Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-11_Planning MIN 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. March10, 2026 REGULAR MEETING 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 JainNick Schubert, Associate Planner Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant John Maher Absent Members:Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairn Jeff Dahle (absent) Eric Herron II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements: Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: City Council reviewedthe following ordinancesfor adoption at itsMarch 3rdmeeting: o Ordinance 3286: Allows removal of hazardous or infested trees as certified by an arborist. o Ordinance 3287: Permits privately owned murals to be maintained privately. o Ordinance 3288: Prohibits building permits if code violations are present, unless needed to rectify the violation. Three ordinances approved at first reading: o Updated Chapter 6.5 to clarify marijuana dispensaries include more than just medical. o Exemptions for heat pumps and mechanical devices from noise regulations if they meet manufacturer specs. o Addressed various compliance issues. 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None Page 1 of 4 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Planning CommissionMinutes III.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1. February 24, 2026 Special Meeting Minutes Commissioners Maher/ Liningerm/s to approve the consent agenda as presented.Commissioner th MacCracken Jain abstained from the vote due to her absence from the February 24meeting. Voice Vote: Commissioners Maher, Lininger,Phillips,and Verner:AYE. Motion Passed 4-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM–None V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING-CONTINUED PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2026-00066 SUBJECT PROPERTY: a portion of Tax lot 8600 of map 39-1E-04-AD APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC OWNER: CT Properties, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for concurrent outline plan and final plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision to divide ‘Area 7’ into four new lots. The application also includes a request for residential Site Design Review approval, and the removal of asingle non-hazard tree. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain Plan; ZONING: NM-MF; MAP:39-1E-04-AD; TAX LOT:8600 Planning Supervisor Derek Severson noted that a revised staff report had been submitted with minor, non-substantivechanges (see attachment #1). Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Maher, Phillips, and Verner disclosed site visits. No ex parte contact wasdisclosed. Staff Presentation Associate Planner NickSchubert presented the application.The 18,000 square foot area would be divided into four lots to accommodate one duplex and three triplex buildings, providing 11 total dwelling units. The property is zoned North Mountain Multifamily (NM-MF) and regulated by the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan(see attachment #2). Mr. Schubert explained that as the final component of Kestrel Park subdivision which began in 2018, the development must comply with Performance Standards Option requirements for subdivisions of three or more lots in the North Mountain area. Civil improvementsincluding sidewalks, curbs, gutters, park roads with street trees, and the alley are being installed around Area 7. Page 2of 4 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Planning CommissionMinutes The application included a request to remove a multi-stem cherry tree located within a proposed building envelope. Staff initially questioned whether this was a regulated tree based on its shrub-like form, but the Tree Management Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval since the tree is located within the building envelope. Staff recommended approvalof the application with theeight conditionssuggested by staff. Questions of Staff Commissioner Lininger asked about solar access standards and the "mill pond standard" referenced as a functional equivalent. Mr. Goldman explained this functional equivalent has been used in previous North Mountain developments including early phases of Kestrel and the Overlook subdivision, addressing situations where steep slopes and grading make standard solar access calculations impractical. The standard allows shadows up to 5 feet in height on northerly buildings. Commissioner MacCrackenJainasked about parking availability, noting one space per unit was provided. Mr. Goldman confirmedthatparking bays are being created as part of new street installations. Applicant Presentation Amy Gunter from Rogue Planning and Development Services, accompanied by Kyle Taylor from Taylor Elements and CT Properties, presented the proposal.Ms.Gunter explained this area was previously pulled from a larger subdivision application to address design concerns and neighbor feedback.The developmentproposalfeatures two lots accessed from Patton Lane with primary orientation toward the street, and two lots accessed from a public alley. Buildings are designed with daylight basements to work with the steep terrain, as the hard rock subsurface prevented cutting buildings further into the hillside(see attachment #3). Mr. Taylor provided context on why Area 7 was originally pulled from the application, citing both topographical challenges and neighbor concerns. The redesign addressed these issues by separating buildings to allow view corridors, widening the alley to 20+ feet, and providing adequate backup space for vehicles. Public Comments Rich Kinsinger/Mr. Kinsingerexpressed satisfaction that their concerns about alley width and traffic access had been addressedby the applicantthrough the design changes. Jeff Thompson/Mr. Thompson requested that the proposed alley not be named “Mariposa Court” to avoid confusion with the existing Mariposa Street. Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 7:44 pm. Page 3of 4 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Planning CommissionMinutes Deliberations and Decision The Commissionersgenerallypraised the applicant for listening to community concerns and returning with an improved design. Regarding the alley naming concern, staff confirmed that addressing is handled by the City through the development process, and the existing condition requiring approved addressing would cover this issue. CommissionersMaher/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the application as presented with the conditions recommended by staff.Roll Call Vote:Commissioners Maher, MacCracken Jain, Lininger,Phillips,and Verner: AYE. Motion passed 5-0. VI.OPEN DISCUSSION The Commission discussedthe Transportation System Plan (TSP) revision, particularly regarding evacuation routes as wildfire season approaches. Mr. Goldman explainedthatthe plan is funded by ODOT but the contract has not yet been executed, causing delays. The TSP effort is expected to take 1-2 years once initiated. Mr. Goldman agreed to provide an update on the contract status after speaking with Public Works Director Scott Fleury. The Commission agreed to cancel the March 24, 2026meeting. VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:54p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 4of 4 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleaseemail planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Before the Planning Commission – March 10, 2026 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2026-00066 OWNER: CT Properties LLC APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC LOCATION: a portion of Tax Lot 8600 assessor map 39-1E-04-AD ZONE DESIGNATION: North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain ORDINANCE REFERENCES: 18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood District 18.3.9 Performance Standards Overlay 18.4 Site Development & Design Standards 18.5.1 General Review Procedures 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments 18.6.1 Definitions APPLICATION DATE: January 26, 2026 PUBLIC NOTICE: February 16, 2026 **22 days prior to hearing** MEETING DATE: March 10, 2026 PROPOSAL: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a four-lot Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision and a request for residential Site Design Review approval to construct three triplex buildings. The fourth building, a duplex, is not subject to Site Design Review. The application also includes a request to remove a single non- hazard tree. The property was created as lot 31 of Kestrel Park Phase II and was reserved for this final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision. The property is zoned “North Mountain-Multi Family” (NM- MF) and is regulated by the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP). The NMNP is codified at Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.5 and applies to all properties within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area (adopted by City Ordinance 2800 in April 1997). I. Introduction and Background This is the final component of the third phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision. This phase is the culmination of the entire Kestrel Park Subdivision which began in 2018 and we do not attempt to provide a complete background and roadmap to all the previous approvals and appeals of the prior phases. The staff report prepared for the original outline approval for Phase 3 plan (see PA #T2-2024-00054) has an extensive planning history of all previous phases. Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report Owner: CT Properties LLC Page 1 of 14 1)Background The subject property is a portion of Lot 31 (of Phase 2)and was reserved for this final phase. The previously approved Phase 3 of the subdivision(presently under construction)connects both Nandina Street and Patton Lane / Mountain Meadows Drive to create four blocks that have been identified previously as areas four, five, six and seven(shown below). The Residential development for areas four, five, and six as well as the related public improvements have all been approved, however the plat has not been recorded yet as the construction of those improvements isongoing. As relevant to this application, during the original Outline Plan approval for Phase 3,Area 7’ was removed from consideration at the last minute. The design for area seven has been modified and now proposed to subdivide ‘Area 7’ into four new lots, with one lot proposed to be developed with a duplex and the remaining three lots proposed to be developed with triplexes. The reason to refer to this application as ‘Area 7 of Phase 3’ is that, while the subdivision of ‘Area 7’is being addressed individually, it is still the applicant’s intent to file a final plat for all of Phase 3together. 2)Site Description The subject property is Tax lot #8600 of Assessor Map 39-1E-04-AD; it does not presently have an assigned street address. The application also includes three tax lots owned by the City of Ashland; tax lot 4700 a 0.05-acrestrip of land along the north, as well as tax lots 7800 & 4900 which are both ‘street plugs’ to be vacatedfor street R-O-W. The property was created as lot-31 of Kestrel Park Phase II and was reserved for this final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision. Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report Owner: CT PropertiesLLCPage 2 of 14 The property is 2.27 acres in size and slopes from east to west at approximately 15% and is zoned North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF). 3)Proposal The AMCrequires that all applications involving the creation of three or more lots in the NMNP to be processed in accordance withAMC 18.3.9the‘Performance Standards Optionand PSO Overlay’ chapter(see: AMC 18.3.5.040.K). The proposed PSO subdivision includes a total of 4- lots for residential development. The application includes a request for Site Design Review approval for threemultifamily triplexes, with the fourth lot proposed with a duplex. This provides a total of 11-dwelling units for all of ‘Area 7’. II.Project Proposal –Outline Plan Subdivision and Residential Site Design Review. 1)Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision –Outline Plan Approval The preliminary final plat for all of Phase 3 of the KestrelSubdivisionisshown below.As mentioned above, construction of civilimprovements is underway, and the present application * only relates to the subdivision of Area 7-highlighted in red dashed line below. The approval criteria for Outline Planinclude eight itemswhich 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. * Condition of Approval #2 from PA -T2-2025-00059: “All proposed public improvements including sidewalks, curbs, gutters, park rows with irrigated street trees and the alley shall be installed, including surrounding Area 7, prior to the recording of final plat.\[emphasis added\] Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report Owner: CT PropertiesLLCPage 3 of 14 3) The natural features,such as wetlands and large trees, are included in unbuildable areas. 4) The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed. 5) There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space. 6) The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards. 7) The development complies with the street standards. 8) The proposed development meets the common open space standards. The application includes detailed written responses to each of the approval criteria and design standards, and by their reference they are incorporated herein as if set out in full. Next, we briefly address each of the approval criteria, and any needed conditions of approval to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards. The first approval criterion is that “the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city.” This first approval criterion is all-encompassing allowing the Planning Commission to address all city standards, even outside of Chapter 18 of the AMC. The application materials explain that the proposal utilizes the Performance Standards Option Chapter 18.3.9, and that the development demonstrates compliance with the standards from AMC 18.3.9.050 – 18.3.9.080. The application materials emphasize that as a Performance Standards Options proposal, the application is not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth or setback standards of part 18.2. With the application materials fully considered staff concluded that findings can be made that all applicable ordinance requirements will be met. The second approval criterion is that “adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access.” Staff reiterates that this is a portion of the third phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision and that all city facilities were sized with the capacity for this phase in mind. Staff note that all relevant public improvements were approved with the original phase 3 outline plan and that they are currently under construction. Planning staff have consulted with the Engineering Department in Public Works regarding the civil plans and have confirmed that the proposed infrastructure will meet all city standards, and that there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion is met. The third approval criterion is that “the natural features, such as wetlands and large trees, are included in unbuildable areas.”The previous phases of the subdivision have addressed floodplain and wetland areas. For this phase the subject property has no identified natural features or wetlands to consider with the exception of the single multi branched tree that is proposed for removal and is discussed further below. Staff believe findings can be made thatthis approval criterion is met. The fourth approval criterion is that “the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed.” The subject property is surrounded by land that has already fully developed, and a finding can be made that this approval criterion is met. The fifth approval criterion is that “there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space.” Staff restate what was set out in the previous phase 3 approval: That the existing HOA’s were formed for the earlier phases of the Kestrel Park. “The three phases are Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report Owner: CT Properties LLC Page 4 of 14 also tied together through monetary commitments (HOA Dues) for the maintenance of common areas and improvements such as the site’s wetlands, common spaces, park benches, park row vegetation and irrigation and street trees.” Staff conclude that the HOA provides sufficient evidence of the provisions for the ongoing maintenance for the common open spaceand that findings can be made that this approval criterion is met. The sixth approval criterion is that “the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards.” The ultimate density of the Kestrel Park subdivision has been a significant point of emphasis of previous phases. This is because the subdivision spans multiple zones of different density, and that in addition to maximum density the NMNP also has a requirement for a minimum density of between 75% and 110% of each zone’s base density. In previous phases there has been a table detailing the number of units in each phase, acreage and required densities. The remaining number of units required was summarized in the Planning Commission’s outline plan phase 3 findings as follows: “The Planning Commission concludes that Area 7 will need to develop with at least two but not more than eighteen units, and a condition of approval to that effect has been included below.” (PA-T2-2024-00054 section 2.4.6 at p.7). Staff would note that the 11 proposed dwelling units are greater than two, and less than 18. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The seventh approval criterion is that “the development complies with the street standards.” As mentioned previously all of the associated civil improvements have been previously approved during the original Phase 3 outline and final plan approval. Additionally, as was stated in the previous land use approval, all properties were required to sign in favor of and agree to participate in a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future construction of a bridge across Bear Creek to connect Nevada Street to Oak Street. As such, a condition was included to require that all properties within the Kestrel Park Subdivision sign a similar agreement prior to signature of the final survey plat. The subject properties here are within the subdivision and are subject to that original condition which has been included below. Staff conclude that with the condition of approval findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The eighth and final approval criterion is that “the proposed development meets the common open space standards.” Here we restate what was set out in the original phase 3 outline plan approval: “The application notes the following: “The Kestrel Park Subdivision is 13.48 acres in size of which 5.13 acres was dedicated as open space (Bear Creek Riparian Area) and another .7 acres was platted as private open space for the subdivision’s on-site wetlands and a couple of smaller landscape areas - located at various street corners as common neighborhood landscaping, for a total of 5.82 acres or roughly 43% of the subdivision’s acreage of which only 8% is required with Performance Standard Subdivisions and an additional 4% for Site Review applications. Additionally, each of the proposed multi- family units do include an additional 8% recreational space (porches/patios).” Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. Staff conclude, based on the above, that findings can be made that the Outline Plan Approval Criteria criterion will be met. Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report Owner: CT Properties LLC Page 5 of 14 2) Final Plan Approval The approval criteria for Final Plan are intended to ensuresubstantial conformance between Outline Plan approval and Final Plan approval when the two are requested as separate procedural steps. When both Outline and Final plan are 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. Based on the above Staff conclude that findings can be made that the final plan approval criteria are met. 3) NMNP Supplemental Design Standards The NMNP also included Supplemental Approval Criteria that require that there is conformity with both the “general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation” as well as the “specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.” The NMNP includes detailed Design standards for both roads and architectural design. The application states that the NMNP design standards are fully met and include detailed dimensions on the site plan showing that porches meet the correct sizes. Additionally, there are standards for garage setbacks, however in this application there are no proposed garages as all parking is off the proposed alley. The remainder of the architectural standards are discussed below under the Site Design Review approval criteria. Staff conclude that findings can be made that the Supplemental Approval Criteria criterion will be met. 4) Residential Site Design Review The applicability section of Site design review is provided at AMC 18.5.2.020.B and requires Site Design Review for “Three or more dwelling units on a lot” as is proposed on three of the lots in this application. The first criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.” PSO subdivisions are not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setback standards of part 18.2, and other standards as specifically provided by AMC 18.3.9. By virtue of being a PSO development this approval criterion iseffectively not applicable. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The second criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).” The only applicable overlay zone is the North Mountain Neighborhood District at AMC 18.3.5 which governs all development in the NMNP area. Included in the NMNP standards are the Site Development and Design Standards at AMC 18.3.5.100. When printed these standards occupy 30 pages, so we do not address each item individually. That said the building elevations and renderings make clear that the architectural design requirements are clearly met as the proposed buildings features include covered porches, eaves, and building offsets. The site plans have dimensions shown that the three single family Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report Owner: CT Properties LLC Page 6 of 14 common wall buildings each include the required setback and offset for the garages as illustrated in AMC 18.3.5.100.A.4.a.Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The third criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided below.” Because the development is regulated by the NMNP many of the regulations in 18.4 are not in effect. AMC 18.3.5.020 provides in part that “where the provisions of this chapter conflict with comparable standards described in any other ordinance, resolution or regulation, the provisions of the North Mountain Neighborhood district shall govern.” That said, the site plan clearly demonstrates that the driveway spacing meets or exceeds the 24’ requirement as well as details on recycling and refuse area. The application materials include a detailed landscaping plan showing that all portions of a lot not otherwise developed are to be landscaped. The buildings are proposed to be separated to respond to the character of the neighborhood, rather than developed as a single apartment building on one tax lot. The application proposes to comply with building separation requirements of the Performance Standards Options chapter, and to apply a “Mill Pond” standard for solar access to allow shading five-feet up the wall of the first story’s living space. The lower level is considered a basement here, not a story. The “Mill Pond” solar access standard is not codified, but was first allowed with the Mill Pond subdivision, a Performance Standards Options subdivision in the 1980’s, where the flexibility of the Performance Standards meant that there were not always standard setbacks between buildings. The “Mill Pond” standard allowed a shadow to be cast to the bottom windowsill of the first story living space on the property to the north as functionally equivalent to “Standard A” Solar Access. This standard has been allowed for a number of subdivisions over the last 40 years, and in staff’s assessment, the Planning Commission can reasonably make a finding that the shading proposed is functionally equivalent to Standard A. A condition is recommended below to require that the building permit submittals demonstrate compliance with the “Mill Pond” shading described in the application, and with that staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The fourth criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.” As discussed above the proposed street network and proposed City facilities have been sized specifically for the proposed density. The application includes detailed civil plans and staff are confident that findings can be made that this approval criterion has been met. The last criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsections below, are found to exist…” There are no exceptions requested to the above standards and staff is confident that findings can be made that this criterion of approval has been met. Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report Owner: CT Properties LLC Page 7 of 14 5) Tree removal The application includes a request to remove what is described as a ‘multi stem’ cherry tree which is located in the proposed building envelope of the multi family housing. Staff have doubts about whether the proposed tree is regulated based on the photos and site visits. Based on the trees form it presents more like a shrub rather than a dominate trunk that then splits. The Tree Management Advisory Committee (MAC) reviewed the application also questioned if the proposed tree removal was in fact a regulated tree, while also unanimously recommending approval of the proposed removal. Based on the location the proposed removal meets the criteria of approval for removal as it is located within the building envelope. 6) Public Input Notice was posted at the property frontage and mailed to all properties within 200’ on February th 13, 2026. At present no public comment has been received. III.Procedural – Approval Criteria 1) Outline Plan Approval Criteria AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 provides the approval criteria and standards for Outline Plan approval: A.3 Approval criteria for Outline Plan. The planning commission shall approve the Outline Plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: A. the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city. B. adequate key city facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity. C. the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. D. the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the comprehensive plan. E. there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. F. the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. G. the development complies with the street standards. H. the proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the city of Ashland. Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report Owner: CT Properties LLC Page 8 of 14 2) Final Plan Approval Criteria AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5provides the approval criteria and standards for Final Plan approval: 5. Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this ordinance. c. The 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) Supplemental Approval Criteria AMC 18.3.5.030.C provides the approval criteria and standards for development in the NMNP. C.Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet all of the following criteria. 1. The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. 2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. 4) Site Design Review Approval Criteria AMC 18.5.2.050 provides the approval criteria and standards for Site Design Review: Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report Owner: CT Properties LLC Page 9 of 14 An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria. A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards; or 3. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 18.2.3.090. 5) Tree Removal Approval Criteria AMC 18.5.7.040 provides the approval criteria and standards for tree removal. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report Owner: CT Properties LLC Page 10 of 14 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. IV.Conclusion and Recommendations Staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve concurrent Outline Plan and Final Plan for the PSO subdivision and the requested tree removal. Staff also recommend that the Planning Commission approve Site Design Review for the three proposed triplex buildings. If the Planning Commission approves the application, staff recommends including the following conditions of approval below: 1) That a All proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2)That a Allnew addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Planning Department. 3) That p Permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for driveway approaches, street improvements, utilities or any necessary encroachments. 4) That t The properties within the project sign in favor and agree to participate in a local improvement district (LID) for future construction of the Nevada Street bridge across Bear Creek. The agreement shall be prepared by the City of Ashland and signed by the property owner prior to signature of the final survey plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. 5) That a A final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report Owner: CT Properties LLC Page 11 of 14 and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. 6) That t The building permit submittals shall demonstrate compliance with the Mill Pond Standard for solar access described in the application materials, with shading not to extend above the lowest windowsill (five feet) of the first story living space. 7) That a A final survey plat shall be submitted within 18 months of Final Plan approval. Prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for review: a.Final electric service, utility and civil plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage, electric, street and driveway improvements shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Public Works/Engineering Departments with the Final Plan submittalprior to the installation of civil improvements.The street system plan shall include full street designs with cross-sections consistent with the City’s Street Design Standards for the proposed residential neighborhood streets and alleys, as approved. Street lights shall be included in keeping with city street light standards. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes; fire hydrant; sanitary sewer lines, manholes and clean-out’s; storm drain lines and catch basins; and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the utility departments. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. All civil infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants according to the approved plans, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. b. That t The applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets, street lights and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey platinstallation of electrical infrastructure. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of the sidewalk corridor and vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots within the applicable phase prior to signature of the final survey plat. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to installation of facilities. c. A final storm drainage plan detailing the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report Owner: CT Properties LLC Page 12 of 14 Divisions prior to the installation of infrastructure. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. d. A final grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Building, Planning and Engineering divisions prior to the commencement of any sitework. e.That a A parking lot tree canopy plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect or International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist and provided for review. This plan shall include written certification from the landscape architect/arborist that the final plan as prepared is consistent with ANSI A300 standards. f. T hat t The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire apparatus access, fire apparatus access approach, aerial ladder access, firefighter access pathways, and fire apparatus turn-around; fire hydrant distance, spacing and clearance; fire department work area; fire sprinklers; limitations on gates, fences or other access obstructions; and addressing standards for wildfire hazard areas including vegetation standards and limits on work during fire season shall be satisfactorily addressed in the final submittals. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the civil drawings. g. That d Draft CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the Final Plan submittal. The CC&R’s shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common use- improvements including driveway, open space, landscaping including trees and street trees, utilities, and stormwater detention and drainage system, and shall include an operations and maintenance plan for the stormwater detention and drainage system. h. A fencing plan which demonstrates that all fencing shall be consistent with the provisions of the “Fences and Walls” requirements in AMC 18.4.4.060, and that fencing around common open space, except for deer fencing, shall not exceed four feet in height. Fencing limitations shall be noted in the subdivision CC&R’s. The location and height of fencing shall be identified at the time of building permit submittals, and fence permits shall be obtained prior to installation. 8. Prior to the signature of the final plat: a. All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, public pedestrian and public bicycle access, drainage, irrigation and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. b. The final survey plat shall include the dedication of right-of-way necessary to accommodate the proposed street system. c. Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities, driveways, streets and common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved. Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report Owner: CT Properties LLC Page 13 of 14 d. Irrigated street trees selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide and planted according to city planting and spaces standards shall be planted along all street frontages pursuant to the proposed landscape plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. e. Electric services shall be installed underground according to the approved electric service plan to serve all lots, inspected and approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. f.That t The sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed according to the approved plan to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved. Planning Action: PA-T2-2026-00066 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report Owner: CT Properties LLC Page 14 of 14 way - of - Prior to the signature of the final plat: 8.A. All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, public pedestrian and public bicycle access, drainage, irrigation and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments.B. The final survey plat shall include the dedication of rightnecessary to accommodate the proposed street system.C. Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities, driveways, streets and common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved. D. Irrigated street trees selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide and planted according to city planting and spaces standards shall be planted along all street frontages pursuant to the proposed landscape plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.E. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation.F. That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved.