Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-12_Planning PACKET Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, May 12, 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 ANNOUNCEMENTS Staff Announcements Advisory Committee Liaison Reports CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes April 14, 2026 Regular Meeting Minutes IV.PUBLIC FORUM Note: To speak to an agenda item in person you must fill out a speaker request form at the meeting and will then be recognized by the Chair to provide your public testimony. Written testimony can be submitted in advance or in person at the meeting. If you wish to discuss an agenda item electronically, please contact PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on May 12, 2026 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/99516386388 V.TYPE I PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2026-00297 SUBJECT PROPERTY:40 N Main OWNER: Pacific Rental Properties LLC APPLICANT: LaNier Land Consulting, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a ‘similar use’ interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance (LUO) VI.OPEN DISCUSSION VII.ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 Page 1 of 2 Total Page Number: 1 Total Page Number: 2 Planning CommissionMinutes Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any PlanningCommission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. April 14, 2026 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. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, CommunityDevelopment Director Jay Lininger Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor Susan MacCracken Jain Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Russell Phillips John Maher Kerry KenCairn Eric Herron Absent Members: Council Liaison: Jeff Dahle (absent) II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements: Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: Community Development office hours have changed to 9:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m., Monday– Thursday, with walk-in hours from 1:00–4:00 p.m. at the Community Center. April is Fair Housing Month; the City is collaborating with the Fair Housing Council of Oregon and Oregon Shakespeare Festival on a display highlighting Oregon's fair housing history, on th view through April 20. The Perozzi fountain has been removed for restoration; carving is expected to begin shortly. A Type 1 planning approval was issued for renovation of the former automotive site at A Street and First Street into a food and outdoor seating area. 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None III.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1. March 10, 2026 Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 3 Planning CommissionMinutes Commissioners Maher/ Liningerm/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Commissioners KenCairn and Herronabstained from the vote due to their absence from the th March 10meeting.Voice Vote: Commissioners Maher, Lininger, Phillips,MacCracken Jain,and Verner: AYE. Motion Passed 5-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2026-00066, Kestrel Park Area 7 Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Herron abstained due to a potential business conflict. Commissioner KenCairn recused herself as she had worked on the project. No Commissioners reported ex parte contact. Decision Commissioners MacCracken Jain/ Maher m/s to approve the findings as presented. Commissioner Herron abstained due to a potential business conflict. Commissioner KenCairn recused herself as she had worked on the project.Voice Vote: Commissioners Maher, Lininger, Phillips, MacCracken Jain,and Verner: AYE. Motion Passed 5-0. VI.DISCUSSION ITEMS Discussion of Legislative Updates in Response to State Requirements Presentation PlanningSupervisorDerek Severson presented an overview of required code amendments under Senate Bill 974 (All Housing), which aims to remove procedural impediments to housing production, with a compliance deadline of July 1, 2026(see attachment #1). Four topic areas were discussed: 1.Zone Changes / Up-Zones:SB 974 mandates Type 1 staff decisions for increased residential density without public hearings, conflicting with ORS 227.186, which requires a public hearing. The Commission recommended waiting for state rulemaking to resolve this conflict. 2.Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivisions / PUDs:Initial urban housing application decisions must be made without hearings, but appeal hearings are permitted. Staff was directed to research the definitions of "initial decision" and "final decision" as the Commission considered retaining the two-tier process. Page 2 of 3 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 4 Planning CommissionMinutes 3.Variances:Variances related to urban housing applications must be Type 1 decisions. Discussion included adjusting thresholds in SB 1537. Staff was asked to analyze how these relate to current variance procedures. 4.Design Standards for Subdivisions:SB 974 limits the application of design standards for projects with 20+ single- or two-family lots. Staff noted minor amendments needed for compliance, with no immediate direction required from the Commission. Staff indicated that a model code from DLCD is not expected until early 2027, and that a parallel regional code review through the Rogue Valley Council of Governments is underway but not due for completion until July 2027. Staff will return with proposed code language in advance of the July 1, 2026 deadline. VII.OPEN DISCUSSION Chair Verner distributed a brief guide on how to structure and deliver motions during Commission deliberations, and noted that staff will include a recommended motion in future staff reports to assist commissioners(see attachment #2). VIII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:15p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 3 of 3 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 Total Page Number: 6 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 7 Total Page Number: 8 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 9 Total Page Number: 10 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 11 Total Page Number: 12 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Before the Planning Commission – May 12, 2026 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2026-00297 OWNER: Pacific Rental Properties LLC APPLICANT: LaNier Land Consulting, LLC LOCATION: 39-1E-09-BB Tax Lot 10100, 10600, and 10801 ZONE DESIGNATION: C-1-D COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown ORDINANCE REFERENCES: 18.1.5 Ordinance Interpretations 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation 18.5.1 General Review Procedures 18.6.1 Definitions APPLICATION DATE: March 26, 2026 APPLICATION COMPLETE: April 2, 2026 PUBLIC NOTICE: April 20, 2026 MEETING DATE: May 12, 2026 120-DAY DEADLINE: N/A PROPOSAL: A request for a “similar use” interpretation as provided at AMC 18.1.5 with regards to the distinction between “private parking” and “public parking” as a regulated use. I. Introduction Land use regulations can be inherently ambiguous. As such, chapter 18.1.5 provides a process for resolving differences in the interpretation of the ordinance text when such ambiguities arise. A. Background The applicant proposes converting the existing parking area at 40 North Main Street into a publicly accessible, for pay parking facility managed by a third-party operator. This raises a threshold issue of use classification under the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. While the applicant characterizes the proposal as “public parking,” both state law and local interpretation distinguish public and private parking based on ownership and operational control, not public accessibility. Because the facility would remain under private control, it would be classified as private parking. “Public Parking” is permitted in all residential and commercial zones under the uses allowed by zone table in Chapter 18.2.2, while “Private Parking” is not. The applicant requests a City interpretation that a privately owned, fee-based parking lot qualifies as a similar use to “Public Parking,” arguing that because it is open to the general public, it should be treated as such. An Planning Action: PA-T1-2026-00297 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/bg) Owner: Pacific Rental Properties LLC Page 1 of 11 Total Page Number: 13 interpretation consistent with this position would, as a matter of policy, effectively classify privately operated, fee-based parking facilities as “Public Parking,” allowing them in all residential and commercial zones. As a regulatory matter, the central issue is whether the use is public or private. “Public” is not defined by who may access a parking lot, as the applicant asserts, but by who controls and operates it. In Staff’s assessment, access by the general public, whether free or fee based, is not determinative. Rather, the distinction turns on ownership, operational control, and whether the facility is managed as a governmental function. In practice, this means facilities owned or controlled by a governmental entity. Ashland’s code aligns with this framework, and “Public Parking” has consistently been applied to facilities owned or operated by the City or another public agency, including where the City leases and manages a privately owned lot as public parking. Interpreting “Public Parking” to include privately owned, fee-based facilities open to the public would expand the term beyond its established regulatory meaning and effectively introduce a new category of commercial parking use in all zones without corresponding code standards or legislative action. B.Procedure The procedure to process an interpretation request is provided in AMC 18.1.5.050, which allows the Staff Advisor to process the request as either a ministerial or Type I planning action, depending on whether discretion is required. Additionally, AMC 18.1.5.060 provides that the Staff Advisor may bypass the procedures in 18.1.5.050 and “refer the request directly to the Planning Commission and City Council for its legislative review” through a Type III process. Because of the significant citywide policy implications, including whether a legislative amendment would be necessary to allow privately owned, fee based commercial parking facilities in the Downtown C 1 D zone as requested by the applicant, the Staff Advisor has elected to bypass the procedures in AMC 18.1.5.050 and instead refer the request directly to the Planning Commission and City Council. This referral is for consideration of the broader policy question and to determine whether the existing code should be interpreted as requested or amended to expressly address such uses. The request will be considered through a public hearing following the legislative procedures in AMC 18.5.1.070. That section establishes the Type III process for legislative decisions, under which the Planning Commission conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council, which is the final decision-making body. Legislative actions are not subject to the 120-day decision timeline under ORS 227.178. C.Site Description The subject property is Tax Lot #10100 of Assessor Map 39 1E 09 BB. As shown on the aerial image below, the site is located at 40 North Main Street at the intersection of North Main Street and Water Street and is zoned C 1 D (Downtown Commercial). The approximately 0.84-acre parcel is developed with the Claycomb Mall, a multi-tenant commercial building, and an associated surface parking lot. Planning Action: PA-T1-2026-00297 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/bg) Owner: Pacific Rental Properties LLC Page 2 of 11 Total Page Number: 14 The existing parking area contains 37 marked parking spaces and one ADA accessible space and is currently restricted for use by the property owner and on-site tenants. The applicant proposes to change this condition by converting the lot intoa publicly accessible, fee-based parking facility operated independently of the commercial uses on the site. II.Director’sInterpretation Prior to this application, the Community Development Director, acting as Staff Advisor, provided preliminary guidance to the applicant through a pre application review, advising that public accessibility alone does not determine whether a parking facility is public or private, and that ownership and operational control are the key factors. Because this interpretation did not align with the applicant’s objective to establish a fee based commercial parking use, the applicant has requested a formal interpretation. Given the broader policy implications of the request, the Director has elected to refer the interpretation directly to the Planning Commission and City Council for legislative review. The question presented extends beyond the subject property and has potential citywide applicability, including whether privately owned, fee based commercial parking facilities could be considered “Public Parking” and thereby permitted in all zones under AMC 18.2.2 without specific standards or review criteria. As such, staff has determined that the issue is more appropriately Planning Action: PA-T1-2026-00297Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/bg) Owner: Pacific Rental Properties LLCPage 3 of 11 Total Page Number: 15 considered through a legislative process that allows for policy level direction, rather than a staff level determination. The Land Use Ordinance provides definitions for both public and private parking (definitions under Section III below). In previous discussions with the applicants’ representatives the Director has provided the following additional guidance: Public Parking: Public parking facilities are those owned, operated, or controlled by a governmental entity for use by the general public. These facilities are identified as a permitted use in all zones under ALUO Table 18.2.2.030 and are subject to municipal oversight and enforcement. Private Parking: Private parking refers to parking facilities that are privately owned and controlled. These facilities may be accessible to the public for use, either free or for a fee, but remain private because all operational control, including rule making and enforcement, is retained by the property owner or their agent. The C 1 D zoning district permits: “Public parking”; and “Private parking” only where such parking is accessory to a permitted use. The C-1-D zoning district does not expressly permit standalone commercial parking facilities as a primary use. The express authorization of accessory private parking implies the exclusion of standalone private parking facilities unless explicitly permitted. Allowing the proposed use would effectively read into the code a use category, commercial parking as a primary use, which is not listed or authorized in the zoning district. Interpretation of “Public Parking” The applicant asserts that the proposed use qualifies as “public parking” because the “where a property owner elects to allow public access to a privately owned parking lot, the use is functionally equivalent to a public parking facility… The applicant’s proposed pay for parking facility, which would be available for use by the general public… is similar to a Public Parking Area or Lot… because the facility would be open to the public, with use potentially conditioned on payment of a fee.” This interpretation is not supported by the code when read in context in Staff’s assessment. A. Textual Analysis The ordinary meaning of “public,” in a land use context, refers to ownership, control, or dedication for public use, not merely availability for use by members of the public. A use does not become “public” simply because it allows public access in exchange for payment. If “public” were interpreted to mean only “open to the public,” then nearly all commercial uses, retail stores, theaters, and restaurants, would qualify as “public,” rendering the distinction between public and private uses meaningless. Planning Action: PA-T1-2026-00297 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/bg) Owner: Pacific Rental Properties LLC Page 4 of 11 Total Page Number: 16 B. Contextual Analysis Within the zoning framework, “public parking” is reasonably understood to refer to: Parking facilities owned or operated by a governmental entity; or Facilities dedicated or otherwise encumbered for public use as part of a broader public or quasi-public function. By contrast, the code’s allowance of “private parking” only when accessory to a permitted use demonstrates a clear intent to regulate privately controlled parking as a subordinate use, not as an independent commercial enterprise. Classification of the Proposed Use The proposed use is properly classified as a private commercial parking facility based on its functional characteristics. The existing parking lot is currently private parking, as it serves the tenants and customers of the commercial businesses located on site and remains under the control of the property owner. The proposed change would not alter that underlying classification but rather shift the use from accessory private parking to a standalone commercial parking operation. Key characteristics include: The facility is privately owned and controlled; The operator retains discretion to set rates, terms, and conditions of use; Access may be restricted or revoked at the operator’s discretion; and The use is intended to generate independent revenue as its primary purpose. These factors establish that the use is private in nature, notwithstanding any public accessibility. Avoidance of Unreasonable Results The applicant’s interpretation would result in broader and unintended policy consequences. Interpreting privately owned, fee-based parking facilities as “public parking” based solely on public accessibility would effectively enable such uses as a permitted use in all zones under AMC 18.2.2. This would introduce a new category of standalone commercial parking as a primary use citywide without any corresponding development standards or legislative review. In the Downtown C 1 D zone, this interpretation could also have material land use impacts. Allowing fee based commercial parking as a primary use may reduce the availability of accessory private parking needed to support existing commercial tenants and could create incentives to convert commercially zoned properties to surface parking rather than redeveloping them with intended commercial or mixed-use development. This would undermine the purpose of the zoning district to support active, pedestrian oriented commercial uses. In the original Downtown Plan adopted in the 1980s, the City identified concerns about the impact of parking on the historic built environment and the pedestrian oriented character of downtown. Large, paved areas and driveway access points were seen as detracting from the continuity of the streetscape and overall pedestrian experience. Discussion at the time included the potential for requiring Conditional Use Permits for private off-street parking, along with concerns that pay to park lots would not contribute to downtown vitality and could detract from efforts to draw people to the area. The plan emphasized pedestrian amenities and a vibrant commercial core and recognized that surface parking as a primary use can undermine these Planning Action: PA-T1-2026-00297 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/bg) Owner: Pacific Rental Properties LLC Page 5 of 11 Total Page Number: 17 objectives when it displaces active uses or redevelopment potential. Consistent with this policy direction, the City eliminated minimum parking requirements in the C-1-D zoneand has since addressed parking demand through publicly managed parking facilities rather than reliance on private, standalone parking uses within the downtown. Accordingly, in Staff’s assessment, the applicant’s interpretation would not only blur the distinction between public and private uses, but would also introduce land use outcomes that are inconsistent with the intent of the zoning code and the City’s adopted planning framework. By effectively allowing privately owned, fee based parking facilities as a permitted use, the interpretation could alter development patterns in a manner not contemplated by the code, including the conversion of commercially zoned land to surface parking and the displacement or deferral of intended uses. Such an outcome would extend beyond the scope of a code interpretation and would be more appropriately addressed, if at all, through a legislative process that considers where and under what conditions such uses should be allowed. III.Supporting Evidence and References A.Allowed Uses List and Prohibited Uses The Land Use Ordinance provides a matrix of allowed uses and in which zones that they are allowed, conditionally allowed, or prohibited. Where a use is not listed it is prohibited pursuant to AMC 18.2.2.030.D. Public Parking is listed as Permitted in all zones. Private Parking is not listed as an allowed use and is therefore prohibited. AMC 18.2.2.030.A. - Uses Allowed in Base Zones. Allowed uses include those that are permitted, permitted subject to special use standards, and allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Where Table 18.2.2.030 does not list a specific use and part 18.6 does not define the use or include it as an example of an allowed use, the City may find that use is allowed, or is not allowed, following the procedures of section 18.1.5.040. Excerpt from Table 18.2.2.030.Uses Allowed by Zone AMC 18.2.2.030.D - Prohibited Uses. Uses not listed in Table 18.2.2.030 and not found to be similar to an allowed use following the procedures of section 18.1.5.040 are prohibited. Prohibited uses are subject to the violations, complaints, and penalties sections in 18.1.6.080, 18.1.6.090, and 18.1.6.100. Planning Action: PA-T1-2026-00297Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/bg) Owner: Pacific Rental Properties LLCPage 6 of 11 Total Page Number: 18 B.Similar Uses If a use is found to be similar to an allowed use, then the similar use would be allowed. AMC 18.1.5.040 - Similar Uses. Where a proposed use is not specifically identified by this ordinance or the ordinance is unclear as to whether the use is allowed in a particular zone, the Staff Advisor may find the use is similar to another use that is permitted, allowed conditionally, or prohibited in the subject zone and apply the ordinance accordingly. However, uses and activities that this ordinance specifically prohibits in the subject zone, and uses and activities that the Staff Advisor finds are similar to those that are prohibited, are not allowed. Similar use rulings that require discretion on the part of City officials shall be processed following the Type I procedure, pursuant to section 18.5.1.050, except where the Staff Advisor refers a request for a similar use determination to the Planning Commission for its review and decision through a Type II procedure, pursuant to section 18.5.1.060. C.Ordinance Definitions The Land Use Ordinance provides the following definitions for parking lots. Parking Area or Lot - Any area inside, under, or outside of a building or structure, designed and used for parking motor vehicles, including parking lots, garages, or structures. Private Parking Area or Lot - A parking area for the exclusive use of the owners of the lot on which the parking area is located or whomever else they permit to use the parking area. Public Parking Area or Lot - A parking area available to the public, with or without payment of a fee. D. Compliance with State Statute The applicant’s interpretation is not supported by Oregon’s statutory framework, which distinguishes between public and private parking based on ownership and control, not public accessibility. Oregon law expressly recognizes that privately owned property may be open to the public while remaining private in nature. This distinction is reflected in different statutory schemes. For example, ORS Chapter 801 generally governs traffic regulation on public roadways and facilities under governmental jurisdiction, while ORS Chapter 98 establishes separate provisions for privately owned parking facilities, including authority for vehicle removal and enforcement on private property. The existence of these parallel frameworks demonstrates that a facility does not become “public” simply because members of the public are permitted to use it. In other words, Oregon law contemplates: • Privately owned property that is open to the public; and • Distinct regulatory and enforcement mechanisms for such private facilities, including towing and access control under ORS Chapter 98. Accordingly, public accessibility, whether free or fee based, does not convert a privately owned and controlled parking facility into a public use. Planning Action: PA-T1-2026-00297 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/bg) Owner: Pacific Rental Properties LLC Page 7 of 11 Total Page Number: 19 E. Public Input Notice was mailed to Ashland News and posted at two locations along the property frontage on April 20, 2026. IV. Procedural: Compliance with Approval Criteria AMC 18.1.5.030 provides the following approval criteria. A. The interpretation is consistent with applicability policies of the Comprehensive Plan. B. The interpretation is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance provision that applies to the particular ordinance section, or sections, in question. C. The interpretation is consistent with the opinion of the City Attorney. A. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The proposed interpretation is not consistent with the applicability policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan emphasizes a balanced transportation system that promotes walking, bicycling, and transit as preferred modes of travel, and supports land use patterns that reduce reliance on the automobile. Allowing standalone, fee based commercial parking as a permitted use would prioritize vehicle storage as a primary land use and could reinforce auto oriented travel behavior, rather than supporting multimodal transportation goals. Interpreting privately owned, fee based parking as “public parking” would therefore be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s transportation policies that encourage pedestrian oriented development and reduce dependence on single occupancy vehicles. B.Consistency with the Purpose and Intent of the Ordinance The interpretation that privately owned, fee-based parking facilities qualify as “public parking” is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The code distinguishes between public and private parking based on ownership and control, and permits “public parking” broadly while limiting “private parking” to an accessory role. This structure reflects an intent to allow publicly managed parking as a supporting public function, while preventing privately operated parking from becoming a standalone commercial use unless expressly authorized. Expanding “public parking” to include privately owned, fee-based facilities would undermine this distinction and effectively introduce a new primary use category not contemplated by the ordinance. C.Consistency with the Opinion of the City Attorney The interpretation is consistent with the opinion of the City Attorney, which is provided below. The City Attorney’s analysis supports the distinction between public and private uses based on ownership and control, consistent with Oregon statutory frameworks that differentiate between publicly controlled facilities and privately owned properties that may be open to the public. This interpretation maintains internal consistency within the code and avoids unintended expansion of permitted uses beyond those expressly authorized. Planning Action: PA-T1-2026-00297 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/bg) Owner: Pacific Rental Properties LLC Page 8 of 11 Total Page Number: 20 The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed both the applicant’s and staff’s interpretations of AMC 18.6.1.030 and related provisions, as well as the applicable state towing statutes, and provides the following analysis and conclusion. AMC 18.1.5.030.C requires that formal interpretations be consistent with the opinion of the City Attorney. In this matter, the City Attorney’s Office has determined that ownership and control are the legally significant factors distinguishing public from private parking under state law and the Ashland Municipal Code. While the applicant’s proposal would allow members of the public to park for a fee, the underlying property would remain privately owned and controlled, and parking enforcement would occur unde municipal parking enforcement mechanisms. The first tenant of statutory construction is to look at the plain text and ordinary meaning of the relevant authority, which here is found in the definition section in AMC 18.6.1.030, which distinguishes between a “Private Parking Area or Lot” and a “Public Parking Area or Lot.” That a property owner may choose to open their property to other members of the general public does not change the property owner’s exclusive control and rights over the property, a key distinction between public and private property. Another layer of statutory construction is to look at the words within the context of the entire ordinance, or here, to examine when and how these defined terms are used in the code. “Private Parking Area” is not used once beyond this definition. “Public Parking Area” is used multiple times, with the most parallel example occurring in table 18.2.2.030, as mentioned by staff. Here, “Public Parking” is specifically listed as a permitted use. If the code wished to also include the definition of “Private Parking”, it would have done so. Rather, its absence from the table may indicate “Private Parking” was specifically not an authorized use. The zoning of the proposed use provides another context for why this rule may exist – the City does not want the downtown to have a disproportionate amount of parking lots in a commercial, tourist, area. To the extent the applicants argue the plain meaning of a “Private Parking” is itself ambiguous, it is appropriate to look at other authorities that may address a similar question Under ORS 98.805, “parking facility” means “any property used for vehicle parking,” and “owner of a parking facility” includes “the owner, lessee or person in lawful possession of a private parking facility,” as well as “any officer or agency of this state with authority to control or operate a parking facility.” Read together, these provisions indicate that a parking facility remains private where a private owner or its agent retains control and where enforcement occurs through the –98.830, even if the general public is permitted to governed by the City’s parking regulations in AMC chapter 11.26 and enforced as a public es and privately Ashland’s Land Use Ordinance draws a parallel distinction. “Public Parking Area or Lot” is defined as “a parking area available to the public, with or without payment of a fee,” whereas “Private Parking Area or Lot” is defined as “a parking area for the exclusive use of the owners of the lot on which the parking area is located or whomever else they permit to use the parking area.” When these definitions are read in conjunction with ORS 98.805 and the related towing Planning Action: PA-T1-2026-00297 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/bg) Owner: Pacific Rental Properties LLC Page 9 of 11 Total Page Number: 21 provisions, the more coherent reading of “public parking” in AMC 18.6.1.030 is that it refers to facilities owned, operated, or controlled by a public entity. Conversely, “private parking” refers to facilities in which operational control and enforcement authority remain with a private owner or its authorized agent, even when the general public may be allowed to park for a fee. From a policy standpoint, the City Attorney’s Office advises that reserving the term “public” for facilities that are publicly owned or operated is consistent with the ordinary use of terms such as “public school,” “public park,” and “public defender,” which describe services provided by a governmental entity rather than by privately controlled commercial enterprises. Characterizing a to paying customers would zoning code’s intent to distinguish between public and private uses, and invite circumvention of use restrictions through labeling rather than through the actual nature and control of the use. Accordingly, the City Attorney’s Office concludes that the proposed facility is a private parking use because (1) the property remains under private ownership and control, and (2) enforcement an through the City’s parking regulations and municipal enforcement. On that basis, the proposed use is properly characterized as a private, standalone commercial parking facility. It is not permitted as “public parking” in the d as “private parking” because it is not accessory to a permitted primary use. In light of this analysis, the City Attorney’s Office concludes that staff’s interpretation is consistent with the opinion of the City Attorney as required by AMC 18.1.5.030.C. V. Conclusion Based on the foregoing analysis, Staff concludes: 1. The existing parking lot at 40 N. Main Street is properly classified as private parking accessory to the on-site commercial uses; 2. The proposed conversion would change the use from accessory private parking to a standalone, fee-based commercial parking facility; 3. The proposed use does not meet the definition or intent of “Public Parking,” as it would remain privately owned and controlled, and it does not qualify as a “similar use” to public parking under the code; and 4. The zoning code does not permit standalone private commercial parking as a primary use in the C-1-D zoning district. Accordingly, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council affirm an interpretation that privately owned, fee-based parking facilities, even when open to the general public, are not “Public Parking” as contemplated by the code, do not qualify as a similar use, and are not permitted as a primary use. In Staff’s assessment, the current code framework, which does not permit standalone, privately owned, fee based commercial parking as a primary use, has effectively supported the City’s land Planning Action: PA-T1-2026-00297 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/bg) Owner: Pacific Rental Properties LLC Page 10 of 11 Total Page Number: 22 use objectives by ensuring that lands intended for urban development are utilized for commercial and residential buildings rather than surface parking. This approach has helped maintain development intensity and support active uses, particularly in areas planned for mixed use and commercial activity. Staff does not find that a code amendment is necessary at this time. However, if the Planning Commission and City Council determine that such uses should be allowed, Staff recommends directing Staff to initiate a legislative code amendment to clearly define and regulate fee based commercial parking. This would include revisions to the definitions of “Parking, Public” and “Parking, Private,” and a comprehensive evaluation of where and under what conditions such uses may be permitted, specially permitted, or subject to a conditional use permit within the City. Planning Action: PA-T1-2026-00297 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha/bg) Owner: Pacific Rental Properties LLC Page 11 of 11 Total Page Number: 23 Total Page Number: 24 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 25 Total Page Number: 26 Total Page Number: 27 Total Page Number: 28 Total Page Number: 29 Total Page Number: 30 Total Page Number: 31 Total Page Number: 32 Total Page Number: 33 Total Page Number: 34 Total Page Number: 35 Total Page Number: 36 Total Page Number: 37 Total Page Number: 38 Total Page Number: 39 Total Page Number: 40 Total Page Number: 41 Total Page Number: 42 Total Page Number: 43 Total Page Number: 44 Total Page Number: 45 Total Page Number: 46