje!hsbef!dibohft!ps!qbwjoh!xjuijo!UQ\[t/
Usff!Dbsf
¦Qspufdu!usff!usvolt!jg!nbdijofsz!nvtu!pqfsbuf!ofbs!UQ\[/
¦Jg!b!usff!jt!ebnbhfe-!opujgz!uif!qspkfdu!bscpsjtu!jnnfejbufmz/
Total Page Number: 90
¦Bmm!usff!qsvojoh!nvtu!cf!epof!cz!b!rvbmjÑfe!bscpsjtu!pomz/
Sppu!Qspufdujpo
¦Ep!opu!dvu!spput!mbshfs!uibo!2Ç!ejbnfufs/
¦Jg!spput!nvtu!cf!dvu;
Nblf!dmfbo!dvut!xjui!b!tbx!ps!czqbtt!qsvofst!bu!b!:1¢!bohmf/
Dpwfs!fyqptfe!spput!xjui!npjtu!tpjm!jnnfejbufmz/
¦Spput!pwfs!3Ç!ejbnfufs;!dpotvmu!qspkfdu!bscpsjtu!cfgpsf!dvuujoh/
¦Fydbwbujpo!ps!usfodijoh!jotjef!UQ\[!nvtu!cf!bqqspwfe!cz!uif!bscpsjtu/
Xbufsjoh!)KvmzÄTfqufncfs*
¦Jg!sppu!mptt!pddvst-!xbufs!bggfdufe!usfft!2Ä5!ujnft!qfs!npoui!efqfoejoh!po!tqfdjft/
¦Fotvsf!effq!xbufsjoh!up!b!41Ç!tpjm!efqui/
Sfnjoefs
¦UQ\[!gfodjoh!nvtu!sfnbjo!joubdu!bu!bmm!ujnft/
¦Sfqpsu!boz!usff!jokvsz-!gfodjoh!csfbdift-!ps!sppu!fyqptvsf!up!uif!qspkfdu!bscpsjtu!
jnnfejbufmz/
¦Uiftf!hvjefmjoft!nvtu!cf!gpmmpxfe!cz!bmm!dpousbdupst-!tvcdpousbdupst-!boe!tjuf!
qfstpoofm/
Total Page Number: 91
Total Page Number: 92
93
Number:
Page
Total
94
Number:
Page
Total
95
Number:
Page
Total
96
Number:
Page
Total
_________________________________
2
2262 Ashland Street
Total Page Number: 97
Total Page Number: 98
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2025-00062
SUBJECT PROPERTY:2262 & 2270 Ashland Street
APPLICANT: Dan Horton Architecture
OWNER: Reed Commercial Investment Properties LLC
DESCRIPTION:A request for Site Design Review approval to redevelop the property at 2262 Ashland St. The
proposal is for two commercial two-story buildings. The application includes a request for phased redevelopment, where first
the office building will be removed andreplaced, followed by the removal of the restaurant and the construction of the second
building. Additionally, tax lot 1600 has been approved for a Property Line Adjustment (see: PA-A-2025-00379) increasing its
size from 0.38 acres to 0.82 acres.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Commercial; ZONING: C-1; MAP:39-1E-14-
BA; TAX LOT:1600.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday December 9at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center,
1175 East Main Street
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 99
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
Enter Criteria
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).
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 DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050
ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900
Total Page Number: 100
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 101
Total Page Number: 102
Total Page Number: 103
Total Page Number: 104
Total Page Number: 105
Total Page Number: 106
Total Page Number: 107
Total Page Number: 108
Total Page Number: 109
Total Page Number: 110
Total Page Number: 111
Total Page Number: 112
Total Page Number: 113
Total Page Number: 114
Total Page Number: 115
Total Page Number: 116
_________________________________
Total Page Number: 117
Total Page Number: 118
HORTON ARCHITECTURE, INC,
PO Box682
EAGLE POINT. OR 97524
DAN@HORTONARCHITECTURE.COM
SITE DESIGN REVIEW:
2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
I. Project Information
Date:
10/22/2025
2262 Ashland Street
Subject Site:
Ashland, OR 97520
391E14BA TL 1600
Map & Tax Lot:
C-1 (Commercial)
Detail Site Review Overlay
Zoning:
& Climate Friendly Overlay
Reed Commercial Investment Properties, LLC
Property Owner:
2268 Ashland Street
Ashland, OR 97520
II. Project Scope
Ill. Attachments :
Compliance Findings to Ashland Land use Ordinance
Exhibits:
A-1 Architectural Site Plan, A-2 Lower Floor Plan Bldg A; A-3 Upper Floor Plan Bldg A; A-4 & A-5
Exterior Elevations Bldg A; A-6 Lower Floor Plan Bldg B; A-7 Upper Floor Plan Bldg B; A-8 & A-9
Exterior Elevations Bldg B
C0.0 Civil Engineering;
L-1.0 Landscaping Design ;
Electrical service drawing by Ashland Electric Dept;
Topo, Boundary, and Property Line Adjustment Survey
Traffic Assessment
Total Page Number: 119
TypeIISiteDesignReview2262 Ashland StreetRedevelopment
V. Overview
Chapter 18.5.2 Compliance Findings
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
18.5.2.020 The proposed improvements include demo of an existing
building and new construction of an 11,330 sq ft
commercial use building with site
improvements located in a C-1 zone.
Applicability It is subject to Site Design Review.
Review is required for the following types of
project proposals;
A. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential, and Mixed
Uses. Site Design Review applies to the following types
of non-residential uses and project proposals, including
proposals for commercial, industrial, and mixed-use
projects, pursuant to section 18.5.2.030, Review
Procedures.
1. New structures, additions, or expansions in C-1E-1,
,
HC, CM, and M-1 zones.
The proposed construction is located within the Detail
18.5.2.030
Site Review overlay. The new construction is greater
Review Procedures
than 10,000 sq ft and is more than 100 feet in length or
A. Type I Review. Except as provided by 18.5.2.030,
width thus subject to a Type II review.
subsections B - G, below, applications for Site Design
Review are subject to the Type I procedure, pursuant to
section 18.5.1.050.
D. Detail Site Review Overlay. In the Detail Site Review
overlay, new structures or additions greater than 10,000
square feet in gross floor area, or longer than 100 feet
in length or width are subject to Type II review.
18.5.2.040
Application Submission Requirements
The following information is required for site design
review application submittal, except where the Staff
Advisor determines that some information is not
pertinent and therefore is not required:
B. Site Design Review Information. In addition to the
general information required for site design review, the
applicant shall provide the following information:
Total Page Number: 120
TypeIISiteDesignReview2262 Ashland StreetRedevelopment
18.5.2.050
Approval Criteria
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.
B. Overlay Zones.
C. Site Development and Design Standards.
D. City Facilities.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design
Standards.
VI. Findings of Fact
AMC Part 18.2
Compliance Findings
Chapter 18.2.2
BASE ZONES AND ALLOWED USES
Per Table 18.2.2.30. Uses Allowed by Zone, the
18.2.2.030
commercial use Offices and Retail Sales and Services
Allowed Uses
is P (Permitted) in zone C-1.
A. Uses Allowed in Base Zones. Allowed uses include
those that are permitted, permitted subject to special
use standards, and allowed subject to approval of a
conditional use permit. Where Table 18.2.2.030 does
not list a specific use and part 18.6 does not define the
use or include it as an example of an allowed use, the
City may find that use is allowed, or is not allowed,
following the procedures of section 18.1.5.040.
Compliance Findings
Chapter 18.2.4
GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR BASE ZONES
The lot as adjusted with a property line
18.2.4.010
adjustment has a frontage on Ashland Street
Access and Minimum Street Frontage
of 254 ft.
Each lot shall abut a public street other than an alley for
a width of not less than 40 feet; except, where a lot is
part of an approved flag partition or abuts a cul-de-sac
vehicle turn-around area, the minimum width is 25 feet.
Total Page Number: 121
TypeIISiteDesignReview2262 Ashland StreetRedevelopment
A. The proposed improvements do not include new
accessory structures.
18.2.4.020
Accessory Structures and Mechanical Equipment
A. Accessory Structures. Accessory buildings and
B. Mechanical equipment will be located on the roof and
structures shall comply with all requirements for the
screened from view.
principal use, except where specifically modified by this
ordinance,
B. Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment shall
not be located between the main structure on the site
and any street adjacent to a front or side yard, and
every attempt shall be made to place such equipment
so that it is not visible from adjacent public streets.
Mechanical equipment and associated enclosures, not
taller than allowed fence heights, may be located within
required interior side or rear yards, provided such
installation and operation is consistent with other
provisions of this ordinance or the Ashland Municipal
Code, including but not limited to noise attenuation.
Any installation of mechanical equipment shall require a
building permit.
The setback of the new proposed building is 14 ft from
18.2.4.030
face of curb on Ashland Street. A 5 ft park row and 8 ft
Arterial Street Setback
sidewalk are within the setback.
The setback from an arterial street shall be not less
than 20 feet, or the width required to install sidewalk
and park row improvements, consistent with the street
standards in chapter 18.4.6, whichever is less.
A.
18.2.4.050
See Compliance Narrative for the Solar Access
Yard Requirements and General Exceptions
standards of chapter 18.4.8 later in this document.
A. In addition to the requirements of chapters 18.2.5
and 18.2.6, yard requirements shall conform to the
B.
Solar Access standards of chapter 18.4.8.
As per section 18.2.6.30, there is no minimum front,
side or rear yard required for zone C-1. The exception
B. Eaves and awnings may encroach three feet into
for buildings within 100 feet of a residential zone does
required yards; all other architectural projections may
not apply.
encroach 18 inches into required yards.
C. The following general exceptions are allowed for
C.
structures that are 30 inches in height or less, including
There is no proposed structure 30 inches or less, an
entry stairs, uncovered porches, patios, and similar
exception does not apply.
structures:
Total Page Number: 122
TypeIISiteDesignReview2262 Ashland StreetRedevelopment
Compliance Findings
Chapter 18.2.6
STANDARDS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES
18.2.6.020
Chapter 18.2.6 applies. The property is in zone C-1.
Applicability
The standards contained in this chapter apply to all uses
and development in the city's employment zones.
Property owners are responsible for verifying whether a
proposed use or development meets the applicable
standards of this ordinance, and for obtaining Zoning
Permits.
There are no minimum or maximum requirements to
Lot Area. Width. Depth. Lot Coverage
comply with. Special districts, overlay zones, and site
and design standards are addressed later in this
There is no minimum lot area, width or depth, or
maximum lot coverage; or minimum front, side or rear document.
yard, except as required to comply with the special
district and overlay zone provisions of part 18.3 or the
site development and design standards of part 18.4.
Setback Yards
The existing building does not abut a residential
zone. There are no minimum front, side or rear yard
There is no minimum front, side, or rear yard required,
requirements.
except where buildings on the subject site abut a
residential zone, in which case a side of not less than 10
The site is in zone C-1, therefore the solar setback
ft and a rear yard of not less than 10 ft per story is
standards of chapter 18.4.8 do not apply.
required.
The building is not located within 100 ft of a residential
The solar setback standards of chapter 18.4.8 do not
zone, therefore the solar setback standards of chapter
apply to structures in the C-1 zone.
18.4.8 do not apply.
Except for buildings within 100 feet of a residential
The site is located on an arterial street, therefore
zone, the solar setback standards of chapter 18.4.8 do
section 18.2.4.030 applies. See Compliance Findings
not apply to structures in the C-1 zone.
for section 18.2.4.030 above.
See also section 18.2.4.030 Arterial Street Setback.
The roof height of the proposed building is 24 ft in
Building Height 2 & 3 Maximum (feet)
height above grade. This is under the maximum height
requirement of 40 ft. See exhibit A-4 Exterior
2. See definition of "height of building" in section
Elevations.
18.6.1.030. 3. Parapets may be erected up to five feet
above the maximum building height; see also,
18.4.4.030.G.4 for mechanical equipment screening
requirements, and 18.5.2.020 for Site Design Review for
Total Page Number: 123
TypeIISiteDesignReview2262 Ashland StreetRedevelopment
Mechanical equipment is located on the roof and
mechanical equipment review process.
screened. See 18.4.4 below.
40 ft, except:
- Buildings greater than 40 ft and less than 55 ft are
permitted in C-1-D zone with approval of a Conditional
Does not apply, no CUP required.
Use Permit.
-Where located more than 100 feet from a residential
zone, buildings greater than 40 ft and less than 55 ft are
Does not apply, no CUP required.
permitted in C-1 zone with approval of a Conditional
Use Permit.
The proposed site development includes landscaping at
Landscape Area Minimum % of developed lot area
17% of the lot area.
15%
AMC Part 18.3
Compliance Findings
Chapter 18.3.12
SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS
B.
18.3.12.030
The proposed improvements are located in the Detail
Detail Site Review Overlay
Site Review Overlay. Subsection 18.4.2.040.C applies.
B. Development in the Detail Site Review Overlay is
subject to subsection 18.4.2.040.C in addition to all
C.
other applicable sections of this ordinance.
See Compliance Narrative for section 18.5.2.030 earlier
C. Any development in the Detail Site Review Overlay
in this document.
which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100
feet in length or width shall be reviewed according to
the Type II procedure in section 18.5.1.060.
Total Page Number: 124
Type II Site Design Review
2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
Compliance Findings
18.3.14.010 Purpose
TheClimate Friendly (CF) overlay is intended to promote
the development of a mix of housing, commercial and
employment opportunities within a well-designed and
connected pedestrian environment. Areas within the CF
overlay are intended to be served by high-quality
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure and services.
(Ord. 3249 §§ 2, 3 (Exh. A), replaced, 06/03/2025)
18.3.14.020 Applicability
ClimateFriendly (CF) Overlay Designation. This
chapterapplies to properties designated as Climate
CF Overlay Designation applies to this site per Zoning Map.
Friendly (CF) overlay on the Zoning Map.
B. Governing Standards. Notwithstanding the provisions
of chapter 18.2.2, Base Zones, additional use restrictions
and land use standards apply within the CF overlay.
Where the provisions of this chapter conflict with
comparable standards described in any other ordinance,
resolution or regulation, the provisions of the CF overlay
shall govern.
C. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from
the requirements of this chapter are subject to chapter
No exceptions or variances are being requested.
18.5.5, Variances, except that deviations from the
standards in section 18.3.14.060 are subject to subsection
18.5.2.050.E, Exception to the Site Development and
Design Standards.
Total Page Number: 125
Type II Site Design Review
2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
18.3.14.030GeneralRequirements
A. Site Development and Design Standards. New
development is subject to Site Design Review under
chapter 18.5.2 and must comply with the applicable site
development and design standards. (Ord. 3249 §§ 2, 3
(Exh. A), replaced, 06/03/2025)
18.3.14.040 Allowed Uses
A. Uses Allowed in CF Overlay. Allowed uses are
determined by the base zone and in accordance with
section 18.2.2.030, except as provided for in this
chapter. Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 18.2.2,
Base Zones and Allowed Uses, this section includes
additional allowed uses, use restrictions and prohibited
uses within the CF overlay.
B.Mixed Use. Uses allowed in a zone individually are
also allowed in combination with one another, in the same
structure or on the same site, provided all applicable
development standards and building code requirements
are met.
18.3.14.050.
Total Page Number: 126
Type II Site Design Review
2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
18.3.14.050 Dimensional Standards
Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 18.2.5, Standards for Residential Zones, and chapter 18.2.6, Standards for
Non-Residential Zones, Table 18.3.14.050 includes the dimensional standards within the CF overlay.
Thedimensions shall conform to the standards in Table 18.3.14.050.
Table 18.3.14.050. Climate Friendly Overlay Dimensional
Standards
Base Zones
RESPONSE:
R-2 C-1 E-1
II
Residential Density (dwelling units/
None proposed
acre)
1
15 du/ac
25 du/ac 20 du/ac
Minimum
Maximum None
1
Mixed-use buildings are exempt from the minimum density if they have a FAR of 2.0 or
greater. Redevelopment within existing buildings that adds residential units, but does
not add new units outside the existing building, is exempt from the minimum density.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)2
Proposed
0.5
0.5
Minimum 0.5
FAR: 0.70
2
Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the
minimum FAR. Plazas and pedestrian areas may also be applied toward meeting the
landscaping area requirements but shall not constitute more than 50 percent of the
required area.
Lot Area, Width, Depth and Coverage
There is no minimum lot area, width or depth,
or maximum lot coverage, provided the
minimum landscape area is provided.
3
Yards, Minimum (feet)
- Front
There is no minimum front, side, or rear yard
required, except where buildings on the subject
-Side
site abut a residential zone outside of the CF
- Rear
Does not abut
overlay, in which case a side or rear yard of not
residential
less than 15 feet is required.
3
see building step-back requirement in section 18.3.14.060.B.
Total Page Number: 127
2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
Type II Site Design Review
Table 18.3.14.050. Climate Friendly Overlay Dimensional Standards
Base Zones
R-2
C-1 E-1
Building Separation, On Same Site -
NA
Minimum
4,5
Building Height
Maximum Height - feet/stories
50/4 50/4
50/4
Proposed
24/2
6
60/5
60/5 60/5
Maximum Height with Bonus
Solar Setback
Except for buildings within 100 feet of a
N/A
residential zone outside of the CF overlay, the
solar setback standards of chapter 18.4.8 do
not apply.
4
See definition of "height of building" in section 18.6.1.030.
5
Parapets may be erected up to five feet above the maximum building height; see also,
subsection 18.4.4.030.G.4 for mechanical equipment screening requirements, and
section 18.5.2.020 for site design review for mechanical equipment review process.
6
Multifamily and mixed-use dwellings meeting the standards for 25 percent affordable
housing in section 18.2.5.050 are eligible for bonus height. Applicants may alternatively
pursue height bonuses per ORS 197A.445.
Landscape Area Minimum (% of
15%
15% 15%
17% proposed
developed lot area)
Open Space - Minimum (% of site
NA
area)
(Ord.3249 §§ 2, 3 (Exh. A), replaced, 06/03/2025)
Total Page Number: 128
Type II Site Design Review 2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
Compliance Findings
Chapter 18.4.2
1.a. The primary orientation is toward Ashland Street.
BUILDING PLACEMENT, ORIENTATION, AND
DESIGN SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
OVERLAYS
1.b. The building façade is parallel to the street and
18.4.2.040
occupies a majority of the street frontage.
Non-Residential Development
1.c. The proposed building will have multiple
entrances oriented toward the street clearly visible
B. Basic Site Review Standards.
and functional. See exhibit drawing A-1 Site Plan.
1. Orientation and Scale.
1.d. The building entrances are within 20 feet of
the public right of way on Ashland Street.
a. Buildings shall have their primary
1.e The building entrances are oriented to the higher
orientation toward the street and not a
order street.
parking area. Automobile circulation or
off-street parking is not allowed between
1.f Public sidewalks exist on the Ashland
the building and the street.
Street frontage.
Parking areas shall be located behind buildings, or
to one side. See Figure 18.4.2.040.B.1.
1.g The existing building is accessed by
pedestrians, therefore the exception does not apply.
b. A building facade or multiple building facades
shall occupy a large majority of a project's street
frontage as illustrated in Figure 18.4.2.040.B.6, and
avoid site design that incorporates extensive gaps
between building frontages created through a
combination of driveway aprons, parking areasor
,
vehicle aisles. This can be addressed by, but not
limited to, positioning the wider side of the building
rather than the narrow side of the building toward
the street. In the case of a corner lot, this standard
applies to both street frontages. Spaces between
buildings shall consist of landscaping and hard
durable surface materials to highlight pedestrian
areas.
c. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the
street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk.
The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible,
functional, and shall be open to the public during all
business hours. See Figure 18.4.2.040.B.1.
d. Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet
of the public right-of-way to which they are required
to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for
topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs
where a greater setback results in an improved
access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as
Total Page Number: 129
Type II Site Design Review 2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
shopping centers, where other buildings meet this
standard.
e. Where a building is located on a corner lot, its
entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order
street or to the lot corner at the intersection of the
streets. The building shall be located as close to the
intersection corner as practicable.
f. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a
public street along the street frontage.
g. The standards in subsections 18.4.2.040.B.1.a
through d, above, may be waived if the building is
not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses
Total Page Number: 130
Type II Site Design Review 2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
and industrial buildings without attached offices,
and automotive service stations.
2. Streetscape
2.
Street trees meeting this requirement are proposed
One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall
along Ashland Street, see Landscape Plan Exhibit
be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that
L1.
portion of the development fronting the street
pursuant to subsection 18.4.4.030.E.
3.a. The project is located in the Detail Site Review
3. Landscaping
overlay thus no landscape buffer is proposed.
a. Landscape areas at least ten feet in width shall
3.b. There is one dumpster enclosure proposed, see
buffer buildings adjacent to streets, except the
narrative at 18.4.4.
buffer is not required in the Detail Site Review,
Historic District, and Pedestrian Place overlays.
b. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas
shall be provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4.
4. Designated Creek Protection
4. The proposed improvements are not in a designated
creek protection area. The requirements do not apply.
Where a project is proposed adjacent to a
designated creek protection area, the project shall
incorporate the creek into the design while
maintaining required setbacks and buffering, and
complying with water quality protection standards.
The developer shall plant native riparian plants in
and adjacent to the creek protection zone.
5. Noise and Glare. Street lights, if required, will be installed along Ashland
Street per ODOT requirements. On-site lighting will be
Artificial lighting shall meet the requirements of LED downlighting on 10 ft poles on the south side of the
section 18.4.4.050. Compliance with AMC building in the parking area. and parking area lights.
9.08.170.C related to noise is required.
Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings. The proposed project is new construction only
6.
For sites that do not conform to the standards of
section 18.4.2.040 (i.e., nonconforming
developments), an equal percentage of the site
must be made to comply with the standards of this
section as the percentage of building expansion. For
example, if a building area is expanded by 25
percent, then 25 percent of the site must be
brought up to the standards required by this
document.
Total Page Number: 131
Type II Site Design Review 2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
18.4.2.040 Compliance Findings
Non-Residential Development
C. Detail Site Review Standards.
Development that is within the Detail Site Review The proposed improvements are located within the
overlay shall, in addition to complying with the Detail Site Review overlay. The standards in
standards for Basic Site Review in subsection 18.4.2.040.C apply.
18.4.2.040.B, above, conform to the following
standards. See conceptual site plan of detail site review
development in Figure 18.4.2.040.C.1 and maps of the
Detail Site Review overlay in Figures 18.4.2.040.C.2
through 5.
1.a. The proposed improvements and shadow
1. Orientation and Scale.
plan will provide a calculated FAR of
70%.
a. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. Where a site is one-half an acre or
1.b. The new building frontage is greater than 100 feet in
greater in size, the FAR requirement may be met
length. The proposed facade has offsets, changes in
through a phased development plan or a shadow plan
height, and provides articulation in roof lines.
that demonstrates how development may be intensified
over time to meet the minimum FAR. See shadow plan
example in Figure 18.4.2.040.C.1.a. Plazas and
1.c. The front facade of the building facing Ashland
pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the
Street contains 35 percent of the wall area in display
purposes of meeting the minimum FAR.
windows and glazed doors.
1.d. The proposed entries will have lighting and be
b. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length
recessed to provide provide emphasis. Storefront glass
shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive
and finished will provide additional emphasis
changes in the building facade.
1.e. No infill is proposed.
c. Any wall that is within 30 feet of the street, plaza, or
other public or common open space shall contain at
least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in
display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must
allow view into working areas, lobbies, pedestrian
entrances, or display areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of
the street are prohibited. Up to 40 percent of the length
of the building perimeter can be exempted for this
standard if oriented toward loading or service areas.
d. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in
mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances.
e. Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in
Total Page Number: 132
Type II Site Design Review 2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. 1.f. The proposed covered entries and upper floor
covered balconies will provide pedestrians with
f. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, protection from rain and sun.
porticoes, and awnings that protect pedestrians from
the rain and sun.
2.a. The park row/ sidewalk along Ashland Street and
2. Streetscape.
the building facade will consist of scored concrete
walkways
a. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to
designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be
2.b. The front facade of the proposed building is
unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete
,
setback not more than 3 ft from the public sidewalk.
or combinations of the above.
b. A building shall be set back not more than five feet
from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for
pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating
areas, or for a required public utility easement. This
standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner
lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at
least 65 percent of the aggregate building frontage shall
be within five feet of the sidewalk.
3.a. The site is surrounded by C1 zoned land thus
3 Buffering and Screening
there are no incompatible uses on adjacent land.
a. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located
between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those
3.b. The parking area is located behind the proposed
buffers can consist of either plant material or building
building buffering it from Ashland Street. There is no
materials and must be compatible with proposed
adjacent residential zoned land to buffer.
buildings.
b. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street,
cross streets, and screened from residentially zoned
land.
4.a. The proposed improvements add relief to the
4. Building Materials.
facade of the existing building by adding the
covered entries, fenestration, offsets and
a. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as
articulation of roof lines to provide changes in
cornices, bases, fenestration, and fluted masonry, for at
relief.
least 15 percent of the exterior wall area.
4.b. Proposed finishes and colors on the proposed
building avoid bright tones or neon colors and will be
b. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to
in the earth tone range. The proposed facade does not
attract attention to the building or use are prohibited.
incorporate a majority of glazing surface on the
Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the
building skin.
building skin.
Total Page Number: 133
Type II Site Design Review 2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
Compliance Finding
Chapter 18.4.3
PARKING, ACCESS, AND CIRCULATION
The proposed improvements do not include significant
18.4.3.020
changes to the existing vehicular parking or access to the
Applicability
site or circulation through the site. Automobile parking is
A. The requirements of this chapter apply to parking,
access, and circulation facilities in all zones, except
for 13 spaces, Table 18.4.3.040 allows up to 32 spaces
those specifically exempted, whenever any building is
for the 11,330 sq ft building. Six bicycle spaces will be
erected or enlarged, parking, access or circulation is
provided in conformance with same Table.
expanded or reconfigured, or the use is changed.
Chapter 18.4.4
LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND SCREENING
'
18.4.4.030
A. Landscaping as required is proposed. See
Landscaping and Screening
Landscape Plan Exhibit L1.
A. General Landscape Standard. All portions of a lot not
otherwise developed with buildings, accessory
G.1. The proposed improvements include one dumpster
structures, vehicle maneuvering areas, parking, or other
enclosure constructed of 6 ft high concrete block walls
approved hardscapes shall be landscaped pursuant to
and solid Trex gates.
this chapter.
G. Other Screening Requirements. Screening is required
G.2. The proposed improvements do not include
for refuse and recycle containers, outdoor storage areas,
outdoor storage.
loading and service corridors, mechanical equipment, and
the City may require screening in other situations,
G.3. The proposed improvements do not include
pursuant with the requirements of this ordinance.
loading facilities.
1. Recycle and Refuse Container Screen. Recycle and
refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened by
placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall five to
G.4. Mechanical equipment will be located on the
eight feet in height to limit the view from adjacent
building roof and further screened from public view.
properties or public rights-of-way. All recycle and refuse
materials shall be contained within the screened area.
2. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage areas shall be
screened from view, except such screening is not
required in the M-1 zone.
3. Loading Facilities and Service Corridors. Commercial
and industrial loading facilities and service corridors
shall be screened when adjacent to residential zones.
Siting and design of such service areas shall reduce the
adverse effects of noise, odor, and visual clutter upon
adjacent residential uses.
4. Mechanical Equipment, Mechanical equipment shall
Total Page Number: 134
Type II Site Design Review 2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
be screened by placement of features at least equal in
height to the equipment to limit view from public
rights-of-way, except alleys, and adjacent residentially
zoned property. Mechanical equipment meeting the
requirements of this section satisfies the screening
requirements in subsection 18.5.2.020.C.4.
18.4.4.040
A. The proposed dumpster enclosure is sized to allow
Recycling and Refuse Disposal Areas recycling containers.
A. Recycling. All residential, commercial, and
manufacturing developments that are subject to A.2. The proposed recycling/ refuse disposal area is
chapter 18.5.2 Site Design Review shall provide an designed so that half of its space can be used as a
opportunity-to-recycle site for use of the project refuse receptacle and the other half can accommodate
occupants. materials collected for purposes of recycling.
2. Commercial. Commercial developments having a
refuse receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater B. The proposed recycling/ refuse disposal area is
located south of the proposed building and parking area
size adjacent to or with access comparable to the refuse
and is easily accessed from an existing drive aisle.
receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the
local sanitary service franchisee under its on-route
C. Screening for the proposed recycling/ refuse disposal
collection program for purposes of recycling.
area meets the required standards.
B. Service Areas. Recycling and refuse disposal areas
shall be located to provide truck access and shall not be
placed within any required front yard or required
landscape area.
C. Screening. Recycle and refuse disposal area
screening shall be provided pursuant to section
18.4.4.030.G.1.
Chapter 18.4.5
TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
The Landscape Plan, Exhibit L1 addresses tree
18.4.5.030
protection and tree removal.
Tree Protection
A. Tree Protection Plan. A tree protection plan shall be
approved by the Staff Advisor concurrent with
applications for Type I, Type II, and Type Ill planning
actions. If tree removal is proposed, a Tree Removal
Permit pursuant to chapter 18.5.7 may be required.
Total Page Number: 135
Type II Site Design Review 2262 Ashland Street Redevelopment
Chapter 18.4.7
SIGNS
18.4.5.020 The design and implementation of signage will be by others
under a separate sign permit.
Applicability
A. The requirements of chapter 18.4.7 apply to signs in
all zones, except those specifically exempted, whenever
a sign is altered, erected, or replaced.
Chapter 18.4.8
SOLAR ACCESS
Per subsection 18.3.12.060.D.1., the solar access setback
18.4.8.020
in chapter 18.4.8 Solar Access, applies only to those lots
Applicability
abutting a residential zone to the north.
A. Lot Classifications. All lots shall meet the provisions
The lot does not abut a residential zone to the north,
of this section and will be classified according to the
therefore the setback standards is subsection
following formulas and table.
18.4.8.030.B. do not apply.
2. Standard B Lots. Those lots with a north-south lot
dimension that is less than that calculated by Formula I
but greater than that calculated by Formula 11, any lot
zoned C-1, E-l, or M-1 and not exempt by subsection
18.4.8.020.B, or a lot not abutting a residential zone to
the north, shall be required to meet setback standard B
in subsection 18.4.8.030.B. See definition of
north-south lot dimension in part 18.6.
Minimum N/S lot dimension for
Formula 11 = 10'/(0.445 + S)
Total Page Number: 136
146
2262, 2270 ASHLAND ST
MEDFORD, OREGON
RR
LL
EE
AA
NNTT SHEET
Number:
OO
IINN
33
SS00
UU
SS00
RRGG
EE
22 Page
FFEE ASHLAND
REVISIONS
,,TT
EE
OO11
TT
11
RR
NN Total
OO
II
PP 25-1217 10/22/2025BRT
RSG
HH
CC DRAINAGE PLANS
DD
GG
CCSS
EE REED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
NN72868PE72868PE
OREGONOREGON
RR
RR
EETT
G;!652.88:.518:
EE Q;!652.883.8226
AA
RR
TT
MM
SSEE CONCEPTUAL GRADING &
II
2231!FBTU!KBDLTPO
NFEGPSE-!PS!:8612
GGBB
EE
RR
OO
RR
DPOTVMUJOH!FOHJOFFST
C0.00
RENEWS: JUNE 30, 2027RENEWS: JUNE 30, 2027
XFC;!XXX/NBSRVFTT/DPN
OF
PRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY MAI JOB NO.DATEDRAWNCHECKED
OHPOVERHEAD POWERSDSTORM DRAINSSSANITARY SEWERSWKSIDEWALKTCTOP OF CURBTFTOP OF FOOTINGTOGTOP OF GRATETSTOP OF STEPSTWTOP OF WALLWWATER LINEWMWATER METER(xx)EX GRADE/FEATURE
LFLINEAR FEETLTLEFT OFFSETMHMANHOLEPPPOWER POLEPWPOLYWRAPPEDROWRIGHT OF WAYRTRIGHT OFFSET
GAS
SDCOIE=1996.002000.82 CCT
2000.88 CCT
ACASPHALT SURFACEARVAIR RELEASE VALVECBCATCH BASINCCTCONCRETE SURFACECLCENTERLINECOCLEANOUTCICURB INLETGGRVLGRAVEL
BSBOTTOM OF STEPSDIDITCH INLETDIPDUCTILE IRON PIPEEXEXISTINGFFEFINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONFHFIRE HYDRANTFLFLOW LINEFIBFIBER OPTICFSFINISH SURFACEIEINVERT ELEVATION
ABBREVIATIONS
DSSD
SDSD
SD
SD
2000.70 TC2000.20 AC
TOG=1996.04
EX SDCBIE=1993.14 8" CNC (N)
96.54 CCT
MATCH EX(97.04) CCT
EX CURB & GUTTER
2002.83 TC2002.33 AC
SDCOIE=1993.32
2002.71 TC2002.21 AC
SD
IE=2000.00
(97.16) CCT96.66 CCT
MATCH EX
SD
2000.40 CCT
SDSD
PROPOSED TREE WELL
SDMH
RIM=2000.64IE=1997.22 6" IN (NW)IE=1997.22 6" IN (SW)IE=1997.17 8" OUT (E)
20
2002.29 TC2001.79 AC
2001.97 TC2001.47 AC
2000.46 TS
SD
SDMHRIM=2000.24IE=1997.72 12" CNC OUT (E)IE=1997.82 8" PVC IN (W)
PROPOSED TREE WELL
10
TREATMENT FACILITY
PROPOSED STORMTECH2000.25 CCT
D
S
2001.78 TC2001.28 AC
2001.91 TC2001.41 AC
1996.82 CCT
SCALE: 1" =10'
PROPOSED STAIRS
0
W
2000.21 CCT
PROPOSED PARKING
1999.91 TC1999.41 AC
SDCBTOG=1999.395
IE=1997.90
EX OHP
2001.79 TC2001.29 AC
EX WM SD
2000.09 TC1999.59 AC
2000.46 TS10
2000.22 CCT
6,644 SQFT
FFE=2000.50
PROPOSED BUILDING
TO BE DEMOLISHED
EXISTING BUILDING
EX GAS
1999.63 TC1999.63 AC
SD
PROPOSED TREE WELL
1999.68 TC1999.68 AC
1997.00 CCT
SD
2000.42 CCT
2000.21 TC
1999.71 AC
2002.22 TC2001.72 AC
2001.86 TC2001.36 AC
PROPOSED STAIRS
SD
2000.40 CCT
2000.46 TS
2000.60 TC2000.10 AC
EX CURB & GUTTER2001.42 TC2000.92 AC
EX SWK
2001.56 TC2001.06 AC
2001.96 TC2001.46 AC
PROPOSED TREE WELL
2003.25 CCT
D
2000.84 CCT
S
2000.50 CCT
1997.21 CCT
EX CURB
SD
IE=2000.00
EX CURB
SS
SS
SS
SS
2000.52 TS
1997.36 BS
97.24 CCT
MATCH EX(97.74) CCT
EX CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED STAIRS
S
S
2000.80 CCT
1997.36 CCT
2000.60 CCT
EX CURB
SD
IE=2000.00 SS
EX PROPERTY LINE
2003.70 CCT
2001.97 CCT
EX PROPERTY LINE
1997.42 CCT
NEW CURB
EX PROPERTY LINE
2002.26 TC2001.76 AC2003.06 TC2002.56 AC
S
S
SD
2002.09 TC2001.59 AC
2002.00 TC2001.50 AC
2003.33 TC2002.83 AC2004.00 TC2003.50 AC
PROPOSED TREE WELL
D
SS
S
ASHLAND STREET 6,900 SQFT2001.30 CCT
(97.98) CCT97.48 CCT
MATCH EX
FFE=2001.50
2001.46 TS1997.94 BS
PROPOSED STAIRS
2001.36 CCT
2001.46 CCT
PROPOSED BUILDING
EX AC
SDCBTOG=2001.31
IE=2000.06
2.39 TC1.89 AC
MATCH EX(2004.68) TC2004.68 TC
EX ADA RAMP
2001.62 TC2001.12 AC
S
S
SD
MATCH EX(2002.20) TC2002.20 TC
PROPOSED SSMHRIM=2001.89
SS
SS
SS
S
SSS
S
TOG=2000.62 SS
EX SDCB S
SSS
S
SS
PROPOSED SSMHRIM=1997.54 SS
SS
SS
SS
2001.81 TC2001.31 AC SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SDCO
SS IE=1999.91
S
SSS
SSSS
SS
D
TO BE REMOVEDTOG=1997.95 S
EX SDCB
2001.99 CCT
S
S
EX CURB
S
PROPOSED TREE WELL
S
EX PP
2001.46 FFE
PROPOSED STAIRS
SD
2002.05 CCT
S
S
EX CURB
S
S
MATCH EX(2002.49) SWK2002.49 SWK
D
EX SS LOCATION IS APPROXIMATE
S
EX AC
EX FFE = 2001.50
EXISTING BUILDING
2001.46 TSPROPOSED SS
1998.74 BS
SS
EX 10' SEWER EASEMENT
S
S
PROPOSED SS
SDMHRIM=2002.20IE=1998.65 12" OUT (N)IE=1999.70 8" IN (SE)
DS
DS
2001.85 CCT
SD
PROPOSED TREE WELL
S
S
EX POWER
S
SDCO
IE=1999.91
S
EX SWK
SD
S
S
PROPOSED SWK WIDENING
EX CURB
TOG=2001.07
EX SDCBIE=2000.02 4" (N)
S
S
EX CURB & GUTTEREX PROPERTY LINE
2002.20 CCT
EX TREE
S
MATCH EX(2002.03) TC2002.03 TC
SD
SDS
TREATMENT FACILITY
PROPOSED STORMTECH
S
S
SD
IE=2000.00
EX GAS
EX 5' SLOPE EASEMENT
W
PROPOSED TREE WELL
EX SD
W
S
S
S MATCH EX(2002.28) TC2002.28 TC
S
PROPOSED SSMHRIM=2002.79
S
PROPOSED TREE WELL
S PROPOSED SSMHRIM=1998.06
W
E
X
PROPOSED SSP
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
EX WM
TOG=1997.26
EX SDCBIE=1994.56 12" CNC (S)IE=1994.51 12" CNC (N)
MATCH EX(98.01) CCT98.01 CCT
MATCH EX(98.11) CCT98.11 CCT
SDMH
RIM=2002.40IE=1998.10 12" CNC (N)IE=1998.10 12" CNC (S)IE=1998.15 6" PVC (W)
This document, and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of Marquess & Associates, Inc. and is not to be used, in whole
or in part, for any other project without the written authorization of Marquess & Associates, Inc.
S:\\25-1217\\_civil\\C-SITE 25-1217.dwg, 10/22/2025 4:06:19 PM
147
Number:
Page
BTIMBOE-!PSFHPO
Total
3373!BTIMBOE!TUSFFU
JOWFTUNFOU!QSPQFSUJFT
SFFE!DPNNFSDJBM!
Bddftt!Esjwfxbz!
TJHO
148
Number:
Page
Total
149
Number:
Page
Total
150
Number:
Page
Total
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Ashland
Public Works
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Date: 11/10/2025
Project: Proposed Ashland Street Demolition and Re-development
Subject: Traffic Assessment
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering prepared an update to a prior traffic assessment for a
proposed site demolition and re-development located along the south side of Ashland Street across
from YMCA Way at 2262 Ashland Street in Ashland, Oregon. The re-development area includes Tax
Lot 1600 of 391E14BA and a portion of Tax Lot 1500 on its eastern boundary. Our assessment is
provided below.
BACKGROUND
Proposed re-development includes demolishing an existing 2,520 square foot medical office and a
3,038 SF sit-down restaurant to re-develop the site with a mix of medical office (3,160 SF), general office
(10,384 SF), and retail (8,604 SF). A map showing the site location is shown below.
Total Page Number: 151
TRIP GENERATION
provides trip rates
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
for previous and proposed land use codes (LUC). ITE LUC 720 Ļ Medical/Dental Office and 932 Ļ High
Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant were chosen for existing uses. ITE LUC 710 Ļ General Office, 720 Ļ
Medical/Dental Office and 822 Ļ Strip Retail Plaza (<40 ksf) were chosen for proposed uses. A summary
of trip generations is shown in Table 1. ITE graphs and descriptions are provided in the attachments.
Existing Uses
720 Î Medical
Office
Pass-by LUC 932 43% -140 -12 -7 -5 -12 -7 -5
Proposed Uses
Pass-by LUC 822 40% -187 -8 -5 -3 -23 -12 -11
SF = square feet
The trip generation table above compares existing and proposed uses with consideration of total trips
(no pass-by included) and primary trips (pass-by included). The net increase of total trips at driveways
is estimated to be 278 daily trips with 9 additional trips during the a.m. peak hour and 47 during the
p.m. peak hour. The net increase in primary trips on the transportation system is 231 daily with 13
additional trips during the a.m. peak hour and 36 during the p.m. peak hour.
AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
The City of Ashland Public Works Department requires a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for land use
actions, new developments, and/or redevelopments if proposed development meets one or more of
the following thresholds.
1.50 newly generated vehicle trips during the adjacent street peak hour.
Total Page Number: 152
2.Installation of any traffic control devices and/or construction of any geometric improvements
that will affect the progression or operation of traffic traveling on, entering, or exiting the
highway.
3.20 newly generated heavy vehicle trips during the day.
Based on the findings above, a TIA is not shown to be triggered for the City of Ashland.
ODOT evaluates trips as they pertain to changes in development when there is direct access to
one of their facilities. Trips are evaluated to determine whether a Change of Use (COU) on the
site is occurring. A COU is defined to occur when any of the following are met:
1.The number of peak hour trips increases by 50 or more and it represents a 20% or more
increase in trips
2.The number of daily trips increases by 500 or more and it represents an increase in 20%
or more
3.Daily use of the connection to the ODOT facility by large vehicles with gross vehicle
weight rating of 26,000 lbs or more increase by 10 or more vehicles
4.ODOT demonstrates there are safety or operation concerns related to the highway
connection
Total Page Number: 153
5.Drivers on the highway and drivers exiting the driveway connection cannot see each
other soon enough to stop in time to avoid a crash
Based on the findings above, a TIA is not shown to be triggered by ODOT for a Change of Use
(COU) occurring.
This completes our traffic assessment. Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Respectfully,
Kimberly Parducci, PE PTOE
Firm Principal
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC
Attachments: ITE Graphs
Crash Data
City of Ashland TIA thresholds
ODOT COU Criteria
Total Page Number: 154
________________________
ATTACHMENTS
________________________
Total Page Number: 155
Mboe!Vtf;!821
Eftdsjqujpo
efwfmpqnfou!dfoufs!)Mboe!Vtf!871*-!boe!cvtjoftt!qbsl!)Mboe!Vtf!881*!bsf!beejujpobm!sfmbufe!vtft/
Beejujpobm!Ebub
gvodujpo!bt!b!voju!)qfsibqt!xjui!b!tibsfe!qbsljoh!gbdjmjuz!boe!dpnnpo!ps!dpnqmfnfoubsz!ufobout*-!
uif!upubm!hsptt!gmpps!bsfb!ps!fnqmpznfou!pg!uif!qbjsfe!pggjdf!cvjmejoht!dbo!cf!vtfe!gps!dbmdvmbujoh!
uif!tjuf!usjq!hfofsbujpo/!Jg!uif!joejwjevbm!cvjmejoht!bsf!jtpmbufe!ps!opu!gvodujpobmmz!sfmbufe!up!pof!
bopuifs-!usjq!hfofsbujpo!tipvme!cf!dbmdvmbufe!gps!fbdi!cvjmejoh!tfqbsbufmz/
Gps!tuvez!tjuft!xjui!sfqpsufe!hsptt!gmpps!bsfb!boe!fnqmpzfft-!bo!bwfsbhf!fnqmpzff!efotjuz!pg!
4/4!fnqmpzfft!qfs!2-111!trvbsf!gffu!HGB!)ps!spvhimz!411!trvbsf!gffu!qfs!fnqmpzff*!ibt!cffo!
dpotjtufou!uispvhi!uif!2:91t-!2::1t-!boe!3111t/!Op!tjuft!dpvoufe!jo!uif!3121t!sfqpsufe!cpui!HGB!
boe!fnqmpzfft/
Uif!bwfsbhf!cvjmejoh!pddvqbodz!wbsjft!dpotjefsbcmz!xjuijo!uif!tuvejft!gps!xijdi!pddvqbodz!ebub!
xfsf!qspwjefe/!Uif!sfqpsufe!pddvqjfe!hsptt!gmpps!bsfb!xbt!99!qfsdfou!gps!hfofsbm!vscbo0tvcvscbo!
tjuft!boe!:7!qfsdfou!gps!uif!dfoufs!djuz!dpsf!boe!efotf!nvmuj.vtf!vscbo!tjuft/
Uif!ufdiojdbm!bqqfoejdft!qspwjef!tvqqpsujoh!jogpsnbujpo!po!ujnf.pg.ebz!ejtusjcvujpot!gps!uijt!
mboe!vtf/!Uif!bqqfoejdft!dbo!cf!bddfttfe!uispvhi!fjuifs!uif!JUFUsjqHfo!xfc!bqq!ps!uif!usjq!
hfofsbujpo!sftpvsdf!qbhf!po!uif!JUF!xfctjuf!)iuuqt;00xxx/juf/psh0ufdiojdbm.sftpvsdft0upqjdt0usjq.
boe.qbsljoh.hfofsbujpo0*/
Uif!bwfsbhf!ovncfst!pg!qfstpo!usjqt!qfs!wfijdmf!usjq!bu!uif!fjhiu!dfoufs!djuz!dpsf!tjuft!bu!xijdi!
cpui!qfstpo!usjq!boe!wfijdmf!usjq!ebub!xfsf!dpmmfdufe!bsf!bt!gpmmpxt;
!
!3/:!evsjoh!Xfflebz-!BN!Qfbl!Ipvs!pg!Hfofsbups
!
!4/1!evsjoh!Xfflebz-!QN!Qfbl!Ipvs!pg!Hfofsbups
Hfofsbm!Vscbo0Tvcvscbo!boe!Svsbm!)Mboe!Vtft!5118::*818
Total Page Number: 156
Uif!bwfsbhf!ovncfst!pg!qfstpo!usjqt!qfs!wfijdmf!usjq!bu!uif!29!efotf!nvmuj.vtf!vscbo!tjuft!bu!
xijdi!cpui!qfstpo!usjq!boe!wfijdmf!usjq!ebub!xfsf!dpmmfdufe!bsf!bt!gpmmpxt;
!
!2/6!evsjoh!Xfflebz-!BN!Qfbl!Ipvs!pg!Hfofsbups
!
!2/6!evsjoh!Xfflebz-!QN!Qfbl!Ipvs!pg!Hfofsbups
Uif!bwfsbhf!ovncfst!pg!qfstpo!usjqt!qfs!wfijdmf!usjq!bu!uif!34!hfofsbm!vscbo0tvcvscbo!tjuft!bu!
xijdi!cpui!qfstpo!usjq!boe!wfijdmf!usjq!ebub!xfsf!dpmmfdufe!bsf!bt!gpmmpxt;
!
!2/4!evsjoh!Xfflebz-!BN!Qfbl!Ipvs!pg!Hfofsbups
!
!2/5!evsjoh!Xfflebz-!QN!Qfbl!Ipvs!pg!Hfofsbups
Uif!tjuft!xfsf!tvswfzfe!jo!uif!2:91t-!uif!2::1t-!uif!3111t-!uif!3121t-!boe!uif!3131t!jo!Bmcfsub!
)DBO*-!Dbmjgpsojb-!Dpmpsbep-!Dpoofdujdvu-!Hfpshjb-!Jmmjopjt-!Joejbob-!Lbotbt-!Lfouvdlz-!Nbjof-!
Nbszmboe-!Njdijhbo-!Njooftpub-!Njttpvsj-!Npoubob-!Ofx!Ibnqtijsf-!Ofx!Kfstfz-!Ofx!Zpsl-!
Tpvsdf!Ovncfst
272-!286-!294-!295-!296-!318-!323-!328-!358-!364-!368-!371-!373-!384-!38:-!3:8-!3:9-!411-!412-!413-!
414-!415-!432-!433-!434-!435-!438-!515-!518-!519-!52:-!534-!673-!845-!961-!96:-!973-!978-!97:-!994-!
995-!9:1-!9:2-!:15-!:51-!:55-!:57-!:75-!:76-!:83-!211:-!2141-!2169-!2172
819 Usjq!Hfofsbujpo!Nbovbm!22ui!Fejujpo!!Wpmvnf!5
Total Page Number: 157
HfofsbmPggjdfCvjmejoh
)821*
WfijdmfUsjqFoetwt;2111Tr/Gu/HGB
Pob;Xfflebz
Tfuujoh0Mpdbujpo;HfofsbmVscbo0Tvcvscbo
OvncfspgTuvejft;6:
Bwh/2111Tr/Gu/HGB;274
EjsfdujpobmEjtusjcvujpo;61&foufsjoh-61&fyjujoh
WfijdmfUsjqHfofsbujpoqfs2111Tr/Gu/HGB
BwfsbhfSbufSbohfpgSbuftTuboebseEfwjbujpo
21/954/38.38/675/87
EbubQmpuboeFrvbujpo
7111
5111
3111
1
1311511711911
Y>2111Tr/Gu/HGB
BwfsbhfSbuf
TuvezTjufGjuufeDvswf
GjuufeDvswfFrvbujpo;Mo)U*>1/98Mo)Y*,4/16S³>1/89
Hfofsbm!Vscbo0Tvcvscbo!boe!Svsbm!)Mboe!Vtft!5118::*81:
Total Page Number: 158
HfofsbmPggjdfCvjmejoh
)821*
WfijdmfUsjqFoetwt;2111Tr/Gu/HGB
Pob;Xfflebz-
QfblIpvspgBekbdfouTusffuUsbggjd-
PofIpvsCfuxffo8boe:b/n/
Tfuujoh0Mpdbujpo;HfofsbmVscbo0Tvcvscbo
OvncfspgTuvejft;332
Bwh/2111Tr/Gu/HGB;312
EjsfdujpobmEjtusjcvujpo;99&foufsjoh-23&fyjujoh
WfijdmfUsjqHfofsbujpoqfs2111Tr/Gu/HGB
BwfsbhfSbufSbohfpgSbuftTuboebseEfwjbujpo
2/631/43.5/:41/69
EbubQmpuboeFrvbujpo
3111
2111
1
121113111
Y>2111Tr/Gu/HGB
BwfsbhfSbuf
TuvezTjufGjuufeDvswf
GjuufeDvswfFrvbujpo;Mo)U*>1/97Mo)Y*,2/27S³>1/89
821 Usjq!Hfofsbujpo!Nbovbm!22ui!Fejujpo!!Wpmvnf!5
Total Page Number: 159
HfofsbmPggjdfCvjmejoh
)821*
WfijdmfUsjqFoetwt;2111Tr/Gu/HGB
Pob;Xfflebz-
QfblIpvspgBekbdfouTusffuUsbggjd-
PofIpvsCfuxffo5boe7q/n/
Tfuujoh0Mpdbujpo;HfofsbmVscbo0Tvcvscbo
OvncfspgTuvejft;343
Bwh/2111Tr/Gu/HGB;2::
EjsfdujpobmEjtusjcvujpo;28&foufsjoh-94&fyjujoh
WfijdmfUsjqHfofsbujpoqfs2111Tr/Gu/HGB
BwfsbhfSbufSbohfpgSbuftTuboebseEfwjbujpo
2/551/37.7/311/71
EbubQmpuboeFrvbujpo
3111
2111
1
121113111
Y>2111Tr/Gu/HGB
BwfsbhfSbuf
TuvezTjufGjuufeDvswf
GjuufeDvswfFrvbujpo;Mo)U*>1/94Mo)Y*,2/3:S³>1/88
Hfofsbm!Vscbo0Tvcvscbo!boe!Svsbm!)Mboe!Vtft!5118::*822
Total Page Number: 160
Mboe!Vtf;!831
Eftdsjqujpo
B!nfejdbm.efoubm!pggjdf!cvjmejoh!jt!b!gbdjmjuz!uibu!qspwjeft!ejbhoptft!boe!pvuqbujfou!dbsf!po!b!
spvujof!cbtjt!cvu!jt!vobcmf!up!qspwjef!qspmpohfe!jo.ipvtf!nfejdbm!boe!tvshjdbm!dbsf/!Pof!ps!npsf!
qsjwbuf!qiztjdjbot!ps!efoujtut!hfofsbmmz!pqfsbuf!uijt!uzqf!pg!gbdjmjuz/!Hfofsbm!pggjdf!cvjmejoh!)Mboe!
Vtf!821*!boe!dmjojd!)Mboe!Vtf!741*!bsf!sfmbufe!vtft/
Mboe!Vtf!Tvcdbufhpsz
Bobmztjt!pg!nfejdbm.efoubm!pggjdf!cvjmejoh!ebub!gpvoe!uibu!usjq!hfofsbujpo!sbuft!bsf!nfbtvsbcmz!
ejggfsfou!gps!tjuft!mpdbufe!xjuijo!ps!bekbdfou!up!b!iptqjubm!dbnqvt!boe!tjuft!uibu!bsf!tuboe.bmpof/!
Ebub!qmput!bsf!qsftfoufe!gps!uiftf!uxp!mboe!vtf!tvcdbufhpsjft/
Beejujpobm!Ebub
Uif!ufdiojdbm!bqqfoejdft!qspwjef!tvqqpsujoh!jogpsnbujpo!po!ujnf.pg.ebz!ejtusjcvujpot!gps!uijt!
mboe!vtf/!Uif!bqqfoejdft!dbo!cf!bddfttfe!uispvhi!fjuifs!uif!JUFUsjqHfo!xfc!bqq!ps!uif!usjq!
hfofsbujpo!sftpvsdf!qbhf!po!uif!JUF!xfctjuf!)iuuqt;00xxx/juf/psh0ufdiojdbm.sftpvsdft0upqjdt0usjq.
boe.qbsljoh.hfofsbujpo0*/
Uif!tjuft!xfsf!tvswfzfe!jo!uif!2:91t-!uif!2::1t-!uif!3111t-!boe!uif!3121t!jo!Bmcfsub!)DBO*-!
Dbmjgpsojb-!Dpoofdujdvu-!Lfouvdlz-!Nbszmboe-!Njooftpub-!Ofx!Kfstfz-!Ofx!Zpsl-!Pijp-!Psfhpo-!
Tpvsdf!Ovncfst
215-!21:-!231-!268-!295-!31:-!322-!364-!398-!3:5-!3:6-!415-!468-!495-!515-!518-!534-!555-!61:-!712-!
826-!978-!98:-!:12-!:13-!:19-!:6:-!:83
871 Usjq!Hfofsbujpo!Nbovbm!22ui!Fejujpo!!Wpmvnf!5
Total Page Number: 161
Hfofsbm!Vscbo0Tvcvscbo!boe!Svsbm!)Mboe!Vtft!5118::*872
Total Page Number: 162
873 Usjq!Hfofsbujpo!Nbovbm!22ui!Fejujpo!!Wpmvnf!5
Total Page Number: 163
Hfofsbm!Vscbo0Tvcvscbo!boe!Svsbm!)Mboe!Vtft!5118::*874
Total Page Number: 164
Total Page Number: 165
Total Page Number: 166
Total Page Number: 167
Total Page Number: 168
Total Page Number: 169
Total Page Number: 170
Total Page Number: 171
Total Page Number: 172
Total Page Number: 173
Total Page Number: 174
Total Page Number: 175
Total Page Number: 176
City of Ashland TIA Requirement
TIA (Transportation Impact Analysis) – All land use actions that either propose direct or indirect access
to a State highway or a boulevard will need to provide the City of Ashland with the information outlined
below. The governing jurisdiction will then inform ODOT of the intended land use action and provide
pertinent review material. These guidelines are intended to ensure that developments do not negatively
impact the operation and/or safety of the roadway.
A.Applicants must submit a preliminary site plan for review to the City of Ashland, prior to the pre-
application conference. At a minimum, the site plan shall illustrate:
1.The location of existing access point(s) on both sides of the road within 500 feet in each direction for
Category 4 segments or 5 lane boulevards, and 300 feet for Category 5 segments and 3 lane arterials;
2.Distances to neighboring constructed public access points, median openings, traffic signals, intersections,
and other transportation features on both sides of the property (this should include the section of roadway
between the nearest upstream and downstream collector);
3.Number and direction of site access driveway lanes to be constructed, as well as an internal signing and
striping plan;
4.All planned transportation features on the State highway/boulevard (such as auxiliary lanes, signals, etc.);
5.Trip generation data or appropriate traffic studies (See the following section for the state's traffic impact
study requirement thresholds.);
6.Parking and internal circulation plan;
7.Plat map showing property lines, right of way, and ownership of abutting properties;
8.A detailed description and justification of any requested access variances;
B.Proposed land use actions, new developments, and/or redevelopment accessing a State highway/boulevard,
directly or indirectly (via collector or local streets), will need to provide traffic impact studies to the
respective local reviewing jurisdiction(s) and ODOT, if the proposed land use meets one or more of the
following traffic impact study thresholds. A traffic impact study will not be required of a development that
does not exceed the stated thresholds.
1.Trip Generation Threshold: 50 newly generated vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) during the
adjacent street peak hour;
2.Mitigation Threshold: Installation of any traffic control device and/or construction of any geometric
improvements that will affect the progression or operation of traffic traveling on, entering, or exiting the
highway;
3.Heavy Vehicle Trip Generation Threshold: 20 newly generated heavy vehicle trips (inbound and
outbound) during the day;
4.All traffic impact studies will need to be prepared by a registered professional engineer in accordance with
ODOT's development review guidelines.
Total Page Number: 177
C.Traffic Impact Study Requirements
1.The following is a summary of the Oregon State Highway minimum requirements for a traffic report.
ODOT views the following requirements as the minimum considerations to be dealt with by Professional
Traffic Engineering Consultants in their analysis of traffic impacts resulting from new developments
adjacent to State highways.
2.The analysis shall include alternates other than what the developer originally submits as a proposal for
access to state highways, city streets, and county roads.
3.The analysis of alternate access proposals shall include:
(a)Existing daily and appropriate design peak hour counts by traffic movements, at intersections which would
be affected by traffic generated by the development (use traffic flow diagrams).
(b)Projected daily and appropriate design peak hour volumes for these same intersections, and at the proposed
access points after completion of the development. If the development is to be constructed in phases,
projected traffic volumes at the completion of each phase should be determined.
(c)Trip Generation shall be calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' manual “TRIP
GENERATION 5th Edition” or other, more current, and/or applicable information.
(d)A determination of the need for a traffic signal based on warrants in the “Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices.”
4.The recommendations made in the report should be specific and shall be based on a minimum level of
service “D” when the development is in full service. As an example, if a traffic signal is recommended, the
recommendations should include the type of traffic signal control and what movements should be
signalized. If a storage lane for right turns or left turns is needed, the recommendations should include the
amount of storage needed. If several intersections are involved for signalization, and an interconnect
system is considered, specific analysis should be made concerning progression of traffic between
intersections.
5.The internal circulation of parking lots must be analyzed to the extent that it can be determined whether
the points of access will operate properly.
6.The report shall include an analysis of the impacts to neighboring driveway access points and adjacent
streets affected by the proposed new development driveways.
7.The report should include a discussion of bike and pedestrian usage and the availability of mass transit to
serve the development.
Total Page Number: 178
highway connections is used.
ODOT approves a private highway connection to serve an existing or proposed
property use and the type and number of vehicles expected to use the
using the connection increases significantly or it no longer operates safely.
Changing the use of a highway connection is regulated by state law. It is
important to contact your ODOT District Office to discuss changes you plan to
Changing the use of a property, such as expanding a business or converting a
residential use to a commercial use, may attract more traffic and increase the
number of vehicles using an existing connection. A significant increase in the
number of vehicles, including large vehicles using a highway connection can disrupt
and conflict with the flow of traffic on the highway, creating safety concerns.
ODOT compares traffic generated by a property when the
driveway connection was first created or permitted to the
traffic that will be generated after the use of the property
changes. We also ensure the connection will continue to
operate safely. State law establishes five criteria to
1. The number of peak hour trips increases by 50 or more
AND it represents a 20% or more increase in trips; or
2. The number of average daily trips increases by 500 or
more AND it represents an increase of 20% or more; or
3. Daily use of the connection by large vehicles with gross
vehicle weight rating of 26,000 lbs or more increase by
10 or more vehicles; or
4. ODOT demonstrates there are safety or operation
concerns related to a highway connection; or
5. Drivers on the highway and drivers exiting a driveway
connection cannot see each other soon enough to stop
in time to avoid a crash.
-
Total Page Number: 179
ODOT uses two
connection.
, we use a process called
for permitted connections and for most unpermitted
connections. Some exceptions apply. The notion of Moving in the Direction of
recognizes it may not be possible to meet current standards if the original
connection was constructed using the old standards. If a connection has
operated safely for many years, then ODOT can work with applicants to
identify incremental changes to the connection that we can all agree to.
-
if ODOT and the applicant cannot reach agreement through the
using the approval criteria for a new approach.
State law identifies
current standards:
Reduce the net number of highway connections;
Improve the distance between highway connections;
Improve sight distance on the highway or at the connection;
Widen an existing connection for truck turning radius requirements;
Widen an existing connection to add driveway exit lanes;
Narrow an existing connection to provide the appropriate number of
entry and exit lanes required for the property use; OR
Design the driveway connection to move vehicles more efficiently to and
from the adjacent highway.
Other changes may also be considered.
Larry McKinley, Manager Oregon Dept. of Transportation
ODOT is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer
Access Management Program Traffic-Roadway Section MS #1
committed to a diverse workforce. We will provide
Larry.McKinley@odot.state.or.us 4040 Fairview Industrial Dr. SE
accommodations for persons with disabilities. We will provide
Tel: 503-986-3796 Salem OR 97302
alternative formats upon request.
Fax: 503-986-6592
Total Page Number: 180
Total Page Number: 181
Total Page Number: 182
Total Page Number: 183