[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.