[0:22] Recording in progress.

[0:36] I call the regular. I call the regular meeting

[0:39] of the City of Ashland Planning Commission to order

[0:42] for August 11th, 2026.

[0:45] I will note that our meetings are available on Zoom

[0:48] and RVTV.

[0:50] The public can find information on how

[0:52] to participate in planning commission meetings

[0:55] in our public notices, as well as directions on how

[0:58] to find the full meeting materials,

[1:00] applications, and staff reports.

[1:04] I do note that we have five of the seven members here,

[1:07] so we do have a quorum staff announcements.

[1:10] Brandon,

[1:14] I don't have any staff announcements

[1:16] this evening. Thank you.

[1:17] Oh well. Okay. And consent agenda.

[1:22] We have approval of minutes for July 14th.

[1:25] Would somebody like to move adoption of the consent agenda?

[1:30] Move to adopt consent agenda.

[1:32] Is there a second? Second Move to seconded

[1:35] to adopt the consent agenda.

[1:36] All those in favor? Yes. Aye.

[1:39] Aye. Aye.

[1:43] Okay. Motion pass public forum.

[1:47] If you wish to speak on an issue that is not on the agenda,

[1:51] please fill out the pink speaker's form in the back on the

[1:55] side and give it to Michael and he will bring it to me.

[2:00] I will acknowledge that we did get a letter from Joseph

[2:04] Ka Kaf Kath dated August 6th.

[2:10] Thank you. Concerning a request for comprehensive study.

[2:15] Comprehensive plans, comprehensive study on urban growth,

[2:18] climate change, and urban heat island effect.

[2:23] Would any of the commissioners like to discuss the letter

[2:25] or do you wanna put it off till open

[2:27] discussion at the end of the meeting?

[2:30] Or do you wanna wait and have further contact with him?

[2:34] I would like him to come in and talk to us about it. Okay.

[2:37] But that's me.

[2:42] Yeah, it, it's a new item.

[2:44] I would love to have that conversation later.

[2:48] Okay. Okay.

[2:50] We will move on to our legislative

[2:53] or type two public hearings.

[2:57] The first is a type three pub, excuse me, type three

[3:01] or legislative public hearings type.

[3:03] The first is a type three public hearing on code Amendment

[3:08] regarding variances for driveways for flag lots.

[3:13] This is planning action PA dash L dash 2026 dash

[3:18] 0 0 20 and the applicant is the city of Ashland.

[3:23] The request is to amend a MC

[3:27] 18.5060 variances

[3:31] for flag lots to allow variances of greater than 18% grade

[3:36] for flag lots created as legal.

[3:39] Lots of record prior to

[3:41] 1997 when the city adopted its hillside

[3:44] development standards.

[3:46] Currently a MC 18.5 0.3 0.060 allows

[3:51] grades on flag lots up to 15%

[3:55] and variances up to 18%.

[3:58] As mentioned, the applicant is the City

[4:00] of Ashland Ordinance.

[4:02] References are 18 6 0

[4:06] and the request is to make a recommendation on Code

[4:09] Amendment to the city council.

[4:12] Because this is a legislative hearing, we do not need

[4:16] to ask about ex parte contact or site visits.

[4:19] I will acknowledge written public comments

[4:22] the planning commission has received from,

[4:25] and my apologies for mispronouncing your name

[4:29] in the future if I do.

[4:31] Eugenia, Andrea, Nova Lynn and Karen Eisenberg.

[4:36] We got two letters from them.

[4:38] Pamela McLaughlin, McLaughlin, Kent McLaughlin,

[4:42] William h Sherlock, and Zach Tke.

[4:45] Attorneys for Lynn and Karen Eisenberg and Kent.

[4:47] And Pamela McLaughlin. Catherine Ellison, md.

[4:52] We've got two letters from her.

[4:54] Doug Douglas r and Linda G. Smith.

[4:57] We also got two letters from them.

[4:59] Carrie Tain, Susan Suzanne

[5:03] and Ed McBride, Robert Hilton, John

[5:06] and Stephanie Bullock, Amy Gunter, Robert and Susan Hutton.

[5:12] Cindy Pier, Ronald A. Parker.

[5:14] And Pamela Braun Parker, Kurt Chappelle, David

[5:20] Aler, Jim McCarthy,

[5:24] Nadine Lefkowitz, Jay Reek

[5:28] and Sarah Samma.

[5:31] Troy Brown Jr. Steve Rouse Rogue Advocates.

[5:35] John Clozel Dee and Rob Collins and Margaret Young.

[5:41] So thank you all for taking the time to write to us.

[5:46] We'll now have a staff presentation. Derek, you wanna

[5:49] Thank you Chair Burner.

[5:50] Go ahead. The legislative action

[5:52] before you tonight is a proposal to amend

[5:55] the Asheville Municipal Code section 18 5 3 0 6 oh F

[5:59] to address access constraints on certain preexisting lots

[6:03] created prior to the 1997 Hillside ordinance.

[6:08] Our existing code limits new flag drive grades to 15%

[6:11] with a variance up to 18% possible

[6:14] for a 200 foot cumulative limit.

[6:17] Some legally created lots predate those standards

[6:20] and may have no feasible driveway alignment

[6:23] that can meet the current code limits the proposed amendment

[6:26] before you would create a narrowly defined variance process

[6:30] rather than simply automatically approving deeper driveways.

[6:34] The proposals being presented separately from Senate

[6:36] Bill 9 74.

[6:38] You initially saw it in study sessions alongside 9 74,

[6:42] but it is being presented separately

[6:44] from the 9 74 implemented implementation package so

[6:48] that this as a local policy choice can be considered

[6:51] independently and should you want to look at it further,

[6:55] looking at it further won't delay 9 74 which is subject,

[6:58] subject to some state timelines in terms

[7:03] of why an amendment is needed again in 1997,

[7:06] the city adopted the Hillside Development standards

[7:09] through Ordinance 28 0 8.

[7:13] Here 30 years later, our current code has

[7:17] limitation on new flag drives at 15% maximum

[7:21] with a variance allowing them to go up to 18%.

[7:24] But some lots that were in existence prior to

[7:27] that 1997 hillside ordinance can't reach a buildable area

[7:31] with a driveway without exceeding 18% because of topography.

[7:35] In April of this year, the land use Board

[7:38] of appeals remanded a city decision approving a driveway

[7:42] grade variance that went above 18%.

[7:44] The land use Board of Appeals concluded

[7:46] that the current wording in the land use ordinance doesn't

[7:50] authorize any variance above 18% under any circumstances.

[7:54] The issue is therefore code limitation affecting a class

[7:58] of pre 97 hillside lots, not a request

[8:02] to approve one particular property.

[8:06] So in terms of what the ordinance adoption would change

[8:10] in terms of newly created lots, there would be no change.

[8:14] The existing 15% maximum grade

[8:17] and the allowance for a variance up to 18% would remain.

[8:21] And that standard in the code is for platting of new lots.

[8:24] So in order to create a new lot, you have to demonstrate

[8:27] that you have a driveway meeting the standards.

[8:30] But for pre 1997, legal lots of record

[8:34] a variance could be allowed

[8:35] to exceed 18% only when topography makes a compliant

[8:40] driveway to a buildable area on the lot impossible.

[8:44] Each property would have to independently apply

[8:46] for a variance with adoption of

[8:48] and the adoption of the ordinance does not approve any

[8:51] specific proposals.

[8:53] Relief is limited to the minimum deviation necessary

[8:57] to provide access

[8:59] and the applicant would need

[9:00] to satisfy all the variance criteria in AMC 1855

[9:05] Fire department review

[9:06] for fire code compliance would still be required.

[9:11] The fire code requirements remain independent.

[9:14] Flag drives are still considered a flag app Fire apparatus

[9:18] access road under AMC 18 5 3 0 6 oh I

[9:22] a land use variance doesn't modify

[9:24] or waive any Oregon fire code requirements.

[9:27] The fire code review considers more than grade.

[9:30] It also looks at length width, vertical clearance

[9:33] and surface composition.

[9:34] And the fire code official retains independent authority

[9:37] to approve steeper grades were allowed

[9:40] and to require alternative protection measures

[9:43] to support those steeper grades.

[9:45] Any driveway approved through the land use various process

[9:48] must still receive all required fire code approvals

[9:51] before development could proceed.

[9:54] And in your file is,

[9:55] or in your packet is included,

[9:56] a memo from the Deputy Fire Chief Mark Shea in support

[10:00] of the proposed language.

[10:02] And Mark is available to answer any questions

[10:04] that you might have tonight.

[10:08] In terms of the specific amendment language, the the section

[10:11] as amended would read new flag drive grades shall not exceed

[10:15] a maximum grade of 15%.

[10:17] Variances may be granted for new flag drives

[10:20] for grades in excess of 15%, but no greater than 18%.

[10:24] Provided that the cumulative length

[10:25] of such variances across multiple sections

[10:27] of the flag drive does not exceed 200 feet variances may be

[10:31] granted for grades in excess of 18%.

[10:34] For driveways serving legal, lots of record

[10:36] that were created before the effective date

[10:39] of the Hillside Development Standards in ordinance number

[10:42] 28 0 8 adopted December 3rd, 1997,

[10:46] where the applicant demonstrates that due

[10:48] to topographic constraints,

[10:49] no driveway alignment meeting the maximum grade standards

[10:52] of this subsection can provide vehicular access

[10:55] to a buildable area of the lot.

[10:57] Driveway is approved under such a variance would remain

[11:00] subject to the fire apparatus access requirement

[11:02] of the Oregon Fire Code, including any approval required

[11:05] by the fire code official.

[11:07] Such variances should be required to meet all criteria

[11:10] of approval in chapter 18.55 variances.

[11:17] In looking at this issue, we started looking at lots

[11:20] through the buildable lands inventory that were vacant

[11:24] and on steeply sloped land.

[11:26] 74 of those lots which are not super visible in this map,

[11:31] but 74 of those lots shown in green here were considered

[11:36] as potential ultimately 13 of them in red,

[11:39] which are shown here

[11:44] and primarily over here.

[11:46] But there's also a list of tax lots

[11:48] and addresses in your packet

[11:51] that were based on GIS data likely

[11:54] to have drives greater than 1550 feet in length

[11:57] and be subject to flag drive standards

[11:59] where an issue may come up Under this, this section

[12:04] we just reiterate, this is not based on any development

[12:07] proposals for these lots, it's just looking at the GIS data

[12:11] and the fact that there's not an easy driveway placement

[12:14] that would serve a house on the lots that's likely

[12:16] to be less than 50 feet.

[12:18] So it's assumed these would have drive greater than 50 feet

[12:21] and the grades would potentially necessitate a variance

[12:24] because of driveway grade

[12:29] Planning commission.

[12:30] And city council previously reviewed the con, this concept

[12:32] during initial discussions along

[12:35] with the implementation package for Senate Bill 9 74.

[12:38] That was in study sessions back in April and May.

[12:41] And the city council reviewed this the same material on

[12:44] June 1st as proposed ordinance 33 0 9 has been

[12:49] separated to allow this local policy

[12:51] to be considered independently the amendments

[12:54] to type three legislative land use ordinance amendment

[12:56] requiring planning commission recommendation to the council.

[12:59] And the next step following a recommendation from you

[13:02] tonight would be a public hearing

[13:04] and first reading of an ordinance

[13:05] that the council on September 15th,

[13:09] I've got a suggested motion here based on a staff

[13:12] recommendation would be that the planning commission

[13:15] recommend that the city council approve the proposed draft

[13:17] ordinance with the language shown here.

[13:22] I'd be happy to answer any questions you'll have.

[13:23] I also have Deputy Chief Mark Shea here as well

[13:27] as Carmels Iran from the city attorney's office if you

[13:30] have questions for either of them.

[13:33] I just have a language question.

[13:36] So it says New lots,

[13:40] it seems like instead of new lots

[13:42] or as well as new lots you could say,

[13:44] and those created sense.

[13:46] So it immediately references the data

[13:48] of the Hillside ordinance so that it kind

[13:51] of immediately limits.

[13:55] 'cause there was, in all of the comments we got,

[13:56] it seemed like there was some confusion

[13:58] that were opening the door to people doing this without,

[14:02] you know, and so, and maybe it's to just,

[14:07] and it's a limited ordinance.

[14:10] So is there a way to limit its app applicability

[14:13] to those lots that it affects?

[14:16] So period.

[14:19] And I think that the language is intended, the section

[14:23] that we're changing actually applies to lots proposed

[14:26] to be created and this

[14:28] and the actual requirement is before plat.

[14:31] So you are talking about new lots that are not

[14:34] yet platted. Yeah,

[14:36] But we are actually talking about lots that already exist.

[14:38] Yeah. And that's what we're trying to, I mean

[14:41] what we're trying to bring in is the fact

[14:42] that we're applying as Luba decision

[14:48] would read out, you're applying a standard to PLA a lot

[14:52] for lots that already exist.

[14:54] So trying to make clear that.

[14:56] So I still don't, maybe I wasn't clear

[15:00] what I was saying is okay

[15:05] and maybe there isn't another way to do it.

[15:07] I mean really it's not, well

[15:13] it's not a new ordinance on its own.

[15:18] It just seems like it needs to be clearer

[15:20] that it only affects those 13 locks somehow.

[15:24] Yeah, as drafted there's a couple changes

[15:26] for the commission to be considerate of

[15:29] one the new at the beginning of the section isn't

[15:31] for new lots, it's for a new flag drive

[15:35] for new flag drives and they could be installed on

[15:38] existing lots.

[15:40] Or if somebody were to partition a property

[15:42] to create a new lot, that flag drive would be subject

[15:45] to the 15 to 18% maximum.

[15:48] There is another section

[15:49] that talks about the cumulative leave length of

[15:53] driveway variances across multiple sections.

[15:55] I'm just bringing this up 'cause we didn't cover it in the

[15:57] presentation that was reviewed

[15:59] and approved ultimately as a prior planning action

[16:03] as an interpretation of the multiple sections.

[16:06] So long as the cumulatively didn't extend over 200 feet.

[16:10] But by establishing that the 15% is a maximum with up to 18%

[16:15] for all new flag drives that would apply to any property

[16:19] that is not subject to the following provision,

[16:22] which is granted in excess of 18%.

[16:26] And that is limited for lots that were created

[16:28] before December 1st, 1997.

[16:32] Why wouldn't it just be its own section?

[16:35] I mean like if you've got section F,

[16:37] why wouldn't it just be its own statement?

[16:40] It could be, it could state new flag drive shall not

[16:44] exceed 15% up to 18%,

[16:47] but you'd still have to say with the following exceptions

[16:49] and then provide that exception

[16:51] and it is embedded in the same paragraph.

[16:53] But that is a potential modification.

[16:56] I'm just trying to respond to my understanding of

[17:01] what people's issues, I mean what their issues were,

[17:04] which is that there's this, it feels fuzzy,

[17:09] it seemed like, I mean that's what I was picking up

[17:15] and there's a fear that it will get applied in other places

[17:17] and people will do what they, you know, try to get variances

[17:21] for doing something different than what this is about.

[17:25] So that's all I'm done.

[17:32] Go ahead.

[17:34] Thanks Chair Vernor and thanks Derek for the presentation.

[17:37] Just a quick question here.

[17:39] The staff report says that any relief

[17:41] above 18% would be limited

[17:44] to the minimum deviation necessary.

[17:47] And I don't see that phrase in the actual ordinance.

[17:50] Is it in the general variance criteria

[17:54] or should we perhaps consider adding it to this language?

[18:02] Just rereading the wording here?

[18:05] Yeah, I don't think it's in the

[18:06] ordinance language for this section.

[18:07] I believe that's in the variance chapter 18.5 0.5,

[18:12] which this would be subject to. But I'm gonna pull that

[18:14] Up.

[18:15] And while you're looking at at for existing language,

[18:20] I'm, I, I think that there ought to be some reference to a

[18:27] licensed geological tech geological engineers report

[18:30] that shows reasonable feasibility of what's being proposed

[18:36] so that we know that somebody with some credentials

[18:39] has actually looked at it

[18:40] and said, yeah, it can be done at 16%.

[18:45] At 18% or 19% or 20%.

[18:48] It doesn't need to be 25%.

[18:52] Yeah, there is a requirement

[18:54] for physical environmental constraints permit

[18:56] for any development, including the development of driveways

[18:59] that cross over slopes greater than 25% natural grade.

[19:04] And so a driveway that was being proposed across

[19:08] hillside lands that are considered severe slopes

[19:12] or 25 plus would be required to have

[19:15] to a technical report currently.

[19:18] Right. But but that, but

[19:19] Not in this section, again, it's not repeating

[19:21] requirements under the physical environmental constraints

[19:24] which go into the step backs for the retaining walls.

[19:28] There's quite a bit of detail in that section for

[19:31] any cut into constraints

[19:34] slips in that chapter.

[19:38] Okay. But I guess I'd like to see some indication that,

[19:42] that the flag lot would have

[19:47] direct consideration by

[19:51] a geotech engineer.

[19:56] Can you reference it back to the, to the part of the code,

[20:00] part of the hillside ordinance that talks about a geotech

[20:15] And Russell, just to further respond to your question,

[20:17] I think it says no driveway alignment meeting the maximum

[20:20] grade standards can provide vehicular

[20:21] access to a buildable area.

[20:23] Then the variance criteria say minimum necessary

[20:26] to alleviate the difficulty.

[20:28] Thanks. But we, You could always make

[20:31] that more explicit, but I think it's,

[20:32] it's covered between the two. Yeah,

[20:35] Fantastic.

[20:36] I think if it's in the bro broader section then

[20:40] that, that makes sense.

[20:43] Can I ask a few other questions here real quick? Go ahead.

[20:45] Okay. There is public

[20:50] testimony concerning comprehensive plan policy 49.

[20:55] Can you explain why Ordinance 33 0 9 is consistent

[20:59] with our wildfire and emergency access policies?

[21:06] I could stipulate that all our current wildfire

[21:08] development standards, including construction

[21:12] of the building, the ignition resistant materials, fuels,

[21:16] general fuels requirements, the any

[21:19] of these properties will be in the wildfire overlay zone

[21:22] and all be required to meet those requirements.

[21:25] Again, fire marshal, I'm sorry Mark Shay,

[21:29] our fire marshal can speak to

[21:32] other code requirements in terms of the driveway grade

[21:35] and how those get applied at the point of building permits.

[21:39] Thank you very much.

[21:45] Good evening. Yeah, just to add on to

[21:48] what Brandon was saying, we're gonna, we'll evaluate the

[21:53] driveway through the organ fire code

[21:56] specifically is chapters five

[21:57] and Appendix D, which regulate fire apparatus access.

[22:03] In addition to grade we'll be looking at composition of

[22:06] the surface vertical clearance overall length

[22:12] and apparatus parking, all factors that

[22:17] that I'll look at in evaluating

[22:20] a driveway or a a flag road.

[22:26] Thank you Deputy Chief Shay,

[22:28] and while I have you up here,

[22:30] do you mind if I ask you a few other questions? Yeah,

[22:33] Nope, go ahead.

[22:34] Okay, fantastic. So if we don't put an absolute maximum

[22:38] grade in the land use ordinance,

[22:40] what happens when somebody proposes 20%, 24%

[22:44] or something even steeper?

[22:46] What factors would cause you to say no

[22:48] and what types of mitigation make a steeper

[22:51] driveway acceptable?

[22:55] So factors that might cause me to say no

[23:00] might be length, overall length of the driveway

[23:03] or an inability to provide a fire apparatus

[23:07] parking area within 150 feet of the structure.

[23:12] If there are circumstances that arise that

[23:17] we cannot meet the fire department apparatus access

[23:20] requirements through Appendix D, the Oregon Fire Code,

[23:25] I'm authorized to look at the uniform

[23:27] alternate construction standard.

[23:29] And what that allows us to do is to enact

[23:35] a variance in construction standard.

[23:37] The most commonly used in Ashland is

[23:40] a residential sprinkler system.

[23:42] And I work in conjunction with the building official to

[23:46] ensure that that's completed in the project.

[23:53] Go ahead. Do you know offhand

[23:57] what a maximum slope is that a firetruck could get access

[24:00] to a fire, a work area?

[24:04] Like what's your maximum driveway slope for a hundred feet?

[24:09] Right. The, the code tells us 10%.

[24:12] We know realistically in Ashland there's a lot of roadways

[24:17] and driveways that are, that are well beyond that.

[24:19] Sure. I don't have the precise number as

[24:25] we have different models of fire engine, so

[24:29] we might have one that's a bit more restrictive than

[24:32] Yeah, than another.

[24:33] Yeah, a lot of these comments refer

[24:35] to one specific fire engine

[24:36] and I assume that's the large one

[24:38] that you wouldn't be using in hillside

[24:40] anyway. Thank you.

[24:45] So, so is the, is the large one,

[24:50] is that more restrictive than the, than the smaller ones?

[24:53] And would the smaller ones be used on hillsides?

[24:57] Correct. The, the larger fire engine would be more

[25:00] restrictive on a steeper grade

[25:03] and we are going to

[25:07] alter our response based on the incident type

[25:11] and sometimes the geography of the area

[25:15] and as well as weather conditions.

[25:18] So for example, if it's snowy

[25:21] and icy, we're gonna take a more nimble agile vehicle

[25:26] in that instance as opposed to like the big fire engine

[25:29] that you see driving around town.

[25:35] Okay, thank you.

[25:37] Just one more quick question, would you,

[25:41] Oh sorry.

[25:42] No, no, no, go ahead. Let, we'll let Russell finish

[25:45] and then John can a ask his question.

[25:49] Okay. Sorry John, I'm gonna jump over you here.

[25:52] Would you recommend that we put a maximum length

[25:56] or a maximum grade in this ordinance?

[26:01] I, I don't recommend that

[26:02] because the fire code gives authority

[26:06] to the fire code official to be more restrictive.

[26:09] So regardless really of what the ordinance says,

[26:13] the fire code supersedes that

[26:16] and the fire code official has the ability

[26:17] to to supersede that.

[26:20] Thank you very much. So even if we

[26:24] said on an, on an application it can only be

[26:28] no more than 25%, you're saying you could go over that and

[26:33] and allow 30%,

[26:36] We could go over that with collaboration

[26:40] between planning building

[26:44] And the fire chief.

[26:49] I have a question for potentially you, what if

[26:54] there's a pre-existing lot of record

[26:57] and all of the proposed flag drives to get

[27:02] to that buildable area are rejected, what happens?

[27:10] Sorry, could you repeat again? So you're

[27:11] Saying Sure.

[27:12] I'm saying what if there is a piece of preexisting lot

[27:15] that's, you know, pre hillside ordinance, so it's a lot

[27:18] of record and none of the proposals are viable

[27:23] for planning or for fire.

[27:25] So basically have a lot that's not developable.

[27:28] Whose responsibility is that?

[27:31] From a fire Perspective? No, from a city perspective.

[27:35] Like in the sense of I Have a lot

[27:38] Building restriction Between fire

[27:39] and planning, they won't let me develop it.

[27:43] Yeah, I mean that, I think that would go into the Nolan

[27:45] Dolan question that doesn't help me.

[27:48] I'm sorry. It,

[27:51] it would go into probably a fact specific

[27:54] analysis into Nolan

[27:55] and Dolan, which you might be familiar with,

[27:57] is like a proportionality restriction when it comes

[28:01] to a government's ability to have land use restrictions

[28:05] or similar kind of regulation

[28:09] and it has to be proportionate

[28:11] to the public health and safety.

[28:12] And so that would be a fact specific question in that,

[28:17] in that strain of legal argument is probably is my first,

[28:21] is kind of my on the cuff direction. Yeah,

[28:23] I'm sorry, I don't really understand that answer.

[28:27] I have a lot between fire safety and planning.

[28:32] It's not, it's deemed that it's not developable

[28:35] because there's no viable way to get to

[28:37] that building envelope even though that lot was pre-loaded.

[28:45] So whose responsibility is it?

[28:48] Does it become a taking or does it become like

[28:51] what happens in that consequence

[28:53] and saying it's a percentage?

[28:55] I just don't get what you're saying to me. I'm sorry

[28:57] E Well that that's it.

[28:59] You would have to look at it as a taking

[29:03] and you'd have to look at each case in a fact

[29:05] by case by case basis.

[29:06] Oh yeah, of course it's an individual situation.

[29:08] I'm not saying that it's a blanket at all. Okay. I just

[29:12] Wonder.

[29:13] But but that's it, it's a taking

[29:13] and then I was, I probably apologies,

[29:16] I probably went too far into the weeds for what

[29:17] that would look like, but it would be a form of a,

[29:20] of a taking is the que is how we would look at it

[29:24] And thank you.

[29:25] And so then the property owner would be responsible for

[29:30] doing some sort of appeal or, or legal challenge.

[29:33] Yeah, Because in effect the city was saying

[29:38] even though we say your lot is pre pre 1997

[29:43] and is therefore billable, it really isn't.

[29:46] Yeah,

[29:50] Yeah, Yeah.

[29:52] Okay. And, and again, case by case

[29:55] but in general it'd be in the takings realm.

[29:59] Okay. John, commissioner Mar, commissioner Mar.

[30:04] Thank you Chair Barner. Can you hear me okay?

[30:06] Yeah, Yeah. Thank you for the presentation.

[30:11] I have I guess a related question.

[30:12] So is a lot deemed buildable if it is not accessible

[30:18] by a driveway, is it still deemed buildable?

[30:20] In other words, you have an area to park outside

[30:24] of the perimeter of the lot

[30:25] and can access the, still access the lot.

[30:29] Is that deemed buildable?

[30:33] So, you know, I obviously vehicular access

[30:36] to a property is customarily of one of the prerequisites

[30:41] for development of a house single family.

[30:43] There are other housing types

[30:45] that don't have parking associated with them,

[30:48] but those would not likely be built on hillside lands.

[30:52] So I, I did want to note that the, you know, the,

[30:57] your question in terms of our buildable lands inventory,

[31:00] the assessment of lots, if there was a lot

[31:03] that was entirely landlocked that had no access,

[31:07] no platted access in the form of a flag lot

[31:10] and no direct street frontage, the buildable lands inventory

[31:15] likely would've been identifying

[31:17] that property as unbuildable.

[31:19] But the 13 lots in question that we're bringing forth

[31:23] for consideration by the commission this evening

[31:26] all are legally created lots that do have

[31:31] platted access to a public street.

[31:33] And as such would have the opportunity for vehicular access

[31:38] if the land use regulations were not restrictive

[31:41] to the degree that a driveway which could

[31:44] otherwise be installed not be installed due to lack of a

[31:48] opportunity to apply for

[31:50] a variance addressing the minimum unique

[31:53] or unusual circumstances that apply to those properties.

[31:58] The, what this ordinance doesn't do is authorize

[32:01] the creation of new lots

[32:03] or new flag drives serving

[32:07] newly created lots.

[32:09] And so the ordinance amendment presented doesn't

[32:13] increase the number of potential dwellings

[32:15] beyond what's currently existing

[32:18] dependent on constrained access beyond the closed

[32:22] or diminishing class of pre 1997.

[32:26] Lots of records. So those are a, a fixed number

[32:29] and would be diminishing over time as they're developed

[32:32] until some point in the future

[32:34] the ordinance amendment presented

[32:36] to you this evening would no longer be relevant

[32:38] because all of those pre 1997 lots

[32:42] would have been developed.

[32:46] Got it. I just have one quick follow up to that.

[32:48] So, so in the case of let's just say a cottage cluster

[32:53] that had a pedestrian easement

[32:55] and it was on a steep slope, that

[32:57] that would still be buildable.

[32:58] Let's just say it didn't even violate the 18% grade

[33:02] still buildable lot.

[33:03] There's ways to get to that lot.

[33:05] That's what I'm trying to qualify

[33:07] For vehicular access.

[33:09] You, we'd also also have to look at fire apparatus access

[33:12] of course for that cottage housing development,

[33:14] which typically doubles his vehicular access.

[33:18] Yep, that makes sense. Okay, so I, I equate this

[33:21] to legislation that allows vintage automobiles owners

[33:26] to exceed pollution

[33:31] emission standards simply as a matter of fact

[33:35] of their inability to install a catalytic converter.

[33:39] So I'm trying to understand the rationale for allowing this

[33:45] exception for these older quote buildable lots.

[33:51] And I just want to understand the planning

[33:55] hypothesis behind that

[33:56] because I believe it's probably be

[33:59] justified based on housing production.

[34:02] Is that true primarily to support housing production

[34:05] or is there an equity argument there too?

[34:08] I think there's both an equity argument

[34:10] and a housing production, a argument that the, you know,

[34:13] the grade standards that we're talking about is have

[34:16] historically been applied when new lots are created.

[34:19] That's why it's under the partition chapter.

[34:22] But these are cases that aren't subject to partition.

[34:24] But with the Luba recent ruling,

[34:27] it was incumbent upon the city to see if

[34:29] that was a change in circumstance for

[34:33] existing properties within the city.

[34:35] And you're noting the housing production strategy

[34:38] and our housing capacity analysis,

[34:41] although in the context of the entire city, 13

[34:44] lots seems rather small, those are opportunities

[34:49] for additional housing, which our buildable lands inventory

[34:53] demonstrated all of those lots were needed in order

[34:55] to accommodate our future growth.

[34:58] But further I do think

[35:00] that there is a equity issue if there was a land use

[35:03] regulation that was passed by the city subsequent

[35:06] to the creation of the, the lots

[35:08] that subsequently precluded the

[35:10] development of those properties.

[35:12] I think that does in a sense,

[35:15] disenfranchise those property owners from due use

[35:18] of their property and that could potentially trigger

[35:21] that takings argument,

[35:22] which would be a fact based individual assessment on each

[35:26] lot of what they could do

[35:27] with their property if it can't be developed

[35:29] as was originally allowable before the code was adopted.

[35:34] Great, thank you. Thank you chair.

[35:37] You're welcome. So how do you get old lots

[35:42] to come into modern conformance so that they are

[35:47] treated the same way?

[35:49] Current lots are in terms of

[35:55] wildfire access, anything else

[36:02] Where they can meet current requirements?

[36:04] They would be subject to those

[36:06] and would have to, that's why we reduced the number

[36:09] of 74 lots that were pre-existing vacant lots down to 13

[36:13] because we, without a site by site assessment,

[36:18] but looking at the GIS data determined

[36:20] that they likely could comply

[36:22] with the maximum driveway grade of 15%

[36:25] and not an excess of 18 with the variance.

[36:28] So like the adoption of the hillside, I'm sorry,

[36:31] the wildfire overlay, all lots are now subject to that.

[36:35] So even these older lots, even though they were created

[36:37] before that ordinance, they can put in fuel breaks

[36:40] and provide general fuel management on site

[36:43] and so they'll be subject to that requirement.

[36:46] I think in the variance proceedings, the term that was

[36:51] being discussed earlier in terms of what the code says

[36:55] it states the minimum is,

[36:57] or the variance is the minimum necessary

[36:59] to address the special

[37:00] or unique physical circumstances related

[37:03] to the subject's site.

[37:04] So an applicant in applying for a variance would have

[37:07] to demonstrate that the existing natural grade

[37:10] is a unique physical circumstance that they cannot

[37:15] otherwise address

[37:17] and under the limits of the code, if their

[37:21] engineer says they can do a driveway

[37:23] that meets the 18% grade or 15% grade

[37:27] and not require a variance, that would be the path

[37:30] that they would need to take.

[37:32] And so we're relying on their, their engineer

[37:38] to give us that information,

[37:42] You know, essentially their application,

[37:43] the burden on the applicant to demonstrate

[37:45] that it's necessary.

[37:49] Go ahead. I would say that anybody that was trying

[37:52] to develop a flag lot would go to whatever ends they needed

[37:56] to, to get under to get 18 or under.

[38:00] It's not like it's a prize to get a steeper driveway.

[38:11] Go ahead chair. Thank you Chair.

[38:15] I, I wanna follow up on the questions

[38:16] that have been asked about the equity

[38:17] and due process issues.

[38:18] But first I want to thank you Derek,

[38:20] for providing the geographic information

[38:25] on existing lots of records that were created

[38:27] before adoption of the 1997 hillside standards, the 13

[38:30] or four 14 or so, that, that list is really helpful.

[38:35] It's what we needed to discuss this.

[38:37] And I I'm wondering, just as a quick clarification,

[38:42] does the city database of real estate property information

[38:46] include the purchase

[38:47] or transfer date showing when each current owner

[38:53] obtain or obtained or took possession of their lot?

[38:58] City data doesn't include that, but the county records do.

[39:01] So we have access to all

[39:03] that information through the Jackson County.

[39:05] Cool. So we know based on

[39:07] that information when an owner would've been noticed

[39:11] of the existence of those hillside standards.

[39:14] Right. Whether, whether their possession predated

[39:19] adoption of the standards or whether the possession occurred

[39:21] after the standards.

[39:22] Right. Right. Cool.

[39:24] So the follow up question that I want

[39:26] to ask about the equity consideration is,

[39:31] given that it's a, it's a fact specific inquiry,

[39:37] would one of the relevant factors in a due process claim

[39:41] that might create civil liability to the city in the form

[39:44] of taking, would one of those factors be

[39:49] owner notice of the existence

[39:51] of potentially restrictive hillside standards?

[40:02] Yeah, I mean I haven't researched

[40:03] that question specifically to this case.

[40:06] I mean, I do know as a, as a bit of a segue,

[40:12] even looking at some of the manufactured home case law that

[40:18] like there, there, there was one case as an example where

[40:24] someone was buying a manufactured home park

[40:28] with the rule in place with a kind of, with

[40:31] that had a more restrictive use,

[40:33] like a tenant favorable restrictive use

[40:36] and the court found that that person was on notice and

[40:41] because of that there was no problem with it.

[40:44] So I think there would probably be a similar analysis.

[40:47] Yeah, that sounds like an analogous situation

[40:50] That would, that would be

[40:51] how I would imagine it would play

[40:53] Out.

[40:54] Yeah. Thank you very much for that.

[40:55] You know, it it, I think it goes to the question about what,

[40:59] what happens when you have a pre 1997 lot and

[41:02] because of this Luba decision and

[41:05] because we didn't change the

[41:07] ordinance, you can't develop it.

[41:09] Or even if we do develop the ordinance,

[41:11] you still can't develop it.

[41:13] Can can I ask you a question? Sure.

[41:15] So you're basically saying that it's, if I own one

[41:19] of those lots and it's pre 1997 when I sell it,

[41:23] then it no longer is developable

[41:25] and I should have known better if I bought it.

[41:27] That's kind of where I'm getting at with the notice thing.

[41:30] Yeah. Yeah. The, the date of purchase or transfer

[41:34] or possession is relevant here. No,

[41:36] It's still a taking because then you're telling

[41:37] that person that owns it already that they can't sell

[41:40] It.

[41:41] Well it's relevant but it's not necessarily dispositive.

[41:43] I think as we just discussed, it's gonna be a fact

[41:45] by factual, you know, weighing of factors on in each case.

[41:50] But I, I see the potential

[41:52] for taking this claim is what I'm trying to say.

[41:55] I'm also saying that I think there might be a limited set

[41:59] of factual circumstances

[42:00] where such a claim would be successful against the city.

[42:02] Okay. And that that limited universe

[42:05] of potentially successful taking claims

[42:08] might actually be limited to those lots

[42:13] of record preexisting the hillside standards

[42:16] that were possessed

[42:18] or obtained by their current owner prior

[42:21] to adoption of the standards.

[42:24] We can talk about it in deliberation,

[42:26] but that's just kind of the thrust in my question here.

[42:31] So let, let me shift gears just real quick.

[42:35] I I only have two more questions.

[42:40] Just to be clear, the proposed ordinance would not by itself

[42:44] authorized construction

[42:45] of any new driveway on any flag bot, is that correct?

[42:49] That's correct. Okay.

[42:50] And even if the city adopts the ordinance,

[42:52] the fire code official still has independent review

[42:55] and approval authority on any such driveway? Right?

[42:59] Right. And we adopt the ordinance approve of variance.

[43:02] The fire code official still has review authority

[43:06] independent of that variance to say, yeah, the city said,

[43:10] planning said you could do 20%,

[43:12] but based on conditions you can't.

[43:15] Mm. And there are a lot of different factors

[43:17] besides driveway grade that you're looking at, right?

[43:20] That's correct. Okay, thank you very much.

[43:29] Any other questions? Okay,

[43:32] I have just one more. Sure, go ahead.

[43:34] Okay, just one more quick question, Derek.

[43:38] Public testimony raised an allegation

[43:41] that the required 35 day DLCD notice was not provided.

[43:46] Can staff or the city attorney

[43:49] confirm whether the required notice was

[43:51] provided for the record?

[43:55] So 35 day notice to DLCD was provided in June.

[43:59] I don't remember the specific date, but it was

[44:03] provided again, we had this group with Senate Bill 9 74.

[44:07] We subsequently chose to separate them.

[44:10] So again, 9 74 could move forward independently.

[44:13] There are now two distinct ordinances

[44:16] and we've notified the state subsequently

[44:18] with approval from our regional rep from DLCD

[44:22] to keep them under that original notice,

[44:24] but provide the separate details which have been

[44:27] provided to DLCD.

[44:28] Thank you Derek. Yep.

[44:34] Yeah, John, you're Commissioner Mar,

[44:36] you're, and then thank you.

[44:39] Yeah, thank you Chair. I'll be quick.

[44:40] I just wanna clarify, so these variances,

[44:42] this is would be type one, they've been administrative

[44:45] by staff or they would come before planning,

[44:51] It would be a case by case assessment in terms

[44:54] of the physical environmental constraint review, I do think

[44:57] that a, you know, for instance, 25% grade variance

[45:03] would be not a clear and objective approval.

[45:07] And so could be scheduled before the commission.

[45:11] Derek, his planning manager may be able to answer as well.

[45:15] The only thing I'm not sure is with changes to state law,

[45:18] residential applications including variances

[45:21] are becoming an administrative approval even if they would

[45:23] otherwise have been a type two.

[45:26] So I think there's a chance

[45:27] with the direction state law's going,

[45:30] that any residential applications are likely

[45:32] to be administrative approvals,

[45:34] But they could be called up In some cases

[45:39] Only, only only on appeal by the applicant, not

[45:43] by a resident, not by name.

[45:46] Yeah. House bill 40 37 limits appeals on clear

[45:50] and object, clear and objective housing applications

[45:53] to the applicant only.

[45:55] And that may be a determination point in terms

[45:58] of whether a variance falls under clear and objective.

[46:09] Okay. So let's move on

[46:11] to the public comment portion of the meeting.

[46:14] And I have a number of

[46:18] speaker requests and there are several people here on Zoom.

[46:23] So let's take the Zoom people first.

[46:28] David ler? No. No. Okay. Jay Re

[46:34] I don't see that Jay himself is, but Sarah is available

[46:38] and they said they, they speak together.

[46:41] So I'll know Sarah, the

[46:43] Analyst.

[46:44] Okay.

[46:48] Can you make it so that we can see John and Sarah?

[46:53] Ah, thank you. Thank you.

[46:59] Sarah, would you like to speak?

[47:01] Hi, this is Sarah.

[47:02] Jay is actually going to speak on our behalf.

[47:05] We are unfortunately not in the same location, so

[47:09] I will yield my time to Jay.

[47:12] Okay. Jay, please speak up.

[47:23] We don't see Jay on, on our screen.

[47:26] He is, he's still muted.

[47:28] He said, said he, he texted

[47:30] and said he is still muted. So I think can

[47:32] You provide his, can you provide his username

[47:35] so he can be promoted to panelist?

[47:37] We have One, I think it's jr.

[47:41] We don't have a JR. We have one that is just iPad.

[47:45] Oh, that's probably J. Sorry.

[48:07] Can you hear me now? Yes, can you,

[48:11] Technology working.

[48:13] Can you, could you show yourself, turn on your camera.

[48:16] You know what, I don't have video available to me.

[48:21] I don't have enough bandwidth.

[48:22] Can you state your name for the record?

[48:25] You bet. This is Jay Reek from two 30 Strawberry Lane.

[48:29] Okay, thank you very much. Please go ahead.

[48:32] You have, thank you. You have three minutes.

[48:35] Great, thank you.

[48:45] Okay, we submitted written comments as you saw in opposition

[48:48] to this ordinance,

[48:51] and I thank the commissioners for reading

[48:52] through the comments and the supporting documents.

[48:55] If you haven't had a chance to do so, we'd encourage you

[48:57] to do so before making a decision.

[48:59] And there's been some good deliberation so far as,

[49:04] as we stated in our comments, the proposed changes are not

[49:08] mandated by state law and are inconsistent with state law.

[49:12] Local jurisdictions are charged

[49:14] with adopting either the state fire code

[49:16] or a local fire code that is equal to

[49:19] or more stringent than the protections in the state

[49:22] fire code standards.

[49:23] This proposal is less stringent than State code.

[49:27] The proposal is also inconsistent

[49:29] with Ashton Comprehensive Plan in 1997.

[49:32] The city council wrote

[49:33] that the Hillside development standards are quote

[49:36] in compliance with the comprehensive plan

[49:38] and that the comprehensive plan contains specific policies

[49:42] and provisions which provide the basis for this ordinance.

[49:46] Exempting Hillside lots from the well-crafted

[49:48] and longstanding safety-oriented hillside ordinance is

[49:51] clearly inconsistent with the Ashland Comprehensive plan

[49:54] and dangerous for our community.

[49:56] Parenthetically, I'll mention that

[49:58] Hillside Standards development identified

[50:01] that it would actually adversely affect 33 properties,

[50:04] and yet the city council in nine seven still decided

[50:07] that the benefit to the community

[50:09] and the safety to the community was worthwhile

[50:12] to make that difficult decision.

[50:15] Also, the proposed flag driveway code is internally

[50:18] inconsistent at the same time

[50:20] allowing grades steeper than 18% on some flag lots

[50:24] and prohibiting grades steeper than 18% on other fly lot.

[50:28] How can this be safe in one instance and not in another?

[50:31] The Oregon State Fire Code has already

[50:32] established that it's not safe.

[50:36] Additionally, the ordinance is not related to the SB 9 74

[50:41] and is not required by the Senate bill of the state.

[50:45] As mentioned earlier, the minutes from the Planning

[50:46] Commission study session in May indicated this amendment was

[50:50] presented to the commissioners as part

[50:52] of the legislative changes because of SB 9 74.

[50:55] And as noted in the May 26th staff memo

[50:58] to the commission in today's minutes

[51:00] or meeting materials, the proposal is not

[51:05] because of SP 74,

[51:06] but is in response to the Lula remand of the specific

[51:11] application PAT three 2020 4 0 0 5 3.

[51:17] Finally, if this proposal is adopted,

[51:20] Ashland will be an extreme outlier

[51:21] for fire safety regulations and building codes in Oregon.

[51:25] We will be seen as reckless with our regulations

[51:27] and codes, especially if a tragedy or accident should occur

[51:30] because of exceedingly steep driveway.

[51:33] We ask you tonight to deliberate

[51:35] and make your decision in the interest

[51:36] of Ashton's values in our broader citizenry.

[51:39] We ask you to recommit to policies

[51:41] and codes that we all abide by.

[51:43] And to protect us and our town,

[51:45] please reject the proposed amendment

[51:47] to the flag drive grave regulation.

[51:49] Thank you.

[51:51] Thank you very much. Emil

[51:56] Sand Osky, is he available?

[51:59] He's,

[52:11] Yes. Hello, can you hear me all right?

[52:12] Yes. You're Emil Kovski.

[52:15] Yes, my name's Emil Sadowski. Oh,

[52:17] You have three minutes. Go ahead.

[52:20] Thank you. And yeah, thank you for the time

[52:22] and for reviewing our written comments.

[52:24] I'm here, be here. Excuse me.

[52:26] I'm an attorney here appearing on behalf of Kenton,

[52:29] Pamela McLaughlin.

[52:31] We did submit written comments and so I appreciate the time

[52:32] that you've taken to look those over here

[52:36] to speak in opposition of the planning action.

[52:39] The proposed variance event caters solely

[52:42] to an elite landowner who knew

[52:44] or should have known prior to their purchase

[52:46] of the vacant property that the driveway would not comply

[52:49] with maximum grade variances.

[52:51] This was sub subject. I heard some of this discussion,

[52:54] your deliberation, and I think that's a,

[52:56] it is a reasonable thing to consider.

[52:58] It is a breach of the public trust

[53:00] to annihilate a strict health

[53:02] and safety limitation merely

[53:04] to appease a single wealthy landowner.

[53:06] The fire danger in Oregon

[53:07] and especially in southern Oregon, increases every year

[53:09] and it's reaching extreme levels like Spokane,

[53:13] Ashland Dentists Watershed is a tinderbox

[53:15] and yet your staff is now proposing

[53:16] that you loosen the standards for providing safe fire

[53:19] and emergency access to hillside properties.

[53:22] Nothing in SD 9 74 requires changes

[53:25] to the driveway grade standards

[53:27] and expressly exclude standards related to fire ingress,

[53:31] egress public health or safety and natural hazards.

[53:34] So there's no justification

[53:35] for relaxing the flag drive grade limits under SB 9 74.

[53:40] This proposal would eliminate the 18% grade cap

[53:42] for existing lots.

[53:44] Cons, contrary to current

[53:47] Ashland land use ordinance is interpreted by Luba

[53:49] and enabled driveway grades far beyond

[53:51] what existence variance, variance framework allows.

[53:54] I also wanna point out that this would make Ashland a

[53:57] extreme outlier as far as the the grades that it allows

[54:03] Because flag drives are treated as fire apparatus,

[54:06] access roads, and the Oregon Fire Code limits such roads

[54:08] to 10% grade.

[54:10] The amendment is wholly inconsistent

[54:12] with adopted fire code regulations

[54:14] and would undermine emergency access.

[54:16] It also conflicts with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan

[54:19] and the 2025 Community Wildfire Protection Plan,

[54:22] which both prioritize adequate ingress

[54:25] and egress evacuation capacity

[54:27] and consistent wildfire resilience measures.

[54:30] In light of the city's recent wildfire experience, CAPA

[54:36] steeper grades would heighten erosion

[54:37] and slope stability risks

[54:39] and make Ashland an outlier among Oregon jurisdictions

[54:42] that almost universally cap driveway grades around 10

[54:45] to 18% only with strict safeguards.

[54:48] Accordingly, the commission should reject

[54:50] the proposed variance amendment.

[54:52] Thank you for taking the time.

[54:54] Thank you very much.

[54:57] Okay, we're moving on to in-person speakers.

[55:01] We have Carrie Maston.

[55:13] Thank you. You have three

[55:14] Minutes.

[55:15] Oh, thank you. Oh, I'm new at this. So be patient.

[55:21] I live at 2, 2 7 granite. Actually, I inherited the home.

[55:25] My parents lived there for 35 years

[55:28] and the property that I believe is, you know,

[55:33] the impetus for this whole thing is 2 31 granite.

[55:37] And when I heard that an exception was

[55:41] being considered for the flag drive,

[55:45] I just couldn't believe it

[55:46] because as a retired teacher, I believe in following rules

[55:50] and keeping the rules and you make one exception

[55:54] and you open it up to other

[55:58] exceptions for everybody.

[56:00] But what I

[56:03] feel is in this discussion is

[56:08] I, it reeks of entitlement and it reeks of favoritism

[56:13] and the entitlement seems to come thinking

[56:18] that Ashland, we are so special

[56:22] that we can go against Oregon State law

[56:26] regarding the flight, well, we're too special, we don't have

[56:29] to follow the Oregon law.

[56:31] And that I just, that just feels like entitlement to me.

[56:34] And in terms of favoritism, if I,

[56:39] you know, just a regular old person came

[56:41] and asked for this exception, you would probably say no.

[56:45] And I feel like this, I agree with the person who just spoke

[56:48] that this does seem like you are spending a lot

[56:52] of time on this issue

[56:54] because of one wealthy landowner who knew

[56:58] before he bought the property that this

[57:04] there was the flag drive regulation limiting

[57:09] the grade to 15% and 18% as a variance.

[57:14] And, and sorry,

[57:19] and I just,

[57:25] I appreciate this discussion.

[57:27] I appreciate the way that you are very calm when you speak

[57:31] and polite to each other.

[57:33] And thank you for letting me have the opportunity to speak.

[57:38] And I had one other point, and I can't even remember.

[57:41] Oh, I know. If you're gonna make an exception to a role,

[57:44] it has to benefit everyone.

[57:47] It has to benefit everyone in the community and you,

[57:50] and it can't just benefit a few families.

[57:54] And in this case you're talking about 13 lots,

[57:58] which is JA drop in the bucket.

[58:02] And really you're only talking about one lot

[58:05] and oh, I hear, oh, I have 20 seconds.

[58:08] The neighbors have offered to buy this back from the divorce

[58:14] from, for the price they paid plus 10% so

[58:17] that it can be an open space.

[58:19] So that was, to answer your question,

[58:21] Carrie, what can be done?

[58:22] The neighbors can get together by the, by the land back

[58:26] and make an open space.

[58:27] Okay, thanks. Maybe next time I'll be less nervous.

[58:29] I hope so. Thank you.

[58:32] Thank you very much. You did well.

[58:36] Steve Rouse from Rogue Associate Advocates.

[58:49] Good evening and thank you for the

[58:50] opportunity to speak tonight.

[58:52] My name is Steve Rouse, I'm the

[58:53] president of Rogue Advocates.

[58:54] We're a nonprofit 5 0 1 C3 land use advocacy group.

[58:59] And this driveway flag lot thing has caught our attention.

[59:04] I submitted written comments

[59:05] and I'm gonna deviate from those

[59:08] and talk more about the lucid discussion you guys had

[59:11] previously, specifically on the taking issue.

[59:15] Clearly if a lot was owned prior to 1997,

[59:19] that owner still owns the lot.

[59:21] They could have a taking issue,

[59:26] but it's been 30 years, so how many

[59:29] of those people are, are around?

[59:30] Derek said that they, they could find that out

[59:32] and I think that would be relevant information

[59:34] to make your decision if that, if it turns on

[59:37] that the driveway issue is definitely a slippery slope.

[59:40] More so in the winter time

[59:41] and snow, rain,

[59:43] I'm not too worried about the fire chief getting his rigs up

[59:46] the up the up the hill.

[59:48] I'm more concerned about them careening down the hill.

[59:51] If you've all driven down, try driving down the blast part

[59:54] of strawberry, a 24 degree slope,

[59:59] dry pavement, it is, you're standing on the brake.

[1:00:02] It's brutal. But I think the,

[1:00:05] I think the taking issue is very relevant

[1:00:08] and honestly by introducing this change,

[1:00:12] you're opening yourself up to more taking.

[1:00:15] Because if you don't put a steepness

[1:00:20] limit on the criteria

[1:00:23] and you don't put a a what is the, oh, a driveway length

[1:00:30] And, and the city decides that they can't build, well

[1:00:35] you're taking from them

[1:00:36] because there's no clear criteria you have

[1:00:39] to have right now the existing code says if you,

[1:00:41] if it's more than 200 feet steeper than 18%,

[1:00:44] you can't get a variance clear cut, no taking issue.

[1:00:47] You're opening yourself up to more by introducing this kind

[1:00:50] of complicated language on 13 lots.

[1:00:54] And it may not even be 13 lots.

[1:00:56] We don't know specifically if those lots are developable

[1:01:01] with a sweeping driveway that would not exceed 18%.

[1:01:05] And finally, you, I I believe this would be in violation

[1:01:10] of their existing comp plan

[1:01:13] under the environmental resources section policy 49

[1:01:18] states and I quote,

[1:01:19] require more than one ingress egress route

[1:01:22] or road widths wide enough

[1:01:25] to accommodate incoming fire apparatus

[1:01:27] and evacuating residents simultaneously

[1:01:30] in an emergency situation.

[1:01:32] Now I'm aware that the, the, the flag lot that's going up

[1:01:35] to the specific lot in question in that Luba appeal.

[1:01:40] There's, there's, there's, it's not wide enough.

[1:01:45] And to create a road that is wide enough

[1:01:47] to create two-way traffic, that's

[1:01:52] a tough, tough one.

[1:01:54] So anyway, in conclusion, the pros proposed code revision,

[1:01:57] weaken safety protections for life first responders and,

[1:02:02] and the wildland suburban interface.

[1:02:05] Thank you very much.

[1:02:07] Thank you very much.

[1:02:10] That concludes all the people that I know

[1:02:12] of that wish to speak.

[1:02:13] Does anybody else wish to speak to the planning commission?

[1:02:26] Seeing no one? I will ask if the planning

[1:02:29] commission has any questions.

[1:02:34] I I have a question for the Deputy City attorney.

[1:02:36] When at,

[1:02:40] when the 1997 Hillside standards got adopted by the city,

[1:02:47] did that trigger the statute

[1:02:48] of limitations on a potential takings claim

[1:02:51] or would it be city approval

[1:02:53] or denial of, of a land use application under

[1:02:56] the applying the standards?

[1:02:59] Yeah, I mean that might be a little too specific for me

[1:03:02] to answer off the cuff.

[1:03:03] I mean, I think when I,

[1:03:05] but I will answer your question a little bit more broadly in

[1:03:08] the sense that I, I don't have any issues

[1:03:12] with this ordinance and in part

[1:03:14] because like the, the taking would be for the properties

[1:03:18] who would, who would, who otherwise,

[1:03:21] and when they, when they purchased it,

[1:03:25] didn't have the restriction

[1:03:26] and then all, all of a sudden suddenly do.

[1:03:29] But this allows for, for

[1:03:34] those properties to still be developed.

[1:03:36] So to me, like that's actually kind of a not risky space

[1:03:39] because that land is not encumbered.

[1:03:42] And then furthermore, it's sort of actually balanced

[1:03:45] with the public safety, with the public safety

[1:03:51] concerns, with fire, with fire.

[1:03:53] And then also kind of in line with the comprehen,

[1:03:56] I actually find it in line with the comprehensive plan sort

[1:03:59] of in line with the goals of Senate bill 9 74

[1:04:03] and that it allows for,

[1:04:06] and that it, it kind of finds a sweet spot of accommodating

[1:04:09] for public health with fire and prevent

[1:04:14] and allowing for more buildable land.

[1:04:17] So that's kind of my general assessment.

[1:04:19] I have some more specific notes, mainly in the

[1:04:25] language of it says That

[1:04:30] it will work within the fire code

[1:04:33] and to quote driveways approved under such a,

[1:04:36] such a variance remain subject

[1:04:39] to the fire apparatus access requirements

[1:04:41] of the Oregon Fire Code, including any approval required

[1:04:46] by the fire code official who's going to a bot, which,

[1:04:50] you know, as we hear from from Mark Shea,

[1:04:54] they're gonna be looking at the, at the fire code.

[1:04:57] So to me that's the,

[1:04:58] a cross reference that'll incorporate

[1:05:00] all the fire restrictions.

[1:05:03] Oh, in, in terms of that safe space that you defined,

[1:05:08] would, would the, the fact of owner notice

[1:05:12] of the standards be a relevant factor in defining the

[1:05:14] scope of that safe space?

[1:05:16] So, sorry, safe space,

[1:05:18] Can you, I mean, just really kind of repeating a question

[1:05:20] I asked before, but it's relevant here.

[1:05:22] Would, would the, the the timing of owner notice

[1:05:26] of these potentially restrictive standards, would

[1:05:28] that be a relevant factor in defining the scope of

[1:05:31] that safe space where property owner couldn't

[1:05:34] sue the city for taking?

[1:05:36] Yeah, I guess I, I guess I might need you

[1:05:38] to clarify like on what side,

[1:05:39] 'cause I think I've heard, I guess I've heard sort of a 360

[1:05:44] response for, I mean I've heard some comments of

[1:05:51] so restrictive as in the city's not allowing development

[1:05:55] Restriction or Restriction.

[1:05:56] Well, I'm just talking about the Hillside standards

[1:05:58] generally and the driveway grade standards specifically.

[1:06:01] Okay. I might for the hillside stand

[1:06:05] for Hillside standards question specific, I might turn

[1:06:08] to the, to comm to help me out with that one.

[1:06:12] So I think I understand the gist of your question in terms

[1:06:16] of, if we go back in time

[1:06:18] to 1997 when the Hillside ordinance was adopted,

[1:06:22] I would note that the grade standards subsequent to

[1:06:25] that period have historically been applied

[1:06:28] at a time when new lots are created.

[1:06:31] So properties within the hillside area subsequent to 1997

[1:06:35] were they to be partitioned

[1:06:36] or subdivided, the grade standards are

[1:06:41] have to be demonstrated before final plat is signed.

[1:06:44] And that's the code that went into place in 1997.

[1:06:48] So lots that were created prior to 1997,

[1:06:51] there is no standard that they were held to

[1:06:54] because no plat had subsequently been required.

[1:06:59] So essentially when those prior lots,

[1:07:04] no maximum driveway grade applied

[1:07:07] and of on some of those lots, the terrain is steep enough

[1:07:12] that no driveway alignment meeting the criteria

[1:07:17] cited under the flag partition chapter

[1:07:19] for flag drives could be met.

[1:07:22] So again, I think historically we've allowed development

[1:07:25] on driveways that,

[1:07:27] or on preexisting lots with steep driveways.

[1:07:32] So that this was really tested with the current

[1:07:35] land use application that went to Luba, where they found

[1:07:38] that just as this body and had,

[1:07:40] and the city council had approved a driveway

[1:07:44] that exceeded 18% slope based on it being a preexisting lot

[1:07:48] of record Luba found that that wasn't supported by the code.

[1:07:52] So your question is, at this point in time,

[1:07:56] are those property owners on notice

[1:07:58] that if we don't make a change,

[1:08:00] the circumstances have changed due to L'S recent ruling?

[1:08:03] Well, let me clarify because the Luba re ruling said

[1:08:07] that the relevant standard

[1:08:09] that you're talking about always has been that way

[1:08:12] and has been since its adoption

[1:08:14] that the city's interpretation

[1:08:16] of it was inconsistent with the code.

[1:08:19] And so my question relates to the code itself

[1:08:22] and not to the city's interpretation, but I mean it, it may,

[1:08:26] and maybe we won't reach a clear answer on this tonight.

[1:08:29] It's totally okay. I would, you know,

[1:08:31] but I do think, you know, these are, these are important,

[1:08:34] you know, considerations here

[1:08:35] and I I appreciate you talking them through with me.

[1:08:43] Okay. I will go ahead and close the public hearing

[1:08:49] unless you see a reason to keep it open.

[1:08:58] Public hearing's closed, the record's closed,

[1:09:04] we are into deliberations.

[1:09:10] What's your pleasure?

[1:09:17] More questions of the city attorney or Chief Shea?

[1:09:23] Chief Shea.

[1:09:28] Yeah. So,

[1:09:31] and this is not supposed to feel

[1:09:36] contentious or whatever the right word would be,

[1:09:39] but how, and, and it's,

[1:09:44] and I don't know if you can answer this.

[1:09:46] So my experience

[1:09:51] is that

[1:09:57] fire tries its best to facilitate what people need

[1:10:01] and planning does the same.

[1:10:03] And when there's these difficult projects, people, you know,

[1:10:07] we end up working together to try to make things work

[1:10:09] for the landowner and for fire safety.

[1:10:16] How, I don't know if this is a fair question,

[1:10:21] but how would it, you know,

[1:10:22] how would you go about saying no to somebody

[1:10:29] Saying no to somebody?

[1:10:31] I would, I would start with obviously evaluating the,

[1:10:34] the project and the criteria.

[1:10:38] If I made the determination that it was outside of

[1:10:43] the requirements of the code, beyond what we could

[1:10:48] make any kind of contingencies

[1:10:52] or al alternatives to, I'd speak with the fire chief,

[1:10:56] let him know that it was my opinion

[1:10:58] that we cannot provide adequate service

[1:11:01] to the proposed building.

[1:11:04] And then I would also speak with planning staff

[1:11:07] and explain my reasonings for

[1:11:13] not being able to provide that service.

[1:11:16] You know, it, it is, it's a careful evaluation

[1:11:19] and the goal is

[1:11:21] to provide safe housing.

[1:11:26] If we just cannot do that, then we cannot do that.

[1:11:29] Okay. So you, I know I,

[1:11:31] I know it's totally not a real situation,

[1:11:34] but I'm just, I'm just curious

[1:11:36] if you would feel comfortable doing that.

[1:11:38] Yeah. Okay. Yes.

[1:11:42] So things that would mitigate your decision are

[1:11:47] pools for a water source

[1:11:51] gravel or more, more grade on the driveway,

[1:11:58] paving the driveway versus having it be gravel, things like

[1:12:02] That.

[1:12:03] Yeah. Tho, tho those could all be factors in addition to

[1:12:09] a residential sprinkler system in addition to additional

[1:12:14] wildfire hardening of the property, meaning

[1:12:17] more vegetation management

[1:12:20] or alternative parking areas

[1:12:25] for fire departments where maybe the properties able,

[1:12:30] we're able to design the property

[1:12:31] where we don't necessarily utilize the driveway,

[1:12:34] but we have an alternative way to access the building

[1:12:38] with hose lines to be able to look at alternatives that way.

[1:12:42] Okay. So if the driveway is the flag lots here,

[1:12:46] it's going up, you would consider whether

[1:12:51] you could go, there are houses in front, so if you could go

[1:12:55] around the house and get access that way.

[1:12:59] Right. Of, of course it's, it's a hypothetical situation,

[1:13:04] but if there is a way through the planning process

[1:13:08] that we can safely park a fire engine

[1:13:11] and still reach that house within 150 feet,

[1:13:15] potentially longer if it has a sprinkler system

[1:13:19] or a greater distance, if it has a sprinkler system, then I,

[1:13:22] I would look at that as a potential acceptable alternative.

[1:13:28] So you don't, you

[1:13:30] therefore you don't need two access points,

[1:13:34] You know, per the fire code.

[1:13:36] You don't need two access points for one single home

[1:13:39] on a property, or if it's a flag lot, if it's two

[1:13:44] to three homes, you don't need an additional access point.

[1:13:49] Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[1:13:55] I'm gonna switch for a second. Sorry, I'm just taking over

[1:13:59] Here. No, go, go

[1:14:00] For it.

[1:14:01] That quote about two an egress

[1:14:04] that would allow two vehicles to go past each other, is

[1:14:07] that part of the code that is actually in subdivision rather

[1:14:10] than in single family?

[1:14:12] Yeah. Oh, the section that he's referring

[1:14:13] to is in the comprehensive plan that relates to having

[1:14:19] roads that have multiple points of ingress and

[1:14:22] Egress roads, not Driveways.

[1:14:23] I think it does say both roads and access. So it's,

[1:14:27] It's implemented through the subdivision chapters in terms

[1:14:32] of, of multi-family development

[1:14:33] with over 250 average vehicle trips per day

[1:14:36] require a second access

[1:14:38] Point.

[1:14:39] So it's not driveways to a single family

[1:14:40] Home.

[1:14:41] It's not flag drives that are, by definition only able

[1:14:42] to have one access point. Thank

[1:14:44] You.

[1:15:04] And thank you. I didn't mean to put you on the spot.

[1:15:15] Shall we talk about the actual language

[1:15:17] that is going into this ordinance?

[1:15:27] I think there were some concerns about,

[1:15:33] You know, my whole thing was just so

[1:15:35] that the community at large feels

[1:15:37] that there's actual specificity towards those lots.

[1:15:41] So that's why I was bringing it up earlier. Yeah.

[1:15:43] It's like, okay, it is just about those lots.

[1:15:48] So how do we change the language so that

[1:15:51] that is absolutely clear.

[1:15:53] And I don't know if there is a way to do that,

[1:15:54] but that's why I was, what I was getting at.

[1:15:57] Well, it's good, good goal.

[1:16:07] I still think there should be a maximum slope on it.

[1:16:10] I mean, I don't really,

[1:16:17] I, I agree with you.

[1:16:18] I don't feel comfortable just saying anything. Fire

[1:16:23] Code will rule the day.

[1:16:24] I mean, I don't wanna put that on the fire department even.

[1:16:28] I think that there's,

[1:16:30] and I don't know enough about it to say

[1:16:32] what that slip should be.

[1:16:33] So I don't know that we can make a decision on that.

[1:16:36] But there's

[1:16:41] parts of town that in my four wheel drive

[1:16:44] in the snow I can't get to.

[1:16:47] And I've, you know, and I drive.

[1:16:49] I'm, I'm a, I'm kind of a wild driver. I'll go anywhere.

[1:16:53] So I think there are limits to what is viable,

[1:16:58] even if there's ways to, you know, I just think we need

[1:17:02] to set some, and I think we need to do a little more work on

[1:17:07] that, I guess is my point.

[1:17:12] Okay. To provide safety if there's more than one house

[1:17:16] on that driveway, which there will be.

[1:17:19] Correct. It's not just a driveway to, to,

[1:17:22] in this case, to 2 31.

[1:17:26] Are there more, does that driveway that they're going

[1:17:29] to use access more than just their house? No,

[1:17:33] It doesn't.

[1:17:34] No. The flag lot that is part of the Luba decision

[1:17:38] only goes to one lot.

[1:17:40] It's, it's part of a joint driveway Right.

[1:17:43] With the house next door.

[1:17:45] But it doesn't, but the flag lot takes off after

[1:17:48] That.

[1:17:49] But if so, the flag,

[1:17:51] and I'm sorry, I don't know more about it.

[1:17:53] So if the, once you take off from that driveway, that's

[1:17:56] where it becomes over 18%. So

[1:17:59] I will note that, again, try not

[1:18:01] to talk about a specific land use action that may come

[1:18:03] before the committee on remand.

[1:18:06] Okay. Or commission.

[1:18:07] But there are a number of properties that are accessed off

[1:18:11] of preexisting flag lots

[1:18:13] that are fully improved in which those flag drives

[1:18:17] exceed 18% slope, some affecting the 13 lots

[1:18:22] that we're talking about that would be accessed off

[1:18:25] of shared driveways and which multiple are serviced

[1:18:28] Offset.

[1:18:29] So that's where the question of communities

[1:18:32] wide safety comes in.

[1:18:33] If it's just accessing one house

[1:18:35] and those people want to, you know, whoever wants to

[1:18:39] kill themselves, it's fine.

[1:18:43] Relatively fine. Sorry.

[1:18:45] But I think that one of the points that one of the

[1:18:51] commenters brought up is that, you know, you do end up in a,

[1:18:54] or maybe it was in or written comments,

[1:18:59] it becomes more of an issue if you're accessing more than

[1:19:02] one home off of that property

[1:19:05] and for some reason a car spins out or goes sideways

[1:19:09] and then you don't have access,

[1:19:10] or you can't, you can't get out.

[1:19:13] Right. I I probably should clarify that every legal lot

[1:19:17] of record that can accommodate a single family home

[1:19:20] under both Oregon

[1:19:21] and Ashland land use law

[1:19:23] can have two dwellings on those homes.

[1:19:25] So even on those 13 subject properties that have,

[1:19:29] can be developed as one dwelling, they could also develop

[1:19:32] with an accessory dwelling

[1:19:33] Unit.

[1:19:34] But it's one, but it's one owner.

[1:19:35] Yeah. And what this ordinance doesn't do is newly create

[1:19:38] opportunities for the creation of new lots

[1:19:41] with multiple owners serviced off of a flag drive.

[1:19:46] Because any new lot created would still be subject to the

[1:19:50] 15% maximum or up to 18 with a variance.

[1:20:06] Okay. So as I see it, we can, we can work on the wording

[1:20:12] in this proposal.

[1:20:18] One option is to continue this to our

[1:20:26] our hour, hour, hour next meeting on

[1:20:33] August 25th, 25th.

[1:20:38] And think about how you want the wording to,

[1:20:42] to go.

[1:20:44] Come back then and make suggestions

[1:20:47] and adopt something then,

[1:20:53] or I suppose we, you just go with it the way it is.

[1:20:57] I won't be here on 20, whoops. Sorry.

[1:21:00] I'd like to make a motion. Oh, John, sorry.

[1:21:05] Yeah. Can I make a motion Please?

[1:21:09] I'd like to make a motion that we reject

[1:21:11] this code amendment.

[1:21:18] Okay. I hadn't considered that option,

[1:21:20] but it's an, it's definitely an option.

[1:21:23] Is there a second?

[1:21:28] Second for purposes of discussion.

[1:21:31] Okay. It's been moved and seconded to just reject,

[1:21:35] excuse me, to reject this proposed

[1:21:42] code change discussion.

[1:21:46] John, do you wanna talk about why you're making the motion?

[1:21:50] Sure. And I, I think that the testimonial

[1:21:54] that we heard tonight was very thoughtful.

[1:21:57] I think it was very complete,

[1:21:59] and I think it was very comprehensive in

[1:22:04] referencing our code vis-a-vis

[1:22:10] state law vis-a-vis the city of Ashland's comprehensive plan

[1:22:14] and vis-a-vis the city

[1:22:17] of Ashland's 2025 community wildfire protection plan.

[1:22:24] I think it's, it's important to also consider

[1:22:30] in looking at safety

[1:22:32] and legality of increasing

[1:22:38] driveway slope standards,

[1:22:40] what serves the greatest good of the community.

[1:22:43] And I would ask you all to really think about

[1:22:46] does the modification from 18% to 20,

[1:22:50] or god forbid 24,

[1:22:54] really serve the greatest good when these, you know,

[1:23:00] relative minority number of legacy pre 1997 lots

[1:23:06] are predominantly on long steep, narrow winding shared

[1:23:11] flag drives where there are many residents

[1:23:16] impacted by that driveway slope

[1:23:21] and by that development.

[1:23:23] And so for those reasons, I don't see why we would increase

[1:23:28] or make an exception for such a small number

[1:23:31] of steep wooded hillside lots

[1:23:36] beyond 18%.

[1:23:38] It doesn't seem practical, I guess. So that's my rationale.

[1:23:48] Thank you. My rationale for seconding, the motion is

[1:23:54] out, out of a desire to try to get to a more clear

[1:23:58] and objective standard that might apply to these variance

[1:24:02] reviews, leaving it open-ended.

[1:24:05] I, I, I, I think it makes sense, the comment

[1:24:08] that we might actually be opening ourselves up

[1:24:10] to a taking claim by leaving it that way.

[1:24:14] So maybe we could, you know,

[1:24:18] a ask staff to come back with some,

[1:24:25] some different language based on whatever more feedback we

[1:24:28] can offer them before the next business meeting

[1:24:31] to address the clear and objective problem.

[1:24:34] And also

[1:24:36] to possibly address another alternative concept here,

[1:24:39] which is to limit the scope of the,

[1:24:44] of availability of the proposed variance to certain lots

[1:24:49] of record predating adoption of the standard

[1:24:54] at issue where the owner

[1:24:59] either purchased or took possession of the affected lot

[1:25:04] before adoption of the standard.

[1:25:07] I, we've talked about some

[1:25:10] of the potential due process issues here,

[1:25:12] but I, it's not totally clear to me based on that discussion

[1:25:16] that we, that we found an answer.

[1:25:19] So you're talking about,

[1:25:20] about identifying the lots individually, lots individually

[1:25:24] by date of purchase or, or, you know, yeah.

[1:25:27] You know, because one of the commenters is totally right

[1:25:31] that any property owner who purchased their lot

[1:25:36] after adoption of these city standards knew

[1:25:39] or should have known about the standards

[1:25:41] and how that might, might affect buildability.

[1:25:44] So providing a, a, you know, it, I hesitate

[1:25:48] to call it a blanket exemption

[1:25:49] because it's not, it's pretty targeted,

[1:25:51] but maybe the scope is even bigger than it actually needs

[1:25:56] to be as proposed here.

[1:25:58] And if we don't limit the availability of a variance

[1:26:02] to lots obtained by current owners

[1:26:05] before city adoption of the standard,

[1:26:07] then maybe we are greasing the skids for development

[1:26:09] otherwise would,

[1:26:12] or development that would undermine the

[1:26:13] purpose of these standards.

[1:26:16] So, you know, my, my second is not to say

[1:26:21] no to the proposed ordinance,

[1:26:23] but it is to ask for some,

[1:26:25] some further consideration and study.

[1:26:29] Okay. So hearing that we have a motion on the floor,

[1:26:35] Michael, will you go ahead and call a roll?

[1:26:39] And the motion is to reject the proposal.

[1:26:46] Oh, sorry. Commissioner Maher.

[1:26:52] Aye. Commissioner Phillips

[1:26:57] Aye.

[1:26:58] Commissioner Kerrin Aye.

[1:27:02] Commissioner Leininger?

[1:27:04] Yes. Chair burner. Yeah. Aye. Okay.

[1:27:09] The motion is unanimous.

[1:27:11] We have rejected the proposal

[1:27:14] in the, in the staff report.

[1:27:19] So we could either,

[1:27:24] we can, we can let that go to the council

[1:27:27] or if you want to take up commissioner line's

[1:27:32] idea of maybe working

[1:27:36] with this a little more in terms of the language, we could

[1:27:42] continue this meeting to the 25th and do that.

[1:27:46] Or if you'd rather just, if you, if you want to go ahead

[1:27:50] and give this to counsel now,

[1:27:52] we can do that as well. Chair.

[1:27:54] Can I make a motion Sure.

[1:27:57] To continue this hearing

[1:27:59] to our next business meeting date?

[1:28:00] Certain.

[1:28:02] Okay. For the Purpose of, we

[1:28:04] Move the, the hearing's closed

[1:28:05] so there be continued deliberations.

[1:28:07] I'm sorry, that's my mistake. No, no. But continued

[1:28:09] Deliberations, But to continue deliberations be

[1:28:11] August the next meeting, fifth meeting with the idea of

[1:28:15] having us and staff work on language

[1:28:18] that might incorporate what we've heard tonight.

[1:28:21] Yes. Okay.

[1:28:24] Is there a second? I'll second that.

[1:28:25] Oh, okay. It's been moved

[1:28:27] and seconded to continue deliberations

[1:28:32] to August 25th

[1:28:34] and to work on, I the have staff work on some language

[1:28:39] and have all of us think about language.

[1:28:43] And

[1:28:49] is there a discussion on the motion?

[1:28:52] I would interject on the motion in

[1:28:54] that if the committee commission is gonna be evaluating new

[1:28:58] language, that the hearing should be continued to, to allow

[1:29:01] for members of the public

[1:29:02] to comment on the new language provided.

[1:29:05] So although you've closed the public record at this time,

[1:29:09] if, if new information is gonna be

[1:29:11] provided to the commission for consideration, you should

[1:29:14] anticipate reopening the public record so

[1:29:18] that people can provide comments on that amendment.

[1:29:20] Just, I think you should reopen the hearing now

[1:29:23] and continue it rather than going to a date

[1:29:26] after the hearing is closed and creating a noticing issue.

[1:29:30] Yeah. Yeah. So we can

[1:29:31] I withdraw the motion and or,

[1:29:34] or else reframe it as what Derek just said.

[1:29:38] Okay. So your motion is to

[1:29:42] have us reopen the hearing and the record tonight

[1:29:45] and have the hearing and record continued to August 25th so

[1:29:50] that we can do some,

[1:29:54] some individual thinking about language

[1:29:58] and have staff think about language

[1:30:01] in anticipation of that meeting.

[1:30:03] Yes. At 7:00 PM At 7:00 PM

[1:30:08] here in the council chambers.

[1:30:10] Can I make amendment to that?

[1:30:12] Sure. That,

[1:30:15] and I'm not sure exactly how we would word this,

[1:30:17] but it would be helpful to have the list of purchase dates

[1:30:22] that was referenced earlier in the meeting so that we know

[1:30:25] where these lots fall within their vintage.

[1:30:31] You have to also look at inheritance

[1:30:34] and if things pass from Yeah, things pass

[1:30:37] through inheritance and change names.

[1:30:39] There's still the original purchase date

[1:30:41] as far as I'm concerned.

[1:30:42] And I don't know what the legality of that is, but

[1:30:46] I just wanna make sure that we have the data

[1:30:48] that we need if we're going to deliberate.

[1:30:50] Yes. Good idea. Yeah.

[1:30:53] Okay. So Commissioner Lineer made the motion, commissioner

[1:30:58] Mar seconded

[1:31:00] with the amendment, with the add-on.

[1:31:06] Correct. And I'm good with the add-on.

[1:31:11] Okay. So is everybody clear about what we're voting on?

[1:31:16] No, sir. Okay.

[1:31:20] Let's vote on the motion. Michael,

[1:31:22] could you do the roll call?

[1:31:29] Commissioner Mar

[1:31:33] Da Commissioner Phillips?

[1:31:36] Yes. Commissioner Kerrin? Yes. Commissioner Leininger? Yes.

[1:31:41] Chair Werner? Yes. Okay.

[1:31:44] Motion passed unanimously.

[1:31:47] So I will reopen

[1:31:52] the public hearing on the variance

[1:31:57] issue and reopen the record on the variance issues.

[1:32:03] And then I will continue the, the hearing to,

[1:32:08] to our next meeting of August 25th, 7:00 PM

[1:32:12] here in the council chambers

[1:32:14] for further discussion on wording based on

[1:32:18] what we've heard tonight and new,

[1:32:22] new input from staff.

[1:32:30] Everybody satisfied?

[1:32:36] Okay. So continue.

[1:32:44] Okay. It's 8 31.

[1:32:49] This finishes up what we're gonna be doing on the first

[1:32:54] type three public hearing tonight.

[1:32:56] We still have a second public hearing

[1:33:00] on another set of code amendments.

[1:33:03] Would anybody like a break?

[1:33:06] Okay, let's take a six minute break.

[1:33:10] 2 8 37.

[1:33:19] So,

[1:40:55] okay, we're gonna,

[1:40:57] We're gonna reconvene after our recess

[1:41:00] and we will look at a second Type three public hearing

[1:41:04] on code amendments in response to recent state legislation.

[1:41:08] This is a request for planning action PA dash L dash

[1:41:11] 2026 dash 0 0 0 19

[1:41:16] to amend sections of the A MC to implement Senate bill 9 74

[1:41:21] from 2025, house bill 2138,

[1:41:27] also from 2025

[1:41:29] and House bill 30, 30, 40 37 from 2026.

[1:41:36] The Ashland Municipal Code sections to be addressed are

[1:41:40] a MC 18 AMC 18

[1:41:47] oh AMC

[1:41:52] A M C3 AMC

[1:41:57] 18 oh A MC

[1:42:01] 18:00 AM C3

[1:42:07] four oh a MC 18

[1:42:13] oh a MC 18

[1:42:17] and a MC 18.

[1:42:22] This is again, a request for the planning commission

[1:42:25] to make a recommendation to the city council.

[1:42:28] And these actions will impact housing application approvals

[1:42:32] and public involvement with the applications.

[1:42:35] And it's my understanding that, that these are before us

[1:42:37] because the state law mandates them.

[1:42:44] Because this is a legislative public hearing, we do not need

[1:42:48] to ask about ex parte cont contact or site visits.

[1:42:52] I will acknowledge one public comment

[1:42:54] that we did receive in writing a letter from Steve Rouse,

[1:42:57] president of Rogue Advocates.

[1:43:00] I will open the public hearing

[1:43:05] Staff presentation.

[1:43:07] We have Brandon in front of us to today, tonight.

[1:43:10] So thank you. The amendments that are presented

[1:43:14] before you this evening are part of an iterative process

[1:43:17] where we became before the planning Commission

[1:43:20] at study sessions on April 14th and May 26th.

[1:43:25] And the city council was briefed on the legislation

[1:43:28] and the proposed local approach at its study session

[1:43:32] on June 1st, 2026.

[1:43:34] So as such, you're familiar

[1:43:36] with the ordinance changes in terms of,

[1:43:38] but this is the first time you're seeing it in draft

[1:43:41] ordinance format, which outlines the recommendations

[1:43:44] that were provided to staff at those prior study sessions.

[1:43:48] And I'm gonna go over those briefly in a few slides.

[1:43:52] As chair veer noted, this is in relation to implementing

[1:43:56] Senate bill 9 74 portions of House Bill 2038

[1:44:01] as well as House Bill 40 37.

[1:44:05] And I'll go through each of those bills in a moment.

[1:44:09] But essentially the ordinance amendments across the board

[1:44:12] are intended by the state legislature to

[1:44:16] streamline residential development review so

[1:44:19] that more qualifying applications are processes typed.

[1:44:23] One, administrative reviews

[1:44:26] and public hearings only occur

[1:44:28] when permitted through an appeal.

[1:44:30] And I'll touch on 40 37 and its implications on that.

[1:44:34] Essentially the ordinances also expand housing

[1:44:39] opportunities by codifying

[1:44:42] single room occupancy standards within our local code

[1:44:46] in compliance with the state law.

[1:44:49] Those code of requirements have to be adopted by communities

[1:44:52] by January 1st, 2027.

[1:44:55] So the city of Ashland would be doing those in advance of

[1:44:58] that requirement.

[1:45:00] I should note that some of the other requirements

[1:45:02] of Senate Bill 9 74

[1:45:06] and 40 37 are already in effect under state law.

[1:45:11] And so applications that come in can apply state law

[1:45:16] for their approval under those clear

[1:45:18] and objective standards.

[1:45:20] So essentially this also amendments would align our local

[1:45:25] procedures for notice appeals residential design standards

[1:45:30] and clear and housing clear and objective housing review.

[1:45:33] I should note we have a separate project underway

[1:45:35] with Rogue Valley Council of Governments,

[1:45:38] which is doing an audit of Ashland's land use code to see

[1:45:42] where, and not just Ashlands

[1:45:43] but most jurisdictions within the valley as to what

[1:45:47] standards are clear and objective for housing

[1:45:49] and are going to be MA making recommended changes

[1:45:52] for each community to address those standards.

[1:45:55] So there will be more following on that

[1:45:59] specifically in terms of 9 74.

[1:46:02] It does, as I noted, change a number

[1:46:04] of the initial decisions of the city to be administrative.

[1:46:08] Establishes that housing developments that are clear

[1:46:12] and objective do not have a quasi-judicial hearing

[1:46:15] before the initial decision.

[1:46:18] It changes the notice requirements in our current code are

[1:46:21] 200 feet to property owners within 200 feet.

[1:46:25] Neighborhood organizations, it limits that to

[1:46:30] property owners within a hundred feet

[1:46:32] and does not provide for notices to other organizations.

[1:46:34] So that amendment has been

[1:46:37] provided, it does retain a 14 day written comment period

[1:46:41] by which somebody receiving the notice can provide comment

[1:46:45] to city staff on the action for consideration in making

[1:46:49] a decision on the proposal.

[1:46:52] The city staff would issue a written decision

[1:46:56] with findings essentially.

[1:46:58] And I would say

[1:47:00] that planning commission hearings under 9 74

[1:47:03] do remain available for appeal, but only on non-clear

[1:47:08] and objective housing applications.

[1:47:10] So in the case that there is a conditional use permit

[1:47:14] or a application for a commercial mixed use development

[1:47:18] or commercial developments which are not housing related,

[1:47:21] those would still be actions that could be reviewed

[1:47:25] by the planning commission either at a initial hearing

[1:47:28] or upon appeal. Yes,

[1:47:31] But it, but it also requires that those

[1:47:33] who are appealing are only the property, the applicants

[1:47:37] Under the scenarios that I just outlined

[1:47:39] where it's not a clear and objective housing application.

[1:47:43] Anybody can appeal those. Right, right.

[1:47:45] But, but, but if it is a clear

[1:47:47] and objective housing application,

[1:47:48] the decision is made by staff.

[1:47:50] At which point, if that is to be appealed, the only

[1:47:54] potential app appellant under

[1:47:57] house bill 40 37 is the applicant.

[1:48:00] So it would eliminate the opportunity for neighbor appeals

[1:48:05] or any of those impacted parties within a hundred feet

[1:48:07] of the development to file an appeal at the local

[1:48:10] or before Luba.

[1:48:12] The land use Board of Appeals is also restricted under 40 37

[1:48:16] to only the applicant.

[1:48:21] So this gets a little bit into some of the details,

[1:48:24] but I wanted to note

[1:48:25] that currently we require a two step process

[1:48:28] for subdivisions of 10 lots

[1:48:31] or greater than 10 lots,

[1:48:33] which would be an outline plan presented be prior to

[1:48:37] and getting approval.

[1:48:39] And then subsequent to that an out,

[1:48:41] I'm sorry, an outline plan.

[1:48:42] And once that's approved, submitting a final plan concurrent

[1:48:45] with that outline plan under ordinance 3 3 0 7,

[1:48:50] the outline plan and final plan could be submitted

[1:48:53] simultaneously up to 20 units.

[1:48:56] And that was part of the direction that we received

[1:48:59] from the planning commission of the review threshold raised

[1:49:02] to 20 or more lots classification

[1:49:06] of qualifying variances as type one actions

[1:49:10] and retention of the existing.

[1:49:12] I should note that the retention of the existing zone change

[1:49:17] and annexation 9 74 requires that those

[1:49:20] be approved administratively as well for upzoning

[1:49:23] for increased residential.

[1:49:25] This body as well as the city council at the study sessions

[1:49:29] recognized conflict within state law.

[1:49:32] I think I have a slide on that further, so I'm jumping ahead

[1:49:34] of myself so we'll come back to that.

[1:49:39] So the Senate bill also states that for developments

[1:49:44] of greater than 20 units

[1:49:45] or more for one in two family developments,

[1:49:48] that residential STA design standards cannot be applied.

[1:49:52] When we discussed this with the planning commission,

[1:49:55] it was acknowledged

[1:49:56] that Senate Bill 9 74 included a sunset date for that design

[1:50:02] design standard exemption of January 1st, 2033.

[1:50:07] And so the draft ordinance that's provided

[1:50:10] before you actually embeds that in the ordinance to ensure

[1:50:13] that it is not a persistent change,

[1:50:15] but one that would have to be reevaluated in 2032

[1:50:20] to ensure that it either continues

[1:50:22] or does sunset locally as well.

[1:50:30] So single room occupancy house bill 2138 established

[1:50:35] specific requirements that were largely taken from the state

[1:50:38] code and put into our local code.

[1:50:41] It allows for up to six single

[1:50:45] room occupancy units on any lots allowing

[1:50:48] detached single family housing.

[1:50:50] It allows in multifamily zones a density increase

[1:50:53] of three times the maximum density.

[1:50:56] So in an R three zone lot we allow 20 units per acre.

[1:51:00] Those would typically be apartment complexes, you know,

[1:51:03] studio one bedroom to three bedroom units.

[1:51:06] If they are proposed as SROs, then they could increase that

[1:51:10] to 60 units per acre.

[1:51:13] It establishes local single room occupancy standards and we

[1:51:17] provided definitions,

[1:51:19] most notably it goes into some detail in terms of

[1:51:23] where the state law stipulated

[1:51:25] that single room occupancy units were those that

[1:51:29] had shared facilities.

[1:51:31] So the ordinance presented this evening,

[1:51:33] and I do have a modification I'll show in a bit,

[1:51:37] are intended to state that if a

[1:51:40] single room occupancy development had a shared kitchen,

[1:51:45] all the individual units could share that kitchen.

[1:51:47] They could have private bathrooms. The inverse is also true.

[1:51:51] They could have shared restrooms and private kitchens,

[1:51:54] but what they can't have is both the kitchen

[1:51:57] and a bathroom within a singular unit.

[1:52:01] And it'd be considered a single room occupancy

[1:52:03] because that is defacto and apartment at that point and is.

[1:52:09] So we update the applicable land use tables

[1:52:11] to permit them in the residential zones.

[1:52:16] And I'll jump to Senate bill 40 37 housing applications.

[1:52:21] Again, these are state mandated

[1:52:24] changes to the hearing process.

[1:52:26] I did touch on these on the introduction in terms of

[1:52:30] specifically for housing applications that are subject

[1:52:32] to clear and objective standards.

[1:52:34] Those are a type one administrative review.

[1:52:37] No public hearing notice

[1:52:38] to property owners within a hundred feet.

[1:52:41] And written comments can be

[1:52:43] provided during that 14 day period prior to

[1:52:46] the initial decision by staff.

[1:52:50] And only the applicant may appeal the planning commission

[1:52:53] appeal to the planning commission

[1:52:54] and only the applicant may appeal to Luba.

[1:52:57] And this is what we're touching on earlier,

[1:53:00] again related specifically to those housing projects.

[1:53:05] So zone changes in annexation.

[1:53:07] So we do deviate from Senate Bill 9 74 in this case

[1:53:11] that Senate 9 9 74 does allow certain residential zone

[1:53:14] changes in annexations

[1:53:16] to be processed administratively without a public hearing.

[1:53:19] However, we reviewed state law that has yet to be modified

[1:53:24] as part of 9 74, that it states

[1:53:28] that legislative actions including

[1:53:32] a zoning action would have to be adopted by ordinance.

[1:53:35] It stipulates that an ordinance requires a public hearing

[1:53:38] and that a public hearing,

[1:53:41] a council action on land use legislative

[1:53:44] changes as required.

[1:53:46] And that is a public hearing.

[1:53:47] So we're not amending ashland's existing zone change

[1:53:52] procedures or annexation procedures.

[1:53:55] Again, retaining the existing public process

[1:53:59] and hearing process for council

[1:54:01] and planning commission on those.

[1:54:04] I should note that if

[1:54:05] through the legislative process the legislature does further

[1:54:09] rulemaking and makes modifications

[1:54:11] and clarifies this question, then we could be coming back

[1:54:14] for a legislative amendment that addresses

[1:54:19] that resolved conflict

[1:54:20] or if implemented under state law it would supersede our law

[1:54:24] and that an applicant could apply under those standards.

[1:54:30] So I thought I had provided a recommended change.

[1:54:35] I think maybe I did modify this

[1:54:39] on a separate computer prior to coming forward.

[1:54:42] Essentially I can read it into the record for consideration

[1:54:46] on the single room occupancy standard.

[1:54:54] The, lemme open up the code reference.

[1:54:58] If you look at section

[1:55:03] section 12 of the ordinance 33 0 7.

[1:55:11] I'm sorry, it's not section 12, that's definitions.

[1:55:17] I didn't install it. So,

[1:55:24] so it's under section three that the

[1:55:29] section 18.2 0.5

[1:55:32] 100 single room occupancies, section B one,

[1:55:37] essentially it establishes

[1:55:39] how single room occupancies are permitted.

[1:55:46] It's not that section, sorry, it's section B five

[1:55:50] where it states sanitary

[1:55:52] and food, food preparation facility conditions.

[1:55:55] This is a suggested amendment to address potential confusion

[1:55:59] between sections A and B, C and D.

[1:56:04] So a states every unit must have access

[1:56:08] to both sanitary facilities

[1:56:10] and food preparation facilities, which may be

[1:56:13] provided within their unit

[1:56:15] or as shared facilities taken a loan that could indicate

[1:56:20] that a unit could have both a kitchen

[1:56:23] and a bathroom.

[1:56:25] And so the request would be to amend it to

[1:56:29] after the comma following facilities

[1:56:32] to conclude the sentence with every unit must have access

[1:56:35] to both sanitary facilities and food preparation facilities.

[1:56:39] Period striking, which may be provided within the unit

[1:56:43] or as shared facilities largely

[1:56:46] because it is covered under B

[1:56:49] that stipulates an SRO unit

[1:56:52] may include private sanitary facilities

[1:56:55] or private food prepar preparation facilities, but not both.

[1:57:00] And also D, which stipulates

[1:57:03] a unit containing both private sanitary facilities

[1:57:06] and private food preparation facilities is a dwelling unit,

[1:57:10] not an S-O-R-S-O-S-R-O unit.

[1:57:14] Such unit does not count towards the minimum number

[1:57:16] of SRR units and is subject to the density

[1:57:19] and development standards,

[1:57:20] otherwise applicable to dwelling units in the zone.

[1:57:23] So again, with that singular half sentence strikeout,

[1:57:27] I think it clarifies the confusion

[1:57:30] that the word may was introducing.

[1:57:34] And with that, I do have the staff recommended motion

[1:57:38] that the planning commission recommended the city council

[1:57:40] approve proposed draft ordinance 33 0 7,

[1:57:45] provide the title to it as presented in the staff report.

[1:57:48] And this is a public hearing, I'm not seeing an audience

[1:57:51] behind us, but if anybody was here to speak,

[1:57:55] I could step aside and take questions.

[1:57:58] Okay. We do have one member

[1:58:01] of the audience would you like to speak?

[1:58:04] Okay then.

[1:58:06] So I'm available for questions. Yeah, questions

[1:58:08] For Brandon Chair.

[1:58:12] I have questions. Oh, sure, go ahead. Thank you.

[1:58:22] HB 4 0 3 7 mandates that only clear

[1:58:26] and objective standards, conditions,

[1:58:29] and procedures can apply to review

[1:58:32] of a housing development application.

[1:58:34] Is that right?

[1:58:35] Yes. Okay. That makes it a, a limited land use decision

[1:58:41] under OS 1 97 is, is that basically accurate?

[1:58:48] Yes. Okay.

[1:58:51] And and that new law also limits the availability of notice

[1:58:54] and appeal applications, right?

[1:58:57] Or there's an appeal on such applications.

[1:58:59] But does it say,

[1:59:01] who makes a decision on a housing

[1:59:02] application to approve or deny?

[1:59:05] It says that it shall be it, I believe it states

[1:59:09] that it shall be an adminis,

[1:59:10] the initial decision shall be made.

[1:59:12] It doesn't necessarily say planning commission,

[1:59:14] but a hearing can't be held,

[1:59:16] A hearing can't be held.

[1:59:17] Correct. Right. So we're, we're we're simpatico on that.

[1:59:21] Right. But it doesn't say whether it's staff

[1:59:23] or commission, does it?

[1:59:26] I'm don't believe so. Okay.

[1:59:28] And I looks like you're reading the

[1:59:31] Yeah, well so I mean, like, I, I'm, I, let me back up.

[1:59:35] I'm not trying to really is is just that I've,

[1:59:38] I've attempted to read deeply into these new laws Yeah.

[1:59:41] And into our code and into the Unamended

[1:59:45] Oregon revised statutes comprising Oregon land use law.

[1:59:49] And so I'm trying to gain clarity on what these bills do,

[1:59:52] what they don't do, and what, if any decision space remains

[1:59:56] to the city about how to implement them

[1:59:58] and consistent with the home rule provisions

[2:00:02] of the Oregon Constitution Article 11.

[2:00:05] And so just, I, I need to rifle

[2:00:08] through a few more questions just for clar clarity's sake

[2:00:10] before we get into discussion.

[2:00:18] Does SB 9 47, wait, no, sorry,

[2:00:22] we we covered that one.

[2:00:24] Do do any of the new housing laws change the chapter

[2:00:28] of the Oregon revised statutes 2, 2 7 that

[2:00:32] authorized this commission

[2:00:35] and that, you know,

[2:00:37] establish procedures for its decision making?

[2:00:40] No. Those procedures for when the planning commission has

[2:00:43] a hearing before it would still be subject to 2, 2 7 Right.

[2:00:45] Rules and requirements. Right.

[2:00:47] And there, there is a authority in 2, 2 7 Right.

[2:00:49] For a commission to make a,

[2:00:51] a decision on a land use

[2:00:52] application without a public hearing.

[2:00:53] Right.

[2:00:56] I'm not familiar with that having been done. So, okay,

[2:00:59] Well that's auroras 2 2 7 1 75 subsection 10.

[2:01:04] Okay. Okay. So reading the new state housing laws

[2:01:08] together with the unamended parts of state land use law,

[2:01:15] can the city council decide in this proposed ordinance to

[2:01:20] continue vesting authority in the planning commission

[2:01:22] to make an initial decision to approve

[2:01:25] or deny a qualifying residential housing application

[2:01:29] as a limited land use decision following the procedures

[2:01:34] of RS 1 97 and 2 2 7?

[2:01:37] I, you know, I will have to defer to legal counsel

[2:01:40] and whether upon review you can make such a

[2:01:43] recommendation to the city council.

[2:01:44] And if they wanted to investigate that further,

[2:01:47] that would take further legal research to ensure, presuming

[2:01:52] that they do have that authority, then

[2:01:54] that would be an amendment to 3 3 0 7 is presented

[2:01:58] to change the procedures

[2:02:00] to establish a planning commission hearing,

[2:02:03] non-hearing process by which the planning commission could

[2:02:07] be the initial decision maker on those applications.

[2:02:13] Anything that, Yeah, that, that,

[2:02:18] that's probably too specific of an, an, of a question for me

[2:02:21] to answer off the fly.

[2:02:23] Yeah. But I'm happy to follow up.

[2:02:25] I I'm sorry I didn't preview the question earlier. I mean,

[2:02:27] There's, there's totally, It's the flavor

[2:02:29] of an ambush. I get it. No, I'm,

[2:02:30] I'm happy to, happy to follow up though.

[2:02:33] Okay, cool. Thank you.

[2:02:35] So just last, has any other Oregon City

[2:02:39] enacted in ordinance like this vesting in administrative

[2:02:43] staff, the sole authority

[2:02:44] to make an initial decision on a residential housing

[2:02:47] application or of other cities taking another approach?

[2:02:51] And I'm gonna look to Derek if you're aware, I'm not aware

[2:02:54] of cities are all scrambling to enact

[2:02:58] 9 74, 43 0 7, and 2138.

[2:03:02] And as such, we are seeing applications come in saying

[2:03:06] that they're currently under state law

[2:03:10] requiring an initial decision from staff exclusive

[2:03:14] of a hearing process because they're

[2:03:16] not required to have one.

[2:03:18] And that was implemented in effect

[2:03:19] by the state legislature on July 1st, 2026.

[2:03:24] So essentially that staff decision making process is already

[2:03:29] vested for applications that are coming in.

[2:03:32] We were trying to codify it through this adoption process,

[2:03:36] but if the Planning commission

[2:03:38] and city council modified that to have a different structure

[2:03:43] that we'll check to see the, whether that's permissible. I,

[2:03:47] Okay, so, so what's the actual source of authority for

[2:03:53] that kind of decision being made by administrative staff

[2:03:58] and not referring it to the commission?

[2:04:00] Is it in

[2:04:02] 1 97, 180 5 little six?

[2:04:06] Or is it somewhere else? I, you know,

[2:04:09] I'd say it's in house bill 40 37

[2:04:11] and the language provided in that.

[2:04:13] However, Derek,

[2:04:17] What I would say, kind of both last question in this,

[2:04:21] as far as other Oregon cities,

[2:04:22] I'm not sure cities in the region have gotten together

[2:04:25] and discussed 9 74.

[2:04:28] And I think the approach we've brought to you for 9 74

[2:04:31] is similar to the approach other cities in the region are

[2:04:34] taking specifically Medford,

[2:04:37] I don't know if any of them have adopted that.

[2:04:40] I think 40 37 frankly came as a surprise to cities.

[2:04:45] City of Medford reached out to us

[2:04:46] and said, did we know anything about it?

[2:04:48] And we went back and looked at the legislative update from

[2:04:51] DLCD and it was sort

[2:04:53] of a sentence in a broader paragraph about urban reserves

[2:04:56] saying that it was making some procedural changes

[2:04:59] to the handling of residential applications

[2:05:02] and very much in my mind, downplayed the magnitude

[2:05:06] of the changes that were required.

[2:05:08] So I I don't know of any other cities that were either aware

[2:05:11] of it or have made changes to this point.

[2:05:15] Yeah, I will, I will echo

[2:05:17] that also in city attorney circles is that there is,

[2:05:21] there has also sort of been a scramble to

[2:05:26] put together legislation and local ordinances that'll comply

[2:05:30] and there hasn't quite been consensus.

[2:05:32] So from what I've seen,

[2:05:35] Thanks very much everybody.

[2:05:41] Those are all the questions I have.

[2:05:42] Okay. So if we ask staff

[2:05:47] to pursue figuring out whether we can

[2:05:50] and whether the planning commission can

[2:05:54] administratively make a deci make an administrative decision

[2:05:59] on applications, new applications that come forward,

[2:06:04] that's gonna take us continuing the hearing

[2:06:10] to a date certain so that we have time for staff

[2:06:13] to do the research.

[2:06:17] I, I certainly would be in favor

[2:06:19] of a continuance for that purpose.

[2:06:21] I also think that if it is possible

[2:06:24] to remedy my concerns about the

[2:06:29] drift of land use decision making authority

[2:06:34] from the chartered commission to administrative staff

[2:06:41] with a simple strike

[2:06:42] and replace amendment to one line

[2:06:46] of this draft ordinance under section 10,

[2:06:52] I'm, I'm happy to, to offer that motion for discussion if,

[2:06:57] if it folks are interested.

[2:06:59] Otherwise, continuing sounds like a great idea to me.

[2:07:04] Okay. So what are you, what is the, the one change

[2:07:09] that you would suggest to allow planning commission

[2:07:12] to be the non-hearing decision maker?

[2:07:19] Not mo not so moving simply to float it.

[2:07:24] It would be to adjust the language.

[2:07:31] Okay. With reference to our packet, here's where it is

[2:07:38] on page eight of the draft ordinance

[2:07:40] and that's total page 60

[2:07:45] at the very bottom of that page.

[2:07:53] This is under the heading

[2:07:57] chapter 18.5 0.1, 0.050

[2:08:02] C one.

[2:08:06] I'm sorry, you said page total page 60.

[2:08:09] Yes, I have total page 60 10 of 10 of

[2:08:13] 11 8 8 of

[2:08:17] 11, page eight of 11.

[2:08:28] Okay. And that, that paragraph

[2:08:30] as drafted ends in a four line

[2:08:34] bold underlined sentence.

[2:08:37] Correct? Right.

[2:08:39] That effectively means that applications

[2:08:43] for housing development are limited land use decisions

[2:08:47] and shall not be referred to the planning commission

[2:08:50] for review and decision under either

[2:08:54] of the relevant subsections of the land use assortments

[2:08:57] affecting respectively type one review

[2:09:02] and type two review.

[2:09:03] In neither case, will the planning commission review

[2:09:08] a housing application not under type one

[2:09:11] and not under type two.

[2:09:12] That's what this is saying. Okay. Okay.

[2:09:15] And what I propose is to just

[2:09:20] tweak that language a little bit by removing the word not

[2:09:26] from that last sentence, to say that these applications

[2:09:32] shall be referred to the planning commission

[2:09:36] under type one procedure

[2:09:39] and shall not be referred

[2:09:42] to the planning commission under type two procedure,

[2:09:44] which comes with all the trimmings of a public hearing.

[2:09:46] And under RS 1 97

[2:09:54] Chair.

[2:09:55] Yes, John, go ahead. Just offer comment.

[2:09:59] Sure. So this is, I think the second

[2:10:04] or third round that we've looked at this state legislation

[2:10:09] and I, I appreciate the due diligence

[2:10:12] that my fellow commissioner has paid to this,

[2:10:17] but I think it's important to recognize that this

[2:10:22] constraint on the use of type three hearings

[2:10:28] is pre, was precisely one of the driving

[2:10:33] principles behind some of this legislation.

[2:10:38] And so to take that out is to sort of, I would argue,

[2:10:43] undermine the core rationale for this in the first place.

[2:10:48] It's, the goal is to move applications quicker

[2:10:52] and to rely on the deep expertise of our staff

[2:10:57] and enable them to lend

[2:11:02] as much value as possible,

[2:11:04] maximize value in housing production.

[2:11:07] So that's my point of view.

[2:11:11] Okay, thank you. So

[2:11:17] are you not concerned that, well,

[2:11:19] so I'm coming at it from goal one,

[2:11:21] which is public engagement.

[2:11:23] So I think the planning commission,

[2:11:28] because we have open meetings, is gonna have the potential

[2:11:32] for more

[2:11:36] public engagement to come to the meetings

[2:11:39] and hear what we're doing or watch us on RVTV.

[2:11:44] And that's,

[2:11:48] and so I think what,

[2:11:50] what I'm hearing Commissioner Lineer say

[2:11:53] actually sounds good to me.

[2:11:58] Do you, and but obviously you don't think so, so,

[2:12:02] Well I, you know, I'm not sure there's an,

[2:12:05] and an objectively correct answer.

[2:12:07] I'm just saying that the spirit of this legislation

[2:12:10] that came out of Salem is precisely

[2:12:12] to accelerate the approval of housing.

[2:12:15] And so one of the ways you do that is by limiting the number

[2:12:19] of type two and type three hearings

[2:12:22] and relying more on staff

[2:12:25] and administrative decision making in order

[2:12:27] to speed approvals. That's all I'm saying.

[2:12:31] Yeah. And so I'm, I'm understanding the legislation to, to

[2:12:37] take away type two and type three hearings for housing.

[2:12:42] And what I think what I'm understanding Commissioner Lineer

[2:12:46] to be saying is he's got a way for the planning commission

[2:12:49] to review

[2:12:51] and approve housing

[2:12:56] applications that are now type one.

[2:13:01] Is That true?

[2:13:02] Yeah, I mean the,

[2:13:04] and I I'm really grateful that our land use code gets us

[2:13:08] to a type one procedure on all

[2:13:11] of the qualifying applications.

[2:13:12] That the code is there to catch this state mandate

[2:13:16] in an orderly way.

[2:13:19] However, our existing type one procedure

[2:13:22] allows staff advisor referral of, of such matters

[2:13:26] to the planning commission

[2:13:28] and the, the section of

[2:13:33] ORS that's revised by these laws

[2:13:37] leave undisturbed the local government prerogative

[2:13:41] to establish approval procedure.

[2:13:44] And for the record I'm talking about chapter 1 97,

[2:13:48] a section 400 subsection four C

[2:13:54] and I, I, I hear you, John, about the purpose

[2:13:58] of the legislation and not wanting to undermine that.

[2:14:03] I'm completely supportive

[2:14:04] of the purpose of the, of the bill.

[2:14:05] However, I'm aware that these laws

[2:14:10] leave undisturbed that local prerogative

[2:14:12] that I just discussed

[2:14:14] because that's how we implement section 11

[2:14:18] of the Oregon Constitution providing for home rule.

[2:14:22] And where the legislature does not unambiguously say

[2:14:26] that administrative staff has to issue these decisions,

[2:14:30] I think we would be remiss to interpret it that way.

[2:14:36] The, the state preemption

[2:14:40] is predicated on the impossibility

[2:14:42] of implementing a state mandate in a city ordinance.

[2:14:46] If we can do both at the same time, there is no preemption

[2:14:51] and I think these laws reserve for the city

[2:14:57] the decision space to review these qualifying applications

[2:15:02] in a type one procedure by the planning commission

[2:15:08] if, and in so far as we want it to,

[2:15:16] Brandon.

[2:15:16] Yeah, I do want to note that the section

[2:15:18] that you're referring to amending has to do

[2:15:21] with the type one applications, which I know you're aware

[2:15:24] that the, the vast majority

[2:15:27] of type one applications are currently staff

[2:15:30] administratively approved on the rare exception, staff will

[2:15:36] advise that the a particular application come

[2:15:38] to the planning commission for review.

[2:15:40] Under the current rule, the section

[2:15:42] that you are looking at amending was stipulating that

[2:15:46] that could no longer be done for housing applications that

[2:15:50] are subject to clear

[2:15:51] and objective standards, conditions and procedures.

[2:15:54] However, by removing the word not

[2:15:57] and stipulating that all such applications for clear

[2:16:02] and objective housing shall be referred

[2:16:04] to the planning commission for review,

[2:16:06] it's a new requirement that is not presently the case for,

[2:16:11] again, that type one planning actions that are

[2:16:15] typically administered by staff.

[2:16:18] So it shifts the review authority from staff

[2:16:22] for type one actions such as a minor land partition

[2:16:27] or the development of three units

[2:16:30] or a duplex on a property to be a

[2:16:35] planning commission review and decision without hearing.

[2:16:39] And my concern is, is

[2:16:41] that noting a planning commission meeting

[2:16:44] would also engender those people

[2:16:46] that receive notice an expectation

[2:16:49] that they're providing public comment at a hearing,

[2:16:52] which would not be the case

[2:16:54] because a hearing would be precluded.

[2:16:56] Right. So again, it's in instituting a new requirement

[2:17:00] that's not in our current code to be,

[2:17:02] have a greater review requirement.

[2:17:05] If you presume that presenting

[2:17:07] before the planning commission is a greater review

[2:17:10] than before staff.

[2:17:11] But again, we'd both be applying the same clear

[2:17:13] and objective standards.

[2:17:16] And so I just wanted that to be clear for the commission

[2:17:19] of what's being contemplated is a wholesale change in terms

[2:17:23] of how type one actions for housing are processed.

[2:17:29] Those are really important brand points.

[2:17:31] Brandon, thank you. And they,

[2:17:35] they make me want to kind of refine

[2:17:40] how it, how it is that I'm trying

[2:17:42] to communicate my intent here.

[2:17:45] You know, I, I don't want the planning commission

[2:17:47] to take on every decision of the city

[2:17:51] for housing applications

[2:17:53] that ordinarily would be a ministerial matter of staff

[2:17:57] or ordinarily would processed

[2:18:00] as a type one without referral to the commission.

[2:18:03] My concern really is about the applications

[2:18:06] that we ordinarily would process

[2:18:08] as a type two and

[2:18:12] Such as the PSO, such as the PSO

[2:18:15] and the related variances.

[2:18:17] Yeah. And if,

[2:18:20] if we only think about it in those terms,

[2:18:24] then I think the striking the word not in

[2:18:28] that relevant sentence becomes a little bit more reasonable

[2:18:32] because it would just say that instead of type two

[2:18:37] PSO and variance reviews,

[2:18:43] we would do them on the type one

[2:18:45] procedure without a public hearing.

[2:18:49] But taking public comment

[2:18:51] with whatever notice an appeal is allowed

[2:18:55] the same as staff would do.

[2:18:57] Okay. So while we're thinking of that, we also need

[2:19:00] to be cognizant of nine 30 is approaching

[2:19:03] and our, that's our witching hour.

[2:19:05] So we can have a motion

[2:19:06] to continue this meeting for half an hour.

[2:19:12] Yes. I did want to note that this is scheduled

[2:19:13] for the council on August 18th.

[2:19:17] So any kind of recommendation from this body that's going

[2:19:20] before counsel should be provided this evening.

[2:19:23] A continuance would

[2:19:26] Essentially be forwarding a recommendation to council

[2:19:28] that the planning commission had not completed the review

[2:19:32] and therefore we would present that

[2:19:34] to the council as your recommendation.

[2:19:39] And can I just add one further thought to this idea

[2:19:42] that I'm, I'm floating and have not yet proposed a motion

[2:19:44] for which is,

[2:19:46] and it's an important point, which is that the type one

[2:19:49] and review proceeding that

[2:19:53] I'm proposing for the planning commission would be according

[2:19:58] to the procedures of

[2:20:00] a limited land use decision under state law,

[2:20:03] that's chapter 1 97, section 1 95

[2:20:08] and the relevant section

[2:20:09] of planning commission decision making under OS 2 27.

[2:20:14] Those are kinda important qualifications,

[2:20:16] but they, that enables this kind of type one review

[2:20:20] to meet the requirements of these new housing laws

[2:20:24] and of Oregon land use law read together

[2:20:29] while preserving the home rule authority of the city

[2:20:32] of Ashland to make

[2:20:35] land use development decisions within its own community.

[2:20:45] Okay. So it's clear to me this is gonna

[2:20:47] take more than 10 minutes.

[2:20:52] Do I have a motion to continue this meeting

[2:20:55] for another half hour?

[2:21:02] Thanks Chair Vernor.

[2:21:04] I moved to extend the meeting 30 minutes to 9:30 PM

[2:21:08] To 10 10 Oh to 10:00 PM

[2:21:12] Is there a second?

[2:21:13] Second. Okay.

[2:21:14] As moved to seconded that we continue the meeting

[2:21:16] to 10 o'clock or as soon as we get done with discussion.

[2:21:21] And is there all those in favor? Yes. Aye.

[2:21:26] Yes. Aye.

[2:21:30] All those opposed I'll sitting here.

[2:21:34] Okay. Four to one.

[2:21:37] So we have until 10 o'clock or sooner if we get it done.

[2:21:43] So now you're proposing to

[2:21:51] write some write, amend this language so that

[2:21:56] the, the new type one decisions

[2:22:02] I-E-P-S-O

[2:22:04] and variances would not, would,

[2:22:09] would go to planning commission for non-hearing review

[2:22:18] Absent, sorry, go absent

[2:22:21] and appeal, isn't that correct? Absent and appeal?

[2:22:23] Yeah. Yeah.

[2:22:25] And then, and they would,

[2:22:27] I guess they'd also come to us with an appeal.

[2:22:31] Well we could structure it, you know,

[2:22:32] however we want with respect to appeal.

[2:22:34] I don't really care who hears it,

[2:22:35] whether it's the planning commission under

[2:22:38] a de novo public hearing with evidence and testimony

[2:22:41] or whether that's done by the counsel.

[2:22:43] I personally don't care. What I want is

[2:22:46] for the planning commission to make those initial decisions.

[2:22:51] Can, can I get a couple questions in

[2:22:53] before we get to discussion?

[2:22:55] Sure.

[2:22:57] Is that, so let me, let me close the public hearing

[2:23:00] Well Before we get to discussion though of staff

[2:23:03] before the public hearings close.

[2:23:04] Okay. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead Chair Burner.

[2:23:08] Brandon, if I may, it sounds like to me

[2:23:13] that state law caps notice that a hundred feet

[2:23:16] for qualifying clear and objective housing applications,

[2:23:19] but it looks like we're reducing the notice radius

[2:23:23] of all type ones to a hundred feet.

[2:23:27] Is it possible to preserve the 200 foot notice

[2:23:31] where state law still allows

[2:23:33] It is possible.

[2:23:34] So this, I probably should have highlighted as a

[2:23:37] local decision change

[2:23:39] that the planning commission can consider in the city

[2:23:42] council staff are recommending the shift to 100 foot notice

[2:23:46] as a universal standard in order to ensure that our review

[2:23:51] of applications does not inadvertently reduce notice to,

[2:23:56] if something could have a 200 foot notice.

[2:23:59] We can alway, we could, we cannot notice 200 feet

[2:24:02] for a housing application

[2:24:05] and we didn't want to have a disparate standard for

[2:24:08] non housing related projects.

[2:24:11] But again, it is something that we could incorporate.

[2:24:14] Yeah. Yeah. I think in my opinion, I would like notice

[2:24:18] to go to 200 feet where it's still allowed.

[2:24:21] I think, you know, people want to have feedback

[2:24:25] and know what's going on around them.

[2:24:27] And so I would like to look at that.

[2:24:30] My, my second question here, since we're moving quick

[2:24:33] at the May 26th study session, we talked about this

[2:24:39] PSO outline, final plan threshold.

[2:24:41] And it was my memory that we'd settled on 12

[2:24:46] lots rather than 20

[2:24:47] because 12 lots was in alignment with the cottage standards.

[2:24:50] And I believe somehow we've lost that in translation

[2:24:54] to tonight where we're back at 20.

[2:24:56] And so I wanted to bring that point up

[2:24:58] As well.

[2:24:59] Yeah, I believe that might have been a review consideration

[2:25:02] also before city council,

[2:25:03] but we can look back if this committee wants

[2:25:05] to recommend a 12 level threshold as part of tonight's,

[2:25:09] we can forward that as part of your recommendation

[2:25:11] for council's consideration.

[2:25:13] Fantastic. Thank you very much.

[2:25:22] And that's all from me. Chair Brenner. Okay. Thank you.

[2:25:25] Thank you Russell.

[2:25:32] Okay, so

[2:25:34] Chair, Go ahead.

[2:25:37] Sorry, I just have one quick question for Brandon.

[2:25:40] Brandon, thank you for your presentation.

[2:25:42] Thank you Chair burner.

[2:25:45] So you

[2:25:46] and your team have been working diligently on interpreting

[2:25:49] the state code to incorporate into our

[2:25:53] land use code.

[2:25:55] So what are the re repercussions of not following

[2:26:00] to the best of our ability, the direction

[2:26:04] of these state laws?

[2:26:09] So a couple repercussions I think an applicant can apply

[2:26:13] under the state law and if our code does not align with

[2:26:16] that, still make that application a repercussion.

[2:26:20] If we apply law that is inconsistent with the state,

[2:26:23] an applicant could appeal that decision

[2:26:26] to the land use board of appeals or to circuit court.

[2:26:31] I presume. Other repercussions would essentially

[2:26:36] be that the ordinance,

[2:26:39] when we present this in its final format to the Department

[2:26:42] of Land Conservation

[2:26:43] and Development, they will review it

[2:26:45] for consistency with state law.

[2:26:48] You know, obviously your your review body,

[2:26:50] the council's review body,

[2:26:51] but the state also reviews all legislative changes

[2:26:54] in land use and acknowledges them when received.

[2:26:58] So ideally if we are incorporating something

[2:27:01] that is in violation of state law, they would catch it

[2:27:04] and provide back comment that we need

[2:27:06] to amend to be in alignment.

[2:27:09] Thank you Brandon. That was my understanding.

[2:27:12] Can I make a motion chair burner?

[2:27:14] Sure, go ahead.

[2:27:16] I move that the planning commission recommend

[2:27:18] that the city council approve first reading

[2:27:20] of ordinances number 3 3 0 7 titled an ordinance related

[2:27:23] to supporting housing production through streamlined review

[2:27:26] of residential development applications implementing Senate

[2:27:28] bill 9 74 House bill 2138, house bill 4 0 3 7

[2:27:33] mending A MC 18 2 3

[2:27:38] A MC 18 2 5 9 A MC

[2:27:42] 18 3 4 4 C 18 3 5 0 5 oh C

[2:27:47] 18 3 500 A MC

[2:27:52] 1839 Oak

[2:27:54] 0:00 AM C 18 5 1 0 1 0

[2:27:59] A MC 18 5 1 0 5 0 C

[2:28:03] 18 5 5 0 3 0 and a MC 18 61 0 3 0

[2:28:10] and adding a new subsection a MC 18 2 5 100

[2:28:14] as presented in the staff report and attachment.

[2:28:19] Okay. So you're not including the

[2:28:23] 200 foot notice for existing for

[2:28:28] non-affected type one decisions and and the 12 unit and

[2:28:32] The 12 including the 200 foot notice

[2:28:34] for non-affected units and the 12 unit threshold.

[2:28:41] Second.

[2:28:50] Okay. Is there, we have a second.

[2:28:53] We have a motion and a second.

[2:28:55] Is this time for discussion on the motion? This

[2:28:58] Is absolutely this time For discussion.

[2:29:00] May I interject here? Sure. Re go.

[2:29:01] Thank you very much, commissioner Mayor.

[2:29:06] Just to ask, is this incorporating any of the

[2:29:12] stuff that was brought up earlier about

[2:29:16] processing type one applications that used to be type two

[2:29:21] through the planning Commission?

[2:29:24] This is just for clarification

[2:29:26] 'cause I was having a hard time with hearing the motion.

[2:29:35] Yeah, thank you. Sorry. I apologize if it was a

[2:29:38] little muddled or rushed.

[2:29:40] So given Brandon's commentary on the implications

[2:29:44] of deviating from state law, I'm recommending that we,

[2:29:52] that we pursue the suggested motion with

[2:29:56] limited modifications, which have already been discussed

[2:30:03] to the best of our ability in adhering with the spirit

[2:30:07] and language of what the state has intended

[2:30:11] for municipalities.

[2:30:12] That's my recommendation.

[2:30:15] Thank you, commissioner. Mayor.

[2:30:16] Okay, so I'm not clear,

[2:30:19] do you wanna include commissioner ER's proposed,

[2:30:25] keep the planning commission involved in type

[2:30:28] one decisions or

[2:30:30] I structure the motion to, to be as conservative

[2:30:33] as possible given the specific

[2:30:39] response received from the head of planning,

[2:30:43] Which Means I guess that's a no, a no. Yeah,

[2:30:45] That means, Yeah, that's a no.

[2:30:48] Okay. Okay.

[2:30:52] So is everybody clear

[2:30:56] about what the motion is?

[2:31:00] Chair, may I please offer an amendment to the motion?

[2:31:03] Sure. Thank you.

[2:31:10] I move to amend the pending motion

[2:31:15] with regard to a MC

[2:31:19] 18.51050

[2:31:24] C one

[2:31:29] decision as follows

[2:31:35] by first striking the word not

[2:31:41] from the last sentence of that section.

[2:31:46] Second by adding a period

[2:31:50] after the phrase this subsection.

[2:31:56] So that's the end of the sentence.

[2:32:00] And third, by striking the phrase

[2:32:04] or subsection

[2:32:06] 18.50 C two,

[2:32:16] I further move to add that the end

[2:32:18] of the same sub subsection on decision

[2:32:23] include the following sentence, an application

[2:32:25] for development of housing that is subject to a clear

[2:32:28] and objective standards, conditions

[2:32:31] and procedures pursuant to ORS 1 97.

[2:32:34] A section 400 subsection one

[2:32:39] shall not be referred to the planning commission for review

[2:32:43] and decision under subsection 18.5 0.1

[2:32:47] 0.050 C

[2:32:49] two end of amendment.

[2:32:57] Okay. I didn't quite get all that but

[2:33:04] we'll try it anyway.

[2:33:05] So you're amending the motion

[2:33:10] to reframe the motion to say

[2:33:14] planning commission will is able to

[2:33:21] hear type one decisions that are not public hearings

[2:33:27] for PSOs and variances.

[2:33:31] Yeah, it, it would ensure that the planning commission

[2:33:35] could initially decide

[2:33:40] a qualifying application using the limited

[2:33:45] land use decision procedures

[2:33:50] of Oregon land use law,

[2:33:54] specifically ORS 1 97 0.195

[2:33:58] and OS 2, 27 0.1 75, subsection 10.

[2:34:05] It recognizes the ambiguity regarding the

[2:34:10] decision approval procedure in state law.

[2:34:14] I have a different interpretation than my colleague about

[2:34:18] what the legislature intended

[2:34:20] because the legislature left in place,

[2:34:25] all of that Oregon law that I've discussed tonight.

[2:34:31] And I think the intent of the legislature is to

[2:34:40] allow a city to reserve

[2:34:44] to itself whatever decision space is not specifically

[2:34:47] preempted by unambiguous commands of the legislation.

[2:34:52] And this is a way

[2:34:53] that we can keep the planning commission in business.

[2:34:57] Okay. Is there a second to the motion?

[2:35:02] I'll second for the sake of discussion.

[2:35:05] Okay. It's been moved and seconded for the amendment.

[2:35:10] And the amendment takes precedent.

[2:35:12] So we'll vote on the amendment first.

[2:35:16] Is everybody clear what we're voting on?

[2:35:22] Okay, Michael, we,

[2:35:24] I think real quick we have a Were you gonna say something,

[2:35:28] Carrie?

[2:35:29] At this point I don't even know how to question it really.

[2:35:32] I mean, so I was, and then I'm like, no.

[2:35:35] Okay. Thank you.

[2:35:37] Yes. Okay.

[2:35:39] So we're gonna take a vote on the amendment first.

[2:35:44] Michael, we call the roll

[2:35:46] I

[2:35:51] Commissioner Maher?

[2:35:55] No. Commissioner Phillips?

[2:35:58] No. Commissioner King Caren?

[2:36:02] No. Commissioner

[2:36:03] Leininger?

[2:36:04] Yes. Chair Werner?

[2:36:07] Yes. Okay. Split vote.

[2:36:10] 3, 2, 2. Motion fails.

[2:36:17] So we're onto the main motion,

[2:36:21] which is as said, as

[2:36:25] presented in our staff report on page nine of nine,

[2:36:28] total number 47.

[2:36:30] With the addition of the 200 foot

[2:36:33] additional notice requirements for applications that,

[2:36:37] that are not covered by this, these changes.

[2:36:42] And for the 12 unit limit

[2:36:44] to PSOs.

[2:36:51] Everybody clear? Okay.

[2:36:55] Michael, will you call the roll

[2:37:04] Commissioner Moore?

[2:37:07] Yes. Commissioner Phillips?

[2:37:09] Yes. Commissioner Kerrin? Yes.

[2:37:12] Commissioner Leininger? Yes.

[2:37:14] Chair Werner? Yes. Okay. Motion was unanimously adopted.

[2:37:20] So we have a motion

[2:37:22] or a recommendation to send a council now on this

[2:37:27] batch of changes.

[2:37:33] Thank you all for your hard work tonight

[2:37:37] and we're now on to open discussion.

[2:37:42] Is there

[2:37:46] any, go ahead. I

[2:37:48] Would just like to, I mean, I'm really appreciative

[2:37:50] of your deep dive and I just,

[2:37:57] and I appreciate the, the intent.

[2:38:02] I just wanna say that. Thank you.

[2:38:08] Okay. So under open discussion,

[2:38:12] we have the letter that came

[2:38:15] before us from

[2:38:21] Joseph Calf

[2:38:23] Cal.

[2:38:25] And I think, as I recall,

[2:38:26] the interest was actually in having him come to discuss that

[2:38:30] It seemed this letter was pretty succinct

[2:38:33] and I, I don't know

[2:38:36] how we would really consider it without him bringing forth

[2:38:39] what he wants to talk about.

[2:38:41] Okay. That's good rationale.

[2:38:44] Can we ask staff to invite him to come

[2:38:47] to the August 25th meeting?

[2:38:50] We can if Okay.

[2:38:55] Is the other question I had under open business is,

[2:38:58] do you have any, have you thought any more about

[2:39:01] the planning commission retreat?

[2:39:02] And if so, do you have any questions or not?

[2:39:07] No. I think last we talked that it would be ill advised

[2:39:11] to do it in the summer and looking at fall, so

[2:39:15] we'll come back to you with some dates.

[2:39:18] Sorry, I don't have those this evening. Okay,

[2:39:20] No problem.

[2:39:21] Someone Tonight suggests

[2:39:23] that we invite the water master here

[2:39:24] to talk about water rights.

[2:39:28] What You want one of us

[2:39:32] to, to invite? I just,

[2:39:34] I'm sorry.

[2:39:35] I thought I heard that. No. Okay. Maybe not.

[2:39:40] Okay. Is there a motion

[2:39:44] to adjourn 20 minutes early,

[2:39:47] I move to adjourn. Second. Second.

[2:39:50] Move to second. And all those in favor of adjourning? Yes.

[2:39:53] Aye. Aye.

[2:39:55] Thank you John very much for continuing to participate.

[2:39:59] Thanks for having me.

Ashland Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript