HomeMy WebLinkAboutMountain_S_1090_PA-2013-01849
CITY F
ASHLAND
January 23, 2014
Notice of Final Decision
On January 22, 2014, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: PA-2013-01849
Subject Property: 1090 S Mountain Ave
Applicant: Bellinson/Urban Development Services
Description: Request for a two-lot Land Partition, an Exception to Street Standards for two
driveway curb cuts for Parcel 1 (Mountain Ave.), and a Physical and Environmental Constraints (P&E) to
allow for a driveway access serving Parcel 2 (Elkader St.) on lands classified as Sever Constraints, thus
exceeding 35 percent slope. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential;
ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 16AD; TAX LOTS: 1200
I
The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13th day after the
Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of one year and all conditions of
approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are
available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee
schedule.
Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a
reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO)
18.108.070(B)(2)(b) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO
18.108.070(B)(2)(c). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached.
The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Michael Piria in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 ;
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us ,
SECTION 18.108.070(8)2 Effective Date of Decision and Appeals.
B. Actions subject to appeal:
2. Type I Planning Actions.
a. Effective Date of Decision. The final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the
Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the 13' day after
notice of the decision is mailed unless reconsideration of the action is approved by the Staff
Advisor or appealed to the Commission as provided in section 18.108.070(B)(2)(c).
b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider Type I planning actions as set forth below.
i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City Agency may request
reconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the
Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for
reconsideration, which in the opinion of the staff advisor, might affect the decision.
Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be
raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application
sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a
decision.
ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of mailing. The.Staff Advisor
shall decide within three (3) days whether to reconsider the matter.
iii. If the Planning Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the
Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor
shall decide within ten (10) days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Staff
Advisor shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any
party entitled to notice of the planning action.
iv. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff
Advisor shall deny the reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties
that requested reconsideration.
c. Appeal.
i. Within twelve (12) days of the date of the mailing of the Staff Advisor's final decision,
including any approved reconsideration request, the decision may be appealed to the Planning
Commission by any party entitled to receive notice of the planning action. The appeal shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary on a form approved by the City
Administrator, be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to City Council action, and be
received by the city no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 12a' day after the notice of decision is
mailed.
ii. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or. upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing
shall be refunded. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by
neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the city and whose boundaries
include the site.
iii. The appeal shall be considered at the next regular Planning Commission or Hearings Board
meeting. The appeal shall be .a de novo hearing and shall be considered the initial evidentiary
hearing required under ALUO 18.108.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for an appeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission or Hearings Board decision on appeal
shall be effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed
by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the parties.
iv. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by
the city as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305
51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 ,
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 _
www.ashland.or.us f~
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2013-01849
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1090 South Mountain
OWNER/APPLICANT: Bellinson / Urban Development Services
DESCRIPTION: Request for a two-lot Land Partition, an Exception to Street Standards for
two driveway curb cuts for Parcel 1 (Mountain Ave.), and a Physical and Environmental Constraints
(P&E) to allow for a driveway access serving Parcel 2 (Elkader St.) on lands classified as Sever
Constraints, thus exceeding 35 percent slope
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 16AD; TAX LOTS: 1200
SUBMITTAL DATE: December 4, 2013
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: December 11, 2013
STAFF APPROVAL DATE: January 22, 2014
APPEAL DEADLINE: February 3, 2014
FINAL DECISION DATE: February 4, 2014
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: February 4, 2015
DECISION
The subject property is located at the very top of South Mountain Avenue, south of Ivy Lane, and
approximately 132 feet from city limits. The presently vacant, 37,540 square foot parcel and
surrounding uses are zoned R-1-10. The property, previously terraced at an unknown time, currently has
an average downhill slope of approximately 24 percent to the east, and also fronts onto Elkader Street.
The single-family home was removed in 2009 (BD-2009-00541). The lot is moderately forested with
approximately 60 trees of varying species and sizes throughout the site. This section of South Mountain
is improved with curbs and gutters, but no sidewalks. Elkader is unimproved, has an approximate width
of 18 feet, and a bioswale along the property frontage.
The Request is for a two-lot Land Partition, an Exception to Street Standards for two driveway curb cuts
for the property on Mountain Ave. (Parcel 1), and a Physical and Environmental Constraints (P&E) to
allow for a driveway access serving the proposed parcel on Elkader St. (Parcel 2). Proposed Parcel 1
will be 20,064 square feet, with a building envelope in the same location as the original house, with
Proposed Parcel 2 being the remainder of the lot at approximately 17,424 square feet. The R-1-10
zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, in which both lots far exceed this
standard.
One criterion of land partitions is that the future purposes of the lot would not be impeded. Based upon
the parent parcel's size in excess of 30,000 feet, the lot could accommodate three parcels instead of two
as proposed. The applicant explored alternative configurations in order to accommodate three parcels,
however found difficulty in meeting the City's lot `width versus depth' requirement, which would
require a variance. However, the applicant's findings did note that both parcels could accommodate
additional density through the use of ARUs. Although the City does strive to accommodate future
growth within our existing city limits, this particular property is located at the urban fringe where
PA #2013-01849
1090 S. Mountain/MP
Page 1
services like transit are not available, and walking and biking are difficult due to the steep slope of the
street. Furthermore, creating additional parcels would inherently create more disturbances (tree removal,
cut/fill slopes, impervious surfaces, etc) on steep slopes that are intended to be retained in a natural state.
Another approval criteria is that an access be provided to the lot at a minimum of 20 feet along the entire
parcel. Presently Mountain Avenue- meets this requirement with an improved width of approximately 26
feet and has curbs and gutters. Elkader, however, has a current width of approximately 18 feet, is not
paved. The applicant has been in discussions with the Public Works Department on proposed
improvements to Elkader Street, which includes widening the street to 20 feet, install a modified curb
and gutter drain inlet at the intersection of Ivy and Elkader, and install a new storm inlet south of 970
Elkader's drive to address existing storm water and sediment concerns.
A building envelope for both parcels has been identified on the applicant's plan documents, taking in
account the site's previous disturbances and current limitations. Both lots will be subject to Solar
Setback Standard A, and reflected as a condition of approval and verified at time of building permit.
Utilities are available to serve the parcels, and new utilities will be placed underground. Based upon the
evidence presented in the applicant's findings, staff's believes the future purposes of the lot have not
been impeded; therefore, the application complies with the minimum requirements in accordance with
AMC 18.76. However, staff will require as a condition of approval that an LID be signed for future
improvements to Elkader; and provided prior to the issuance of the building permit.
Section VI-4 of the City's street standards limits the number of driveways to one per lot, however
proposed Parcel 1 currently has two curb-cuts that are proposed to remain; one along the north property
line accessing the home, with another further up the property accessing the adjacent property to the
south. Therefore, in order to retain both curb cuts, the applicant has requested an Exception to the Street
Standards to retain both curb cuts. The applicant's findings note that accesses to the neighboring lot has
been historically in place for a number of decades, and through legal discussions has been required to
remain as evidenced by a court ruling and subsequent deed restriction noting guaranteed access for the
adjacent property to the south. Staff believes these unique arrangements are common at the city's fringe,
and the previous ruling to be an extraordinary exception in meeting the standards. Therefore, staff
approves the Exception to Street Standards.
The parent parcel slopes gradually to the east at approximately 24 percent, with steep portions in excess
of 35 percent within the Elkader right-of-way. Approximately 19 feet of right-of-way exists between the
subject property and the street. Four of which is the existing roadside swale, while the remaining 15 feet
is steeply sloped to the top of the lot, approximately 10 feet above Elkader. The applicant has requested
a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit (P&E) to install the access driveway to
proposed Parcel 2 along Elkader, at the southern end of the lot where the slopes are at a minimum.
However because the area of disturbance still exceeds 35 percent, the area is considered Severe
Constraints and subject to the development standards thereof.
The applicant has hired Applied Geotechnical Engineering & Geologic Consulting (AGEGC) to prepare
the Site Evaluation and Geotechnical Investigation report, which discusses development suitability for
the construction of the engineered driveway and associated retaining walls, but does not discuss an
individual building as it will be addressed at a future time. The proposed driveway will intersect Elkader
over a culvert, and then turn northerly to top of the lot. Because of the steep areas are exclusively within
the undeveloped portion of right-of-way, no alternatives exist to access the parcel. Therefore, staff
PA #2013-01849
1090 S. Mountain/MP
Page 2
believes that application has demonstrated the proposed location is the least disturbing to the site, and
utilizes the lots natural topography to the fullest extent possible. The findings and plan drawings
demonstrates compliance with the P&E Chapter, including those listed in AMC 18.62.100 for Severe
Constraints.
The applicant's findings note that the proposed walls are to be as high as 12 feet in some locations.
AMC 16.62.080.B states that "Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard
areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not
exceed a nzaximu7n height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a nzinimuin of three feet to allow for the
introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical
height of 1 S feet. " The applicant has not requested an administrative exception to this requirement, and
therefore compliance with this standard will become a condition of approval.
Findings and recommendations of the Geotechnical Design Reportdated November 6, 2013 submitted
by AGEGC will become conditions of approval for the Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit
approval, and therefore must be instituted into the development and construction the proposed home and
site improvements. The report also discusses the need for periodic inspections in order to assure
compliance with the Geotechnical Expert's findings and recommendations. All mitigation techniques
noted in the applicant's Geotechnical Report will also be conditions of approval. An encroachment
permit will be required and all work with the public right-of-way will require prior approval and
permitting by the Public Works and Engineering Division.
In the Tree Commission did not have an opportunity to review the application, as they did not have a
quorum. However, staff notes that the application only proposes to remove one tree within Proposed
Parcel 2's building envelope. Staff believes that the applicant has proposed a home that displays the
least impact to the site given the natural and existing constraints of the lot, and has considered all
potential hazards of the proposed development. The applicant will mitigate each adverse impact,
including storm water runoff, slope stability, and tree protection by instituting the recommendations of
the geotechnical design report and landscape plans.
The criteria for a MINOR LAND PARTITION as described in AMC Chapter 18.76 as follows:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter 18. 88,
Performance Standards Options, (Ord 2836 S8, 1999)
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as determined by the
Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully
improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved
with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the
street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when all of the
following conditions exist:
PA #2013-01849
1090 S. Mountain/MP
Page 3
z
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to
participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with
respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate
to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such. improvements and costs thereof. Full street
improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the under grounding of utilities. This
requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree,
then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access maybe required to be provided from the alley and
prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995)
The criteria for an EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS as described in AMC 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.
8. 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)
The criteria for a PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT as described
in AMC Chapter 18.62.040.1 as follows:'
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)
Planning Action 2013-01849 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of
the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 2013-
01849 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2) That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved.by the City of Ashland
within 18 months of this approval.
PA #2013-01849
1090 S. Mountain/MP
Page 4
F
3) All easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus access, and reciprocal utility,
maintenance, and access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland
Engineering Division.
4) That a final utility plan for the parcels shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning,
Engineering, and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey plat. The utility plan shall
include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and
meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines and electric services.
5) 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.
6) That the property owner shall sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future
street improvements to Elkader and South Mountain Street prior to signature of the final survey plat.
The agreement shall be signed and recorded concurrently with the final survey plat.
7) That calculations shall be submitted demonstrating that a 21-foot high structure can be placed on the
new lot with a Standard A Solar Setback that does not exceed 50 percent of the lot's north-south lot
dimension, or a solar envelope and written description of its effects demonstrating compliance with
Solar Standard A shall be submitted, prior to signature of the final survey plat as required in Chapter
18.70.050 of the Solar Ordinance.
8) That the applicant submit an electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and
locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other
necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to
the survey plat. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while
considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
9) That the electric service shall be installed underground to serve the `two parcels prior to signature of
the final survey plat. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland
Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation.
10) That the tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any site
work, storage of materials or issuance of the building permit. The tree protection shall be inspected
and approved by the Ashland Planning Department prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the
issuance of a building permit.
11) That the new driveway approach shall be permitted through the Engineering Division and are
required to be separated from existing driveways and each other by a minimum of 24-feet per City
Street Standards. The driveway curb cuts shall be installed and inspected prior to the issuance of a
building permit for either parcel.
12) That the proposed retaining wall demonstrate compliance with AMC 16.62.080.13, including the
terracing requirement of walls greater than seven feet in height be terraced in five foot increment,
with a minimum width of three feet to allow for vegetation.
PA #2013-01849
1090 S. Mountain/MP
Page 5
13) The landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the revised plan, for re-vegetation of cut/fill
slopes and erosion control shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance
of the certificate of occupancy. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially
established within one year of installation.
14) Requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met, including that all addressing shall be
approved prior to being installed, that fire apparatus access be provided and signed, and that a fuel
break is required.
c~ l e ZZ . 2c, i
Bill olnar, Director Date
De artment?f Community Development
PA #2013-01849
1090 S. Mountain/MP
Page 6
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 January 23, 2014 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 #PA-2013-01849, 1090 S Mountain Ave.
Signature of Employee
G:lcomm-devlplanninglTemplatestTEMPLATE_Affidavit of Ma ling_Planning Action Nofice.dot 1/23/2014
PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 800 PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1200 PA-2013-01845 391E16 1600
ANTON DOUGLAS/CAROLE BELLINSON BENJAMIN A/LINDA C BENSON JAMES R/DENISE L
1125 IVY LN 2760 SISKIYOU BLVD 1120 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1101 PA-2013-01845 391E15,301 PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1100
BLASZAK ALLEN H TRUSTEE BLEIWEISS PETER RICHARD 1131 BRUBAKER ELEANOR J
1120 IVY LN HIGHWOOD DR 1100 IVY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520, ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1500 PA-2013-01845 391El5BC 2308 PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 700
CAREY REBECCA LEE COX THOMAS ING DEAN C/GENEVA L
PO BOX 158 950 ELKADER ST 1105 IVY IN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
1
PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 900 PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1800 PA-2013-01845 391E15BC 2307
JARRELL JAMES W/GWEN JONES SALLY DBENJAMIN RICHARD KOERBER BENJAMIN JAMES
895 ELKADER ST W 954 ELKADER ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 881 S MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520
ASHLAND. OR 97520
PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1600 PA-2013-01845 391E16 200 PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1000
MILLER STEVEN HAWORTH PALEN KENNETH R/MARGARET K RYLAND-ANDERSON ANNE
PO BOX 12680 2665 ALVARADO TERR S 1130 IVY LN
SEATTLE, WA 98111 SALEM, OR 97302 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1301 PA-2013-01845 391E15BC 2304 PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1701
STEELE MICHAEL D WELCH WILLIAM L TRUSTEE ET AL WILLIAMS MARK B/MARY
967 ELKADER ST 260 FOURTH ST 1065 IVY IN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
'A-2013-01845 PA-2013-01845 PA-2013-01845
JRBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVANTAGE BILDING & DESIGN CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CONS
485 W NEVADA ST ATTN: MELANIE SMITH P.O. BOX 1724
4SHLAND, OR 97520 P.O. BOX 1014 MEDFORD, OR 97501
ASHLAND, OR 97520
'A-2013-01845
'OLARIS LAND SURVEYING LLC
.0. BOX 459
4SHLAND, OR 97520
i
Planning Department, 51 Wirt Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 ° 1 T F
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY:1-800 735 2900
J _I l,r
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2013-01845
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1090 S. Mountain
OWNER/APPLICANT: Bellinson/Urban Development Services
DESCRIPTION: Request for a two-lot Land Partition, an Exception to Street Standards for two driveway
curb cuts for Parcel 1 (Mountain Ave.), and a Physical and Environmental Constraints (P&E) to allow for a
driveway access serving Parcel 2 (Elkader St.) on lands identified as Severe Constraints, which contain
slopes in excess of 35 percent. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential;
ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 16AD; TAX LOTS: 1200.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, January 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Lithia Room) located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 24, 2013
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: January 7, 2014
68; l IVY LN
i
- y 1109 , -_-,1?O I 113D ~ I
IVY LN
954
10'6
1`
z SUBJECT PROPERTY: Q'
O 1090 South Mountain J
39 1E 16AD 1200 w
{ \965 .
N
9]0
/'z-o1~ert t/ !toes o-,/br reJ~renm anl/~, not accJept /e
012.825 50 Feet
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn.
Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a
notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the
comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the
application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning
Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC
18.108.040)
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this
application, 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 Department 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. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services
Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. CY
MINOR LAND PARTITION CRITERIA
Section 18.76.050 Preliminary Approval
An application for a preliminary partition shall be approved when the following conditions exist:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards
Options.
(ORD 2836, 1999)
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as determined by the Public Works
Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or
arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement
designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of
the Public Works Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when all of the following
conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs
and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to
participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to
cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the
undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner
declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the
street.
(ORD 2951, 2008)
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)
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)
GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2013\PA-2013-01845.docx
PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 800 PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1200 PA-2013-01845 391E16 1600
ANTON DOUGLAS/CAROLE BELLINSON BENJAMIN A/LINDA C BENSON JAMES R/DENISE L
1125 IVY IN 2760 SISKIYOU BLVD 1120 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1101 PA-2013-01845 391E15 301 PA-2013-01845 391EI6AD 1100
BLASZAK ALLEN H TRUSTEE BLEIWEISS PETER RICHARD 1131 BRUBAKER ELEANOR J
1120 IVY IN HIGHWOOD DR 1100 IVY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 1 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
I'
i
PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1500 PA-2013-01845 391E15BC 2308 PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 700
CAREY REBECCA LEE COX THOMAS ING DEAN C/GENEVA L
PO BOX 158 950 ELKADER ST 1105 IVY IN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 900 PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1800 PA-2013-01845 391E15BC 2307
JARRELL JAMES W/GWEN JONES SALLY D/BENJAMIN RICHARD KOERBER BENJAMIN JAMES
895 ELKADER ST W 1954 ELKADER ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 881 S MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520
ASHLAND. OR 97520
PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1600 PA-2013-01845 391E16 200 PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1000
MILLER STEVEN HAWORTH PALEN KENNETH R/MARGARET K RYLAND-ANDERSON ANNE
PO BOX 12680 2665 ALVARADO TERR S 1130 IVY IN
SEATTLE, WA 98111 SALEM, OR 97302 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1301 PA-2013-01845 391E15BC 2304 PA-2013-01845 391E16AD 1701
STEELE MICHAEL D 'WELCH WILLIAM L TRUSTEE ET AL WILLIAMS MARK B/MARY
967 ELKADER ST 260 FOURTH ST 1065 IVY IN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
:'A-2013-01845 PA-2013-01845 PA-2013-01845
JRBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVANTAGE BILDING & DESIGN CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CONS
185 W NEVADA ST ATTN: MELANIE SMITH P.O. BOX 1724
4SHLAND, OR 97520 P.O. BOX 1014 MEDFORD, OR 97501
ASHLAND, OR 97520
:'A-2013-01845
POLARIS LAND SURVEYING LLC
~.0. BOX 459
4SHLAND, OR 97520
i
c
S
i Lcr",
la ,p
~ lW
tl ~
roots
I~((
r~ 4 a
A r,,kiir
V3
~ ca ~ N
¢
Y
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
i
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 December 24, 2013 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 #2013-01845, 1090 S Mountain.
f~
Signatu of Employee
DocumeW 1212412013
k
i
is
/i
i PL I
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LL
LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
December 18'17, 2013
City ofAslAl<und
Ashland Plumit4 Department
Attn: h/Iichael Pim, Assi ,tint. P1ai-mer
51 Whb-umu Way
Stir}jest.: 1090 Sout11Ar1oLaAaiuAventue,Addei-iclu lto Findiiis ofFact
In respoinse to otr disewsion this momir4 relating to $ne proposed paititim application
located at 1090 South Motuntain Avenue and stars request to ftnther clarify criterion
18.76.050 A., Criteria for hfitnor Land Pait6on, below is the applicant's added Findings
of Fact:
A. The future use for ru-ban Inu-poses of the remainder- of the ti-act mill not be
itulmled.
The proposed partition has no remainder parcels that could be fiuther p-utitiomd. The
request does not unpede the property's ability to aceonmlodate the zone's permissible
dewities orig.*es as ottlined hAMC 18.20. Bothparcels havethe abilityto acconunodate
added living area such as mAccessmy Unit, but only tlnougll a Conditi -lal Use Pertilit
process. The property caimot be finther subdivided under ctnrent Land Use Codes as the
property could not meet minitrnuii lot or width deptlr, as required by A1\4C 18.20.040 C.
as the subject. property, regardless of how partitioned, would have a width greater than its
depth
If you have any additional question, pertaining to this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 541-482-3334.
Srnceret7,
Mark Knox
485W. Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520 l phone 541A82.3334 [cell 541.821-3752
t
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR A PROPOSED TWO-LOT LAND
PARTITION, EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS AND A
PHYSICAL ENVIORNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1090 S. MOUNTAIN AVENUE
a 'h t
r
4
!r ~ I i sI
Property from S. Mountain Avenue
i
Property from Elkader Street
I
L PROJECT INFORMATION:
ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1090 South Mountain Avenue
391E 16AD 1200
PLANNING ACTION: The proposal is for a planning application to Partition the
vacant residential lot at 1090 South Mountain Avenue into two lots, each with
frontage on their respective streets, S. Mountain Avenue and Elkader Street. The
request also includes an Exception to the street standards to allow the second
driveway along Parcel #1 (South Mountain Avenue) to remain and a Physical &
Environmental Constraints Permit to allow the driveway serving Parcel #2 to be on
lands exceeding 35% slope (embankment along Elkader Street).
PROPERTY OWNER: PLANNING:
Ben & Linda Bellinson Urban Development Services
2760 Siskiyou Boulevard 485 W. Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520
SURVEYOR: CIVIL ENGINEERING:
Polaris Land Survey Construction Engineering Consultants
P.O. Box 459 PO Box 1724
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Medford, OR 97501
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-1-10; Single-Family Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: R-1-10; Single-Family Residential
ZONING REQUIREMENTS:
Existing Lot Area: 37,488 sq. ft. (.86 acres)
Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 sq. ft. (.22 acres)
Proposed Area Lot #1: 20,064 sq. ft. (.46 acres)
Proposed Area Lot #2: 17,424 sq. ft. (.40 acres)
Minimum Lot Width: 75'
Proposed Lot Width, Lot #1 132'
Proposed Lot Width, Lot #2 132'
Maximum Lot Coverage: 40%
Proposed Lot Coverage: To be determined
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES:
Single Family Residential, Chapter 18.20
Tree Preservation & Protection, Chapter 18.61
Partitions, Chapter 18.76
Physical & Environmental Constraints, 18.62
2
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Property Description: The property is .86 acres in size, moderately wooded and
rectangular in shape that extends from South Mountain Avenue to Elkader Street. The
attached preliminary plot plan indicates the lot has a natural southeast slope of 24%. The
property has been terraced in recent history with the construction of a house (Parcel #1,
since demolished), it's driveway cuts and to accommodate a main water line traversing
through the property. There are two existing driveway openings along Mountain Avenue
that served the demolished residence as well as an adjacent house to the south, but both
are unpaved and roughly-graded. The preliminary plat and the site's slope information
were completed by a local Surveyor, Polaris Survey.
Project Proposal: The applicants desire to partition the property into two parcels with
one lot fronting along South Mountain Avenue and the other Elkader Street. Both parcels
will be standard lots, generally square in shape, with access directly from their abutting
streets. An Exception to the adopted City Street Standards is also being requested to
allow the two existing curb cuts along Mountain Avenue to remain. The applicants desire
to replace the recently removed house with a new home on Parcel #1 and eventually build
a second residence on Parcel 42 at a later date. The new home is expected to be
constructed in the general vicinity of the old home and utilize, where feasible, pre-
existing utilities, grade contours and driveways. A site plan identifying building
envelopes has been included with the application.
Parcel #1 is to be roughly 20,064 sq. ft. in area measuring 132' x 152'. The subject parcel
will be double the R-1-10's minimum 10,000 square foot lot size. The building envelope
on Parcel #1 is generally in the same area as the original house, but expanded for
flexibility as the future home has yet to be designed. The building envelope's placement
was generally designed based on the site's previous disturbances for the house, driveway
and turn around area in order to be considerate of the parcel's natural features and solar
access provisions. In this particular case, a significant amount of trees exists between the
street and the future home which the applicants wish to retain. Unless required by Fire
Code or any unforeseen utility requirements, there doesn't appear to be any need for tree
removal or tree disturbance. However, there are a few dead trees on the property that will
be removed prior to any combustible construction.
All utilities are expected to extend to and from South Mountain Avenue, including
electric service that previously extended from Elkader Street from overhead power. All
utilities will be underground and all overhead lines will be removed, unless serving a
neighboring property. However, a new sewer line will extend through Parcel #2 for
gravity purposes and connect with the existing sewer main in Elkader Street. No
additional utility trenching is expected due to previous home's underground utilities. If
additional utilities are expected, they would run down the existing driveway along the
north side of the driveway or hand-dug to minimize tree disturbance.
Parcel #2 is roughly 17,424 sq. ft. in area measuring 132' x 132'. It too will significantly
exceed the zone's minimum lot size. The building envelope on Parcel #2 was largely
based on: 1) A sensitive driveway connection at the Elkader Street right-of-way with the
least amount of cut and fill area; 2) the use of a pre-existing terraced area the proposed
3
E
driveway can follow and 3) the lot's least tree canopied tree area. With these factors
considered, only one 7" scrub Oak is expected to be removed.
All utilities serving Parcel 2 are expected to extend to and from Elkader Street. All
utilities will be underground and all overhead lines will be removed, unless serving a
neighboring property. Utility trenching is expected to occur within the new driveway
area, again minimizing unnecessary earth disturbance. A conduit for the electrical line
will be extended underground from the overhead electric pole across the street to the area
of the proposed driveway, but not actually connected until the driveway is installed in
order to minimize reoccurring earth disturbance into the site's embankment along
Elkader Street.
.j 1.
E i
I~ ! Parcel 42
w ; . Parcel #1
°r y
#
Cites 1 1 E 1
L inirt
Line P I
Assessor's Map
DrivewaException: The City's Street Standards, Section VI - 4, limits the number of
driveways per lot to one. The applicants desire to retain the two existing driveways along
South Mountain Avenue frontage due to extenuating circumstances explained below, but
both driveways were most likely installed in 1948 with the construction of the lot's
original house that was recently demolished. The north driveway will continue to service
the future residence on the lot and the south driveway will continue to remain as the
secondary access driveway for the neighboring property to the south (1120 South
4
Mountain Avenue). As noted, there are a couple of extenuating circumstances related to
keeping the second driveway which includes:
• There was a recent judgment in June of 2011 which required the southern driveway to
remain (see attached Exhibits "A" and "B") which has served intermittingly the rear
property of 1120 South Mountain Avenue;
• Both driveways are pre-existing, narrow and have a number of trees directly abutting
the driveway's edge (see Illustrations "1 & 2" attached);
• Due to the judgment noted, if the exception is not granted, the southern driveway would
need to be retained and graded and paved to meet fire access management standards
which would require the removal of "at least" six mature trees impacting not only the
privacy of the neighboring property to the south (1120 South Mountain Avenue), but also
the future home on the subject parcel. Retaining both driveways maintains the trees and
maintains harmony between the two property owners;
• The driveway to the north will be paved to meet fire apparatus standards. As evidenced
with Exhibit 2, the existing driveway has the necessary width and clearance to meet fire
access management standards - without having to remove or impact the site's trees.
• The southern driveway is intermittingly used as evidenced in the field, but also
concluded in the judge's order. Further, the location of the property to the south abuts a
City limit boundary which limits the potential conflict between users of South Mountain
Avenue and the site's users due to a lack of housing and rural County zoning. Due to this
fact, the intent of limiting the number of driveways per parcel and therefore improve
public safety conditions in this particular situation is really not applicable as there are
very few vehicle and/or pedestrian trips coming fiom the south of this property.
• The property to the south, 1120 South Mountain Avenue, has its primary driveway
extending from County property and not within City limits.
Overall, the applicants believe the driveway exception request is appropriate due to the
fact there is a court judgment requiring the driveway to remain and the adjoining property
to the south allowed access. The southern driveway is dense with trees that would need to
be removed in order to address Fire Department access standards whereas the northern
access is less fragile and an improved driveway is possible without any tree loss. Further,
the applicants desire the future home to have its garage on the north side of the property
to maximize southern exposure to the home's heated space, limit solar access onto the
property to the north and to utilize the pre-existing fill-area on the north side of the
property for vehicle turn-around. Finally, the intention of the curb-cut reduction standard,
while appropriate in the majority of instances for the purpose of minimizing unnecessary
impediments, the subject property is located at the fringe of the City's Urban Growth and
City Limit Boundaries with limited pedestrian, bicycle and/or auto trips likely.
Elkader Street Improvements: Per the direction of the Public Works Department, in
accordance with AMC 18.76.050 G., Elkader Street will be graded to 20' in width
(currently 18' wide with 10% center grade) and include various storm water
improvements that are currently failing near the intersection of Ivy and Elkader and just
south of the driveway entrance to 970 Elkader Street. Specifically, the improvements
include:
• A modified curb and gutter drain inlet at the intersection of Ivy and Elkader Streets. The
exiting design is not working correctly as the current configuration causes storm water to
5
"shoot" past and across the street, from west to east, due to a high-point in the street and
excess vegetation. Under the direction of the Public Works Director, the modified plan
will extend the curb and gutter to the south in order to capture the flow of water.
- A new storm inlet, south of the driveway at 970 Elkader Street and a pipe that extends
under the street to the existing swale on the west side of the street. The improvement is
not a required provision to meet the Partition criterion, but instead a good faith
commitment by the applicant to address the property owners' concerns about existing
storm water and sediment that runs down their driveway.
- A new culvert under the proposed asphalt driveway serving the new Elkader parcel. The
culvert will be upsized to accommodate existing storm water conditions.
Note: One of the benefits of the proposal is the open swale along the west side of the
street is functioning as a bio-swale which both the Public Works staff, project Engineer
and Planner agree is a beneficial element that should not be altered.
Tree Preservation & Protection: In accordance with the Ashland Municipal Code, Section
18.61, the proposal includes a site plan identifying all of the site's trees. The plans
identify over 100 trees on the property, but only one tree is projected to be removed with
the eventual construction of a home on Parcel 2. The tree is a small 7" scrub Oak" in
moderate condition with only a small portion of its canopy with dead wood, but because
its location is within the most level portion of the property and logical footprint, it will
most likely be removed. All other trees on the property will be protected in accordance
with AMC 18.61.200 (See Tree Protection Plan), other than those trees that have died of
natural causes as identified on the plan and will be removed for fire and property
protection prior to any combustible construction on site.
Solar Access: Both parcels are 132' in a north-south direction with a north slope of
approximately 10 to 11%. Any new home will be subject to a Class "A" Setback
Standard in accordance with AMC 18.70.050. Per this standard, a 21' tall structure would
have a setback of approximately 44' which is significantly less than 50% of the lot's 132'
north-south lot dimension (66'). Further, the lot complies with Formula I, AMC
18.70.030, which requires the lot's north-south dimension to be a minimum of 89' (132').
Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit: The two subject parcels have been
surveyed and have slopes of less than 25%. However, because Parcel #2 will access from
Elkader Street which has an approximate 6' to 7' embankment within the Elkader Street
right-of-way, a Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit (P&E) is being requested
for the driveway's approach. The attachments include an engineered plan from the
project's Civil Engineer and a letter fiom the project's Geotechnical Engineer who have
worked together to evaluate the property and the design of the Elkader Street driveway in
accordance with AMC 18.62.080 A.4. The subject driveway, retaining wall and
associates cuts and fills will be in conformance with the Building Codes and be consistent
with the provisions of the Hillside Ordinance, AMC 18.62.080, with the specific intent to
minimize site disturbance and erosion. As evidenced by the Geotechnical Engineer's
correspondence of 11/13/13, Item #6, the Geotechnical Engineer will inspect the wall and
driveway during initial grading, prior to placement of the foundation and during the
initial backfilling of the wall. Finally, the northern driveway serving Parcel #1 will be
paved to 12' and designed to support an all weather vehicle capable of supporting 44,000
lbs. of weight. The driveway's width is pre-existing with a 15% grade. Its paved surface
6
t
and clearance area can accommodate Fire Department standards without additional
widening as evidenced within the attached photo exhibits (F & G).
The entire site is 37,488 sq. ft. (.86 acres) and the proposed disturbance area is
approximately 39% of the entire parcel leaving roughly 61% of the property in a natural
state. The application is in compliance with AMC 18.62.080 B.3. which utilizes a
formula that adds the slope of the lot (24%), plus 25% of the overall lot area to compute
an area of the property that must me left in a natural state. In this scenario the entire lot
area is 37,488 sq. ft. with an average slope of 24%. or.25 X 37,488 = 9,372 ((9.37%)) +
24% = 33.37%.
The subject driveway at Elkader Street will be 15% and designed to allow vehicles to exit
the property in a forward manner. The driveway will include a retaining wall to support
the earth and an adjacent tree to accomplish the necessary grade. The retaining wall's
location and height was specifically designed to minimize the impact of the tree which
shows the height of the wall to be flush with the natural grade at the tree's perimeter.
Only a small area, between the neighboring property line to the south and the driveway's
retaining wall - roughly 8' in depth will need to be re-vegetated which will include a
mixture of natural grass seed mix. Note: The plans, specifically the Tree Protection Plan,
identify building envelopes for each of the lots. The homes for the lots have been
contemplated but not fully developed at this time and will depend on various factors
relating to property owner preferences. Nevertheless, the building envelopes are not
building footprints and future homes will most likely be significantly smaller than the
envelopes.
d.
,
1
1 L
r
Storm Water
• Storm Water
L Water ,_A - _ r ~ Water
y
Sewer;
. ~ Sewer
,
- ' Parcel #1 Parcel #2 a
LPower
Power
( I,
t ,
i
7
Utilities: Due to the previous home's presence on Parcel #1, other than electric, all
utilities are available and presumably credited with both connection and system
development charges. Electric service previously extended overhead from Elkader Street
which will be abandoned and new service undergrounded down the center of the northern
driveway avoiding the site's trees per discussions with the Ashland Electric Department.
A fire hydrant is located on the corner of Mountain Avenue and Ivy Street, approximately
60' from the site's northern driveway. Parcel #2 will be serviced by existing utilities
within the Elkader Street right-of-way (See City's Utility Map inserted above). All
electrical services, including those previously serving Parcel #1, will be placed
underground and extend up the center of the proposed driveway as illustrated on the
attached Civil drawings. A fire hydrant sits along Elkader Street, approximately 60' to
the south of the proposed driveway entrance to Parcel #2. Unless otherwise directed, any
related engineering or specific detail plans will be submitted at the time of the Final Plat.
All utilities servicing the subject parcel will be either stubbed and capped awaiting the
eventual residence or bonded for.
Fire Department Comments: Based on the September 27th, 2013 comments received from
the Ashland Fire Department as well as a follow-up meeting on October 10th, 2013, with
Margueritte Hickman, the applicants are aware that additional design considerations may
be necessary, specifically for the new residence on Parcel #1. The design of the new
home, not yet fully developed, will need to comply with Fire Apparatus Access Standards
and verified at the time of the building permit. Under the circumstances, the applicant can
meet Fire Department Standards, especially if it's decided the residence is to be sprinkled
which is an acceptable means to mitigate deficiencies related to the various standards,
including fire apparatus access, fire flow, hose reach, fire lane width, distance to
hydrants, fire work areas, etc.
The applicants intend to clear the property of any dead or diseased trees as identified on
the Tree Preservation & Protection Plan prior to any site work involving combustible
construction per AMC 18.62.090 D.I. Further, in accordance with AMC 18.62.090
A.3.a., the area of the property along Mountain Avenue, specifically Parcel #1, is heavily
wooded with slopes of 15% to 20%. However, where the home is expected to be
constructed, the area is "flat" and un-obstructed of tree canopy as the area was a previous
home site. Access to and through the property is exceptional due to the two existing
driveways that served the recently demolished home. Parcel #2 has a few trees, but their
interlocking canopy is not as significant. Regardless, both parcels will undergo strategic
removal of dead and/or dying vegetation, including some removal of the interlocking
canopy, with inspections completed by the Ashland Fire Department prior to site
construction. At the time of occupancy for the new home on Parcel #1, measures will be
taken to comply with the "Guidelines for Firewise Landscaping in an Urban Setting"
(developed by the Ashland Fire Department) which will include the installation of a path
around the homes, reduction of existing latter fuels, appropriate ground cover, fuel break
zones and proper plantings that are generally moisture rich succulents and perennials
around the structure.
A preliminary Fire Prevention and Control Plan has been submitted with this application
identifying the above standards, but it should be noted the plan is based on the building
8
f
envelope and not an actual building footprint as the house has yet to be designed. A final
plan, similar to the preliminary plan, will be submitted at the time of the Building Permit.
III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
NOTE: For clarity, the following document has been formatted in "outline " form with
the City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular
font. Also, due to repetitiveness in the required findings of fact, there are a number of
responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings offact are complete.
18.76.050 Criteria for Minor Land Partition Approval:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be
impeded.
The proposed partition has no remainder parcels that could be further partitioned. The
request does not impede the property's ability to accommodate the zone's permissible
densities or uses as outlined in AMC 18.20.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will
not be impeded.
There is no physical or geographical impact to the adjoining land that would impede
future development as those properties are already developed. The applicants are obliging
with a court order to leave the southern driveway off South Mountain Avenue, serving
the adjacent property to the south, for that parcel's use.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
The parcel has not been partitioned in the previous 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution
applicable to the land.
The partition meets all laws, ordinances, and resolutions for the proposed partition as
outlined herein.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained
in the Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
The proposed Partition is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards, which refers to the Ordinance 42836 which
adopted the City of Ashland's Street Standards Handbook.
The applicants are proposing an exception to Section VI, Driveway Apron and Curb
Cuts, Item #4 which limits the number of driveway curb cuts for single family residences
to one. The applicants, along with the neighboring property owners to the south, desire to
retain the two driveways along the South Mountain Avenue frontage due to extenuating
circumstances explained below:
9
Exception to Street Standards -18.88.050 F.
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this
chanter due to unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the
site;
The two subject driveways off South Mountain Avenue were most likely installed
in 1948 with the construction of the lot's original house that was recently
demolished. In 1976 an easement was granted allowing access from 1090 S.
Mountain Avenue to 1120 South Mountain Avenue. The use of the driveways by
the neighboring property owners to the south has been intermittent, but
nonetheless a recent court judgment in June of 2011 (see attached Exhibits "A"
and `B) required the current property owners to retain the access. The applicants
contend this is a unique circumstance and will continue to comply with the order,
but desire to utilize the northern driveway as the parcel's primary access for a
number of reasons which include the fact that 1) both driveways are pre-existing,
narrow and have a number of trees directly abutting the driveway's edge (see
Illustrations "1 & 2" attached); 2) The driveway to the north will be paved to meet
fire apparatus standards. As evidenced with Exhibit 2, the existing driveway has
the necessary width and clearance to meet fire access management standards -
without having to remove or impact the site's trees; 3) The southern driveway is
intermittingly used as evidenced in the field, but also concluded in the judge's
order; 4) The property to the south, 1120 South Mountain Avenue, has its primary
driveway extending from County property and not within City limits; 5) The
location of the property to the south abuts a City limit boundary which limits the
potential conflict between users of South Mountain Avenue and the site's users
due to a lack of housing and rural County zoning. Due to this fact, the intent of
limiting the number of driveways per parcel and therefore improve public safety
conditions in this particular situation is really not applicable as there are very few
vehicle and/or pedestrian trips coming from the south of this property.
B. The Variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and
connectivity;
Combined with the factors noted herein, the applicants contend the request is an
equal transportation facility as the secondary driveway is used intermittingly and
has been in existence since 1976 if not longer without conflicts to pedestrians,
bicyclists or automobilists of South Mountain Avenue.
C. The Variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
The northern driveway will continue to service the future residence on the lot and
the south driveway will continue to remain as the "secondary" access to the
neighboring property to the south (1120 South Mountain Avenue). The applicants
contend the request is the minimum necessary because the use of the southern
driveway is and always has been used as a secondary access point.
10
D. The Variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the
Performance Standards Options Chapter.
The stated purpose of the Performance Standards Options Chapter is as follows:
The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allonv 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 applicants contend the request has many benefits, but primarily will result in
less impact to the environment and maintain the living environment for both
tenants of the adjoining properties due to the fact that if the northern driveway
was eliminated and the southern driveway was required to serve both parcels, it
would need to be graded and paved to meet fire access management standards
which would require the removal of "at least" six mature trees impacting not only
the privacy of the neighboring property to the south (1120 South Mountain
Avenue), but also the future home on the subject parcel. Retaining both driveways
maintains the trees and maintains harmony between the two property owners.
Overall, the applicants believe the driveway exception request is appropriate due
to the fact there is a court judgment requiring the driveway to remain and the
adjoining property to the south allowed access. The southern driveway is dense
with trees that would need to be removed in order to address Fire Department
access standards whereas the northern access is less fragile and an improved
driveway is possible without any tree loss. Further, the applicants desire the future
home to have its garage on the north side of the property to maximize southern
exposure to the home's heated space, limit solar access onto the property to the
north and to utilize the pre-existing fill-area on the north side of the property for
vehicle turn-around. Finally, the intention of the curb-cut reduction standard,
while appropriate in the majority of instances for the purpose of minimizing
unnecessary impediments to pedestrians, the subject property is located at the
fringe of the City's Urban Growth and City Limit Boundaries with limited
pedestrian, bicycle and/or auto trips likely.
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be
provided, as determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City
documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
Due to the previous home's presence on Parcel #1, other than electric, all utilities are
available and presumably credited with both connection and system development
charges. Electric service previously extended overhead from Elkader Street which will be
abandoned and new service undergrounded down the center of the northern driveway
avoiding the site's trees. A fire hydrant is located on the corner of Mountain Avenue and
Ivy Street, approximately 60' from the site's northern driveway. Parcel #2 will be
serviced by existing utilities within the Elkader right-of-way (See City's Utility Map
11
f
inserted above). All electrical services, including those previously serving Parcel #1, will
be placed underground and extend up the center of the proposed driveway as illustrated
on the attached Civil drawings. A fire hydrant sits along Elkader Street, approximately
60' to the south of the proposed driveway entrance to Parcel #2. Unless otherwise
directed, any related engineering or specific detail plans will be submitted at the time of
the Final Plat. All utilities servicing the subject parcel will be either stubbed and capped
awaiting the eventual residence or bonded for. Overall, all public facilities serving this
parcel are adequate and located within the two street rights-of-way. All of the services
such as water, sewer, storm, and electricity are available and are not at capacity and can
easily accommodate the partition proposal.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the
parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete
pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the
street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works
Department.
South Mountain Avenue is improved with curbs, gutters and paved to roughly 26'.
Elkader Street is paved, but stops short of the subject property. The applicant and the
project's Civil Engineer have met with the Public Works Department staff to discuss
improvements to Elkader Street, from Ivy Lane to the parcel's southern edge, which will
include: 1) Widening portions of the street that are now 18' to at least 20'; 2) Installing a
modified curb and gutter drain inlet at the intersection of Ivy and Elkader Streets to
resolve an unrelated design problem which will correct drainage and sediment overflow;
3) Install a new storm inlet, south of the driveway at 970 Elkader Street and a pipe that
extends under the street to the existing swale on the west side of the street. The
improvement is not a required provision to meet the Partition criterion, but instead a good
faith commitment by the applicant to address the property owners' concerns about
existing storm water and sediment that runs down their driveway; 4) Installing a new
culvert under the proposed asphalt driveway serving the new Elkader parcel. The culvert
will be upsized to accommodate existing storm water conditions. The Public Works
Department staff, as well as the project's Civil Engineer, contend the open swale along
the west side of the street is functioning as a bio-swale that is a beneficial element to the
environment and desire to retain it until a comprehensive street improvement for the
entire area is completed.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be
provided from the alley and prohibited from the street.
No alleys exist on or adjacent to the subject property
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.
12
`t
The applicant has taken all reasonable steps as outlined in Chapter 18.62.080
(Development Standards for Hillside Lands) and Chapter 18.62.090 (Development
Standards for Wildfire Lands) to minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties. The
application is subject to the Hillside Standards due to the driveway's cut within the
Elkader Street right-of-way. The driveway is intended to serve a future home on Parcel
#2. The project Civil Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer have designed the driveway so
that it sits back from the adjoining property line by roughly 10' in order to avoid property
disturbance during excavation, but overall the applicant contends the no adverse impact
will occur onto the adjacent properties.
Further, the applicant contends the standards for Wildfire Lands will be implemented
prior to any combustible construction on the property and final inspections will be
completed by the Ashland Fire Department. The measures taken will eliminate dead and
dying trees and fuel loads that have been built-up over the last few decades that will now
be suppressed creating a safer environment for the neighboring properties.
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 applicant has considered the potential hazards the eventual development may create
and contends due to the fact the proposal is to simply construct a new driveway into a
"man-made" cut/embankment within the Elkader Street right-of-way to provide access to
the new parcel will not be hazardous as the driveway and its retaining walls have been
designed by a Civil Engineer with recommendations from a Certified Geotechnical
Engineer who has evaluated the site's conditions, the proposed driveway's location and
the proposed driveway's engineering. Prior to any site disturbance for the driveway's
construction, building permits will be applied for which will include the engineering
details and an accompanying letter from the project's Geotechnical Engineer. The
recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer will be incorporated into the construction
phasing with intermittent inspections during the initial grading of the driveway and
retaining wall, prior to placement of the foundation and during the initial backfilling of
the wall.
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 applicant has considered the potential hazards to construct the driveway and
contends the action is not irreversible as the driveway and its retaining wall have been
designed by two engineers (Civil and Geological) who have over 50 years in their fields.
The driveway's cut and its retaining wall is fairly common with hillside development
where the street's original construction created a sharp embankment along its edge and
access to the adjacent lot requires cut, fill and retaining measures. The applicant believes
all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment and that the final
result will not be much different that other driveways found within Ashland's hillside
areas.
13
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal: Note: Other than the single 7" dbh
Oak Tree located within the building envelope of Parcel 42, the application does not
propose to remove any trees on the property unless they are dead or dying as identified
on the Tree Preservation and Protection Plan. Such activities are "exempt" from
permitting as noted in AMC 18.61.035 F. & G. Further, because the only tree that will
likely be removed is only 7" dbh, it is not considered a "significant tree" in accordance
with AMC 18.61.042 D., and should also be exempt from permitting. Nevertheless, a Tree
Removal Perinit and Tree Protection Plan have been included with the application in
order for staff to thoroughly evaluate the proposal and insure completeness.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard
tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that
it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a
tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing
public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be
relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the
condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a
foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or
danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard
tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition
of approval of the permit.
The 7" dbh Oak Tree within the building envelope of Parcel #2 is not a hazard tree, but is
proposed to be removed due to its central location within the building envelope which
was designed to incorporate the area of the property with the least amount of slope and
trees. All other trees to be removed on the property are due to their dead or dying
condition which is very apparent due to their stark contrast to the healthy trees.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree
that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be
consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards
and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the
building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification
of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks; and
14
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require
that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the
zone. In malting this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the
impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions
of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall
be a condition of approval of the permit.
As noted above, the 7" dbh Scrub Oak Tree within the building envelope of Parcel #2 is
not a hazard tree, but is proposed to be removed due to its central location within the
building envelope which was designed to incorporate the area of the property with the c
least amount of slope and trees. The tree is set back from other trees so its removal will
not have an impact on surrounding trees nor will it have a significant impact on erosion
or soil stability as the tree is located on slopes of less than 10%. No replacement trees are
proposed at this time due to the fact the site or adjacent area to the site has over 100 trees
already and is within a sensitive Wildfire area.
18.61.200 - Tree Protection
Applicant intends to protect all trees on the site following the guidelines listed below.
Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or
building permit.
A. Tree Protection Plan Required.
See attached Tree Preservation Plan. All requirements noted in Section 18.61.200 A. are
noted on the plan.
B. Tree Protection Measures Required.
Applicant understands and agrees with the Tree Protection Measures listed in 18.61.200
B. Also, applicant agrees to adhere to the tree protection plan as outlined in the attached
Tree Preservation Plan.
Attached Exhibits: Neighborhood Meeting Notice Exhibit "A"
Geotechnical Analysis Report Exhibit "B"
Elkader Street & Driveway Improvement Plan Exhibit "C"
Elkader Street Driveway Photo Exhibit "D"
S. Mint. Driveway Judgment & Correspondence Exhibit "E"
15
t
South Mountain Driveway Photo Exhibit "F"
North Mountain Driveway Photo Exhibit "G"
Tree Preservation & Protection Plan Exhibit "H"
Tree List Exhibit "I"
Boundary & Topographic Survey Exhibit "J"
Boundary & Topographic Survey - West Exhibit "K"
Boundary & Topographic Survey - East Exhibit "L"
Slope Analysis Letter Exhibit "M"
Slope Analysis Survey Exhibit "N"
I
16
EXHIBIT "A"
i
URBANDEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LL
LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
a
October 24th, 2013
To: 1090 South Mountain Avenue Neighbors
Subject: Neighborhood Meeting - 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 30th, 2013
Regarding: Map and Tax Lot, 391E16AD Tax Lot #1200 (See Attached Map)
Meetiniz to be held on the property
Hello,
My name is Mark Knox and I'm a local Land Use Planning Consultant working with the property
owners of 1090 S. Mountain Avenue to partition their one parcel into two parcels. The property
owner and I would like to invite you to attend a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, October 30th,
2013 at 5:30 p.m. to discuss the proposal and answer any questions you or other neighboring
property owners may have.
I don't expect the meeting to last longer than 30 to 45 minutes. However, if for some reason you
can't attend the meeting or will be outside the area, please feel free to contact me at 541-821-3752. I
look forward to meeting and/or talking with you.
Sincerely,
Mark Knox
Urban Development Services, LLC
Phone: 541 -821 -3752 E-Mail: knoxCmind.net
t
' Y EXHIBIT "B"
C S
<.Y
I EP
drer,
p Ji _
Kril"m in W-Zn~ n, t Mnyh his 1ep 31 d
y+ 1 , i~E 71't s._ ~?l~To 1€l €f~r ydtl{`s 1' i
10,
Pic,
'wcly
E
~t i~ p~ # 1. Ii i~~t:F
up to I A a %E NM M
;i
£11 t=°(,ill for T, tC'
A t£ l tai ttJ)rgt~#jsJa:.€`:~iCa [SI 9• LSE y 7t
3 1 2013. ih~;
' ( f) ~ ~of }s ' co,')'J( _ O fo';L ils e 'rxlSt- i l pc 3~., i
r'
I`) r 0 r) SO! i,, 7 ,:sic ? II ,tii fsr<.'liJt'
i 3,,_if": C77 . r
=~~il`,i5i i~9 r1t~C3fi} SC~;rrif Y1ti;C3 sandy 511t to Srlt`k4 .~3Cr11 iC(^~ st'~a E _ 1 t-,ci gr<_miie). Tne rc f air)((
c)yf s i yie i\ li h!F„rs or ilf been i g r.ili d vvit h I F F'it i~,.-.~r land"'' 5 /.1pIng ~nLAs or'- Mis, alv d gF,-•{ ercjll :,Io , e'
I
clovwr-r to ho c Clo of n aver'`'age of cal-,)o It 4H,11 V, ! ice. t arid ofiv=e si_;i ac are w- t :U
vAthi scat ere dr3c$tll.)ous trees C7nd grasscm Dl' .e ` isi irIC}lf C-ifio`!x o deep.;- 1 at,2,ri
e rer n r, ,ir~ der of t'rt ; lot,
Ir..1p l rsf a ?ility° yr n t l~s rvt c on fri Ciuf s 1 1, t
l1'tere no defined surfoce wcfff r drainages on the prCsp() , h/f the grou id surf C, ce Slopes
f'crrrly to clovfri to, The E-'C si C.lr d 'we cjr)fiK ijxJl6 ihdi r Kist SUF r-)e;6~ WC'1t(--.i.CUr)0ff OCC U'S (J el
s ee'i 1'I~s The nec"rest si gfcic e drainage is an irrigation c ai r,.i Ivt Crtecl CtCilrt ns slur' of th-, site,
on t{'1r2 east slC.c:.. C:i lICC1 fe:' :>tl 'F t. C3t'C3t.lf lCVt:'t ICr it.e f age or {~'1~11C;ClfBUi's of ~~1f 1~lC3ltr
Cjr °i r;1tt"/ 3iE not Cat 11: S!t ; ~Al C'1'i1C i 4ltL Tr Cl`ip iC'}1 firti3 tts r
a`6C' cl?_lrr;, t= t i_2 i_>r 1 i<~':C1Ff`Y' Cl;'1 h or x? f tde6nf lil. Ai i .i } ti cv,(. J C HV
01 , , `.i~ldl , 3'1 i C3'C_5 7" i t,2.alf3irl corner t7t1h'. Pi'"
Base C' C; t our review of ,.,G'Cilogic me-',fit al be are q, ib s t~-; underlain. f")} Cq '~Ylli~_ AF,
e pcr~ed io the; existing cut slope, the rear-sur(ckle grarlifi, o sill s "fir t~ cm-
T; l ' frth to 1 rCa!'C'd ! t ICl1;ti'i~! !1(t tvrC?C7Ti"9rCCr nr lift' ii ly k ,
bul' I'I pically is cfrr crier If'ian 20 i i~ i 4N is: 6I r-andC;r-r s
joinfin Cf rere ore. no ividpped rc c ent t~rzilts;r th . ;
0,0 IONS AND RECOM&MEKIDATIONS
dee J n-tec vm; in oui -.)IJi:'"110r"i
n our QbS i ati tls Cat tl 1 51 ° { 1C1 our CfISC 4 3 'c t tE ,'Al the
tl p ~ SUitt t t br" d e v e lo Pt'3' n:11 vAth # 11e Pr 0 l; bSe,d drive-vvd~ ~ d cis5cicit tee r e C"I[i`irrig 4'4,0)1.
1. l i+. ?ii'ig sectlbns provide t:ii,.?, re oi-n 11e-'ri: aticxis for ;rj i:.tnd C>uns ili tion of tl e
t ru r2( locids f,--)r the, f rivewa retrai,nir, i t:~?rSlr rl~r``y" h'e' 'jupp rtb-cl pn C".pr'!t(r l}ou
sp.ji` C',d fir)ii$ ng "toundution, desi ned l" h';o,_, ' r-f an clllowabl n soli bee irir g
1 r ,mrc of u t-) 1,500 We r cnr rr f icy t6 Sat the drive ray excavation be psf. complete' using a trCrcl hoes ~•cTtt ir1 ;,li `iAm-lip- b0ck,
f 1 ri nirnit_r<,~
Clr r-~~anc e of the su =r , -ade. The rr any i T ire
{-ss tl-rc:rn 24 in., and t6, i ;g, sFtor* t
IC?` e4 it 0djaci<'nt C='?f er . C grt d'e,, 11_ c.}F iii-J 1 10 t[ of th :"InIng.
Wall Il t);''i be graded fb gDro r''jdc posI i;' m i m the wall.
2) 1 our cici r.om should f:>e se.t "b4. ck 1ci 1 ion-lo i11al distc-w) e o al Ieast 1.0 11 from. i. I'YF
)ra(:u ste-op r if`ron 41 : f ` , The r,etbC1C'k rroc.iy l)-r o bloined by U r
c,mbedn-i r rt of i e tozar daflion (for on i 21-11V s!O,,-) -1 foul ;C , i . nS
sIho 1101 be- erllk")C'cttteid 5 fI to 6bttair'l the, stetbacfk: on c4-i:l V ';lope, fh' e miriii7l .im required f yl`Y becli'Y" en t }s o lly Z5 1`If
3) Simi-Cipate that fin it cut c td fill slopes will be 1(- i 10 ft hi is Cut slop
should rye--,, graded no 51ee er t1'1an 0251-1 IV f=ret . raryr• r~i!f sfn~;x~s ~.orlil (f t<~c
during dry we. atl er and 'I H:I V for I> er-i i~rr~~r'~1 cats. Fill sft~~,~ , shc uld 4au gr.(- !f-d
riC ;fc..-e er than 21-11V, Fill slopes should be cw .rbuili cr least 2 It beyond c i
•ll C-
it lent rrirnn,,t ,cf l:Jack to final grade-,; using a tf'ac.kl oe, equipped
.1
1.1 r- r ''w z .pry r `loC,~r y T s ~t_>~ ,s C
t. f ~rry>F1 E
hot.; ~C~., tt.. L4 . i Ii,,
cis
fi. 13 109;0'if
A F,")J)~iWjt Estl ~rsC' i~tf ! design l L `.;)rt1(!lt ;7tiu~Cla ` IiS l"t'}t ~ E~iC' ~+c ~3
fuPy
level ithin 10 1; wall, ond the erlil-~-
vv,al ' jn, CA: Jt fie s down to € -m o hfe foL}IldI ,
{t, opr;C y: f , l_ a d 93~` _ j'y
P, Soft resisl -
F ;oil aid
}S to ''1€;,} '1
of the,- ne'' hcx~ Our
f~_'i I(.. ~tl 16 ' =acUil'ling it
Ci ~",l
-ly
Cuts, # } li. t t fc,3, .33 3 -7 tji 3tk ~..Min r.~ .11Ff iZV
i acl, v6I#irig of °rhewall,
S f
IJAWAWNS
}i I't l.`: tt f +
Pis (;;j::ol has berm prepared to G,kj in th E'I~4~4.3'{f ~l t o"l is site to the
d `l n team 4the design and < onsfralL,han o ripe proposed sl F c:,i s
,.m+ted ics the s~~~,itiq ;.rc. -t location de_c(l1.3e£~ h(,iein r+c.
roj -`i i -Sent., our ondersl t-idinL) of 1}3 si{;-tiific- 7i`If asp- --As Ol 1h%. (l + ! to i la IN-.1
d ;I" ,d orrstruclio n of j> Yap; pr }i,o`rc: d driveway. AGE ' S!"ou L,+E ci! , C to f - t (.--.:r4' a vx,
de,~Jgn Ond fo l1locIf rt 4TiKm thy: cul (:usl recco-irI't,l+_laf1cj1"s~ o his
;)!Jbmi-H-e,. k A r_sil`f_ d Geo.liaC<i`,i` icoj E} i"g) neeiing cjn(_~ Geologic 71'?a ( ~ r~
11
kiln c. pd F-'nginee-r
1
t ,
,i
7AT k`;
A -sit 0-3
sy Ms
` C
i
will
ARM
- e 41 ~ 7r I
t': 1 -•h
Jackson County Official Records
2011-018625
R-TJ 06/24/2011 08:35:07 AM
Cnt=1 ALUN20KM
Recordiniz Requested BY 5115.00 $10.oo 65.00 $11.00 Total:$141.00
CHRISTIAN E. HEARN
DAVIS, HEARN & BTU DGES, PC
515 E. MAIN STREET -
ASHLAND, OR 97520 014861 00186 0236
I, Christine V4'alker, County Clerk for Jackson County, Oregon, ctrtiry
When Recorded Mail To: thal the In6Wment klenlifled heralo was recorded In the Clerk
CHRISTIAN E. HEARN reeordo Christine Walker- County Clerk-
DAVIS, H'EARN & BRIDGES, PC
51513. MAIN STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
Ngil'Ax Statements To:
OWNER OF RECORD PER
COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR RECORDS
(This Space for Recorder's Use)
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF GENERAL JUDGMENT
AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY
1. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a General Judgment, a certified copy of which is appended
hereto, was entered on or about April 12, 2011 in Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for
Jackson County, Case No. 10-0478-E-3. The attached General Judgment, with its
Exhibits "A" through "E,", affects the real property referenced below.
2. The parties to Jackson County Circuit Court Case No. 10-4478-E-3 were:
A. Benjamin A. Bellinson and Linda C. Bellins(in ("Plaintiffs"); and,
B. Jaynes R. Benson and Denise L. Benson ("Defendants")
3. The real property affected by the attached General Judgment is as follows:
See: legal description of the parties' real property attached as
Exhibit "tB" and Exhibit "C" to the following General Judgment,
and incorporated by reference into the General Judgment.
Dated this day of June, 2011 DAVIS, HEARN & BRIDGES. PC
Monetary Consideration: $0 CHRISTIAN E. HEAR , OSB #911829
dream @davisheatn.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Benjamin A. Bellinson & Linda C. Bellinson
STATE OF OREGON )
} ss:
County of Jackson )
On June 7 , 2011, the foregoing instrument was personally acknowledged before me by
Christian E. Hearn.
OFFIGIAL BEAL Notary Public for Oregon
DAWN CAL DWELL My Commission Expires: V o I t
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISVON--•XO„~45 0667
4AY CflhSMISS#ON El4E'IR~lGU5126, 201
11 V
~f,D .
!LED
This In* t. rrect copy ~ f APR 12 AM 9. 26
2 W the ntffife.
t {~~oZ RILL COUR i A W1 IN151R ATU.R
~ .
' 111111E T11)
3 A1TES
Z.
4 rlrcult t~k in1~t)~te.
STATE
ay: ~W611T OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR JACKSON COUNTY
6
BENJAMIN A. BELLINSON and ) Case No. 10-0478-Er3
7 LINDA C. BELLINSON, husband and wife, )
} GENERAL JUDGMENT
g Plaintiffs, )
)
9 vs. }
}
to JAMES R. BENSON and DENISE L. )
BENSON, husband and wife, )
11 )
Defendants. )
12 )
13
14 1
15 This action came regularly before the Court for trial on January 4, 2011.
16 Plaintiffs Benjamin A. Bellinson and Linda C. Bellinson ("plaintiffs") appeared at trial
17 with their attorney, Christian E: Hearn (OSB # 911829) of Davis, Hearn & Bridges,
18 Pc.; and Defendants James R. Benson and Denise L. Benson ("Defendants")
19 appeared at trial with their attorney, Steven C. Baldwin (OSB # 831447) of Watkinson,
20 Laird, Rubenstein, Baldwin and Burgess, Pd.
21 !1! !II
G.1✓ EWALr JUDGMENT DAVIS,H>:&M
Page -1- & BRIDGES
A Professions! CwVoral'an
$15 EAST MAW STREET
ASHLAND. OREGON 97520
(541) 482-3111 FAX (541) 408.4455 r
1 2•
2 Prior to the day of trial, the attorneys for Plaintiffs and Defendants submitted
3 trial memoranda to the Court.
4 3.
5 On the morning of January 4, 2011, immediately before commencing the trial,
6 the Court met the parties and their attorneys at the subject property for a brief "judge
7 view" of the driveway areas which are the subject of this case, as requested by the
8 parties' attorneys. The Court then conducted a brief pre-trial site inspection of the
9 subject property in the presence of the parties and their counsel; before proceeding to
10 the courtroom to begin the trial.
11 4.
12 At the trial, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants made their respective opening
13 statements; presented the testimony of witnesses and participated in cross-
-14 examination of those witnesses; offered documentary evidence in the farm of
i
15 Plaintiffs' exhibits Defendants' exhibits received by the Court; and then provided the
16 Court with closing arguments in support of the parties' respective claims, defenses,
17 and counterclaims. The matter then being duly tried, briefed, and submitted to the
18 Court for decision at the end of the day on January 4, 2011, the Court took the matter
19 under advisement.
20
21 ilr rlI
GENE"L JUDGMENT DAVIS, HEARN
Page -2- $ aRIDOE$
A Prolosciw2l Corpondort
i 515 EAST MAIN STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97620
(541) 462-3111 FAX(641)488-4465
1 5.
2 on January 28, 2011, having reviewed the above-referenced evidence and
3 argument received by the Court during trial in the form of exhibits, witness testimony,
4 and arguments of counsel, and being at that time otherwise fully advised in the
5 premises, the Court issued its written Decision in the form of a letter addressed to the
6 parties' counsel and dated January 28, 2011. A true copy of the Court's Decision
7 dated January 28, 2011, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
8
9 Now, therefore, the Court issues the following findings, conclusions, and
10 General Judgment.
11 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
12 6.
13 A true copy of the Court's written decision dated January 28, 2011, along with
14 the Court's findings, analysis, and conclusions as set forth therein, is attached hereto
15 as Exhibit "A", and fully incorporated herein by reference as though set forth
16 verbatim.
17 ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
18 7•
19 Additionally, the Court further finds and concludes as follows:
20 (a) Plaintiffs' Property is described in attached Exhibit "B", which is
21 incorporated herein by this reference.
GENERAL JUDGMENT DAV15, HEARN
Page -3- & BRrOGES
3 A Professional Corporation
515 EAST R1AiN STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
($41) A62-31 11 FAX (541) 488,4455
1 (b) Defendants' Property is described in the "Corrected Warranty Deed and
2 Easements", the original of which was recorded in 1976 in the Official Records of
3 Jackson County as Doc. 76-03766; and copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
4 "C" and incorporated herein by reference.
5 (c) Defendants Property is benefitted by "a perpetual easement over an
6 existing driveway across the Southwest corner of the following described property:
7 [description of Plaintiffs' Property)", as expressed in Defendants' 1976 "Corrected
8 Warranty Deed and Easements," a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "C".
9 (d) Defendants' above-referenced express perpetual driveway easement for
i
10 ingress and egress, benefitting Defendants' Property and burdening Plaintiffs'
11 Property, is more particularly described in attached Exhibit "D", which is incorporated
12 herein by reference.
13 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
14 8.
15 (a) The general location of Defendants' express perpetual driveway easement,
16 benefitting Defendants' Property and burdening Plaintiffs' Property, and granted to
17 Defendants by Plaintiffs' predecessors via the document attached as Exhibit "C", is
18 generally depicted in attached Exhibit "A", at p. 6 (Ex. 3), which very generally depicts
19 the boundaries of Defendants' express perpetual driveway easement over the existing
20 driveway which traverses across the southwest corner of Plaintiffs' Property.
21 111 111
i
GENERAL JUDGMENT DAVIS,1EAM
Page -4- & HLIDGES
i A Pra(asaionel CoryOrafion
$15 EAST MAIN STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 91520
(547)492-~1'1 FAX)d8B+1dS5
1
1 (b) The more particular description of Defendants' above-referenced perpetual
2 driveway easement for ingress and egress and traversing across the southwest
3 corner of Plaintiffs' Property, is more particularly described in the legal description
4 attached hereto as Exhibit "D", which is fully incorporated herein by reference.
5 (c) The scope of Defendants' above-referenced express perpetual driveway
6 easement across the southwest corner of Plaintiffs' Property is reasonable use of said
7 driveway easement for purposes of ingress and egress to access the lower portion of
8 Defendants' Property.
9 (d) Defendants' driveway easement across Plaintiffs' Property is limited to the
10 express easement described in attached Exhibit "M; Defendants have no other or
11 further driveway easement rights acquired by prescription, implication, or otherwise,
12 over the remaining portion of Plaintiffs' Property; and title to Plaintiffs' Property is
13 quieted in favor of Plaintiff's and against Defendants in that regard.
19 (e) Following entry of this Judgment, Plaintiffs may record in the Official
15 Records of Jackson County the new form of Easement attached as Exhibit "E", and
16 said new Easement description will supersede and replace Defendants' access
17 easement over the southwest corner of Plaintiffs' Property, which was in the same
18 location as Defendants' less specifically described driveway easement reflected in
19 Defendants' 1976 "Corrected Warranty Deed and Easements" document, recorded in
20 the Official Records of Jackson County as Doc. 76-03760, a copy of which is attached
21 as Exhibit "C".
i
GENE'RA.L JUDGMENT DAVIS, H)SAWN
Page -5- & BRIDQLs
j A FrOWSione7 Corporation
515 EAST MAIN STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97528
(541) 4623111 FAX (50) 468.4455
1 (e) Plaintiffs are the prevailing party on all claims and counterclaims asserted
2 in this matter, Plaintiffs may submit a statement of costs pursuant to the provisions of
3 ORCP 68C.
4
5 DATED: This t day of
5
i
7
8 The or e D niel L. Harris
Circ it Court e
9
10
11
12 Respectfully Submitted by:
Chdstlan E. Hearn, OSS #911829
13 cheam@davishearn.com
Davis, Hearn & Bridges, PC-
14 515 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97526
15 541482--3111
16
17
18
19
20
21
GF.NHAAL JUDGMENT DAviS, aFAm
page -6- & sx1DGEs
[ a
515 EAST MAN STREET
i ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
(541) 482-3111 FAX (541) 488+4455
E
{
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon
for Jackson County
Jackson County Justice Building 100 S. Oakdale, Medford, OR 97501
Telephone (541) 776-7171 FAX (541) 7767057
Daniel L. Harris, Circuit Judge -
January 28, 2011
Christian E Hearn
Davis Hearn Saladoff et al
515 E Main Street
Ashland OR 975201
Steven C Baldwin
Watkinson Laird et al
PO Box 10557
Eugene OR 97410
Re: Bellinson vs. Benson
Jackson County Circuit Court Case No. 10-0478-E3
Counsel:
A trial on the above-referenced matter took place on January 4, 2011, Prior to
the trial I had an opportunity to walk the property with the parties and their attorneys,
Based upon the pleadings and the evidence received, I render the following opinion
which should be incorporated into a proper form of judgment
Summary of Pleadings
The complaint in this action allegclaim for declaratory relief, asking the court
to set forth the respective easement rights of the parties. Defendants' answer alleges
the following counterclaims:
1. That the Defendants have established a right to use the entire driveway
over Plaintiffs' property based upon the legal theory of prescriptive easement.
2. Alternatively, the Defendants allege that they established a right to use the
entire driveway over plaintiffs' property through the doctrine of implied easement by
prior use.
3. Finally, the Defendants allege that the scope of the recorded easement
should be interpreted as part of the declaratory action to include the entire driveway.
rl~
ExMbit
Page-1-of
Christian E. Hearn
Steven C. Baldwin
January 28, 2011
Page 2
Findings of Fact
Larch 197x1 The Westeriie{ds deed property to the Bensons, this instrument
provides "all together with a perpetual easement over ail existing driveway lying
southerly of the above-described property."
March 1976 The original deed from the Westerfields to the Bensons is corrected
to include the following language; "also together with a perpetual easement over an
existing driveway across the southwest corner of the following described property:"
(Plaintiffs' property is described thereafter).
May 2008 The Westerf lelds deed 'property to the Bellinso; tis.
September 2008 Surveys performed on the westerly two-thirds of the Bellinson
property.
Pall of 2009 The Bellinsons discussed their understanding of easement with the
Bensons and learned for the first time that there was an issue regarding interpretation of
the easement.
Fall: of 2009 The Bensons started constructlorr on the back part of their- property
and used the driveway to gain access to the back part of their property during the
construction period.
Mona Westerfield, daughter of the Westerfields, original owners, testified that she
lived on the property between 1971 and 1976 and that she "never" saw the Bensons
use the driveway during that time. She further testified that between 1976 and 1982
she visited the property from time to time, "usually on weekends" and never saw the
Bensons use the property during that time. Ms. Westerfield testified that she did not
remember the Bensons parking their vehicles on the easement or on the surrounding
property, now owned by the Bellinsons, during the time she was there.
Mr, Westerfield passed away in 1985 and Mrs. Westerfield continued to live on
the property until the fall of 2006 when she was moved to a nursing home.
James Benson testified that he and others he hired used the easement to access
the back part of the Benson property in the fall of 2009, He said that his use of this
easement prior to that time was "intermittent." He indicated that the easement was not
used during the winter months. He also testified that there were other times when they
did some remodeling on their house when they did use the easement but no specifics
were given. Mr. Benson testified that they would park their old blue pickup on what is
now the Bellinsons' property when they worked in their yard, but no specifics were
testified to. Mr. Benson did admit that these times were brief periods and dM~ rang the4
growing season.
E~t
PageY._.OOf_,&P_
Christian E. Hearn
Steven C. Baldwin
January 28, 241 1
Page 3
Denise Benson testified that she did not remember much of anything about the
corrected easement, or about the purchase of their property.
Based upon the testimony of those offering evidence at trial, it was clear that the
Westerfields used the driveway set forth in Ex. 7.3 to access their house on a regular
basis and that the Bensons used this driveway In non winter months intermittently to
access the back of their property for unspecifi#d remodeling projects and, from time to
time, to perform yard work.
There is no, credible evidence in the record that the Westerfields interfered with
Defendants' intermittent use of the driveway.
Conclusions
1. The express easement set forth in the corrected deed in March of 1976
needs to be reasonably interpreted by the court based upon the clear language of the
easement, the intent of the parties and the physical evidence that exists on the site.
2. The Bensons used the driveway intermittently during non-winter months
for unspecified remodeling projects (other than the fall of 2009 remodeling project
testified to by Mr. Benson) and to access the back of their house for yard work
purposes, presumably during the summer months.
3, The evidence offered by the Bensons fails to establish a clear
understanding of the times and frequency of use of the easement area.
4, The use by the Defendants did not Interfere with the use of the same
driveway by the Westerfields,
5. The intent of the Westerfields In creating the easement was not
established by the evidence.
Legal Standards and Analysis
1. Prescriptive Easement.
To establish a prescriptive easement, the use must be:
(a) for a ten-year period (ORS 12.054);
(b) open, notorious, and adverse to the rights of the owner of the property;
and
(c) continuous and uninterrupted.
The burden of proof for the party prosecuting the claim for a prescriptive
easement is clear and convincing evidence on all the elements necessary to establish
the right. If the use was "permissive," a claim for prescriptive easement is `efeated. #
Exhibit
Page Oda-
i
Christian E, Hearn
Steven C. 1:3aldwin
January 2$, 2011
Page 4
This court concludes that the use by the Bensons was clearly permissive based upon
the Westerfieids formal granting of an easement across the southwest corner of their
property. The element of adversity is defeated as a result of that fact.
Further, as set forth above in the findings, the use by the Bensons was not
"continuous." Use of this easement was, in the words of Mr. Benson, "intermittent' and
took place only during non-y inter months on those occasions when the Bensons
needed to access the back part of their property for unspecified remodeling projects and
for yard work. The court, finds that this evidence regarding the history of the Seasons`
use falls to establish that the use was continuous. The Bensons' use must be
exclusive. This eieme; it is also not established in the record because the driveway was
used by both the Bensons and the Westerfields. There is no credible evidence that the
joint use of this driveway caused any conflict to either party.
For the reasons stated above, the legal elements for this claim are clearly not
established by the evidence In the record before this court. Defendants' claim for
prescriptive easement fails.
2. Implied Easement.
The Bensons claimed that they have established an implied easement by prior
use. The history recounted above establishes that the Westerfields reserved a formal
easement across the southwest comer of one of their lots to access the back side of
another lot, There is no evidence In the record that the intent of the Westerf'ields was to
create an easement that included the entire circular driveway. implied easements are
disfavored when a formal valid easement already exists, especially in light of the fact
that with a formal valid easement there is no necessity for creating an implied
easement- There is no credible evidence In the record that the Wester-fields intended to
extend an easement along the entire circular driveway. Further, there is no credible
evidence that the Bensons would have been justified in expecting an easement over the
entire circular driveway at the time of purchase.
3. Interpretation of the Scope of the Formal Easement.
In March of 1976 the Westerfields corrected their deed to the Bensons to include
clearer language regarding the description of the easement. That language, as quoted
above in the court's findings, provides for a'perpetual easement over an existing
driveway across the southwest corner" of the Bellinsons' property. The court has used
a copy of Ex. 3 to indicate where the court finds the easement to exist, based upon all of
the considerations that the court finds to be valid in the granting of such an easement to
the Bensons at the time it was created. The Defendants' assertions that this easement
was Intended to extend to the northwest corner of the property to include the entire
circular driveway is not supported by the record. A copy of the court's description of
{ the area of the easement. is attached to this letter.
Of
Page-A
Christian E. Hearn
Steven C. Baldwin
January 28, 2011
Page 5
This easement area can be surveyed to establish exact boundaries, with
appropriate adjustments being made to incorporate the "existing driveway" as it travels
from Mountain Avenue to the back part of the Bensons' property and to account for any
obstacles, including trees that may be in the way, The driveway as it comes off of
Mountain Avenue should be at least 12 feet wide, unless city, county or state
spectfiications require a wider width. The formal survey (Ex. 10) has the road width
drawn In at ten feet.
Counsel for Plaintiff 7ii te judgment setting forth the
courtTs findings, conclu sion dge
DLHlmom
Enclosure (Ex. 3)
Elk
Eby
n Of,
i
s } ~o
b L Ha ''wr
-1 1
n9, pg € G i( g 3[ f f p 5 ga I I pE 1 F dZ%
, B0UIDARY AND TOPO SURVEY
DEPICTING EXISTING DRIVEWAY
ON gELLINSt}N PROPERTY. - EX. 3
~J!
1 \ ffr J~ fi~r¢ ~`r~ / fr r r."''r~ r
74,
<''',~y,•.•Si-, rf~~'•:.t' ' ~.+~'t•r~`~t'.s•' •Tt ~ y i'~'„'t~:,~}^,:5i.~ ~ ~ Jill
. i; _'t: .i.• r~'''..'`'{•'~'~.'rr'r~ ` I ~
1~(/ i •t. t •i~ ;t• •":f:` ~'I ,E..1•.r<rJ ,}{E Y~
/7,
~.;t fr i`=•~ • • i r~~ ~kii~bP~ O ,
N iG,r-.:`f ~ 5 /Sly
r ` •..y-~. are r
r Ix' G
• •j`yf't ~ ~~r .f ~
r r
S ~ //I Jr I , f /J/
Y;. a.
Hifir+
ExWbit
ftz
't
t t` i ' I
1~ Q
76
41
_ ~ ~ _ ~I I U } 3 I O
_ ~ s• ~ 1~ ' j i i • Q
W-w
.1 ~2v
c At
ih,
r:
-
' r 'ice - _x'I - ~jE 7
7-7
C
t I ~
II L
I ~
1 w
j
i _
I
18.61.200 B. TREE PROTECTION
A Tree Protection Plan has been submitted as part of this application. The Plan identifies the Tree
Protection Measures required in 1$.62.200 R. The Plan identifies the fencing that will be installed prior
to any development activities, including, but not limited to grading, excavation, construction and shall
be removed only after completion of construction activity.
The fencing will be wire, a minimum of 6' tall with steel posts placed no farther than 10' apart. Fence to
be flush with existing grade. Fencing to be labeled with approved signs stating fencing is a tree
protection zone not to be disturbed without prior approval from City Staff Advisor for the project.
No development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading and excavation to occur within
the fenced area without prior approval from City Staff Advisor for the project.
The fencing shall be installed at the edge of the drip line closest to the proposed building envelope of
the lot being developed. No construction activity, including but not limited to, storage of materials such
as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment or parked vehicles, shall occur within the tree
protection zone. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids
such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, concrete and dry wall excess.
1090 SOUTH MOUNTAIN, ASHLAND
TREE SURVEY
A B C D E F G H I J
1
2 TREE ID LOCATION OAK FIR PINE MADRONE MAPLE CEDAR MISC HEALTH
3 N1 NEIGHBOR 9" 1
4 N2 NEIGHBOR 17" 1
5 EN3~] NEIGHBOR 24° 3
6 NEIGHBOR 17" 1
7 N5 NEIGHBOR 10" 2
8 N6 NEIGHBOR 14" 1
9 N7 NEIGHBOR 8" 2
10 N8 NEIGHBOR 13" 1
11 N9 NEIGHBOR 13" 2
12 N10 NEIGHBOR 8" 1
13 Nll NEIGHBOR 9" 1
14
15 TREE LOCATION OAK FIR PINE MADRONE MAPLE CEDAR MISC HEALTH
16 Al S MOUNTAIN 7" 1
17 A2 S MOUNTAIN 14" 1
18 A3 S MOUNTAIN 7" 2
19 A4 S MOUNTAIN 6" 1
20 A5 S MOUNTAIN 10" 2
21 A6 S MOUNTAIN 6" 1
22 A7 S MOUNTAIN 9" 1
23 A8 S MOUNTAIN 10" 4
24 A9 S MOUNTAIN 6" L®cu 3
25 A10 S MOUNTAIN 19" 2
26 All S MOUNTAIN 10" 4 OR DEAD
27 A12 S MOUNTAIN 13" 1
2$ A13 S MOUNTAIN 8°-6 1
29 A14 S MOUNTAIN 12" 2
30 A15 S MOUNTAIN 14" DEAD
31 A16 S MOUNTAIN 7" 3
32 A17 S MOUNTAIN 6-10" 1
33 A18 S MOUNTAIN 4-8" 1
34 A19 S MOUNTAIN 9" 2
[135 A20 S MOUNTAIN 6" 1
36 A21 S MOUNTAIN 3
37 A22 S MOUNTAIN DEAD
38 A23 S MOUNTAIN 24" 1
39 A24 S MOUNTAIN 2-6" DEAD
40 A25 S MOUNTAIN 6" DEAD
41 A26 S MOUNTAIN 2-6" AP 2
42 A27 S MOUNTAIN 2-10" 2
43 A28 S MOUNTAIN 2-11" 2
44
45
46
1090 SOUTH MOUNTAIN, ASHLAND
TREE SURVEY
A B C D E F G H I J
47
48
49 TREE LOCATION OAK FIR PINE MADRONE MAPLE CEDAR MISC HEALTH
50 P1 PARK ROW 10" 1
51 P2 PARK ROW 10" 1
52 P3 PARK ROW 9" 1
53 P4 PARK ROW 7" 2
54 P5 PARK ROW 2-8" 2
55 P6 PARK ROW 3-10" 3
56 P7 PARK ROW 3-8" 1
57 P8 PARK ROW 6" 1
58 _
59 B1 ELKADER 8" 2
60 B2 ELKADER 6" 2
61 B3 ELKADER 2-6" 2
61213 4 ELKADER 8" 1
6B5 ELKADER 12" 1
64 B6 ELKADER 7" 2
65 B7 ELKADER 9" 1
66 B8 ELKADER 9" 2
67 B9 ELKADER 11" 1
68 1310 EVADER 1311 1
69 B11 ELKADER 13" 2
70 B12 ELKADER 14" 2
71 B13 ELKADER 2-6" 1
72 B14 ELKADER 10" 2
73
74
75
76 LEGEND:
77 #1= HEALTHY
78 #2= <10% DEAD WOOD
79 #3= 10%-50% DEAD WOOD
80 #4= >50% DEAD WOOD
8 1 DEAD= NO VISIBLE LEAF COVERAGE
}
. L A I C I ' L./ V f 7 Y E Y P -N O, L L.{,s
sj.
EXHIBIT "L" fd
as
June 14, 2013
Ben Bellinoon
2760 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Re: Slope Analysis Survey
1090 South Mountain Avenue, Ashland
Assessor's Map No. 391E 16 AD, Tax Lot 1200
Dear Ben:
We have recently completed the Slope Analysis Survey of the above referenced property located
at 1090 South Mountain Avenue in Ashland. Following are my findings as to the applicability of
City of Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.62.010 & 18.62.050.
The subject property lies longitudally In an east-west axis between South Mountain Avenue and
Elkader Street with a relatively consistent downslope slope from South Mountain to Elkader
averaging just under a 26% grade between points measured on natural ground at the toe of the
road fill on South Mountain Avenue and natural ground located at the top of the road cut on the
west side of Elkader Street being contained within the property boundaries of the subject parcel.
A5 "significant natural features" Is defined in Chapter 18.62.010 to Include "slope of the land",
the nearest undisturbed original ground on each end of the cross section was located and
surveyed between the downhill sides of South Mountain Avenue and uphill side of Elkader Street
that determined the original natural existing slope to average 24.6 percent, just under the 25
percent maximum as defined in 18.62.050. Another sample was measured from Mountain to the
natural ground on the east side of Elkader Street which was 24.7/0.
The man made out and filled road slopes, primarily on the west side of Elkader are considerably
steeper because of prior street construction but are contained within the right of way.
Yours truly,
Shawn Kampmann
Professional Land Surveyor
5A,3urveyo\501-08\13el11nc,on 51ope Analyelo Report-1090 5 Mountain. loo
P. 0. Sox 459, R.kland, Oregon 97520 Phone: (541) 482-5009 zi Fax; (541) 4880797
A1oGller (541) 601-5000 www.po1arls4urvey.com
IVY STREET EXISTING CURB & CUTTER-
EXISTING CURB INLET
PROPOSED MODIFIED CURB & GUTTER---
TO COLLECT EXISTING ROADSIDE DRAINAGE
DI TCH
\ \
EXISTING 20' WIDE ESMT
(ABANDONED WATERLINE) \ \ \
I \ \ PROPER 7~Y
1 LINE \
yo
, vUIL ING ENVELOP
poS '
A \ AP.,A FOLLOWIN
7ER VACATION,0 ~
\.TINASEMENT
1 '
S \ 1
W `
ROPO
'SED
\ Sul / '~II/ELOPE\ \
Ng EN
C) CD
365.y rw. ti~
V V X355 `a.13W \
1 ,2365.5 TW
2355 B~V S~
°v
PROPOSFD RETAINING 2357_TIA
PROPERTY LINE WALL z3 3 RV
2355
PROPOSED WATER SERVICE CONNL
2
I
N
p 20' 20'
C
R 24' PIN 17- FIR
a L_
Y V '
r~ 9' Flf 14" Li41C /
17 FlR ~ T t14JC ~ - \ 10' RR
~~vf vl\\~ _ (!\~d 0 'Sf09 E
FUTURE POWER-
R11 NT
I 1\ EXISTING GRAVE DR VV1z
10' ~ /1 1
dnK
' ! mot-" E 10. PINE
J s Phu£ N ; SEWER S/S,PHONE DATA
-
9" Fl e ' EXISTING AT SITE
AT HONE
OUSE FOOTPRI T I, ~J \
=e I dRON) x~ _ TREE PROTECTION FENCING
.6' METAL FENCE SET AT GRAD
° \ 1 CBI SWALE AREA2
Ax
1 ~ BUILDING ENVELOPE
~
4 ~ ~ ~ \ \ Flo Ny
41:. s I
co ~~~V~``i(l VA' I N~89j58,09 W - 25
'1 4-H' MMRONES I\ /1 \ Ran ffI~
G'
< Z
23 5'` 20
LG
i< I • WM
UCP
< r
1 st Floor
i
y
I V Y S T R E E T
I
- AV I ( \
tnv I I I
I v Y e znv
S T R E E T
_ p TO' To"
i - 24 0IT M CEI[IERG OF ?0' k
1 ~ CASNdJI i'£R ki
NI 11 44K % I
/ I lav: H rv i ~ u nt re~ra
f I/ Y
I0 •sas" E~ L,.4o , II
7" Ot'
GRAVEL OR,VE~-~'1~~ \ VA\ ~A \ \ 1
J-1
I - I
EoaaeER ~ ~a ~ r ~ ~ \ \ \ s a N. ~ v t
USE FOOTPRINT
1 1
1 1• V iN"89jA8'09' V1 - 284.33' rs ,.+qur
I \ 9" a4Y
I 8 4h
I T
I f xol
I
SURI
I I II I 1. THE DASIS DP lERT1C•AL CONTR
I i I VARTICAL DATDT.l, AF7~Y: THAT
1 j ADlUSTSD IN1959 (AYlVD29/591
1 ( I I I 2 OF Tms SUR MY DUORwD LlWu
A CO.MHIN.4 PON OF 111- SUR I
D&All N'OSFURNISHEDHYTHE.
ARH AFl•ROXIMAM ANII.SHOIVI
I13RH'IC14TIONVFALL DURIED I
HXCAVATIONORCOXS RUITIC
Assessor's Map No. 39 IF 16 AD, Tax Lot 1200 p
LA / L I
,m'aaA-
//s'
. Y
ate ,0 ~ < l ~
VD ION
\ \
V` \ AVA \ r f
t a a t ` -Z 7;
i 4-r
I \
a 10
SURVEYNOTE
e
Y t L nW BAVS OF V= T
VAR77CALDA77-0t4L3MGTDBN1770N1Lam
1 AXIMSI80M1959091VD291").
$a 20 2 =VSW UTD.t7YSHOWNDBRAON M "FM
OPTIDSSOKVBV. DUAIAD07I[U LOCA770A
ACUMWrATIONOPPDILOSVRVBYRDPAtNT,
I DRAMS FUAT4SIHB7 BY 77WRESPE07TVB I
I I / - AREAPAW"LiTBAND SHOiiNHIMAONP01
t . Vu VAR7F[CA770NOPALL BRIM ErJ7 4AfM
EXCAVA710NOR C0NS7AUCMNAC(YV rM
r
ASSESM ' 3 MIA lm. .T9 tE la AM TAX LOT 12 00 POLARIS LAP
i
BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPH[C SURVEY
I
LOCA77D AT
1090 SOUTMMOUNTAIIWAVENVE
LYING SITUA TE WI!!IDJ
A'OR7RR4ST QUAR TER OFSEC77ON16 j ' X. X.,
TowNsHw-i9SoumA"a6ISASr,mrdAA1FMAKRWLN
C7T OFAffXAXQ 1ACn0NC0UNTY, ORSOON
FOR / / \
SAGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
2305 Ashland S4wt &C-446 sP PIE-0 tY Ii6-ag' \ Astdead, Oragan 97520 O zz-'
-
\ @°"d8 ' 8 884.10' -
LEGErID
SURVEYCONT ROL POINT \
® 7R.0NPTNm0ll ffiNT-POUTRT SUr? aY G +a/4
PROPERTYHOUNDARYIRII' C-/1`1 0:,£ ELEI't ~(zJ o.%~s'Sy~a l \ @\
PROPERTY
-X-X-X- PRIMELINB t`,`:.q \ I / \ \
_ WATERLINE
a EEMEOPI T'GRALCTASLINE
r- EURmDPITONBLITB 1
SIYI"DRATNLEVE
-i SAWCARYSMYERLCB _
OVERHEAD POWER LETR
-wa EUJURDPOWaRLINE
ROCKRETA94WO WALL
Mvwrm Law
Mu WAMMETER
R W✓ WATER VALVE \ ` \ ! ! \ / ~11 \ 1
FN MW HYDRANT ~My,1 ! 1\`j / ` \ \
®c8 CATCRIDASW rWn~ uE~• \ ~`\.\y1I t~-V I \ \
® SANITARYSEWmaaANHOLE 3`i'A,+~, R!ClVy!~'J 1~'~/ t Y\ \ \ ` \ ` \
OPP POWTRTOLF ~'CSyv rRC `
AREA LIGHT eA,. \ ! i \ \ \ ~I \ \
ALAH.WX
DECE)UOU97RIiB, ASDESCRmIR) l~ \ ~ 1 \ \ \ \ \
COMMOUS TRLE, AS DL•SCRIBED
EXWTINOBErg-DING
`3\ ri NyyI ccrr,~ro~ ggr~ '\y1',\ \ \ ~ ,~il~ \ \
\~VLE1~770,7.y PS ,4~q,r ~ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \a
T
10' \V A ~ ~ ~ < \ ~l ? ir V A
ol a, to, 2° 40' \ Ci ! \ V v 1 A
/ \ }~~yT
CONTYMIR INTERVAL m ONE F607 ~ 1-~
Fry ~Jl `n
A- ;A~
~ \ N 8g3DW W - 881.33'
a„ \ \ ' ` \
asr ~a / I
9lA~1 ~ NW
DATE 0/30/2919
1. 7TIE7)ASIS ~
SURVEYED BY., wn tr '
POLMIS :_:PJ I . . AX a m" EDL
OPTTDSSO, 489 A WIN09
c' a ' .l 07620 ARRAMIC
VERMCArl
B®O I TIX
CAVAT![
DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
PROJECT NO. 801-05
s-- " - Tar LOT 1200 I
L V
50
TOW
SCALE: 1" = 30'
RA EL RlV ) I I
/ GRAVEL DRIVE
FORMER
o \ \ \ HOUSE FOOTPRINT
\ A \ \ I
I\ 1 \ Alm \ \ ~ \
Assessor's Map No. 39 1E 16 AD, Tax Lot 1200 POLA
d 1
a~ f ~
e r.
14 In
~ r-;e-- -fie :a~.. ~~a~W a o~_ a at- 2, '1 ~_r ~
,in
ML- "T
<O
Q
( i f
Cl
r m 3 ' x
F
00
in
E ~
o
1
St~ a t
tf j
In G y=,d V.."
00
r
1 w
In i In v
r o t CL
s 111 t f
t
j r I
00
in
V~ ? o° cn~ r t 1
f
~ ~ s iti C~ 1 t Z
t
td 00
i
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
C I T Y q F 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 -
FILE#
-AS HL~iND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT A' n;, 04
rk,
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO
Street Address IQ 9C) 01 L NI r
Assessor's Map No. 39 1E P 2 00 Tax Lot(s)
Zoning Comp Plan Designation tl r1,
APPLICANT
r
Name _ U,E 9 ;err 11 (gy o d Phone --E-Mail
Address City Zip
PROPERTY OWNER
Name 5ArtL_, AY 501/4 Phone E-Mail
Address 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. 1 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. 1 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 regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be' removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
,Applicant's Signature Date
As owner of the property involved in this request, l have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
Property Owner's Signature (required) Date
[To be completed by City Staff
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER N
GAcomm-dev\planning\Forms & Handouts\Zoning Permit Application.doc