Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-13_Planning PACKET Ashland Planning Commission 6 January Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 13 Regular Meeting Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 27 Joint Study Session PC, HHSAC & CC re: MHPZ ORD February Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 10 Regular Meeting Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 24 Study Session March Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 10 Regular Meeting Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 24 Study Session April Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 14 Regular Meeting Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 28 Study Session May Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 12 Regular Meeting Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 26 Study Session June Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 9 Regular Meeting Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 23 Study Session July Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 14 Regular Meeting Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 28 Study Session August Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 11 Regular Meeting Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 25 Study Session September Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 8 Regular Meeting Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 22 Study Session October Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 13 Regular Meeting Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 27 Study Session November Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 10 Regular Meeting Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. TBD Study Session December Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 8 Regular Meeting Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. TBD Study Session Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, January 13, 2026 Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. I.CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports III.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1.December 9, 2025 Regular Meeting IV.PUBLIC FORUM Note: To speak to an agenda item in person you must fill out a speaker request form at the meeting and will then be recognized by the Chair to provide your public testimony. Written testimony can be submitted in advance or in person at the meeting. If you wish to discuss an agenda item electronically, please contact PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on January 13, 2025 to register to participate via Zoom. If you are interested in watching the meeting via Zoom, please utilize the following link: https://zoom.us/j/97081016298 V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2025-00061, 44 Scenic Drive & 0* Scenic Drive TL 7302 VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED A.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 and replaced, 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. VII.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS B.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00065 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 431 N Main Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development OWNER: Rogue Holdings LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The parent parcel at 431 N Main Street is proposed to be subdivided into four new lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The existing structure is proposed for demolition. The application also includes a request for four Conditional !"#$%&' Total Page Number: 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Use Permits to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District on each ,+H2/%+&3.+G0+5--/.+%/)+35(C,(;(*3,--.++PPbA_Z(,5(I+\\(13,-20531-(55(%3&E.++/; Heaven) and a request for an exception to street standards to not install standard street improvements due to the existing sidewalk and site constraints. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP: 39-1E-05-DA; TAX LOT: 7300 VIII.OPEN DISCUSSION IX.ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: January 27, 2026 If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Derek Severson at planning@ashlandoregon.gov or 541.488.5305 (TTY phone number 1.800.735.2900). Notification at least three business days before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. !"#'%&' Total Page Number: 2 ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ 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. December 9, 2025 REGULAR MEETING 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.Commissioner Phillips attendedthe meeting via Zoom. Commissioners Present:Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, CommunityDevelopment Director Eric HerronDerek Severson, Planning Supervisor Susan MacCracken JainAaron Anderson, SeniorPlanner Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant John Maher Kerry KenCairn Jay Lininger Absent Members:Council Liaison: Jeff Dahle (absent) II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements: Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: ˤ˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾ʶ ˓˿˽˽˹̄̄˵˵ˑ̀̀̂˵˳˹˱̄˹˿˾ ˵̆˵˾̄̇˹˼˼ ˲˵ ˸˵˼˴˿˾ ˔˵˳˵˽˲˵̂ ˁ˅ʼ ˂ˀ˂˅ʾ A joint Study Session with the City Council and Housing and Human Services Committee will be held on January 27, 2026, at 7:00 PM regarding theproposed Manufactured Home Park Zone. Townmakers, LLCwill host a community event onDecember 10, 2025, regarding their proposedCroman MillSitedevelopment. Mr. Goldmanclarified thatit is not a City event or Public Hearing. 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports Ϻ ˞˿˾˵ III.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1.September 23, 2025 Study Session Minutes Page 1 of 5 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 ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ 2.October 14, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes 3.October 28, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes Commissioners Maher/KenCairnm/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed 7-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM Ϻ ˞˿˾˵ V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00061 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 44 Scenic Drive & 0* Scenic Drive TL 7302 OWNER: Stanley Family Trust & Suncrest Homes APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The subdivision includes two parent ̀˱̂˳˵˼̃ ̇˸˹˳˸ ˱̂˵ ̄˱̈ ˼˿̄̃ ˅ˇˀˁ ʶ ˇ˃ˀ˂ ˿˶ ˱̃̃˵̃̃˿̂Ͻ̃ ˽˱̀ ˃ˉʽˁ˕ʽˀˈʽˑ˔ʾ ˤ˸˵̃˵ ˱̂˵ ̀̂˿̀˿̃˵˴ ̄˿ 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 thatwas 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 Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Herron, Lininger, Maher, and Vernerdisclosed site visits, with other Commissioners stating that they were familiar with the property. No ex parte contact wasdisclosed. Staff Presentation Senior Planner Aaron Andersonoutlinedthe application, which encompasseda request foroutline and final approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The applicationinvolved dividing two tax lots into five, retaining an existing house at 44 Scenic Drive, and creating four new lots. The applicationalso requested anPhysical and Environmental Constraintsreviewfor a private drive for lots 3-5, a tree removal permit, and an exception to street standards. Although outside the Performance Standards Overlay, the PSO is permitted here to protect environmental and neighborhood quality. Mr. Andersonhighlighted the steep slopes (over 35%) the proposed driveway Page 2 of 5 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 would navigate, necessitating a shortened existing driveway at 40 and 44 Scenic for proper ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ separation. He discussed the street standard exception, noting existing curb-tight sidewalks and railings, installed in the early 2000s, permit adjustments where topography restricts standard improvements. On tree removal, Mr. Andersonstatedthat the number initially set at 11 was reduced ̄˿ ˉʼ ˶˿˼˼˿̇˹˾˷ ̄˸˵ ˤ̂˵˵ ˝˱˾˱˷˵˽˵˾̄ ˑ˴̆˹̃˿̂̉ ˓˿˽˽˹̄̄˵˵Ͻ̃˹˾̀̅̄ ̄˿ ̀̂˵̃˵̂̆˵ ̄̂˵˵̃ ʳˁˁ˃˃ ˱˾˴ ʳˁˁˆˇ (see attachment #1). Mr. Anderson stated that the proposed Condition #2 from staff had been modified to the following: Condition #2) 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. Tree #1133 shall be preserved and protected as proposed by the applicant. Tree #1167 shall also be preserved and protected by re- routing the electric utility trenching or using directional boring. If the removal of either of these trees is proposed to be removed at a later date, a Type 1 Tree Removal Permit shall be required. A revised Tree Protection Plan shall be provided prior to sitework incorporating the preservation and protection of Trees #1133 and #1167, and noting that driveway fill shall not be pushed intothe critical root zones of the pines to be preserved near the driveway. Staff recommendedthat the application for Outline & Final Plan Subdivision to create five lots, Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit, Exception to the Street Design Standards and Tree Removal Permit be approved subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report and the modified Condition #2. Applicant Presentation Amy Gunter from Rogue Planning and Development Services presented for the applicant. She explained that the project, initially considered as two partition applications, was merged into a single PSO subdivision based on staff's recommendation. This approach would aidin preserving large pine trees and managingthe property'sexistingslopes. The applicant confirmed that all lots would surpass minimum lot size requirements, conform to historic district floor area standards, and meet lot coverage rules while preserving natural areas. She stated the driveway on the steep slope would use fill instead of a cut, include retaining walls, and be under 100 feet long(see attachment#2). Questions of the Applicant Ms. Gunter explained the small building envelope for lot 2 is due to steep hillside conditions and tree preservation efforts. The intended use is a small cottage (600-800 sq. ft.) for a family member. Applicant Charlie Hamilton confirmed the owners are informed about these constraints and had reviewed different driveway layouts to best preserve trees and complement the slope. The Public Hearing and Public Record wasclosed at 7:56 p.m. Page 3 of 5 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 ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Deliberations and Decision Commissioners discussed the tree preservation plan, the building envelope constraints, and solar access requirements. There was particular attention to the small building envelope for lot 2 and the solar setback requirements that couldrequire a future variance. Commissioners Herron/KenCairnm/sto approve the application as recommended by staff, including the revised condition 2 regarding tree preservation.Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. B.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00062 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2262 & 2270 Ashland Street OWNER: Reed Commercial Investment Properties LLC APPLICANT: Dan Horton Architecture 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. Ex Parte Contact All Commissioners except for Commissioner MacCracken Jain conducted site visits. Not ex parte contact was disclosed. Staff Presentation Mr. Andersonpresented the Site Design Review application for two 2-story commercial buildings at 2262 and 2270 Ashland Street. He noted that this marks the City's first Climate Friendly Areas (CFA) application, involving phased redevelopment: the office building will be removed and replaced first, followed by the restaurant's removal and second building's construction. The property will expand from 0.38 acres to 0.82 acres via a property line adjustment(see attachment #3). Mr. Andersonnoted that the application had beenre-noticed toinclude a tree removal permit previously omitted, and that this item would be continued to the January 13, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to allow the public time to review the revised notice. Hehighlightedtheexisting foundation damage due to large sycamore trees. The buildings wouldhave commercial uses on the ground floor and office suites with apartment amenities on the upper floor, allowing future conversion to residential per state law. Climate Friendly Area rules would have necessitated 21 apartments if residential units had been proposed initially. Page 4 of 5 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 ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Applicant Presentation Dan Horton, representing Reed Commercial Investment Properties LLC, briefly outlinedthe project. He noted that they had offset the buildings to provide visual interest and break up the façade. He explained that trees on the site were being removed based on the recommendation of the landscape architect/arborist, who had determined they were reaching the end of their life, were hazardous, and had damaged existing foundations. He stated that all removed trees would be replaced with new mitigation trees. Public Comments The following residents expressed their opposition to the projectwith regards to increased traffic and ˸˿̇ ̄˸˵ ̂˵˴˵̆˵˼˿̀˽˵˾̄ ̇˿̅˼˴ ˹˽̀˱˳̄ ̄˸˵ ˵̈˹̃̄˹˾˷ ˩̅˱˾ ˩̅˱˾Ͻ̃ ̂˵̃̄˱̅̂˱˾̄ˊ Mary and Charles Dickinson Lisa Spencer (see attachment #4) Jonathan Griffin Erica Thompson Applicant Rebuttal Mr.Horton clarified that the proposed buildings could house various commercial uses including ˿˶˶˹˳˵̃ʼ ̂˵̄˱˹˼ʼ ˿̂ ̂˵̃̄˱̅̂˱˾̄̃ʾ ˘˵ ̃̄˱̄˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ̄˸˵̀̂˿̀˵̂̄̉˿̇˾˵̂ ̇˿̅˼˴ ˼˹˻˵˼̉ ˿˶˶˵̂ ̄˸˵˩̅˱˾ ˩̅˱˾Ͻ̃ restaurant an opportunity to occupy one of the new spaces. He also noted that a professional traffic analysis had been completed showing no significant problems. Chair Verner announced that the Public Hearing would be continued to the Planning Commission's regular meeting on January 13, 2026, to allow proper noticing of the tree removal permit. The record would remain open for additional testimony until that meeting. IV.OPEN DISCUSSION The Commissionand staffdiscussed how Commissioners could articulate their obligation to follow code requirements during deliberations even if they personally sympathized with public concerns. ˣ̄˱˶˶ ˿̅̄˼˹˾˵˴ ̄˸˵ ˣ̄˱̄˵Ͻ̃˾˿̄˹˳˹˾˷̂˵́̅˹̂˵˽˵˾̄̃ʼ ̇˸˹˳˸ ˿˾˼̉ ̂˵́̅˹̂˵̃ ˾˿̄˹˶˹˳˱̄˹˿˾ ̄˿ ̀̂˿̀˵̂̄̉ ˿̇˾˵̂̃ within 200 feet, not tenants. V.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 5 of 5 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 Total Page Number: 8 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 9 Total Page Number: 10 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 11 Total Page Number: 12 THE CITY OF ASHLAND BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2025-00061 A ) REQUEST FOR CONCURRENT OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN ) APPROVAL FOR A PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION (PSO) ) SUBDIVISION AT 40-44 SCENIC DRIVE. THE APPLICATION ALSO ) INCLUDES A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ) ) REVIEW PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED PRIVATE DRIVE FINDINGS, TO SERVE LOTS 3, 4 AND 5 ON HILLSIDE LANDS; A TREE REMOVAL ) CONCLUSIONS, ) PERMIT TO REMOVE TEN TREES, SEVEN OF WHICH ARE AND ORDERS. SIGNIFICANT TREES; AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE STREET DESIGN ) ) STANDARDS. ) ) OWNER CHARLIE HAMILTON APPLICANT: ROGUE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ) ______________________________________________________________ RECITALS: 1) The subject properties are a vacant lot known as Tax Lot #7302 and a fully developed lot, known as Tax Lot #5701 and addressed as 40-44 Scenic Drive, of AssessorÓs Map 39 1E 08AD. Tax lot 5701 was surveyed in 1968 as CS #3769 and tax lot 7302 was created through a partition in 2023, recorded as survey number 23880, Partition Plat P-16-2023. 2) The properties are a vacant 0.91-acre parcel and a fully developed 0.36-acre parcel, totaling 1.27 acres. Both parcels are zoned R-1-7.5 (Single Family Residential). The minimum lot size in the R-1-7.5 zone is 7,500 square feet. Based on the size of the property (55,321.2 square feet) it could hypothetically subdivide into seven lots of the minimum size for the zone if not for other dimensional standards set out at Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.2.5.030 which provides the ÒUnified Standards for Residential Zones.Ó 3) Tax Lot #5701 is rectangular in shape with approximately 167 feet of street frontage; the vacant property of Tax Lot #7302 is irregularly shaped with approximately 65 feet of frontage. 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. 4) The width of Scenic Drive Right-of-Way (ROW) is 40 feet wide as shown on the 1892 Official Map of Ashland. The existing sidewalk is in the ROW, but with no additional room for the dedication of ROW for park rows due to the steeply sloped drop-off just beyond the existing sidewalk. 5) Both properties are located within the Skidmore Academy Historic District; the existing house on Tax Lot #5701 was constructed in the 1990Ós and is considered ÐNon-Historic/Non- PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 1 Total Page Number: 13 ContributingÑ in the Skidmore Academy Historic District survey document. 6) The applicant has requested to use the Performance Standards Option and provided application materials that assert that the proposed subdivision meets the standard at AMC 18.3.9.030.D2 which is discussed below. The purpose of the PSO chapter is set out at AMC 18.3.9.010 to ÐÈ 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.Ñ 7) The subject property is not located within the PSO overlay; however, the code allows for the use of the PSO standards outside of the overlay in certain circumstances. In this case the application relies on the standard at AMC 18.3.9.030.D.2 which provides: Ð 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.Ñ 8) The request is for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot PSO subdivision, including four new residential lots and one existing residential lot to be adjusted. a. The application also includes a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in steep slopes. b. The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Street Design Standards to not install standard improvements due to the extant sidewalk and curb as well as the narrow non-standard right-of-way width. c. The application also includes a request to remove ten trees, including seven significant non-hazard trees. 9) The applicantÓs proposal is detailed in plans which are on file at the Department of Community Development and by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. 10) The criteria of approval for Outline Plan are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows: 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. PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 2 Total Page Number: 14 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. 11) The criteria for approval for Final Plan are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 as follows: 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. 12) The criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit are described in AMC 18.5.1.050 as follows: 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. PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 3 Total Page Number: 15 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. 13) The criteria for approval for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B as follows: B. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from the requirements of this chapter are subject to chapter 18.5.5, Variances, except that deviations from section 18.4.6.040, Street Design Standards, are subject to subsection B.1, Exception to the Street Design Standards, below. 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 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. 14) The criteria of approval for removal of a Tree that is Not a Hazard are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows: 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. PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 4 Total Page Number: 16 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. 15) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on December 9, 2025. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application subject to conditions of approval. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS OF FACT 2.1 The Planning Commission notes that chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) is the CityÓs Land Use Ordinance (LUO). The LUO regulates the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and encourages efficient use of land resources among other goals. The Planning Commission notes that when considering the decision to approve or deny an application the Planning Commission considers the application materials in light of the relevant approval criteria in the AMC. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to render a th decision based on the application itself, the December 9 Staff Report, the applicantÓs testimony, the exhibits received, and public testimony received both written and at the public hearing. 2.2.1 The Planning Commission notes that the application was deemed complete and that the notice for the public hearing was posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 5 Total Page Number: 17 property owners within 200 feet of the subject property on November 17, 2025 (22 days prior to th the December 9 Meeting). 2.3 The Planning Commission notes that the applicant chose to use the Performance Standard Option (PSO) even though the property is outside of the PSO Overlay. The Planning Commission finds that because the applicant chose a discretionary pathway the application is not subject to clear and objective standards as it relates to the Òneeded housingÓ statues. 2.3.1 The Planning Commission notes that the property is not located in the PSO overlay but that the code allows for it in certain circumstances. The Planning Commission notes that application relies on the standard at AMC 18.3.9.030.D.2 which provides: Ð 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.Ñ 2.3.2 The Planning Commission notes that the subject properties were subdivided in 1968 and 2023 into their present configurations with a narrow frontage but large area. The Planning Commission notes that the subject properties are 0.91 and 0.36 acres respectively and are zoned R-1-7.5, this provides for a base density of 7.38. The Planning Commission notes that a five-lot subdivision would require the dedication of a public street and would also need to meet dimensional standards of lot size, minimum lot-width, minimum and maximum lot depth, and width to depth ratio, or seek a variance to those standards as needed. The Planning Commission notes that the present proposal is for three lots served by a private drive and two lots to share the existing driveway to the north. The Planning Commission notes that it is not necessary to consider an alternative subdivision design, but rather to consider the impact of what is being proposed, a 5- lot PSO subdivision, compared to Ð development to the maximum density allowed,Ñ which would be a 7-lot subdivision under the standard zoning code. The Planning Commission finds that the impact to the neighborhood from public street standards (47Ó wide) would have a greater impact on the neighborhood and streetscape than the proposed private drive (15Ó paved width inside 20Ó easement). The Planning Commission additionally finds that four new residential lots will have a lesser traffic impact than seven would. 2.3.3 The Planning Commission concludes that based on the difference between the development of a street as opposed to the private drive, and the number of homes (five versus seven) that the proposed subdivision will be a lesser impact on the neighborhood and the environment than would occur from Ðdevelopment to the maximum density allowed.Ñ The Planning Commission finds that the standard at AMC 18.3.9.030.D.2 has been met and concludes that the use of the Performance Standards Option (PSO) outside of the PSO overlay is appropriate as the development proposed functions to protect the environment through the preservation of the mature pine trees while providing for residential development in scale with the neighborhood. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Plan of a Performance Standard Option (PSO) subdivision meets all applicable criteria for described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 and detailed below. 2.4.1 The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that: Ð The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.Ñ The Planning Commission notes that this is an all- PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 6 Total Page Number: 18 encompassing criterion and that it has considered which City Ordinances are applicable. The Planning Commission notes that for the purpose of resolving this criterion we rely on the entirety of the record th including the applicantÓs submittal and the Staff Report dated December 9. The Planning Commission notes that with the findings that are set out below, the approval of the exception to street standards discussed below, and the adopted conditions of approval that the proposal will meet all applicable ordinance requirements and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.2 The second approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that Ð 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.Ñ The Planning Commission notes that there is an eight-inch concrete sewer main, an eight-inch water main, as well as natural gas and electricity available in the Scenic Drive ROW and running through the northeastern corner of the property. The Planning Commission notes that the application materials assert that adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the development based on consultations with representatives of the various City departments (i.e. water, sewer, streets and electric), and that the four new housing units will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. The Planning Commission notes that the Staff Report stated that Ð The Public Works/Engineering \[department\] has reviewed the proposal and has identified no concerns regarding the capacity of any of these services for the four newly created lots.Ñ The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.3 The third criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, Ð 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.Ñ The Planning Commission notes that the proposal includes space near the driveway entrance where the five mature pines trees and steep slopes are located for protection. The Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) indicated that the design and protection of the five mature pines seemed thoughtful but had concerns that any fill brought in with construction could negatively impact the trees. As such, TMAC wanted to emphasize that the Tree Protection Plan should ensure that no fill is pushed up against the pinesÓ root zones. Additionally, the TMAC encouraged routing the power lines around tree #1167 or utilizing directional boring to preserve and protect the tree as no significant roots should exist below three feet. A condition has been added to address both concerns and recommendations of the TMAC. The Planning Commission finds that with the condition of approval that the natural features, trees, and steep slopes are properly protected, that this approval criterion has been met. 2.4.4 The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, Ð The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.Ñ The Planning Commission notes that the subject property is surrounded by medium- to large-sized parcels that are mostly fully built out and developed with single family homes. Neighboring properties would not be precluded from development based on this subdivision. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed subdivision will not prevent the adjacent lands from being developed as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 7 Total Page Number: 19 2.4.5 The fifth approval criterion is that, Ð 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.Ñ The application is not proposing common open space or common areas, and 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. However, due to the common space allotted for the driveway, a private maintenance agreement will be required. As such, the Planning Commission finds that with the condition of approval of a maintenance agreement that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.6 The sixth criterion is that, Ð The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter.Ñ The Planning Commission notes 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. The Planning Commission notes that the application includes utilizing the Earth Advantage certification to receive the Conservation Housing 15 percent density bonus, bringing the allowed density to 5.2 dwelling units. A condition of approval has been added to require Earth Advantage certification for all proposed units. With the conditions of approval included below, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed density is allowed based on the size of the property and utilization of the Earth Advantage bonus and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.7 The seventh Outline Plan approval criterion is that, Ð The development complies with the Street Standards.Ñ As mentioned above the application also includes an Exception to the Street Design Standards. Therefore, this approval criterion can only be satisfied if the Exception to the Street Design Standards is granted. The Exception to the Street Design Standards requires that there is a Ò demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site,Ó and that the Exception Ò is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.Ó The Planning Commission notes that 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 Planning Commission finds that the 2023 partition of Tax Lot #7302 dedicated 40 feet of ROW, developed with curb-tight sidewalks under an early 2000Ós Local Improvement District that did not include park row planting strips, or the additional ROW dedication to accommodate them. The Planning Commission further finds that based on the existing conditions including the concrete retaining wall, and the narrower than typical ROW, and steep slopes located behind the sidewalk, that there are unique challenges to the site, and that a strict application of the street design standards would be impractical. The Planning Commission finds that there are both demonstrable difficulties in meeting the street design standards based on current conditions and that the Exception is the minimum necessary. The Planning Commission finds that with the approval of the Exception to the Street Design Standards, and with the conditions of approval below, that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.8 The final approval criterion is that, Ð 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.Ñ The Performance Standards Option Chapter requires that at least five percent of the total lot area be provided in common open space for developments with a base density of ten units or greater. The Planning Commission notes that the proposed subdivision only has five lots. The Planning Commission notes that because the subdivision only has five lots, common open space is not required and finds that this approval criterion is satisfied. PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 8 Total Page Number: 20 The Planning Commission concludes based on the above that all applicable approval criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval have been satisfied. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that 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. The Planning Commission finds that where the two are allowed to be filed concurrently, as is the case here, there is no procedural separation between the two and the concurrent Final Plan proposal is identical to the Outline Plan in terms of number of dwelling units, yard depths, distances between buildings, common open spaces, building sizes, building elevations and exterior materials, standards resulting in density bonuses, and street standards. The Planning Commission concludes that the Final Plan approval criteria are met. 2.6 The Planning Commission notes that the application includes a request to remove a number of trees. The Planning Commission further notes that only ÐsignificantÑ trees on the property are subject to regulation. The Planning Commission notes that the application originally indicated a request to remove eleven trees, including seven significant trees that are in direct conflict with the proposed private drive, utility easements, or building envelopes. The Planning Commission further notes that the application materials inadvertently counted a single tree twice, and that the final count of trees proposed for removal should be ten trees, seven of which are significant. The Planning Commission notes that the application includes a Tree Protection Plan and a Tree Inventory for all trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). Each tree has a circle that relates to the treeÓs critical root zone (CRZ) which determines the location for protection fencing. The Planning Commission notes that the Tree Protection Plan will be required to be in place prior to any site work. Additionally, the Planning Commission has also adopted a modified condition of approval #2 to read: 2) Tree #1133 shall be preserved and protected as proposed by the applicant. Tree #1167 shall also be preserved and protected by re-routing the electric utility trenching or using directional boring. If either of these trees is proposed to be removed at a later date, a Type I Tree Removal Permit shall be required. A revised Tree Protection Plan shall be provided prior to sitework incorporating the preservation and protection of Trees #1133 and #1167, and noting that driveway fill shall not be pushed into the critical root zones of the pines to be preserved near the driveway. The approval criteria for ÐTree that is not a hazardÑ first require that Ð The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards.Ñ The Planning Commission notes that the comprehensive plan and Land Use Ordinance encourage urban development as proposed. The Planning Commission acknowledges that infill development will require the removal of trees to allow building envelopes. The Planning Commission notes that the ten trees, including seven significant trees, are either in the proposed drive area, utility easements area, or building envelopes. The Planning Commission notes that the surrounding properties are adequately treed and finds that the proposed removal will not have negative impact on soil, nor have significant negative impact on surrounding properties in terms of canopy or species diversity. The Planning Commission notes that the proposed landscape plan includes required mitigation plantings. The Planning Commission concludes that the approval criteria for the removal of ten trees, including seven significant trees PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 9 Total Page Number: 21 that are not a hazard, have been met. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the purpose of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance is to: Ð Provide for safe, orderly, and beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment and to provide for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features.Ñ The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1 generally provides that all development is to occur on lands defined as having a buildable area. Slopes greater than 35 percent are considered to be unbuildable except that existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35 percent shall be considered buildable for one single-family dwelling and an accessory residential unit or a duplex. In this instance, much of the development is located outside of the steep slopes, with minimal disturbance of less than 100 linear feet contained to just the development of the crossing for the driveway. The Planning Commission finds that the building envelopes have been located to minimize hillside disturbance. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal meets all applicable criteria and standards for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit as provided at AMC 18.3.10. 2.8 The Planning Commission notes that following proper public notice, a public hearing was th held on December 9, 2025, where testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission deliberated, and a motion was made approving the Outline and Final Plan as well as the exception to street standards and the removal requests for ten trees, including seven significant trees. The application was approved subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report, with modified condition #2. The amendments were read into the record and are set out below. 2.9 The Planning Commission notes that the record includes the applicantÓs submittal and, the th Staff Report dated December 9. Each of these by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. 2.9.1 The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of the criteria of approval for Outline and Final Plan as well as the exception to the street standards and removal of three significant trees have been met. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the public hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for a five-lot Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision Outline and Final Plan, including a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit, an Exception to the Street Design Standards, and a Tree Removal is supported by evidence contained within the whole record and is approved subject to the conditions of approval below: 1) All proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) Tree #1133 shall be preserved and protected as proposed by the applicant. Tree #1167 shall also be preserved and protected by re-routing the electric utility trenching or using PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 10 Total Page Number: 22 directional boring. If either of these trees is proposed to be removed at a later date, a Type I Tree Removal Permit shall be required. A revised Tree Protection Plan shall be provided prior to sitework incorporating the preservation and protection of Trees #1133 and #1167, and noting that driveway fill shall not be pushed into the critical root zones of the pines to be preserved near the driveway. 3) 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. 4) 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. 5) 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. 6) Prior to any site work, tree removal, building demolition, bringing combustible materials onto the property, and/or storage of materials: a. 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. b. 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. 7) 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. 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 PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 11 Total Page Number: 23 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. 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 CityÓs 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 \[(Height Î6) / (0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 12 Total Page Number: 24 Setback\] 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 ÐFences and WallsÑ 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 the certificate of occupancy. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. January 13, 2026 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2025-00061 January 13, 2026 Page 13 Total Page Number: 25 Total Page Number: 26 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 27 Total Page Number: 28 Memo DATE:January 13, 2026 TO:Planning Commission FROM:AaronAnderson, Senior Planner RE:Tree Removal at 2262 Ashland St. Background The day prior to the December 9th hearing it was discovered that the original notice did not include any mention of the trees proposed for removal. To remedy this error,an updated notice was prepared in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.060.C including the information about the tree removals and stating that there would be an additional hearing on January 13, 2026. thth At the December 9 meeting the hearing was continued to January 13to allow for additional testimony. Following any additional testimony,the Planning Commission will close the public hearing and deliberate on the planning action. Following the initial hearing,the applicant provided the attached memo in support of the request to remove 10 non-hazard trees from the subject property. The memo concludes that the removal of all of the trees is required to allow the property to redevelop in accordance with the proposed buildings. The memo notes that the proposed landscaping plan shows that there will be more new trees planted than are proposed for removal. Based on the presumption that the Planning Commission will view the application favorably,findings have been prepared and included in this meeting packet that the Planning Commission may consider. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 1.800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 29 2994 Wells Fargo Rd Central Point, Or 97502 madaradesinginc.com Landscape Architect: THOMAS MADARA Client: Reed Remodel Development December 18, 2025 Ashland St Ashland, Or 97520 The intent of this document is to Assess the Existing Trees at the site of North Western part of the Shop-n Cart / BiMart property as it regards planning for new development that includes the removal and replacement of the existing structure that fronts Ashland St. in Ashland, Oregon 97520. All of the notes below will be addressed further with a Tree Removal Permit when appropriate. As noted on the provided survey there are ten (10) existing trees that I would believe should all be removed for the reasons as described here-in. The Maple along Ashland St that is under the overhead power lines will have the major portions of the roots removed to allow for the proposed construction. Additionally, it interferes with all of the various overhead wiring and has been severely cut to minimize its height in relationship to those wires. At the NW corner of the site are a Pine and a Cedar that since having been planted fight for the limited space for their canopies and have correspondingly formed in a misshapen way. The Cedar will be in the footprint of the proposed structure. The Pine is so deformed that no amount of care will help it to recover. Where the survey shows one tree at the SW corner of the new construction when there are actually two London Plane trees. The Norther most will be within the proposed footprint. The Southern will suffer root damage when new curbing and paving occurs. The London Plane trees on the South side between the two new structures will need to be removed to accommodate the construction. The remaining Sweet Gum and Spruce trees typically have significant surface roots. They have grown for some time in their location and were originally planted in such proximity to curbing and paving that as they grew, they have broken most everything adjacent to their trunks and as the new paving and hardscapes are developed they will suffer terminal results from said work. With all of this being said the new development includes new trees in numbers that more than account for their loss. Per 18.5.7.050 Oregon State Landscape Architect Board, License Number 528 Oregon Landscape Contractors License, License Number 11416 1 Total Page Number: 30 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 31 Total Page Number: 32 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 13, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION PA-T2-2025-00062 A ) REQUEST FOR SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO REDEVELOP ) THE PROPERTY AT 2262 ASHLAND ST. WITH TWO COMMERCIAL ) TWO-STORY BUILDINGS. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A ) FINDINGS, REQUREST TO REMVOE TEN TREES THAT ARE NOT A HAZARD. ) CONCLUSIONS, ) AND ORDERS. ) OWNER: REED COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC ) ) APPLICANT: DAN HORTON ARCHITECTURE ______________________________________________________________ ) RECITALS: 1) The subject property is one of several that make up the ShopÒn Kart / Bi-Mart Shopping Center. It is identified as tax lot #1600 of AssessorÓs Map 39-1E-14-BA, and is located in the C-1 zone, as well as both the Detail Site Review and Climate Friendly overlay zones. 2) The property is presently 0.38 acres; however, it has recently been approved for a Property Line Adjustment (PLA) that has yet to be recorded (see: PA-A-2025-00379). Once the PLA recorded the property will be 0.82 acres in size and have 253-feet of frontage along Ashland Street / Highway 66, the property will then contain both the office building (2262 Ashland Street) and the restaurant (2270 Ashland Street). 3) The application is a request for Site Design Review to redevelop the property with two commercial two-story office buildings. The two buildings are nearly indistinguishable from one another with the only difference being that one building is slightly longer than the other. Building ÒAÓ is proposed to be 110Ó in overall length, while Building ÒBÓ is of the same design but is only 106Ó feet long. The application also includes a request to remove a total of ten trees. 4) Chapter 18.5.2 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) governs Site Design Review. Pursuant to the applicability section at AMC 18.5.2.020.A.1 Ð New structures, additions, or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC, CM, and M-1 zones Ñ requires Site Design Review approval. a. The review procedures at AMC 18.5.2.030.D states that Ð 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.Ñ 5) The criteria of approval for Site Design Review are described in AMC 18.5.5.050 as follows: 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 PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 1 Total Page Number: 33 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. 6) The criteria of approval for a tree removal permit for a non-hazard tree are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows: 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 PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 2 Total Page Number: 34 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. th 7) The day prior to the December 9 hearing it was discovered that the original notice did not include any mention of the trees proposed for removal, nor did it include the approval criteria for tree removal. To remedy this error an updated notice was prepared in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.060.C including the information about the tree removals and stating that there would be an additional hearing on January 13, 2026. 8) The Planning Commission, following public notice, held a public hearing on December 9, 2025. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. A number of members of the public gave testimony primarily in opposition to the project. Concerns were raised about the traffic impact and the perceived lack of need for additional commercial space. Many of the people who provided testimony expressed support for the restaurant and anger that they had not been consulted by their landlord regarding the proposed redevelopment. At the conclusion of the testimony, it was again announced that the hearing would be continued to th January 13 to provide additional opportunity to testify regarding the tree removals. 9) On January 13, 2026, the Planning Commission reconvened and continued the public hearing. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. Following the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission deliberated and voted unanimously to approve the application for Site Design Review and the proposed tree removals including the conditions of approval from the staff report. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18 is the Land Use Ordinance (LUO) and regulates the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage efficient use of land resources among other goals. When considering the decision to approve or deny an application the Planning Commission considers PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 3 Total Page Number: 35 the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in the AMC. 2.2 The Planning Commission notes the record includes the application itself, the Staff Report dated 12/9/25, the supplemental memo from Madara Design dated 12/18/25, the Staff Memo dated 1/6/26, and the public hearing testimony. The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to render a decision based on the entire record. 2.3 The Planning Commission notes that the notice for the public hearing was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within 200-feet of the subject property on November 18, 2025, which was 21 days before the hearing. The Planning Commission notes that the original notice did not include any mention of the trees proposed for removal, nor did it include the approval criteria for tree removal. The Planning Commission notes that an updated notice was prepared and posted on December 8, 2025, including the information about the tree removals and stating that there would be an additional hearing on January 13, 2026. The Planning Commission finds that the planning action and public hearings were properly noticed IAW AMC 18.5.1.060.C. 2.4 The Planning Commission notes that the subject property is located within the C-1 zoning district. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.5.2.020.A.1 requires that all new structures, and additions in the C-1 zone require Site Design Review which is governed by AMC 18.5.2. 2.5 The Planning Commission notes that the approval criteria for Site Design Review are located at AMC 18.5.2.050. The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of the criteria have been met, as was explained in detail in the applicantÓs submittal, as well as the Staff Report, and by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. 2.5.1 The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that Ð 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.Ñ Part 18.2 of the Land Use Ordnance (LUO) provides the allowed uses for the base zones, the special use standards for particular uses, and general regulations for the base zones. The Planning Commission notes that the subject property is located in the C-1 ÒCommercialÓ zoning district. Commercial uses, including office and retail use, are permitted outright in the C-1 zone. The C-1 zone has no maximum lot coverage, or minimum front, side or rear yard setbacks. The Planning Commission notes that the C-1 zone limits building height to 40Ó, and the proposed structure is 28Ó. The Planning Commission notes that the C-1 zone requires 15% landscaped area and that Sheet A-1 of the application materials has the overall site plan which indicates that 17% of the total lot area is proposed to be landscaped, which exceeds the 15% required. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing the base standards for the zone are met, and that this approval criterion has been satisfied. 2.5.2 The second approval criterion for Site Design Review is that Ð The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).Ñ The Planning Commission notes that the subject property is within three of the adopted overlay zones: the city-wide Wildfire Overlay, the PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 4 Total Page Number: 36 Climate Friendly Area (CFA) Overlay, and the Detail Site Review Overlay. The Planning Commission notes the following as was set out in the staff report: First, the Wildfire Overlay is now City wide and as it relates to this project will require that the building meets the locally adopted regulations. The submitted landscaping plan, which is also discussed further below shows that no prohibited plants are proposed to be planted. Next, the Climate Friendly Area (CFA) provides additional uses that are not typically allowed in the C-1 zone, and in some cases additional restrictions and special use standards. One of those standards is that when providing residential dwelling units, the code now requires that a minimum density of 25 dwellings per acre be provided. In the present application the applicant had initially expressed interest in providing apartments on the second floor, however the minimum density requirement would have required the applicant to propose at least 21 separate apartments. Because this was not workable the applicant has instead proposed four office space occupancies, each equipped with amenities similar to what would be found in a residential unit. Recent changes in state law prevent a CUP or zone change to allow residential use in commercial zones for vacant commercial space, and the CFA regulations specifically exempt redevelopment within existing buildings that add residential units from the minimum density requirement. For these reasons it is understood that, in the interest of providing needed housing, that it is the applicantÓs intention should the upstairs commercial space remain vacant, that they may be converted into residential use. Finally, the Detail Site Review standards are discussed in detail below within the third approval criteria for Site Design Review. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing the relevant overlay standards are met, and that this approval criterion has been satisfied. 2.5.3 The third approval criterion for Site Design Review is that Ð The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.Ñ The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.4.1.010 sets out the purpose of the chapter and states: Ð Part 18.4 contains design standards for development. The regulations are intended to protect public health, safety, and welfare through standards that promote land use compatibility, resource protection, and livability, consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.Ñ The Planning Commission notes the staff report dated 12/9/2025 included detailed responses to each of the relevant standards as set forth below: This approval criteria invokes the entirety of Part 18.4 including, Building Placement, Orientation, and Design (including the detail site review standards), Parking, Access, and Circulation, Landscaping, Lighting, and Screening, and Tree Preservation and Protection. We begin with the Basic Site Review Standards for Non-Residential Development. Basic Site Review The Basic Site Review Standards require that the building has its primary orientation toward the street, that parking areas shall be located behind buildings, and that building PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 5 Total Page Number: 37 faŒades shall occupy a large majority of a projectÓs street frontage. Additionally, these standards require that the building entrances be oriented toward the street accessed from a public sidewalk and be located within 20 feet of the public right-of-way (ROW). The standards also require that space between buildings shall consist of hard durable surfaces to highlight pedestrian areas. Based on a review of the proposed architectural plans it is clear that the primary orientation is towards the street immediately adjacent to the ROW with access directly to the public sidewalk. The proposed buildings present a combined faŒade of 216Ó along the street frontage which is over 80% of the subject property which is clearly a majority of the 253Ó of street frontage. Between the buildings is a proposed hard-scape walkway to a common plaza area equipped with a covered picnic table and bike parking. The Basic Site Review Standards also require that a sidewalk shall be provided along with Street Trees at an interval of one tree each 30 feet. The application materials show a proposed ROW dedication of five feet and a new, wider, sidewalk to be installed with street trees proposed at the required interval. Typically, the Basic Site Review Standards also require a landscape buffer area at least ten feet in width adjacent to streets, however the buffer is not required in the Detail Site Review. That said, it should be noted that the proposed landscape plan shows a thin row of landscaping adjacent to the buildings that is between two to four feet wide depending on the articulation of the façade. Finally, the Basic Site Review Standards also require that a recycling/refuse disposal area shall be provided and that artificial lighting shall meet the requirements of the LUO. Staff note that the site plan indicates a recycling and refuse area, and that a condition of approval has been included below to ensure that the proposed lighting meets the required standards Detail Site Review Standards The Detail Site Review Overlay at AMC 18.3.12.030 invokes the adopted overlay map and requires that development within the overlay be subject to the standard at AMC 18.4.2.040.C which provides additional standards in addition to those addressed above. These standards address the following four topics which will each be addressed in turn: 1. Orientation and Scale. 2. Streetscape. 3. Buffering and Screening. 4. Building Materials. The first standard for orientation and scale requires that Ð developments shall have a minimum floor area ratio (FAR) of at least 0.50.Ñ The subject property will be 0.82 acres following the recording of the approved property line adjustment. This requires that the proposed development needs to be at least 17.5 KSF to meet the 0.50 FAR standard. The present proposal is for 20.19 KSF which calculates to a FAR of 0.56 exceeding the requirement of 0.50. The code allows that Ð where a site is one-half acre or greater in size, the FAR requirement may be met through a phased development plan or a shadow plan that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 6 Total Page Number: 38 minimum FAR.Ñ Originally the applicant had proposed to only seek Site Design approval for building ÒAÓ and use a shadow plan to satisfy the FAR requirement, however after consulting with staff it was decided that a phased development plan was more appropriate as the property owner has indicated their desire to build both buildings one after the other. The second standard for orientation and scale requires that Ð Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building façade.Ñ The building elevations show that the proposed buildings demonstrate clear compliance with the standard requiring façade articulation through offsets, jogs, or other distinctive changes. The design incorporates multiple shifts in roof height, recessed entry elements, and varied wall planes that create pronounced modulation along both the north and east elevations. These features, combined with differentiated window groupings and material transitions, break up the overall mass and provide the visual interest and dimensional variation anticipated by the standard. The third standard for orientation and scale requires that Ð 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.Ñ Both of the buildings exceed this standard considerably offering over 50 linear feet of windows on the first floor and 24 linear feet of windows on the second floor. In terms of total area, the north and south building faces are each slightly under 2200 square feet and have a total glazed area of over 640 square feet. This calculates to 29 percent of the total area of the wall which exceeds the required amount. The fourth standard for orientation and scale requires that Ð Buildings shall have changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances.Ñ An examination of the building drawing show that the main entrances on either side have windows flanking each door, which is a change in surface providing emphasis to the entry and meeting this requirement. The fifth standard for orientation and scale requires that, Ð Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable.Ñ Both buildings will be adjacent to the sidewalk, and building ÒBÓ will be developed in an area that is presently a parking area that is located between the street and the restaurant, which is expressly prohibited. The development of both of these buildings adjacent to the sidewalk meets this requirement. The sixth standard for orientation and scale requires that, Ð buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun.Ñ Each entry point has awnings and alcoves that provide protection from rain and sun meeting this requirement. The standard for streetscape requires that Ð Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate ÐpeopleÑ areas Ñ, and that Ð building shall be set back not more than five feet from a public sidewalk.Ñ As discussed above both buildings have hard-scape pedestrian areas and are proposed to be built to a two- or three-foot setback from the newly PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 7 Total Page Number: 39 improved sidewalk. This allows for a thin row of landscaping between the sidewalk and building but within the allowed standard. The walkway between the buildings is also proposed to be concrete hardscape. The standard for Buffering and Screening requires that Ð Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses Ñ and that Ð Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets, and screened.Ñ The site plan indicates that the trash and recycling area is to be screened from view by a six-foot-tall concrete block wall. The fenced area has gates on both sides to with a pedestrian gate on the north side, and dual doors to the south to allow access for the garbage truck. Additionally, the newly redeveloped parking area is on the south side of the property meeting the standard for it to be located behind the buildings. The standard for Building Materials requires that Ð Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, and fluted masonry, for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall area.Ñ And that Ð Bright or neon paint colors are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin.Ñ The architectural drawings provided indicate that the proposed buildings have architectural features including covered entries, fenestration, offsets and articulation of roof lines to provide changes in relief. As noted above, the total area of the street facing walls consists of 30 percent of windows and glass which meets the standard to not be the majority of the buildingÓs skin. In addition to the standards addressed above, within the Detail Site Review overlay, developments of greater than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area or contain more than 100 feet of building frontage are required to meet those additional standards provided at AMC 18.4.2.040.D. These standards address the following three topics which will each be addressed in turn: 1.Orientation and Scale. 2.Plaza Space Standards. 3.Transit Amenities The first standard for orientation and scale requires that Ð Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting.Ñ An examination of the proposed building plans shows that with the proposed roof forms and changes in mass including the offsets and jogs in the walls that the design meets this standard. The second standard for orientation and scale requires that Ð Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet Ñ and Ð shall not exceed a combined building length of 300-feet.Ñ The combined footprint of both buildings is 13,544 square feet which is less than 45,000 square feet. Building A is 110-feet in length, and Building ÒBÓ is 106- feet in length, both of which are less than 300-feet. Because neither threshold is hit this standard is met. The first standard for Plaza Space Standards requires that Ð One square foot of plaza space shall be required for every ten square feet of gross floor area, except for the fourth PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 8 Total Page Number: 40 gross floor area.Ñ The combined square footage of the two buildings is 20,190 square feet, therefore 2,019 square feet of plaza space is required. Sheet A-1 indicates that there are 2,025 square feet of plaza space provided. The 2025 square feet of plaza exceeds the 2,019 square feet required demonstrating that this standard is met. The second standard for Plaza Space Standards requires that Ð A plaza space shall incorporate at least four of the following elements Ñ listed at AMC 18.4.2.040.D.2.c. The proposed plaza space has trees, a covered picnic table, benches, a space reserved for public art. The covered seating area provides both an area for rest but also shelter from sunlight or rain. The proposed plaza space between the two parking areas is shown below. The standard for Transit Amenities requires that Ð Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts, and designated bike lanes shall be required in accordance with the Ashland Transportation Plan and guidelines established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District.Ñ There is an existing bus stop and seating area at the northwest corner of the subject property. There have been no requests from RVTD to provide any additional amenities, and it appears that this standard is met. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing the relevant applicable Site Development and Design Standards are met, and that this approval criterion has been satisfied. 2.5.4 The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review is that Ð 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.Ñ The Planning Commission notes that the property is fully developed and served with all franchise utilities. The Planning Commission notes that Section AMC 18.4.6.020 provides the applicability for chapter 18.4.6 and states that it applies to all new development È where public facility improvements are required.Ñ The Planning Commission notes that in the present application the existing roadway is fully developed and has existing curb tight sidewalk that is roughly four feet in width. The application proposes dedicating an additional five-feet of Right-of-way (ROW) and increase the width of the sidewalk to ten feet along with the addition of street trees at 30Ó intervals consistent with the standards at AMC 18.4.6.040.K.2 for the Ashland Street Corridor design standards. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing the applicable Public Facility Standards are met, and that this approval criterion has been satisfied. 2.5.5 The fifth and final approval criterion for Site Design Review relates to requested exceptions to any specific standards. The Planning Commission notes that the application did not include any exceptions and finds that this approval criterion has been met. 2.6 The Planning Commission notes that there are a total of ten trees that are proposed to be removed. The Planning Commission notes that the application record includes a memo from a licenses landscape architect detailing how each of the trees are in conflict with the proposed development. The Planning Commission notes that the proposed landscaping plan includes more than trees to be planted than are being removed. The Planning Commission notes that the first approval criteria for a non-hazard tree removal is that Ð The tree is proposed for removal in order PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 9 Total Page Number: 41 to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards.Ñ The Planning Commission notes that the proposed Site Design Review as discussed above requested no exceptions, and that a large reason for the tree removals is the location of the proposed buildings. The Planning Commission notes that the removal of these trees will not have a significant impact on soil stability or a negative impact on erosion, and that the removal of these trees will not have an overall negative impact on tree canopies and species diversity in the area satisfying the second and third approval criteria. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed removals satisfy all the relevant approval criteria. 2.7 After the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. The Planning Commission finds that, with the conditions of approval included in the decision, the proposal satisfies the applicable approval criteria. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for Site Design Review is supported by evidence contained within the whole record with the conditions of approval below: 1) All proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) The northernly five-feet of the property shall be dedicated as public street right-of-way in such a manner and document as deemed appropriate by the Public Works Engineering Division and Staff Advisor. 3) The plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4) Prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All signage shall meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7). 5) All requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved addressing (OFC 505); commercial fire apparatus access including angle of approach and any necessary fire apparatus or shared access easements (OFC 503.2.8); limitations on the installation of gates or fences; fire flow (OFC Appendix B, Table B105.1); fire hydrant clearance; fire department connection (FDC); a Knox key box; and fire sprinklers where required for mixed-use buildings or due to access constraints. 6) All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from surrounding rights-of-way, and the location and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 7) Prior to the installation of stairs, parking, or utility infrastructure within the public alley right-of-way, an encroachment permit from the Ashland Public Works Department shall be obtained. A final revised site plan illustrating the placement of these proposed PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 10 Total Page Number: 42 improvements shall be provide for the review and approval of the Public Works/Engineering Department and Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit. 8) Building permit submittals shall include: a) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those approved in the application b) Final revised Site, Landscape and Irrigation plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. 9) Prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All hardscaping and landscaping improvements including plaza spaces, landscaping, and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b)All exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties. Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2025-00062 January 13, 2026 Page 11 Total Page Number: 43 Total Page Number: 44 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 45 Total Page Number: 46 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00065 SUBJECT PROPERTY:431 N Main Street APPLICANT:Rogue Planning and Development OWNER:Rogue Holdings LLC DESCRIPTION:A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The parent parcel at 431 N Main Street is proposed to be subdivided into four new lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The existing structure is proposed for demolition. The application also includes a request for four Conditional Use Permits to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District on each new home, a request to remove a significant tree 33Ñ DBH in size (Ailanthus altissima, Tree of Heaven) and a request for an exception to street standards to not install standard street improvements due to the existing sidewalk and site constraints.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Multi-Family Residential; ZONING:R-2; MAP:39-1E-05-DA; TAX LOT:7300 NOTE:The Ashland Historic Commission will review this Planning Action on Wednesday, January 7, 2026at 5:00 PM at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TuesdayJanuary 13, 2026at 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: 47 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 ÐWhatÓs Happening in my CityÑ 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 AdministratorÓs 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 to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 48 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (See https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse/18.5.4.050) A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1.That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughoutthe development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3.That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluatingthe effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a.Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e.Generation of noise, light, and glare. f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4.A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5.For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. a.WR and RR.Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. b.R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c. R-2 and R-3.Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d.C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. e.C-1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f.E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 49 ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g.M-1.The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h.CM-C1.The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i.CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k.CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. l.HC, NM, and SOU.The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.B) 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 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. 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: 50 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 51 Total Page Number: 52 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Before the Planning Commission Î January 13, 2025 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2025-00065 OWNER: Rogue Holdings APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC LOCATION: 431 N Main Street (391E05DA7300) ZONE DESIGNATION: R-2 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-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 18.4.2 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 18.5.1 General Review Procedures 18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments 18.5.4 Conditional Use Permits 18.5.7 Tree Removal Permits 18.6.1 Definitions APPLICATION DATE: December 8, 2025 PUBLIC NOTICE: December 23, 2025 MEETING DATE: January 13, 2025 120-DAY DEADLINE: May 5, 2026 PROPOSAL: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The parent parcel at 431 N Main Street is proposed to be subdivided into four new lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The existing structure is proposed for demolition. The application also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District for each lot, a request to remove a significant tree 33-inch in diameter at breast height (DBH) (Ailanthus altissima, Tree of Heaven) and a request for an Exception to the Street Design Standards to not install standard street improvements due to the existing sidewalk and site constraints. I. Introduction Site Description The subject property is Tax Lot #7300, addressed as 431 North Main Street, of AssessorÓs Map 39-1E-05-DA. The property is 0.35 acres and zoned R-2 (Multi-Family Residential). Tax Lot #7300 was created in the 1800Ós in its current size and rectangular shape with approximately 67 feet of street frontage on N Main Street and 215.57 feet of frontage on Nursery Street. The property Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 1 of 14 Total Page Number: 53 is located within the Skidmore Academy Historic District; the existing eight-unit house was constructed in the late 1800Ós or early 1900Ós and is considered ÐEligible/ContributingÑ in the Skidmore Academy Historic District survey document. The driveways serving Tax Lot #7300 are located off Nursery Street on the north side of the property. The site currently has three curb cuts, none of which are paved or graveled. These driveways are non-conforming with respect to their number, width, and surface material. The applicant proposes to remove the easternmost curb cut, shift the westernmost curb cut further to the west, and create two new curb cuts for the proposed Lots 2 and 3 to allow for the required separation between driveways. Existing frontage improvements along both Nursery Street and North Main Street consist of approximately five-foot wide curb-tight sidewalks within the public right-of-way (ROW) with 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 or widening of the sidewalks. II.Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision Î 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: 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 property is not located within the mapped PSO overlay; however, Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 18.3.9 allows use of the Performance Standards Option outside of the overlay for properties zoned R-2, R-3, or CM (AMC 18.3.9.030.D.2). The subject property is zoned R-2 and is therefore eligible to utilize the PSO subdivision option. The proposal applies the flexibility of the PSO standards to achieve efficient land use while remaining subject to the applicable performance standards and approval criteria of Chapter 18.3.9. 2) Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision Î Outline Plan Approval The proposed subdivision will create four residential lots. The application also requests an Exception to the Street Design 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. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 2 of 14 Total Page Number: 54 5) There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space. 6) The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards. 7) The development complies with the street standards. 8) The proposed development meets the common open space standards. The application materials include written findings and supporting documentation that address each of the eight approval criteria required for Outline Plan approval. Each of these approval criteria is briefly discussed below and identifies recommended conditions of approval for Planning Commission consideration to ensure compliance with the applicable standards. The first approval criterion is that Ð the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city.Ñ 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 Î 18.3.9.080. The application materials emphasize that as a Performance Standards Options proposal, the application is not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth or setback standards of part 18.2. The applicant has provided written findings addressing each of the approval criteria in detail, and by their reference the applicantÓs 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 for the parent parcel would be based on the north property line as a side yard abutting a street, the south property line as a side yard, the west property line as the rear yard, and the east property line as the front yard. Additionally, typical setbacks for a historic district are 20 feet for the front yard, six-feet for side yards, ten-feet for a side yard abutting a public street, and ten-feet per story or five-feet per half story for rear yards. In this case, the parent parcelÓs 20-foot front yard setback would apply to both the parent parcel perimeter (East) and the Northern lot lines for the newly proposed Lots 1-3. 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 a separation of approximately 12 feet is 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: ÐAll lots will meet the solar requirement due to the public rights-of- Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 3 of 14 Total Page Number: 55 way to the north of the property which allow for a 55Ó setback for a 30Ó tall structure, where a 51Ó ROW exists.Ñ Given the width of the public right-of-way to the north and the applicable setback requirements, staff concurs that development of the subject properties can readily comply with Solar Access Standard A. Verification of compliance will be required at the building permit stage, and a condition of approval is recommended to require that all building permit submittals demonstrate compliance with this standard. Each of the four new residential lots as proposed are sized as follows: Lot 1 is 3,610 SF Lot 2 is 3,172 SF Lot 3 is 3,172 SF Lot 4 is 5,213 SF The application requests a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for each lot to exceed their allowed Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) based on lot size. Calculations for each lot have been provided. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the full 25 percent increase in Maximum Permitted Floor Area for each of the four lots, which, if approved by the Planning Commission would allow building sizes as follows: Lot 1 up to 1,851.93 square feet Lot 2 up to 1,687.5 square feet Lot 3 up to 1,687.5 square feet Lot 4 up to 2,401.89 square feet The proposal is for Lots 1-3 to have residences approximately 1,683 square feet in area. The applicant describes the development on Lot 4 as 2,352 square foot single-family residence built as a six-bedroom single-room occupancy (SRO) unit, which is treated as one dwelling unit for density purposes under State House Bill 2138. The original submittals had Lots 2 & 3 as having 1,690 square foot residences but these were modified to be within the 25 percent overage allowance available through a CUP. If the Planning Commission approves the four Conditional Use Permits as proposed along with the proposed condition addressing the MPFA for the four lots, then the MPFA standard will be addressed. The second approval criterion is that Ð 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.Ñ The subject property fronts on North Main Street and Nursery Street, which contain all city utilities including water, sewer, storm drainage and electricity. The Public Works/Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and has identified no concerns regarding the capacity of any of these services for the four lots. Both streets are paved and have a curb-tight sidewalk along the propertyÓs frontage. More specific details regarding street standards are addressed in the sixth approval criterion below. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 4 of 14 Total Page Number: 56 The utility plan provided shows sewer, storm drainage, and water being installed to each of the individual lots. In staffÓs 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 Ð 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.Ñ 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 treeÓs 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 one significant tree (i.e. conifers having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger in DBH, or deciduous trees having a trunk 12 caliper inches in DBH) and one dead tree are proposed for removal. The significant tree proposed for removal is an invasive Tree of Heaven located just outside of the building envelopes of the proposed residences. However, due to its size, the upper canopy and lateral branches extend directly into and over the buildable area, which the applicant states Ðrestricts feasible siting of dwellings.Ñ In preliminary on-site assessment by staff, the tree has a significant cavity near the base of the trunk, and codominant stems growing into the overhead powerlines which would need to be trimmed, and seems a likely candidate for removal. Staff will provide a more detailed recommendation with regard to the tree in the presentation at the hearing. The fourth approval criterion is that Ð The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the comprehensive plan.Ñ The subject property is surrounded by fully built-out and developed lots with single family homes, multi-family developments, and town homes. 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 Ð 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.Ñ 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 exceeds the density proposed in this application. The sixth approval criterion is that Ð The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter.Ñ The application explains that the property is 0.35 acres, and that the PSO standards allow for 3.6 dwelling units (du)/acre in the R-2 zone which calculates to a base density of 4.5 \[13.5 du/acre x 0.35 acres = 4.725 du\]. The proposal includes four dwelling units, which is within the allowed base density. The application materials do not propose utilizing any density bonuses, as such staff have determined that findings can be made that the proposed density of four total residential lots meets the base and bonus density standards. The seventh approval criterion is that Ð The development complies with the street standards.Ñ The current street standards require 47 feet as the minimum right of way (ROW) width for a Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 5 of 14 Total Page Number: 57 neighborhood street with 22 feet of pavement curb-to-curb plus park row planting strips, street trees and sidewalks. The applicant proposes granting a future right-of-way improvement easement as part of the subdivision, rather than dedicating additional right-of-way, in order to preserve the CityÓs ability to widen sidewalks or improve the roadway if full street improvements are undertaken in the future. The proposal does not include construction of those improvements at this time. Instead, the applicant requests an Exception to the Street Design Standards to retain the existing curb-tight sidewalk in its current location, rather than reconstructing the frontage or adding a park row planting strip. Approval of the requested Exception to the Street Design Standards would allow this approval criterion to be met. The eighth and final approval criterion is that Ð The proposed development meets the common open space standards.Ñ 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) Conditional Use Permit Î Maximum Permitted Floor Area More than twenty years ago, community concerns were raised that the construction of large homes in AshlandÓs National Register of Historic Places-listed historic districts did not necessarily reflect the scale and identity of the surrounding neighborhoods. The city responded by adopting a Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) Ordinance which sets a limit on the permitted floor area for residential properties in the historic districts based on lot size and the number of units proposed. The ordinance as adopted includes a provision that an applicant may request a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to exceed the MPFA by up to 25 percent. CUP review provides a mechanism to consider the adverse impacts of a proposal on the impact area and address them through the imposition of conditions. AMC 18.4.2.050.A.2.b provides that, ÐIf a development requires a Type I, II, or III review procedure (e.g., Site Design Review, Conditional Use Permit) and involves new construction, or restoration and rehabilitation, or any use greater than a single-family use, the authority exists in the law for the Staff Advisor and the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these standards. In this case the Historic Commission \[Historic Preservation Advisory Committee\] advises both the applicant and the Staff Advisor or other City decision maker.Ñ The CUP process provides a mechanism for the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) to review an application in light of the Historic District Development Standards found in AMC 18.4.2.050 and make specific recommendations to the Staff Advisor and Planning Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 6 of 14 Total Page Number: 58 Commission. This is an instance where HPAC recommendations can be required as conditions of approval even for single family residential applications. The Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) is scheduled to meet at its regular January 7, 2026 meeting, following completion of this staff report and prior to the Planning Commission hearing on January 13, 2026. Any recommendations from HPAC will be conveyed to the Planning Commission as part of the staff presentation. In staffÓs assessment, the proposed demolition of the existing historic structure establishes the context for evaluating the compatibility of new development on the site. The surrounding area includes a mix of newer residential development, including attached townhouse style residences, and staff anticipates that with incorporation of recommended conditions, particularly those addressing design compatibility as advised by the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, the proposed buildings can relate appropriately to the surrounding neighborhood and historic district. The proposal includes a mix of housing types consisting of three single family residences and one residential building to be used as a six-room single room occupancy (SRO). Staff is supportive of the inclusion of an SRO, as this housing type helps address a documented need for smaller, more attainable housing options and contributes to housing diversity within the community. 5) Tree Removal As discussed above, the application includes a request to remove one significant tree and one dead tree, due to proximity to the identified building envelopes. The applicantÓs narrative states that, Ð Removal is necessary to achieve compliance with applicable development standards, ensure adequate building area, and prevent future conflicts with overhead utilities.Ñ Staff will review the application with the Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) and will bring a detailed recommendation with regard to the tree removal request to the Planning Commission hearing. 6) Exception to the Street Design Standards As described above, the frontages along Nursery Street and North Main Street are improved with curb-tight sidewalks approximately 5 to 5.5 feet in width, where a 7-foot sidewalk and a park row with street trees are otherwise required. Bringing the right-of-way into full compliance with current standards would require additional right-of-way dedication on the subject property to accommodate a park row and street trees. However, even with such dedication, the steep grade immediately behind the existing sidewalk along North Main Street and the presence of existing street improvements, including a street light, would make construction of full standard frontage improvements difficult and could disrupt the continuity of the existing sidewalk connection to the south. The Public Works/Engineering Department has also indicated that even a minor change to the sidewalk width would trigger a very involved full replacement of the new pedestrian crosswalk ramp recently installed by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) at the corner of North Main and Nursery Streets. 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 Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 7 of 14 Total Page Number: 59 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 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 LIDÓs where limited right-of-way is available. As such, in staffÓs assessment, the applicantÓs request for an exception and dedication of an improvement easement can be found to be addressed. 7) Public Input Notice was posted at the property frontages and mailed to all properties within 200 feet on December 23, 2025. As this staff report is being prepared, no public comments on the application have yet been received. 8) Procedural Î 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. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 8 of 14 Total Page Number: 60 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 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. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 9 of 14 Total Page Number: 61 iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safely and efficiently cross roadway; or b. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purposes, intent, and background of the street design standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. 4) Conditional Use Permit A. Approval Criteria. A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. c. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 10 of 14 Total Page Number: 62 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. III. Conclusion and Recommendations In staffÓs 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 four-lot subdivision, approve four Conditional Use Permits to allow up to 25 percent increase in Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District, approve the requested Exception to the Street Design Standards, and approve the request to remove once significant tree subject to the recommended conditions of approval below: 1) All proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) All recommendations of the Ashland Historic Preservation 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. 3) 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. Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted and irrigated according to the approved plan. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 11 of 14 Total Page Number: 63 4) 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. 5) 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. 6) Prior to any site work, tree removal, building demolition, bringing combustible materials onto the property, and/or storage of materials: a. 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 and be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department. b.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. 7) 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, and any future right-of-way improvement easements proposed as part of this approval, 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. 8) 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 Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 12 of 14 Total Page Number: 64 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. 9)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. c. Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units comply with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height Î6) / (0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. d. Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the 65 percent maximum coverage allowance of the R-2 zoning district. Lot coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping. e. Storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system 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. f. Verification that each new home in the subdivision complies with the Maximum Permitted Floor Area requirements as follows: i. Lot 1 up to 1,851.93 square feet ii. Lot 2 up to 1,687.5 square feet iii. Lot 3 up to 1,687.5 square feet iv. Lot 4 up to 2,401.89 square feet Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 13 of 14 Total Page Number: 65 g. All fencing shall be consistent with the provisions of the ÐFences and WallsÑ 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. 10) Prior to Certificate of Occupancy: a. That street trees, 1 per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed on the Nursery Street and N Main Street frontages prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the single-family residences. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated. Planning Action: PA-T2-2025-00065 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report (va) Owner: Rogue Holdings LLC Page 14 of 14 Total Page Number: 66 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 67 Total Page Number: 68 From:O.W.R. 4BFF To:planning Subject:Ashland City Planning Per 431 N Main St build Date:Tuesday, January 06, 2026 9:22:14 AM \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Concern Regarding Insufficient Parking and Construction Impacts for Proposed New Development Ashland City Planning Per 431 N Main St Dear Members of the City Planning Commission, I am writing to formally express my concern regarding the proposed new development located at 431 N Main St, specifically with respect to the inadequate amount of parking planned for the site and the potential impacts of construction activities on neighboring properties. As a business owner, directly across the street, I am concerned that the current parking plan does not adequately account for the anticipated increase in residents, visitors, service vehicles, and overall traffic associated with this project. The surrounding neighborhood already experiences parking congestion, and the addition of a development with insufficient on-site parking will likely exacerbate this issue, negatively affecting residents, emergency access, and local businesses. In addition, I own and operate the Bayberry Inn and Oregon Wellness Retreat, a lodging and wellness business whose success depends on providing guests with a quiet, ŵđŹƂŗŵêƂijƚđ϶đŏƚijŵŗŏŎđŏƂϼ϶EêŵňƢЎŎŗŵŏijŏĩ϶ąŗŏŹƂŵƇąƂijŗŏ϶êąƂijƚijƂƢБŲêŵƂijąƇňêŵňƢ϶Ɯŗŵń ăđĩijŏŏijŏĩ϶Ųŵijŗŵ϶Ƃŗ϶ͭͬϾͬͬ϶êϼŎϼБƜŗƇňċ϶ŹijĩŏijĨijąêŏƂňƢ϶ċijŹŵƇŲƂ϶ŗƇŵ϶ĩƇđŹƂŹЪ϶êăijňijƂƢ϶Ƃŗ϶ŹňđđŲ϶êŏċ enjoy the peaceful experience they expect and pay for. Many of our guests travel specifically to Ashland for rest, wellness, and cultural tourism, and construction noise during early morning hours would directly undermine that experience. ϶϶ŹİňêŏċЪŹ϶đąŗŏŗŎƢ϶ijŹ϶ăƇijňƂ϶ijŏ϶ňêŵĩđ϶ŲêŵƂ϶ŗŏ϶ƂŗƇŵijŹŎ϶êŏċ϶İŗŹŲijƂêňijƂƢϽ϶êŏċ϶Ƃİđ϶ąijƂƢЪŹ reputation for charm, walkability, and quality lodging is essential to sustaining local businesses. Construction impacts that interfere with guest rest risk damaging not only individual businesses, but also the broader visitor experience Ashland is known for. Insufficient parking often results in overflow onto surrounding streets, reduced accessibility, safety concerns, and diminished quality of life for existing community members. When combined with early construction noise, these impacts appear ijŏąŗŏŹijŹƂđŏƂ϶ƜijƂİ϶Ƃİđ϶ąijƂƢЪŹ϶ŹƂêƂđċ϶ĩŗêňŹ϶ŗĨ϶ŵđŹŲŗŏŹijăňđ϶ĩŵŗƜƂİϽ϶ŏđijĩİăŗŵİŗŗċ compatibility, and support for existing local businesses. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission reconsider the parking Total Page Number: 69 requirements for this project and require the developer to provide additional on-site parking or alternative solutions that meaningfully address parking demand, such as structured parking, shared parking agreements, or a revised traffic and parking impact study. I further request that the Commission impose construction-hour limitations as a condition of approval, including a prohibition on construction activity prior to 10:00 a.m., to ensure compatibility with adjacent lodging and residential uses. Protecting morning quiet hours is critical in a tourism-driven city where quality guest accommodations are fundamental to the local economy and community character. To ensure compliance, I respectfully request that any construction-hour limitations be enforced through a clearly defined condition of approval, including: (1) explicit construction start-time restrictions stated in the project approval; (2) posting of permitted construction hours on-site with a designated contact person responsible for addressing complaints; and (3) a complaint and enforcement process through the City that allows for prompt investigation and corrective action in the event of violations. Establishing a clear enforcement mechanism will help protect nearby lodging and residential uses while providing certainty and accountability for both the developer and affected neighbors. Thank you for your time and consideration of these concerns. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the planning process and trust that the Commission will carefully weigh the long-term impacts of this development on the surrounding ąŗŎŎƇŏijƂƢ϶êŏċ϶ŹİňêŏċЪŹ϶ƂŗƇŵijŹŎЎăêŹđċ϶đąŗŏŗŎƢϼ Sincerely, Jacqui Mann 438 N Main St Bayberry Inn and Oregon Wellness Retreat 541-488-1252 Total Page Number: 70 Total Page Number: 71 Total Page Number: 72 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 73 Total Page Number: 74 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 431 N Main A PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE MPFA Total Page Number: 75 Total Page Number: 76 Total Page Number: 77 Total Page Number: 78 Total Page Number: 79 Total Page Number: 80 Total Page Number: 81 Total Page Number: 82 Total Page Number: 83 Total Page Number: 84 Total Page Number: 85 Total Page Number: 86 Total Page Number: 87 Total Page Number: 88 Total Page Number: 89 Total Page Number: 90 Total Page Number: 91 Total Page Number: 92 Total Page Number: 93 Total Page Number: 94 Total Page Number: 95 Total Page Number: 96 Tree ofHeavenChina-sumacVarnishtree Genus Ailanthus » Woody Plant SearchAdditional Information , a 1943 novel by Betty Smith and a 1945 movie Woody Plants of Oregon No Common Names Tree of HeavenChina-sumacVarnishtree a-LAN-thus al-TIS-i-ma Latin Names Simaroubaceae Broadleaf Broadleaf deciduous tree, 40-60 ft (12-18 m), upright spreading to shrubby.Bark is grayish andslightly roughened.Leaves alternate, pinnately compound, large, 50-60 cm long, 13-25 leaflets, eachleaflet 7.5-13 cm long, appear entire (actually with fine marginal hairs) except for 2-4 coarse teethnear leaflet base.Dioecious - male and female trees, but some trees have both sexes and someflowers appear bisexual (have both male and female parts).Flowers small, yellow-green, in 20-40 cmlong clusters; male flowers have a repulsive odor (hence its Chinese common name is StinkingChun).Fruit (samara) 4 cm long, often bright orange-red then finally brown, persist into winter.Sun.The most adaptable and pollution tolerant tree available.Withstands soot, grime, andpollution of cities, where it is common.It spreads by seeds and root suckers.Suckers may appear asmuch as 150 ft (45 m) from the trunk(Jacobson, 1996).Its root system is aggressive enough tocause damage to sewers and foundations.A tough tree, which some consider a weed with "nolandscape value".The tree of,directed by Elia Kazan. About Landscape Plants Dpnnpo!obnf;Qspovodjbujpo;Gbnjmz;Hfovt;Uzqf;Obujwf!up!)ps!obuvsbmj{fe!jo*!Psfhpo; Total Page Number: 97 , meaning Tree of or because it is a prolific seed producer, grows rapidly, , that produces "bright red seeds".The name is , fruit (Jacobson, 1996). Once established, it can quickly take over a site and form an f. , high. ijhimz!jowbtjwf!tqfdjft , red, and , an Indonesian name for : from : from : It is considered a Hardy to USDA Zone 4Native to China, now found in Europe and naturalized over much of the U.S.Dbvujpo and can overrun native vegetation. impenetrable thicket. (Less tolerant plant enthusiasts have been known to call it The Tree from Hell,although there is no theological discourse insupport of this claim). Reportedly the treesproducetoxins that prevent the establishment of other plant species (Mergen,F. Bot. Gaz. 122:32-36(1959); Heisey,R.M. Amer. J. Bot 77:662-670, 1988).Heaven, or 'Reaching for the Sky', referring to tree height.Also a Latin superlative meaning very highor tallest;There is also a selection,from the Greek, Total Page Number: 98 NON-RECOMMENDED STREET TREES The following trees may be of value as street trees when properly located and cared for. How- ever, they may cause or be subject to the indicated problems. Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple) Reason: DoesnÓt react well to con Ü ned root space. Leaf scorch in summer. Aesculus species (Horse Chestnuts) Reason: Messy; roots heave sidewalks. Ailanthus altissima (Tree of Heaven) Reason: Invasive root system. If used, a male tree should be chosen. Alnus species (Alder) Reason: Wind damage, shallow invasive roots. Catalpa speciosa (Western Catalpa) Reason: Bark is thin and easily damaged by mechanical impact; branches drop, pods drop during summer causing a mess and may scorch. Cornus mas (Cornelian cherry) Reason: Falling fruit is messy and stains sidewalks. Fraxinus velutina ÒModestoÓ (Modesto Ash) Reason: Subject to Anthracnose. Often poor branch structure. Labumum x watereri (Goldenchain) Reason: Poisonous. Morus alba (Fruitless Mulberry) Reason: Invasive root system. Strong lateral branching. Platanus acerifolia (Sycamore) Reason: A tree of great beauty but has strong surface roots, subject to Anthracnose, messy, solar unfriendly. Picea, Pseudotsuga, etc. (Evergreen Conifers) Reason: Lateral branches tend to interfere with clearance. Mature trees dangerously self- prune lower limbs. Quercus palustris (Pin Oak) Reason: Lower branches tend to weep, obstruct traf Ü c and visibility. 70 RECOMMENDED STREET TREES Prepared by the Ashland Tree Commission Total Page Number: 99 From:Nicholas Beall To:Veronica Allen Cc:Amy Gunter Subject:Re: 431 N Main St - Tree of Heaven Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 2:13:07 PM Attachments:image001.png A1 Cover Page lot 4.pdf render with skylight and PTAC (dark wood stain posts).png A2 Elevations lot 4.pdf \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Hi Veronica, Its DBH is 33". We didn't have an arborist provide a report because its condition is clearly in poor condition. Attached are photos so you can see what I mean. In reviewing our photos, we also noticed that we missed one tree on the survey. It is behind the house, on the west side of the lot. However, this tree is dead (see photo of it attached). If we need an arborist report let us know and we can provide one however timing is subject to arborist availability. Attached are the updated elevations of the SRO. Total Page Number: 100 Total Page Number: 101 On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 1:50PM Veronica Allen <veronica.allen@ashland.or.us> wrote: Good afternoon, Apologies for not bringing this up with the other items, I am just diving back into this application again. The Tree of Heaven that is proposed for removal, do you know the DBH of it? The submittal says it is a significant tree, but not the size. Additionally, did an arborist provide a report or statement about the tree that you could provide with the revisions? Much thanks, Veronica Allen, CFM, Associate Planner ˠ̂˿˾˿̅˾̃ ˣ˸˵ʿ˘˵̂ Total Page Number: 102 Total Page Number: 103 Total Page Number: 104 5EMBER 202CDE YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY JLengineeringservices.com@Jamir :NOISIVRE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR 541-414-4123 :NOISIVRE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :NOISIVRE NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII APPROVED: MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII APPROVED: LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL :EDOVPPRA EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE JJLCHECKED BY: RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR DRAWN BY: JJL PPP K L A H WT " E D 8 I - D ' I T W 5 S N . E X " M W E 4 E E - ' S N 7 A E E ' E CE U 0 B 1 P O TREE T TED IN PLA G C X TIN TE S O EXIPR XX ' XX 8 7 ) F S T 4 3 XX " O 6 21 L - ' 5 D 6 7 VE O Poor Condition ( BE REM O XX TREE T G X TIN S " 6 - ' 7 6 EXI !!2$"%'/**.+%*(1*- XX CE BE F 3 O S PLA T O 172 L D IN 3 ' TREE T XX 77 G 4444 ECTE TIN S XI EPROT XXXXX ' 0 5 W / R . X E " 6 - ' 7 6 X " 7 - ' 5 1 2 F 2 S T XX O N 172 L ' 3 7 4 XXXX ' 000 11 E UUU P !".%$&#,,+*'-**%*() XXX " 6 - ' 7 6 " 1 XXX 1 - F ' 1 1 S 6 T ' 0 5 O1 4 L 36 XXX XXX ' 5 K L A W E D I S . X LAN VIEW - SITE PLA E H T D TTTTTTTT I MMM TTT W P DATE:12/1/25 FILE:C:\\JL Engineering\\Projects\\2025-129 431 N Main Ashland\\DWG\\431 N Main Ashland base.dwg Total Page Number: 105 5EMBER 202CDE YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY JLengineeringservices.com@Jamir :NOISIVRE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR 41-414-41235 :NOISIVRE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :NOISIVRE NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII :EDOVPPRA MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII :EDOVPPRA LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL :EDOVPPRA EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE LJJ:KED BYCHEC RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR :N BYWDRA LJJ PPP L. X P. UA Q E TY ' 00 22 VED E XX MAPL O ENT R APPR TRID O X " 0 F 1 - ' S 1 5 XX ' 666 639 .... 2 PPPPPPPPPPPP YYYYYYY TTTTTTTTT INT TPR OO X F ' 0 1" 66 - ' 1 G 5 ILDIN U XX B . PP ' Y 6 T XX ' F 5 3 S 2 5 14 X "N 6 - ' 1 4 ' 888 11 XX XX ' 00. 22 P . ' P YY Y T 6 ' T F 5 3 S ' 9 2 2 5 XX 14 ' 6 . P Y T XX " 66 - ' ' 11 44 88 11 XXX " 6 - ' 1 4 ' 4 2 F XXX SSF) """ 999999 - '' 398 33 1613 1 ( 3 XXX ' 88 11 XXX LAN VIEW - DEVELOPMENT PLA ' 0 P 1 g431 N Main Ashland base.dwG\\DW\\2025-129 431 N Main Ashland\\ectsjProg\\ineeringJL En\\:C: FILE52/1/12:DATE Total Page Number: 106 5EMBER 202CDE YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY JLengineeringservices.com@Jamir :NOISIVRE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR 41-414-41235 :NOISIVRE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :NOISIVRE NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII :EDOVPPRA MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII :EDOVPPRA LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL :EDOVPPRA EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE LJJ:KED BYCHEC RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR :N BYWDRA LJJ PPP S SS ER R SS S WAT S S ICE ANITARY ICE TING S " IN ERV 6 S NEW WATE S SERV EXIS G S TIN S W EWER MA XI S S S E PPP S PPP S XX S D E TYP. S S C ARY ERVI ANIT S S XX S 4" S D EWER S S NEW S S XX DDDD SS S S PPPP DD HH SS SS OO S XX RM O T S DD SS " S N S 8 G P H D TIN S O S S S EXIDRAIN MAI XX DD SSSSS P H S DD O S SS E TYP. C XX ARY YP. S DD B T S SS ERVI ANIT U S T S PP 4" S HH D O XX DD S SS EWER NEW S4" ) S DDD S SSS UBLE P O R HHHH D O ( S DDD S SSS XX ICE S DDD S SSS SERV NEW WATE P HH OO X S DDD S SSS S DDD S SSS XX PPP HHHHH OO SS DDD S SSS N SS DDD S SSS PP XX HHHH OOOOOOO S DDD S SSS XXX S DDDD S SSSS PPP E TYP.HH OO C R S DDDD S SSSS ERVI ANITARY CE S XXX S ERVI S DDDD PPPPPPPP S SSSS NEW WATES HHHH EWER OO S NEW 4" CE S DDDD S SSSS W LE WW XXX WW WW S P DDDDDDDDDD SSS HH SSSS R PO O VE AND REPLA O S POWE DDDD S XX SSSS EM REX. PPP S HH DDDD S OO SSSS S DDDD S SSSS LAN VIEW - UTILITY PLA S SS TTTTTT MMMM TT SS P S S S g431 N Main Ashland base.dwG\\DW\\2025-129 431 N Main Ashland\\ectsjProg\\ineeringJL En\\:C: FILE52/1/12:DATE Total Page Number: 107 BMMPXFE!NQGB;!2798/6!QSPQPTFE!NQGB;!2793/86!TG Total Page Number: 108 Total Page Number: 109 Total Page Number: 110 Total Page Number: 111 Total Page Number: 112 LLOWEDMPFA:1687.5SF PROPOSEDMPFA:1682.5SFA Total Page Number: 113 Total Page Number: 114 Total Page Number: 115 Total Page Number: 116 Total Page Number: 117 Total Page Number: 118 Total Page Number: 119 Total Page Number: 120 Total Page Number: 121 Total Page Number: 122 Total Page Number: 123 Total Page Number: 124