Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTolmanCreek_1405_PA-2011-00738 CITY OF August 25,2011 ASHLAND Malibar Group,LLC 1405 S Tolman Creek Road Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action#2011-00738 Notice of Final Decision At its meeting of August 9, 2011,based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter,the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision to be developed in three phases for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creels Road. The application also includes requests for a Variance to reduce the number of required on-street parking spaces by fifty percent; an Exception to the Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street; and a Physical&Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow utility installation within the Hamilton Creels floodplain along Tolman Creels Road. --Assessor's Map#39 lE 23 BA; Tax Lots#308 and#501. The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, on August 23,2011. The Planning Commission decision becomes effective on the 13f day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 1 year. Please review the attached findings and conditions of approval. The conditions of approval shall be met prior to project completion. Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document,the application and all associated documents and evidence submitted,applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. j I This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective date of the decision and with the required fee($318),in accordance with Chapter 18.108.110(A)of the Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals.The appeal shall be limited to the criteria listed in Chapter 18.108.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code,which is also attached. If you have any questions regarding this decision,please contact the Community Development Department between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm,Monday through Friday at(541)488-5305. I I i i i i i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel:541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us j i SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council. A. Appeals of Type II decisions - shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the appeal requirements of Section 18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or considered. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified,based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal,together with notice of the date,time and place to consider the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the meeting. 4. A. Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.13. below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. The record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the Planning Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any,shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. B. The Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the City Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated: a. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error,through no fault of the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error; or b. That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision; or C. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting parry, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel:541-488.5305 51 Winburn Way Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us i Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the City Council. C. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited to ten(10)minutes for the applicant,ten(10)for the appellant, if different, and three (3) minutes for any other Parry who participated below. A party shall not be permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall be submitted no less than ten(10)days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the Notice of Appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the written argument_ D. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the City Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Planning Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond. I E. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify or remand the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator,the Council may elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the City Council elects to remand a decision to the Planning Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Planning Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to Section 18.108.070.B.5 . F. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons Who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. i i i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel:541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 1 Wk www.ashland.or.us I BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 23rd,2011 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION#2011-00738,A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN EIGHT-LOT PERFORM- ) ANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION TO BE DEVELOPED IN THREE PHASES ) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1405 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. ALSO ) INCLUDED ARE REQUESTS FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER )FINDINGS, OF REQUIRED ON-STREET PARKING SPACES BY 50 PERCENT;AN EXCEPT- ) CONCLUSIONS ION TO STREET STANDARDS TO NOT INSTALL SIDEWALKS ALONG A )AND ORDERS A PORTION OF THE NEW STREET; AND A PHYSICAL&ENVIRONMENTAL ) CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW UTILITY INSTALLATION ) WITHIN THE HAMILTON CREEK FLOODPLAIN ALONG TOLMAN CR RD. ) APPLICANTS: Malibar Group, LLC ) ------------------------------------------------------------------®___---_------------_--®__---------_-______- RECITALS: 1) Tax lots#308 and 4501 of Map 39 1E 23 BA are located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road and are zoned Single Family Residential(R-1-7.5). 2) The applicants are requesting Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision to be developed in three phases for the property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road. Also included are requests for a Variance to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by fifty percent in order to preserve a large (60-inch d.b.h.) maple tree; an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street; and a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow utility installation within the Hamilton Creels floodplain along Tolman Creek Road. 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in Chapter 18.88.030.A.4 as follows: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer,paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands,floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the i development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 1 i i phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. (Ord 2836, S2 1999) 4) The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in Chapter 18.88.030.B.5 as follows: Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that; a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10°0)percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. C. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (10%)percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. (Ord 2836, S3 1999) 5) The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100 as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 2 6) The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in Chapter 18.88.050.F as follows: An Exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist.. A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. (Ord 2951, amended, 0710112008; Ord 2836, amended, 0210211999) 7) The criteria for the approval of a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit are described in AMC 18.62.040.I as follows: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the.potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance, 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on July 12th, 2011 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing,neighbor James Lindow of 2370 Lupine Drive requested in writing that the record be left open as provided in ORS 197.763. The applicants then requested that the record be left open an additional seven days as provided by statute to allow them to prepare and submit additional written arguments in response to any new evidence received while the record remained open. The public hearing was closed at that time, with the record to remain open for seven days until 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 20th to allow the submittal of new evidence, and for seven additional days until 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 27th to allow the applicants to submit written arguments. Planning Commission deliberations were continued to the Commission's regular meeting on August 9th, 2011 at which time the Planning Commission approved the application for Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision, an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street, and a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow utility installation within the Hamilton Creek floodplain along Tolman Creek Road. The Planning Commission denied the applicants' request for a Variance to reduce the number of on-street PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 3 i i parking spaces by fifty percent in order to preserve a large (60-inch d.b.h.) maple tree. Now,therefore,the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits,lettered with a"P" Opponent's Exhibits,lettered with an"O" Hearing Minutes,Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report,public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland with the exception of the requested Exception to Street Standards and Variance requests. The Commission further finds that there are city facilities and services currently available which can be extended by the applicants as detailed in their civil plan submittals to serve the project from the adjacent Tolman Creels Road right-of-way. The property is currently served by: an eight-inch sanitary sewer main located in the Tolman Creek Road right-of-way; an eight-inch water main located in the Tolman Creel-,Road right-of-way; and sections of an 18-inch storm sewer along with an open ditch along Tolman Creek Road. Electrical facilities are available to be extended from both Tolman Creek Road and Apple Way. The Commission finds that a 36-inch stormwater detention pipe is to be provided within the proposed street to allow for high volume water capture and slower water release during storm events. The stormwater line has been routed to preserve the large maple tree adjacent to the proposed street, and additional manholes are to be provided to service this more complex installation. The Commission further finds that the city's Engineering Division will ultimately need to review and approve the final, engineered storm drainage plans to verify that post- development peals flows are engineered to be less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation is addressed in the final engineered design. A condition to this effect has been included below. PA 92011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 4 i The Commission further finds that the applicants have provided draft plans detailing the civil engineering proposed to serve the development with street and utility installations, including fire hydrant installation and the extension of electrical services from both Tolman Creek Road and Apple Way. A condition of approval is included below to require that these plans be revised to incorporate the requirements of the land use approval, reviewed and approved by the Planning, Building, Public Works, Engineering and Electric Departments prior to the issuance of an excavation permit. Because the Tolman Creek street corridor in this vicinity falls with Jackson County's jurisdiction, a condition has also been included requiring that the applicants obtain any required permits or approvals from Jackson County for any work to be completed within Tolman Creek Road's right of way. The Planning Commission finds that Tolman Creek Road is classified as an Avenue or Major Collector in the vicinity of the subject property, and standard street improvements along the frontage of the parcels involved would include curb, gutter, paving, parking, storm drains, park row planting strips, sidewalks, and bike lanes. However, given that the complexity of the improvement required, the limited frontage of the subject property on Tolman Creels Road, the need for any improvements to be completed within the context of a larger neighborhood design process, the presence of the flood plain, and the,fact that this street section is presently within Jackson County's jurisdiction, the Commission finds that the most prudent option with regard to Tolman Creels Road improvements is for the applicants to sign in favor of the future improvements to Tolman Creels Road and agree to pay their proportionate cost of the necessary improvements and not to remonstrate against the formation of a Local Improvement District. A condition to this effect has been included below. The Commission finds that the Performance Standards Options Chapter AMC 18.88 requires that natural features such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees and rock outcroppings throughout the subject parcel be included and incorporated in open space, common areas or other unbuildable areas. The applicants' submittals note that the site design proposed demonstrates an effort to preserve natural features such as the large trees including the 60-inch d.b.h. maple proposed to be preserved adjacent to the proposed new street and other trees grouped around the property and on adjacent parcels, as well as the natural drainage along the west side of the property which is already protected within a conservation easement. The Planning Commission finds that the applicants' efforts to preserve the large maple tree are in keeping with the purpose and intent of the chapter; however the Commission further finds that tree protection details consistent with the Tree Preservation and Preservation Chapter AMC 18.61 have not been included for all of the site's trees. The Commission finds that a revised Tree Protection Plan which addresses required protection of trees between Lots #2 and #3 and between Lot #1 and Tax Lot#500 in the vicinity of the proposed building envelopes, as well as those trees along the drainage easement in proximity to the envelopes on Lots #5 and #6, is necessary. The Commission further finds that because Lots #5 and #6 may not develop for a number of years, the trees on those lots, which include large cottonwoods, should be re-assessed by an arborist prior to development of the lots as has been recommended by the project's arborist. Conditions reflecting the above are recommended below. PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 5 The Planning Commission further finds that the applicants have considered the Tree Commission's recommendations to install sidewalks only on the north side of the proposed street in order to save trees along the south boundary. This would require the applicants to obtain agreement from the property owner of Tax Lot #400 on the north side of the existing driveway, and the applicants have indicated that they are pursuing such an agreement with the intention of possibly saving Tree #2, a large sycamore located on the south side of the proposed street improvements, although the applicants have noted saving fruit trees on the south side of the street is unlikely given driveway locations and curb placement. The Commission finds that having sidewalks on only one side of the proposed street is in keeping with the Performance Standards Options Chapter AMC 18.88, and further finds that if the applicants are able to obtain agreement from the owners of Tax Lot #400 that a continuous sidewalk on the north side of the street,which provides for the retention of Tree#2 and alleviates the need for a materially-distinct pedestrian crossing while connecting directly to the pedestrian path to be installed in the easement which is proposed to be relocated from the end of the Apple Way cul-de-sac, is by far the preferred option. However,the Commission further finds that if the applicants are unable to reach such an agreement, a sidewalk would need to be installed along the south side of the proposed street as proposed in the applicants' initial submittals and necessitating the removal of Tree #2. A revised condition#3c as proposed by the applicants has been attached to this approval detailing these two prioritized options. The Commission finds that the proposed development will not prevent adjacent land from. being developed, and could in fact facilitate:future development of the parcels adjacent to the existing driveway and Tolman Creels Road by installing the street system necessary to support their development. The Commission further finds that the potential future development of areas to the north, south and west is not impacted as these lands are already largely developed, and that the applicants have attempted to evaluate the development potential of the adjacent lots to the east and plan their project so that it will be compatible with their ultimate development pattern. The Commission finds that under the Performance Standards Options Chapter AMC 18.88, the property's single-family residential R-1-7.5 zoning designation allows for a density of 3.6 units per acre. The site's 3.21 acreage results in a base density of 11.556 units. The proposed density is well below the density allowed, but the application notes that efforts have been made in planning the project to provide a lot lay-out similar to the development pattern already in place for the sake of neighborhood compatibility. In addition, the applicants note that the lots are over-sized and would likely accommodate accessory dwelling units to provide for additional density as individual lots develop. The Commission finds that Performance Standards subdivisions with a density of ten units or greater are required to provide a minimum of five percent of the total project area in open space. The Commission further finds that the area of the existing natural drainageway easement, which was required to be provided with the Wild Creek Subdivision, would exceed the five percent open space requirement were it in common ownership. The Commission finds that the applicants propose to develop only eight lots, and as such no common open space area has been PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 6 identified as part of the current proposal. The Commission further finds that because the base density of the parent parcels could accommodate further development to 11 or more units, a condition of approval is necessary to require that requisite open space be provided if further development of the parcels leads to a built density of ten or more units. The Commission finds that the Performance Standards Options Chapter AMC 18.88 requires that on lots which are to contain detached single-family dwellings, building envelopes be identified which show the area and maximum height of improvements, including solar access. The applicants have identified building envelopes and shown the locations within each envelopes which would accommodate a 21-foot high structure while complying with Solar Access "Standard A" as required in AMC 18.70. The Commission further finds that for Lot 46, the applicants have offered to limit the height of the future building so that no portion of the home will exceed the 21-foot height to be located as detailed on the applicants Sheet L2.0. The Commission further finds that this limitation is self-imposed by the applicants to address concerns raised by neighbors during the hearing, and will limit the height of the building as described while allowing a split-level floor, daylight basement or other configurations which comply with the self-imposed height limitation. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed street right-of-way to serve the project is consistent with the "Residential Neighborhood Street" standards which call for a 47-foot right-of- way width to accommodate a queuing travel lane, parking on only one side, curbs, gutters,parkrow planting strips and sidewalks. However, the Commission also finds that the applicants have requested an Exception to Street Standards to modify the standard street configuration and install sidewalks on only one side of the street to allow the preservation of a large (60 7inch d.b.h.) maple tree and, assuming an agreement can be reached with the owner of Tax Lot#400 to allow sidewalk installation on the southern portion of their property (i.e. along the north side of the street) the preservation of a large (16-inch d.b.h) sycamore as well. Assuming such an agreement can be reached, this would result in a half-street improvement to a width of 34 feet with a continuous sidewalk along the north side of the proposed new street and no sidewalks along the south side. If no such agreement can be reached, the half-street improvement would be as depicted in the applicants initial submittals with a sidewalk along the south side of the street, triggering removal of the sycamore tree, and transitioning across the street through a materially-distinct crossing to the north side in the vicinity of the large maple tree. The Commission further finds that in addition to the street improvements proposed, the applicants propose to relocate a bicycle and pedestrian easement that was originally associated with the Wild Creels Subdivision. The easement as originally configured extends from the end of Apple Way through that subdivision's natural area, requiring a crossing of the Hamilton Creels tributary which daylights just north of the subject properties. No bicycle or pedestrian improvements have been completed within the existing easement, and remaining segments necessary to provide a continuous connection to Tolman Creels Road have not been obtained. With the current application, the applicants have proposed to work with the Wild Creels Subdivision neighbors to relocate the pedestrian easement down a private drive off of Apple Way, avoiding the creels crossing, and connecting to the proposed new street installation. With PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 7 i i this relocation, a complete easement connection would be provided from Apple Way to Tolman Creels Road and bicycle and pedestrian facilities completed in the form of a six-foot wide multi- use path within the ten-foot easement. The Commission finds that a continuous bicycle & pedestrian connection from Apple Way to Tolman Creek Road through the proposed development is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter AMC 18.88 and provides a strong justification for the requested Exception to Street Standards, discussed in greater detail below, in terms of addressing the "equal or superior connectivity" criterion. The Commission further finds that while the proposed relocation of the easement is clearly the preferred option to provide greater connectivity while minimizing impacts to the Hamilton Creel-,tributary, if the applicants are unable to reach an agreement with neighbors to re-route the easement as proposed,the existing course of the easement would need to be improved with the installation of pedestrian path improvements to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian use from Apple Way to and through the applicants' property to Tolman Creels Road, and a condition to this effect has been attached to this approval is recommended below. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street. The Commission further finds that the applicants initially requested not to install sidewalks along the south side of the street along the frontages of Lots #2, #3 and #4. The application explains that in this area, the street curves slightly to preserve the large maple tree, a fire truck turn-around is proposed, and the applicants would like to preserve an existing looped driveway as well. The applicants initially proposed to transition the sidewall-,from the south side of the street to the north side via an in-laid crossing in the street where the street and sidewall-, meander around the large maple. The materials provided emphasize that the low volume of vehicle trips involved at the end of the street will produce lower traffic volumes and that pedestrians will likely walls within the street and fire truck turn-around to reach their destinations. The application notes that the existing structures, driveways, utilities, drainage and mature trees pose a demonstrable difficulty, and that neighboring property lines, home orientations, context and natural constraints all merited consideration in the design. Most notably, the application described the difficulty posed in designing the street system to preserve the large maple. The applicants suggest that not having sidewalks through the fire truck turn-around portion of the street installation is an equal facility as the route would be more circuitous in light of multiple curb cuts and that the lack of sidewalks in this one area would be off-set by the low vehicle trips. Following a meeting with the Tree Commission, the applicants have proposed to modify this proposal and have begun to pursue an agreement with the owner of a neighboring property (Tax Lot#400) in order to install sidewalks along the north side of the street, along that property's south boundary, with no sidewalks to be installed on the south side so that the 16-inch d.b.h. sycamore tree previously proposed for removal can be preserved and a continuous sidewalk provided along the north side of the street. The Planning Commission finds that continuous sidewall-, connections are an important component to creating a functional sidewalk system which encourages pedestrian travel to, from and within proposed development, benefitting long-term livability of the developments by PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 8 I comprehensively addressing the access and mobility needs of residents. The Commission further finds that a continuous sidewalk along the north side of the proposed street, with preservation of the sycamore tree along the south side, would be the preferred option here if an agreement can be reached. A condition has been included below to provide for the installation of a continuous sidewalk on the north side of the proposed street as a preferred option, assuming that an agreement can be reached with the neighboring property owner, but allowing for installation of a sidewalk on the south side and removal of the sycamore with the sidewalk to transition to the north side before the maple tree as originally proposed if no agreement can be reached. The Commission recognizes the difficulties posed by the need to preserve the large maple, and potentially the sycamore tree as well, and finds that the efforts to preserve these trees through an Exception to the Street Standards is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards chapter. The Commission finds that the installation of a sidewalk on only one side of the proposed street is the minimum exception necessary to address this difficulty, and further finds that the installation of a sidewalk on one side of the proposed street in addition to completion of the bicycle and pedestrian connection from Tolman Creels Road to Apple Way by relocating a previously unimproved easement serves to provide "equal or superior" transportation facilities and connectivity. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that, as noted in AMC 18.61.042.D.1.c, the removal of significant trees (i.e. those trees greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height) on vacant R-1 zoned lands requires a Tree Removal Permit. The Commission further finds that the trees proposed for removal here are as follows: #2, a 16-inch d.b.h. sycamore which will be removed in the event that the applicants are unable to reach an agreement with the neighbors to the north of the existing driveway who own Tax Lot #400; #13 and #15, a six-inch and a ten-inch d.b.h. apples; 414, a six-inch d.b.h. almond; and #16, an eight-inch d.b.h. sequoia. The Commission finds that because none of the trees proposed to be removed with the application is considered to be by definition "significant" these removals are not subject to a Tree Removal Permit. The Commission further finds that the site's trees remain a consideration in terms of the preservation of significant natural features required under the Performance Standards Options chapter, in terms of their providing a basis for the requested Exception to Street Standards, and in terms of providing for the protection of the trees to be preserved as required in the Tree Preservation and Protection Chapter, and these considerations are discussed in the relevant sections of these findings. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the Hamilton Creels floodplain corridor extends westward from the waterway on the east side of Tolman Creek Road and includes an approximately five-foot wide portion of the subject property at the end of the existing flag drive, where the proposed street improvements are to be installed. The Commission further finds that because the proposal involves the installation of new street improvements and utilities within the Hamilton Creels floodplain, a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the Development of Floodplain Corridor Lands is required. i The Commission finds that the existing 12-foot width driveway will ultimately be widened to the full width to meet city standards for a new street, and that within the relatively minimal portion PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 9 i of the street which is deemed floodplain corridor this will involve less than 50 cubic yards of fill. The Commission further finds that the applicants' Civil Engineer has determined that there will be no noticeable impact on the floodplain because the driveway already exists in this location. The Planning Commission further finds that the impacts to the floodplain lands are minimal and involve road construction and utility installation in an area where street and driveway improvements are already in place and long-established. The Commission finds that the applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts on the environment by hiring professional civil engineers, landscape architects, arborists, and land use planners to comprehensively plan the proposal in order to mitigate adverse impacts from the proposed development. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the Performance Standards Options Chapter AMC 18.88 includes parking standards which require that "at least one on-street parking space per unit shall be provided in addition to the off-street parking requireinents for all development in an R-I zone... On-street parking spaces shall be immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land and be directly accessible froin public Night-of-way streets. On-street parking shall be located within 200 feet of the dwelling it is intended to serve." The Commission further finds that as proposed, the eight-unit subdivision requires eight on-street parking spaces to be provided in or near the proposed street right-of-way. The applicants have proposed a Variance to this requirement in order to reduce the required parking by fifty percent, to only four spaces, in order to preserve the 60-inch d.b.h. maple tree (Tree 443). The application explains that with the preservation of the large maple tree, the street meanders and thus eliminates potential on-street parallel'parking spaces, and goes on to note that the four spaces that are proposed to be removed to preserve the tree are "realistically available due}to the fact that three of the new lots (#4, #5 and #6) are technically flag lots off a private drive that require a third on-site parking space...[and] the identified looped driveway serving the existing house provides a minimum of two additional guest parking spaces." The application identifies existing structures, driveways, utilities, drainage areas and mature trees as unique or unusual circumstances which have played a significant design role. In addition, the application notes that neighboring property lines, house orientations, context and natural constraints also merit consideration, and that the large maple tree (#43) in the center of the property, near the existing driveway, and with a 30-foot diameter protection zone, poses a unique or unusual circumstance meriting the proposed Variance. The application further notes that by retaining the tree, it will continue to grow and provide aesthetic and environmental/shade benefits to the neighborhood for many years by providing a focal point of the neighborhood and provide a central gathering opportunity given its relationship to the homes, street, sidewalk and pedestrian path. The application concludes that the tree has been in existence-for many years prior to the current owner's purchase of the property and because it provides the basis for the Variance request, the basis for the request is thus not willfully or purposely self-imposed. i The Planning Commission finds that the third parking spaces (alca visitor parking spaces) to be provided on lots served by a flag drive are required off-street parking under AMC 18.76.060.0 and cannot be used to offset an on-street parking requirement that is explicitly required to be in PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 10 �I addition to the required off-street parking. The Commission finds that these third "visitor" spaces are required to be provided on all of the lots to be served via a flag drive in addition to the two standard spaces required for each lot and the required on-street parking. The Commission further finds that the additional on-street parking required within the Performance Standards Chapter is intended to ensure that the street system to be constructed will accommodate occasional guest parking within the public realm when a resident has a party or similar event requiring more than the two or three standard parking spaces on the individual lots, and to do so in reasonable proximity to the proposed development rather than allowing a configuration which would force impacts onto surrounding streets or neighborhoods. The Planning Commission finds that during the hearing, staff noted that it appeared to be possible to accommodate the required on-street parking within 200 feet of each unit in the development through some combination of compliance with the standards for driveway separation, the use of consolidated driveways, placing parking on the north side of the proposed street, and/or adding an additional parking bay or two adjacent to Lot 47 as the applicants have suggested might be possible. The Commission also finds that the existing circular drive acts to preserve the tree it surrounds, and has the added benefit of providing the potential for additional overflow parking; as such the Commission believes that the driveway's removal is not merited. The Planning Commission further finds that based on the applicants' original submittal, which labels eight parking spaces available on and adjacent to the street; the applicants proposal to add a third parking bay adjacent to Lot #7; and staff's analysis of the available on street parlcing provided during the hearing, that eight on-street parking spaces can be provided with the development while preserving the large maple tree. The Planning Commission finds that the required parking can be provided.to meet the applicable standards, and as such the requested Variance is not merited. The Commission concludes that the Variance to reduce the required on- street parking by 50 percent is denied, and that the applicants will be required to provide a revised site plan which demonstrates compliance with the required on-street parking for each phase of the subdivision, and each of the lots proposed to be served via a flag drive will be required to provide a third visitor's space as required in AMC 18.76.060.C. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision to be developed in three phases for the property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road, an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street; and a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow utility installation within the Hamilton Creek floodplain along Tolman Creek Road is supported by evidence within the whole record. The Commission further concludes that the request for a Variance to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by.fifty percent in order to preserve a large (60-inch d.b.h.) maple tree is not supported by evidence contained within the whole record, and the Variance component of the application is therefore denied. PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 11 Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2011-00738 with the exception of the requested Variance. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever,then Planning Action #2011 7-00738 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2) That the applicants shall obtain a Demolition/Relocation Review Permit from the Building Division if the proposed partial demolition of the existing shop/garage building triggers the requirements of the Demolition Ordinance. 3) That prior to the issuance of an excavation permit: a) Final civil engineering plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage, electric and transportation facilities shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Engineering Departments. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins, and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plan. b) That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey plat. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peals flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. c) That the applicants shall provide a revised site plan for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor illustrating the sidewalk, parkrow and street trees on the north side of the new street and street trees only on the south side of the street. Applicants shall also provide evidence of an easement agreement for a sidewalk,parkrow and street trees along the south side of Tax Lot 400. If easement cannot be obtained, the sidewalk plan as originally proposed shall be installed and all necessary details of an in-laid crossing where the sidewalk transitions from the south side of the street to the north side at the tree and which further identifies the connection and treatment of the bicycle and pedestrian easement to the sidewalk improvements, with pedestrian routes to materially be distinguished from streets, driveways and parking spaces. d) The applicants shall provide a revised Tree Preservation and Protection Plan for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. The revised plan shall incorporate: 1) the identification of required tree protection fencing installation for trees on Lots #1, #2, #3, #5 and #6 in proximity to building envelopes and/or property lines; 2) the arborist's recommendations that trees #38-440 shall be re-assessed by an arborist prior to PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 12 I� development on Lots#5 and#6; and 3) the July 7, 2011 recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission where consistent with applicable standards and with final review and approval by the Staff Advisor. e) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.13 shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for trees to be preserved. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.13. f) Any work within the Tolman Creek Road right-of-way, including but not limited to street improvements or utility installation, shall be subject to review and approval by Jackson County and the City of Ashland, with permits to be issued by Jackson County. g) That the applicants shall provide a revised site plan showing building envelopes on Lots #2 and#5 to be adjusted showing the rear setbacks to be 40' from their southern property line. h) That the applicants shall provide a revised site plan which demonstrates compliance with the required on-street parking requirements of AMC 18.88.0 for each phase of the subdivision. 4) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat for Phase One, which will create Lots 41, 2, 4, 7 and 8: a) That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. b) That the new street and subdivision names shall be approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division. c) All easements for public and private utilities, trails, pedestrian and bicycle access, natural drainageways, irrigation, fire apparatus access, and the reciprocal access easements for shared use of the existing driveway by Tax Lots #400 and 4500 (as proposed in the application) shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland j Engineering Division. d) That all Phase One public improvements including but not limited to the street, sidewalk, street trees, and street lighting shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and Jackson County. Improvements shall be consistent with those described in the application, including 22 feet of paving to accommodate a queuing travel lane and on-street parking on one side of the street, curb and gutter, storm drain system, seven-foot planting strip and five -foot wide sidewalk. A reserve strip ("street plug") shall be provided along the northern boundary of the street improvements along the south boundary of Tax Lot#400. e) The applicants shall provide evidence of agreement to the relocation of the bicycle and pedestrian easement from the affected property owners, and shall detail proposed improvements and any signage or screening on revised civil drawings. The relocated PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 13 i easement shall be recorded with the final survey plat, and the multi-use path improvements installed in conjunction with other subdivision infrastructure. In the event that the applicants are unable to obtain necessary agreements to relocate the easement,the applicants shall design and install improvements'to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian use of the existing easement. On-going maintenance responsibilities for the multi-use path shall be described in the subdivision CC&R's which shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the final plat. f) Street trees, located one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed along the new street's frontage as part of the subdivision infrastructure improvements. Street trees shall be chosen from the Recommended Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in the Recommended Street Tree List. The street trees shall be irrigated. g) Electric services shall be installed underground to serve Lots 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. h) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for Lots 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8. i) The applicants shall sign in favor of the future improvements to Tolman Creek Road and agree to pay their proportionate cost of the necessary improvements and not to remonstrate against the formation of a Local Improvement District. j) The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&R's or other mechanism establishing the limited homeowners' association. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. k) The applicants shall sign an agreement to participate in the future cost of full street improvements for Tolman Creel-, Road, including but not limited to park row planting strips, sidewalks, streetlights, curbs, gutters, paving, and storm drains, to be recorded on the deeds of the newly created lots concurrently with the final plat. 5) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat for Phase Two to create Lots #5 and 46, and Phase Three,to create Lot#3: a) All easements for public and private utilities, trails, pedestrian and bicycle access, natural drainageways, irrigation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. b) Phase Two subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utility installation to serve Lots #5 and #6 and private driveway installation shall be completed according to approved plans prior to the signature of the final survey plat for Phase Two. The private driveway shall be subject to all development requirements for flag drives including that it shall be constructed to flag drive standards which call for a 15- foot paved drive centered in a 20-foot clear width where serving two lots and a 12-foot paved drive centered in a 15-foot clear width be maintained where serving one lot. Phase Three subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utility installation PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 14 I to serve Lot #3 shall be completed according to approved plans prior to the signature of the final survey plat for Phase Three. c) Electric services shall be installed underground to serve Lots 5 and 6 for Phase Two and Lot 3 for Phase 3. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. d) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for Lots 5 and 6 for Phase Two and Lot 3 for Phase Three. e) That prior to the signature of a final survey plat for Phase Two, the applicants shall provide a deed restriction agreement to be recorded on Lots #5 and#6 which requires the installation of a residential fire sprinkler system in each of these units. The deed restriction language shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor, and signed and notarized prior to release of the survey plat. The deed restriction shall be recorded concurrently with the survey plat. 6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) Individual lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the 45 percent lot coverage allowed in the underlying zoning districts. Building footprints, walkways, driveways, parking areas, and any impervious surfaces shall be counted for the purpose of lot coverage calculations. b) That all proposed lots shall be subject to Solar Access Standard A. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards, and shall include identification of the required solar setbacks with supporting formula calculations and elevation or cross-section drawings clearly labeling the height of the solar producing point(s) from the identified natural grade. c) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to fire hydrant distance; fire flow; fire apparatus access, turn-around, and work area; and approved addressing shall be satisfactorily addressed in the building permit plan submittals and complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever is applicable. Plans for residential fire sprinkler systems shall be provided with the building permit submittals for Lots #5 and #6, as proposed by the applicants. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public facilities. d) Building permit submittals for lots to be served via a flag drive shall be required to provide three off-street parking spaces. Required parking shall be identified on the site plan. Parking spaces on flag drives shall be placed to allow vehicles to turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. e) That the building height on Lot #6 be regulated as proposed by the applicants as identified on Sheet L-2.0 (Solar). Height of building on Lot #6 shall be limited to 21' as defined and regulated by AMC 18.70. This condition does not preclude a building to add a split-level floor or basement as the height measurement noted herein is restricted to the lot's "natural" grade. I PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 15 i I 7) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not illuminate adjacent proprieties. August 23, 2011 Planning Commission Approval Date I C i i PA#2011-00738 August 23,2011 Page 16 i i AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On M,4 - i` ?� 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2011-00738, 1405 Tolman Creek Road. n — s; Signature of Employee Documend 0 8/24/2011 j I i PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 557 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 202 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 2100 ALLISON SCOTT BARTELLO JACK AND DEBORAH B BECICH JOAN N 891 BESWICK WAY BARTEL ET AL 1450 TOLMAN CR RD ASHLAND OR 97520 1355 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 309 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 800 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 568 BURNETT WILEY M/MARGUERITE CIAMAICHELO MARIA TRUSTEE ET AL CULBERTSON KATHERINE MAY 1385 APPLE WAY 2375 GREENMEADOWS WAY PO BOX 3138 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1601 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 547 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1700 DEL RIO ROBIN JO DISMUKE J N/R L GODFREY- ENGELKING DONALD W TRUSTEE 2354 GREEN MEADOWS WAY 2125 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2368 GREEN MEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 400 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1200 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 559 FACEY GRETCHEN TRUST ET AL FAGUNDES MICHAEL H/JULIE R FRIEND JEANNETTE ET AL 211 FRONT ST 2323 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2340 RANCH RD TALENT OR 97540 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 574 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 317 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 567 GALLEN JOHN T/SKURATOWICZ EVA M GREEN DOUGLAS P/KAREN K HAMILTON JOHN B 2330 LUPINE DR 1403 APPLE WAY 2345 LUPINE DR ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 101 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1501 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1000 HANSEN RICHARD CARL HELLER JOEL ALAN HENNEMAN MICHAEL W TRUSTEE 1390 TOLMAN CREEK RD 2326 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2351 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 546 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 558 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1100 HERDRICH H R/J M TRUSTS FBO KAY FAMILY TRUST ET AL KENNEDY DAVID LEO/TERESA L 2225 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2350 RANCH RD 2337 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 I I i PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 308 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 570 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 566 MALIBAR GROUP LLC RETIREMENT LINDOW JAMES T/LINDOW DIANNE K LOESSI KAREN M TRUSTEE ET AL PLAN FBO RO 2370 LUPINE DR 2335 LUPINE DR 1405 S TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 i PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 900 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 569 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 600 NELSON-MUNSON PAMELA/BRIAN K OLSEN BETTY J TRUSTEE FBO ORR DEBBIE 2365 GREENMEADOWS WAY 10211 SW 55TH AVE 2395 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 PORTLAND OR 97219 ASHLAND OR 97520 I I PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 500 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 104 PA-2011-00738 PEREIRA MICHELE PUDERBAUGH THOMAS R/DIANE Urban Development Services, LLC 1114 DISCOVERY 1400 TOLMAN CREEK RD 485 W Nevada St YREKA CA 96097 ASHLAND OR 97520 Ashland OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 PA-2011-00738 PA-2011-00738 Construction Engineering Consultants Sager&Associates Polaris Land Survey PO Box 1724 700 Mistletoe Rd#210 PO Box 459 Medford OR 97501 Ashland OR 97520 Ashland OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E238A 1400 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 571 HEESACKER ERIC RATNER MARC L TRUSTEE ET AL RENE MELANIE/HITCHCOCK 2360 RANCH RD 2312 GREENMEADOWS WAY MICHAEL ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 2360 LUPINE DR ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 201 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 307 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 572 REZEK RONALD ROBERTSON BARBARA SORUM DONALD W TRUSTEE ET AL 709 WASHINGTON ST 22255 CANYON VIEW CIR 2350 LUPINE DR ASHLAND OR 97520 CUPERTINO CA 95014 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 573 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 103 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 544 SPJUT BEVERLY STRUHS BERNICE T TRSTEE FBO THOMPSON DAVID J/JUNE L 2340 LUPINE DR 1378 TOLMAN CREEK RD 2230 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND CA 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ! PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1300 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 314 PA-201 1-00738 391 E23BA 700 TONER MICHAEL JOSEPH ET AL VOELLER ESTELLE H WILSON GORDON B TRUSTEE 2309 GREENMEADOWS WAY 3784 COLEMAN CREEK RD 2385 GREEN MEADOW WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97501 ASHLAND OR 97520 I BROMBACHER ZACH 1405 TOLMAN CREEK 1370 TOLMAN CREEK RD 8124/2011 NOD ASHLAND OR 97520 46 i i i 2360 Lupine Drive � hiki Ashland, OR 97520 p+A STAPP July 12, 2011 Ashland Planning Commission Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Development Proposal at 1405 Tolman Creek Road Dear Commissioners, Our property at 2360 Lupine Drive is located at the western property line of the proposed project. We would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposal. After reviewing the staff prepared background information and applicant submittals, attending a neighborhood meeting convened by Mark Knowles and the development project team, and later meeting personally with the representatives; we have identified the following issues we would like to bring to the attention of and be addressed by the Commission. i 1. Tree preservation and protection: At the boundary of the Greenmeadows community and the proposed Tolman Creek subdivision,there are several very large mature trees that need special attention. These consist of a grand ponderosa pine with a 120 inch circumference or 38 inch diameter,a cluster of black oaks of roughly similar size, a cluster of white oaks, and another cluster of black oaks. Branches of the ponderosa pine extend up to 28 feet into the development property into the proposed building footprint. These are magnificent trees that j grace the Greenmeadows greenway and deserve strict protection. I Request: We request that measures be required to protect the above trees, including a) drip line protection during grading and construction activities, b) appropriate building setbacks so to not intrude into the foliage of the trees, and c) conditions so future residents are required to protect the trees. Also, we support the Tree Commission's recommendations for tree protection of the trees in and adjacent to Lot#6, and their recommendation to have a single sidewalk along the entry road so that the trees to the south of the roadway may be retained. I 2. Retention of Morning Solar Access: Morning sunlight, especially early morning, on our property could be blocked by structures on proposed lot#6. This could severely reduce sunlight to our backyard and the rear windows of our house which supply most of the natural light to our home. Morning light on the well used greenway adjacent to Lot#6 would also be impacted. Request: We request that measures be required on Lot#6 for: a)height limitations, such as a single story or split level home of a specified maximum height, and b)rear setbacks of 20 feet as proposed by the Applicant or greater as necessary to minimize the shadowing of morning sunlight into our yard and the greenway. The Applicant's representative has been attentive to this matter and said he would support this request. 3. Single Story Compatibility with Neighborhood: The neighborhoods surrounding the proposed project are predominantly single story homes. This results in a character of low intensity development consistent with the greenway and open space system of our neighborhood. The single story homes of Greenmeadows reduce solar impacts on neighbors' yards and homes, and also help keep scenic views open. Request: We request that the Planning Commission consider and adopt measures to require single family homes on lots adjacent to existing single family homes where views or solar access would be compromised by taller structures. 4. Light and Glare Screening: Headlights of traffic entering the west end of the site, Lot#'s 5 and 6,will potentially impact our home and the greenway. Appropriate building location/design, grading/berming and landscape screening could vastly reduce these impacts. Request.We request that the project be designed and conditioned to identify the screening measures such as building location/design, grading/berming and landscape screening that are needed to reduce the spillover of light and glare from traffic entering and leaving the site at this location so the greenway and our property will be protected. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Melanie Rene Michael Hitchcock i City of Ashland Planning Exhibit EXHIDIT'„()11,— ^'' PA# ?.. 'k " -� .. ®A1E P' 's€ sTAFF i Andrew Gibson Gretchen Lee Part Owners Lot 400 Ashland Planning Commission Re: Tolman Meadows Development 1405 Tolman Creek Rd. Ashland, Or 97520 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written in support of the proposed development,"Tolman Meadows” which has been submitted by Roy Marvin to the Ashland Planning Commission for consideration at the 7/12/11 meeting. Sincerely, Andrew Gibson Sherry Johnston Gretchen Lee Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4)Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair,usually 5 minutes. 5)If you present written materials,please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name (please print) Address(no P.O.Box) 75 Phone Email s .«c= t 111� Tonight's Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item number VJ— OR Topic for public forum(non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing _�_ For: ��.�,t''G?' 2✓'y'G`s' � Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member(planning commissioner)with a conflict of interest or bias,please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver if to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time constraints limitpublic testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings.for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding off cer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4)Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair,usually 5 minutes. 5)If you present written materials,please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6)You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name J k"k, (please print) Address(no P.O.Box) �, t a a I&VJ Phone, a t 4 ft AM 6 Email f It I Tonight's Meeting Date 7-1-4 J i Regular Meeting Agenda item number V OR Topic for public forum(non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member(planning commissioner)with a conflict of interest or bias,please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order ofproceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding ofcer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectfid, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4)Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair,usually 5 minutes. 5)If you present written materials,please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6)You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name i-a L"I (P V,-,, I [ - (please print) Address(no P.O.Box) 3 7 ca�c?-� t t (r'C'c_L— Phone >' +. `ap/ 01 Email y0c-.���` Tonight's Meeting Date 2- r j Regular Meeting o C I 1)073 Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum(non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member(planning commissioner)with a conflict of interest or bias,please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forumm on non-agenda items unless time constraints linfit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of'a proceeding. Please respect the order ofproceedings for public hearings and strictly.follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials,please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name (please print) Address (no P.O.Box) � Phone ` Email Tonight's Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum(non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member(planning commissioner)with a conflict of interest or bias,please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum.on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings,for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disf°espectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record, 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair,usually 5 minutes. 5)If you present written materials,please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6)You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name (please print) Address (no P.O.Box) Phone;J '" '�. - � � Email t c w h e &e'co me Tonight's Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item number 4 OR Topic for public forum(non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member(planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias,please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum.on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Of will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. oZgZ6 N009NO'CINVIHSV loz;giinS'ayo�gc N00no aN+qnlv - ON] 00 N—D N Io.L got'l ON]SID311HDSV JdYOSC3NY]S9iVo.nlV N C, v NOISIAIUSnS SMOGY3W N govs alsfiv] H z u us jg,,�MH 2 ——————————————————————————————— Na- z < M z nUl WMM iis. 3M�Nvn -L 'o t C M ,X, .p j! C D) L R i nns.-M 7-- 7—1 0 r 7— HEM E "n 5 m-m uluijjj j—1 P 7- W ---------- - I---------- << 77 '2 v A 2360 Lupine Drive Ashland,OR 97520 July 12, 2011 Ashland Planning Commission Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Development Proposal at 1405 Tolman Creek Road Dear Commissioners, Our property at 2360 Lupine Drive is located at the western property line of the proposed project. We would like to take,this opportunity to comment on the proposal. After reviewing the staff prepared back-ground in-flormation and applicant submittals,attending a neighborhood meeting convened by Mark.Kjaowies and the development project team, and later meeting personally with the representatives, we have identified the following issues we would like to bring to the attention of and be addressed by the Commission, I. Tree preservation and protection: At the boundary of the Greenmea , ,dows community and the proposed Tolman Creek subdivision,there are several very large mature trees that need special attention. These consist of a gland ponderosa pine with a 120 inch circumference or 38 inch diameter, a cluster of black oaks of roughly similar size,a cluster of White oak-s., and another cluster of black oaks, Branches of the ponderosa pine extend up to 28 feet into the development property into the proposed building footprint, 'Rese are magnificent trees that grace the Greenmeadows,greenway and deserve strict protection. Request, We request that measures be required to protect the above trees, including a)drip fine protection during grading and construction activities,b) appropriate building setbacks go to not intrude into the foliage of the trees,and C) conditions so future residents are required to protect the trees. Also,we support the Tree Commission's recommendations for tree protection of the trees in and adjacent to Lot #6,and their recommendation to have a single sidewalk along the entry road so that the trees to the south of the roadway may be retained. 2, Retention cif Morning_S olar Access: o M i g suet ht,es pe lly e ar ly o - ng, on our property could he blocked by structures on proposed lot#6. This could severely reduce sunlight to our backyard and the rear windows of our house which supply most of the natural light to out hon.-le. Morning light on the well used greenay a4lacent to Lot 46 would also be impacted. Request: We request that measures be required on Lot#6 for: a)height limitations, such as a single story or split level home of a specified maximum height and b)rear setbacks of 20 feet as proposed by the Applicant or greater as neemary to utinimize the shadowing of morning sunlight into our yard and the greenway.The Applicant's representative has been attentive to this matter and said he would support this request. 3 Single Story Compatibility with Neighborhood: The neighborhoods surrounding the proposed pr(jod are predominantly single story homes, This results in a character of low intensity development consistent with the greenway and open space system of our neighborhood, The single story homes of Gr"nmeadows reduce solar impacts on neighbors' yards and homes, and also help keep scenic views open, Reque,vt, We request that the Plaiu-iing Commission consider and adopt measures to require single f'4mily hornes on lots adjacent to existing single family homes where views or solar access would be compromised by taller structures, 4. Light and Glare Screening:Headlights of traffic entering the west end of the site, Lot W's 5 and 6, will potentially impact our home and the greenway. Appropriate building location/design,grading/berming and landscape screening could vastly stl reduce these impacts, Request, NNIc request that the project be designed and conditioned to identify the screening measures such as building location design,gradinoerinning and landscape screening that are needed to reduce the spillover of light and glare from traffic entering and leaAngy the site at this location so the greenway and our property will be protected. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Jvfel". ieRene Michael Hitchock 7 Talent Irrigation District milli PO Box 467 Talent, OR 97540 Telephone: 541-535-1529 Fax: 541-5$9-410$ Small: tiffitatontid.ord Website: www.talentid.or4 RECEIVED FaxJUL 12 201 TO: City of Ashland, Planning Dept, From: Jim Pendleton,Manager Pax: 541-552-2050 Pages: Including cover 4 Phone: 541-4$$-5$05 Date., 7112/2011 I Re: Planning Action 2011-00738 CC: ®urgent ❑ For Review ❑Please Comment (-1 Please Reply ❑Please Recycle 0 comments: I On July 13, 2010 Talent Irrigation District submitted the attached Land Use Agency Response Form for Planning Action 2010-00582 which has now become Planning Action 2011-00738, Please note in your file that all of the conditions submitted on July 13,2010 for Planning Action 2010-00582 are still applicable to Planning Action 2011-00738. If you have any questions, please oontact me at the District office at 541-535-1529. Thank you i I I i i i I ( A I I . Updnlcd S/2 f/Qft TALENT IRRIGATION DISTRICT . LAND USE.A.GENCY:R ESIPONSE FORM[ 'ValXey"V`ieSV Rd. 541-535-159 .. ... '.. Phone: P.O.Box 4G7 X+ax; 541-53$ 47.08 ' Talent, OR 97540 � Ennaxl: tid a(7taler►C3d.oz-� NANTE OF ENTITY REQUESTING R1uSPONSE: City.of Ashland l'l Mgjqg Q0MMlssi0n ENTITY REI)r(,R.ENCE NTIMI3ER; 2010-00582 MEETING REVIBIW I) TE: ruly_13,2010 MAP DESCRIPTION; 39-1B-2313 , Tax Lots 3091501. P:R,OP]KRTY A.DDRESS:1405 Tolman Creek Rd (� NO COMMENT ON LAND USE ISSUE(IT+NOT MARIC1+,T7, CONTINUE BE]GO'W) Nn Ir+C111JWKED COMMENT COMMENTS ARV,APPLICABLT!' ❑ A. WATER RIC AT ISSUES 0 �L Water rights need to be sold to someone or transf'crn-A back to Talent Irrigation District. Number of Irrigated Acres: C01,111-0.ents: ® 2, Must have District approval for water rights to remain in place on subject properly. Comments: Please note that Tax Lot 308 has 1,8 acres of water rights and TLM Mot 501 has 0.8 acres of water rights B. EASEMENTS DISTRICT EASEMENTS 1, Easement needs to remain cleat, No permanent structures or deep rooted I plants will be allowed within tlic easoojent linaits, E Comments: Be aware of the_DiWiel:'s Bellview Pipelit.,e I-glining along the wcstert1 property line of Tax Lot 501 and continuing through Tax Lot 308 2. If facility is to be relocated or modified,specificatioll.s r.:nust meet the District's standards and be agreeable to the District, A new written and a-ecordcd. casement must be conveyed to the,District. Cotnttnents: _ ❑ 3. If a writteii and recorded easement does not exist for an existing:facility, then � one must be provided in.-favor of the District, Comments: PRIVATE r, ASEMENTS 1. Property may have private:Facilities (ditch or pipeline) that the District does not manage. AlTangelven.ts may need to be made to provide continued service through the subject property for downstxcam water users. Comments: i i i I i shored/Word/forim Talent Irrigation District Agency Response Form Page 1 of 2 NO Tl�C,tXI�CZGJCA Updn(dd 5nUO& COKA'OTNT COMMENTS AVA,APPLICABLE PRIVATE EASEMENT PROVISIONS YOR MINOR PARTITIONS AND/OR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS 1. If the property currently has water rights and it is beha,g partitioned,or a lot ]ino adjustment is being made, easomen.ts must bo written and recorded which allow access for all of the pieces of property with water rights to continue W have access to the water. Comments: WAT.)CI R METER I2.)•QUI.REMi NT ON TRANSFERRED WATER RIGHTS Q I, If the water right on this property i5 a transferred water right Chat currently,l1as a water meter recluiremoilt,then each of the properties split:off of the original ,parcel all need to have water meters installed prior to the use o,f irrigation water on.the newly-formed parcels. Comments: ® C. FACILITIES (including but not limited to pipelit,,es, ditches, canals, control checks or boxes) 1. Upgrades to District facilities may be required to support,,my land use changes or developments, such as pipe installations or etx2sittg existing pipe under roads or concrete, Coy nm.ents: ❑ A DRA NAGE / STORM WATER, ® The District 7;elles ou the Bureau of Reclamation's Storm, Water Policy. No urban storm water or point source flows will be allowed ir,i.to th.e District's facilities without going through the Bureau of Reclamation process, (Developments in historically agricultural areas need to be aware of agricultural r<ua o-f water an.d take appropriate action to pxoteot the development fx�om upslope watox) Comments: GENERAL CO.MMR,NTS; 1. No interruptions to irrigation water deliveries will bo allowed. 2. T.T.D. is a Federal Project and sorn.e facilities and/or easetn at issues may need Bureau of Reclaniatio:n. approval. 3. The developer/sub-divi der will take all appropriate actions to ensure the reliability W.rd protection of the original function of the District's facilities. As required by ORS 92,090(6)the entity inust receive a cerdfxca.tion form from the District before approval of the final plat. Date Signed: n Pen.dle on .aaaager Talent Irrigation District .Anrcd/wonVrormg Tal.ei).t Irrigation District Agency Response Form Page 2 of 2 a i .AYWes I i I i i i DR I :)�O- oos?)2- "TCAY�-�� Qxex-x� U ozgZ6 N003SO'aNVIHSV Loe Alins'Civod 3013 NO—(D'QN—SV "S",ooz DNJ Si33ilHDaV 3dVZ)S(INVJ S3iVlOmv N-3 NYWIOL 90t7L NO[S[AlaunS SMOGV31N NYWIOJ Z ws H HIM 0 iV I H R ———————————————-- < z -M t u qVqH A338QjNVM 2 s mh -j- 'R my 7 101 A - -- - - ---------- < Ra�— 2 7 2 N K -H W-mi M MM-IE'dU Z�-L Is 4 ESE —?—H ---------- A A 6, ga—a -————————- ——————-- JUL 2011 V Andrew Gibson Gretchen Lee Part Owners Lot 400 Ashland Planning Commission Re: Tolman Meadows Development 1405 Tolman Creek Rd. Ashland,Or 97520 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written in support of the proposed development,"Tolman Meadows" which has been submitted by Roy Marvin to the Ashland Planning Commission for consideration at the 7/12/11 meeting. Sincerely, A 71 d' ew Gibson G r tc r tchen Lee I o� _o P in I \ ` m _ , J '(E)GARAGE '• ;'(E)DRIV�WA4•,' � ..--�\ n G /-"••. z� z 1 m I M]q p � u�� i�o N••' I; m i •/, I r �p �'.,I/'' 111�1,ff `/ ��__I^I \'�p I my0mp�. _ I• f, i ��^^1�1 4 i ,. l I �p f, � I I �Y�• 9 a � °^+ O p1 O Q �: ��Te�: • O K Z O i O MO Ot-N CREEK ROAD Y I I i i i JUL-8-2011 02:59P FROM:G.R.PEREi.NA,MD 15308421572 T0:15418588947 July 8, 2011 City of Ashland Planning Commission 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE; 1405 Tolman Creek Road, Planning Action: 2011-00798 Dear Commissioners, We, Michele and Gabriel Pereira, owners of the property at 1407 Tolman Creek Road (39-1E-BA, 500) that abuts to the eastern boundary of the proposed land subdivision. We will not be able to attend the meeting on July 12, 2011, as we have unavoidable prior commitments, and desire to make our concerns known regarding this proposal before the City of Ashland. We respectfully request that these concerns be included in the record and included in your decision as additional conditions for approval, Our concerns are based on review of the maps on file at the Ashland Planning Department. First, in regards to our common boundary that runs north and south. We are requesting that the existing vegetation and trees be retained on their property for providing a visual separation between the properties, In addition, we request that the developer provide a 6 foot solid fence, preferable wood or masonry, along the common boundary and also easterly to the proposed driveway approach for our access, to mitigate trespass and maintain privacy, There is no clear indication that any fencing is proposed for the subdivision regarding the surrounding neighborhood. In regards to the proposed driveway approach for our house. We would like to be assured that this will be constructed by the developer of this project with concrete, to City standards and tied into our existing driveway, Our primary concern is in regards to the variance for on-street parking. That is to say when Tax Lot 400 is developed with a potential of 5 additional dwellings and when our property, Tax Lot 500, is redeveloped in the future (a potential of 3 dwellings), there will not be sufficient on-street parking, There will not be sufficient area for future parking commensurate with future development, Especially given that on-street parking can only be an one side of the proposed Tolman Creek Lane, which will be a 'Q street'. A 50% reduction in parking spaces as is requested, is not proportionate based an the area covered by the large maple tree which was given as the ostensible reason for the variance request. This is not the minimum necessary to alleviate the problem, A variance of perhaps 10-12% would be more commensurate, thus providing a new land allocation for seven of the eight requested on-street parking spaces to alleviate the problem, Additionally, on-street parking bays could and should be provided in front of the properties being developed and at the end of the proposed Tolman Creek Lane where the other lots are proposed. Parking should not be in front of neighboring and unassociated properties, It should be noted that on-street parking obstructs the vision of vehicles drivers and creates danger for cyclists, It clutters the neighborhood, We would be so bold as to suggest that new developments such as this have at least 2 parking spaces built into each specific lot plan, be they garage, carport, etc, For the record, we are disappointed to see this development go forward since it dest =_the}rural na_fuPe of the neighborhood which recently attracted us as buyers in the first place. We do however, hope you will include our concerns as conditions for approval, as part of your decision process for this project. We thank you for your consideration in these matters, Sincerely, -M t�A P A Michele and Gabriel Pereira 1407 Tolman Creek Road Ashland OR 97520 t I dI Jul, 0 8 2011 I i 2360 Lupine Drive Ashland,OR 97520 Ashland Tree Commission t{ .,M1_, Ashland,OR 97520 Held, , RE:: Development Proposal at 1405 Tolman Creek Road Dear Commissioners, Our property at 2360 Lupine Drive is located at the western property line of the proposed project. We would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposal. After reviewing the staff prepared background information and applicant submittals, attending a neighborhood meeting convened by Mark Knowles and the development project team, and later meeting personally with the representatives; we have identified the following issues we would like to bring to the attention of and be addressed by the Commission. 1. Tree preservation and protection: At the boundary of the Greenmeadows community and the proposed Tolman Creek subdivision,there are several very large mature trees that need special attention. These consist of a grand pondersosa pine with a 120 inch circumference or 38 inch diameter, a cluster of black oaks of roughly similar size,a cluster of white oaks,and another cluster of black oaks. Branches of the ponderosa pine extend up to 28 feet into the development property into the proposed building footprint. These are magnificent trees that grace the Greenmeadows greenway and deserve strict protection. We request that measures be required to protect the above trees,including a)drip line protection during grading and construction activities,b)appropriate building setbacks so to not intrude into the foliage of the trees,and c)conditions so future residents are required to protect the trees. 2. Landscaping to provide screening and not block morning sunlight: headlights of traffic entering the west end of the site will potentially impact our home and the greenway. Appropriate building design, grading/berming and landscape screen could vastly reduce these impacts. We request that the project be designed and conditioned to identify the screening measures necessary to reduce the spillover of light and glare from traffic entering and leaving the site at this location so the greenway and our property will be protected. i' Thank you for your attention to these matters. Melanie Rene MichaeZH' cock C. i f I ! =.3 � � mow`✓ � aX' V-A � f " V� t$ �J %y ) � �, r* 3aY { Y✓f t � �4 yi f� �. W 1 c,.. w { S 2 y:lFgj 7 dy.w y Y r. 4 . e w yk "5C f ,P y ^ J' elf ? j f 'S 1 �,�'e4y• �✓ ��+ ��7.xff�F r#af j� n d� 7t ) a ab. 6 �� j 419 u y�, rr h s A `14 AW n Csh n•try. # � a f,'ds. , pa t . p a Awe bW-. h Asa. lug { 1 n v r .*. .r i. ' � I NOT Jv " 3 } jv to � R r -r r s r� � y c n � P F, 9 sg € )per' r� �a. t r � ........... iv Jul CV ;,^b a own KOJI qua wk TOWN Ell � , Nv � � � . k IN r n pall " ,+ y X r € EELky{ Y him K I Z an t f� i i i I I I i i i I I i I, � �' � �4 � �``.r,?4s�� by �;' #, ,�• , r s �a�� �- ��:d qqgg WX Al qz� ` s� � t`� �'µ .°� ' �^�`' �� eft,, a•- r � �d i � P$ k3u '4 t .�iY' �' l)l"a1^C,�""S�f i •, Y '� 4�^ A^. Ila ;. ,;-,r•E` "ccy `fit a':m+ ', Fi ell t i= r< ASi v y � � W ,i 1r. { lr } r ? 4 F ti Y �.x /� b r 4a+r � • r LL 1 b y P 0 ma g" r'c'�ra pp �n 7 d � a N}t' t 'aftel ly, '� aY M w •+ Mow' W- )' r a Witis u" � a � �;t j " fig. .: ,. s-v;,:, �'xi5=�"3� "s�u:.r ,r .,, ,✓r^...,... ,. ,,.....,,. ~~yt-'w-M r +.,v��55..�,��, ,yr�>w�;;9��.,6� '-�.3 a f rY �h g w v z x } Y y Y § a r , a . • t - r . a. 3 Y r' 11 y q 1 ��;i� � fa � 5 .fro• _ t � CITY OF . ASHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION Type I—Recommendations to Staff Advisor July 7,2011 PLANNINGACTION.- 2011-00738 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1405 Tolman Creek Road APPLICANT: Malibar Group, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision to be developed in three phases for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road, The application also includes requests for a Variance to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by fifty percent in order to preserve a large (60- inch diameter) maple tree; an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalla along a portion of the new street; and a Physical &Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow utility installation within the Hamilton Creekfloodplain along Tolman Creek Road COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION.• Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP#:391E 23 BA; TAX LOT.• 308 and 501 The Tree Commission recommendations: 1) That a sidewalk be installed on the north side of the proposed street only, in order to protect the row of trees on the opposite side. 2) That Tree Protection Zones on all plans be specified in feet from the trunk of the tree. 3) That the Tree Protection information be identified on the Civil Engineering plans. 4) To have the project arborist on site during construction of the roadway and sidewalk around tree ##43 to determine the best method of root excavation. j 5) That trees ## 38, 39, and 40 be protected indefinitely, and have a certified arborist supervise work when development occurs on Lot 6. OW mill i i �I i i i i I oz5Z6 N0034o'CINVII49V LO;,3iinS'civoN 3oiglisiy�OOZ �M:)NVV410i 90tL DNI SiDgilHDdV 3dV:)SCINY]SgiV]OOSSV CINV NOISIAI(IgnS SMO([V3yq NVWlQj d3ovS 3izfnyj L A3, 0 ———————————————————— --—————— R,7 8, F K s Z 0 k F t GVOH ADE�:10 NVNICI 7 0 g�2'� ——————-- V; N. 2 6 --------- S� .4, 02 t,,t'l 2K P HHHHH --- ---------- —4-2 —22 A E �HMNMN u 7w o CA —————————-T r——————————— v MUMN 2 Planning Department,51 Winburn Way,Ashland,Oregon 97520 CITY OF 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland.orms TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2011-00738 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1405 Tolman Creek Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Malibar Group, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision to be developed in three phases for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road. The application also includes requests for a Variance to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by fifty percent in order to preserve a large (60-inch diameter) maple tree; an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street, and a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow utility installation within the Hamilton Creek floodplain along Tolman Creek Road. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;ZONING:R-1-7.5;ASSESSOR'S MAP#:391E 23 BA; TAX LOT:308 and 501 NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on July 7,2011 at 6:00 p.m.in the Community Development and Engineering Services building(Siskiyou Room)located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: July 12, 2011 at 7:00 PH,Ashland Civic Center Lf' T LI f � P #201 - _ � A 1 00738 i �-„ _ i. "TOLMR PE RY 1 - r. ( 1 SUBJECT PROPERTY L LFLI L � I 0 ao 00 12o Faat Property lines are for reference only,naf sm(enbte Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above.The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street,Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way,Ashland,Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing,the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a'continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act,if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.(28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division,541-488-5305. �I i OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 18,88.030,A,4 Criteria for Approval The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b, That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water,sewer,paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation;and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. That the existing and natural features of the land;such as wetlands,floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space,common areas,and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project, f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards.(ORD 2836,1999) FINAL PLAN APPROVAL 18.88.030.B.5 Criteria for Final Approval Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan, Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title, c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%)percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten(10%)percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g, The development complies with the Street Standards. (ORD 2836,1999) VARIANCE 18,100,020 Application The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor.Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (ORD 2425,1987). C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. (ORD 2775,1996) EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.88.050 F—Exception to Street Standards An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site, B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty;and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter.(ORD 2951,2008;ORD 2836,1999) PHYSICAL&ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 18.62.040.1 Criteria for Approval A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter,the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.(ORD 2808,1997;ORD 2834,1998;ORD 2951,2008) GAcomm-dev\ptanning\Notices Mailed\2011\2011-00738.doc oz;gZ6 NOEMO'GNVIHSV Z? LOZ;iinS'avod goig N003a0'ONmHSIV o°y 11311"OOZ ONE SiOgIIHZ)NV 3dVOS(3NVJ MN:)NVV4101 90VL NOISIA109nS 3MOUY3yq NVVq]Oi SIE:WS DiNnv] < z 0 —————————————————————————————————— Os u < z -,B2 n CV02JN=1O�NVNl01, v MW 4 3a L-- --—————— A �7 EE =as vavema v --- --- ------- 'D.-M MMMMH� 7 rn n A.- naffl a H zlk oe —————————— Ir i Talent Irrigation District PO Box 467 Talent, OR 97540 - - Telephone: 541-535-1529 Fax; 541-535-4108 Email: tidatalontid.ora Website: www.talcntid.orn RECEIVED JUL 12 Fax ?011 To: City of Ashland, planning Dept. From- Jim Pendleton, Manager Fax: 541-552-2050 Pages: Including cover 4 Phones 541-488-5305 Date., 7/12/2011 Re: Planning Action 2011-00738 CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ® Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle Comments: On July 13, 2010 Talent Irrigation District submitted the attached Land Use Agency Response Form for Planning Action 2010-00582 which has now become Planning Action 2011-00738, Please note in your file that all of the conditions submitted on July 13, 2010 for Planning Action 2010-00582 are still applicable to Planning Action 2011-00738. If you have any questions, please contact me at the District office at 541-535-1529. Thank you Updated 5/21/M TALENT IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND USE AGENCY'RESPONSE FORM I Valley e ilidi , Phone: 541-535-1529 View P.O.Box 467 Fax: 541-535-41.08 Talent, OR 97540 Email: tid@t,,ilentid.org NAME OF ENTITY REQUESTING RESPONSE: City.of Ashland Planning Commission ENTIT'Y REFERENCE NUMBER: 2010-00582 MEETING REVIEW DATE; July-13,2010 MAP DESCRIPTION: 39-IE-2313A Tax Lots 308/501. PROP]ERTY ADDRESS:1405 Tolman Creels Rd NO COMMENT ON LAND USE ISSUE (IF NOT MARICFJ), CONTINUE Rrmow) NO W CIMCKED COMMENT COMMENTS ARE APPUCABLE ❑ A. WATER RIG,.HT ISSUES ❑ 1. Water rights need to be sold to someone or transferred bade to Talent Irrigation District. Number. of Irrigated Acres-, C01,111-nents: - 2, Must Have District approval for water rights to remain in place on subject properly. Comments: Please note that Tax Lot 308,has 1,8 acres of W,,ger rights and Tax Lot 501 has 0.8 acres of water aghts, ❑ B. EASEMENTS DISTRICT EASEMENTS 1, Easement needs to remain clear. No permanent structtires or deep rooted plants will be allowed within the easement limits, Comments: Be aware of the District's Bellyiew Pipeline rnning along the wcstcnl property 1i11e of Tax T�Ot 501 and through,Tax Lot 308 2. If,facility is to be relocated or modified, specificatioiismust meet the District's standards and be agreeable to the District, A new written,and r000rdod, easement must be conveyed to the District. Comments: ❑ 3. If a written and recorded easement does not exist for an existing facility, then one must be provided in,favor of the District. Comments: PRIVATE EASEMENTS 1. Property may have private fficflities (ditch or pipeline) that the District does riot manage,. Airangenients may need to be niade,to provide continued service, through the subject property for downstTeam water users. commcnts: Talent.Irrigation District,agency Response Form Page 1 of 2 Upddid 5/21/0& NO III C,TIRCRED COMMENT COMMENTS AUR APPLICABLE (PRIVATE EASEMENT PROVISIONS FOR MINOR PARTITIONS AND/OR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS 1. If the property currently has water rights and it is being partitioned.or a lot ],iris adjustment is being made, easements ,.must be written and recorded which allow access for all of the pieces of property with water rights to continue to have access to the water. Comments: WATER METER,REQUIREMENT ON TRANSFERRED WATER RIGHTS [� L If the water right on this property is a transferred water right that currently Us a water meter.requirement, then each of the properties split off of the original parcel all need to have water meters installed prior to the use of irrigation water on.tli,e newly formed parcels. Comments: ❑ C. FACILITIES (including but not limited to pipeli.n,es, ditches, canals, control checks or boxes) 1. Upgrades to District facilities may be required to support any land use eh.a.nges or devolop.ments, such as pipe installations or ejami.tlg existing pipe under roads or concrete. Co.mm.ents: ❑ D. DRAINAGE / STORM WATT+'R ® The District relies ou the Bureau of Reclamation's Storin Water Policy. No uxban storm water or pohit source flows will be allowed into the District's facilities without going through the Bureau of Reclamation process. (Developments in historically agricultural areas need to be aware of agricultural nin off water anal take appropriate action. to protect the development from upslope water',) Comments: GENERAL COMMENTS.- 1. No interruptions to irrigation water deliveries will be allowed. 2. T11), is a Federal Project and soyne facilities and/or easement issues may need Bureau of Reclamation. approval. 3. The developer/sub-divider will take all appropriate actions to ensure the reliability and protection of the original function of the District's :facilities. .As required by ORS 92.090(6) the entity must receive a certification form from the District before approval of the final plat. Date Signed: 7—anager P en.dl e on Talent Irrigation District A lnyod/wo YUrorms 'T'alent Irrigation District Agency Response Form Page 2 of 2 0 3►°ta 1�-Z 'dq � • .•nanorua� D R AIL WA 1 \ Andrew Gibson Gretchen Lee Part Owners Lot 400 Ashland Planning Commission Re: Tolman Meadows Development 1405 Tolman Creek Rd. Ashland, Or 97520 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written in support of the proposed development, "Tolman Meadows" which has been submitted by Roy Marvin to the Ashland Planning Commission for consideration at the 7/12/11 meeting. Sincerely, A/d ew Gibson "JV Gr tchen Lee i \----------- 0 =" \ a� \ � I r � I v � ♦ \ , I �, m ♦R I L�z (Ej GARAGE .'(EjORIVEWAY I m 11 \\♦'♦ o �' �.._��m`_� NC- / /r {� o- — mmmq •I a .m Ar/ �n r .� � b�"� Y I /1• Z I L A i Ll, o D b ® > I ~o< m m Z m m R a r I i4-LMM CREEK ROAD �3 i i JUL-8-2011 O2:59P FROM:G.R.PEREIPf),MD 15388421572 7^•15418588947 P. 1f1 July 8, 2011 City of Ashland Planning Commission 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: 1405 Tolman Creek Road, Planning Action: 2011-00738 Dear Commissioners, We, Michele and Gabriel Pereira, owners of the property at 1407 Tolman Creek Road (39-1E-HA, 500) that abuts to the eastern boundary of the proposed land subdivision. We will not be able to attend the meeting on July 12, 2011, as we have unavoidable prior commitments, and desire to make our concerns known regarding this proposal before the City of Ashland. We respectfully request that these concerns be included in the record and included in your decision as additional conditions for approval. Our concerns are based on review of the maps on file at the Ashland Planning Department. First, in regards to our common boundary that runs north and south. We are requesting that the existing vegetation and trees be retained on their property for providing a visual separation between the properties. In addition, we request that the developer provide a 6 foot solid fence, preferable wood or masonry, along the common boundary and also easterly to the proposed driveway approach for our access, to mitigate trespass and maintain privacy. There is no clear indication that any fencing is proposed for the subdivision regarding the surrounding neighborhood. In regards to the proposed driveway approach for our house. We would like to be assured that this will be constructed by the developer of this project with concrete, to City standards and tied into our existing driveway. Our primary concern is in regards to the variance for on-street parking. That is to say when Tax Lot 400 is developed with a potential of 5 additional dwellings and when our property, Tax Lot 500, is redeveloped in the future (a potential of 3 dwellings), there will not be sufficient on-street parking. There will not be sufficient area for future parking commensurate with future development. Especially given that on-street parking can only be an one side of the proposed Tolman Creek Lane, which will be a 'q street'. A 50% reduction in parking spaces as is requested, is not proportionate based on the area covered by the large maple tree which was given as the ostensible reason for the variance request. This is not the minimum necessary to alleviate the problem. A variance of perhaps 10-12% would be more commensurate, thus providing a new land allocation for seven of the eight requested on-street parking spaces to alleviate the problem. Additionally, on-street parking bays could and should be provided in front of the properties being developed and at the end of the proposed Tolman Creek Lane where the other lots are proposed. Parking should not be in front of neighboring and unassociated properties. It should be noted that on-street parking obstructs the vision of vehicles drivers and creates danger for cyclists, It clutters the neighborhood. We would be so bold as to suggest that new developments such as this have at least 2 parking spaces built into each specific lot plan, be they garage, carport, etc. For the record, we are disappointed to see this development go forward since it destroys the rural nature of the neighborhood which recently attracted us as buyers in the first place. we do however, hope you will include our concerns as conditions for approval, as part of your decision process for this project. We thank you for your consideration in these matters. Sincerely, A Michele and Gabriel Pereira 1407 Tolman Creek Road Ashland OR 97520 i I i I . I. 2 0'111 i i 2360 Lupine Drive Ashland, OR 97520 J JIL 0 7 Ashland Tree Commission Ashland, OR 97520 RE:: Development Proposal at 1405 Tolman Creek Road Dear Commissioners, Our property at 2360 Lupine Drive is located at the western property line of the proposed project. We would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposal. After reviewing the staff prepared background information and applicant submittals, attending a neighborhood meeting convened by Mark Knowles and the development project team, and later meeting personally with the representatives; we have identified the following issues we would like to bring to the attention of and be addressed by the Commission. 1. Tree preservation and protection: At the boundary of the Greemneadows community and the proposed Tolman Creek subdivision,there are several very large mature trees that need special attention. These consist of a grand pondersosa pine with a 120 inch circumference or 38 inch diameter, a cluster of black oaks of roughly similar size, a cluster of white oaks, and another cluster of black oaks. Branches of the ponderosa pine extend up to 28 feet into the development property into the proposed building footprint. These are magnificent trees that grace the Greenmeadows greenway and deserve strict protection. We request that measures be required to protect the above trees, including a) drip line protection during grading and construction activities,b)appropriate building setbacks so to not intrude into the foliage of the trees, and c) conditions so future residents are required to protect the trees. 2. Landscaping to provide screening and not block morning sunlight: headlights of traffic entering the west end of the site will potentially impact our home and the greenway. Appropriate building design, grading/berming and landscape screen could vastly reduce these impacts. We request that the project be designed and conditioned to identify the screening measures necessary to reduce the spillover of light and glare from traffic entering and leaving the site at this location so the greenway and our property will be protected. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Melanie Rene Michael H' c Eck —e- a Sy y 4 vi , r � t " " e `e r E 1� t / r � Y � s a CA �41 47A 1 � fir^' �"�'..�.„�--, '�-%'-�°`.»-'-�....-".-^"„�'�` �.�. � � ,r.,r -'�-..M •`r`.,.mow. a ���' .,"_. �'��'r:, -'' ��r�� r✓.�,�"�s- �-:- '""'_ -✓err � � �3 � ,rr�— y .�< r <_ �✓� �-'"� ���_ .��>��✓r^���r rte. � �ar ; rt r }f r < N r< � i F. M t > • �{ n > lr � d u A v m N� �n r. m rt - - - - - _ ; i i OWN �— 2360 �� �� '�t4 fir•��t<7�1���� tiKit �`�' y'y1' r�� m �m N M. 23 r nors y <F` Y �*R •� z � q "��N l�`f����� pY#irk? �� �����{�f �•' AIM xt J 1 1T.. r :ter 7 r r r ON jy r 4 F ' d N }33c,s,✓. 9 � : LYE � v5 ACE--',� .,� NNW � *' Z ,M � > �1 k w. VIM"( qw S } >s N K�7 r } yY a .s Ow i r �' t ! �� �u � �1� ��� ��� � o a� � S 6 ay 4 �� r� f/+ r` � � y�_x� t ,rev �`�.,�,� r '�,�y � �{a ,�y e �^r��. � s. �h��} �'� r.����,� �<.jif v�� ,��! '' r;� ? Z't�._� ra � � � � �.,� �� .•<,,,,,,y�y � iii r , � � a , „ 9 e ,' �.�� t � :�. � a: ,�, , ��i � f> xr,. �a � � '� � ,; �� F=, �. � 1 �$ N*i ,;y y �°+ � ? � t �' n r tit �� � r � ' a39 � w C /�£a /�; F � x7�� eft Td:`ill j��d � � 'T k' 1��� �'� � 7J �t�3++� � '#T 7{ ''b'l N 3�:. it � ��rgf F�" a � ,fa�..� �J-,h �F F* - k _�� * __ _ � ?� i ' r-: �;. r ,�' .� :. t= s? '' ` ,.r_ � � , o., aka � ' ��:- � fa L. � r�, a �. $" �� yi ��, �.�, r i� ��„ a �� �- � c a '� =� 2 i '� : wh � �, � . r,. � �- � � � i' m- / IT yj �A } �`' r rir � r'r`.` k _ �`� T w x'f�r - ' J o- � s Wk AS ET LL— M3J, ¢9yw " PAT r a:� m ti imp Ax .�-WAN r 'o till V q a� 3 y, r { y 3 ---------- NUF I A 131N .............. W 1W W Ma, !z suhn- '- MAZ yogm lots Air, CITY g ASHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION Type I—Recommendations to Staff Advisor July 7,2011 PLANNINGACTION.• 2011-00738 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1405 Tolman Creek Road APPLICANT: Malibar Group, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision to be developed in three phases for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road. The application also includes requests for a Variance to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by fifty percent in order to preserve a large (60- inch diameter) maple tree; an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street; and a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow utility installation within the Hamilton Creek floodplain along Tolman Creek Road, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION.• Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 391E 23 BA; TAX LOT: 308 and 501 The Tree Commission recommendations: 1) That a sidewalk be installed on the north side of the proposed street only, in order to protect the row of trees on the opposite side. 2) That Tree Protection Zones on all plans be specified in feet from the trunk of the tree. 3) That the Tree Protection information be identified on the Civil Engineering plans. 4) To have the project arborist on site during construction of the roadway and sidewalk around tree #43 to determine the best method of root excavation. 5) That trees # 38, 39, and 40 be protected indefinitely, and have a certified arborist supervise work when development occurs on Lot 6. ,I w Planning Department,51 Winburn r.uy,Ashland,Oregon 97520 IT 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland,or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2011-00738 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1405 Tolman Creek Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Malibar Group, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision to be developed in three phases for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road. The application also includes requests for a Variance to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by fifty percent in order to preserve a large (60-inch diameter) maple tree; an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street, and a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow utility installation within the Hamilton Creek floodplain along Tolman Creek Road. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential,ZONING:R-1-7.5;ASSESSOR'S MAP#:391E 23 BA; TAX LOT:308 and 501 NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on July 7,2011 at 6:00 p.m.in the Community Development and Engineering Services building(Siskiyou Room)located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: July 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM,Ashland Civic Center NOTE: Deliberations continued to August 9,201.1 at 7:00 PM,Ashland Civic Center. Hearing has closed. i _LLI 1 _z to l ' �1 L,lLL , / - r 1 -- t.. 1 c� Jut C ID \ i-t PA#2011-00738' 1405 TOLMAN CR RD J C -"' SUBJECT PROPERTY — - ------- - - 17 N 7 PRO: EAP r - -- I 0 30 60 -120 Foe! Property lines arej r reference only,nol sm[eaLte Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above,The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street,Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion, Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way,Ashland,Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing,the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act,if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.(28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division,541-488-5305. OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 18,88,030.A.4 Criteria for Approval The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: a, That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water,sewer, paved access to and through the development,electricity,urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation;and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c, That the existing and natural features of the land;such as wetlands,floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space,common areas,and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided,and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards.(ORD 2836,1999) FINAL PLAN APPROVAL 18.88,030.6,5 Criteria for Final Approval Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another.Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten(10%)percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten(10%)percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten(10%)percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. (ORD 2836,1999) VARIANCE 18.100.020 Application The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor.Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere, B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (ORD 2425,1987). C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. (ORD 2775,1996) EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.88,050 F—Exception to Street Standards An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18,88,050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter.(ORD 2951,2008;ORD 2836,1999) PHYSICAL&ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 18,62.040,1 Criteria for Approval A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1, Through the application of the development standards of this chapter,the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered,and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.(ORD 2808,1997;ORD 2834,1998;ORD 2951,2008) W comm-dev\planning\Notices Mailed\2011\2011-00738.doc Staff Report Addendum . Submitted 7/20/2011 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM August 9, 2011 JUI, 20 6111 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2010-00738 APPLICANT: Malibar Group LLC LOCATION: 1405 Tolman Creek Road Map 39 1E 23 BA, Tax Lots#308 &4501 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: July 3, 2011 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: November 14, 2011 (with 14-day period record was left open considered) ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 R-1 Single Family Residential District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.62 Physical &Environmental Constraints 18.88 Performance Standards Options 18.88.050.F Exception to Street Standards 18.100 Variances REQUEST: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision to be developed in three phases for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road. Also included are requests for a Variance to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by fifty percent in order to preserve a large(60-inch d.b.h.)maple tree;an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street; and a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow utility installation within the Hamilton Creek floodplain along Tolman Creek Road. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application At the July 12, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the public hearing was opened and testimony was represented. At the conclusion of the public comments,neighbor James Lindow of 2370 Lupine Drive requested in writing that the record be left open for the maximum time period allowed,as provided in ORS 197.763. The applicants then requested that the record be left open an additional seven days as provided by statute to allow them to prepare and submit additional written arguments in response to new evidence received. Commission Chair Marsh closed the public hearing,with the record to remain open for seven days (until 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 20'h)to allow the submittal of new evidence and for seven additional days(until 4:30 p.m.on Wednesday,July 27h)to allow the applicants to submit written arguments. The matter was continued to a date certain when it was Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum Applicant: Mallbar Group LLC Page 1 of 12 announced that the item would again be taken up by the Commission at their next regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. on August 91n Based on the testimony presented, the Planning Commission requested that staff provide additional information on options to address issues raised around sidewalks within the proposed development,including the requested Exceptions contained within the application and additional discussion during the hearing of efforts to potentially preserve Tree #2 by altering the sidewalk installation in its vicinity. In addition, staff noted that while the application characterized the relocation of the pedestrian easement from Apple Way as being"wholeheartedly supported"by the affected neighboring property owners,during testimony in the hearing the property owner who would need to agree to the relocation, Karen Green, seemed to indicate that she was not in fact supportive of modifying the existing easement to re-route it through her property. In staff's view, the issues which merit further input while the record remains open are as follows: o Trees & Tree Protection o The Pedestrian Easement from Apple Way o The requested Exception & Variance (i.e. Sidewalks & On- Street Parking) Each of these is discussed below in the relevant section under"Project Impact." II. Project Impact As previously noted,the proposal involves a request for Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision,which is to be developed in three phases. In addition,the proposal also includes requests for: 1) a Variance to reduce the number of on- street parking spaces by fifty percent in order to preserve a 60-inch d.b.h. maple tree on the subject properties; 2) an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street; and 3)a Physical&Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow utility installation within the Hamilton Creels floodplain along Tolman Creek Road. A. Outline & Final Plan Approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter The Performance Standards Options require that natural features such as wetlands,floodplain corridors,ponds,large trees and rock outcroppings throughout the subject parcel be included and incorporated in open space, common areas and unbuildable areas. The applicants' submittals note that the site design proposed demonstrates an effort to preserve natural features such as the large trees including the 60-inch d.b.h. maple proposed to be preserved adjacent to the proposed new street and other trees grouped around the property and on adjacent parcels,as well as the natural drainage along the west side of the property which is already protected within a conservation easement. Through the course of the hearings before both the Tree and Planning Commissions,the applicants have also expressed an interest in preserving a sycamore tree (Tree#2)provided that a sidewalk treatment can be worked out which would accommodate retaining the tree. Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 2 of 12 Tree 2,the Sycamore Commissioner Dawkins noted during the last meeting that sycamore roots often damage nearby sidewalks, curbs and paving. Because their strong, aggressive root surface growth can be damaging, sycamores are included on the city's list of"Non-Recommended Street Trees."Their roots may extend as far out as the tree is tall,and sycamores can reach 75400 feet in height. In discussions with the applicants' team subsequent to the close of the hearing,they have suggested that the sidewalk might be able to meander to curbside with a reduced 30-inch width in order to accommodate the tree,and have further suggested that they would look at alternative sidewalk treatments which might better accommodate sycamore root growth. Assuming that sidewalks can only be installed on one side of the proposed street (i.e. the applicants have not provided evidence of agreement from the owner of Tax Lot #400 to complete sidewalk improvements on the north side of the proposed street) staff does not believe that it would be appropriate to have a substantial section of the tree's root zone with no sidewalks in place. The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards require a demonstration that equal or superior facilities and connectivity will result from granting the Exception,and staff does not believe that a substantial gap in the sidewalk installation can be found to meet this criterion. Should the Commission ultimately determine that Tree #2 merits retention, staff would recommend that the Exception relating to sidewalk installation be modified to include the section of sidewalk in Tree #2's root zone and that allowances be made for a narrower curbside installation with the possibility of some alternative treatments to be recommended by the project's arborist and civil engineer such as floating the sidewalk, installing the sidewalk in a modular panel system within the root zone,etc. Condition#3c below has been modified to address these options. Other Trees &Tree Protection AMC 18.61.200 requires that a Tree Protection Plan detailing required tree protection fencing be provided for all development activities involving a planning action. As noted during the hearing, staff believes that a revised Tree Protection Plan is needed which addresses required protection of trees in the vicinity of the proposed building envelopes. This would include those trees along the drainage easement in proximity to the envelopes on Lots 95 and#6, between Lots #2 and 43 and between Lot#1 and Tax Lot#500. The applicants have also suggested that because Lots #5 and #6 may not develop for a number of years, the trees on those lots, which include large cottonwoods, should be re- assessed by an arborist prior to development of the lots. This seems appropriate in staff's view, with the understanding that should such a re-assessment result in a recommendation that any of the trees be removed, the Tree Removal Permit would be subject to a land use action to modify the current subdivision request. Conditions reflecting the above are recommended below. Pedestrian Easement Relocation Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 3 of 12 In addition to the street improvements proposed,the applicants have proposed to relocate a bicycle and pedestrian easement which was previously required to be provided with the creation of the Wild Creek Subdivision. As originally configured, the easement was to extend from the end of Apple Way through that subdivision's natural area, requiring a crossing of the Hamilton Creels tributary which daylights just north of the subject properties. The easement was to ultimately provide for a continuous connection to Tolman Creek Road from the Apple Way cul-de-sac, and would be completed with development of properties along Tolman Creels Road. No improvements have been installed to date,and the applicants have proposed to work with the Wild Creels Subdivision neighbors to relocate the pedestrian easement down a private drive off of Apple Way,avoiding a creek crossing,and connecting to the proposed new street installation with a six-foot wide multi-use path in a ten-foot easement. During testimony in the hearing, the property owner who would need to agree to the relocation,Karen Green who owns 1403 Apple Way,seemed to indicate that she may not be willing to agree to allow re-routing of the easement across her property. This poses a significant issue for staff because if the applicants are unable to obtain this agreement,they would be unable to complete one of the components of the proposal malting up the application. In staff's view,the pedestrian connection provides a strong justification for the requested Exception to Street Standards in terms of addressing the "equal or superior connectivity" criterion, and the Commission could determine that without evidence of agreement by the neighbors the application fails to meet the burden of proof and suggest that the applicants request an extension to postpone the meeting until necessary agreements can be obtained. Alternatively, the Commission could include a condition that stipulates if the necessary agreements cannot be obtained to re-route the easement that the applicants be required to design and install improvements to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian use within the existing easement. A condition to this effect is recommended below. B. Variance to Required On-Street Parking The Performance Standards Options Chapter includes parking standards which require that "at least one on-street parking space per unit shall be provided in addition to the off-street parking requirements for all development in an R-1 zone... On-street parking spaces shall be immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land and be directly accessible from public right-of-way streets. On-street parking shall be located within 200 feet of the dwelling it is intended to serve." The proposed eight-unit subdivision would require that eight on-street parking spaces be provided in or near the proposed street right-of-way. The applicants have proposed a Variance to this requirement in order to reduce the required parking by fifty percent,to only four spaces,in order to preserve the 60-inch d.b.h. maple tree (Tree #43). During the hearing, staff noted that it appeared to be possible to accommodate the required on-street parking within the development through a combination of compliance with the standards for driveway separation and/or consolidating drives,placing parking on the north side of the proposed street, and removing the circular drive with a later phase of the Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 4 of 12 development to accommodate additional parking spaces. The applicants also noted the possibility of adding an additional space or two to the bays near Lot 7. As the development is completed and nearby properties develop further,staff believes that visitor parking could impact surrounding properties and we have accordingly retained the previously recommended condition below which would require a revised site plan which addresses the required on-street parking through the removal of the looped driveway to accommodate additional parking. C. Exception(s)to Street Standards—Sidewalk Installation After the last meeting's discussion of sidewalks in terms of maintaining the rural feel of the area and of there not being sidewalks in place on Tolman Creek Road at this time,staff feels it is important to note that when the subject property and the adjacent properties at the end of the driveway develop to their zoned density there could be 130-150 or more vehicle trips per day on the proposed short segment of road. In staff's view, having a functional sidewalk system which encourages pedestrian travel to, from and within the proposed subdivision is crucial to long-term livability of the development by comprehensively addressing the access and mobility needs of all residents. The Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element and related Street Standards Handbook envision and support a comprehensively planned,interconnected network of streets to serve users of all modes of transportation. While the Land Use Ordinance provides for Exceptions, they require a demonstration both that there is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the standards and that the resultant facility will provide for equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity. With that said, staff believes that an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks for a portion of the new street is merited where necessary to accommodate the large maple (and potentially the sycamore which was previously identified for removal) provided that a clear and continuous sidewalk connection from Tolman Creels Road to the relocated pedestrian easement connecting to Apple Way is provided. Staff has recommended a revised condition(#3c)below which addresses what we believe are the crucial points with regard to the Exception to Street Standards: 3c) That the applicants shall provide a revised site plan for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor which identifies: 1)the treatment of the in-laid crossing where the sidewalk transitions from the south side of the street to the north side at the tree and which further identifies the connection and treatment of the bicycle and pedestrian easement to the sidewalk improvements, with pedestrian routes to be materially distinguished from streets, driveways and parking places; 2)the location of four additional on- street parking spaces through the removal of the looped driveway. Removal of the looped driveway may be delayed until the signature of the final survey plat for Phase Two;3)revised driveway placement and/or the use of shared driveways to demonstrate compliance with the required 24- foot separation between driveways; and 4)the treatment of the sidewalk in the vicinity of Tree#2,the sycamore which was originally proposed to be removed. Within the Tree Protection Zone of Tree 92 the driveway may meander to curbside, be reduced in width to no more than 30- Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 5 of 12 inches,and/or be installed by non-standard means(subject to the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and the Engineering Division) to accommodate preservation of this tree. D. Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit As previously noted during the hearing, staff believe that the proposed disturbance of floodplain corridor lands is relatively minimal and involves road construction and utility installation in an area where street and driveway improvements are already in place and long- established. Staff believes that the application has satisfactorily addressed the applicable approval criteria. E. Tree Removal As previously noted during the hearing,because none of the trees proposed to be removed is considered by definition to be significant,these removals are not subject to a Tree Removal Permit. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The approval criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in AMC 18.88.030.A.4 as follows: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage,police and fire protection and adequate transportation;and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C. That the existing and natural features of the land, such as wetlands, floodplain corridors,ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. fiord 2836,S2 1999) The approval criteria for Final Plan approval are described in AMC 18.88.030.B.5 as follows: Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 6 of 12 permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%)percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten(10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. C. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10916) percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (10%) percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. (Ord 2836,s31999) The approval criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.88.050.F as follows: An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity, C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. fiord 2951,amended,0710112008;Ord 2836,amended,0210211999) The approval criteria for a Physical&Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Floodplain Lands are described in AMC 18.62.040.I. as follows: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. The approval criteria for Variances are described in AMC 18.100.020 as follows: Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 7 of 12 A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff remains generally supportive of the proposal, which includes an eight lot Performance Standards Subdivision to be constructed in three phases,an Exception to Street Standards which will limit sidewalk installation on part of a proposed new street,and a Variance to reduce the required on- street parking associated with the subdivision. In staff's view,on-street parking can be a substantial issue with new subdivisions as in its absence parking impacts can spill into surrounding areas. Staff is accordingly recommending that the applicants provide a revised site plan which meets the on- street parking requirement through the removal of the existing looped driveway and which demonstrates compliance with the required separation between driveways. Staff believe that the Exception to Street Standards to not have a sidewalk installed on the south side of the proposed street along the frontages of Lots 2-4 can be found to be merited, however we have recommended that the final civil drawings detail a clear material/surface distinction between driveways, streets, parking areas and pedestrian routes from where the sidewalk transitions to the north side of the street to the pedestrian connection to Apple Way as a means to clearly delineate the options for pedestrian travel where no sidewalks will be available. In addition,we have recommended a condition which would accommodate a non-standard sidewalk installation in the tree protection zone of the sycamore tree (#2) while still providing a measure of pedestrian connectivity. Should the Commission concur with staff and approve the request, we would suggest that the following conditions be attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2) That the applicants shall obtain a Demolition/Relocation Review Permit from the Building Division if the proposed partial demolition of the existing shop/garage building triggers the requirements of the Demolition Ordinance. 3) That prior to the issuance of an excavation permit: a) Final civil engineering plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage,electric and transportation facilities shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Engineering Departments. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development,including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins, and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets,while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 8 of 12 civil plan. b) That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project,shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey plat. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre- development peals flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. c) That the applicants shall provide a revised site plan for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor which identifies: 1)the treatment of the in-laid crossing where the sidewalk transitions from the south side of the street to the north side at the tree and which further identifies the connection and treatment of the bicycle and pedestrian easement to the sidewalk improvements, with pedestrian routes to be materially distinguished from streets, driveways and parking places; 2)the location of four additional on- street parking spaces through the removal of the looped driveway. Removal of the looped driveway may be delayed until the signature of the final survey plat for Phase Two; 3)revised driveway placement and/or the use of shared driveways to demonstrate compliance with the required 24-foot separation between driveways; and 4) the treatment of the sidewalk in the vicinity of Tree#2,the sycamore which was originally proposed to be removed. Within the Tree Protection Zone of Tree#2 the driveway may meander to curbside, be reduced in width to no more than 30-inches, and/or be installed by non- standard means (subject to the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and the Engineering Division)to accommodate preservation of this tree. d) The applicants shall provide a revised Tree Preservation and Protection Plan for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. The revised plan shall incorporate: 1) the identification of required tree protection fencing installation for trees on Lots #1, #2, #3, #5 and#6 in proximity to building envelopes and/or property lines;2)the arborist's recommendations that trees #38440 shall be re-assessed by an arborist prior to development on Lots#5 and #6; and 3) the July 7, 2011 recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission where consistent with applicable standards and with final review and approval by the Staff Advisor. e) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work,storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for trees to be preserved. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. f) Any work within the Tolman Creels Road right-of-way, including but not limited to street improvements or utility installation, shall be subject to review and approval by Jackson County and the City of Ashland, with Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 9 of 12 permits to be issued by Jackson County. 4) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat for Phase One,which will create Lots #1, 2, 4, 7 and 8: a) That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. b) That the new street and subdivision names shall be approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division. c) All easements for public and private utilities, trails, pedestrian and bicycle access, natural drainageways, irrigation, fire apparatus access, and the reciprocal access easements for shared use of the existing driveway by Tax Lots#400 and 4500(as proposed in the application)shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. d) That all Phase One public improvements including but not limited to the street, sidewalk, street trees, and street lighting shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and Jackson County. Improvements shall be consistent with those described in the application,including 22 feet of paving to accommodate a queuing travel lane and on-street parking on one side of the street, curb and gutter, storm drain system, seven-foot planting strip and five -foot wide sidewalk. A reserve strip("street plug")shall be provided along the northern boundary of the street improvements along the south boundary of Tax Lot#400. e) The applicants shall provide evidence of agreement to the relocation of the bicycle and pedestrian easement from the affected property owners,and shall detail proposed improvements and any signage or screening on revised civil drawings. The relocated easement shall be recorded with the final survey plat,and the multi-use path improvements installed in conjunction with other subdivision infrastructure. In the event that the applicants are unable to obtain necessary agreements to relocate the easement, the applicants shall design and install improvements to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian use of the existing easement. On-going maintenance responsibilities for the multi-use path shall be described in the subdivision CC&R's which shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the final plat. f) Street trees,located one per 30 feet of street frontage,shall be installed along the new street's frontage as part of the subdivision infrastructure improvements. Street trees shall be chosen from the Recommended Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in the Recommended Street Tree List. The street trees shall be irrigated. g) Electric services shall be installed underground to serve Lots 1,2,4,7 and 8. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. h) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for Lots 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8. i) The applicants shall sign in favor of the future improvements to Tolman Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 10 of 12 Creek Road and agree to pay their proportionate cost of the necessary improvements and not to remonstrate against the formation of a Local Improvement District. j) The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&R's or other mechanism establishing the limited homeowners' association. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. k) The applicants shall sign an agreement to participate in the future cost of full street improvements for Tolman Creek Road, including but not limited to park row planting strips, sidewalks, streetlights, curbs, gutters, paving, and storm drains, to be recorded on the deeds of the newly created lots concurrently with the final plat. 5) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat for Phase Two to create Lots #5 and#6, and Phase Three,to create Lot#3: a) All easements for public and private utilities, trails, pedestrian and bicycle access, natural drainageways, irrigation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. b) Phase Two subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utility installation to serve Lots #5 and #6 and private driveway installation shall be completed according to approved plans prior to the signature of the final survey plat for Phase Two. The private driveway shall be subject to all development requirements for flag drives including that it shall be constructed to flag drive standards which call for a 15- foot paved drive centered in a 20-foot clear width where serving two lots and a 12-foot paved drive centered in a 15-foot clear width be maintained where serving one lot. Phase Three subdivision infrastructure improvements,including but not limited to utility installation to serve Lot#3 shall be completed according to approved plans prior to the signature of the final survey plat for Phase Three. c) Electric services shall be installed underground to serve Lots 5 and 6 for Phase Two and Lot 3 for Phase 3. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. d) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for Lots 5 and 6 for Phase Two and Lot 3 for Phase Three. e) That prior to the signature of a final survey plat for Phase Two,the applicants shall provide a deed restriction agreement to be recorded on Lots#5 and#6 which requires the installation of a residential fire sprinkler system in each of these units. The deed restriction language shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor,and signed and notarized prior to release of the survey plat. The deed restriction shall be recorded concurrently with the survey plat. Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 11 of 12 6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) Individual lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the 45 percent lot coverage allowed in the underlying zoning districts. Building footprints,walkways,driveways,parking areas,and any impervious surfaces shall be counted for the purpose of lot coverage calculations. b) That all proposed lots shall be subject to Solar Access Standard A. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards, and shall include identification of the required solar setbacks with supporting formula calculations and elevation or cross-section drawings clearly labeling the height of the solar producing point(s) from the identified natural grade. c) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to fire hydrant distance; fire flow; fire apparatus access, turn-around, and work area; and approved addressing shall be satisfactorily addressed in the building permit plan submittals and complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever is applicable. Plans for residential fire sprinkler systems shall be provided with the building permit submittals for Lots #5 and #6, as proposed by the applicants. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public facilities. d) Building permit submittals for lots to be served via a flag drive shall be required to provide three off-street parking spaces. Required parking shall be identified on the site plan. Parking spaces on flag drives shall be placed to allow vehicles to turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. 7) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not illuminate adjacent proprieties. Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 12 of 12 Letters from Neighbors Submitted while record remained open to new evidence (before 4 on 7/20/2011) i James T. Lindow 2370 Lupine Dr. Ashland, Oregon 97520 .. "F` Planning Commission,Ashland Oregon Re: Planning Action PA-2010-00738 July 20, 2011 Dear Commissioners, As a home owner at 2370 Lupine Dr. on the western border of the above referenced plan we are concerned with the above action. We formally request that the commissioners take into account the following factors: 1. That the Mt. Ranch development and the section of Greenmeadows Dr. that borders on the planned development are homes of high quality and all single story situated in such a way as to preserve views and privacy between neighbors. 2. We request that this policy(1)be followed where possible in the development and restrictions be noted on the deeds of the development's lots. 3. In particular for lot 6,we request the reduction or re-positioning of building site area to conform to the drip lines of the large trees on the western border of this proposed lot(trees 38, 39 &40). 4 It is our understanding that the developer has agreed that lot 6 would be sold with the restrictions that the home would be single story in addition to meeting the solar access restrictions on the property to the north. Please require this. 5. We also request that all large trees as discussed in the tree commission meetings be preserved with the proper protection fences and road base set backs. 6. Please give due consideration to the privacy of neighbors where the public access to the north has been proposed. 7. We concur with the requests of our neighbor at 2360 Lupine Dr. (M. Rene and M. Hitchcock)for proper light screening and tree considerations®see letter of July 12,2011. Lindow page 2. 8. Please consider the drainage from lots b and S that most likely will contribute to standing water in the area of the tree bases pictured(trees 33 & 32 cottonwoods). Mosquitoes and wood rot are possible,problems. Request:Please make all efforts to require that this development plan conform to the highest standards consistent with the neighborhood and adjacent property owners requests. Thank you for your attention to these matters. i i Sincerely, y i i i James T. Lindow i I Dianne K. Lindow i i Gretchen Lee Andrew Gibson Sherry Johnson Owners of Lot 400 July 19, 2011 Ashland Planning Commission Re: Tolman Meadows Development 1405 Tolman Creek Rd. Ashland, Or 97540 To Whom It May Concern: We would like to go on record regarding the parking for Tolman Meadows. As we do plan to develop Lot 400 in the future we are asking that Tolman Meadows plan their parking to accommodate their development. We would like the area adjacent to Lot 400 to remain open for our parking. Thank you for your consideration. Sin rely Gr chen Lee A drew Gibson Sherry Johnston J U L 21, Written Arguments Submitted by the Applicants 7/27/2011 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC I : 27 485 W. Nevada Street, Ashland, Oregon 95720 Ashland Planning Commission Written Argument Response PA-2011-00738; Malibar Group LLC 1405 Tolman Creek Road July 26th, 2011 During the July 2011 Planning Commission hearing for the proposed Subdivision for the property at 1405 Tolman Creels Road, one of the neighbors (James T. Lindow, 2370 Lupine Drive) requested the record for Planning Action 2011-00738 remain open for an additional seven days in accordance with ORS 197.763(6)(c) followed by the applicants request for an additional seven days to respond in accordance with ORS 197.763(6)(e). As such, please find below the applicants' written response to the issues raised by Mr. Lindow as well as City Planning staff and the co-owners of the vacant property located along Tolman Creels Road and the proposed new street. Lindow(dated July 20th, 2011 1) That the Mt. Ranch Development and the section of Greenmeadows Drive that borders on the planned development are homes of high quality and all single-story situated in such a way as to preserve views and privacy between neighbors. Response: Although not a criterion of this Planning Action's entitlements, the applicants have submitted an application that attempts to honor Mr. Lindow's request as well as all of the surrounding neighborhoods, including Mt. Ranch to the west, Greenmeadows Way to the south and Apply Way to the north by self-imposing perimeter setbacks "double" the minimum setbacks required by the Ashland Municipal Code. Standard rear yard setbacks for the R-1-10 Zone are 10' per story meaning a two story residence could have its first floor at 10' from the rear property line and its second floor at 20'. The site plans for the proposed subdivision show rear setbacks of 40', 30 and 20' - regardless of the number of stories. Second, the side yard setback areas adjacent to neighboring homes where 5' is required,the subject site plans identify a"minimum" setback of 20'. Considering the subject lots are proposed to be "oversized" in relationship to the neighboring lots as well as the zone's minimum lot size (7,500 sq. ft.), and the fact that the proposed building envelopes are very generous, the applicants strongly contend the new homes will preserve neighbor privacy and in most cases views. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out the applicants have gone to great lengths to recognize these livability factors, but that the surrounding neighbors have not self- imposed equal limiting factors as suggested of the applicants on their properties and do not appreciate that a two-story addition with a deck above the first floor looking directly onto the subject property is possible without"any"notice to neighbors or discretion from the City. Finally, the applicants have agreed to limit the "height" of a future residence on Lot #6 to coincide with the City's 21' Solar Access Ordinance regulation when creating new lots — not just on the north side of the lot, but consistently "through-out" Lot #6. Lot #6 is adjacent to Mr. Lindow's residence, but the general purpose of this limit, as requested by Mr. Lindow, is that the height of a Phone: 541 -482-3334 Fax: 541 -482-3336 i future residence would be limited to a height as identified on the Site Plan likely forcing the lot's future residence to either be a single-story or split-level design. In the end, the subject properties are to be sold as custom home lots that will be individually purchased, designed and constructed upon. The applicants are simply providing a compatible framework, inviting street environment and unique pedestrian connections for not only the subdivision's future homeowners, but also the neighboring community. 2) We request that this policy (1) be followed where possible in the development and restrictions be noted on the deeds of the development's lots. Response: As stated, the additional setbacks and height limits as described in Response 1) (above) are self-imposed restrictions by the applicants that will be adopted as part of the record. When future house proposals are submitted to the City, verification with the record and the Planning Commission's approval will occur prior to issuance of the permit. 3) In particular for Lot 6, we request the reduction or re positioning of building site area to conform to drip lines of the large trees on the western border of this proposed lot (Trees 38, 39 and 40). Response: The applicants have hired a professional Landscape Architect and Arborist to evaluate the subject trees who has identified their Tree Protection Zone boundaries. Further, the application was reviewed by the Ashland Tree Commission on July 7th, 2011 who concluded the Tree Protection Zones (perimeter "safe" distance from trunk of tree) was acceptable. The applicants understand the intent of this request is for morning light and view protection, but the applicants have already addressed these issues with the increased setbacks and Solar Access restrictions noted in Response 1) (above). 4) It is our understanding the developer has agreed that lot 6 would be sold with the restrictions that the home would be single-story in addition to meeting the solar access restrictions on the property to the north. Please require this. Response: The applicants are not or have ever proposed a single-story residence on Lot#6, but have "agreed" to a condition that will likely produce a single-story outcome, 1/2 story second floor or split-level residence. As stated in Response 1) (above), the applicants' intention is to limit the home on Lot#6 to a height of 21', as identified on the submitted site plans (Sheet L-2.0 Solar), which will allow a home to be constructed up to 21' in height (based on current natural grade) on the northern side of the house with the intention to retain that same 21' height to the southern side of house — only increasing based on the site's natural grade. In other words, the height of a structure on Lot #6 will not exceed a height of 21' above natural grade. Under this provision, a "basement" or %2 story could be created,but the actual height would not be increased above the highest natural grade line. 5) We also request that all large trees as discussed in the Tree Commission meetings be preserved with the proper protection fences and road base setbacks. Response: The applicants concur with all Tree Commission recommendations. P h o n e : 541 -482-3334 F a x : 541 -482-3336 6) Please give due consideration to the privacy of neighbors where the public access to the north has been proposed. Response: The applicants contend the revised "public" pedestrian easement is far superior to its existing location which will be vacated at time of the subdivision's plat. The existing easement's location is not only more impacting to surrounding properties, it's also much more sensitive to the surrounding environment and neighboring views. The applicants have met on numerous occasions with the adjacent property owners and have tentatively come to terms the proposal is preferred and that with various mitigations, a superior, logical and more comprehensive connection. 7) We concur with our request of our neighbor at 2360 Lupine Dr. (M. Rene and M. Hitchcock) for proper light screening and tree considerations—see letter of July 12, 2011/ Response: As noted previously in Responses 1) and 3) (above), the applicants are agreeing to reduce the building envelopes as described, limit the height of the future home on Lot #5 and comply with the Project Arborist's recommendations that include narrative descriptions and plans showing Tree Protection Zones that limit footprints of the future homes. 8) Please consider the drainage from lots 5 and 6 that most likely will contribute to standing water in the area of the tree bases pictured (trees 33 and32 Cottonwoods). Mosquitos and wood rot are possible problems. Response: The applicants have forwarded this concern to both the project Arborist as well as Civil Engineer. The project Civil Engineer has stated no additional water would be added to this area (swale between Lots #5 and #6) that is not directly piped into a storm drain system. The project's Arborist has raised concerns about the Cottonwoods, but not necessarily due to standing water as Cottonwoods generally thrive around water, but instead concern about"limb-fall"which is common with Cottonwoods. In this regard, the applicants would like to clarify with the Planning Commission as well as neighbors the Cottonwoods "may" be removed or heavily trimmed one day, by either the applicants or future property owners of subject lots, if it is determined by an Arborist or Tree Specialist that the trees pose a hazard. The applicants believe the process for such a request should be subject to a Staff Permit as regulated under AMC 18.61.080 A.1 and 2. (Hazard Tree). 9) Repeat: Please make all efforts to require that the development plan conform to the highest standards consistent with the neighborhood and adjacent property owners requests. Response: The applicants believe they have not only addressed the City's numerous and rigorous development standards and land use criteria, but have gone above normal development practice or legal obligation to accommodate neighborhood concerns. The applicants have been willing to self- impose conditions—requested by adjacent property owners, on the newly proposed lots that are not self-imposed or reciprocated in anyway by the neighbors themselves. In the end, the applicants and residents of the property, contend the efforts put forth to date will be a positive influence on the neighborhood when compared to a "standardized" subdivision with little to no neighborhood accommodations. P h o n e : 541 -482-3334 F a x : 541 -482-3336 Lee, Gibson& Johnson(dated July 19th, 2011): As we do plan to develop Lot 400 in the future we are asking that Tolman Meadows plan their parking to accommodate their development. We would like the area adjacent to Lot 400 to remain open for parking. Response: It appears clarification is necessary as the Site Plans presented do illustrate parked vehicles along the frontage of the new across the street in front of Tax Lot 400 (in front of Tax Lot 500). Further, the applicants contend their request for an "on-street" parking Variance isn't due to a lack of overall "site" parking, but instead only to the on-street parking requirement in order to accommodate the large Silver Maple and Cedar trees. The applicants have no intention to suggest these spaces are to be credited to their development and understand those on-street parking spaces in front of Lot 400 should be credited to future lots associated with that parcel. Planning Staff Comments (dated August 9th, 2011): Tree 92, the Sycamore; As discussed at the Planning Commission's previous meeting, the subject Sycamore Tree (Tree #2) really will not co-exist with the sidewalk and that if the sidewalk is preferred, the removal of the tree will be necessary. The Tree Commission suggested the sidewalk be removed so that not only the Sycamore could be preserved, the other trees along the southern edge of the new street could also be retained. This suggestion was generally based on the "limited" number of vehicle trips associated with the development and the fact that sidewalks on both sides of this particular low volume traffic street shouldn't be necessary. Nevertheless, after the conclusion of the Planning Commission's July 12th, meeting the applicants also contacted the owners of the vacant lot on the north side of the street (Tax Lot 400 — Lee, Gibson& Johnson) and inquired about the possibility of obtaining an easement and constructing the sidewalk, parkrow and planting street trees on the north side of the street instead and thereby leaving only the curb on the south side and preserving the Sycamore Tree (#2). The other trees along this side of the street identified to be removed (fruit trees) are still "possibly" to be removed as there are conflicts with driveway locations, vision clearance, curb alignment, etc. Other Trees & Tree Protection; Prior to signature of the plat, the applicants will provide a revised Tree Protection Plan showing the tree protection fencing around the subject trees located between Lots #5 and#6, between Lots #2 and#3 and between Lot 91 and Tax lot#500 (neighbor to east). At the time building permits are applied for, such tree protection fencing will need to be installed. This will need to be added as a condition of approval, monitored by staff and installed by the future lot home owners. In regards to the large Cottonwood trees between Lots 95 and #6, the applicants are suggesting the trees be re-evaluated at the time of a building permit, but if it is determined the trees pose a hazard (as Cottonwoods often do), then the applicants suggest the process for such a request should be subject to a Staff Permit as regulated under AMC 18.61.080 A.1 and 2. (Hazard Tree) — and not a "modification" of the subdivision, expensive application fee, public notice, appeals, etc. In P h o n e : 541 -482-3334 F a x : 541 -482-3336 Pedestrian Easement Relocation: The applicants have had numerous meetings with the two adjacent neighbors to the north that either currently have the "unimproved" pedestrian easement on their property "now" or will once the application is approved. Both parties have expressed interest and have generally been positive with the idea, but obviously have questions and concerns about liability, screening, noise, etc. In the end, both owners appear to realize that the existing easement is likely to be far worse when compared to the proposed route and that with the concessions the applicant has offered, installation of fencing and shrubs at their discretion will be possible. As for liability, public access easements are protected under State law (ORS 105.682(1) and critical to acquisition of lands that benefit the public. Nevertheless, the applicants will remain responsible for finalizing the necessary agreements with the adjacent property owners prior to signature of the plat, but would be willing to install the pathway within the current easement boundaries if final agreements can't be reached. Variance to Required On-Street Parking: The applicants are requesting a 50% "on-street" parking reduction for a total of 4 on-street parking spaces. The request is a result of designing the subdivision's street "around" and "between" two large trees at a significant amount of applicant expense and energy. The applicants contend the request has also been mitigated by the fact that three of the subject lots are "flag" lots and each require a third on-site parking space whereas standard lots do not. Nevertheless, staff has suggested removing the private looped-driveway at the front of Lot #4 to install additional head-in guest parking spaces to accommodate additional on-street parking which, in the applicants' opinion, is not necessary for a couple of reasons as noted below. The applicants have strong reservations against the proposal to remove the looped drive-way as it's an integral component to their house's design and instead would prefer an alternative solution - short of suggesting the removal of the large Maple Tree (#43) in order to accommodate more guest parking. In order to obtain the additional "4"parking spaces (8 total), the applicants would suggest a parking mitigation plan(Plan A) as follows - (2) Two spaces along street(identified on site plans as#3 and#4) - (3) Three head-in spaces adjacent to Lot#7 - (3) Three on-site spaces, one "extra" space per lot, on Lots #4, #5 and#6 NOTE: Lot #4's parking spaces already exist and are located in the rear of the lot where there is an existing garage and two within the circular driveway. However, if the above proposal is not acceptable, the applicants would prefer a hybrid parking plan (Plan B) that instead of removing the circular driveway, the Planning Commission consider a condition requiring that at least two additional lots (Lots #1, #2, #3, #7 or #8) have one "extra" on- site parking space. Unfortunately, the applicants contend this is not the preferred option as driveway widths would reach 30' and dominate the streetscape the applicants have worked hard to preserve as a rural environment, but it is an option. Again, the removal of the circular driveway is preferred to remain as is and Plan A is desired. Lastly, it's important to point out to the Planning Commission that replacing the circular driveway with additional head in parking spaces will remove at least one if not two trees (Trees #22 and#24) the applicants desired to save. P h o n e : 541 -482-3334 F a x : 541 -482-3336 I i Exception(s) to Street Standards — Sidewalk Installation: As noted previously, the applicants are discussing arrangements with the property owners of Tax Lot 400 (Lee, Gibson & Johnson) allowing for the sidewalk to be completely on one side of the new street which will preserve the Sycamore Tree (#2) as desired by the Tree Commission. That said, the applicants suggest replacing Condition 3c)to read as noted(See Revised Conditions of Approval—3e)below): Revised Conditions of Approval: Due to the fact a couple of conditions of approval have been suggested to be changed based on new information or are necessary for clarification purposes, the following conditions be revised or added: Revised Wording: 3c) That the applicants shall provide a revised site plan for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor illustrating the sidewalk, parkrow and street trees on the north side of the new street and street trees only on the south side of the street. Applicants shall also provide evidence of an easement agreement for a sidewalk, parkrow and street trees along the south side of Tax Lot 400. If easement cannot be obtained, the sidewalk plan as originally proposed shall be installed and all necessary details of an in-laid crossing where the sidewalk transitions from the south side of the street to the north side at the tree and which further identifies the connection and treatment of the bicycle and pedestrian easement to the sidewalk improvements, with pedestrian routes to materially be distinguished from streets, driveways and parking spaces. 3c) As noted above, the wording in the previous Condition 3c) will likely no longer apply if an agreement is made with the owners of Tax Lot 400 to allow the applicants to design and install a sidewalk, parkrow and street trees to the north side of the street as suggested by the Tree Commission. Although doubtful, if for some reason an agreement is not possible, the condition recognizes that the original plan as presented (removal of the Sycamore Tree (#2)) would occur. Added Condition: 3g) That the applicants shall provide a revised site plan showing building envelopes on Lots 92 and 45 to be adjusted showing the rear setbacks to be 40'from their southern property line. 3g) The above condition was previously offered by the applicants during the Planning Commission's July 12th, 2011,public hearing. Added Condition: 3h) That the applicants shall designate two lots (Lots #1, 42, #3, 47 or #8) to have a "third" on-site parking space. Such lots shall also be included in project's CC&Rs. 3h) Condition 3h) attempts to alleviate the suggestion to remove the circular looped driveway on Lot#4 by providing two extra parking spaces on-site. Although the applicants contend this is unnecessary, it is provided as a preferable option. Added Condition: 6e) That the building height on Lot 46 be regulated as proposed by the applicants as identified on Sheet L-2.0 (Solar). Height of building on Lot 46 shall be limited to 21' as defined and regulated by AMC 18.70. This condition does not preclude a building to add P h o n e : 541 -482-3334 F a x : 541 -482-3336 a split-level floor or basement as the height measurement noted herein is restricted to the lot's "natural"grade. 6e) This condition's wording is suggested by the applicants as a neighborly offer to address both Mr. Lindow and Hitchcock's (Lupine Drive Residents) requests for providing morning sunlight into their backyards. In conclusion, the applicants have spent close to two years developing the proposed subdivision and believe suggested changes at this point, such as the replacement of the circular looped driveway and removal of the adjacent Cedar Tree to accommodate additional guest parking should be carefully and methodically weighed in consideration of the applicants' own efforts to date. During the two years of planning, multiple neighborhood meetings have occurred pitting neighbor against neighbor, who in most cases, simply do not understand the applicants' responsibility to meet various City standards, policies and criteria, but also create the foundation of a subdivision that they too can be proud of as "developers" and continue to live with as "residents" of Lot #4. The applicants appreciate the efforts put forth by the neighbors, consultants, City Staff, Tree Commission and Planning Commission. P h o n e : 541 -482-3334 F a x : 541 =482-3336 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT July 12, 2011 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2010-00738 APPLICANT: Malibar Group LLC LOCATION: 1405 Tolman Creek Road Map 39 lE 23 BA, Tax Lots#308 &#501 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: July 3, 2011 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: October 31, 2011 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 R-1 Single Family Residential District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.62 Physical &Environmental Constraints 18.88 Performance Standards Options 18.88.050.F Exception to Street Standards 18.100 Variances REQUEST: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision to be developed in three phases for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creels Road. Also included are requests for a Variance to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by fifty percent in order to preserve a large(60-inch d.b.h.)maple tree;an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street; and a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow utility installation within the Hamilton Creels floodplain along Tolman Creek Road. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application In July of 2010, Planning Action 2010-00582 requested a Lot Line Adjustment and a Variance to allow a lot wider than it was deep. This request was approved by the Planning Commission,and remains in effect until August 24,2011 although no Lot Line Adjustment survey has as yet been filed. In September of 1997,Planning Action 97-085 requested a variance to increase the number of livestock from the permitted two head of livestock over the age of six months per acre to four head of livestock over the age of six months per acre to keep 15 llamas on the property. This request was ultimately denied by the City Council. Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 1 of 16 In July of 1995, Planning Action 95-037 requested Outline and Final Plan approval for the four-lot Wildcreek Subdivision under the Performance Standards Option. Tax Lot#308, one of the subject properties in the current application, was Lot#4 in that subdivision. There are no other planning actions of record for this site. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The subject properties, Tax Lots #308 and #501, are located on the west side of Tolman Creek Road between Green Meadows Way and Morada Lane. Both properties are located within the R-1-7.5 zoning district,a single family residential zone which requires a minimum lot size of at least 7,500 square feet. Tax Lot#501 is 0.89 acres in area and is vacant with the exception of a small shed associated with the agricultural use of the property as a llama farm. Tax Lot #308 is 2.32 acres in area and contains a ranch-style, single-story single family residence, a detached garage with guest house above, and an additional large detached garage/storage building. According to Jackson County Assessor's data, the single family residence was constructed in 1890 and is approximately 2,515 square feet, and the guest house dates to 1950 and is approximately 560 square feet. The application notes that all existing structures are intended to remain on the property with the proposal, although a portion of the existing garage/shop on what is to be Lot #6 is shown to be removed to accommodate the proposal. Tax Lot #308 has no legal frontage on Tolman Creels Road; while it is served by a private driveway easement from Apple Way to the north, it takes functional access via an existing flag drive to Tolman Creek Road. The properties are generally flat,with an approximate four to five percent slope down to the northeast, although there are some steeper areas along the bank of a drainage at the western portion of the subject properties. A tree inventory and tree preservation plan has been provided identifying 43 trees on or adjacent to the subject property. Of these,five trees are proposed for removal with the proposed subdivision. These include: #2, a 16-inch d.b.h. sycamore;#13 and#15,a six-inch and a ten-inch d.b.h.apples;#14,a six-inch d.b.h.almond; and #16, an eight-inch d.b.h. sequoia. As noted in AMC 18.61.042.D.1.c, the removal of significant trees (i.e. those trees greater than I8-inches in diameter at breast height) on vacant R-1 zoned lands requires a Tree Removal Permit. None of the trees proposed to be removed is considered by definition to be significant,and as such,the tree removals proposed are not subject to a Tree Removal Permit. In addition to the trees identified on and around Tax Lot#501,there is a land drainage and associated riparian vegetation along the western portion of Tax Lot #308. While not identified as a water resource in the City of Ashland's inventory,this drainage appears to be an extension of Hamilton Creels Tributary#2 which terminates on the property to the north, near the Apple Way cul-de-sac. The drainage is protected by a Natural Drainageway Easement which was established with an earlier subdivision approval which remains in effect. Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 2 of 16 Local stream Hamilton Creels runs along the east side of Tolman Creels Road' in the property's vicinity, and its identified floodplain is in close proximity to the entrance to the driveway serving the subject properties. As a local stream, Hamilton Creek has a water resource protection zone which extends 40 feet upland of its centerline. Given the creek's proximity to Tolman Creek Road,this protection zone is located entirely within the existing right-of-way improvements,however the creels has an associated floodplain corridor which extends roughly five feet onto the subject properties' frontage and as such any work constituting development within this portion of Hamilton Creek's floodplain is subject to a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review (P&E) Permit. In this instance, both the new street's construction and the associated utility installation occurring on the relatively small section of floodplain lands near the existing driveway entrance are being considered under a P&E permit. Currently, access to the subject properties is via an existing flag drive from Tolman Creek Road which serves an additional tax lot(Tax Lot#500)which has legal access via its Tolman Creek Road frontage,but takes functional access from the driveway on the subject property. Tolman Creek Road is classified as an Avenue or Major Collector, and is under Jackson County's jurisdiction in this vicinity. Tolman Creels Road is currently paved with open drainage ditches on either side,but lacks curbs,gutters,on-street parking, storm drains,and park-row planting strips with street trees, sidewalks, and bike lanes in the vicinity. II. Project Impact The proposal involves a request for Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision, which is to be developed in three phases. The request also includes requests for: 1)a Variance to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by fifty percent in order to preserve a 60-inch d.b.h.maple tree on the subject properties;2) an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street; and 3)a Physical&Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow utility installation within the Hamilton Creels floodplain along Tolman Creels Road. Because the proposal is a request for the Outline and Final Plan approval for an eight-lot Performance Standards Subdivision,AMC 18.108.050.A.5 requires that the application be reviewed by the Planning Commission through a Type II public hearing process. A. Outline& Final Plan Approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter In staff's assessment,the project meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland with the exception of the Exception and Variance requests. These items are further discussed in the applicable sections below. City facilities and services are currently available to serve the project from the adjacent Tolman Creek Road right-of-way. The property is currently served by: ✓ An eight-inch sanitary sewer main located in the Tolman Creek Road right- of-way. ✓ An eight-inch water main located in the Tolman Creek Road right-of-way. Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 3 of 16 ✓ Sections of an 18-inch storm sewer along with an open ditch along Tolman Creek Road. ✓ Electrical facilities are available to be extended from Tolman Creek Road and Apple Way. The application notes that a 36-inch stormwater detention pipe is to be provided within the proposed street to allow for high volume water capture and slower water release during storm events. The stormwater line has been routed to preserve the tree, and additional manholes provided to service this more complex installation.The City's Engineering Department will ultimately need to review and approve the final, engineered storm drainage plans and determine that the post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation is addressed through the final design. A condition to this effect has been recommended below. The applicants have provided draft plans detailing the civil engineering proposed to serve the development with street and utility installations, including fire hydrant installation and the extension of electrical services from both Tolman Creels Road and Apple Way. A condition of approval is recommended below which would require that these plans be revised to incorporate the requirements of the land use approval, reviewed and approved by the Planning, Building, Public Works, Engineering and Electric Departments prior to the issuance of an excavation permit. A condition has also been recommended to require that the applicants also receive any required permits or approvals from Jackson County for any work to be completed within Tolman Creek Road's right of way, which falls under County jurisdiction. Tolman Creek Road is classified as an Avenue or Major Collector in the vicinity of the subject property,and standard street improvements along the frontage of the parcels involved would include curb, gutter, paving, parking, storm drains, park, row planting strips, sidewalks,and bike lanes. However,given that the complexity of the improvement required, the limited frontage of the subject property, and the need for any improvements to be completed within the context of a larger neighborhood design process, the presence of the flood plain, and the fact that this street section is within Jackson County jurisdiction, staff believes that the most prudent option with regard to Tolman Creek Road improvements is for the applicants to sign in favor of the future improvements to Tolman Creek Road and agree to pay their proportionate cost of the necessary improvements and not to remonstrate against the formation of a Local Improvement District. A condition to this effect is recommended below. The Performance Standards Options require that natural features such as wetlands,floodplain corridors,ponds,large trees and rock outcroppings throughout the subject parcel be included and incorporated in open space, common areas and unbuildable areas. The applicants' submittals note that the site design proposed demonstrates an effort to preserve natural features such as the large trees including the 60-inch d.b.h. maple proposed to be preserved adjacent to the proposed new street and other trees grouped around the property and on adjacent parcels, as well as the natural drainage along the west side of the property which is already protected within a conservation easement. In conversations with neighbors at the counter,staff has noted that one of the concerns often noted seems to be in keeping with the Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 4 of 16 applicants'proposal in seeking to preserve the large maple tree. While limited material has been provided by the applicants with regard to the suitability of the tree for placement in proximity to the new street or the tolerance level of Big Leaf Maples for construction disturbance, staff research suggests that maples can be particularly sensitive to soil compaction and paving when placed near driveways or streets,and that special care needs to be taken when paving is being done in proximity to an established tree's root zone. In staff's view,the applicants efforts to preserve the tree are in keeping with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, however we believe that additional information from the project arborist should be provided detailing any specific measures to ensure the tree's long term survival in proximity to the proposed street installation prior to the issuance of an excavation permit. Such measures might include the use of permeable paving in proximity to the tree, maintaining a specified area within the tree protection zone free of any paving,fertilizing the tree before development disturbance, and fertilizing and aerating within the tree protection zone after disturbance. As this staff report was being prepared,the Tree Commission had not yet reviewed the application. Conditions of approval have been recommended below to require a revised Tree Preservation and Protection Plan which addresses any necessary additional measures recommended by the project arborist to benefit the large maple tree given its proximity to the proposed new street,and which incorporates the recommendations of the Tree Commission where consistent with applicable standards and with final review and approval by the Staff Advisor. The proposed development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed,and in fact the street improvements proposed are likely to facilitate future development of adjacent parcels along Tolman Creek Road. The application materials provided note that potential future development of areas to the north, south and west is not impacted as these lands are already largely developed, and that the applicants have attempted to evaluate the development potential of the adjacent lots to the east and plan their project so that it will be compatible with their ultimate development pattern. Performance Standards subdivisions with a density of ten units or greater are required to provide a minimum of five percent of the total project area in open space. As the applicants have proposed to develop only eight lots,no common open space area has been identified as part of the current proposal. However, as the base density of the parent parcels could accommodate further development to 11 or more units,staff has recommended a condition of approval that would require that requisite open space be provided if further development of the parcels leads to a built density of ten or more units. (Note: The area of the existing natural drainage easement, which was required to be provided with the Wild Creek Subdivision, already exceeds the five percent open space requirements.) The Performance Standards chapter requires that on lots which are to contain detached single-family dwellings,building envelopes be identified which show the area and maximum height of improvements, including solar access. In the current application, the applicants have identified both building envelopes and shown the location within the envelopes which would accommodate a 21-foot high structure while complying with Solar Access"Standard A." While conceptual elevations of proposed homes are often provided with subdivision applications,they are not required of detached single family homes which meet the setbacks of the parent zone. In this instance,all of the homes are shown as detached single family and meet or exceed standard setbacks, and as such no elevations drawings have been provided. Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 5 of 16 i Under the Performance Standards Options,the property's single-family residential(R-1-7.5) zoning designation allows for a density of 3.6 units per acre. The site's 3.21 acreage results in abase density of 11.556 units. The proposed density is well below the density allowed, but the application notes that efforts have been made in planning the project to provide a lot lay-out similar to the development pattern already in place for the sake of neighborhood compatibility. In addition,the applicants note that the lots are over-sized and would likely accommodate accessory dwelling units to provide for additional density. The application notes that the planned street right-of-way for the Residential Neighborhood Street to serve the project will be 47 feet in width, in keeping with City of Ashland street standards to accommodate a queuing travel lane and parking on one side with curbs,gutters, parkrow planting strips and sidewalks, however an Exception to Street Standards has also been requested to modify the standard street configuration and install sidewalks on only one side for part of the street installation to accommodate the preservation of a large (60-inch d.b.h.)maple tree. The applicants propose to install half-street improvements to a width of 34 feet with the remaining width to be improved by neighboring property owners with development of their properties. (The materials submitted indicate that the applicants would be willing to complete the frontage improvements along the south frontage of Tax Lot#400 (i.e. complete a full street improvement)provided that the Commission conditions this upon reimbursement of the additional expense when the owner of Tax Lot 4400 develops. Recently adopted Ordinance 43402 provides for the creation of reimbursement districts, however the authority to create such districts rests with the Council and as such staff do not believe that the Planning Commission could impose conditions of this nature. The applicants could continue to work toward full street improvements through a reimbursement district at the Council level prior to completing improvements.) In addition to the street improvements proposed,the applicants propose to relocate a bicycle and pedestrian easement associated with the Wild Creek Subdivision. The easement as originally configured extends from the end of Apple Way through that subdivision's natural area,requiring a crossing of the Hamilton Creek tributary which daylights just north of the subject properties. No bicycle or pedestrian improvements have been completed within that easement as the remaining segments necessary to provide a continuous pedestrian connection to Tolman Creels Road have not been obtained. With the current application,the applicants propose to work with the Wild Creels Subdivision neighbors to relocate the pedestrian easement down a private drive off of Apple Way, avoiding the creek crossing, and connecting to the proposed new street installation. With this relocation,a complete easement connection would be provided from Apple Way to Tolman Creek Road and bicycle and pedestrian facilities completed in the form of a six-foot wide multi-use path within the ten- foot easement. B. Variance to Required On-Street Parking The Performance Standards Options Chapter includes parking standards which require that "at least one on-street parking space per unit shall be provided in addition to the off-street parking requirements for all development in an R-1 zone... On-street parking spaces shall be immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 6 of 16 and be directly accessible from public right-of-way streets. On-street parking shall be located within 200 feet of the dwelling it is intended to serve." The proposed eight-unit subdivision would require that eight on-street parking spaces be provided in or near the proposed street right-of-way. The applicants have proposed a Variance to this requirement in order to reduce the required parking by fifty percent,to only four spaces,in order to preserve the 60-inch d.b.h. maple tree (Tree#43). The application explains that with the preservation of the large maple tree, the street meanders and thus eliminates potential on-street parallel parking spaces,and goes on to note that the four spaces that are proposed to be removed to preserve the tree are "realistically available due to the fact that three of the new lots(#4, #S and#6)are technically flag lots off a private drive that require a third on-site parking space...[and] the identified looped driveway serving the existing house provides a minimum of two additional guest parking spaces." The application identifies existing structures,driveways,utilities,drainage areas and mature trees as unique or unusual circumstances which have played a significant design role. In addition, the application notes that neighboring property lines, house orientations, context and natural constraints which also merit consideration. Most specifically, the application emphasizes the large Big Leaf Maple tree (#43) in the center of the property, near the existing driveway, and with a 30-foot diameter protection zone, as a unique or unusual circumstance meriting the proposed Variance. The application further notes that by retaining the tree,it will continue to grow and provide aesthetic and environmental/shade benefits to the neighborhood for many years. The application suggests that the tree will be a focal point of the neighborhood and provide a central gathering opportunity given its relationship to the homes, street, sidewalk and pedestrian path. The application concludes that the tree has been in existence for many years prior to the current owner's purchase of the property and because it provides the basis for the Variance request,the basis for the request is thus not willfully or purposely self-imposed. i The Performance Standards call for preservation of significant natural features,and in staff s view Tree #43 certainly merits preservation on this basis (as further discussed above). However,for staff it is unclear that there aren't other options to provide the required parking that would not affect the tree. The application notes that additional parking of at least two spaces is available in the proposed looped driveway. Staff would note that access to the existing garage on Lot 44 is to be provided off of the proposed flag drive,and retention of the looped drive would not be in keeping with the Street Standards' requirement to minimize driveway intersections with streets,particularly in a section of street where no sidewalks are to be provided on the side in question. In staff's view, the Commission should carefully consider the requested reduction in on-street parking in light of the potential impacts of visitor parking to the surroundings and may wish to require that the applicants provide a revised site plan which addresses the required on-street parking through the removal of the looped driveway. i Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 7 of 16 C. Exception(s)to Street Standards The application includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street, specifically along the frontages of Lots#2, #3 and#4. The application explains that in this vicinity, the road has been curved slightly to preserve the large maple tree,a fire truck turn-around is proposed,and the applicants would like to preserve an existing looped driveway as well. The applicants propose to transition the sidewalk from the south side of the street to the north side via an in-laid crossing in the street where the street and sidewalk meander around the large maple. The materials provided emphasize that the low volume of vehicle trips involved at the end of the street will produce lower traffic volumes and that pedestrians will likely walls within the street and fire truck turn-around to reach their destinations. The application notes that the existing structures, driveways,utilities, drainage and mature trees pose a demonstrable difficulty,and that neighboring property lines,home orientations, context and natural constraints all merited consideration in the design. Most notably, the application described the difficulty posed in designing the street system to preserve the large maple. The applicants suggest that not having sidewalks through the fire truck turn-around portion of the street installation is an equal facility as the route would be more circuitous in light of multiple curb cuts and that the lack of sidewalks in this one area would be off-set by the low vehicle trips. Staff believes that continuous sidewalk connections are an important component in creating a successful multi-modal transportation network, and would generally recommend that continuous sidewalks be provided wherever possible in keeping with the Street Standards. In this instance,we recognize the complications posed by the applicants' efforts to preserve the large maple,and the further benefit of completing the bicycle and pedestrian connection from Tolman Creels Road to Apple Way as providing a measure of "equal or superior" transportation facilities and connectivity. Should the Commission choose to grant the requested Exception,staff recommends that a condition be attached which would require the applicants to provide a revised site plan detailing the treatment of the in-laid crossing where the sidewalk transitions from the south side of the street to the north side at the tree and which further identifies the connection and treatment of the bicycle and pedestrian easement to the sidewalk improvements, with pedestrian routes to be materially distinguished from streets, driveways and parking places D. Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit The Hamilton Creek floodplain corridor extends westward from the waterway on the east side of Tolman Creels Road and includes an approximately five-foot wide portion of the subj ect property at the end of the existing flag drive,where the proposed street improvements are to be installed. Because the proposal involves street improvements and a utility installation within the floodplain,a Physical&Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the Development of Floodplain Corridor Lands is required. Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 8 of 16 i The application contends that the impacts to the floodplain lands are minimal and involve road construction and utility installation in an area where street and driveway improvements are already in place and long-established. The application material provided notes that the applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts on the environment by hiring professional civil engineers, landscape architects, arborists, and land use planners to comprehensively plan to proposal to mitigate adverse impacts. The application further explains that the existing 12-foot width driveway will ultimately be widened to a full 47-foot width to meet city standards,and that within the relatively minimal portion of the street which is deemed floodplain corridor this will involve less than 50 cubic yards of fill. The application notes that the Civil Engineer has determined that there will be no noticeable impact on the floodplain because the driveway already exists in this location. E. Tree Removal As noted in AMC 18.61.042.D.Lc,the removal of significant trees (i.e. those trees greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height) on vacant R-1 zoned lands requires a Tree Removal Permit. The trees proposed for removal here are as follows: #2, a 16-inch d.b.h. sycamore;#13 and#15,a six-inch and a ten-inch d.b.h.apples;#14,a six-inch d.b.h.almond; and #16, an eight-inch d.b.h. sequoia. As none of the trees proposed to be removed is considered by definition to be significant,these removals are not subject to a Tree Removal Permit. Site trees remain a consideration both in terms of the preservation of significant natural features as required under the Performance Standards Options chapter and in terms of their providing a basis for the Exception and Variance requests and are further discussed in the applicable sections above. As this staff report is being prepared,the Tree Commission has not yet reviewed the request and as such, a condition of approval has been recommended to incorporate their recommendations as conditions of approval. I III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof E I The approval criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in AMC 18.88.030.A.4 as follows: I a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of q y Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage,police and fire protection and adequate transportation;and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C. That the existing and natural features of the land, such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc.,have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. j e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 9 of 16 i early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. fiord 2836,521999) The approval criteria for Final Plan approval are described in AMC 18.88.030.B.5 as follows: Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%)percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten(10916) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. C. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (1091o)percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. (Ord 2836,S31999) i The approval criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.88.050.F as follows: An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity, C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. cord 2951,amended,0710112008;Ord 2836,amended,0210211999) The approval criteria for a Physical&Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Floodplain Lands are described in AMC 18.62.040.I. as follows: Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 10 of 16 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. The approval criteria for Variances are described in AMC 18.100.020 as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses, and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations As noted when the same property was considered during the 2010 Lot Line Adjustment and Variance application,the subj ect parcels are significantly oversized within the R-1-7.5 zoning district and have the potential under current zoning to accommodate significant additional density,with a base density of 11.55 units. In staff's view, the proposal currently under consideration seems to be a good compromise between the need for efficient land use to accommodate additional density anticipated in the city's long term growth plans and considerations of the Performance Standards Options Chapter which call for balancing the impacts of development with the preservations and protection of natural features and neighborhood character. The applicants' lot lay-out seems to be thoughtfully arranged to match the general development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood,and the yard areas which have been proposed provide a substantially more space to buffer the development from adjacent properties than is required under the code. The resultant lots are to be generally over-sized for the district, and would likely be well-suited to accommodating a degree of additional density through accessory residential units over the long-term. The proposed street installation combined with the applicants' installation of a relocated pedestrian connection from Apple Way to Tolman Creek Road provide the broader neighborhood with additional options for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. Staff is generally supportive of the request,and in staff review of the proposal the primary questions have centered on the large Oalc Tree (#43)which the applicants have proposed to preserve and the resultant effects on the development's proposed transportation infrastructure. These include an Exception to Street Standards which will limit sidewalk installation and a Variance to reduce the required on-street parking associated with the subdivision. In staff's view,on-street parking can be a substantial issue with new subdivisions as in its absence parking impacts can spill into surrounding areas. For staff, we believe that the Planning Commission should carefully consider whether additional on-street parking could be accommodated in the area of the existing looped driveway shown to be retained on the plans;the lot to be served by the driveway will have access to its existing garage via the proposed flag drive and with its removal staff sees the opportunity to accommodate Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report j Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 11 of 16 i additional on-street parking. Staff believe that the Exception to Street Standards to not have a sidewalk installed on the south side of the proposed street along the frontages of Lots 2-4 can be found to be merited, however we have recommended that the final civil drawings detail a clear material/surface distinction between driveways, streets, parking areas and pedestrian routes from where the sidewalk transitions to the north side of the street to the pedestrian connection to Apple Way as a means to clearly delineate the options for pedestrian travel where no sidewalks will be available. Should the Commission concur with staff, we would suggest that the following conditions be attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2) That the applicants shall obtain a Demolition/Relocation Review Permit from the Building Division if the proposed partial demolition of the existing shop/garage building triggers the requirements of the Demolition Ordinance. 3) That prior to the issuance of an excavation permit: a) Final civil engineering plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage,electric and transportation facilities shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Engineering Departments. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and ad j acent to the development,including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins, and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets,while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plan. b) That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project,shall be submitted for review and approval bythe Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey plat. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre- development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. c) That the applicants shall provide a revised site plan for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor which identifies: 1)the treatment of the in-laid crossing where the sidewalk transitions from the south side of the street to the north side at the tree and which further identifies the connection and treatment of the bicycle and pedestrian easement to the sidewalk improvements, with pedestrian routes to be materially distinguished from streets, driveways and parking places; 2)the location of four additional on- street parking spaces through the removal of the looped driveway. d) The applicants shall provide a revised Tree Preservation and Protection Plan Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 12 of 16 for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. The revised plan shall incorporate: 1) any necessary additional measures recommended by the project arborist to benefit the long-term survivability of the large maple tree given its proximity to the proposed new street. Such measures might include but are not limited to the use of permeable paving in proximity to the tree, maintaining a specified area within the tree protection zone free of any paving, fertilizing the tree before development disturbance, and fertilizing and aerating within the tree protection zone after disturbance;and 2)the July 7,2011 recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission where consistent with applicable standards and with final review and approval by the Staff Advisor. e) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.13 shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work,storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for trees to be preserved. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.13. f) Any work, within the Tolman Creels Road right-of-way, including but not limited to street improvements or utility installation, shall be subject to review and approval by Jackson County and the City of Ashland, with permits to be issued by Jackson County. 4) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat for Phase One, which will create Lots#1, 2, 4, 7 and 8: a) That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. b) That the new street and subdivision names shall be approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division. c) All easements for public and private utilities, trails, pedestrian and bicycle access, natural drainageways, irrigation, fire apparatus access, and the reciprocal access easements for shared use of the existing driveway by Tax Lots#400 and#500(as proposed in the application)shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. d) That all Phase One public improvements including but not limited to the street, sidewalk, street trees, and street lighting shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and Jackson County. Improvements shall be consistent with those described in the application,including 22 feet of paving to accommodate a queuing travel lane and on-street parking on one side of the street, curb and gutter, storm drain system, seven-foot planting strip and five -foot wide sidewalk. A reserve strip("street plug")shall be provided along the northern boundary of the street improvements along the south boundary of Tax Lot#400. e) The applicants shall provide evidence of agreement to the relocation of the I Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 13 of 16 i bicycle and pedestrian easement from the affected property owners,and shall detail proposed improvements and any signage or screening on revised civil drawings. The relocated easement shall be recorded with the final survey plat,and the multi-use path improvements installed in conjunction with other subdivision infrastructure. On-going maintenance responsibilities for the multi-use path shall be described in the subdivision CC&R's which shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the final plat. f) Street trees,located one per 30 feet of street frontage,shall be installed along the new street's frontage as part of the subdivision infrastructure improvements. Street trees shall be chosen from the Recommended Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in the Recommended Street Tree List. The street trees shall be irrigated. g) Electric services shall be installed underground to serve Lots 1,2,4,7 and 8. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. h) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for Lots 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8. i) The applicants shall sign in favor of the future improvements to Tolman Creels Road and agree to pay their proportionate cost of the necessary improvements and not to remonstrate against the formation of a Local Improvement District. j) The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&R's or other mechanism establishing the limited homeowners' association. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. k) The applicants shall sign an agreement to participate in the future cost of full street improvements for Tolman Creels Road, including but not limited to park row planting strips, sidewalks, streetlights, curbs, gutters, paving, and storm drains, to be recorded on the deeds of the newly created lots concurrently with the final plat. 5) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat for Phase Two to create Lots #5 and#6, and Phase Three, to create Lot#3: a) All easements for public and private utilities, trails, pedestrian and bicycle access, natural drainageways, irrigation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. b) Phase Two subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utility installation to serve Lots #5 and #6 and private driveway installation shall be completed according to approved plans prior to the signature of the final survey plat for Phase Two. The private driveway shall be subject to all development requirements for flag drives including that it shall be constructed to flag drive standards which call for a 15- foot paved drive centered in a 20-foot clear width where serving two lots and a 12-foot Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 14 of 16 i i i paved drive centered in a 15-foot clear width be maintained where serving one lot. Phase Three subdivision infrastructure improvements,including but not limited to utility installation to serve Lot#3 shall be completed according to approved plans prior to the signature of the final survey plat for Phase Three. c) Electric services shall be installed underground to serve Lots 5 and 6 for Phase Two and Lot 3 for Phase 3. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. d) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for Lots 5 and 6 for Phase Two and Lot 3 for Phase Three. e) That prior to the signature of a final survey plat for Phase Two,the applicants shall provide a deed restriction agreement to be recorded on Lots#5 and#6 which requires the installation of a residential fire sprinkler system in each of these units. The deed restriction language shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor,and signed and notarized prior to release of the survey plat. The deed restriction shall be recorded concurrently with the survey plat. 6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) Individual lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the 45 percent lot coverage allowed in the underlying zoning districts. Building footprints,walkways,driveways,parking and an impervious surfaces p � s Y � Y �P g areas� Y i A shall be counted for the purpose of lot coverage calculations. b) That all proposed lots shall be subject to Solar Access Standard A. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards, and shall include identification of the required solar setbacks with supporting formula calculations and elevation or cross-section drawings clearly labeling the height of the solar producing point(s) from the identified natural grade. c) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to fire hydrant j distance; fire flow; fire apparatus access, turn-around, and work area; and approved addressing shall be satisfactorily addressed in the building permit plan submittals and complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever is applicable. Plans for residential fire sprinkler systems shall be provided with the building permit submittals for Lots #5 and #6, as proposed by the applicants. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public facilities. d) Building permit submittals for lots to be served via a flag drive shall be required to provide three off-street parking spaces. Required parking shall be j identified on the site plan. Parking spaces on flag drives shall be placed to allow vehicles to turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. i i Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant, Malibar Group LLC Page 15 of 16 i I 7) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not illuminate adjacent proprieties. I i I i i i i i i i i I i i I i i i Planning Action PA#2011-00738 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 16 of 16 I I PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A 8-LOT OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTIES AT 1405 T L AN CREEK ROAD WAS w V �1 4 u < .' MAI % twill, pas +. t SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASHLAND, GN SUBMITTED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES,LLC 485 W. NEVADA STREET ASHLAND, OREGON JUNE 3,2011 Pagel of 31 ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1405 Tolman Creek Road,Ashland 391E23BA 308 & 501 PROJECT INFORMATION: APPLICANTS: LAND USE PLANNING: Malibar Group LLC Urban Development Services, LLC 1405 Tolman Creek Road 485 W. Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-621-2109 Tel: 541-482-3334 CIVIL ENGINEERING: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Construction Engineering Consultants Sager& Associates P.O. Box 1724 700 Mistletoe Road, St. 201 Medford, Oregon 97501 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Tel: 541-779-5268 Tel: 541-941-7659 SURVEYOR: CERTIFIED ARBORIST: Polaris Land Survey Sager&Associates P.O. Box 459 700 Mistletoe Road, St. 201 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Tel: 541-482-5009 Tel: 541-941-7659 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5 i i LOT & HOUSE DATA: Tax Lot 308: 2.32 acres House: 2,515 sq. ft. Guest House/Garage: 560 sq. ft. Pool/ Sidewalks: 350 sq. ft. Tax Lot 501 (Vacant): .89 acres BASE DENSITY (R-1-7.5 Zone): Base Density: 3.6 units per acre (3.6 units X 3.21 acres) = 11.5 units Proposed Density(includes existing house): = 8 units APPLICABLE ORDINANCES: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential, Chapter 18.20 Performance Standards Option, Chapter 18.88 Off-Street Parking, Chapter 18.92 Variances, Chapter 18.100 i Page 2 of 31 PROPOSED LOT SIZES (7,500 sq. ft. minimum in R-1-7.5 zone): Lot 1: 11,600 sq. ft. Lot 2: 10,580 sq. ft. Lot 3: 10,299 sq. ft. Lot 4: 22,361 sq. ft. Lot 5: 18,221 sq. ft. Lot 6: 25,808 sq. ft. Lot 7: 12,325 sq. ft. Lot 8: 10,619 sq. ft. Public Street: 16,494 sq. ft. Note: The average lot size proposed is approximately twice that of the zone's 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size and the requested density is approximately 40% less then permitted. Note2: The lot sizes on the site plans are incorrect,but accurate on survey. ADJACENT ZONING: WEST: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential EAST: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential SOUTH: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential NORTH: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential SITE: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential goo 1 J U4 Subiect Properties ( " too Tax Lots#309,316,317,314 s Wildcreek Subdivision(1995) „ its <i Tax Lots#400 and 500 Not a Part-owned by others �' r _ t Tax Lots#308 and SOI (outlined) ; C t Subject Subdivision Property 1�3 Tax Lots#600-1300 Not a Part-owned by others Briggs,Unit#2,Subdivision � 3tsa ' zsy�j t l I t 11- f Page 3 of 31 HISTORY OF PROPERTY: In July of 2010, the Planning Commission approved a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance to allow a lot wider than it is deep (PA-2010-00582). The intent behind the applicant's request was to create a more logical and efficient lot layout so that future phases of the project are not compromised. Note: Due to a variety of factors, the property owners decided to not complete the Lot Line Adjustment and instead apply for a subdivision, complete the surveying and install the necessary infrastructure at one time. In September of 1997, the City Council ultimately denied a request by the previous property owner for a Variance to increase the number of livestock from the permitted two head of livestock over the age of six months per acre to four head of livestock over the age of six months per acre to 15 Llamas (PA-97-085). In July of 1995, the Planning Commission approved a four-lot Outline and Final Plan subdivision under the Performance Standards Option (PA-95-037). Tax Lot #308, the larger parcel within the current proposal, was Lot#4 in that subdivision (Wildcreek Subdivision). PLANNING ACTION: The applicants wish to obtain approval for four entitlements: 1) An Outline and Final Plan Subdivision for an 8-lot subdivision for the property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road; 2) A Variance from AMC 18.88.060 B. to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by 50% in order to preserve multiple trees. 3) Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street. i 4) A Physical &Environmental Constraints Permit (P&E) to encroach into the Hamilton Creek floodplain boundary where it parallels along Tolman Creek Road for utility purposes. i SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject properties are located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road (upper Clay Street) and are commonly referred as the "Llama Farm" (391E 23BA TL 308 and I 501 — see attached plans). The properties are .89 acres and 2.32 acres and are zoned R-1-7.5. The property is relatively level and void of any significant natural features other than a few j trees and a drainage swale traversing through the property's western end. The smaller parcel is vacant other than a small circular shed, but the larger parcel consists of an existing single- level single family residence, a detached guest house over a garage and a large detached garage-storage building. According to the Jackson County Assessor's Department, the home is 2,515 square feet and was constructed in 1890. The guest house is 560 square feet and was built in 1950. The architectural appearance of the single family residence is "ranch style" which appears to have been remodeled significantly in the 1950's from its original design. All of the structures on the property are expected to remain with this application. Access to the subject properties is from Tolman Creek Road via a private flag driveway. In total, the driveway serves three tax lots: 1) TL 500 (residence with legal access onto Tolman Creek Road, but functional access via the driveway), 2) TL 501 (vacant lot to be amended by Page 4 of 31 Lot Line Adjustment) and 3) TL 308 (residence with sole access from driveway). A fourth tax lot, TL 400, also abuts the private driveway, but does not have an easement for access and is not part of this application. PROJECT PROPOSAL & DETAILS: As stated, the proposal is for four land use entitlements from the City of Ashland which include approval o£ 1) An Outline and Final Plan Subdivision for an 8-lot subdivision; 2) A Variance from AMC 18.88.060 B. to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by 50% in order to preserve multiple trees; 3) A Tree Removal Permit to remove five of the sites forty-three trees and 4) A Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit (P&E) to encroach into the Hamilton Creek floodplain boundary where it parallels along Tolman Creek Road for utility purposes. Outline & Final Plan: The proposal includes a simultaneous approval for an Outline and Final Plan Subdivision in accordance with AMC 18.88.030 A.1, to subdivide the two existing tax lots (Tax Lots#308 and #501) into eight single family parcels. The property owners currently reside within the existing house on Tax Lot #308 and desire a subdivision that is compatible with the neighborhood's general layout, lot size, density and sense of responsibility. In that sense, the property owners have reduced the allowable density from eleven units to eight and increase each lot's overall size and perimeter setbacks to achieve the goal. Further, the property owners preferred to save as many trees as possible which is further addressed below. Design Considerations: One of the principal design factors with the proposal was the consideration of the large Big Leaf Maple Tree (60" dbh) and a small, but fast growing Red Cedar (12" dbh) located in the center of the property. In order to preserve both trees, one of which is a mature specimen tree, the design of the subdivision's street (Tolman Creek Lane) and all of the subdivision's utilities needed to be engineered to meander away from the tree's protective root zone, thus the configuration of the street and the eventual promenade invitation the owner's desire to achieve. The design also preserves the looped driveway currently serving the existing house. The street's hammer-head design complies with the City's street standards and was consulted upon with the City's Fire Marshall prior to submittal. In addition to preserving the site's most significant trees and attempts to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the property owners also desired to create a subdivision that was unique in its offerings which includes oversized lots, greater setback provisions on both the front and rear building envelopes, a unique sense of entry when entering the subdivision by a canopied street promenade. Finally, the property owners desired to understand the most logical development pattern that would occur on both Tax Lots #400 and #500 located at the entrance of the street (owned by others). In doing so, the property owners have completed additional engineering and will complete additional street improvements at their expense in order to maintain the subdivision's integrity. Pedestrian Path: At the time the subject property was divided in 1995 (PA-95-037 — Wildcreek Subdivison), the then applicant proposed a public pedestrian path that would eventually connect Tolman Creek Road with Apple Way. Unfortunately, the location of the I Page 5 of 31 i easement wasn't fully thought-out as sections of the path (see insert below) would have either been in a location that is unsafe, environmentally questionable and neighborly insensitive. ". 4 End of Apple Way. y , L r" h H 4 Wildcreek Subdivision(Lots Lot Hve a I t One—Five) rrf a r :r 'OTC o aq.Fk, i T gad` aY ::fi JI FJSi9!`rt ,4ri . { :fi` 4 a:t "•'n ar„ ® Previous 1395 Dedication of 7' Lot.. Ong;, ��� �.fit # 1400 Public Pedestrian &Bicycle .1 O ? a "> Easement.Note odd location. Lot: Tvio tr n s< s 4 #1415 (Current 6 ; _,,,; Tax Lot #308). tares P;: .o\ re # 1495 v; :_..<J Foor d" Wildcreek Subdivision Plat(portion there of) Although speculation, the reason the current location of the pedestrian path wasn't fully thought out was that few houses existed in this area at the time the easement was platted (often the case) which today, in hindsight, appears as questionable. Nevertheless, leaving the easement"as is"no longer makes sense it would have to: • Cross through a dedicated "nature refuge"; • Require a Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit to fill and place structural material within and adjacent to the flood corridor; • Require grading and removal of various natural grasses,plants and shrubs; • Circuitously traverse through the rear and/or side of multiple neighboring properties; • Have other forms of security improvements such as lighting as the path would have been in a narrow corridor of fencing with limited visibility; • Acquire "public"right-of-way through Tax Lot#400; I Page 6 of 31 • If dedicated or acquired with the eventual development of Tax Lot #400, its connection with a sidewalk along Tolman Creek Road would have conflicted with existing trees and severe grade changes; • Be widened an additional three feet to comply with existing street standards. Note: It should be understood that there are many other conflicts associated with the previous path's location not mentioned such as timing of improvements, responsibility of improvements, maintenance of improvements, expense, etc. If the easement is relocated as proposed, the public pedestrian path will: • Be along a majority of a planned public street and existing private driveway; • Not impact any natural elements; • Be more direct to its intended connection with limited grade change; • Be in the "front" of neighboring homes; • Have a natural sense of security(eyes on the street); • Require no dedication or"public"purchase; • Eventually tie seamlessly into a sidewalk system along Tolman Creek Road; • Comply with current street/path design standards; At time of the Final Plat, the previous easement will be abandoned and replaced with new easements, where necessary, to create a more logical and direct public pedestrian path. Maintenance of the path, although minimal, will be via a limited Home Owners Association. Note: The relocation of the pedestrian path has been wholeheartedly supported by the subject property owners of Tax Lot#314 (Vollers) and Tax Lot#317 (Greens). Evidence of easement relocation on said properties will be submitted at time of Final Plat. 3/ Street Improvements: As noted, the proposed residential street will be completed from the entrance of Tolman Creek Road to the end of the hammer-head turn-around area. The improvements will include roughly a3/4 street improvement the full length of the street which includes on one side of the street a sidewalk, planting strip (parkrow), 22' of asphalt for on- street parking and vehicle access. The first half of the street, roughly 200', is owned by others that are not participating in the application, but most likely will propose some type of development in the future. In this first half section, the property owners have completed all of the street's engineering as well as the upsizing of underground utilities with the understanding that eventually any new development will seamlessly tie into the street and reimburse the property owners for their forethought and expense. The second half section of street, roughly 140', will also include a 3/ improvement, but with the street's sidewalk and planting strip shifting to the north side of the street in order to provide a more logical and direct route to not only serve the new homes, but also a new pedestrian path providing a safe and convenient connection for the subdivision's residents to the Apple Way, Greenmeadows and Bellview neighborhoods. i Tax Lot #400 and #500: As previously noted, Tax Lot #400 and #500 are not a part of the proposal, but do have notable design and infrastructure issues needing consideration. Tax Lot #400 sits vacant with development potential of three lots. These lots will likely be configured similar to Lots #7 and #8 of the proposed subdivision with access prohibited from Tolman Page 7 of 31 Creek Road due to adopted access management standards. Knowing this, the applicants have designed the infrastructure to easily connect and sized it appropriately to accommodate the additional capacity. Tax Lot#500 has little development potential, other than possibly a small accessory unit, due to the fact its home sits generally in the middle of the parcel. In consideration of these factors, the applicants have designed the street's sidewalk to be along Tax Lot#500 so that when Tax Lot#400 is developed and driveway cuts are fully understood, that property owner will be responsible for the remaining sidewalk and street tree improvements. Note: A one foot "street plug" along the entire southern boundary of Tax Lot #400 is identified on the submitted survey map (Sheet SV-1) that will be dedicated by the applicants/property owners to the City of Ashland in order to maintain access management strategies for that property. Advanced Financing of Public Improvements Ordinance—Tax Lot#400: As noted above, the property owners are proposing a 3/ street improvement of Tolman Creek Lane (new street) in order to satisfy access management and street standard requirements. The property owners have also completed the entire street's engineering and landscaping plans in order to address the street comprehensively so that one day, once finished, will be seen as a single improvement. However, because this section is owned by others and the applicants are already improving the frontage of Tax Lot 500, the remaining section of the new street, along the southern boundary of Tax Lot 400, will be completed by that property owner when he/she propose to subdivide. The burden and expense to improve streets along the frontages of other properties, especially when those properties have development potential, has generally been seen by the courts as beyond an applicant's responsibility, especially when the application has limited impacts (small in scale) and other alternatives exists — as proposed here. However, the applicants ! would be willing to accept a condition of approval from the Planning Commission to complete the improvements along the south side of Tax Lot 400 as described on the site plans as long as the condition was clear the expense for the additional work would be reimbursed to the applicants/property owners at the time Tax Lot #400 was subdivided or developed. In this case, the property owners would be willing to be the "first" developers to work with the City via the recently adopted Advanced Financing of Public Improvements Ordinance (Ord. 3402) where the upfront expense for certain public improvements would eventually be reimbursed at the time the benefiting property owner (owners of Tax Lot #400) develop and therefore the distribution of public improvement costs are proportional to each development. Local Improvement District (LID): The property owners desire to eventually see Tolman Creek Road fully improved to City street standards due to the fact Tolman Creek Road provides a direct connection to essential services and facilities. Unfortunately, its current condition remains without sidewalks, curbs, storm drains, etc. and is so long and meanders both in and out of the Hamilton Creek Floodplain, it will need to be comprehensively designed, constructed and financed through an LID. The property owners will agree to participate in an LID and pay their proportionate cost of the necessary improvements and not to remonstrate against its formation by the Council. The property owners have also attempted to mitigate potential pedestrian and bicycle trips by relocating and improving the public pedestrian path noted above. The relocated path should provide a safe "short-cut" opportunity Page 8 of 31 for other pedestrian and bicyclists in the area (for example, owners of Tax Lots #400, #500 and the few home owners along the eastern end of Greenmeadows Way). Physical & Environmental Constrain Permit (P&E): Approximately 5' of the Hamilton Creek Floodplain, where it parallels Tolman Creek Road, extends into the area of the existing driveway and proposed residential street. According to the project's Civil Engineer, the new street will have no noticeable impact on the floodplain as the driveway already exists,but will be widened with some fill being removed and some fill being added (curbs, sidewalks, paving, utilities, etc.). Overall, it's expected the 12' driveway will be widened to 47' to meet City street standards and that less than 50 cubic yards of material will be added in this area. Note: The subject property is exempt from the P&E Permit provisions for Water Resource protection as the area of disturbance for the new street is greater than 40' from the centerline of Hamilton Creek. Further, the area between Lots #5 and#6, designated as a natural drainage area, is actually"piped"under the surface (see narrative below). Variance - On-Street Parking: At least one on-street parking space is required per unit in a Performance Standards Options Subdivision (18.88.060 B.) The property owners are seeking a 50% Variance to this standard as only four can be provided where eight is required. The primary reason for the request is due to the preservation of the existing 60"mature Maple tree where its preservation radius causes the street to meander and thus eliminate "potential" parallel on-street parking spaces. If the tree were to be removed, the alignment of the street would be straight allowing for four additional on-street spaces. Nevertheless, the property owners desire to preserve the Maple tree, request a Variance and mitigate the loss by noting the four deficient on-street parking spaces are realistically available due to the fact that three of the new lots (lots #4, #5 and #6) are technically flag lots off a private drive that require a "third" on-site parking space (AMC 18.88.050 A. and 18.76.060 C.). Finally, the identified looped driveway serving the existing house provides for a minimum of two additional guest parking spaces. Exception to Street Standards — Sidewalk Design: In accordance with Section 18.88.050 F., the property owners are requesting an exception (not a Variance) to the street standards handbook to not install a sidewalk along the frontages of Lots#2, #3 and #4 due to the unique aspect and proposed use of the site. As illustrated on the site's subdivision plans, the area in front of Lots #2, #3 and#4 is primarily being dictated by a couple of unique aspects of the site such as 1) the curvature in the road to preserve the Maple; 2) the Fire Truck turn-around; 3) the existing looped driveway; and 4) the planned sidewalk and in-laid street crossing allowing neighbors and tenants to maneuver throughout the subdivision is a safe manner. Finally, and most importantly, the sensibility to understand the limited number of vehicle trips associated at this end of the subdivision will produce extremely low volumes of traffic and that all pedestrians will simply walk within the turn-around area to get to their destination. Note: For this same reasoning, sidewalks are not required along private drives (18.8 8.050 A.). Natural Drainage Easement: The existence of the Natural Drainage Easement between Lots #5 and#6 was created with the development of the Greenmeadows Subdivision to the south in the late 1970's. The easement was somewhat of a mystery to the owners because there has never been any discernable surface water or related vegetation in this section of the easement, ICI Page 9 of 31 I but immediately to the north the water daylights on a neighboring property (see dashed lines in insert below) and eventually connects with Hamilton Creek. However, after some research, the source is 100% City storm water from the above Greenmeadows Subdivision where it was redirected underground through this property. Nevertheless, other than a small widening of the existing culvert for access to Lot #6, the property owners have designed building envelopes on lots #5 and #6 to respect this "natural" drainage area as it creates an attractive separation between the two homes - similar to the open spaces found within the Greenmeadows Subdivision(see insert below). %. Area where creek daylights (beyond project boundaries) ► j Various open space ► areas between homes in the Greenmeadows Subdivision Proposed Subdivision ° (outlined) Area to the south ► , Note: topography shows "no"discernable watershed configuration,but according to City maps,the source of the water is storm water from the Greenmeadows , Subdivision. Drainage Map Tree Removal & Tree Preservation: Of the site's forty-three trees, only five are proposed to be removed. All five are aligned along the existing driveway's southern edge, likely planted by the previous property owners, and will need to be removed due to the widening and undergrounding of utilities to accommodate the new street. None of the trees to be removed would be considered significant heritage trees as their diameter is less than 18" at breast height and most are fruit trees. Note: at the time of this writing, there appears to be graphical error on the Tree Protection and Removal Plan as Tree #17 is to be retained and Tree #15 (Apple Tree) is to be removed. Page 10 of 31 All of the other trees on the property are planned to be retained as evidenced on the Tree Protection and Removal Plan (Sheet L-1.0) and in accordance with AMC 18.61.200 B. All of the trees to be removed will be replaced with new street trees,planted every thirty feet, within the street's planting strip. Note: Three of the trees to be removed with this application were approved to be removed with the previous planning action (PA-2010-00582) due to their conflicting location along the driveway. Finally, the property owners have and will be putting forth a significant expense to save the large Maple tree (#43) located in the center of the property. Its preservation has played a major role in the design and engineering of the subdivision, but because of its size and aesthetic quality, the property owners feel strongly it should be preserved and become a focal point for the subdivision's future residences. Garage / Shop Accessory Structure: The property owners desire to retain the existing garage and shop structure located directly to the north of the house. A portion of the structure must be removed in order to accommodate additional on-street parking and the pedestrian path, but the majority of the structure will remain. The property owners desire to retain the structure for its utility value as the majority of the structure is sound. Circular Driveway: The property owners also desire to retain the existing circular driveway immediately west of the turn around area as it also provides an important utility use for the property owners and is part of the home's ranch style presence. Private easements will be recorded at the time of the Phase III plat indicating the driveway's use is for the benefit of the property owners of Lot #3 (existing house). Note: The retention of the circular driveway was consulted upon with the Fire Marshall who had no issues with its location. Utilities: The majority of the site's utilities will extend to and from the main lines in Tolman Creek Road as illustrated on the Civil Engineer's drawings (Sheets C.1 — C.9). Of particular note are the efforts to reroute various utility lines to preserve the Maple tree in the center of the property and in particular the storm water lines and its three man-holes to accommodate servicing needs at each bend in the line. Also of note is the 36" storm water detention pipe in the street that allows for high volume capture and slower water releases from the site during heavy storm events. Note: All street and utility improvements will be completed in coordination with Jackson County Roads Division as this section of Tolman Creek Road is under Jackson County jurisdiction. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN OUTLINE PLAN (AMC 18.88.030): 1. Application for subdivision approval under this Chapter shall be accompanied by a proposed Outline Plan. For developments of less than 10 lots, the Outline Plan may be filed concurrently with the final Plan, as that term is defined in 18.88.030 B.4. For developments of 10 lots or more prior Outline Plan approval is mandatory. A simultaneous application for an Outline and Final Plan is being filed as the total number of lots within the subdivision application is eight. Page 11 of 31 2. A Type II procedure, as defined in. this Ordinance, shall be used for the approval of the outline plan. Applicants will follow all procedures as set fourth by the Ashland Municipal Code. 3. Contents. The contents for an outline plan shall be as follows: a. A topographic map showing contour intervals of five (5)feet. See attached exhibits. Plans show a one (1) foot contour in order to fully address grade relationship issues. b. The proposed land uses and approximate locations of the existing buildings to be retained, the proposed structures on the site, the proposed and existing property lines and easements on the site, and existing buildings, structures, and trees greater than six (6) inches in diameter measured at breast height on the properties adjacent to the site, and all buildings within one hundred sixty (160)feet of the site boundaries. See attached site plan exhibits for proposed land uses and building to be retained, property lines, trees, etc. Buildings within 160' of the site's boundaries are shown in the insert on Page 3 of this document. c. The locations of all proposed thoroughfares, walkways, and parking facilities. d. Public uses, including schools,parrs,playgrounds, open spaces and trails. e. Public or private utilities. f. General areas of cuts and fill. g. The location of natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and isolated preservable trees. h. The location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding. For items c—d see attached site plan exhibits. i. On lots which are to contain detached single-family dwellings, building envelopes shall be included on the outline plan which show the area and maximum height of improvements, including solar access and view protection where required. All of the subject lots are to contain detached single-family dwellings, but may also contain accessory dwelling units or accessory structures in the future. All such structures will need to comply with the Ashland Municipal Code's procedures and standards codified at that time. The building envelopes are provided to illustrate the allowed area where each lot's principal structure could be built. The maximum height for each lot is based on the permitted height in the R-1-7.5 zone which is 35'. The maximum Solar Access for building permit application will be based on the standard Class "A" formula found in AMC 18.70.040 A. which is described as: H—6' / .445 + S (Where:H=Building Height and S =North Slope). Page 12 of 31 For all new land divisions, the application includes plans that comply with Section 18.70.050 A. where a 21' tall structure could be placed on each lot and not exceed 50% of the lot's north-south lot dimension. The north-south lot dimension for each lot is as follows (based on average lot depth in accordance with AMC 18.70.020 E): 21' Solar Setback(SSB) Lot# Avg.North Sloe Avg.North/South Dimension (Percentage of N/S Dim. 1 -046 144' S2'-6" (37%) 2 -046 132' 52'-6" (40%) 3 -046 147' 52'-6" (36%) 4 -046 170' 52'-.6" (31%) 5 -066 121' 55'-4" (45%) 6 -040 116' 5 V-8" (45%) 7 -040 108' 5 V-8" (48%) 8 -040 140' 51'-8" (37%) Notel: Sheet L-2.0(solar)identifies the 21'Solar Setback Dimension for each lot as noted in table(reduced copies only). Note2: AMC 18.70.020 D. allows shadowing of streets and other unbuildable areas,but solar setback dimension (SSB) on plans are shown from furthest north property lines. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, no view protection requirements have been imposed on the subject property or neighboring properties. However, the applicants have attempted to consider neighboring views and have significantly increased yard setbacks beyond the zone's minimums where possible. The setbacks for the R-1-7.5 zone are as follows: Front Yard: 10' (porch) Rear Yard: 10' per story Side Yard: 6' 15' (house) 20' (garage) j. Elevation of typical proposed structures. The elevation should be to scale and should include the approximate dimensions of the proposed structures and all attached exterior hardware for heating and cooling. Considering the subject application is for single-family detached lots, each home is to be designed and independently constructed by each property owner. This condition is typical of multi-family developments with attached walls and common spaces. This standard is clarified in the Final Plan submittals, AMC 18.88.030 B.4.1. k. A written statement which will contain an explanation of i. The character of the proposed development and the manner in which it has been designed to take advantage of the Performance Standards Concept. ii. The proposed manner of financing. iii. The present ownership of all the land included within the development. iv. The method proposed to maintain common open areas, buildings and private thoroughfares. v. The proposed time schedule of the development. vi. The findings of the applicant showing that the development meets the criteria set forth in this Ordinance and the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Page 13 of 31 The proposed development has been designed to take advantage of the Performance Standards Options ordinance by incorporating various elements into the subdivision that first considers the neighboring properties and attempts to respect their environments and at the same time provide the lots with traditional home ownership opportunities. The most obvious examples include lot sizes which generally are of the same size and building envelopes which are designed to provide for greater separation than what is permitted under standard zoning regulations. Finally, it has been the applicants desire to provide lots that are marketable to citizens desiring slightly larger parcels that are relatively level, provide flexible design opportunities, excellent views and have full solar access. Conventional bank loans and investment capital will be used to finance the Subdivision's improvements. There are no common areas or buildings that will require maintenance. There is a public multi-use path that will extend from the end of the public street connecting Apple Way. The path has been designed consistent with the Ashland Street Standards with 6' of paving and 2' of clearance on each side. The property owners desire to install the necessary infrastructure and street improvements within 18 months of approval. Once the lots are created and all public improvements completed, the owners desire to sell the properties. The subdivision will have three phases to reflect market conditions and applicant's goals. The phasing of the subdivision and timing of improvements are as follows: Phase I.• Lots#1, 2, 4, 7 & 8 (Lot#4, existing house lot,to be divided with Phase II and III) Phasell: Lots #5 & 6 Phase III.- Lot#3 Phase I improvements include all public street improvements as identified on the attached site plans, including the "public" pedestrian path, sidewalks, utilities and the 3/ street which will include the asphalt, curbs, parkrow and sidewalks. The sidewalk and parkrow along the frontage of Tax lot #400 will be completed by that property owner when he/she subdivides. Phase II improvements will include the extension of utilities to Lots #5 & 6 as well as the expansion of the private driveway. No improvements should be necessary for Phase III as all utility stubs and aprons will be installed in Phase I. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL PLAN (AMC 18.88.030): i B. Final Plan, 1. Procedure for approval. Type I procedure, as defined in this Title, shall be used for approval of final plans, unless an outline plan has been filed, in which case Type II procedure shall be used, and the criteria for approval of an outline plan shall also be applied. Page 14 of 31 The applicants are aware of the procedures as described above. The applicants are attempting to process the Outline and Final Plan application simultaneously in order to limit market swings and overhead costs. 2. The final plan may be filed in phases as approved on the outline plan. As noted above, the application is for a simultaneous Outline and Final Plan approval. The subdivision will have three phases to reflect market conditions and applicant's goals. The phasing of the subdivision and timing of improvements are as follows: Phase I.• Lots #1, 2, 4, 7 & 8 (Lot#4, existing house lot,to be divided with Phase II and III) Phasell.• Lots#5 & 6 Phase III: Lot#3 Phase I improvements include all public street improvements as identified on the attached site plans, including the "public" pedestrian path, sidewalks, utilities and the 3/ street which will include the asphalt, curbs, parkrow and sidewalks. The sidewalk and parkrow along the frontage of Tax lot #400 will be completed by that property owner when he/she subdivide. Phase II improvements will include the extension of utilities to Lots #5 & 6 as well as the expansion of the private driveway. No improvements should be necessary for Phase III as all utility stubs and aprons will be installed in Phase I. 3. If the final plan or the first phase of the outline plan is not approved within eighteen (18) months from the date of the approval of the outline plan, then the approval of the plan is terminated and void and of no effect whatsoever. Extensions may be granted as a Type I procedure. As stated previously, the applicants intend to finalize the first phase of the subdivision within eighteen (18) months from the date of final approval, but also understands an extension is permissible as a Type I procedure if unknown circumstances occur and deemed necessary. 4. Contents. The final plan shall contain a scale map or maps and a written document showing the following for the development: a. A topographic map showing contour intervals of five (5)feet. b. Location of all thoroughfares and walks, their widths and nature of their improvements, and whether they are to be public or private. c. Road cross sections and profiles, clearly indicating the locations of final cuts and fills, and road grades. d. The location, layout, and servicing of all off-street parking areas. e. The property boundary lines. f. The individual lot lines of each parcel that are to be created for separate ownership. g. The location of easements for water line,fire hydrants, sewer and storm sewer lines, and the location of the electric, gas, and telephone lines, telephone cable and lighting plans. h. Landscaping and tree planting plans with the location of the existing trees and shrubs which are to be retained, and the method by which they are to be preserved. i. Common open areas and spaces, and the particular uses intended for them. Page 15 of 31 j. Areas proposed to be conveyed, dedicated, reserved or used for parizs, scenic ways, playgrounds, schools or public buildings. For the items noted above(4a—4j),please refer to the attached site plan submittals addressing the various plan submittal requirements. k. A plan showing the following for each existing or proposed building or structure for all sites except single-family, detached housing which meets the parent zone setbacks: i. Its location on the lot and within the Planned Unit Development. ii. Its intended use. iii. The number of dwelling units in each residential building. iv. On lots which are to contain detached single-family dwellings, building envelopes shall be included on the final plan which show the area and maximum height of improvements, including solar access and view protection constraints where required. Considering the subject application is for single-family detached lots, each home is to be designed and independently constructed by each property owner. Other than the out-buildings identified on the front portion of Lot #5 and the out-buildings at the rear of Lot #3, no other out-buildings exist. However, it's expected small accessory buildings may be desired by individual property owners in the future which will need to comply with all requirements of the Ashland Municipal Code, specifically AMC 18.68, General Regulations. View protections are not required, but solar access provisions have been provided and at the time each homeowner/contractor proposes building plans, they will need to demonstrate compliance with Solar Access Standard"A" as previously described. 1. Elevation drawings of all typical proposed structures except single-family, detached residences which meet parent zone setback requirements. The drawings shall be accurate and to scale, including all attached exterior hardware for heating and cooling. Not applicable as the proposed lots to be created are intended to be created, sold and independently designed. m. Manner of financing. Conventional bank loans and investment capital will be used to finance the Subdivision's improvements. n. Development time schedule. The property owners desire to install the necessary infrastructure and street improvements within 18 months of approval. Once the lots are created and all public improvements completed, the owners desire to sale the properties. A phasing plan is described below, but it is estimated the initial phase and the majority of the public improvements will be completed within the first 18 months and the other phases completed at the discretion of the property owners based on market conditions. Page 16 of 31 o. If individual lots are to be sold in the Planned Unit Development, a final plat, similar to that required in a subdivision section of the Land Use Development Ordinance. Individual lots are to be sold and a Final Plat, as required by the Subdivision section of the Land Use Ordnance, will be submitted. p. Final plans for location of water, sewer, drainage, electric and cable T.V. facilities and plans for street improvements and grading or earth-moving improvements. Please see the attached Civil Improvement Plans. q. The location of all trees over six (6) inches diameter at breast height, which are to be removed by the developer. Such trees are to be tagged with flagging at the time of Final Plan approval. See attached site plans. All trees to be removed have been tagged. Further, all trees to be saved will be protected with chain-link, fencing as described on the Tree Protection and Removal Plan. No trees will be removed and no site disturbance will occur until a Tree Verification Permit is approved. Required Tree Protection Measure (18.61.200) will occur prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 18.88.030 A.4. Outline Plan Criteria: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. The development proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland unless specifically noted herein where the applicants have attempted to specifically address each exception and address the appropriate mitigation measures based on the intent of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision, context of the surrounding neighborhood and likely future development considerations. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer,paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City j facility to operate beyond capacity. All public utilities are available to service the subject proposal and are located within the adjacent Tolman Creek Road right-of-way. Multiple meetings have been held with the Ashland Public Works, Engineering, Fire, Sewer and Electrical Departments in order to verify Page 17 of 31 and coordinate service abilities and connection points. All of the departments stated there is capacity to service the proposal. Vehicular access from the installation of the new street and fire-truck turn-around area allowing vehicles to enter and exit through Tolman Creek Road. Pedestrian access will be provided through the subdivision and link with the street system within the Greenmeadows area providing a more direct and safe route than Tolman Creek Road. The property owners have agreed to sign in favor of a Local Improvement District or other shared financial mechanism adopted by the City Council in order to improve Tolman Creek Road to City Street Standards, but contend the proposed improvements, pedestrian connections and willingness to participate in future street improvements through a fair allocation and comprehensive design commitment meets the intent of this criterion. c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. The site plan has also been designed to recognize the site's natural features such as its various large trees, various groups of trees, neighbor's trees, natural drainage swales and existing structures. Where possible, the site's natural elements have been incorporated into the project's site planning based on building envelope configuration, driveway location and street design. In addition, the project's Civil Engineer and Landscape Architect have coordinated street and utility design efforts to preserve the large Maple tree in the center of the property. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed as shown on the Comprehensive Plan as the area to the north, south and west are fully built-out. A significant amount of planning has occurred to evaluate the adjacent lands to the east(Tax Lot #400 and #500) in order to limit project impacts, but also to evaluate their development potential and likely development patterns to insure compatibility with various Comprehensive Plan policies and Zoning Code provisions. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. The proposed subdivision will not have open space or common areas. However, the public pedestrian path proposed by the applicants will be installed during the initial phase of development and its maintenance, although minimal, will occur by a limited Home Owners Association as permitted by State law. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established Page 18 of 31 under this Chapter. The application meets the base density standards for the R-1-7.5 residential zone and are not proposing any density bonuses. Based on the provisions of AMC 18.88.040, the base density for the property is 3.60 units per acre or a total of 11.5 units and the applicants propose a total of eight lots with an average 15,400 square feet in area or more than double the lot's permissible size under the municipal code's conventional subdivision standards. Note: Although each lot is oversized for the zone and, as a whole, the number of units is less than the base density, it should be understood each property could easily accommodate accessory dwelling units which would be at future property owner's discretion and processed under the City's Conditional Use Permit entitlement process. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. Other than where addressed herein, the development complies with the Ashland Street Standards for a Residential Neighborhood Street. The planned right of way will be 47' in width with the applicants developing 2/3 (34') of the street with the development (total of 36.94' existing in flag area). The remaining 1/3 will be developed at the time the adjacent property to the north (Tax Lot 400) is subdivided. The design of the street right-of-way show two travel lanes with parking on one side, curbs, parkrows (planting strips) and sidewalks. Street trees will be installed within the parkrows in an attempt to create a tree canopied street. Existing trees have been evaluated and preserved where possible to not only create a canopied street,but also a street promenade and neighborhood identity. The public pedestrian path will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Street Standards for multi-use paths with 6' of sidewalk and 10' of right-of-way. The path will be installed during the initial phase of the subdivision. 18.88.040 Performance Standards for Residential Developments: A. The purpose of the P-overlay zone is to distinguish between those areas which have been largely developed under the subdivision code, and those areas which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, topography, vegetation, or natural hazards, are more suitable for development under Performance Standards. As described above, the subject property has a number of natural constraints as well as surrounding compatibility issues with the neighborhood that it is being processed under the Performance Standards Options Subdivision(AMC 18.88.080 A. and D.1. and 2.). The property is zoned R-1-7.5 and 3.21 acres in total area. Less a typical 20% area dedicated to public streets, under "standard" zoning provisions, the property could theoretically be divided into 14.9 7,500 square foot parcels under the Subdivision chapter. However, when subdividing under the Performance Standards Options Subdivision process, the base density is reduced to 3.60 units an acre or in this case 11.5 units and the property owners, based on the purpose and intent statement of the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.88.010), desire a total of eight units — three less than permitted under the Performance Page 19 of 31 Standards Options Chapter and approximately seven less than then a standard Subdivision's allowance. 18.88.070 Setbacks: A. Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the underlying district. The attached site plan shows building envelopes with front setbacks that meet or exceed the standard front yard provisions of the R-1-7.5 zone which is 10' for porches, 15' for house and 20' for garages. B. Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone. The setbacks within the R-1-7.5 zone are as described above for the front yard, 6' side, 10' street side and 10' per story in the rear yards. The attached site plans show building envelopes where along the perimeter of the development all setbacks meet or exceed for the R-1-7.5 zoning district. In particular, the areas where the property abuts surrounding properties, the envelopes have been designed to provide a spacious setback respecting neighborhood context patterns. C. Maximum heights shall be the same as required in the parent zone. The property owners are aware of the 35' maximum height restrictions noted in the R-1-7.5 zoning district as well as all applicable Solar Access provisions of AMC 18.70, and have designed the lots and building envelopes to accommodate these provisions. D. One-half of the building height at the wall closest to the adjacent building shall be required as the minimum width between buildings. All of the proposed homes will have house designs complying with this standard. All setback dimensions will be verified at the time of the building permit in accordance with the submitted plans. E. Solar Access Setback. Solar access shall be provided as required in Section 18.70. All of the lots meet the Solar Access Performance Standards listed under Chapter 18.70.050 A. and each lots north-south width easily accommodates a 21' tall building so that its shadow setback does not exceed 50% of the lot's north-south lot dimension. Further, all of the subject lots are to contain detached single-family dwellings, but may also contain accessory dwelling units or accessory structures in the future. All such structures will need to comply with the Ashland Municipal Code's procedures and standards codified at that time. i The maximum Solar Access for building permit application will be based on the standard Class "A" formula found in AMC 18.70.040 A. which is described as: H — 6' / .445 + S (Where:H=Building Height and S =North Slope). Page 20 of 31 i Note: For all new land divisions, the application includes plans that comply with Section 18.70.050 A. where a 21' tall structure could be placed on each lot and not exceed 50% of the lot's north-south lot dimension. The north-south lot dimension for each lot is as follows (based on average lot depth in accordance with AMC 18.70.020 E): 21' Solar Setback(SSB) Lot# Avg.North Sloe Avg.North/South Dimension (Percentage of N/S Dim. 1 -046 144' 52'-6" (37%) 2 -046 132' 52'-6" (40%) 3 -046 147' 52'-6" (36% 4 -046 170' 52'-.6" (31%) 5 -066 121' 55'-4" (45%) 6 -040 116' 51'-8" (45%) 7 -040 108' 51'-8" (48%) 8 -040 140' 51'-8" (37%) Notel: Sheet L-2.0(solar)identifies the 21' Solar Setback Dimension for each lot as noted in table(reduced copies only). Note2: AMC 18.70.020 D. allows shadowing of streets and other unbuildable areas,but solar setback dimension (SSB) on plans are shown from furthest north property lines. F. Any single-family structure not shown on the plan must meet the setback requirements established in the building envelope on the outline plan. The attached site plan identifies building envelopes complying with the setback standards for the underlying R-1-7.5 zoning district. 18.88.030 B.S. Final Plan Criteria: Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: i NOTE: Considering the proposal is for an eight lot subdivision, Outline and Final Plan j applications under 10 lots are permitted to be submitted concurrently (AMC 18.88.030 A.1.). As such, the application complies with the criteria listed below (specific to a,b, c, d and f.). I a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. i Page 21 of 31 c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (10%) percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. All of the subject vacant lots will be designed and constructed independently by each property owner. The property owners contend the building elevations and exterior materials chosen by future owners, in combination of the increased setbacks and tree preservation efforts, will comply with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.88.010). C That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. Other than where addressed herein, the development complies with the Ashland Street Standards for a Residential Neighborhood Street. The planned right of way will be 47' in width with the applicants developing 2/3 (34') of the street with the development (total of 36.94' existing in flag area). The remaining 1/3 will be developed at the time the adjacent property to the north (Tax Lot 400) is subdivided. The design of the street right-of-way show two travel lanes with parking on one side, curbs, parkrows (planting strips) and sidewalks. Street trees will be installed within the parkrows in an attempt to create a tree canopied street. Existing trees have been evaluated and preserved where possible to not only create a canopied street,but also a street promenade and neighborhood identity. The public pedestrian path will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Street Standards for multi-use paths with 6' of sidewalk and 10' of right-of-way. The path will be installed during the initial phase of the subdivision. 18.62.040 Approval Criteria (Physical & Environmental Constraints): 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. i The applicants have taken all reasonable steps as outlined in Chapter 18.62.070 (Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands) to minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties — see response to standards below. Not only have the applicants conversed directly and indirectly with the neighbors, they have hired a professional Civil Engineer, Landscape Page 22 of 31 Architect and Surveyor to address any potential impacts associated with the construction of the new road. From the various meetings and communications, the applicants contend any and all potential adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. The applicants have considered the potential hazards where the widened new road meets with Tolman Creek Road and have hired Civil Engineer to evaluate the construction and associated fill materials. By taking these steps, the applicants contend measures have and will be implemented to mitigate against any potential hazards the road construction may cause. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. The applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce any adverse impacts on the environment by hiring a professional Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer, Arborist, and Land Use Planner to comprehensively evaluate the proposal and address any potential impacts associated with the road's improvements. From the various meetings and communications, the applicants and property owners contend any and all potential adverse impacts have been minimized. 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood plain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10: Approximately 5' of the Hamilton Creek Floodplain, where it parallels Tolman Creek Road, extends into the area of the existing driveway and proposed residential street's improvments. According to the project's Civil Engineer, the new street will have no noticeable impact on the flood p lain as the driveway already exists, but will be widened with some fill being removed and some fill being added (curbs, sidewalks, paving, utilities, etc.). Overall, it's expected the 12' driveway will be widened to 47' (eventually) to meet City street standards and that less than 50 cubic yards of material will be added in this area. As such, the amount of disturbance in this area is minimal and the amount of fill is extremely minimal. A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) and Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC),where applicable. i i Page 23 of 31 All street improvements and associated fill material has been designed by a licensed Civil Engineer and in compliance with all applicable local and State laws. 2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill. The toe of the fill is literally at the western edge of Tolman Creels Road and the new street where the existing open storm ditch is located. All fill material is simply to widen the existing driveway where it meets Tolman Creek Road from 12' to 37'. 3. The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot. Not applicable as no structures are proposed within the subject area. b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction. All proposed fill materials associated with the widening of the driveway are necessary to complete the new road to City Street Standards. c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material. Within the five feet of street encroachment, there are small amounts of plants and other landscaping materials to be located in the street's parkrow. ! i d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material. According to the project's Civil Engineer, no more than 50 cubic yards will be necessary to encroach into the five foot floodplain boundary. e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued. To the applicant's knowledge, no other fill material has been added to this site since the driveways original construction. 4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent Page 24 of 31 necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor. Not applicable as less than 50 cubic yards of fill material is necessary. 5.Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill. All street improvements, including drainage provisions have been designed by a licensed Civil Engineer. 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as feasible. All fill material is at the extreme outer edge of the designated floodplain boundary. In fact, according to the project's Surveyor, the actual boundary of the floodplain is likely to be less than the boundary designated on the submitted plans as that boundary has been extrapolated from City of Ashland floodplain maps which are often oversized and do not reflect either the topography of the area or are based on boundaries difficult to measure based on the small scale of the maps. Nevertheless, in this application's case, a conservative effort was made to address all standards for clarity and thoroughness. B. Stream crossing for streets, access or utilities of any waterway or stream identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the crossing will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow. The crossing shall be at right angles to the stream channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill for stream crossings shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Not applicable as no streams are being crossed. C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be flood-proofed to an elevation of ten feet above the stream channel on Ashland,Bear or Neil Creels; to five feet above the stream channel on all other Riparian Preservation Creeks identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060; and three feet above the stream channel on all other Land Drainage Corridors identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060. Not applicable as no structures are proposed. Page 25 of 31 D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the stream channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet above the stream channel on all other Riparian Preservation Creeks identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060; and three feet above the stream channel on all other Land Drainage Corridors identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. Not applicable as no structures are proposed. E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. The application meets the intent of this standard as the fill and related construction work for the road will be at the far western edge of the floodplain boundary in a location that appears to be at its highest elevation where the new street and Tolman Creek Road meet. F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. Not applicable as no lots are within the floodplain area as the area in question is street right- of-way. G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered or supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if it does not impact riparian vegetation, and the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Not applicable as no structures are proposed. II Page 26 of 31 III H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s)which contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance. Not applicable as no lots are within the floodplain area as the area in question is street right- of-way. I. Basements. 1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located within the Flood plain Corridor. 2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10. Not applicable as no lots are within the floodplain area as the area in question is street right- of-way. J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood plain Corridor lands. Not applicable as no lots are within the floodplain area as the area in question is street right- of-way. K. Fences shall be located and constructed in accordance with section 18.63.060.B. 3. Fences shall not be constructed across any waterway or stream identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. No fences are proposed to be within the 5' floodplain area. L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.0 and D, shall be flood- proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10. Not applicable as no structures are proposed within the floodplain area as the area in question is street right-of-way. M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, except as provided for in Chapter 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zones, or in the Flood plain corridor as outlined below: Page 27 of 31 1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor. 2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception. Not applicable. The area in question already is in existence and the proposal is to widen the existing driveway where it meets Tolman Creek Road. 18.100.020 Criteria for Variances—On-Street Parking Description: At least one on-street parking space is required per unit in a Performance Standards Options Subdivision (18.88.060 B.) The property owners are seeking a 50% Variance to this standard as only four can be provided where eight is required. The primary reason for the request is due to the preservation of the existing 60" mature Maple tree where its preservation radius causes the street to meander and thus eliminate "potential"parallel on- street parking spaces. If the tree were to be removed, the alignment of the street would be straight allowing for four additional on-street spaces. Nevertheless, the property owners desire l to preserve the Maple tree, request a Variance and mitigate the loss by noting the four j deficient on-street parking spaces are realistically available due to the fact that three of the new lots (lots #4, #5 and #6) are technically flag lots off a private drive that require a "third" on-site parking space (AMC 18.88.050 A. and 18.76.060 C.). Finally, the identified looped driveway serving the existing house provides for a minimum of two additional guest parking spaces. The criteria for a Variance are found in the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.100, noted below followed by the applicant's response: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The subject property is unique or unusual for a variety of reasons and when combined do not typically apply elsewhere. First, there are existing circumstances that apply to this property that have played a significant role in the projects design such as the fact there are existing structures, driveways, utilities, drainage areas and mature trees. Second, there are circumstances with this property that warrant or demand consideration such as neighboring property lines,house orientations, context and natural constraints. As noted previously, the large Big Leaf Maple tree (#43) in the center of the property, with its 60" diameter at breast height and its 30' radius combined with the location of the site's existing driveway location defined by the boundaries of the adjacent tax lots (#400 and #500) and the location of the existing house, the ability to add four additional on-street parking has Page 28 of 31 become very problematic, but could be completed if the Maple tree was removed. The property owners desire to instead retain the tree and request a Variance based on the unique and unusual circumstances listed. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Without the Variance, the solution would be to remove the large Maple tree, straighten the street and designate additional on-street parking spaces. The applicant's proposal is to preserve the tree so that it will continue to grow and provide aesthetic and environmental benefits to the neighborhood for many years. The Variance will provide for future residents to benefit from the tree's preservation as once the homes are completed,the tree will be the focal point of the neighborhood and provide for gathering opportunities due to the fact it sits at the point of the sidewalk's convergence, the tree's large canopy will provide great shading opportunities and the eventual placement of mail boxes in this general location have all been considerations as to why the tree's preservation will be greater than any negative impacts on the development and will further the purpose and intent of the ordinance, particularly the Performance Standards Options Ordinance (Chapter 18.88) and Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance(Chapter 18.61) and various Comprehensive Plan policies. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self- imposed. The circumstances and conditions of the property, as described above in response to Criterion A, have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. The subject Maple tree has been in existence for many years beyond the property owner's purchase and the only willful intent is the property owners' desire to retain it. Further, it should be noted the subject tree "could" be removed without discretion, thus opening up the opportunity for more on-street parking, but also opening up the possibility of additional housing. Again, it's the property owners' intent to not remove the tree for the purpose of additional parking or housing, but instead to mitigate the circumstances through the Variance process that results in a more compatible and harmonic design for the neighborhood. 18.88.050—Exception to Street Standards: Description: In accordance with Section 18.88.050 F., the property owners are requesting an exception (not a Variance) to the street standards handbook to not install a sidewalk along the frontages of Lots #2, #3 and #4 due to the unique aspect and proposed use of the site. As illustrated on the site's subdivision plans, the area in front of Lots #2, #3 and #4 is primarily being dictated by a couple of unique aspects of the site such as 1) the curvature in the road to preserve the Maple; 2) the Fire Truck turn-around; 3) the existing looped driveway; and 4)the planned sidewalk and in-laid street crossing allowing neighbors and tenants to maneuver throughout the subdivision is a safe manner. Finally, and most importantly, the sensibility to understand the limited number of vehicle trips associated at this end of the subdivision will produce extremely low volumes of traffic and that all pedestrians will simply walk within the Page 29 of 31 turn-around area to get to their destination. Note: For this same reasoning, sidewalks are not required along private drives (18.88.050 A.). The criteria for a Variance are found in the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.88.050, noted below followed by the applicant's response: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. The subject property is unique or unusual for a variety of reasons. First, there are existing circumstances that apply to this property that have played a significant role in the projects design such as the fact there are existing structures, driveways, utilities, drainage areas and mature trees. Second, there are circumstances with this property that warrant or demand consideration such as neighboring property lines, house orientations, context and natural constraints. As noted previously, the large Big Leaf Maple tree (#43) in the center of the property, with its 60" diameter at breast height and its 30' radius combined with the location of the site's existing driveway location defined by the boundaries of the adjacent tax lots (#400 and #500) and the location of the existing house, the ability to add four additional on-street parking has become very problematic, but could be completed if the Maple tree was removed. The property owners desire to instead retain the tree and request a Variance based on the unique and unusual circumstances listed. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; In the applicant's opinion, the request for an exception to not have sidewalk on the south side of the street extending around the fire-truck turn-around area and looped driveway is an "equal" transportation facility as it would be a more circuitous route with multiple curb-cuts in an area that has extremely low vehicle trips. When one considers the vehicle trips for this section of street are less than 50 in a given 24 hour period (ITE, Edition 8) and the fact that the existing code appears to recognize that where few vehicular trips exist (AMC 18.88.050 C A.), it merits this type of reasonable approach. C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and The Variance request is the minimum necessary. D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. The Variance request is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance j Standards Options Chapter as stated herein: i i Page 30 of 31 i AMC 18.88.010; The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood. The property owners' goal from the beginning was to create a residential living environment that would be appreciated by its residents and neighbors. The planned design will accommodate the goal as it will be aesthetically pleasing and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood than what could be created through standard subdivision practices. Page 31 of 31 .r • E• �r r r R http:ilwww.uri,edulcelfactsheets/sheets/mapletreedecline,html 1+ ��?)(3{-I ig Leaf Maple tolerance to construction -I 4__J File Edit View Favorites Tools Help Maple Tree Decline , -- Page- Tools �? �( Soil Compaction and paving: Maple tree decline call often be attributed to soil compaction and paving. Areas around driveways and alorng non-curbed streets are often used for Parking, causinor considerable soil compaction beneath trees.If a tree is completely surrounded by a paved area,there is little room for water and air excharnge in the soil,resulting in a buildup of carbon dioxide. This condition is especially critical if the Paving was done after the tree had already established its root system. Syniptorns of soil compaction and pavin- include marginal browning of leaves, t«ig dieback, surnunertirne yellowing of leaves and smaller leaf size. These symptoms are often similar to girdling roots and construction damage.Frequently,more than one of these conditions exist on all individual tree. The effects of pavement are difficult to correct without removing the pavement for a distance of at least S feet from the base of the tree. Sidewalk and curb construction damao'e can be decreased by fertilization prior to root damage so that the tree is�grow-i ng vigorously when the roots are curt.If soils are compacted, aeration and fertilization will help the tree recover. The source of compaction must be eliminated for long-terni recovery. OTHER FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO DECLINING MAPLES: In addition to the most common environmental problems already discussed, there are additional factors that can stress trees: A. Grade Changes Soil fill oil top of root systems of living trees earn cause serious damage.As little as 4 to G inches of fill can be dannaging to some maples and other tree species, The typical symptoms of fill damage are yellowhig of foliage and branch dieback. These symptoms may not be expressed until several years j after the Grade change was made. There are ways to fill around trees without V11 Internet i +t 100% I i i Ziudbra Page lof} ( ( Zimbra +Font size- ������ ��U Creek Road �—=��� "="���� �����"^ From .M Knox<knox@mind.net> Thu,Jun 30,201111:2hAM Subject: 14o5 Tolman Creek Road To 'MangueritteHickmon' <h|ckmanm@aoh|and.ur.ue> Cc 'DunekSeverson' <oeversod@aoh|and.or.uo>,maminfumi|y@ao|.com M| Manguehtte, In regards to our conversation last week during the meeting with Public Works,Planning and Fire Department staff,I'm writing you this letter requesting an extension of the distance of the fire truck turn around requirement from 150'to 250'as codified in Section 18.76.060 B.of the Municipal Code.As stated at the meeting,the shifting of the fire truck turn around-from the other side of the new street (immediately east of existing shop/garage)to its current location,was done to minimize the impacts on the house and on-street parking needs,In the current scenario as shown,the turn around area is shifted further to the east,but it creates an opportunity to better mitigate these other issues. Nevertheless,it was always our intention,based on previous discussions with you,to install a fire sprinkler system in each of the two rear units(Lots#5 and#6).A condition of approval should be added that states something to the effect"At time of recording, Lots#5 and#6 shall be recorded with a deed restriction requiring an approved fire sprinkler system be installed with the construction of each home". Let me know if you need additional information from me regarding this issue,but hopefully this will satisfy.Thanks and—Don't work too hard on the 4th I Hopefully the FD has limited incidents considering our recent weather, -Mark http://zimbra.ashland.or.us/h/printmessage?id=43502&1 7/1/2011 The attached photos are examples of house elevations that may or may not be constructed within the Tolman Meadows Subdivision(1405 Tolman Creek Road). The examples vary in house design, house orientation, house size and house height due to the fact all homes will be custom built and designed by future property owners based on their individual needs and desires such as artistic preference, family size, family make-up, floor plan desire, individual creativity, preferred orientation, etc. In essence, any type, style or size of a future home is dependant on individual preference as long as such homes comply with the established building envelopes as identified and all City zoning regulations established at the time such house plans are submitted (lot coverage, setbacks, solar access, etc.). JUL I i i i g .x � + 9� i r- �S F w yy w x n SE 3 y @ � I v �7 h �I wr i av' s y Tr 4 `r. Ki .'. : y, x } j a � �r r t fi t � s' vt n, s x r A s Svti j S p t r v 33' f k r i r' � � r >r P 1� ,� II 11� q 1 l y �I w NI 4J s VII ;I Milli Hit TANA �1 MW ---------- 5 INTO( ------------ ,01, w '` �' { *� a. ,� . �' +f _� ,, ... z� x� � + ' �� i f .�, �,' �� >. , �,. %� $" �`� �^ � ��� t �> y � F � <� � �� w ��� ,,� _- b ��, d �' � � � � ����5 �., p x �� �' r � v`� } v �'��'��� � � P �"r � � i �' � � ;` � � � N z =P Vii, t `4�If li� i�' �;1�. ate.. v5 �� �:,��, �': .. _ � �`u s �: I i c f4 ,Y t� { , I ,y m s cc? f � S i f a : { 1 4 I f, f e P� r pr, I t� k g se I !Y e�! Y4 r i �x a M � - - � �, � " �' x � ,` �. �.. ���} �tt4� '�= fir% .� x :� 6�- � � �' � �� ,�;°' �� � � � - � � �� s � 3. �, � � C � Wit'� � �.� -� °"'�� " ,,�,�� � � �� ��� wr€ iv �Y :�u �' � i � , F �' ���� �� ;' �� �,1 �� �� � � G t '� ��" Y. - � *',�.- »� t�v � # �, k o �, '.r" �, "� �� ��k' F t` �„A�?� �� �:; S - _ K� Xc; Y f 3 s' 9 c- t „� q x _. '� § ,. '_. CFO �t � q� n e -C r ` �9 D �a t r � a d s� �. n t N z T kf ';. � `.n.�rn 4 �t #� � } t3 � I I �i1 ! }tt i 3 4{�F � i= � d i 1 r Fb a ��f� ��� � � �� 1 `` �r I :�r�� ff l v "�� �� �� J „� �'�' x � � a �«..'�,. ��' ,� ,��"y �,�s� � � �' �' & �' , s ��f i :�� ,� �;� �., � p { N � �# e5 � �; I �.., �f_ L {' }�� ' � `� t �t � E� �T"}`"x I � y ? �, i { �� I � _ r,l�i; � }fa � £ i 4 iEt ��� i � �� # r � � A �� �t � � � .3 Y � �;, y i } d 9 f � i e �' t 3 �� M�. v C �� I�� � � 9 � # )1 r 111 � 3 s j', 3� � y ,t, �� ���{ i;' F � "� � � !� ' � # 9 i i p I e a. a w t gtd y; S } Ff " F , v w r 4 AAA 41 1 c , k i F � � Y'^ � II ry r {� f i ? x 4 � 3 1 � �f nN kA It or r, r e t v ' �x- y , a� y��a� �,r�?rye^� ,r✓ 95 �.r;,, f ...r of F�.,.)F✓ � � E � TO } I t , r fY � 1 . i s � t v f ^ fr is a ' � Asti i r . s p y ' r x i IT Al Aok iP A�R r� TRY id iv r r r r p. 5 �� {{ a i a k a �v 5 l f 1 � x r � , 3�e f t r` � q�s .r too 3 , f r r _ r 4 it U Y 1 � i x ' �a r ss i ANT AVON t pp xN—� I 9j i W 3 ter d N i it r� a s . "2 _ rf y A Y x A' k } mow r I c 3 Y, - i 3 i r � 1 «a`a ..........N AND, Am �so A 40 w Elf Envy . ........... , s � ? N MW j:A fj $ WAX pg { + -11111-,311111 1 Awl" 1� "3l �y Ulm PS,�Ij ,1';, s l� i � z ? w 1 . ; a kill c ALI U,�X fs / ®k ; F s ®� . -il x e 3 NA NJ Erg FV WWI ro. - -' I OLSLb N003SO'ONVIHSV �� 9v - - Noo3np'a Ntlinsy toa 311ns'avoy 3o13us1y�ooL 4 o,E �2 H33L�NtlWl01 sOvl DNS S1O311HDSV 3dVJSd NVI SMOUV3W NVWIO.L uovS 318nvl LA+"O S 'ay aa�riv�v�o; 9 II , � ail y�ik#J p o r - o " E i Wl Yom. `, - 5 o t 0 Z J \ raw 3Ne3Aavry ;. =mow I I 1 ozgZ6 Noo4so'aNVIHSV �,. Al w�q-TV ID Lo?;31i15'civOb 3Oi3liSlVq OOZ 2 N00930'QW-V 0 NY Z' Mn D NVWIOJ 50h c� DNJ SiO3i[HO�IV gdVOSGNVI S91YIDOS SV CI uovS awnyl 6 s NoisiAicisnS NIASVVq 7i 0 —— —————— -————- ————---——————-----——--——-----—-- ———— s 'I g J,g g2 5 .. z F M 0 lu n HM m CIVOII NEGNO NVVU01 f g.j.] ------------- - ----- MM t..E -jg M ones L x° m i.- La -As(�,t -To '12 2, DWI —————— ZH SH� I I/ ---------- I-j FF i kill 111 1 11111 T -71 2 3 will il-l.-lut 8. —x ——————---——4— W �C aka H-KIUUMH mu R ZI 8,3—aMMM ozSZ6 NO03No'aNVIHSV NO.Ho'.NIMSV IOZ 311nS'civo�3onusiyq ooZ 0 OYON XMD NVW10J 9011L ONI S10311H:)IIV 3dVZ)S(3NYI 531VIDOSSV(INV :5 SMoaV3W NVVIIOj C¢ a3eyS ------------------------- --------------------------------------------- Z GVMJ N33HO NVWl01 41 ---------- ------------- --------------- -V T. J� -------- ---- sH,2 g J- 74;f--- E 6 ------------ Hy ts L ZE Q 0 1 41" -------------------- oz9L6 NOEJ3a0'aNV1HSV 1 it o LOL 1 311nS'avoN 3oausi OOL y`A�F�. � �rG sO S NoO3np'aNVixsV € avOA�M:)NVWlOJ Soot DN S1D311HDa 3dVDSON S3IVIDOSS aNV ✓;<c'u = �' ��" co I d !1 d o _ sMoaV3W Nvwiog , a3ovs 31amj J UMI�133N0 NVW101 Bo pri I I� / 1 S Na �FO� o� pg Ir Fug tz wr _ Up A HE 15 71 wow a�3 ��j�� •—_.�� sl � a� �------ �1 � o I \ �. Hq 7 i 1 — d — I LL - ij - _ I - a II a w� s� 6EiE-fiL4(S45)XVd 99 -LL([4S)-Lid ° �I�J�'iIyS`•s� ✓s�.ro 'P/day Q° Z O q Z o �Qa Vt �p d - ° o d a ` o w < Zz d u w€ o a Or O J= <> EL w°€� �T ti w¢m K < W m o maa4y eye 2 - al X z w 3 Z a— z w a o LU Z Z z U) J F w�zlu >g u m --- — — z z_ a o Otl011 N33N0 NVWl01 O O F O w F U e 7 I _ W I.,1 2 •.w I 5 I I __ ® w ¢v° waa ; I J v w I U -- a¢ c° ¢ Z m z o a g s�� w w EL � _� zo Z - --------- w Tww w o ✓� W O�M Vf Z o QO < �. f x _ c w Z u .,_.� - ..._ C w 0 i x V LLJ J � J N in I r- V u cn w w i J� F p � J I "�owz toy : `zo �w zekw - m Z�r h� swore ice. oaa "� oah w �w �O � � '-? k ¢ _ Uy 2� YQ"q '?�o�^c�i cwiiiwo�= k5, „' 22 2j2hZ X22°< �0662 p`. ¢��R¢."'-. _ z2 iz �� 3¢ wy 22°cN�¢ -Z 3z °pm 2¢`.`. ¢` J$O.. K ¢ �Wkti2 _.mac �n�5W2 w¢ iW pF° �cT�zi �2Jaii 2 Q �w � �� � p 3az - ¢w 8 po�Q J�`` tea vi o3 �E°wm on m�EQ LLJ po 0 o Q ° wp - ¢z-p z Z �°°i Wii ro -2ka �£��i�z'"m e '`"Q —1 zPh.mr n mjp° 4¢mp"e�zz�m O°kg2 �2� QW Ro ¢m .2 °3��� VXU �zW 2.°] RC¢i w rc z Wkw B "z�oT h � W Crvm,au'vJ� — Od z C V z/ Z> v, U <u � O a Z O d a A v Z - LD \o zw a Z, ZQ _ o 0 1 00= �� wwo uwa uT r v O C_ gz m U n w wE o x4 J M J N r i elf �" r� _ C H J H d h Sa ~ 0 6 O 0$ Z m 0 ryo� O N O w Q U3 Gi H� 4 z Ng a s � °— r oWo a O OOC C Co m 04 NCB C 4C2 r �o o ° o g z` � z p\ w� m wr �� _ Syr p O D tiV4, Z o U- _ 3 > a VO VmHm _ f- N H a Z=m° ro mZ 01 L> Z o F- O �o _. � N '-��_ w F F F a O Oa= per, z �� 's 0 - H od C a ¢ �' z< V Via U w� Z� w Wok `-'? Z _ fj S <Z O O a j � d GVOb )133dD NVW10-L -----------7T_.-.... _ _ cJ v LU I I I z 0 a\ a _- w m n to LU �m W Wr 4a 4 zw� I Q , w Q , I , II - � - - - `----------- o -- I e w o ¢ u IN w — \ k r o r _ W \� z Ln � y ° \o ////JJJ���,,� � 1ri53� 4 39 VHO X3 y _ O 1 0 _2 - ZO a i O2 Z r 0� (a O a { N �2 n lu N UJ n ! N HY 55 R wN- J� N N N 2 N 'KU p - 558X3'".. 4 gal „ la,L•FS'88+6D b15 I " � �n �i x� .i J133N�NVWl01 T o�� o,y _ baLYm A" ac 1a9NNOa-� h y _ I I �o�n I \ „o �� _Q Bj L6 Z5ZZ� 2 °e ❑ _L' �� ¢ ♦ 'y=_ ¢> h � I ac-FSZZ�H rna � Is a m Yes zl'll"99+769 Y s h ,r 13�rY ean9 ¢ _ D�I szz nA3 s9'DSZZ aan� �°4 f N p W -. m I o u , 9D+6D SOA31 -� ip ry Zano< ¢ i i III z D 4>n3 Q.m 66. �; ^ unmaz4 uN�l m ¢ +3 Sin h2 R _ _.— C Y _ 00 AS A � h � oC �s =1 _� - 3 ti w U oz i I I s w u W 08'BBZZ-3Jn9 IL'95 3.9A81 pw� I w� � � _= a9+8D,S9AB 09+841'S9A8i k -- R u, ^^h a N � I a x a III S I PTV �I �I n _ m w >< LU 1 1- I � 8D e8ZZ 39nB 6F 8SZZ 3JA8 -- I I• I I C _ u � I LU V on L J — S60L 9 b5 - m% h I m a S0l9Dl 3� � a L8l9ZZ'. o 0 0 zez I Jr w� ]5 H SL 19ZZ I'll la lJ � � 0 £a+9D SJA3 O ^t � r 1 ° I W It� � o m � lot 514 Art mm s L h nt �T DD.SaA3 UH2 I \/ 0 0 4 'xe� w¢ 10 ° 10 � k` > e ( )\ (t ) D; ) . . ; . . � , � _ . _-- - :- - - ,- �---------- _ - _ : . . _ . . : . . /�/\ \ �� \ \ y© § @E (10 8 0 0 G e'D `` t GVO'd )133dD NVWI01 -- -- — — -- 0 z Q Iz f 7_ - - } ,- - y- -- K 2 �� V ' I QU 2 o\p I I W R--,III { W II ti W J � � r t i a y o E Q u x V--Z! gal co ti , _ x , (I n I a � Ig _ 2 I S D w w E W w _ O IN - _° 2 III W ¢ _ - .� 2 o uoxx� Qj o'�OZ` ¢Qa w ° °xoacxzfs a :z_° I It so �a _ on at __ - z oe c 30 z w - ° 'Z Q K Us ON z Ro <r o Wo = m~ 4rn a° to it ° - s no - its e3 t ?I °� `a�° � - EV oZ _ m� a °h0 8 $ 5 _ _w Gie sin zW oo 4 p 4 Y; I qq it 1 1 i s ° o It p3 _ -Won I 8 a _ off 10 _ s ° o_, LW "nz d T Yap O c _ � _ F $ was nyo fW demo'° y`Q to Two w ,z ° ;v E -kid % 4 W, °i z IS w sm _� a '� ° w It to z ° s. _ s _ a Q°, �w= a Wt _ _ . It a s° �� c ,;a lit ., a ~ na �°a ,mom _. at was dw l u' go i=a an 16 a HE ass _ _-S s - - au p3 z rc w � w w ° o a �w rw Sop g¢ _ a h a z u y ' a z �I h _ who w a� Egg sup 3hw _ - aw N ? a p f w oy out _ o� 1 aap�.UR LLoa�v l „z C o� on: f T .W� w ca J4i �, r wo IH o l c ply o° W iE rc Z 5 ° �� Z �` gn .._ u�.o c ° 3 i N w � n °wo *".0 eE a�i 1 1 $_ yTy77r T lit 8 m elSr.a. 'EJ I oil u ! e.e 'P e s r. •° � � d g� P o w�� 4 4�p Y 1 eE x Y o P L 12 C yG 2 VIII 7 .Y. 2 wk 0 iz 7 0 0.z 0� y 1> <U 2-. J 0 �g w gig h S� p ;gl LF MCI K <El !F, I - p W ——— o > q4 , Lu < Wlii w W W M L LU Mg i O v Cf) w p'l 15 fill 77 lit UPS �t 0 w ka -1 �JZ I mEi 8 o W W M-1 'r 5 IN g M n -, , 61 LL ip p mm j a? LL INW it < Ila, < 1z W a uj E 7� 77- 0. Ug -a lip Wo I loop CJ 5 1 it, poll 11 a7 I'I 1 El OHM i l I sia_ 4° in's LL chi 1 4 Ali ji L zw LL t-4 CID Allf it RON Li HIM H O Z t'�g t119 `s Z O C.,z 4 F o° s - 0 O { Liz.6 � t-- 3I I ➢ �� �$ 2 I z w !Iz3 W Q xQ b 3 ijf Q - - h 1� ®t ��#�3 Y J {e a st .ei os-; gg 3i�x'syl $ 2 ES Si 14 8 2w 0 1 g6 3 � f sib O f � OE LL !: ',I }}r$}66;x,°t� a-I w _i,_g s Q w w 1:4 w U (( t @ gg ff Q i Y i i rE B E ",Ef W z z 9 E Z `\ W U yt4Sfis�P r'S U)H H Q F 0 § 2 d Ail. Q I T Al =iils6; 1� a d'f- $1 �1rvz E Epx — z ti �z >o m z oO A � oo-dp ry 41 a � h zzU ' O h Sa1307XbS ror.LO7XNZ ➢0ltOTX9S ooIZ.LO'TXUZ Q v O X x c7 a X 3 N v w 7 ® .Z ----� FEW Iy II III 1 I I �° LU O^ I : x n i A /° kM r f7 l / 1 flp 'MMUH ` 1 \ 695 SO7X*/2 005207XS'2 [LS]AZXVZ A "^ ZGS.LO'Ix ti �� I ozgZ6 NOOIaO'ONVIHSV Loz;iiinS'avow go a NO�RNO'aNVHSV 0, ""S"00'� DNJ SO3IIHOHV adVDS(3NVI S3i)111.11V IINI OVOJ NDa3 NVWIOJ 90tiL ]o SmOaY3W N"IOj a vS�wyj V. I -ED -------------- -------- --------- ------------------------- z n CIVO?l A33N0 NVAIOI —————————————— ———————————————7—————————— ——————————— --j - ——————————— 17 "N 1A 6 r\-s 'x 6 j N, 'A 0) ---------- Ili ----------------------------- Of'011 11,91- 00 10 Lo N017INVR lY Y ,[0'05 ,Z6'6Y1 qqcy''7j{{F'67{6�6-�7{qqyy-.qq�p g77f5�6,Ir �q+ ,OF'9I> ^~ lJ j.. .u�.l.1✓ 9 11rl(/iL.l fff ,99'992 R„L9,O6 �✓ .99'Y51 119-- / e6'9f 'Ski \\\\ Zf'S91 ,2£'£91 - O O - � O v N 591 6 591 iz O°m ,10'£61 19 ,as sv JOIN SY1 M Lo In c ZJI- .OS'n9 CN ,16'19 L,]3 x6 If'991 ,16'151 /9 1'1� OR! �H N 9 M o ,9P ,9V'ILI [t d- 91,151 - ,95'ZLZ , Q\ \��\ ,1['591 E02 HT 60 dM E�od9t/c 5tat/cn'Y-As/ms` j� Fd 3°d/wrz 2rvsz Gtg�/4"d ap ��jy f'-'C mkd ..hckson Co.5. '�. NI'�" LOO T D in Forrcl N®. 1 o� Fortiti®n FIot /96B in tlro NW 1/4 0�50r�ti®n 25, T. 51� �.,. b� o� � m° poi �g m m a`'7 4Lat8 O C% ER/6Ec_SGSO/Y/s/GN OJT MJ.3 ;N� II I l Z N5 . 5"E 145 '-_ - 23 12 I'— Lot/i m', j y. . 5R/665-GgD/Y,'51cW _.` �'n p 2= Fd-'. -59"'V,577H/GC' _ UY/rNQ 3 S� _I "�,' /0'rdde i/t///t9 �� f——_.�.�r �'`�! 52 -/ d 51— i M1 Nb9°4657"E 100.00' A �_4�h�, _________N73°58'39'"W, 312 / �0 i iN/;7AL PO/NTH 32 - `--.I 33 6- Fsnment m _ � P per✓c!.6CG Pa. 92 0 o Adjusted Tax Lot 3CG ry i 3 r O o Lot Five 10930 sq.ft. o 0 M �/ / Meo AE of th[s/hay d9al<oraa!area O � � �; / � ( �a Pedestr/m d 8icyc/e Easement # 1385 ^ � N W g�^ ' O} / \ ✓ � Pµ tw/scff z of o/oter dae t Area Norlhe °o /io\A`% 4,/ ` 9 an0 c osle{/y of twNJ dashed ib+ss c�ys�.3 m, i 2 --'---'-'�/---------- a O, /p/ �as a"^htu-®�FeRy-�s°mid s pmt�F Lcr 3 No 589°46'57"W OI50' X38 /FN 6� ti3/ ire/fit o/io,.�a ,M�tc.-mot d,.,b /state c,% / ,j�/ b^® 1 m except for PeQystr.'a+d Ba-.-x-e cotes noted Iaveon. �I--` (it//ny Easement r� � ��/ � // �A� ��� � 7'�K�Ped zbirn d 2L_ycie°bsaroert dydKated hereon ��- # 1395 Lot One F9 IS,Ss' # 1400 -------------- 3 o115 5q.Ft- rte" ^o m Lot Three m .(3 ry G 11101 s ft. a I C s w q � x # 1405 nfi wl i �l n sg rth m _ Imo. v Nry Lot Two n i a d�r Ote KL255 i 80135q.ft. rT!mlu v^ ir, NI �'n o N O 3 at Do'J 15034' 24 h 2 eb°28'12°w ea2a' °o o @ r Z � �/ t �F7'Nate r�l^Ne Eosemont �I°z � 0 / A i r dea/coted herecr, Q�I zI // / prNate cecass d li / P.b�/�.rimy Easevrnynt I i 88.76' 589°59'21°W I08.746' s . 1 Easement w ' # 1415 101 < Lot Four I i00860 eq.ft- /41" CC CrV 11 /l /IV`i m SCALE 1" = 50' h ; / 0 50 100 15C m � �Lt'j Fd Er.G�F ccric. uN17-2" CURVE 0.3-'�North of fence �Mtn/s¢5'rN—bS e/5'tJl—t Fl/.JW-f N11,27001F 100' No. CHORD BEARIN CHORD of North,South, !East F ce tamer F om true corner 51 552°25'48"E 3796' /nitly/Pomt ov BR/G65 5'/8G. 52 N86°28'01°E 25.04' 41'00°E r/N/T NG'2 44.49' O 53 N40° 54 N35°14'42"E 37.00' 55 N54°3719"E 78.64' 589°31'23"W 292.522�, ,r1 56 N56°50'19"E 64.50' ' Briggs Sub t UniJ No 2� T3 -IE-�35A Tax Lots 309 $ 308 -X a8...... .............. �. . Y o I / oo o � o � dVN J' \\ ¢ 2330 % C s INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY i wF I Map Maker Application Front counter Legend Selected F eat ures ❑ f } 4� Tax Lot Outlines i Tax Lot Numbers 19 } 2 -i 6 . Mobile Home Parks Apartments A46RA6A .• g �— Men 6 �r Buildings i Ie " i 1 V dpi " l ,I i [ 0 p 02 Q It 201 .iii -•-a L 400 � 10 i 1 v a N — ((( Al i I'n .. :..,. E � 14C i �"•'' �"ell Y t i 1 2400 701 bl trod � e ° .� 9401 a JACKSON COUNTY t otegoll � t Li g 9E�4` Thls map Is based on a digital da ta i !( f compiled by Jackson County From a variety t I of sources.Jackson County cannot accept responsibily for errors,omissions,or ! r ��, ° positional accuracy.There are no warranties,expressed or Implied. Created with MapMaker Map created on 6/29/2011 11:17:47 AM using web.lacksoncounty.org Please recycle with colored office grade paper , AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On June 29, 2011 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2011-00738, 1405 Tolman Creek Rd. e Si gna re of Employee y { Gkomm-devlplanning\Forms&Handouts\Affidavit of Mailing—Planning Action Notice.doc PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 557 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 202 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 2100 ALLISON SCOTT BARTELLO JACK AND DEBORAH B BECICH JOAN N 891 BESWICK WAY BARTEL ET AL 1450 TOLMAN CR RD ASHLAND OR 97520 1355 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391E23BA 309 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 800 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 568 BURNETT WILEY M/MARGUERITE CIAMAICHELO MARIA TRUSTEE ET AL CULBERTSON KATHERINE MAY 1385 APPLE WAY 2375 GREENMEADOWS WAY PO BOX 3138 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1601 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 547 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1700 DEL RIO ROBIN JO DISMUKE J N/R L GODFREY- ENGELKING DONALD W TRUSTEE 2354 GREEN MEADOWS WAY 2125 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2368 GREEN MEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 400 PA-2011-00738 391E23BA 1200 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 559 FACEY GRETCHEN TRUST ET AL FAGUNDES MICHAEL H/JULIE R FRIEND JEANNETTE ET AL 211 FRONT ST 2323 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2340 RANCH RD TALENT OR 97540 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 574 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 317 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 567 GALLEN JOHN T/SKURATOWICZ EVA M GREEN DOUGLAS P/KAREN K HAMILTON JOHN B 2330 LUPINE DR 1403 APPLE WAY 2345 LUPINE DR ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 101 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1501 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1000 HANSEN RICHARD CARL HELLER JOEL ALAN HENNEMAN MICHAEL W TRUSTEE 1390 TOLMAN CREEK RD 2326 GREENMEADOWS WAY ET AL ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 2351 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 546 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 558 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1100 HERDRICH H R/J M TRUSTE FBO KAY FAMILY TRUST ET AL KENNEDY DAVID LEO/TERESA L 2225 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2350 RANCH RD 2337 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 570 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 566 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 308 LINDOW JAMES T/LINDOW DIANNE K LOESSI KAREN M TRUSTEE ET AL MALIBAR GROUP LLC RETIREMENT 2370 LUPINE DR 2335 LUPINE DR PLAN FBO RO ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 1405 S TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 501 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 900 PA-2011-00738 39lE23BB 569 MALIBAR GROUP LLC RETIREMENT NELSON-MUNSON PAMELA/BRIAN K OLSEN BETTY J TRUSTEE FBO PLAN FBO RO 2365 GREENMEADOWS WAY 10211 SW 55TH AVE 1405 S TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 PORTLAND OR 97219 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391E23BA 600 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 500 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 104 ORR DEBBIE PEREIRA MICHELE PUDERBAUGH THOMAS R/DIANE 2395 GREENMEADOWS WAY 1114 DISCOVERY 1400 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 YREKA CA 96097 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 PA-2011-00738 PA-2011-00738 Urban Development Services, LLC Construction Engineering Consultants Sager&Associates 485 W Nevada St PO Box 1724 700 Mistletoe Rd#210 Ashland OR 97520 Medford OR 97501 Ashland OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 ,37 Polaris Land Survey 1405 Tolman Creek PO Box 459 6-29-2011 Ashland OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391E23BA 1400 _ PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 571 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 201 RATNER MARC L TRUSTEE ET AL RENE MELANIE REZEK RONALD 2312 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2360 LUPINE DR 709 WASHINGTON ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 307 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 572 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 573 ROBERTSON BARBARA SORUM DONALD W TRUSTEE ET AL SPJUT BEVERLY 22255 CANYON VIEW CIR 2350 LUPINE DR 2340 LUPINE DR CUPERTINO CA 95014 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND CA 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 103 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BB 544 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 1300 STRUHS BERNICE T TRSTEE FBO THOMPSON DAVID J/JUNE L TONER MICHAEL JOSEPH ET AL 1378 TOLMAN CREEK RD 2230 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2309 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 314 PA-2011-00738 391 E23BA 700 VOELLER ESTELLE H WILSON GORDON B TRUSTEE 3784 COLEMAN CREEK RD 2385 GREEN MEADOW WAY MEDFORD OR 97501 ASHLAND OR 97520 N qv ._ s .0 6 ® o •® os ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division CITY OF 51 Winburn Way,Ashland OR 97520 FILE# ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Y) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ❑YES ❑NO Street Address ZIP C4 212a Assessor's Map No.39 1 E 2,;1 A Tax Lot(s) 3 616 Q, I Zoning �7_ - Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT Name 2110 ri k r_,o j> LLC Phone E-Mail Address o s-- ­Fo e, Ai)- city Zip PROPERTY OWNER Name A,% u Phone E-Mail Address 44 '1/1 k,V) City Zip SURVEYOR, ENGINEER,ARCHITECT,LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT,OTHER Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application,including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact,are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request, 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate;and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this ragard-wif resu Unostfikely---in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be remov d.e my . an 0-6(' 4r/have any doubts,I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. A p"p I ca s Si4h-a u e - Date rof As o ner of the-prop?e quest, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property ,plved,irf�his re owner. wx Prop wfie_rfs Signature (required) Date [to be completed by City Stafq y Date Received � Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee$ OVER 0 ('Mn—m—tc and qettini,s\liicn.qn�D&<kton,Zoninu Permit Annfication.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AN 8-LOT OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTIES AT 1405 TLAN CREEK ROAD u EIN aw ti s , w ME ` ,. 1 E SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASHLAND, OREGON SUBMITTED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES,LLC 485 W. NEVADA STREET ASHLAND, OREGON JUNE 3 2011 Page 1 of 31 ADDRESS &LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1405 Tolman Creek Road, Ashland 391E23BA 308 & 501 PROJECT INFORMATION: APPLICANTS: LAND USE PLANNING: Malibar Group LLC Urban Development Services, LLC 1405 Tolman Creek Road 485 W. Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-621-2109 Tel: 541-482-3334 CIVIL ENGINEERING: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Construction Engineering Consultants Sager&Associates P.O. Box 1724 700 Mistletoe Road, St. 201 Medford, Oregon 97501 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Tel: 541-779-5268 Tel: 541-941-7659 SURVEYOR: CERTIFIED ARBORIST: Polaris Land Survey Sager&Associates P.O. Box 459 700 Mistletoe Road, St. 201 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Tel: 541-482-5009 Tel: 541-941-7659 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5 LOT & HOUSE DATA: Tax Lot 308: 2.32 acres House: 2,515 sq. ft. Guest House/Garage: 560 sq. ft. Pool/ Sidewalks: 350 sq. ft. Tax Lot 501 (Vacant): .89 acres 1 BASE DENSITY(R-1-7.5 Zone): Base Density: 3.6 units per acre(3.6 units X 3.21 acres) = 11.5 units Proposed Density(includes existing house): = 8 units APPLICABLE ORDINANCES: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential, Chapter 18.20 Performance Standards Option, Chapter 18.88 Off-Street Parking, Chapter 18.92 Variances, Chapter 18.100 Page 2 of 31 i i PROPOSED LOT SIZES (7,500 sq. ft. minimum in R-1-7.5 zone): Lot 1: 11,600 sq. ft. Lot 2: 10,580 sq. ft. Lot 3: 10,299 sq. ft. Lot 4: 22,361 sq. ft. Lot 5: 18,221 sq. ft. Lot 6: 25,808 sq. ft. Lot 7: 12,325 sq. ft. Lot 8: 10,619 sq. ft. Public Street: 16,494 sq. ft. Note: The average lot size proposed is approximately twice that of the zone's 7,500 sq. ft, minimum lot size and the requested density is approximately 40% less then permitted. Note2: The lot sizes on the site plans are incorrect, but accurate on survey. ADJACENT ZONING: WEST: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential EAST: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential SOUTH: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential NORTH: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential Subject Properties ido us s Tax Lots#309,316,317,314 Wildcreek Subdivision(1995) �rx { E i 3 U10 Tax Lots#400 and 500 f: ta Not a Part—owned by others �_ z 40 I Tax Lots#308 and 501 (outlined) I G�= oaf Subject Subdivision Property � I 5411 ® � r � Tax Lots#600—1300 - I Not a Part—owned by others Briggs,Unit#2,Subdivision F' f �� i u � M2 3, i i Page 3 of 31 HISTORY OF PROPERTY: In July of 2010, the Planning Commission approved a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance to allow a lot wider than it is deep (PA-2010-00582). The intent behind the applicant's request was to create a more logical and efficient lot layout so that future phases of the project are not compromised. Note: Due to a variety of factors, the property owners decided to not complete the Lot Line Adjustment and instead apply for a subdivision, complete the surveying and install the necessary infrastructure at one time. In September of 1997, the City Council ultimately denied a request by the previous property owner for a Variance to increase the number of livestock from the permitted two head of livestock over the age of six months per acre to four head of livestock over the age of six months per acre to 15 Llainas (PA-97-085). In July of 1995, the Planning Commission approved a four-lot Outline and Final Plan subdivision under the Performance Standards Option (PA-95-037). Tax Lot #308, the larger parcel within the current proposal, was Lot#4 in that subdivision(Wildcreek Subdivision). PLANNING ACTION: The applicants wish to obtain approval for four entitlements: 1) An Outline and Final Plan Subdivision for an 8-lot subdivision for the property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road; 2) A Variance from AMC 18.88.060 B. to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by 50% in order to preserve multiple trees. 3) Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks along a portion of the new street. 4)A Physical &Environmental Constraints Permit(P&E)to encroach into the Hamilton Creek floodplain boundary where it parallels along Tolman Creek Road for utility purposes. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject properties are located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road (upper Clay Street) and are commonly referred as the "Llama Farm" (391E 23BA TL 308 and 501 — see attached plans). The properties are .89 acres and 2.32 acres and are zoned R-1-7.5. The property is relatively level and void of any significant natural features other than a few trees and a drainage swale traversing through the property's western end. The smaller parcel is vacant other than a small circular shed, but the larger parcel consists of an existing single- level single family residence, a detached guest house over a garage and a large detached garage-storage building. According to the Jackson County Assessor's Department, the home is 2,515 square feet and was constructed in 1890. The guest house is 560 square feet and was built in 1950. The architectural appearance of the single family residence is "ranch style" which appears to have been remodeled significantly in the 1950's from its original design. All of the structures on the property are expected to remain with this application. Access to the subject properties is from Tolman Creek Road via a private flag driveway. In total, the driveway serves three tax lots: 1) TL 500 (residence with legal access onto Tolman Creek Road, but functional access via the driveway), 2) TL 501 (vacant lot to be amended by Page 4 of 31 Lot Line Adjustment) and 3) TL 308 (residence with sole access from driveway). A fourth tax lot, TL 400, also abuts the private driveway, but does not have an easement for access and is not part of this application. PROJECT PROPOSAL & DETAILS: As stated, the proposal is for four land use entitlements from the City of Ashland which include approval of: 1) An Outline and Final Plan Subdivision for an 8-lot subdivision; 2) A Variance from AMC 18.88.060 B. to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces by 50% in order to preserve multiple trees; 3) A Tree Removal Permit to remove five of the sites forty-three trees and 4) A Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit (P&E) to encroach into the Hamilton Creek floodplain boundary where it parallels along Tolman Creek Road for utility purposes. Outline & Final Plan: The proposal includes a simultaneous approval for an Outline and Final Plan Subdivision in accordance with AMC 18.88.030 A.l, to subdivide the two existing tax lots (Tax Lots #308 and #501) into eight single family parcels. The property owners currently reside within the existing house on Tax Lot #308 and desire a subdivision that is compatible with the neighborhood's general layout, lot size, density and sense of responsibility. In that sense, the property owners have reduced the allowable density from eleven units to eight and increase each lot's overall size and perimeter setbacks to achieve the goal. Further, the property owners preferred to save as many trees as possible which is further addressed below. Design Considerations: One of the principal design factors with the proposal was the consideration of the large Big Leaf Maple Tree (60" dbh) and a small, but fast growing Red Cedar (12" dbh) located in the center of the property. In order to preserve both trees, one of which is a mature specimen tree, the design of the subdivision's street (Tolman Creek Lane) and all of the subdivision's utilities needed to be engineered to meander away from the tree's protective root zone, thus the configuration of the street and the eventual promenade invitation the owner's desire to achieve. The design also preserves the looped driveway currently serving the existing house. The street's hammer-head design complies with the City's street standards and was consulted upon with the City's Fire Marshall prior to submittal. In addition to preserving the site's most significant trees and attempts to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the property owners also desired to create a subdivision that was unique in its offerings which includes oversized lots, greater setback provisions on both the front and rear building envelopes, a unique sense of entry when entering the subdivision by a canopied street promenade. Finally, the property owners desired to understand the most logical development pattern that would occur on both Tax Lots #400 and #500 located at the entrance of the street (owned by others). In doing so, the property owners have completed additional engineering and will complete additional street improvements at their expense in order to maintain the subdivision's integrity. Pedestrian Path: At the time the subject property was divided in 1995 (PA-95-037 — Wildcreek Subdivison), the then applicant proposed a public pedestrian path that would eventually connect Tolman Creek Road with Apple Way. Unfortunately, the location of the Page 5 of 31 easement wasn't fully thought-out as sections of the path (see insert below) would have either been in a location that is unsafe, environmentally questionable and neighborly insensitive. End of Apple Way. z �:.r ;:�a �: c r' 1 - ' t Wildcreek <,- 1'; Subdivision(Lots Lot rive One—Five) loq,50 Std.R, ri .: ,rs.. r P -;u • r„ooe p:t /' } .k J A •`f ✓ j !<f'>...xt h< Ol i1-lit+ All r�»'di Y< ... ...✓ a'f 11,.— t G 41_11 b t ® Previous # 13 AA. *v .F ' =r° Dedication of 7' Lot , # l t( Public Pedestrian t O n &Bicycle t0 ft. J 140S , .'. Easement.Note odd location, Lot TV10 1 � " >'+ f t #1415 (Current / rvtr.r.%-_>te.+r;Mt'ex.',n •+'r F. y �tti a A Tax Lot #308). n ,J ¢/ 1415 A ,uh f@1 Lot Fot)r- `'/ 10101560 sq.F„ Wildcreek Subdivision Plat(portion there of) Although speculation, the reason the current location of the pedestrian path wasn't fully thought out was that few houses existed in this area at the time the easement was platted (often the case) which today, in hindsight, appears as questionable. Nevertheless, leaving the easement"as is"no longer makes sense it would have to: • Cross through a dedicated"nature refuge"; • Require a Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit to fill and place structural material within and adjacent to the flood corridor; j • Require grading and removal of various natural grasses, plants and shrubs; • Circuitously traverse through the rear and/or side of multiple neighboring properties; • Have other forins of security improvements such as lighting as the path would have been in a narrow corridor of fencing with limited visibility; • Acquire"public"right-of-way through Tax Lot#400; i Page 6 of 31 I • If dedicated or acquired with the eventual development of Tax Lot #400, its connection with a sidewalk along Tolman Creek Road would have conflicted with existing trees and severe grade changes; • Be widened an additional three feet to comply with existing street standards. Note: It should be understood that there are many other conflicts associated with the previous path's location not mentioned such as timing of improvements, responsibility of improvements, maintenance of improvements, expense, etc. If the easement is relocated as proposed, the public pedestrian path will: • Be along a majority of a planned public street and existing private driveway; • Not impact any natural elements; • Be more direct to its intended connection with limited grade change; • Be in the"front" of neighboring homes; • Have a natural sense of security(eyes on the street); • Require no dedication or"public"purchase; • Eventually tie seamlessly into a sidewalk system along Tolman Creek Road; • Comply with current street/path design standards; At time of the Final Plat, the previous easement will be abandoned and replaced with new easements, where necessary, to create a more logical and direct public pedestrian path. Maintenance of the path, although minimal, will be via a limited Home Owners Association. Note: The relocation of the pedestrian path has been wholeheartedly supported by the subject property owners of Tax Lot #314 (Vollers) and Tax Lot#317 (Greens). Evidence of easement relocation on said properties will be submitted at time of Final Plat. % Street Improvements: As noted, the proposed residential street will be completed from the entrance of Tolman Creek Road to the end of the hammer-head turn-around area. The improvements will include roughly a % street improvement the full length of the street which includes on one side of the street a sidewalk, planting strip (parkrow), 22' of asphalt for on- street parking and vehicle access. The first half of the street, roughly 200', is owned by others that are not participating in the application, but most likely will propose some type of development in the future. In this first half section, the property owners have completed all of the street's engineering as well as the upsizing of underground utilities with the understanding that eventually any new development will seamlessly tie into the street and reimburse the property owners for their forethought and expense. The second half section of street, roughly 140', will also include a 3/ improvement, but with the street's sidewalk and planting strip shifting to the north side of the street in order to provide a more logical and direct route to not only serve the new homes, but also a new pedestrian path providing a safe and convenient connection for the subdivision's residents to the Apple Way, Greenmeadows and Bellview neighborhoods. Tax Lot #400 and #500: As previously noted, Tax Lot #400 and #500 are not a part of the proposal, but do have notable design and infrastructure issues needing consideration. Tax Lot #400 sits vacant with development potential of three lots. These lots will likely be configured similar to Lots #7 and #8 of the proposed subdivision with access prohibited from Tolman Page 7 of 31 Creek Road due to adopted access management standards. Knowing this, the applicants have designed the infrastructure to easily connect and sized it appropriately to accommodate the additional capacity. Tax Lot#500 has little development potential, other than possibly a small accessory unit, due to the fact its home sits generally in the middle of the parcel. In consideration of these factors, the applicants have designed the street's sidewalk to be along Tax Lot#500 so that when Tax Lot#400 is developed and driveway cuts are fully understood, that property owner will be responsible for the remaining sidewalk and street tree improvements. Note: A one foot "street plug" along the entire southern boundary of Tax Lot #400 is identified on the submitted survey map (Sheet SV-1) that will be dedicated by the applicants/property owners to the City of Ashland in order to maintain access management strategies for that property. Advanced Financing of Public Improvements Ordinance—Tax Lot#400: As noted above, the property owners are proposing a 3/ street improvement of Tolman Creek Lane (new street) in order to satisfy access management and street standard requirements. The property owners have also completed the entire street's engineering and landscaping plans in order to address the street comprehensively so that one day, once finished, will be seen as a single improvement. However, because this section is owned by others and the applicants are already improving the frontage of Tax Lot 500, the remaining section of the new street, along the southern boundary of Tax Lot 400, will be completed by that property owner when he/she propose to subdivide. The burden and expense to improve streets along the frontages of other properties, especially when those properties have development potential, has generally been seen by the courts as beyond an applicant's responsibility, especially when the application has limited impacts (small in scale) and other alternatives exists — as proposed here. However, the applicants would be willing to accept a condition of approval from the Planning Commission to complete the improvements along the south side of Tax Lot 400 as described on the site plans as long as the condition was clear the expense for the additional work would be reimbursed to the applicants/property owners at the time Tax Lot #400 was subdivided or developed. In this case, the property owners would be willing to be the "first" developers to work with the City via the recently adopted Advanced Financing of Public Improvements Ordinance (Ord. 3402) where the upfront expense for certain public improvements would eventually be reimbursed at the time the benefiting property owner (owners of Tax Lot #400) develop and therefore the distribution of public improvement costs are proportional to each development. Local Improvement District (LID): The property owners desire to eventually see Tolman Creek Road fully improved to City street standards due to the fact Tolman Creek Road provides a direct connection to essential services and facilities. Unfortunately, its current condition remains without sidewalks, curbs, storm drains, etc. and is so long and meanders both in and out of the Hamilton Creek Floodplain, it will need to be comprehensively designed, constructed and financed through an LID. The property owners will agree to participate in an LID and pay their proportionate cost of the necessary improvements and not to remonstrate against its formation by the Council. The property owners have also attempted to mitigate potential pedestrian and bicycle trips by relocating and improving the public pedestrian path noted above. The relocated path should provide a safe "short-cut" opportunity Page 8 of 31 i for other pedestrian and bicyclists in the area (for example, owners of Tax Lots #400, #500 and the few home owners along the eastern end of Greenmeadows Way). Physical & Environmental Constrain Permit (P&E): Approximately 5' of the Hamilton Creek F000dplain, where it parallels Tolman Creek Road, extends into the area of the existing driveway and proposed residential street. According to the project's Civil Engineer, the new street will have no noticeable impact on the floodplain as the driveway already exists,but will be widened with some fill being removed and some fill being added (curbs, sidewalks, paving, utilities, etc.). Overall, it's expected the 12' driveway will be widened to 47' to meet City street standards and that less than 50 cubic yards of material will be added in this area. Note: The subject property is exempt from the P&E Permit provisions for Water Resource protection as the area of disturbance for the new street is greater than 40' from the centerline of Hamilton Creek. Further, the area between Lots#5 and#6, designated as a natural drainage area, is actually"piped"under the surface (see narrative below). Variance - On-Street Parking: At least one on-street parking space is required per unit in a Performance Standards Options Subdivision (18.88.060 B.) The property owners are seeking a 50% Variance to this standard as only four can be provided where eight is required. The primary reason for the request is due to the preservation of the existing 60"mature Maple tree where its preservation radius causes the street to meander and thus eliminate "potential" parallel on-street parking spaces. If the tree were to be removed, the alignment of the street would be straight allowing for four additional on-street spaces. Nevertheless, the property owners desire to preserve the Maple tree, request a Variance and mitigate the loss by noting the four deficient on-street parking spaces are realistically available due to the fact that three of the new lots (lots #4, #5 and #6) are technically flag lots off a private drive that require a "third" on-site parking space (AMC 18.88.050 A. and 18.76.060 C.). Finally, the identified looped driveway serving the existing house provides for a minimum of two additional guest parking spaces. Exception to Street Standards — Sidewalk Design: In accordance with Section 18.88.050 F., the property owners are requesting an exception (not a Variance) to the street standards l handbook to not install a sidewalk along the frontages of Lots #2, #3 and#4 due to the unique aspect and proposed use of the site. As illustrated on the site's subdivision plans, the area in front of Lots#2, #3 and#4 is primarily being dictated by a couple of unique aspects of the site such as 1) the curvature in the road to preserve the Maple; 2) the Fire Truck turn-around; 3) the existing looped driveway; and 4) the planned sidewalk and in-laid street crossing allowing neighbors and tenants to maneuver throughout the subdivision is a safe manner. Finally, and most importantly, the sensibility to understand the limited number of vehicle trips associated at this end of the subdivision will produce extremely low volumes of traffic and that all pedestrians will simply walk within the turn-around area to get to their destination. Note: For this same reasoning, sidewalks are not required along private drives (18.88.050 A.). Natural Drainage Easement: The existence of the Natural Drainage Easement between Lots #5 and#6 was created with the development of the Greenmeadows Subdivision to the south in the late 1970's. The easement was somewhat of a mystery to the owners because there has never been any discernable surface water or related vegetation in this section of the easement, Page 9 of 31 i i but immediately to the north the water daylights on a neighboring property (see dashed lines in insert below) and eventually connects with Hamilton Creek. However, after some research, the source is 100% City storm water from the above Greenmeadows Subdivision where it was redirected underground through this property. Nevertheless, other than a small widening of the existing culvert for access to Lot #6, the property owners have designed building envelopes on lots #5 and #6 to respect this "natural" drainage area as it creates an attractive separation between the two homes - similar to the open spaces found within the Greenmeadows Subdivision(see insert below). r F` 3 r � Area where creek daylights (beyond project boundaries) Various open space ► f k areas between homes in the Greenmeadows Subdivision Proposed Subdivision ► f (outlined) v ' .a� '.�"`sys Area to the south ► F Note:topography shows no discernable watershed configuration,but } according to City maps,the z source of the water is storm . F water from they Greetimeadows Subdivision. Sl Drainage Map Tree Removal & Tree Preservation: Of the site's forty-three trees, only five are proposed to be removed. All five are aligned along the existing driveway's southern edge, likely planted by the previous property owners, and will need to be removed due to the widening and undergrounding of utilities to accommodate the new street. None of the trees to be removed would be considered significant heritage trees as their diameter is less than 18" at breast height and most are fruit trees. Note: at the time of this writing, there appears to be graphical error on the Tree Protection and Removal Plan as Tree #17 is to be retained and Tree #15 (Apple Tree) is to be removed. Page 10 of 31 All of the other trees on the property are planned to be retained as evidenced on the Tree Protection and Removal Plan (Sheet L-1.0) and in accordance with AMC 18.61.200 B. All of the trees to be removed will be replaced with new street trees, planted every thirty feet, within the street's planting strip. Note: Three of the trees to be removed with this application were approved to be removed with the previous planning action (PA-2010-00582) due to their conflicting location along the driveway. Finally, the property owners have and will be putting forth a significant expense to save the large Maple tree (#43) located in the center of the property. Its preservation has played a major role in the design and engineering of the subdivision, but because of its size and aesthetic quality, the property owners feel strongly it should be preserved and become a focal point for the subdivision's future residences. Garage / Shop Accessory Structure: The property owners desire to retain the existing garage and shop structure located directly to the north of the house. A portion of the structure must be removed in order to accommodate additional on-street parking and the pedestrian path,but the majority of the structure will remain. The property owners desire to retain the structure for its utility value as the majority of the structure is sound. Circular Driveway: The property owners also desire to retain the existing circular driveway immediately west of the turn around area as it also provides an important utility use for the property owners and is part of the home's ranch style presence. Private easements will be recorded at the time of the Phase III plat indicating the driveway's use is for the benefit of the property owners of Lot #3 (existing house). Note: The retention of the circular driveway was consulted upon with the Fire Marshall who had no issues with its location. Utilities: The majority of the site's utilities will extend to and from the main lines in Tolman Creek Road as illustrated on the Civil Engineer's drawings (Sheets C.l — C.9). Of particular note are the efforts to reroute various utility lines to preserve the Maple tree in the center of the property and in particular the stone water lines and its three man-holes to accommodate servicing needs at each bend in the line. Also of note is the 36" storm water detention pipe in the street that allows for high volume capture and slower water releases from the site during heavy storm events. Note: All street and utility improvements will be completed in coordination with Jackson County Roads Division as this section of Tolman Creek Road is under Jackson County jurisdiction. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN OUTLINE PLAN (AMC 18.88.030): 1. Application for subdivision approval under this Chapter shall be accompanied by a proposed Outline Plan. For developments of less than 10 lots, the Outline Plan may be filed concurrently with the final Plan, as that term is defined in 18.88.030 B.4. For developments of 10 lots or more prior Outline Plan approval is mandatory. A simultaneous application for an Outline and Final Plan is being filed as the total number of lots within the subdivision application is eight. Page 11 of 31 2. A Type II procedure, as defined in this Ordinance, shall be used for the approval of the outline plan. Applicants will follow all procedures as set fourth by the Ashland Municipal Code. 3. Contents. The contents for an outline plan shall be as follows: a. A topographic map showing contour intervals of five (5)feet. See attached exhibits. Plans show a one (1) foot contour in order to fully address grade relationship issues. b. The proposed land uses and approximate locations of the existing buildings to be retained, the proposed structures on the site, the proposed and existing property lines and easements on the site, and existing buildings, structures, and trees greater than six (6) inches in diameter measured at breast height on the properties adjacent to the site, and all buildings within one hundred sixty (160)feet of the site boundaries. See attached site plan exhibits for proposed land uses and building to be retained, property lines, trees, etc. Buildings within 160' of the site's boundaries are shown in the insert on Page 3 of this document. c. The locations of all proposed thoroughfares, wallm,ays, and parking facilities. d. Public uses, including schools,parks,playgrounds, open spaces and trails. e. Public or private utilities. f. General areas of cuts and fill. g. The location of natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and isolated preservable trees. h. The location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding. I For items c—d see attached site plan exhibits. i. On lots which are to contain detached single-family dwellings, building envelopes shall be included on the outline plan which show the area and maximum height of improvements, including solar access and view protection where required. All of the subject lots are to contain detached single-family dwellings, but may also contain accessory dwelling units or accessory structures in the future. All such structures will need to comply with the Ashland Municipal Code's procedures and standards codified at that time. i The building envelopes are provided to illustrate the allowed area where each lot's principal structure could be built. The maximum height for each lot is based on the permitted height in the R-1-7.5 zone which is 35'. The maximum Solar Access for building permit application will be based on the standard Class "A" formula found in AMC 18.70.040 A. which is described as: H—6' / .445 + S (Where: H=Building Height and S=North Slope). Page 12 of 31 For all new land divisions, the application includes plans that comply with Section 18.70.050 A. where a 21' tall structure could be placed on each lot and not exceed 50% of the lot's north-south lot dimension. The north-south lot dimension for each lot is as follows (based on average lot depth in accordance with AMC 18.70.020 E): 21' Solar Setback(SSB) Lot# Avg.North Sloe Avg.North/South Dimension (Percentage of N/S Dim.) 1 -046 144' 52'-6" (37%) 2 -046 132' 52'-6" 40%) 3 -046 147' 52'-6" (36%) 4 -046 170' 52'-.6" (31%) 5 -066 121' 55'-4" (45%) 6 -040 116' 51'-8" (45%) 7 -040 108' 5 V-8" (48%) 8 -040 140' 51'-8" (37%) Notel: Sheet L-2.0(solar)identifies the 21'Solar Setback Dimension for each lot as noted in table(reduced copies only). Note2: AMC 18.70.020 D. allows shadowing of streets and other unbuildable areas, but solar setback dimension (SSB) on plans are shown from furthest north property lines. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, no view protection requirements have been imposed on the subject property or neighboring properties. However, the applicants have attempted to consider neighboring views and have significantly increased yard setbacks beyond the zone's minimums where possible. The setbacks for the R-1-7.5 zone are as follows: Front Yard: 10' (porch) Rear Yard: 10' per story Side Yard: 6' 15' (house) 20' (garage) j. Elevation of typical proposed structures. The elevation should be to scale and should include the approximate dimensions of the proposed structures and all attached exterior hardware for heating and cooling. Considering the subject application is for single-family detached lots, each home is to be designed and independently constructed by each property owner. This condition is typical of multi-family developments with attached walls and common spaces. This standard is clarified in the Final Plan submittals, AMC 18.88.030 BAI k. A written statement which will contain an explanation of- i. The character of the proposed development and the manner in which it has been designed to take advantage of the Performance Standards Concept. ii. The proposed manner of financing. iii. The present ownership of all the land included within the development. iv. The method proposed to maintain common open areas, buildings and private thoroughfares. v. The proposed time schedule of the development. vi. The findings of the applicant showing that the development meets the criteria set forth in this Ordinance and the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Page 13 of 31 The proposed development has been designed to take advantage of the Performance Standards Options ordinance by incorporating various elements into the subdivision that first considers the neighboring properties and attempts to respect their environments and at the same time provide the lots with traditional home ownership opportunities. The most obvious examples include lot sizes which generally are of the same size and building envelopes which are designed to provide for greater separation than what is permitted under standard zoning regulations. Finally, it has been the applicants desire to provide lots that are marketable to citizens desiring slightly larger parcels that are relatively level, provide flexible design opportunities, excellent views and have full solar access. Conventional bank loans and investment capital will be used to finance the Subdivision's improvements. There are no common areas or buildings that will require maintenance. There is a public multi-use path that will extend from the end of the public street connecting Apple Way. The path has been designed consistent with the Ashland Street Standards with 6' of paving and 2' of clearance on each side. The property owners desire to install the necessary infrastructure and street improvements within 18 months of approval. Once the lots are created and all public improvements completed, the owners desire to sell the properties. The subdivision will have three phases to reflect market conditions and applicant's goals. The phasing of the subdivision and timing of improvements are as follows: Phase I: Lots #1, 2, 4, 7 & 8 (Lot#4, existing house lot,to be divided with Phase II and III) PhaselL- Lots #5 & 6 Phase III: Lot#3 Phase I improvements include all public street improvements as identified on the attached site plans, including the "public" pedestrian path, sidewalks, utilities and the 3/ street which will include the asphalt, curbs, parkrow and sidewalks. The sidewalk and parkrow along the frontage of Tax lot #400 will be completed by that property owner when he/she subdivides. Phase II improvements will include the extension of utilities to Lots #5 & 6 as well as the expansion of the private driveway. No improvements should be necessary for Phase III as all utility stubs and aprons will be installed in Phase I. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL PLAN (AMC 18.88.030): B. Final Plan. 1. Procedure for approval. Type I procedure, as defined in this Title, shall be used for approval of final plans, unless an outline plan has been filed, in which case Type II procedure shall be used, and the criteria for approval of an outline plan shall also be applied. Page 14 of 31 The applicants are aware of the procedures as described above. The applicants are attempting to process the Outline and Final Plan application simultaneously in order to limit market swings and overhead costs. 2. The final plan may be filed in phases as approved on the outline plan. As noted above, the application is for a simultaneous Outline and Final Plan approval. The subdivision will have three phases to reflect market conditions and applicant's goals. The phasing of the subdivision and timing of improvements are as follows: Phase L Lots #1, 2, 4, 7 & 8 (Lot#4, existing house lot,to be divided with Phase II and III) PhaselL• Lots #5 & 6 Phase III: Lot#3 Phase I improvements include all public street improvements as identified on the attached site plans, including the "public" pedestrian path, sidewalks, utilities and the 3/ street which will include the asphalt, curbs, parkrow and sidewalks. The sidewalk and parkrow along the frontage of Tax lot #400 will be completed by that property owner when he/she subdivide. Phase I1 improvements will include the extension of utilities to Lots #5 & 6 as well as the expansion of the private driveway. No improvements should be necessary for Phase III as all utility stubs and aprons will be installed in Phase I. 3. If the final plan or the first phase of the outline plan is not approved within eighteen (18) months from the date of the approval of the outline plan, then the approval of the plan is terminated and void and of no effect whatsoever. Extensions may be granted as a Type I procedure. As stated previously, the applicants intend to finalize the first phase of the subdivision within eighteen (18) months from the date of final approval, but also understands an extension is permissible as a Type I procedure if unknown circumstances occur and deemed necessary. 4. Contents. The final plan shall contain a scale map or maps and a written document showing the following for the development: a. A topographic map showing contour intervals of five (5)feet. b. Location of all thoroughfares and walks, their widths and nature of their improvements, and whether they are to be public or private. c. Road cross sections and profiles, clearly indicating the locations of final cuts and fills, and road grades. d. The location, layout, and servicing of all off-street parking areas. e. The property boundary lines. f. The individual lot lines of each parcel that are to be created for separate ownership. g. The location of easements for water line,fire hydrants, sewer and storm sewer lines, and the location of the electric, gas, and telephone lines, telephone cable and lighting plans. h. Landscaping and tree planting plans with the location of the existing trees and shrubs which are to be retained, and the method by which they are to be preserved. i. Common open areas and spaces, and the particular uses intended for them. Page 15 of 31 � j. Areas proposed to be conveyed, dedicated, reserved or used for parks, scenic ways, playgrounds, schools or public buildings. For the items noted above (4a—4j), please refer to the attached site plan submittals addressing the various plan submittal requirements. k. A plan showing the following for each existing or proposed building or structure for all sites except single-family, detached housing which meets the parent zone setbacks: i. Its location on the lot and within the Planned Unit Development. ii. Its intended use. iii. The number of dwelling units in each residential building. iv. On lots which are to contain detached single-family dwellings, building envelopes shall be included on the final plan which show the area and maximum height of improvements, including solar access and view protection constraints where required. Considering the subject application is for single-family detached lots, each home is to be designed and independently constructed by each property owner. Other than the out-buildings identified on the front portion of Lot #5 and the out-buildings at the rear of Lot #3, no other out-buildings exist. However, it's expected small accessory buildings may be desired by individual property owners in the future which will need to comply with all requirements of the Ashland Municipal Code, specifically AMC 18.68, General Regulations. View protections are not required, but solar access provisions have been provided and at the time each homeowner/contractor proposes building plans, they will need to demonstrate compliance with Solar Access Standard"A" as previously described. 1. Elevation drawings of all typical proposed structures except single-family, detached residences which meet parent zone setback requirements. The drawings shall be accurate and to scale, including all attached exterior hardware for heating and cooling. Not applicable as the proposed lots to be created are intended to be created, sold and independently designed. m. Manner of financing. Conventional bank loans and investment capital will be used to finance the Subdivision's improvements. n. Development time schedule. The property owners desire to install the necessary infrastructure and street improvements within 18 months of approval. Once the lots are created and all public improvements completed, the owners desire to sale the properties. A phasing plan is described below, but it is estimated the initial phase and the majority of the public improvements will be completed within the first 18 months and the other phases completed at the discretion of the property owners based on market conditions. Page 16 of 31 o. If individual lots are to be sold in the Planned Unit Development, a final plat, similar to that required in a subdivision section of the Land Use Development Ordinance. Individual lots are to be sold and a Final Plat, as required by the Subdivision section of the Land Use Ordnance, will be submitted. p. Final plans for location of water, sewer, drainage, electric and cable T.V. facilities and plans for street improvements and grading or earth-moving improvements. Please see the attached Civil Improvement Plans. q. The location of all trees over six (6) inches diameter at breast height, which are to be removed by the developer. Such trees are to be tagged with flagging at the time of Final Plan approval. See attached site plans. All trees to be removed have been tagged. Further, all trees to be saved will be protected with chain-link fencing as described on the Tree Protection and Removal Plan. No trees will be removed and no site disturbance will occur until a Tree Verification Permit is approved. Required Tree Protection Measure (18.61.200) will occur prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 18.88.030 A.4. Outline Plan Criteria: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. The development proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland unless specifically noted herein where the applicants have attempted to specifically address each exception and address the appropriate mitigation measures based on the intent of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision, context of the surrounding neighborhood and likely future development considerations. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer,paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. All public utilities are available to service the subject proposal and are located within the adjacent Tolman Creek Road right-of-way. Multiple meetings have been held with the Ashland Public Works, Engineering, Fire, Sewer and Electrical Departments in order to verify Page 17 of 31 and coordinate service abilities and connection points. All of the departments stated there is capacity to service the proposal. Vehicular access from the installation of the new street and fire-truck turn-around area allowing vehicles to enter and exit through Tolman Creek Road. Pedestrian access will be provided through the subdivision and link with the street system within the Greemneadows area providing a more direct and safe route than Tolman Creek Road. The property owners have agreed to sign in favor of a Local Improvement District or other shared financial mechanism adopted by the City Council in order to improve Tolman Creek Road to City Street Standards, but contend the proposed improvements, pedestrian connections and willingness to participate in future street improvements through a fair allocation and comprehensive design commitment meets the intent of this criterion. c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. The site plan has also been designed to recognize the site's natural features such as its various large trees, various groups of trees, neighbor's trees, natural drainage swales and existing structures. Where possible, the site's natural elements have been incorporated into the project's site planning based on building envelope configuration, driveway location and street design. In addition, the project's Civil Engineer and Landscape Architect have coordinated street and utility design efforts to preserve the large Maple tree in the center of the property. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed as shown on the Comprehensive Plan as the area to the north, south and west are fully built-out. A significant amount of planning has occurred to evaluate the adjacent lands to the east(Tax Lot #400 and #500) in order to limit project impacts, but also to evaluate their development potential and likely development patterns to insure compatibility with various Comprehensive Plan policies and Zoning Code provisions. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas,if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. The proposed subdivision will not have open space or common areas. However, the public pedestrian path proposed by the applicants will be installed during the initial phase of development and its maintenance, although minimal, will occur by a limited Home Owners Association as permitted by State law. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established Page 18 of 31 under this Chapter. The application meets the base density standards for the R-1-7.5 residential zone and are not proposing any density bonuses. Based on the provisions of AMC 18.88.040, the base density for the property is 3.60 units per acre or a total of 11.5 units and the applicants propose a total of eight lots with an average 15,400 square feet in area or more than double the lot's permissible size under the municipal code's conventional subdivision standards. Note: Although each lot is oversized for the zone and, as a whole, the number of units is less than the base density, it should be understood each property could easily accommodate accessory dwelling units which would be at future property owner's discretion and processed under the City's Conditional Use Permit entitlement process. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. Other than where addressed herein, the development complies with the Ashland Street Standards for a Residential Neighborhood Street. The planned right of way will be 47' in width with the applicants developing 2/3 (34') of the street with the development (total of 36.94' existing in flag area). The remaining 1/3 will be developed at the time the adjacent property to the north (Tax Lot 400) is subdivided. The design of the street right-of-way show two travel lanes with parking on one side, curbs, parkrows (planting strips) and sidewalks. Street trees will be installed within the parkrows in an attempt to create a tree canopied street. Existing trees have been evaluated and preserved where possible to not only create a canopied street,but also a street promenade and neighborhood identity. The public pedestrian path will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Street Standards for multi-use paths with 6' of sidewalk and 10' of right-of-way. The path will be installed during the initial phase of the subdivision. 18.88.040 Performance Standards for Residential Developments: A. The purpose of the P-overlay zone is to distinguish between those areas which have been largely developed under the subdivision code, and those areas which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, topography, vegetation, or natural hazards, are more suitable for development under Performance Standards. As described above, the subject property has a number of natural constraints as well as surrounding compatibility issues with the neighborhood that it is being processed under the Performance Standards Options Subdivision (AMC 18.88.080 A. and D.1. and 2.). The property is zoned R-1-7.5 and 3.21 acres in total area. Less a typical 20% area dedicated to public streets, under "standard" zoning provisions, the property could theoretically be divided into 14.9 7,500 square foot parcels under the Subdivision chapter. However, when subdividing under the Performance Standards Options Subdivision process,the base density is reduced to 3.60 units an acre or in this case 11.5 units and the property owners, based on the purpose and intent statement of the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.88.010), desire a total of eight units — three less than permitted under the Performance Page 19 of 31 Standards Options Chapter and approximately seven less than then a standard Subdivision's allowance. 18.88.070 Setbacks: A. Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the underlying district. The attached site plan shows building envelopes with front setbacks that meet or exceed the standard front yard provisions of the R-1-7.5 zone which is 10' for porches, 15' for house and 20' for garages. B. Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone. The setbacks within the R-1-7.5 zone are as described above for the front yard, 6' side, 10' street side and 10' per story in the rear yards. The attached site plans show building envelopes where along the perimeter of the development all setbacks meet or exceed for the R-1-7.5 zoning district. In particular, the areas where the property abuts surrounding properties, the envelopes have been designed to provide a spacious setback respecting neighborhood context patterns. C. Maximum heights shall be the same as required in the parent zone. The property owners are aware of the 35' maximum height restrictions noted in the R-1-7.5 zoning district as well as all applicable Solar Access provisions of AMC 18.70, and have designed the lots and building envelopes to accommodate these provisions. D. One-half of the building height at the wall closest to the adjacent building shall be required as the minimum width between buildings. All of the proposed homes will have house designs complying with this standard. All setback dimensions will be verified at the time of the building permit in accordance with the submitted plans. E. Solar Access Setback. Solar access shall be provided as required in Section 18.70. All of the lots meet the Solar Access Performance Standards listed under Chapter 18.70.050 A. and each lots north-south width easily accommodates a 21' tall building so that its shadow setback does not exceed 50% of the lot's north-south lot dimension. Further, all of the subject lots are to contain detached single-family dwellings, but may also contain accessory dwelling units or accessory structures in the future. All such structures will need to comply with the Ashland Municipal Code's procedures and standards codified at that time. The maximum Solar Access for building permit application will be based on the standard Class "A" formula found in AMC 18.70.040 A. which is described as: H — 6' / .445 + S (Where:H=Building Height and S=North Slope). Page 20 of 31 Note: For all new land divisions, the application includes plans that comply with Section 18.70.050 A. where a 21' tall structure could be placed on each lot and not exceed 50% of the lot's north-south lot dimension. The north-south lot dimension for each lot is as follows (based on average lot depth in accordance with AMC 18.70.020 E): 21' Solar Setback(SSB) Lot# Avg.North Sloe Avg.North/South Dimension (Percentage of N/S Dim. 1 -046 144' 52'-6" (37%) 2 -046 132' 52'-6" (40%) 3 -046 147' 52'-6" (36%) 4 -046 170' S2'-.6" (31%) 5 -066 121' 55'-4" (45%) 6 -040 116' 5V-8" (45%) 7 -040 108' 51'-8" (48% 8 -040 140' 51'-8" 37%) Notel: Sheet L-2.0(solar)identifies the 21'Solar Setback Dimension for each lot as noted in table(reduced copies only). Note2: AMC 18.70.020 D. allows shadowing of streets and other unbuildable areas,but solar setback dimension (SSB) on plans are shown from furthest north property lines. F. Any single-family structure not shown on the plan must meet the setback requirements established in the building envelope on the outline plan. The attached site plan identifies building envelopes complying with the setback standards for the underlying R-1-7.5 zoning district. 18.88.030 B.S. Final Plan Criteria: Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications f°om one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: NOTE: Considering the proposal is for an eight lot subdivision, Outline and Final Plan applications under 10 lots are permitted to be submitted concurrently (AMC 18.88.030 A.1.). As such, the application complies with the criteria listed below (specific to a,b, c, d and f.). G a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. i b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances j be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. I Page 21 of 31 c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (10%) percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. All of the subject vacant lots will be designed and constructed independently by each property owner. The property owners contend the building elevations and exterior materials chosen by future owners, in combination of the increased setbacks and tree preservation efforts, will comply with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.88.010). L That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. Other than where addressed herein, the development complies with the Ashland Street Standards for a Residential Neighborhood Street. The planned right of way will be 47' in width with the applicants developing 2/3 (34') of the street with the development (total of 36.94' existing in flag area). The remaining 1/3 will be developed at the time the adjacent property to the north (Tax Lot 400) is subdivided. The design of the street right-of-way show two travel lanes with parking on one side, curbs, parkrows (planting strips) and sidewalks. Street trees will be installed within the parkrows in an attempt to create a tree canopied street. Existing trees have been evaluated and preserved where possible to not only create a canopied street,but also a street promenade and neighborhood identity. The public pedestrian path will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Street Standards for multi-use paths with 6' of sidewalk and 10' of right-of-way. The path will be installed during the initial phase of the subdivision. 18.62.040 Approval Criteria (Physical & Environmental Constraints): 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. The applicants have taken all reasonable steps as outlined in Chapter 18.62.070 (Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands) to minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties — see response to standards below. Not only have the applicants conversed directly and indirectly with the neighbors, they have hired a professional Civil Engineer, Landscape i Page 22 of 31 I Architect and Surveyor to address any potential impacts associated with the construction of the new road. From the various meetings and communications, the applicants contend any and all potential adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. The applicants have considered the potential hazards where the widened new road meets with Tolman Creek Road and have hired Civil Engineer to evaluate the construction and associated fill materials. By taking these steps, the applicants contend measures have and will be implemented to mitigate against any potential hazards the road construction may cause. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. The applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce any adverse impacts on the environment by hiring a professional Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer, Arborist, and Land Use Planner to comprehensively evaluate the proposal and address any potential impacts associated with the road's improvements. From the various meetings and communications,the applicants and property owners contend any and all potential adverse impacts have been minimized. 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands I For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood plain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10: Approximately 5' of the Hamilton Creek Floodplain, where it parallels Tolman Creek Road, extends into the area of the existing driveway and proposed residential street's improvments. According to the project's Civil Engineer, the new street will have no noticeable impact on the floodplain as the driveway already exists, but will be widened with some fill being removed and some fill being added (curbs, sidewalks, paving, utilities, etc.). Overall, it's expected the 12' driveway will be widened to 47' (eventually) to meet City street standards and that less than 50 cubic yards of material will be added in this area. As such, the amount of disturbance in this area is minimal and the amount of fill is extremely minimal. A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) and Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC),where applicable. Page 23 of 31 I I All street improvements and associated fill material has been designed by a licensed Civil Engineer and in compliance with all applicable local and State laws. 2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill. The toe of the fill is literally at the western edge of Tolman Creek Road and the new street where the existing open storm ditch is located. All fill material is simply to widen the existing driveway where it meets Tolman Creels Road from 12' to 37'. 3. The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot. Not applicable as no structures are proposed within the subject area. b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction. All proposed fill materials associated with the widening of the driveway are necessary to complete the new road to City Street Standards. c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material. Within the five feet of street encroachment, there are small amounts of plants and other landscaping materials to be located in the street's parkrow. d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material. According to the project's Civil Engineer, no more than 50 cubic yards will be necessary to encroach into the five foot floodplain boundary. e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued. To the applicant's knowledge, no other fill material has been added to this site since the driveways original construction. 4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent I i Page 24 of 31 i necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor. Not applicable as less than 50 cubic yards of fill material is necessary. 5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill. All street improvements, including drainage provisions have been designed by a licensed Civil Engineer. 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as feasible. All fill material is at the extreme outer edge of the designated floodplain boundary. In fact, according to the project's Surveyor, the actual boundary of the floodplain is likely to be less than the boundary designated on the submitted plans as that boundary has been extrapolated from City of Ashland floodplain maps which are often oversized and do not reflect either the topography of the area or are based on boundaries difficult to measure based on the small scale of the maps. Nevertheless, in this application's case, a conservative effort was made to address all standards for clarity and thoroughness. B. Stream crossing for streets, access or utilities of any waterway or stream identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the crossing will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow. The crossing shall be at right angles to the stream channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill for stream crossings shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Not applicable as no streams are being crossed. C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be flood-proofed to an elevation of ten feet above the stream channel on Ashland,Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet above the stream channel on all other Riparian Preservation Creeks identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060; and three feet above the stream channel on all other Land Drainage Corridors identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060. Not applicable as no structures are proposed. Page 25 of 31 D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the stream channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet above the stream channel on all other Riparian Preservation Creeks identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060; and three feet above the stream channel on all other Land Drainage Corridors identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. Not applicable as no structures are proposed. E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. The application meets the intent of this standard as the fill and related construction work for the road will be at the far western edge of the floodplain boundary in a location that appears to be at its highest elevation where the new street and Tolman Creek Road meet. F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. Not applicable as no lots are within the floodplain area as the area in question is street right- of-way. G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered or supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if it does not impact riparian vegetation, and the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Not applicable as no structures are proposed. Page 26 of 31 H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) which contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance. Not applicable as no lots are within the floodplain area as the area in question is street right- of-way. I. Basements. 1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located within the Flood plain Corridor. 2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10. Not applicable as no lots are within the floodplain area as the area in question is street right- of-way. J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood plain Corridor lands. Not applicable as no lots are within the floodplain area as the area in question is street right- of-way. K. Fences shall be located and constructed in accordance with section 18.63.060.B. 3. Fences shall not be constructed across any waterway or stream identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. No fences are proposed to be within the 5' floodplain area. L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.0 and D, shall be flood- proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10. Not applicable as no structures are proposed within the floodplain area as the area in question is street right-of-way. M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, except as provided for in Chapter 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zones, or in the Flood plain corridor as outlined below: Page 27 of 31 i I 1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor. 2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception. Not applicable. The area in question already is in existence and the proposal is to widen the existing driveway where it meets Tolman Creek Road. 18.100.020 Criteria for Variances—On-Street Parking Description: At least one on-street parking space is required per unit in a Performance Standards Options Subdivision (18.88.060 B.) The property owners are seeking a 50% Variance to this standard as only four can be provided where eight is required. The primary reason for the request is due to the preservation of the existing 60" mature Maple tree where its preservation radius causes the street to meander and thus eliminate "potential" parallel on- street parking spaces. If the tree were to be removed, the alignment of the street would be straight allowing for four additional on-street spaces. Nevertheless, the property owners desire to preserve the Maple tree, request a Variance and mitigate the loss by noting the four deficient on-street parking spaces are realistically available due to the fact that three of the new lots (lots #4, #5 and #6) are technically flag lots off a private drive that require a "third" on-site parking space (AMC 18.88.050 A. and 18.76.060 C.). Finally, the identified looped driveway serving the existing house provides for a minimum of two additional guest parking spaces. The criteria for a Variance are found in the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.100, noted below followed by the applicant's response: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The subject property is unique or unusual for a variety of reasons and when combined do not typically apply elsewhere. First, there are existing circumstances that apply to this property that have played a significant role in the projects design such as the fact there are existing structures, driveways, utilities, drainage areas and mature trees. Second, there are circumstances with this property that warrant or demand consideration such as neighboring property lines,house orientations, context and natural constraints. I As noted previously, the large Big Leaf Maple tree (#43) in the center of the property, with its 60" diameter at breast height and its 30' radius combined with the location of the site's existing driveway location defined by the boundaries of the adjacent tax lots (#400 and #500) and the location of the existing house, the ability to add four additional on-street parking has Page 28 of 31 i i i become very problematic, but could be completed if the Maple tree was removed. The property owners desire to instead retain the tree and request a Variance based on the unique and unusual circumstances listed. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Without the Variance, the solution would be to remove the large Maple tree, straighten the street and designate additional on-street parking spaces. The applicant's proposal is to preserve the tree so that it will continue to grow and provide aesthetic and environmental benefits to the neighborhood for many years. The Variance will provide for future residents to benefit from the tree's preservation as once the homes are completed, the tree will be the focal point of the neighborhood and provide for gathering opportunities due to the fact it sits at the point of the sidewalk's convergence, the tree's large canopy will provide great shading opportunities and the eventual placement of mail boxes in this general location have all been considerations as to why the tree's preservation will be greater than any negative impacts on the development and will further the purpose and intent of the ordinance, particularly the Performance Standards Options Ordinance (Chapter 18.88) and Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance(Chapter 18.61) and various Comprehensive Plan policies. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self- imposed. The circumstances and conditions of the property, as described above in response to Criterion A, have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. The subject Maple tree has been in existence for many years beyond the property owner's purchase and the only willful intent is the property owners' desire to retain it. Further, it should be noted the subject tree "could" be removed without discretion, thus opening up the opportunity for more on-street parking, but also opening up the possibility of additional housing. Again, it's the property owners' intent to not remove the tree for the purpose of additional parking or housing,but instead to mitigate the circumstances through the Variance process that results in a more compatible and harmonic design for the neighborhood. 18.88.050—Exception to Street Standards: Description: In accordance with Section 18.88.050 F., the property owners are requesting an exception (not a Variance) to the street standards handbook to not install a sidewalk along the frontages of Lots 92, #3 and #4 due to the unique aspect and proposed use of the site. As illustrated on the site's subdivision plans, the area in front of Lots #2, #3 and #4 is primarily being dictated by a couple of unique aspects of the site such as 1) the curvature in the road to preserve the Maple; 2) the Fire Truck turn-around; 3) the existing looped driveway; and 4) the planned sidewalk and in-laid street crossing allowing neighbors and tenants to maneuver throughout the subdivision is a safe manner. Finally, and most importantly, the sensibility to understand the limited number of vehicle trips associated at this end of the subdivision will produce extremely low volumes of traffic and that all pedestrians will simply walk within the Page 29 of 31 turn-around area to get to their destination. Note: For this same reasoning, sidewalks are not required along private drives (18.88.050 A.). The criteria for a Variance are found in the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.88.050, noted below followed by the applicant's response: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. The subject property is unique or unusual for a variety of reasons. First, there are existing circumstances that apply to this property that have played a significant role in the projects design such as the fact there are existing structures, driveways, utilities, drainage areas and mature trees. Second, there are circumstances with this property that warrant or demand consideration such as neighboring property lines, house orientations, context and natural constraints. As noted previously, the large Big Leaf Maple tree (#43) in the center of the property, with its 60" diameter at breast height and its 30' radius combined with the location of the site's existing driveway location defined by the boundaries of the adjacent tax lots (#400 and #500) and the location of the existing house, the ability to add four additional on-street parking has become very problematic, but could be completed if the Maple tree was removed. The property owners desire to instead retain the tree and request a Variance based on the unique and unusual circumstances listed. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; In the applicant's opinion, the request for an exception to not have sidewalk on the south side of the street extending around the fire-truck turn-around area and looped driveway is an "equal" transportation facility as it would be a more circuitous route with multiple curb-cuts in an area that has extremely low vehicle trips. When one considers the vehicle trips for this section of street are less than 50 in a given 24 hour period (ITE, Edition 8) and the fact that the existing code appears to recognize that where few vehicular trips exist (AMC 18.88.050 A.), it merits this type of reasonable approach. C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and The Variance request is the minimum necessary. D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. i The Variance request is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter as stated herein: Page 30 of 31 AMC 18.88.010: The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood. The property owners' goal from the beginning was to create a residential living environment that would be appreciated by its residents and neighbors. The planned design will accommodate the goal as it will be aesthetically pleasing and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood than what could be created through standard subdivision practices. f t I I I I Page 31 of 31 , q " r v x g per, Job Address: 1405 TOLMAN CR RD Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C X Owner's Name: MALIBAR GROUP LLC RETIREMENT Phone: F Customer#: 02832 N State Lic No: MARVIN ROY TRUSTEE Tel City Lic No: L" Applicant: 1355 TOLMAN CREEK RD R Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 ' C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: T Address: N Applied: 06/03/2011 O` Issued: 06/03/2011 Expires: 11/30/2011 R Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: 391 E23BA400 City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: Outline/Final Plan for seven-lot subdivision, P& E VALUA'fIQN Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL ELI CTFtICAL. STRUCTURAL PERMIT;FEE'DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Type 2 4,347.00 CONp1TIONS OF APPROVAL I I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland,OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 m(mashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF