HomeMy WebLinkAboutTolman_1365_PA-2016-01029
S
fr
(co
. w
r
hh
,
r ,
wN
c
' f
5 k
® v
t
L. U 11
iF
fr f
t
' A
5
Ii
!
i µaP'R ~ .b 3 3 ~llemA±Ae~vu
e A
WIN
T"i
1, s
~ t : dati x
e~-
i
R
me,
x rr a q~y,, s
7 4
f-' Aj
~ - V,
w>3='t`kr R. x~~ t; i°~ a { k Ia ~ r Div ~`Y
4 f' ws,'{Y~t r` i i S aA `3 3 f 4 9 4 1,
ilk
> IL( n'~-Y e 'c ~ . s i, r ~ r~ ' r - 4 a Sr•..
~ E raR f v, ~F ~r~ewa+v ~~=c q ,
ti. F k w t r
Ih ~x y ~rV
1 5
li ka 1 - L 11l: - .
B ~ °f r FI 5Xn y at f1°'~ 'H R~• Y' 1~:.~ {I ~ any
q 1} ~ - Y '{G P '7 Flt S }~*'',r``t 3 L . !ri 1~ ~ C '
75
.10
y 4
f
W,
F
i
ayY is Y- 11 t! y.~
AA
A~ 1 .C L4,.a+y.
y~'G~ ~ i. mar € p : rya r r e e s >'~C..
v
_ r~rE ~ a'A S.: 5 ,.'fir ~ Y.a • F ; r
$ £ y
f
. Ac - Lam.. L i 3hr'm~w
t 2'k..f m~ ~ .r
Y ' t F
_ ~ r~ • ter • ~ - ~ -
a~
.41
24,
11,01-11 e-,-_
iV~
44
a, cs qpn yr+ ~ a at
- ~ .a. r4 f e
4 JA
}
~ ~ fe 9'Y t~.nv e~ •x - ~
777,
tf r -r-c xr .r a e'
1*4
i 2 3p, y; ac .r• ~d
~9r • MrJ n t, ~ ~ i. i x ~ t~'Y r, ~"r
zD
~A71+ sr k
ill ~ 9 ~y ~ _e ~a ~
Aut
77,
At,
t ~ ~IA'rC'~ '~t aaM1~~ ~ }i Y J
s 3 a v~ ¢ my t~ c: -
wi-
1 S3 _N '9 C SK
P kt l tl ~1 . }d - y~f(S~ Irv. D
II1 1'
"E y~ •R"
il~z
ryo- ~ t ( 1} V Bp
Alff
~ _ r69i ~lha~A. ~ -yy~'~ _ ~k -~,~LL, w.~L'b •r.. Ti/ y,{~~y
a a
1 47
y, e 4 e, s - y mom'
t ` ~ r shy{ ~#?g ~ sb
n i -k d a 4r a o t 1k 6.~~ _
r
r; C ~{'~t Est ~ ~ 'xb „3
I P.
x t L
- stay t•... ~ s r t ,
44
p p
41
# i ~ Z n{ x. aF t 4
_ fWA '
I~' ,r.:. ~•vsaan~F, g. t c'k'V'` r g~1 xi<
A AC. .lay 1 Vim`
A r
Av
'Y*~t -'A:a ~,Ea 7 n a a_ . ~3 `Zo fihw-*N r•, ,d d
p':~.F~ -*r .,.t':A~T:, ✓ :.a- t . ;t . YI d~~~7~Z"7l'p~t , E~.
,3. L,t d x ~ ''C•r
- ATM t i v ~
sx Y~t~~r`~ ~ ~ g ~ '
at Hs't~ m+ = 1.'.
pt s-z-r~.4r _
Q
/ 1 J;w
N FE
f
~
CITY OF
I
ASHLAND
I
August 11, 2016
Notice of Final Decision
The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: 2016-01029
Subject Property: 1365 Tolman Creek Rd
Applicant: Clason Company LLC/Ronald Rezek
Description: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval under the Performance Standards
Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9) for a three-lot subdivision for the property located at 1365 Tolman Creek
Road. Also included are requests for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for
Floodplain Development to allow widening of the existing driveway entrance by two to five feet and the
installation of utilities including stormwater drainage facilities within the floodplain; a Limited Use Permit
to allow grading for utility installation and restoration of the buffer area of a small wetland on the property;
and an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street improvements along the property's
Tolman Creek Road street frontage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family
Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 23BA; TAX LOT 9: 201.
The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final
Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months 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.
This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the
effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with section 18.5.1.060.1 of
the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also 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 Derek Severson in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Parties of record
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
f
I
SECTION 18.5.1.060.1
1. Appeal of Type H Decision. The City Council may call up a Type II decision pursuant to section
18.5.1.060.J. A Type II decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows.
1. Who May Appeal. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be
defined as the following.
a. The applicant.
b. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to
participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to
the Council.
C. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to
error.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.1.1, above, may appeal a Type II decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying
the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection.
b. Time for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten
days of the date the notice of decision is mailed.
c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a
reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies
as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of
the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on
identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
d. 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.
3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time,
and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
4. Scope of Appeal.
a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.I.4.b,
below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be
confined to the record of the proceeding before the Commission. The record shall consist of
the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits, and
materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the
Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed
decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for
purposes of Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the
parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the
appeal proceeding.
b. Reopening the Record. The City Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence
on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator
together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to
the Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated one or more of the
following.
i. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
P
requesting parry, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that
reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error.
ii. That a factual error occurred before the Commission through no fault of the requesting
party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision.
iii. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable,
through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and
during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A
requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the
new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This
exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant
evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body.
iv. Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional
written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the
Council.
5. Appeal Hearing Procedure. The decision of the City Council is the final decision of the City on an
appeal of a Type II decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission.
a. Oral Argument. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral
argument shall be limited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different,
and three minutes for any other party who participated below. A parry shall not be permitted
oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall
be submitted no less than ten days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written
and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set
forth in the notice of appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the
written argument.
b. Scope of Appeal Deliberations. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the
record is allowed, the Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to
determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning
Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review
shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of
appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the
Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond.
c. Council Decision. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the decision and may
approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make
findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification
for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties
participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may
elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the Council elects to
remand a decision to the Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Commission
decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant
to subsection 18.5.1.060.J.
6. Record of the Public Hearing. For purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the
written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall
become part of the record of the appeal proceeding.
The public hearing record shall include the following information.
a. The notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal.
_
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 r
www.ashland.or.us 1"
i
K
y
t
b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the j
application that the City mailed or received.
c. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials
submitted with it.
d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times
when the record before the Planning Commission was open.
e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available).
f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application;
g. The minutes of the hearing.
g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions.
7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type
H applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council
decisions on Type H applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals,
pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 _
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us f"
i
E
I
i
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 9, 2016
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2016-01029, A REQUEST FOR )
OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL UNDER THE PERFORMANCE )
STANDARDS OPTIONS CHAPTER (18.3.9) FOR A THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION. )
ALSO INCLUDED ARE REQUESTS FOR A PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL )
CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT TO )
ALLOW WIDENING OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE BY TWO TO ) j
FIVE FET AND THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES INCLUDING STORM- ) FINDINGS, j
WATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN THE HAMILTON CREEK FLOOD- ) CONCLUSIONS &
PLAIN; A LIMITED USE PERMIT TO ALLOW GRADING FOR UTILITY ) ORDERS
INSTALLATION AND RESTORATION OF THE BUFFER AREA OF A SMALL )
WETLAND ON THE PROPERTY; AND AN EXCEPTION TO CITY STREET )
STANDARDS TO NOT INSTALL STANDARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS )
ALONG THE PROPERTY'S TOLMAN CREEK ROAD STREET FRONTAGE. )
APPLICANT/OWNER: CLASON COMPANY LLC/RONALD REZEK )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #201 of Map 39 lE 23 BA is located at 1365 Tolman Creek Road and is zoned R-1-7.5
(Single Family Residential).
2) The applicants are requesting Outline and Final Plan approval under the Performance Standards
Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9) for a three-lot subdivision of the property located at 1365 Tolman Creek
Road. Also included are requests for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for
Floodplain Development to allow widening of the existing driveway entrance by two to five feet and the
installation of utilities including stormwater drainage facilities within the Hamilton Creek floodplain; a
Limited Use Permit to allow grading for utility installation and restoration of the buffer area of a small
wetland on the property; and an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street
improvements along the property's Tolman Creek Road street frontage. Site improvements are outlined
on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows:
a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and
adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity.
C, The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors,
ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the
development and significant features have been included in the open space, common
areas, and unbuildable areas.
PA #2016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 1
is
.
s
d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the
uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if
required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases
have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this
chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
4) The approval criteria for Final Plan subdivision approval are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5
as follows:
a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the
approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in
the outline plan.
b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of
those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced
below the minimum established within this Ordinance.
C. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more
than ten percent.
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and
intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan,
f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline
plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the
performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased
open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall
not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in
the outline plan.
5) The approval criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the
Development of Floodplain Corridor Lands are described in AMC 18.3.10.050 as follows:
A. 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.
8. 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.
C. That the applicant has taken a/I 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 development permitted by this ordinance.
6) The approval criteria for Limited Activities and Uses within a Water Resource Protection Zone
are described in AMC 18.3.11.060.D as follows:
PA #2016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 2
I
i
E
i
i
1. All activities shall be located as far away from streams and wetlands as practicable,
designed to minimize intrusion into the Water Resources Protection Zone and disturb as
little of the surface area of the Water Resource Protection Zone as practicable.
2. The proposed activity shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation,
grading, area of impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and other adverse
impacts on Water Resources.
3. On stream beds or banks within the bank full stage, in wetlands, and on slopes of 25
percent or greater in a Water Resource Protection Zone, excavation, grading, installation
of impervious surfaces, and removal of native vegetation shall be avoided except where
no practicable alternative exists, or where necessary to construct public facilities or to
ensure slope stability.
4. Water, storm drain, and sewer systems shall be designed, located and constructed to
avoid exposure to floodwaters, and to avoid accidental discharges to streams and
wetlands.
5. Stream channel repair and enhancement, riparian habitat restoration and enhancement,
and wetland restoration and enhancement will be restored through the implementation of
a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements in section
18.3.11.110 Mitigation Requirements.
6. Long term conservation, management and maintenance of the Water Resource Protection
Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of a management plan as
described in subsection 18.3. 11. 110. C, except a management plan is not required for
residentially zoned lots occupied only by a single-family dwelling and accessory
structures.
7) The approval criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1
as follows:
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 exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity
considering the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride
experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level
of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in
subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on July 12, 2016 at
which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing,
the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site.
PA 92016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 3
i
I
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds; concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used.
i
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
i
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
i
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
i
2.1 The Planning Commission fmds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission fords that the proposal for Outline and Final Plan approvals, Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Floodplain Development, Limited Use Permit; and an
Exception to Street Standards meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan Approval as described in AMC
18.3.9.040.A.3; for Final Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5; for Physical and
Enviromnental Constraints Review Permit for Floodplain Development described in AMC 18.3.10.050;
for a Limited Use Permit described in AMC 18.3.11.060.D; and for Exception to Street Standards as
described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 with the attached conditions of approval. The site plan and elevation
drawings provided delineate the proposed building location, design and associated site improvements.
2.3 The Planning Commission fmds that the minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance
Standards Subdivision within a residential zoning district is three as provided in AMC 18.3.9.030.B. and
that the current request involves three dwelling units. The Commission further finds that development
under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment including the property's established trees and
wetland area, and the broader neighborhood from degradation which might otherwise occur from
development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards.
The Planning Commission finds that the project meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City
of Ashland, or can be made to do so through the imposition of conditions, other than city standard street
improvements along the property frontage. An Exception to Street Standards has been requested
concurrently with the application. These items are further discussed in the applicable sections below.
The Commission further fmds that city facilities and services are currently available to serve the project
from the adjacent Tolman Creek Road right-of-way. The property is currently served by:
PA #2016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 4
i
® An eight-inch sanitary sewer main located in the Tolman Creek Road right-of-way.
® An eight-inch water main located in the Tolman Creek Road right-of-way. I
® Storm drainage is conveyed in open roadside ditches along both sides of Tolman Creek Road in
this vicinity.
® Electrical service to the existing house is undergrounded from a transformer near the north property
line, and electrical facilities are available to be extended from Tolman Creek Road.
The Commission finds that the application includes a Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet C-
1.0) and a Conceptual Utility Plan (Sheet C-2.0) prepared by Construction Engineering Consultants. The
Utility Plan identifies the installation of new water meters near the mouth of the driveway, with proposed
water and sanitary sewer services routed under the driveway to serve Lots 41 and #2. A new gas line will
be extended from the gas main in Tolman Creek Road to serve the new lots, and the existing electric and
phone lines are to be relocated to serve the existing home and new lots. Conditions of approval are
attached below to require that these plans be revised to incorporate the requirements of the land use
approval, reviewed and approved by the Planning, Building, Public Works, Engineering and Electric
Departments prior to the issuance of a building or excavation permit. A condition has also been attached
requiring that the applicants receive any required permits or approvals from Jackson County for any work
to be completed within Tolman Creek Road's right of way, which falls under County jurisdiction, and
provide evidence of such approval to the city.
The Commission further finds that the Drainage Plan identifies new sections of storm water mains and a
proposed detention area with a berm, storm water control structure and new 12-inch culvert to control the
release of storm water from the site into the roadside ditch along Tolman Creels Road. The City's
Engineering Department will need to review and approve final, engineered storm drainage plans and
determine that the post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow
for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation is adequately addressed through the final
design. A condition to this effect has been included below.
The Planning Commission finds that the Performance Standards Options chapter requires that natural
features such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees and rock outcroppings throughout the
subject parcel be identified and incorporated in open space, common areas or other unbuildable areas. In
this instance, the applicants have enlisted the services of Schott & Associates, Ecologists and Wetlands
Specialists who have determined that there is a small wetland on the property along with an adjacent man-
made pond. The state has concurred with the Schott & Associates' findings, and the applicants have
proposed to preserve the wetland while removing the pond as a man-made feature in conjunction with
restoring the drainage swale associated with the wetland. The portion of the required wetland buffer
disturbed with the removal of the pond is noted as approximately 545 square feet, and the application
explains that this area is to be restored, and the wetland and its buffer are to be preserved and protected in
a conservation easement as part of Lot #2. There has been previous discussion at the Planning
Commission as to whether natural features need to be included as part of a discreet parcel reserved as
common area to insure adequate protection and to benefit the livability of all residents. The Planning
Commission finds that the creation of a common area lot on a subdivision of this scale poses complication
for the applicants, and that the use of a conservation easement is an appropriate mechanism to provide the
protection of the wetland sought under the Performance Standards. A condition requiring that such an
PA 42016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 5
~ E
easement in favor of the City, Lots #1 and #3 be provided on the final plat is included below, along with
a condition to require that any fencing installed around the wetland be limited to no more than four feet in
height so that views of the wetland by all residents of the development are not obscured.
The Planning Commission finds that the removal of the pond is a key consideration of the application.
The application notes that while the pond has wetland features, it is noted as man-made and likely
constructed sometime after 1952. For the Commission, with the presence of hydrology, soils and
vegetation typical of a wetland and a delineation recognized by the state, the pond can rightly be
considered along with the wetland as a natural feature of the site. The Commission fmds that the Water
Resources Ordinance provides for limited "building, paving and grading activities" in AMC
18.3.11.060.A.3.c which allows that the permanent alteration of Water Resource Protection Zones by
grading or by the placement of structures, fill or impervious surfaces may be authorized for the installation
of public and private storm water treatment facilities such as detention ponds or sediment traps, vegetated
swales, and constructed wetlands. The Commission further fmds that the pond's removal in conjunction
with enhancing the existing wetland, re-establishing a drainage swale with new storm water detention area
nearer to Tolman Creek Road and installing a storm water control structure to meter flows leaving the
property is in keeping with the Performance Standards Options Chapter and permissible as a limited
activity under the Water Resource Protection Zones Chapter, particularly when considered in combination
with the applicants' efforts to preserve the site's trees by limiting the number of lots proposed and carefully
placing the building envelopes.
The Commission finds that the proposed development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed.
The application materials provided note that potential future development of areas to the north will not be
impacted, while properties to the south and west are already largely developed and development to the east
would be limited by the floodplain.
The Planning Commission further finds that Performance Standards subdivisions with a density of ten units
or greater are required to provide a minimum of five percent of the total project area in open space. As the
applicants have proposed to develop only three lots, no common open space area is required and none has
been identified as part of the current proposal.
The Commission finds that the three proposed lots are to be served by the existing driveway. Driveways
greater than 50 feet in length are considered flag drives and must comply with the development standards
thereof, as described in AMC 18.5.3.060. Drives serving two or more lots must provide a 15-foot paved
driving surface within a 20-foot clear width. Three parking spaces will be provided on each of the lots,
and in addition parking bays to serve as visitor parking will be provided off of the driveway. The
application indicates that the existing driveway will be widened to meet these standards prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a home on either new lot, and a condition to this effect has been
attached below.
The Performance Standards chapter requires that on lots which are to contain detached single-family
dwellings, building envelopes be identified which show the area and maximum height of improvements,
including solar access. The Commission finds that in the current application, the applicants have identified
PA #2016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 6
i
both building envelopes and shown that each will accommodate a 21-foot high structure while complying
with Solar Access "Standard A." Conceptual home elevations have also been provided.
The Commission fords that under the Performance Standards Options, the property's single-family residential
(R-1-7.5) zoning designation allows for a density of 3.6 units per acre. The site's 1.59 acres yield a base
density of 5.72 units. The proposed density of three units is well below the density allowed, but the
application notes that efforts have been made in planning the project to preserve and enhance the small
wetland, protect the site's large mature trees, protect the existing home and its associated accessory structures,
and to allow for lot areas similar to those found in the nearby neighborhoods along Tolman Creek Road. In
addition, the application notes that if more than three lots were proposed, a new public street would be
required and they felt that a new public street would change the neighborhood dramatically with the associated
impacts to the site's trees, significant alterations to topography, greater disturbance within the floodplain and
generally greater impacts to the character of the neighborhood.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that Tolman Creek Road is classified as an Avenue or Major
Collector in the vicinity of the subject property, and standard street improvements along the frontage of
the parcel would include curb, gutter, paving, parking, storm drains, park row planting strips, sidewalks,
and bike lanes. The application materials provided note that Tolman Creek Road has significant grade
changes along both sides of the right-of-way, with slopes of 40-50 percent as the property transitions to
the roadside drainage ditch along the full street frontage, and falls within the FEMA floodplain. They
note that while it is the property owner's desire to eventually see Tolman Creek Road improved to city
standards since it provides a direct connection to essential city services and facilities, the existing
conditions pose a difficulty which would be better addressed when the entire corridor can be evaluated
comprehensively to create a cohesive, functional street design. They suggest that given these conditions,
the street corridor needs to be comprehensively designed, constructed and financed through either a Local
Improvement District (LID) or Capital Improvement Project funding rather than being completed on a
piecemeal basis as individual properties develop.
The Planning Commission finds that given the complexity of the improvement required and the need for
any improvements to be completed within the context of a larger neighborhood design process, the
presence of the flood plain, and the fact that this street section is within Jackson County jurisdiction, the
most prudent option with regard to Tolman Creek Road improvements is for the applicants to sign in favor
of the future improvements to Tolman Creek Road, and agree to pay the proportional cost of the necessary
improvements and not to remonstrate against the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID). The
applicants have requested an Exception and proposed to sign in favor of an LID and a condition to this
effect is included below.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the Hamilton Creek floodplain corridor extends westward
from the waterway on the east side of Tolman Creek Road and includes an approximately ten-foot wide
portion of the subject property's frontage. Because the proposal involves driveway improvements and
PA 92016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 7
i
t
i
utility installation in the floodplain, a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the
Development of Floodplain Corridor Lands is required.
The Planning Commission further finds that the applicants have taken all reasonable steps to minimize
the potential impacts to adjacent properties. The application explains that Hamilton Creek is across
Tolman Creek Road and below the street grade, and that the area of floodplain across the property's
frontage is within the roadside ditch which has a depression putting the floodplain below the surface of
the road on both sides of Tolman Creek Road. The applicants emphasize that they have hired a
professional Engineer, a Landscape Architect, a Surveyor and an Ecologist/Wetland Specialist to address
any potential impacts associated with the subdivision. They emphasize that the widening of the existing
driveway by two to five feet and the installation of underground utilities will not require any fill and will
not have any adverse impacts; that the use of the single, existing shared driveway for access, in lieu of
installing a new driveway and culvert, will minimize the impacts to the floodplain; that the installation of
new storm water detention facilities will slow the rate of infiltration of stormwater into the storm drain
system and Hamilton Creels to reduce any potential hazards; and that silt fencing will be installed to
prevent any erosion during construction. They further explain that the floodplain falls entirely within the
required front yard setback area for Lot #1 and that the building envelope proposed for Lot #1 will
accommodate a new home and garage entirely outside of any floodplain lands.
The Planning Commission finds that the impacts to floodplain lands are minimal and are limited to
widening of the driveway and utility installation in an area where street and driveway improvements are
already in place and long-established. The floodplain has already been dramatically altered by existing
Tolman Creek Road street improvement and associated utility installations. The application materials
provided note that the applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts on the
environment by hiring professional civil engineers, landscape architects, surveyors, ecologists, wetland
specialists and land use planners to comprehensively plan the proposal to mitigate adverse impacts.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes the removal of the man-made pond
adjacent to the small wetland on the property. The application explains that the request is to remove the
pond and restore the wetland's drainage swale through a culvert under the driveway access to Lot #1 and
to allow the drainage to continue across the property into a constructed storm water detention area and
then out to the 18-inch line that is perpendicular to Tolman Creek Road, near the driveway. In order to
remove the pond and restore the drainage swale, approximately 545 square feet of the wetlands' buffer
area will be disturbed. The application further notes that the removal of the man-made pond will enable
the construction of the private storm water treatment facility which will include a vegetated
swale/detention pond, and that the ordinance provides for the installation of private storm water treatment
facilities such as "detention ponds or sediment traps, vegetated swales, and constructed wetlands" under
the Limited Activities and Uses within Water Resource Protection Zones provisions of AMC
PA 42016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 8
4
I
18.3.11.060.A.3.c. They add that the portion of the buffer area disturbed with removal of the pond will
be replanted with native species and maintained in accordance with AMC 18.3.11.030.
The Planning Commission finds that the application materials detail that the proposed pond's removal is
occurring as far from the wetland as possible and will disturb as little of the surface area of the wetland as
is practicable. The applicants suggest that the pond's removal should be seen as an enhancement to the
wetland as more natural drainage will be restored and the area where the pond is will be replaced with
native vegetation. They emphasize that the pond removal will restore the function of the wetland and will
remove surface water that is conducive to mosquito breeding and replace it with native wetland vegetation.
No impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation or other impacts to the wetland itself are proposed. A
dead Red Maple (Tree #35) is proposed for removal from the wetland to eliminate the possibility of future
trunk failure and alleviate any hazard to persons or property. Proposed utilities are as far as practicable
from the wetland, and the storm drainage facilities are to be built outside of the delineated wetland.
The Commission further finds that the applicants explain that the restoration of the disturbed buffer zone
will be accomplished in a manner consistent with the standards in AMC 18.3.11.110 "Mitigation
Requirements," but that no management plan is proposed for the long-term conservation, management
and maintenance of the WRPZ as the wetland is proposed to be retained on a residentially-zoned lot
occupied only by a single-family dwelling and associated accessory structures. A conservation easement
will be provided to ensure the continued protection of the wetland and buffer area. The application
explains that the wetland itself is only 718 square feet and that the buffer will encompass 4,845 square
feet and will be protected in perpetuity with the easement, but that the applicants would prefer to avoid
creating a complicated homeowners association that would be needed to create and manage common space
for such a small subdivision.
A condition has been attached below to require that a revised Mitigation Plan addressing the Vegetation
Preservation and Construction Staging requirements in AMC 18.3.11.110 A and the Restoration and
Enhancement Requirements in AMC 18.3.11.110.13 be provided for the review and approval of the Staff
Advisor prior to the commencement of any pond removal work. The Commission further finds that the
restoration and enhancement must address the disturbed wetland buffer at the 1.5:1 ratio required, so the
disturbance of 545 square feet of the buffer area will require the restoration and enhancement of 818
square feet.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that a tree inventory and tree preservation plan have been
provided identifying 55 trees on or adjacent to the subject property. The application explains that the
largest concentrations of trees are west of the existing residence and between the driveway and the north
property line. The trees are described as a mix of deciduous and coniferous, and of the 55 trees on the
property five are proposed for removal with the proposed subdivision. These include:
® Tree #12: A nine-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Liquidambar tree in the widened parking
area near the north property line. During the hearing, the applicants indicated that this tree had
been proposed for removal to provide overflow parking, and that after site observation it would be
retained.
PA 42016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 9
® Tree #38: A 16-inch d.b.h. Silver Maple tree in line with the proposed driveway to serve Lot #1.
® Tree #43: A 16-inch d.b.h. White Oak tree.
I
® Tree #46: A nine-inch d.b.h. Ash tree.
® Tree #35: A dead Red Maple within the wetland water resource protection zone. (Dead trees are
exempt from Tree Removal Permit requirements per AMC 18.5.7.020. C. 7)
The Planning Commission finds that, as noted in AMC 18.5.7.020.B.3, the removal of significant trees
(i. e. those trees greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height) on vacant R-1 zoned lands requires a
Tree Removal Permit. As none of the trees proposed to be removed here are considered by definition to
be significant, the tree removals proposed are not subject to Tree Removal Permit review, although the
applicants have provided written findings addressing the Tree Removal approval criteria and have
proposed to mitigate the four living trees being removed by planting four new trees. The Planning
Commission further finds that site trees remain a consideration both in terms of the preservation of
significant natural features required in the Performance Standards Options chapter and for any impacts
removals might have within Water Resource Protection Zones or Floodplain Corridor Lands, and these
are further discussed in the applicable sections above.
In reviewing the proposal with regard to tree protection and removal, the Tree Commission recommended
that the application be approved with the addition of two requirements: 1) that tree protection fencing be
provided to protect Tree #15 as well; and 2) that Trees #39 and #40 be skirted (i.e. limbed-up) to a height
of at least 13 feet above the ground. A condition of approval incorporating these recommendations has
been included below.
2.8 The Planning Commission finds that subject parcel is significantly oversized within the R-1-7.5
zoning district and has the potential under current zoning to accommodate additional density, with a base
density of 5.72 units. The Commission further fmds that the proposal currently under consideration seems
to be a fair compromise between the desire for more efficient land use to accommodate additional density
anticipated in the city's long term growth plans and considerations of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter which call for balancing the impacts of development with the preservation and protection of
natural features and neighborhood character. The applicants' lot lay-out and envelope placement seem
thoughtfully arranged to minimize impacts to the established trees on the property while remaining in
keeping with the general development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, and the yard areas which
have been proposed provide substantially more space to buffer the development from adjacent properties
than is required under the code. While the proposal involves the removal of a man-made pond from the
property, a small adjacent wetland is to be enhanced, and the pond is to be replaced with a drainage swale
and storm water detention area with control structure established to address drainage issues on the
property. When viewed in conjunction with the tree preservation proposed, the Commission finds that
the proposal represents an appropriate use of the Performance Standards Options chapter.
PA #2016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 10
i
4
i
s
SECTION 3. DECISION
r
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal for Outline and Final Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC
18.3.9) for a three-lot subdivision, a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for
Floodplain Development, a Limited Use Permit and an Exception to Street Standards for the property
located at 1365 Tolman Creek Road is supported by evidence contained within the whole record.
I
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2016-01029. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2016-01029 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
2) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their July 7, 2016 meeting that
tree protection fencing be provided to protect Tree #15; and 2) that Trees #39 and #40 be skirted
(i.e. limbed-up) to a height of at least 13 feet above the ground, shall be conditions of approval
where consistent with applicable criteria and standards and with final approval of the Staff
Advisor.
3) That prior to the issuance of an excavation permit or the commencement of infrastructure
installation:
a) Final civil engineering plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage,
electric and driveway improvements shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Planning, Building, Electric, and Public Works/Engineering Departments. The utility plan
shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the
development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sewer
mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins, and
locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations,
transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers
and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access
needs of the Electric Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be
delineated on the civil plans.
b) That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated
with the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public
Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that
post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peals flow for
the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the
final design.
C) That a Verification Permit in accordance shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland
Planning Division prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of an
excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the five trees to be
removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for trees to be preserved. The tree
protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree
PA #2016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 11
C
Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be
chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with the
requirements of the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance (AMC 18.4.5).
d) Any work within the Tolman Creels Road right-of-way, including but not limited to
driveway widening or utility installation, shall be subject to review and approval by
Jackson County and the City of Ashland, with permits to be issued by Jackson County and
evidence of permit approval and issuance provided to the City of Ashland.
e) That a Mitigation Plan addressing the Vegetation Preservation and Construction Staging
standards in AMC 18.3.11.110 A and the Restoration and Enhancement Requirements in
AMC 18.3.11.1103 shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor
prior to the commencement of any pond removal work, Restoration and enhancement shall
address the disturbed wetland buffer at the 1.5:1 ratio required (i.e. disturbance of 545
square feet of the buffer area requires restoration and enhancement of 818 square feet).
f) The applicant shall obtain required federal and state permits to fill the pond and provide
evidence of these approvals to the City of Ashland.
4) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat:
a) That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the City of
Ashland within 18 months of this approval.
b) That the subdivision name shall be approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division.
C) All easements for public and private utilities, shared parking, drainage, conservation,
irrigation, fire apparatus access, and the reciprocal access easements for shared use of the
existing driveway shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland
Engineering Division.
d) The applicant shall provide a conservation easement for the wetland on Lot #2 and its
protection zone in favor of the City, Lots #1 and #3 on the final survey plat. The
conservation easement shall describe the long-term obligations for maintenance of the
wetland and buffer, and shall note that any fencing installed around the wetland or its buffer
shall be limited to no more than four feet in height so that views of the wetland by all
residents of the development are not obscured.
C) Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utility installations
shall be completed according to approved plans prior to signature of the final survey plat.
f) Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots. The electric service plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and
Engineering Divisions prior to installation.
g) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the
street shall be installed to serve all three lots, inspected and approved.
h) The applicants shall sign an agreement to participate proportionally in the future cost of
full street improvements for Tolman Creek Road, including but not limited to park row
planting strips, sidewalks, streetlights, curbs, gutters, paving with bike lanes, and storm
drains, to be recorded on the deeds of the newly created lots concurrently with the final
plat., and shall agree not to remonstrate against the formation of a Local Improvement
District.
PA #2016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 12
I
5) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) Individual lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted
with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the 45 percent lot coverage
allowed in the underlying zoning districts. Building footprints, walkways, driveways,
parking areas, and any impervious surfaces shall be counted for the purpose of lot coverage
calculations,
b) That all proposed lots shall be subject to Solar Access Standard A. Solar setback
calculations shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with
the applicable standards, and shall include identification of the required solar setbacks with
supporting formula calculations and elevation or cross-section drawings clearly labeling
the height of the solar producing point(s) from the identified natural grade.
C) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to fire hydrant distance; fire
flow; fire apparatus access, approach, turn-around, and work area; firefighter access
pathway; approved addressing; and limits on fencing and gates which would impair access
shall be satisfactorily addressed in the building permit plan submittals and complied with
prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever is
applicable. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction
documents for public facilities.
d) Building permit submittals for lots to be served via a flag drive shall be required to provide
three off-street parking spaces. Required parking shall be identified on the site plan. f
Parking spaces on flag drives shall be placed to allow vehicles to turn and exit to the street
in a forward manner.
6) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) All exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not illuminate adjacent
proprieties.
b) The private driveway shall be subject to all development requirements for flag drives
including that it shall be constructed to flag drive standards which call for a 15-foot paved
drive centered in a 20-foot clear width where serving two lots and a 12-foot paved drive
centered in a 15-foot clear width be maintained where serving one lot. That the driveway
shall be widened and paved to comply with these standards prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for a home on either new lot.
August 9 2016
Date
Planning Commission Approval
k
PA #2016-01029
August 9, 2016
Page 13
I
I
E
i
I
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 103 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 100 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 308
ASHMEAD NANCY BROMBACHER ZACHARY TRUSTEE BUFFINGTON KATHLEEN
1378 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1370 TOLMAN CREEK RD 258 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 401 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 310 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 317
EUBANKS DENNIS E TRUSTEE ET AL FREY JONATHAN R/REBECCA I GREEN DOUGLAS P/KAREN K
2383 BLUE SKY IN 1375 APPLE WAY 1403 APPLE WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 502 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 101 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 309
GRISSO ROBERT P ET AL HANSEN RICHARD CARL HOVENKAMP BEVERLY
685 CABOT WAY 1390 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1385 APPLE WAY
NAPA, CA 94559 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 320 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 321 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 316
LANGE JONATHAN I ET AL LEFEVER KRISTINA J TRUSTEE ET AL LOVELESS PHILLIP G TRUSTEE ET AL
2345 BLUE SKY IN 2359 BLUE SKY IN 157 MORNINGLIGHT DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 319 PA-2016-01029 39IE23BA 200 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 501
MALIBAR GROUP LLC RETIREMENT MCDONALD MARINA A MCLELLAN ROBERT ET AL
2332 BLUE SKY LN PO BOX 1319 2358 BLUE SKY LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 402 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 500 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 104
MINSON CAROLYN S PEREIRA GABRIEL R MD TRUSTEE ET PUDERBAUGH THOMAS R TRUSTEE
2391 BLUE SKY IN 1407 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1400 TOLMAN CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 305 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 201 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 202
RAY WENDY ET AL REZEK RONALD ROBERTS HILLERY B/ANTOINETTE M
414 WALNUT ST 709 WASHINGTON ST 1355 TOLMAN CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 306 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 314 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 307
SPALDING SHARON LADELL STEPHENS JAMES N/TERRI L TALBOTT PAMELA TRUSTEE ET AL
1360 APPLE WAY 1015 TERRA AVE 17614 TUNNEL HILL RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 LAKEVIEW, OR 97630
PA-2016-01029 PA-2016-01029 PA-2016-01029
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT LAURIE THORNTON CLASON COMPANY LLC
1424 S IVY STREET 700 MISTLETOE RD 220 DEAD INDIAN MEM ROAD
MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 PA-2016-01029
CEC ENGINEERING POLARIS LAND SURVEYING
TONY BAKKE 131 CLEAR CREEK DRIVE
P.O. BOX 1724 ASHLAND, OR 97520
MEDFORD, OR 97501
t
t
Commissioners Thompson/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2016.00617. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed 6-0.
B. Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-00847, 252 B Street.
No ex parte contact was reported.
Commissioners Brown/Miller m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2016-00847. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed 6.0.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION PA-2016.01029
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1365 Tolman Creek Road
OWNERIAPPLICANT: Ronald Rezek/Clason Company LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options
Chapter (AMC 18.3.9) for a three-lot subdivision for the property located at 1365 Tolman Creek Road.
Also included are requests for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Floodplain
Development to allow widening of the existing driveway entrance by two to five feet and the installation
of utilities including stormwater drainage facilities within the floodplain; a Limited Use Permit to allow
grading for utility installation and restoration of the buffer area of a small wetland on the property; and
an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street improvements along the property's
Tolman Creek Road street frontage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 23BA; TAX LOT 201.
Commissioner Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Brown, Norton, Pearce, Dawkins, and Miller declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the project details and approval criteria. He reviewed the applications
four component requests and commented on why using the performance standards options is appropriate and results
in a better project. Mr. Severson stated the minimum number of homes that can be placed on the site is three, which
is what the applicant's propose; although they could have requested as many as 5. He explained all three homes will
take access from the existing driveway, which will be improved to the city's flagdrive standards. He stated the man-
made pond on the site will be removed, but the wetland area will be preserved and enhanced. Of the 55 trees on the
property five will be removed, however the removals are not subject to a tree removal permit and the applicants will
mitigate those removals with new plantings. Mr. Severson noted the Tree Commission reviewed the application and
issued two recommended conditions: 1) that tree protection fencing be provided for tree #15, and 2) that trees #39
and #40 be skirted (or limbed-up) to a height of 13 ft. from the base of the tree. Mr. Severson said the final element of
the proposal is the exception to the street standards. He explained instead of piecemeal sidewalk improvements that
would be difficult to transition at either end, it is appropriate and would result in a better pedestrian facility to grant the
exception and require the applicants to sign in favor of a future local improvement district.
Applicant's Presentation
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning Development Services and John Clason/Clason Company LLC. Ms. Gunter
stated the site is accessed via a meandering drive that is currently 12 ft. wide and will be widened to meet the
flagdrive standards. She stated there is a concrete pipe that feeds the wetland and pond, and the pond is estimated
to have been built between 1950-1980. Ms. Gunter stated a wetland delineation was performed and the removal of
the pond will require a fill removal permit and a limited activity use permit, and noted the pond is not a wetland
protected by local land use law. She commented on the Migratory Bird Act, which prohibits vegetation removal
between May 1 and July 31, and clarified they will not be doing any work during this time and will still be working
through the land use process. Ms. Gunter explained the property has a potential density of 5.7 units and they initially
Ashland Planning Commission
July 12, 2016
Page 2 of 4
considered building 4, but this would have required the removal of the tree grove and a new road installation which
would have changed the character of the neighborhood. She stated the proposal complies with the performance
standards options, is below density, meets the parking standards, and they are requesting the commission's
approval.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner Pearce stated the pond seems to meet the city's criteria for a wetland and asked the applicant to
respond to this. Ms. Gunter stated the pond has those characteristics because of the settlement of the water and
stated according to the wetland biologist the wetland is a true wetland, but the pond only has those characteristics
because it is fed by the wetland. She clarified there is no standing water in the wetland and it is not a creek. She
added during high water events the soil will get sloppy and wet, but there will not be water flowing across the
property.
Public Testimony
Zach Brombacher/1370 Tolman Creek/Stated he lives across the street from the property and voiced his opposition
to the city's position on infill. Mr. Brombacher stated the roads are inadequate and could pose an issue during an
emergency and voiced his concerns with the city's water resources protection ordinance. He questioned how the city
could allow the applicant to remove the pond when he is prohibited from doing work on his property because of the
limitations in the ordinance. He stated the pond does overflow and he will be impacted. He requested the city not
allow the applicant to direct water onto his property and stated the city needs to figure out a way to keep it from
flooding.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Amy Gunter/Stated she sympathizes with Mr. Brombacher but the proposal complies with the city's stormwater
master plan and limits post develop flows to predevelopment levels. She added their engineer has designed their
system accordingly and has been working with the city's Public Works Department to ensure it meets the standards.
Public Testimony
Peck Yee/Stated there are two large trees on the site (#22 and #48) that appear to be encroached on by the
proposed building envelopes. She requested the trees have adequate protection during construction.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Amy Gunter/Stated unlike the depiction on the plan submittal, the tree canopies are not a perfect circle. She stated
the building footprint encroaches a minimal amount into the dripline however the trees will not be harmed. She added
each type of tree has a different tolerance to construction and they are fine with having a certified arborist on site
during excavation.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked what would trigger improvements to Tolman Creek for storm drainage and sidewalks. Mr. Molnar
explained unless it is a public safety issue, sidewalk improvements would typically be triggered by the neighborhood
coming forward and requesting enhancements. In terms of storm drainage, the city evaluates plans to ensure the
system mimics predevelopment levels and can withstand a 25 year storm event.
Commissioner Pearce closed the hearing and the record at 8:10 p.m.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve PA-2016.01029. DISCUSSION: Dawkins stated he sympathizes
with Mr. Brombacher but when looking at the development potential for the property the applicants are doing the
minimum possible. He stated the removal of the pond will help the hydrology for the area and stated this is a straight
forward proposal that meets the criteria. Brown expressed support for the applicant's proposal and stated it maintains
the residential country feel. He stated it is a good solution and keeps with the city's ordinances and goals. Thompson
Ashland Planning Commission
July 12, 2016
Page 3 of 4
F
C
4
stated she is prepared to support the motion and stated she has trust that the professionals will design the swale and
stormwater detention facility appropriately. Miller voiced support for the design and that the applicants are not
proposing maximum density, but stated she is very concerned about the drainage issues. She stated she will vote in
favor of the motion but would like this to be monitored. Pearce disagreed that the pond is not a wetland but
acknowledged that its removal is permissible. He agreed that stormwater is a concern, but stated the newly
constructed system will work better than what is there now. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Thompson, Norton,
Miller, Dawkins, Brown, and Pearce, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
E
LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION PL-2016-00682
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: A legislative amendment is proposed to amend the City of Ashland Comprehensive
Plan's Introduction and Definitions Chapter (Chapter II), and Citizen Involvement Element Chapter
(Chapter III), to designate the Planning Commission as the City's Committee for Citizen Involvement, and
to replace references to the Citizen's Planning Advisory Committee with references to the Committee for
Citizen Involvement.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman noted the commission has previously reviewed this amendment and tonight is for
the public to provide input and the commission to make a recommendation to the City Council. He explained the
ordinance amends the comprehensive plan to reflect how the city conducts public involvement and addresses the
recent ordinance amendments that were approved by the City Council that designate the Planning Commission as
the committee for citizen involvement. Mr. Goldman stated the change is consistent with the statewide planning goals
and staff is recommending the commission forward a recommendation of approval.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Miller commented that the CPAC was broader based than the Planning Commission and if they are
now acting in this role, questioned how to involve citizens and the other commissions early on and ensure their
voices are heard. Mr. Goldman stated at onset of any proposal, prior to initiating any ordinance amendment, staff will
outline a public involvement plan and bring that forward for review and approval before the process begins. He noted
this is the current process and the ordinance amendment will codify current practices. Mr. Molnar noted the Mayor's
encouragement of ad hoc committees to greater support the citizen involvement process and stated the city will
continue to seek out groups and people that should be engaged in decisions. Commissioner Norton stated it is
appropriate for a city of Ashland's size to have the Planning Commission take on this role and stated if they need
assistance they have the ability to ask for it. Pearce agreed; he approved of how the ordinance is written and stated
their duty is to assist the City Council with the program, not do it all alone.
Commissioners Brown/Thompson m/s to recommend approval to the City Council of an ordinance amending
comprehensive plan as presented. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6.0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
July 12, 2016
Page 4 of 4
i
I
E
I
d
`l
I
E
v
V7
c
r
1
I
i c
J s t d ~a3.~
oy., v.,~ s ,g .y... `{'l~'» ~ "tom .-.;6,
~ ~ ~ X31:3 r~J~ ~~•r
3y j(~r~ h
U.j
a ~ I ~ R I I
u
1 14 "
C~ - 4 1 ~a u
c
~ c
~ 2€
(s 3
} •y k fi
09
l
C k 4
S 12~~ y
a r
S. ~a; FS, ~ p ht~.• ~ fir- ,1
f
RIM
7 ; :
r`j t E 1. c>„<~ t n fi.:• 1 - r tr•~ ~ti. :~`,p : i.~'r
r 1 ~ t ~ lY . y ~
#~~'.~w"y?:Q%r• ~''~~ya '~~~~4~~~'~'r~y ~y~y j,~- ~'v.3°~~~~k"^rr`r,~c~~ l' ~S
. tel.-y a'. . S ,..aA*-• ~
Al-
QyA
v
a V A A aA~a 1 i`~ f i ! I
a ' • ~ ~ L 1 \ , • ~f~~,~~5,~ , 6 0. ~ 0 1 l V tt l I
_ r
~ fir,. v ! v ~ ~ v vv Iv
-
t
r -
I
rka>~~~; ~ ..c.m i r • 1 ~ tl~v e a 1 !
Itl
rr
All
LLJ
,10.73 < ~ ~;r y_: ! 1 ! ~ I /t I k
fiT 1
T1µri E~Six s il
`~;~;~Y,~~'1,~r.~Y)• '~~4,ys ~ R ~ n ~ ~'~~YF~tii~•}:,•~~,. tc~~~$ri. i.
\ x5`~ ?ffl~';eke o I-IX 1 i 3 t/
ZIA
ti! Y / Y.h
11 4 ~ C w!
illall~a~ a1L
~ f
f
I
~,~r3 k
~ i;a tal @~a. t'TK~Y I
~3 ~fx . '""`a d' , - ~ a_ E- ~ ~''r ~.p't:~'~.. olw Sr',~"aa''y~ .in a~ , ..7 1 r-_.
"5 ~ti.f aw''~b~ ~,,,~a~'~'~~~' ~v~s , :~ic{'.,`M,~.Q 1~'r tj.~ Ni 't.+ ~a:i!'~ \ 'r/
? s; wi fa
t i F~~ ~ r~. f r p s ♦ S•"x". fr ' ~ x S~~.
t'"~ +R'\f'>. ~ , ~ ~ z~~/~i' r a : r r~,<. ,F i 't. - ft/, s!-S% ` , v , r . ~ t .
3';•~'F% `•'fii'i~";, l
0"__ r ,aid ~i-y':=~ ~s~-
41 •r J_I...} I rr r f :rtT!
.1 1
~ vSr \ - ~l1 1 1 /rr rrr' rri k
c~ ~ \ d i I\ \ It 1 \ t l J I
1 I
::5 ~ 1 II
CL L7
O
c
co a-+
0 ®
E > ®
® O -0
> Sm ~ L-
0 ed cd
d-J
a®' > O
v L- U
(d O 41
O N .r O in
U cn td
O
® O Cd
-C -C ~ --'te ed
4-J CL 4
0 V)
O vz' aJ V
cd C O (3) >
O 4-) 0
0- IV)
•
1 cd
> C: cd
Ln i~ ® I® a)
0 0
7
I
t
O %D
o O 'N
-C ® ct O
j t2 >
a) O O a)
E co
®
® a) o J
0
ct E:3 3 W a, M
-a O
a) 0 r_ 4J
u a)
Cd> -C m o w O E
O 4 C o
w N
3 J
cd m
® (n 4 ® -a O O
I+ C O v,
L. =3 ® u- E L- 4,
m a) N ~ i ® cd c: 0 -C
&
QJ m C: -C
A
0
p ® vi
> 4-J
L) E 4-) a)
a CL < a 41 ~ i
U
~ M o
0 (n a)
U- ~
® -0 ct O ~ V) t~
.0
0 boo ® = mu C:
E 1®
V) a) V, O
a) ® a) 4 a)
4-J 4-J
w u
. ® ® ® L
® ® U a
CL a) U
a- .!n
i
® o L- u -d
~ ~ 1 ~
4.3 M
Q
~ C
~ °0 ~ by N
0 i iL rd 0 '0
I
- I
r ~F
~i ~ q~ ~ t I r} x 1 I
5~~ r
1 I
Ea~ t it I
i 3rF
I
17 M,
ONO
17 n~~ 1
£ r+~ I I
l. li ~ i y ? i 'I
{ I.I III i ~~•ir~ 7N
a
r r:
Ir J
F
1 2; .h. F ~ ! I ~ fh i
_fd r 1 'I 1
I i1
v
k:.
~ I
a 3 y~ kj.
F
o 3 X
10
i
A-V
y a
i1➢ ~ ~ L
#B ,
I
I
l
.
r , ~ ~ 'ice
Mtn
I
AN,
Re: Planning Report re: 1365 Tolman Creek Roa' ')erek Severson https:Houtlook.off"ice- --,com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&Ite...
4
Re: Planning Report re: 1365 Tolman Creek Road
Derek Severson
Mon 7/11/201611:02 AM
To:Carolyn Minson <csminson@mac.com>;
ccDenny & Anne Eubanks <euban1246@gmaiLcom>; Jon Lange <Iange@sou.edu>; maherdj@bellsouth.net <maherdj@bellsouth.net>; Kristina Lefever
<kristinalefev@gmail.com>; Peck Yee Tan <peckyeetan@icIoud.com>; Christopher Minson <christopherminson@icloud.com>; Derek Severson
<derek.severson @ ash land.ocus>;
Ms. Minson & All,
The pond is identified only as a pond in the currently adopted city maps, and we don't identify the wetland in the current maps. As part of the
applicants' submittals, they included a wetland delineation that has now been recognized by the state which indicates that both the small
wetland and the pond are jurisdictional (i.e. subject to regulations at the state and federal level). I've included a recommended condition
(#3f) that the applicants provide evidence that they've obtained required federal and state permits prior to the work involving the pond or the
wetland buffer area.
On the city side, we have specific regulations for Water Resources Protection Zones, including wetlands and streams and buffer areas adjacent
to them, and then more generally requirements to protect and preserve significant natural features as part of our Performance Standards
Options subdivision chapter. As submitted, the application asserts that the pond, while having wetland characteristics, is man-made rather than
a natural feature, and is addressing the proposed changes to the pond/wetland buffer area as allowed as a "limited use or activity" through our
Water Resources regulations. j
This will be a good portion of the discussion at the Planning Commission hearing.
- Derek
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of Ashland, Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520
PH: (541) 552-2040 FAX: (541) 552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900
E-MAIL: derek.severson@ashland.or.us
i
This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to Oregon's public records laws for disclosure and retention.
If you've received this e-mail in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2040. Thank you.
i
r
I
From: Carolyn Vinson <csminson@mac.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 5:20:10 PM
To: Derek Severson
Cc: Denny & Anne Eubanks; Jon Lange; maherdj@bellsouth.net; Kristina Lefever; Peck Yee Tan; Christopher Minson t
Subject: Re: Planning Report re: 1365 Tolman Creek Road
Mr. Severson,
After talking with Vince Oredson of the Central Point Division of Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, it is my understanding that the most
important question regarding the wetlands and pond is whether this property is listed on Jackson County maps as a Jurisdictional Wetlands. I do
not have access to those maps, but I feel certain that your office does. If it is listed on either Jackson County maps or City of Ashland maps as a
Jurisdictional Wetlands, then it is likely under the jurisdiction of the Division of State Lands and Army Corp of Engineers, which would require
that applications be filed for permit to fill or alter the pond/wetlands area. It is also my understanding that if the property Is not on one of the
official maps as a Jurisdictional Wetlands, then only the City of Ashland regulations apply. I respectfu44y request that thL question of whether
the property has been designated as a Jurisdictional Wetlands by city, county or state he addressed as a part of the Planning Commissions
procedures as they consider approval of the proposed plans. I think that is what I understand from the last paragraph of your response. I am
requesting clarification of the regulations apply to this specific property regarding wetlands.
I am pleased to learn that city regulations do regulate the removal of invasive vegetation from regulated water resource areas and that it is not
allowed during the nesting period for birds. Thank you for your explanation of that code.
1 of 2 7/11/2016 11:04 AM
Re: Planning Report re: 1365 Tolman Creek Roar'' Derek Severson https://outlook.office-'''"~.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&Ite
I
Our neighborhood is small, but several of us have been very attentive to developing landscapes that support native birds, bees and butterflies,
4
and all of us are enjoying the results of that. Although they are not a part of our specific street, the large trees on the 1365 Tolman property are
essential to the wildlife that thrives in this area. As other neighbors have said, we are both very pleased and relieved that the large trees that
border our properties are going to remain in place.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Minson [f
On Jul 6, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Derek Severson <derekseverson(DE or., s> wrote:
Ms. Minson,
r
E
In terms of city regulations, our codes do regulate the removal of invasive vegetation from regulated water resource areas and require that
this occur before May 1st or after July 31st to avoid the disturbance of nesting birds. This regulation is found in our code in AMC
18.3.11.050.A.1.d. I think that broader habitat issues are likely a state and/or federal issue. I can include your e-mail in the record and
suggest that the Planning Commission consider making a condition of the approval that work be timed to be outside of the nesting period in
our regulations. (If they get approved, the decision would not be adopted until August so they would be outside of the nesting period.)
They will be subject to state and federal permitting for the work proposed, and I would assume that any applicable regulations will be
considered as part of that review.
- Derek
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of Ashland, Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520
PH: (541) 552-2040 FAX: (541) 552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900
E-MAIL: derek.seG nd.or.us
This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City cf Ashland, and is subject to Oregon's public records laws for disclosure and
I retention. If you've received this e-mail in error, please contact me at (542) 552-2040. Thank you.
s
I
From: Carolyn Minson <csrnlnsc _ r>
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:09 PM
To: Derek Severson
Subject: Planning Report re: 1365 Tolman Creek Road
I Mc Severson,
i
This e-mail is a follow-up to the phone message I just left you. My husband and I live on Blue Sky Lane in a house adjoining the above property. My son, Christopher
Min son, his wife, Peck Yee Tan, and I are co-owners of 2391 Blue Sky Lane. Asa fairly avid bird watcher I have observed the migratory birds that use the wetlands area and
pond on the property behind our house. All during nesting season, I heard Red-winged Blackbirds and saw them on the reeds in the wetlands area and around the pond. I
I am fully aware that there are regulations regarding destruction of migratory bird habitat nesting areas, even if the nests are on private structures such as buildings. We
have moved to Oregon within the last year, which means that I do not yet know and understand regulations regarding migratory birds here, but I actually think those
regulations may be federal rather than state. I have placed a call to a biologist with OR Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and am waiting for a return call.
f
Has the destruction of migratory bird nesting areas has been considered during the approval process for the 1365 Tolman Creek Road property, and if not, does that need
to be done before it is taken up by the Planning Commission?
i
Sincerely,
Carolyn Minson
2391 Blue Sky Lane
Ashland, OR
541-708-0649
501-984-1210
2 of 2 7/11/2016 11:04 AM
For Tree Commission - Derek Severson https://outlook.offic ° -5.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&...
f
i
i
For Tree Commission
i
i
Derek Severson
i
Thu 7/7/2016 4:36 PM
I
To:Cory Darrow <cory.darrow@ashland.orus>;
ccDerek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us>; Amy Gunter <amygunter.planning@gmail.com>; John Clason
c
<john@clasoncompany.com>;
i
i
I
Cory,
Neighbors were hoping we could provide the comments below to Tree Commission:
i
Hi, Derek,
t
Please enter this email into the public record, as this letter pertains to one of the agenda items for
tonight's Tree Commission meeting, July 7, 2016.
On the behalf of my neighbors in the Tolman Meadows neighborhood on Blue Sky Lane off of Tolman Creek, we would
like to submit a few comments about the proposed development at 1365 Tolman Creek Road, which will be happening
directly behind my house as well as a few of my neighbors.
There are four families living adjacent to the property to be developed, and we simply wanted to express our gratitude
and appreciation for the 50 plus trees on this property. These trees give us all much enjoyment, while also providing
critical habitat for the birds, pollinators, and other wildlife who are also part of our community. We were all very happy to
learn that all of the major trees will remain, with only a few minor or dead trees removed for the construction of the two
houses, and that four new trees will be planted to offset those.
So we just want to go on record to express our gratitude for these trees and the fact that they will be fully protected
during construction.
And, we know this question has already been posed to you, but we noticed on the plat that the protective fencing for at
least 2 of the trees is not running along the drip lines, as is stipulated. We would appreciate an explanation, or an
assurance that the trees will not be harmed by this setback of the fencing,
Finally, thank you for your work to keep Ashland, and her trees, healthy and beautiful.
Sincerely,
Kristina Lefever and Dave Maher
Carolyn and Walt MInson
1 of ? 7/12/2016 6:15 PM
For Tree Commission - Derek Severson https:Houtlook,offic --5.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&...
i
I
Denny and Anne Eubanks
Jon Lange and Marie Donovan
- Derek
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of Ashland, Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520
PH: (541) 552-2040 FAX: (541) 552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900
E-MAIL: derek.severson@ashland.orus
This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to Oregon's public
records laws for disclosure and retention. If you've received this e-mail in error, please contact me at (541)
552-2040. Thank you.
2 of 2 7/12/2016 6:15 PM
I
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
July 12, 2016
i
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01029
OWNER/APPLICANT: Ronald Rezek/Clason Company LLC
LOCATION: 1365 Tolman Creels Road
Map 39 lE 23 BA, Tax Lot 4201
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: July 1, 2016
120-DAY TIME LIMIT: October 29, 2016
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.2 Zoning Regulations
18.3.9 Performance Standards Options
18.3.10 Physical & Environmental Constraints
18.3.11 Water Resource Protection Zones
18.4.3 Parking, Access and Circulation
18.4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection
18.4.6 Public Facilities
18.4.8 Solar Access
18.5.3 Land Divisions
18.5.7 Partitions & Divisions
REQUEST: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval under the Performance Standards
Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9) for a three-lot subdivision for the property located at 1365
Tolman Creek Road. Also included are requests for a Physical and Environmental Constraints
Review Permit for Floodplain Development to allow widening of the existing driveway entrance
by two to five feet and the installation of utilities including stormwater drainage facilities within
the Hamilton Creek floodplain; a Limited Use Permit to allow grading for utility installation and
restoration of the buffer area of a small wetland on the property; and an Exception to Street
Standards to not install city standard street improvements along the property's Tolman Creek
Road street frontage.
1. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
In March of 1986, Planning Action #1986-017 was approved by the Planning
Commission to allow a two-lot partition. The 1.591 acre subject property was Parcel No.
2 of the partition, and the 2.402 acre parcel immediately to the north was Parcel No. 1.
There are no other planning actions of record for this site.
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 1 of 14
I
S. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The subject property, Tax Lot #201, is an irregularly shaped, 69,260 square foot parcel
located on the west side of Tolman Creels Road between Blue Sky Lane and Morada
Lane. The property is located within the R-1-7.5 zoning district, a single family
residential zone which requires a minimum lot size of at least 7,500 square feet.
Tax Lot #201 is 1.591 acres in area and contains a 3,468 square foot, two-story single
family residence with a 641 square foot attached garage; a 388 square foot detached
garage; a 288 square foot greenhouse, a 192 square foot lean-to shed, a pool house and a
swimming pool. The residence and other structures are at the rear of the property, near
the west property line. According to Jackson County Assessor's data, the residence was
constructed in 1987 and was significantly remodeled in 1996. The application notes that
all existing structures are intended to remain on the property with the proposal.
The property is accessed via a long, meandering private driveway that exits to Tolman
Creels Road approximately ten feet from the parcel's north property line. The driveway's
improved width varies, but the application notes that it is generally about 12 feet in width
as currently constructed. The application further explains that the driveway has an
existing grade of between eight and 14 percent, and as such complies with the grade
standards for a flag driveway.
The property is described as having a gentle slope from south to north, except for the
portion along the Tolman Creek frontage where the application notes a 40-50 percent
slope along the property line going into the roadside ditch.
A tree inventory and tree preservation plan has been provided identifying 55 trees on or
adjacent to the subject property. The application explains that the largest concentration
of trees is directly to the west of the existing residence and between the driveway and the
north property line. The trees are described as a mix of deciduous and coniferous. Of the
55 trees on the property, five trees are proposed for removal with the proposed
subdivision. These include:
• Tree #12: A nine-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Liquid Ambar tree in the
widened parking area near the north property line.
• Tree #38: A 16-inch d.b.h. Silver Maple tree in line with the proposed driveway
to serve Lot #1.
• Tree #43: A 16-inch d.b.h. White Oak tree.
• Tree #46: A nine-inch d.b.h. Ash tree.
• Tree #35: A dead Red Maple within the wetland water resource protection zone.
(Dead trees are exempt from Tree Removal Permit requirements per AMC
18.5.7.02 0. C. 7)
As noted in AMC 18.5.7, the removal of significant trees (i. e. those trees greater than 18-
inches in diameter at breast height) on vacant R-1 zoned lands requires a Tree Removal
Permit. As none of the trees proposed to be removed is considered by definition to be
significant, the tree removals proposed are not subject to a Tree Removal Permit although
the applicants have provided written findings addressing the Tree Removal approval
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 2 of 14
I
criteria and have proposed to mitigate the tree removals with the planting of four new
trees.
In addition to the trees identified in the inventory provided, a small wetland and a man-
made pond are located on the subject property. The application explains that the man-
made 2,147 square foot pond is roughly half-way between the existing residence and the
front property line. While the pond has wetland features (i.e. hydrology, soils and
vegetation) it is noted as being a manmade feature of the site. A letter from Martin R.
Schott, Ph. D., of Schott & Associates, Ecologists and Wetlands Specialists provided as
Attachment 4A of the application notes that the pond and adjacent wetland are
functionally isolated and surrounded by development, and because of this isolation and
very small size, the wetland functions and values are very low. The letter suggests that
the pond is a potential hazard for small children, and poses an attractive nuisance, and the
application notes it further provides mosquito breeding habitat. The application explains
that the pond extends into the wetland's water resources protection zone by
approximately 545 square feet where the pond abuts the north end of the wetland.
The wetland is noted as being located at the terminus of an existing 12-inch storm drain
pipe that daylights onto the property. The wetland and pond have been evaluated by
Martin Schott of Schott & Associates, and a delineation has been prepared with
concurrence by the Division of State Lands and the wetland is now considered a
protected feature of the site under federal, state and local regulations. The delineation
notes that a culvert was placed as the property boundary where hydrology enters the site
and runs northwest down a broad Swale to the pond. The wetland is described as a
narrow swath with vegetation consisting of white clover and colonial bent grass, with a
willow tree and a European birch adjacent to the wetland. The delineation finds that soils
present meet the hydric soil indicator and that there are primary indicators of surface
water and saturation to a depth of four-inches. The hydrology is thought to be from
surface run-off from properties to the south entering the site through the culvert.
Local stream Hamilton Creek runs along the east side of Tolman Creels Road in the
property's vicinity, and its identified floodplain is in close proximity to the entrance to
the driveway serving the subject property. As a local stream, Hamilton Creek has a water
resource protection zone which extends 40 feet upland of its centerline. Given the
creek's proximity to Tolman Creek Road, this protection zone is located entirely within
the existing right-of-way improvements, however the creek has an associated floodplain
corridor which extends roughly ten feet onto the subject property's frontage and as such
any work constituting development within this portion of Hamilton Creek's floodplain is
subject to a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review (P&E) Permit. In this
instance, the widening of the driveway to meet flag drive requirements and the associated
utility installation occurring on the relatively small section of floodplain lands near the
existing driveway entrance are to be considered under a P&E permit.
Currently, access to the subject property is via an existing flag drive from Tolman Creek
Road. Tolman Creek Road is classified as an Avenue or Major Collector, and is under
Jackson County's jurisdiction in this vicinity. Tolman Creek Road is currently paved
with open drainage ditches on either side, but lacks curbs, gutters, on-street parking,
storm drains, and park-row planting strips with street trees, sidewalks, and bike lanes in
the vicinity.
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 3 of 14
i
I
H. Project Impact
The proposal involves a request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a three-lot/three
unit Performance Standards Subdivision. Also included are requests for a Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Floodplain Development to allow j
widening of the existing driveway entrance by two to five feet and the installation of
utilities including stormwater drainage facilities within the Foodplain; a Limited Use
Permit to allow grading for utility installation and restoration of the buffer area of the
small wetland on the property; and an Exception to Street Standards to not install city
standard street improvements along the property's Tolman Creek Road street frontage.
i
Because the proposal involves a request for Outline and Final Plan approval under the
Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9), AMC 18.3.9.040.A.1 requires
that the application be reviewed by the Planning Commission through a Type II public
hearing process.
A. Outline & Final Plan Approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter
i
In staff's assessment, the project meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City
of Ashland, or can be made to do so through the imposition of conditions, other than city
standard street improvements along the property frontage. An Exception to Street
Standards has been requested concurrently with the application. These items are further
discussed in the applicable sections below.
City facilities and services are currently available to serve the project from the adjacent
Tolman Creek Road right-of-way. The property is currently served by:
✓ An eight-inch sanitary sewer main located in the Tolman Creels Road
right-of-way.
✓ An eight-inch water main located in the Tolman Creek Road right-of-
way.
✓ Storm drainage is conveyed in open roadside ditches along both sides of
Tolman Creek Road in this vicinity.
✓ Electrical service to the existing house is undergrounded from a
transformer near the north property line, and electrical facilities are
available to be extended from Tolman Creels Road.
The application includes Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet C-1.0) and a
Conceptual Utility Plan (Sheet C-2.0) prepared by Construction Engineering Consultants.
The Utility Plan identifies the installation of new water meters near the mouth of the
driveway, with proposed water and sanitary sewer services routed under the driveway to
serve Lots #1 and #2. A new gas line would be extended from the gas main in Tolman
Creek Road to serve the new lots, and the existing electric and phone lines are to be
relocated to serve the existing home and new lots. Conditions of approval are
recommended below to require that these plans be revised to incorporate the requirements
of the land use approval, reviewed and approved by the Planning, Building, Public
Works, Engineering and Electric Departments prior to the issuance of a building or
excavation permit. A condition has also been recommended to require that the applicants
receive any required permits or approvals from Jackson County for any work to be
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 4 of 14
completed within Tolman Creels Road's right of way, which falls under County
jurisdiction, and provide evidence of such approval to the city.
The Drainage Plan identifies new sections of stormwater mains and a proposed detention
area with a berm, stormwater control structure and new 12-inch culvert to control the
release of stormwater from the site into the roadside ditch along Tolman Creek Road.
The City's Engineering Department will need to review and approve final, engineered
storm drainage plans and determine that the post-development peak flows are less than or
equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water'
quality mitigation is adequately addressed through the final design. A condition to this
effect is recommended below.
The Performance Standards Options require that natural features such as wetlands,
floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees and rock outcroppings throughout the subject
parcel be identified and incorporated in open space, common areas or other unbuildable
areas. In this instance, the applicants have enlisted the services of Schott & Associates,
Ecologists and Wetlands Specialists who have determined that there is a small wetland on
the property along with an adjacent man-made pond. The state has concurred with the
Schott & Associates' findings, and the applicants have proposed to preserve the wetland
while removing the pond as a man-made feature in conjunction with restoring the
drainage swale associated with the wetland. The portion of the required wetland buffer
disturbed with the removal of the pond is noted as approximately 545 square feet, and the
application explains that this area is to be restored, and the wetland and its buffer are to
be preserved and protected in a conservation easement as part of Lot #2. There has been
previous discussion at the Planning Commission as to whether natural features need to be
included as part of a discreet parcel reserved as common area to insure adequate
protection and to benefit the livability of all residents. Creation of a common area lot on
a subdivision of this scale poses complication for the applicants, and in staff's view, the
use of a conservation easement is an appropriate mechanism to provide the protection of
the wetland sought under the Performance Standards. A condition requiring that such an
easement in favor of the City, Lots #1 and #3 be provided on the final plat is j
recommended below, along with a condition to require that any fencing installed around
the wetland be limited to no more than four feet in height so that views of the wetland by
all residents of the development are not obscured.
In staff's view, the removal of the pond a key consideration of the application; while it
has wetland features, it is noted as man-made and was likely constructed sometime after
1952, and it's removal in conjunction with enhancing the existing wetland, re-
establishing a drainage swale with new storm water detention area nearer to Tolman
Creek Road and installing a storm water control structure to meter flows leaving the
property can be found to be in keeping with the Performance Standards Options Chapter,
particularly when considered in light of the applicants' efforts to preserve the site's trees
by limiting the number of lots proposed and carefully placing the building envelopes.
The proposed development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed. The
application materials provided note that potential future development of areas to the north
will not be impacted, while properties to the south and west are already largely developed
and development to the east would be limited by the floodplain.
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 5 of 14
i
Performance Standards subdivisions with a density of ten units or greater are required to
provide a minimum of five percent of the total project area in open space. As the
applicants have proposed to develop only three lots, no common open space area is
I
required and none has been identified as part of the current proposal.
The three proposed lots are to be served by the existing driveway; driveways greater than
50 feet in length are considered flag drives and must comply with the development
standards thereof, as described in AMC 18.5.3.060. Drives serving two or more lots must'
provide a 15-foot paved driving surface within a 20-foot clear width. Three parking
spaces will be provided on each of the lots, and in addition parking bays to serve as
visitor parking will be provided off of the driveway. The application indicates that the
existing driveway will be widened to meet the standard prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for a home on either new lot, and a condition to this effect has
been recommended below.
The Performance Standards chapter requires that on lots which are to contain detached
single-family dwellings, building envelopes be identified which show the area and
maximum height of improvements, including solar access. In the current application, the
applicants have identified both building envelopes and shown that each will
accommodate a 21-foot high structure while complying with Solar Access "Standard A."
Conceptual home elevations have also been provided.
Under the Performance Standards Options, the property's single-family residential (R-1-
7.5) zoning designation allows for a density of 3.6 units per acre. The site's 1.59 acres
yield a base density of 5.72 units. The proposed density of three units is well below the
density allowed, but the application notes that efforts have been made in planning the
project to preserve and enhance the small wetland, protect the site's large mature trees,
protect the existing home and its associated accessory structures, and to allow for lot
areas similar to those found in the nearby neighborhoods along Tolman Creek Road. In
addition, the application notes that if more than three lots were proposed, a new public
street would be required and they felt that a new public street would change the
neighborhood dramatically with the associated impacts to the site's trees, significant
alterations to topography, greater disturbance within the floodplain and generally greater
impacts to the character of the neighborhood.
B. Exception to Street Standards
Tolman Creels Road is classified as an Avenue or Major Collector in the vicinity of the
subject property, and standard street improvements along the frontage of the parcel would
include curb, gutter, paving, parking, storm drains, parkrow planting strips, sidewalks,
and bike lanes.
The application materials provided note that Tolman Creek Road has significant grade
changes along both sides of the right-of-way, with slopes of 40-50 percent as the property
transitions to the roadside drainage ditch along the full street frontage, and falls within
the FEMA floodplain. They note that while it is the property owner's desire to eventually
see Tolman Creek Road improved to city standards since it provides a direct connection
to essential city services and facilities, the existing conditions pose a difficulty which
would be better addressed when the entire corridor can be evaluated comprehensively to
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: RezekfClason Page 6 of 14
ti
create a cohesive, functional street design. They emphasize that given these conditions,
the street corridor needs to be comprehensively designed, constructed and financed r
through either a Local Improvement District (LID) or Capital Improvement Project
funding rather than being completed on a piecemeal basis as individual properties
develop.
Given that the complexity of the improvement required and the need for any
improvements to be completed within the context of a larger neighborhood design;
process, the presence of the flood plain, and the fact that this street section is within
Jackson County jurisdiction, staff believes that the most prudent option with regard to I
Tolman Creek Road improvements is for the applicants to sign in favor of the future
improvements to Tolman Creels Road, and agree to pay the proportional cost of the
necessary improvements and not to remonstrate against the formation of a Local
Improvement District (LID). The applicants have requested an Exception and proposed
to sign in favor of an LID and a condition to this effect is included below.
C. Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit
The Hamilton Creels floodplain corridor extends westward from the waterway on the east
side of Tolman Creek Road and includes an approximately ten-foot wide portion of the
subject property's frontage. Because the proposal involves driveway improvements and
utility installation in the floodplain, a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review
Permit for the Development of Floodplain Corridor Lands is required.
The applicants note that they have taken all reasonable steps to minimize the potential
impacts to adjacent properties. They explain that Hamilton Creek is across Tolman
Creek Road and below the street grade, and that the area of floodplain across the
property's frontage is within the roadside ditch which has a depression putting the
floodplain below the surface of the road on both sides of Tolman Creek Road. The
applicants emphasize that they have hired a professional Engineer, a Landscape
Architect, a Surveyor and an Ecologist/Wetland Specialist to address any potential
impacts associated with the subdivision. They emphasize that the widening of the
existing driveway by two to five feet and the installation of underground utilities will not
require any fill and will not have any adverse impacts; that the use of the single, existing
shared driveway for access, in lieu of installing a new driveway and culvert, will
minimize the impacts to the floodplain; that the installation of new stormwater detention
facilities will slow the rate of infiltration of stormwater into the storm drain system and
Hamilton Creek to reduce any potential hazards; and that silt fencing will be installed to
prevent any erosion during construction. They further explain that the floodplain falls
entirely within the required front yard setback area for Lot #1 and that the building
envelope proposed for Lot #1 will accommodate a new home and garage entirely outside
of any floodplain lands.
In staff's view, the impacts to floodplain lands are minimal and are limited to widening of
the driveway and utility installation in an area where street and driveway improvements
are already in place and long-established. The floodplain has already been dramatically
altered by existing Tolman Creek Road street improvement and associated utility
installations. The application materials provided note that the applicants have taken all
reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts on the environment by hiring professional
i
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 7 of 14
i
C
i
€I
civil engineers, landscape architects, surveyors, ecologists, wetland specialists and land
use planners to comprehensively plan the proposal to mitigate adverse impacts.
D. Limited Activities and Uses within a Water Resources Protection Zone WRPZ
j
The application includes the removal of the man-made pond adjacent to the small
wetland on the property. The application explains that the request is to remove the pond
and restore the wetland's drainage Swale through a culvert under the driveway access to
Lot #1 and to allow the drainage to continue across the property into a constructed storm
water detention area and then out to the 18-inch line that is perpendicular to Tolman
Creels Road, near the driveway. In order to remove the pond and restore the drainage
swale, approximately 545 square feet of the wetlands' buffer area will be disturbed. The
application further notes that the removal of the man-made pond will enable the
construction of the private stormwater treatment facility which will include a vegetated
swale/detention pond, and that the ordinance provides for the installation of private
stormwater treatment facilities such as "detention ponds or sediment traps, vegetated
swales, and constructed wetlands" under the Limited Activities and Uses within Water
Resource Protection Zones provisions of AMC 18.3.11.060.A.3.c. They add that the
portion of the buffer area disturbed with removal of the pond will be replanted with
native species and maintained in accordance with AMC 18.3.11.030.
The application materials detail that the proposed pond's removal is occurring as far from
the wetland as possible and will disturb as little of the surface area of the wetland as is
practicable. The applicants suggest that the pond's removal should be seen as an
enhancement to the wetland as more natural drainage will be restored and the area where
the pond is will be replaced with native vegetation. They emphasize that the pond
removal will restore the function of the wetland and will remove surface water that is
conducive to mosquito breeding and replace it with native wetland vegetation. No
impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation or other impacts to the wetland itself are
proposed. A dead Red Maple (Tree #35) is proposed for removal from the wetland to
eliminate the possibility of future trunk failure and alleviate any hazard to persons or
property. Proposed utilities are as far as practicable from the wetland, and the storm
drainage facilities are to be built outside of the delineated wetland.
The applicants further explain that the restoration of the disturbed buffer zone will be
accomplished in a manner consistent with the standards in AMC 18.3.11.110 "Mitigation
Requirements," but that no management plan is proposed for the long-term conservation,
management and maintenance of the WRPZ as the wetland is proposed to be retained on
a residentially-zoned lot occupied only by a single-family dwelling and associated
accessory structures. A conservation easement will be provided to ensure the continued
protection of the wetland and buffer area. The application explains that the wetland itself
is only 718 square feet and that the buffer will encompass 4,845 square feet and will be
protected in perpetuity with the easement, but that the applicants would prefer to avoid
creating a complicated homeowners association that would be needed to create and
manage common space for such a small subdivision.
A condition has been recommended below to require that a revised Mitigation Plan
addressing the Vegetation Preservation and Construction Staging requirements in AMC
18.3.11.110 A and the Restoration and Enhancement Requirements in AMC
i
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 8 of 14
t
18.3.11.1103 be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the
commencement of any pond removal work. The restoration and enhancement shall
address the disturbed wetland buffer at the 1.5:1 ratio required, so the disturbance of 545
square feet of the buffer area will require the restoration and enhancement of 818 square
feet.
E. Tree Removal
A tree inventory and tree preservation plan has been provided identifying 55 trees on or
adjacent to the subject property. The application explains that the largest concentrations
of trees are west of the existing residence and between the driveway and the north
property line. The trees are described as a mix of deciduous and coniferous, and of the 55
trees on the property five are proposed for removal with the proposed subdivision. These
include:
• Tree #12: A nine-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Liquid Ambar tree in the
widened parking area near the north property line.
• Tree #38: A 16-inch d.b.h. Silver Maple tree in line with the proposed driveway
to serve Lot #1.
• Tree #43: A 16-inch d.b.h. White Oak tree.
• Tree #46: A nine-inch d.b.h. Ash tree.
• Tree #35: A dead Red Maple within the wetland water resource protection zone.
(Dead trees are exempt from Tree Removal Permit requirements per AMC
18.5.7.020. C. 7)
As noted in AMC 18.5.7.020.B.3, the removal of significant trees (i. e. those trees greater
than 18-inches in diameter at breast height) on vacant R-1 zoned lands requires a Tree
Removal Permit. As none of the trees proposed to be removed here are considered by
definition to be significant, the tree removals proposed are not subject to Tree Removal
Permit review, although the applicants have provided written findings addressing the
Tree Removal approval criteria and have proposed to mitigate the four living trees being
removed by planting four new trees. Site trees remain a consideration both in terms of
the preservation of significant natural features required in the Performance Standards
Options chapter and for any impacts removals might have within Water Resource
Protection Zones or Floodplain Corridor Lands, and are further discussed in the
applicable sections above.
As this staff report is being prepared, the Tree Commission has not yet reviewed the
request and as such, a condition of approval has been recommended below to incorporate
their recommendations, where consistent with applicable standards and with final
approval by the Staff Advisor, as conditions of approval here.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The approval criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as
follows:
a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, I
I,
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 9 of 14
i
and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to
operate beyond capacity.
C, The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors,
ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the
development and significant features have been included in the open space, common
areas, and unbuildable areas.
d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the
uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if E
required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases
have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project
f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under
this chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
The approval criteria for Final Plan approval are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 as
follows:
Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline
Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor
modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when
comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria.
a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the
approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in
the outline plan.
b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of
those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be
reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance.
C. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more
than ten percent.
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and
intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the
outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to
ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased
open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units f
shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that
permitted in the outline plan.
The approval criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for
Development of Floodplain Corridor Lands are described in AMC 18.3.10.050 as follows:
A. 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.
B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may
create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 10 of 14
i
i
i
development.
C. 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 development permitted by this e
ordinance.
i
f
The approval criteria for to allow Limited Activities and Uses within a Water Resource
Protection Zone are described in AMC 18.3.11.060.D as follows:
1. All activities shall be located as far away from streams and wetlands as practicable, I
designed to minimize intrusion into the Water Resources Protection Zone and disturb as
little of the surface area of the Water Resource Protection Zone as practicable.
2. The proposed activity shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize
excavation, grading, area of impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and
other adverse impacts on Water Resources. III
3. On stream beds or banks within the bank full stage, in wetlands, and on slopes of 25
percent or greater in a Water Resource Protection Zone, excavation, grading, installation
of impervious surfaces, and removal of native vegetation shall be avoided except where
no practicable alternative exists, or where necessary to construct public facilities or to
ensure slope stability.
4. Water, storm drain, and sewer systems shall be designed, located and constructed to
avoid exposure to floodwaters, and to avoid accidental discharges to streams and
wetlands.
5. Stream channel repair and enhancement, riparian habitat restoration and enhancement,
and wetland restoration and enhancement will be restored through the implementation of
a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements in section
18.3.11.110 Mitigation Requirements.
6. Long term conservation, management and maintenance of the Water Resource
Protection Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of a management
plan as described in subsection 18.3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not
required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a single-family dwelling and
accessory structures.
The approval criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC
18.4.6.020.B.1 as follows:
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 exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity
considering the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride
experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level
of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in
subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 11 of 14
i
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
i
The subject parcel is significantly oversized within the R-1-7.5 zoning district and has the
potential under current zoning to accommodate additional density, with a base density of 5.72
units. In staff's view, the proposal currently under consideration seems to be a fair compromise
between the desire for more efficient land use to accommodate additional density anticipated in
the city's long term growth plans and considerations of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter which call for balancing the impacts of development with the preservation and
protection of natural features and neighborhood character. The applicants' lot lay-out and
envelope placement seem thoughtfully arranged to minimize impacts to the established trees on
the property while remaining in keeping with the general development pattern of the surrounding
neighborhood, and the yard areas which have been proposed provide a substantially more space
to buffer the development from adjacent properties than is required under the code. While the
proposal involves the removal of a man-made pond from the property, a small adjacent wetland
is to be enhanced, and the pond is to be replaced with a drainage swale and storm water detention
area with control structure established to address drainage issues on the property. When viewed
in conjunction with the tree preservation proposed, staff believes that the proposal represents and
appropriate use of the Performance Standards Options chapter and is generally supportive of the
request.
Should the Commission concur with staff, we would suggest that the following conditions be
attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
2) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their July 7, 2016 shall
be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable criteria and standards and
with final approval of the Staff Advisor.
3) That prior to the issuance of an excavation permit or the commencement of infrastructure
installation:
a) Final civil engineering plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm
drainage, electric and driveway improvements shall be submitted for the review
and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Public Works/Engineering
Departments. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all
public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of
water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes
and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins, and locations of all primary
and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale),
cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers and cabinets
shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access
needs of the Electric Department. Any required private or public utility
easements shall be delineated on the civil plans.
b) That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements
associated with the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm
drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or
equal to the pre-development peals flow for the site as a whole, and that storm
water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design.
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 12 of 14
t
C) That a Verification Permit in accordance shall be applied for and approved by the
Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the
issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to
inspect the five trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing
for trees to be preserved. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be
installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or
storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a
minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with the requirements of the
Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance (AMC 18.4.5).
d) Any work within the Tolman Creek Road right-of-way, including but not limited
to driveway widening or utility installation, shall be subject to review and
approval by Jackson County and the City of Ashland, with permits to be issued by
Jackson County and evidence of permit approval and issuance provided to the
City of Ashland.
C) That a Mitigation Plan addressing the Vegetation Preservation and Construction
Staging standards in AMC 18.3.11.110 A and the Restoration and Enhancement
Requirements in AMC 18.3.11.110.B shall be provided for the review and
approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the commencement of any pond removal
work. Restoration and enhancement shall address the disturbed wetland buffer at
the 1.5:1 ratio required (i.e. disturbance of 545 square feet of the buffer area
requires restoration and enhancement of 818 square feet).
f) The applicant shall obtain required federal and state permits to fill the pond and
provide evidence of these approvals to the City of Ashland.
4) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat:
a) That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the
City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval.
b) That the subdivision name shall be approved by the City of Ashland Engineering
Division.
C) All easements for public and private utilities, shared parking, drainage,
conservation, irrigation, fire apparatus access, and the reciprocal access easements
for shared use of the existing driveway shall be indicated on the final survey plat
as required by the Ashland Engineering Division.
d) The applicant shall provide a conservation easement for the wetland on Lot #2
and its protection zone in favor of the City, Lots #1 and #3 on the final survey
plat. The conservation easement shall describe the long-term obligations for
maintenance of the wetland and buffer, and shall note that any fencing installed
around the wetland or its buffer shall be limited to no more than four feet in
height so that views of the wetland by all residents of the development are not
obscured.
e) Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utility
installations shall be completed according to approved plans prior to the signature
of the final survey plat.
f) Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots. The electric
service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building,
Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation.
g) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with
meters at the street shall be installed to serve all three lots, inspected and
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 13 of 14
i
t
approved.
h) The applicants shall sign an agreement to participate proportionally in the future
cost of full street improvements for Tolman Creek Road, including but not limited
to park row planting strips, sidewalks, streetlights, curbs, gutters, paving with bike
lanes, and storm drains, to be recorded on the deeds of the newly created lots
concurrently with the final plat., and shall agree not to remonstrate against the
formation of a Local Improvement District.
5) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) Individual lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be
submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the 45
percent lot coverage allowed in the underlying zoning districts. Building
footprints, walkways, driveways, parking areas, and any impervious surfaces shall
be counted for the purpose of lot coverage calculations.
b) That all proposed lots shall be subject to Solar Access Standard A. Solar setback
calculations shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable standards, and shall include identification of the
required solar setbacks with supporting formula calculations and elevation or
cross-section drawings clearly labeling the height of the solar producing point(s)
from the identified natural grade.
C) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to fire hydrant
distance; fire flow; fire apparatus access, approach, turn-around, and work area;
firefighter access pathway; approved addressing; and limits on fencing and gates
which would impair access shall be satisfactorily addressed in the building permit
plan submittals and complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the
use of combustible materials, whichever is applicable. Fire Department
requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for
public facilities.
d) Building permit submittals for lots to be served via a flag drive shall be required
to provide three off-street parking spaces. Required parking shall be identified on
the site plan. Parking spaces on flag drives shall be placed to allow vehicles to
turn and exit to the street in a forward manner.
6) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) All exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not illuminate
adjacent proprieties.
b) The private driveway shall be subject to all development requirements for flag
drives including that it shall be constructed to flag drive standards which call for a
15-foot paved drive centered in a 20-foot clear width where serving two lots and a
12-foot paved drive centered in a 15-foot clear width be maintained where serving
one lot. That the driveway shall be widened and paved to comply with these
standards prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a home on either
new lot.
Planning Action PA # 2016-01029 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report
Owner/Applicant: Rezek/Clason Page 14 of 14
i
i
Updated 07/08/15
TALENT IRRIGATION DISTRICT
LAN USE AGENCY RESPONSE FORM
104 W. Valley View Rd. Phone, 541®535®1529
P.O. Box 467 Fax: 541-535-4108
Talent, OR 97540 Email: tid@talentid.org
NAME OF ENTITY REQUESTING RESPONSE: Ashland
ENTITY + FERE NCE NUMBER: PA-2016-01029
MEETING VIEW DATE: July 12, 2016
MAP DESCRIPTION: 39-1E-23BA Tax Lot: 201
PROPERTY ADDRESS:- 1365 Tolman Cr. Rd. Ashland OR
❑ NO COMMENT ON LAND USE ISSUE (IF NOT MAR +D, CONTINUE BELOW)
NO IF CHECKED
COMMENT COMMENTS
ARE APPLICABLE
❑ A. ATE RIGHT ISSUES
® 1. Water rights need to be sold to someone or transferred back to Talent
Irrigation District. Number of Irrigated Acres: 1.30
Comments: Water rights must be removed from any impervious surfaces
® 2. Must have District approval for water rights to remain in place on subject
property.
Comments: Be aware that the property has 1.30 acres of water rights If the
existing water rights are to be sold or relocated to another area the applicant
must go through the transfer process with the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Water Resources Department
❑ B. EASEMENTS
DISTRICT EASEMENTS
® 1. Easement needs to remain clear. No permanent structures or deep rooted
plants will be allowed within the easement limits.
Comments: Be aware that the District's Bellview pipeline runs along the
West side and Southwest corner of the property Beware of the easement
Show the easement on your map
® 2. If facility is to be relocated or modified, specifications must meet the District's
standards and be agreeable to the District. A new written and recorded
easement must be conveyed to the District.
Comments:
® 3. If a written and recorded easement does not exist for an existing facility, then
one must be provided in favor of the District.
Comments:
S:\Office Clerk\Word0anning Actions
PRIVATE EASEMENTS Updated 07/08/15
® I. Property may have private facilities (ditch or pipeline) that the District does
not manage. Arrangements may need to be made to provide continued service
through the subject property for downstream water users.
Comments:
PRIVATE EASEMENT PROVISIONS FOR MIND PARTITIONS
AND/OR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS
® 1. If the property currently has water rights and it is being partitioned or a lot line
adjustment is being made, easements must be written and recorded which
allow access for all of the pieces of property with water rights to continue to
have access to the water.
Comments: If this property is split into multiple tax lots then the owner must
provide each tax lot with access to water.
WATER METER REQUIREMENT ON TRANSFERRED WATER
RIGHTS
❑ 1. If the water right on this property is a transferred water right that currently has
a water meter requirement, then each of the properties split off of the original
parcel all need to have water meters installed prior to the use of irrigation
water on the newly formed parcels.
Comments:
is
❑ C. FACILITIES, (including but not limited to pipelines, ditches, canals, control
checks or boxes)
® 1. Upgrades to District facilities may be required to support any land use changes
or developments, such as pipe installations or encasing existing pipe under
roads or concrete.
Comments:
❑ DRAINAGE LSTORM WATER
® The District relies on the Bureau of Reclamation's Storm Water Policy. No urban
storm water or point source flows will be allowed into the District's facilities
without going through the Bureau of Reclamation process. (Developments in
historically agricultural areas need to be aware of agricultural run-off water and
take appropriate action to protect the development from upslope water.)
Comments:
SAOffice ClerMord0anning Actions
e'
r
Updated 07/08/15
ENS RAL COMMENTS.-
1. No interruptions to irrigation water deliveries will be allowed.
2. T.I.D. is a Federal Project and some facilities and/or easement issues may need Bureau of Reclamation
approval.
3. The developer/sub-divider will take all appropriate actions to ensure the reliability and protection of the
original function of the District's facilities.
As required by S 92. 0(6) the entity )must receive a certification form from the District before
approval of the mal plate 41" -7 Date Signed: i 6
im ndleton
NI ager
Talent Irrigation District
I
i.
t,
S:\Office ClerMord0anning Actions
i
Planning Department, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 I Y
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland,or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
-ASH _1
PLANNING ACTION: 209601029
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1365 Tolman Creek Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Ronald Rezek/Clason Company LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter
(AMC 13.3.9) for a three-lot subdivision for the property located at 1365 Tolman Creek Road. Also included are
requests for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Floodplain Development to allow widening
of the existing driveway entrance by two to five feet and the installation of utilities including stormwater drainage
facilities within the floodplain; a Limited Use Permit to allow grading for utility installation and restoration of the
buffer area of a small wetland on the property; and an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street
improvements along the property's Tolman Creek Road street frontage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 23DA; TAX LOT : 201.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 6:00 PM in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
L , .i fl
L~
I
+ J PA #201 6-01 02 9
J 1365 TOLMAN CR RD
f SUBJECT PROPERTY
-
L- - -
I_ L
I
i
Bt UE SKY-_ L-{
r~ S
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right
of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient
specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn
Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to
limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before
the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office
at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305.
i
OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL
18.3.9.040.A.3
Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have
been met.
a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage,
police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity,
c
c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in
the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.
d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan,
i.
e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in
phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAN
18.3.9.040.B.5
Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely
to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final
plan meets all of the following criteria.
a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed
those permitted in the outline plan.
b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall
these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance.
c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent.
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with
substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the
number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan.
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
18.3.10.050
An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all
of the following criteria,
A. 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.
B. 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.
C. 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 development permitted by this ordinance.
LIMITED ACTIVITIES AND USES PERMIT
18.3.11.060.D
All Limited Activities and Uses described in section 18.3.11.060 shall be subject to a Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050. An application for a Limited Activities
and Uses Permit shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria.
1. All activities shall be located as far away from streams and wetlands as practicable, designed to minimize intrusion into the Water Resources Protection
Zone and disturb as little of the surface area of the Water Resource Protection Zone as practicable.
2. The proposed activity shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation, grading, area of impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation,
erosion, and other adverse impacts on Water Resources.
3. On stream beds or banks within the bank full stage, in wetlands, and on slopes of 25 percent or greater in a Water Resource Protection Zone, excavation,
grading, installation of impervious surfaces, and removal of native vegetation shall be avoided except where no practicable alternative exists, or where
necessary to construct public facilities or to ensure slope stability.
4. Water, storm drain, and sewer systems shall be designed, located and constructed to avoid exposure to floodwaters, and to avoid accidental discharges
to streams and wetlands.
GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderVvfailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-01029 Type 11.docx
i
5. Stream channel repair and enhancement, riparian habitat restoration and enhancement, and wetland restoration and enhancement will be restored
through the implementation of a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements in section 18.3.11.110 Mitigation
Requirements.
6. Long term conservation, management and maintenance of the Water Resource Protection Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of
a management plan as described in subsection 18,3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a
single-family dwelling and accessory structures.
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.4.6.020.6.1
Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards 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 exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable.
I. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle
cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency
crossing roadway.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
I
i
G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing Folder\Mailed Notices R Signs\2016\PA-2016-01029 Type 11.docx
i
f
-77 -r F+:
coo,
D 44 00
a 1
4200,
0041 g-3UD
1 I I iJIlU' ?211
au at woo
1260
1 IT
No,
` A,w'F We boo 11'
ITS ' 311
all
Nov.
583 1 g5! 535 $So 2 11
7
a [
Sol
sea 2
650 Saa
314
f
HUD 3M -321
400 401 4,42
565 551~ SK IN lot
J? T- Sit PR,
loll
318 T ~t-U Silo,
i
WE 5,yn -
s tl' it ~Ua 'U o. , 5.a tl AU D 2 ail D
51sf S411 8441 4
s
2 ® (ONO
-
NJ"lP
SM 992 614 ill-116
11644 1601 tics'
AND
2 6 ~ f
B a g
!(I
9
I
E
k
i
4
C
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On June 29, 2016 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 #2016-01029, 1365 Tolman NOC.
-'V' '&Y
al 9, i i ) ~22t~W' to-1-
Sign re of Employee
r
DocumenQ 6/29/2016
I
~ z
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 103 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 100 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 308
ASHMEAD NANCY BROMBACHER ZACHARY TRUSTEE BUFFINGTON KATHLEEN j
1378 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1370 TOLMAN CREEK RD 258 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 39IE23BA 401 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 310 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 317
EUBANKS DENNIS E TRUSTEE ET AL FREY JONATHAN R/REBECCA I GREEN DOUGLAS P/KAREN K
2383 BLUE SKYLN 1375 APPLE WAY 1403 APPLE WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 502 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 101 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 309
GRISSO ROBERT P ET AL HANSEN RICHARD CARL HOVENKAMP BEVERLY
685 CABOT WAY 1390 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1385 APPLE WAY
NAPA, CA 94559 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 39IE23BA 320 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 321 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 316
LANGE JONATHAN I ET AL LEFEVER KRISTINA J TRUSTEE ET AL LOVELESS PHILLIP G TRUSTEE ET AL
2345 BLUE SKY LN 2359 BLUE SKY LN 157 MORNINGLIGHT DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 319 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 200 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 501
MALIBAR GROUP LLC RETIREMENT MCDONALD MARINA A MCLELLAN ROBERT ET AL
2332 BLUE SKY LN PO BOX 1319 2358 BLUE SKY LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
'i
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 402 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 500 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 104
MINSON CAROLYN S PEREIRA GABRIEL R MD TRUSTEE ET PUDERBAUGH THOMAS R TRUSTEE
2391 BLUE SKY LN 1407 TOLMAN CREEK RD 1400 TOLMAN CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 !ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 305 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 201 SPA-2016-01029 391E23BA 202
RAY WENDY ET AL REZEK RONALD ROBERTS HILLERY B/ANTOINETTE M
414 WALNUT ST 1709 WASHINGTON ST 1355 TOLMAN CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
jPA-2016-01029 391E23BA 306 PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 314 'PA-2016-01029 391E23BA 307
SPALDING SHARON LADELL STEPHENS JAMES N/TERRI L TALBOTT PAMELA TRUSTEE ET AL
1360 APPLE WAY 1015 TERRA AVE 17614 TUNNEL HILL RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 LAKEVIEW, OR 97630
'A-2016-01029 ; `PA-2016-01029 IPA-2016-01029
10GUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT LAURIE THORNTON CLASON COMPANY LLC
1424 S IVY STREET 700 MISTLETOE RD 220 DEAD INDIAN MEM ROAD
VIEDFORD, OR 97501 'ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
'A-2016-01029 PA-2016-01029
-EC ENGINEERING POLARIS LAND SURVEYING
FONY BAKKE 131 CLEAR CREEK DRIVE
'.0. BOX 1724 ASHLAND, OR 97520
AEDFORD, OR 97501 '
i
I
i
i
I
I
G
i
i
k,
1365 Tolman Creek Road j
I
G.:,'......kside Meadows
Performance Standards Subdivision
Clason Company, LLC.
5-31-2016
f
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
May 31, 2016
Creeksie Meadows
Subject Property
Address: 1365 Tolman Creek Road
Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 23BA; Tax Lot 201
Property Owner: Ronald Rezek
709 Washington Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Applicant: Clason Company, LLC
John Clason
220 Dead Indian Memorial Road
Ashland, OR 97520
Landscape Architect: Laurie Sager and Associates
Laurie Thornton
700 Mistletoe Road; Suite 201
Ashland, OR 97520
Engineer: CEC Engineering
Tony Bakke
PO BOX 1724
Medford, OR
Surveyor: Polaris Land Surveying
131 Clear Creek Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning and Development Services
Amy Gunter
1424 S Ivy Street
Medford, OR 97501
Page 1 of 26 j
ii
i=
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
f
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential
Zoning: R-1-7.5
Lot Data:
i.
Lot Area: 1.59 acres / 69,260 sf
Lot Base Density: 5 (1.59 X 3.6 du/ac = 5.7)
Proposed Density: 3 dwelling units
Proposed Lot Area:
Lot 1: 17,182 sf
Lot 2: 15,381 sf
Lot 3 (existing residence): 36,638 sf
Applicable Ordinances: 18.2 -Zoning Regulations
18.3.9 - Performance Standards Option
18.3.10- Physical and Environmental Constraints
18.3.11- Water Resource Protection Zone
18.4.3 - Parking, Access and Circulation
18.4.5 -Tree Preservation and Protection
18.4.6 - Public Facilities
18.4.8 - Solar Access
18.5.3 - Land Divisions
18.5.7 -Tree Removal Permits
Request:
The property owner, Ron Rezek and John Clason from Clason Company, LLC are seeking approval for
Outline and Final Plan Approval of a three-lot, Performance Standards Overlay lot partition, a Physical
and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Floodplain Development is requested to widen the
existing driveway approach from 18 feet to 20 feet at the intersection of the drive and Tolman Creek
Road and to install utilities including storm water drainage facilities within the floodplain. The request
includes a Limited Use Activity Permit for grading for utility installation and restoration to the buffer area
of small a wetland; an Exception to the Street Standards is requested to not install street improvements
to Tolman Creek Road.
Page 2 of 26
i
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Site Background and Description:
The subject property is at 1365 Tolman Creek Road APPLE °
(Tax lot 201). The property is 69,260 square feet in
j M
area in the R-1-7.5 zone (minimum lot area of 7,500
t a
312
square feet).
015
~1 !
The subject property is on the west side of Tolman
Creek Road. and was created via partition in 1986
from the parcel to the north ((86-017) , 3-
UBJECTPROPERT
survey#10621). The parcel is irregularly shaped.
316
The property slopes gently from the south to the °n~ " ~,y PJ " `I
PIS' ^e31 1f tv j J20u ~~0 401N 402
north, except along the frontage of Tolman where
319
a
there is a 40 - 50 percent slope along the front
BLUE SKY LANE
property line into the roadside ditch. There is
additional topography from the north end of the
pond to the northwest towards the large trees and
driveway access to the lot.
The property is occupied by a large, two story, 7-4
tam
single family residence, a detached garage, shed,
pool house and swimming pool. According to the
t
Jackson County Assessor's Office, the 3,468 square z t
!a ,,h
foot residence was constructed in 1987 and was
significantly remodeled in 1996. There is a 641
square foot attached garage, and a 388 square foot
detached garage. There is a 288
square foot
-
greenhouse, and a 192 square foot lean-to. The
residence and other structures are at the rear of
the property, near the west property line. All of the
structures are proposed to be retained with this
application. _ F E 3
The site is accessed via a long, meandering, private
k~?
driveway that intersects Tolman Creek Road, ten-
feet from the north property line. The driveway at
its intersection of Tolman and the apron is within
the Hamilton Creek Floodplain. The driveway's
improved width varies slightly, but is generally 12- {
feet wide. The driveway surface consists of asphalt
paving for the first 150 feet, and compacted gravel
Page 3 of 26
i
E
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
the remainder up to the concrete driveway area for the existing residence. There are two parking bays
on the north side of the existing driveway.
The driveway grade is approximately 8 - 14 percent. Due to the topography on the site, particularly at
the property intersection with Tolman Creek Road and along the north property line, the driveway
meanders away from the north property line.
There are 55 trees on the site. The largest concentrations of trees are directly to the west of the existing
residence and between the driveway and the north property line. The remainder are generally located
near the front of the property adjacent to Tolman Creek Road. The trees consist of a mixture of
deciduous and conifer trees. Many are identified on the 1990s landscape plan created by Jim Stephens
of Natureworks Design (Attachment #2). A more current tree inventory was completed in May of 2016.
See Attachment L-2.0 for the detailed Tree Inventory.
There is a man-made pond approximately %2 way between the existing residence and the front property
line. There is also a small wetland present on the site at the terminus of a 12-inch storm drain pipe that
daylights onto the property. The wetland has been evaluated by Martin Schott from Schott & Associates
as a jurisdictional wetland. Schott & Associates performed a wetland delineation, which has been
approved by the Division of State Lands. The wetland is now a protected feature. See Attachment A.
According to the wetland delineation, the wetland was identified at the southern border of the property
where the adjacent property to the south slopes down to the north. A culvert was placed at the property
boundary where hydrology enters the site and runs northwest down the broad swale to the 2,147 square
foot pond. The wetland is a narrow swath. Vegetation in the wetland consists of white clover (Trifolium
repens) (FAC) and colonial bent grass (Agrostis capillaries). There is a willow tree (Salix babyonica) and a
European birch (Betula pendula) adjacent to the wetland. The soils present meet hydric soil indicator.
Hydrology is present with primary indicators of surface water and saturation to 4 inches (SP1). The
hydrology is from surface runoff from properties to the south entering the site through the culvert along
the southern boundary. See Attachment A.
The pond area is man-made and does not meet the hydric soil criteria and no hydrology was present.
The State of Oregon, which has jurisdiction over the delineation of wetlands does not consider the pond
to be a wetland. The pond encroaches into the wetland buffer zone by 545 square feet where the pond
abuts the north end of the wetland.
Tolman Creek Road abuts the frontage of the property. Tolman is a paved with asphalt but lacks curb,
gutter and sidewalks. There is a roadside storm water conveyance ditch parallel to Tolman Creek Road.
Also adjacent to Tolman is the 100-year floodplain for Hamilton Creek. Hamilton Creek is to the east,
across Tolman Creek Road from the subject property. The first, approximately ten feet of the entire
frontage of the property along Tolman Creek Road is within the FEMA 100-year floodplain. There is a
significant grade change between the property and the improved portions of the street with the property
generally higher than the street.
a
Page 4 of 26
G
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
There is an 8-inch water main, and an 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Tolman Creek Road. Electric service
is underground and served via the lines in Tolman that extend to a transformer along the north property
line, there is a junction box to the east of the existing residence that serves that structure. Storm drainage
is via a roadside ditch along Tolman Creek Road. Avista gas pipeline is available to serve the property.
There is a fire hydrant approximately 180-feet to the north and another near the southeast corner of the
subject property. The site is served by Talent Irrigation District and has a 10-foot TID easement near the
west property line.
The property and all of the surrounding properties are zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-7.5). The
properties to the east across Tolman Creek Road are split by the City limits line and further east by the
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Adjacent Property Development:
The properties to the south are part of a newer subdivision (Blue r
Sky PA2011-0738) and an adjacent land partition. These lots are - , J ~ developed in approximately 10,800 square foot lot areas with
r WS- CITY LIMITS
single family residential units on the parcels. The property to the K~ I~
north is a large, 1.46-acre lot occupied by a large single family SU ECT PROP
UG8
residence and associated structures and a large driveway. The
property to the east, across Tolman Creek Road is occupied by a
single family residences and associated structures, these
properties have both City Limits boundaries and Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) boundaries. The properties to the west are part
of the Wildcreek Subdivision and the Briggs Unit #3 Subdivision. ZONING MAP
These lots are generally 8,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet
in area and are occupied by single family residences and associated structures as well. The subject
property and the surrounding properties are all zoned single family residential 7,500 square foot lot
minimums.
Proposal:
The proposal is for a three-lot partition utilizing the Performance Standards Option through
simultaneous approval of Outline and Final Plan Subdivision in accordance with AMC 18.3.9, to allow for
a private driveway to provide access to the three parcels. Two new lots are proposed between Tolman
Creek Road and the grove of trees on the east side of the existing residence. In order to widen the
driveway, to install utilities from the public lines to the private property, encroachment into the Hamilton
Creek floodplain is necessary and in accordance with AMC 18.3.10, a Physical and Environmental
Constraints review required. Lastly, in order to construct the new residence on proposed Lot #2, the
existing pond will be removed and the wetland drainage Swale will be restored. The pond is a safety
Page 5 of 26
' j
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
hazard and could be considered an attractive nuisance, areas of standing water are required to be fenced
to keep children and pets out, this pond is not fenced. The pond is also a mosquito breeding habitat. The `
pond proposed for removal overlaps into the required 20-foot buffer of the wetland and a Limited Use I
Activities Permit approval in accordance with 18.3.11 is required.
I
Design Considerations:
The proposal utilizes the Performance Standards Option in order to allow for the two proposed lots
which are wider than they are deep as provided in AMC 18.3.9.020 while complying with the setbacks,
building separation, access, parking, lot coverages, etc. The proposal preserves the small wetland,
preserves the majority of the site's trees, the site's topography and retains compatibility with the existing
neighborhood where the majority of the lots exceed minimum lot size for the zone. The use of the shared
driveway prevents an additional driveway approach on Tolman Creek Road in compliance with the City's
access management standards and prevents additional disturbance to the Hamilton Creek floodplain.
The design preserves the existing structures, driveway and the majority of the sites trees, creating a very
low impact development.
If developed to subdivision standards, the development would be more similar to Blue Sky Lane to the
south or Wildcreek and Briggs Unit #3 to the west with between 7,500 - 12,000 square foot lots. The
allowed density of five units, could have been situated along a new deadened public street. In order to
accomplish this though, the majority of the sites trees would need to be removed and the topography
significantly altered in order to develop five lots and a public street. This would dramatically alter the
Tolman Creek Road streetscape and be less compatible with the neighborhood development pattern.
Conceptual elevations for potential new single family residences have been provided (see attachment
#5) with the proposal. The residences could be single or two story. The maximum required setback of
12-feet has been provided between the building envelopes. The building envelope for Lot #1 reflects the
basic setbacks in the R-1-7.5 zone and a 15-foot front yard has been provided.
Tree Removal and Tree Preservation:
There are 55 trees on the site. The largest concentrations of trees are directly to the west of the existing
residence and between the driveway and the north property line. The remainder are generally located
near the front of the property adjacent to Tolman Creek Road. The trees consist of a mixture of
deciduous and conifer trees. Of these, five are proposed for removal. Tree #12 is a nine-inch diameter
at breast height (DBH) Liquid Ambar tree. It is in the area of the widened parking area near the north
property line. Tree #35 is a dead Maple within the wetland buffer zone, tree #38 is a 16-inch DBH Silver
Maple which is in line with the proposed driveway to Lot #1, tree #43 is a 16-inch DBH White Oak and
tree #46 is a 9-inch DBH Ash tree. The remaining trees on the site will be preserved. The utility plan has
been created to have the least impact on the trees critical root zones. Tree protection fencing in the
form of six-foot tall chain link fences, set in accordance with the proposed protection plan provided with
Page 6 of 26
i
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
the application will provide adequate protection to the sites remaining trees. See Attachment L-2.0 for
additional Tree Protection information.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review for Floodplain Development: V
The Hamilton Creek Floodplain encroaches onto the property for approximately ten feet where the creek
parallels Tolman Creek Road. The floodplain extends across the existing driveway. The driveway is
proposed to be widened by between two - five feet in the floodplain area, the utilities to serve the site
are proposed to cross the floodplain. Though the disturbed areas are less than the thresholds for
1
development as defined in AMC 18.3.10.020.1, which allows for the alteration of the land through earth
moving activities such as grading, filling... etc., when less than 20 cu yards of fill and less than 1,000 square
feet of surface area is disturbed. There is a "catchall" criteria which states that construction of a driveway
is considered development. Planning staff directed the applicant that widening the driveway by two -
five feet (approximately 50 square feet in area) would require a Physical and Environmental Constraints
Review permit. The project's Civil Engineer finds that the approximately 50 square feet in area will have
no impact on the floodplain since the driveway already exists, the creek is on the other side of Hamilton
Creek Road and there will be no impacts to downstream neighbors.
Water Resource Protection Zone:
There is a small, approximately 750 square foot wetland near the south property line. The wetland was
delineated by Schott and Associates and was concurred by the state. At some point in the past, (after
1952 - does not appear on TID historic aerial photos) the pond was created on the site. The pond
captures and stores the sites hydrology. The request is to remove the pond and to restore the wetlands
drainage swale through a culvert under the driveway access to Lot #1 and to allow the drainage to
continue across the property into the created storm water detention area and then out to the 18-inch
line that is perpendicular to Tolman Creek Road, near the driveway. In order to remove the pond and
restore the drainage swale, 545 square feet of the 20-foot wetland buffer will be disturbed. Following
the disturbance, the buffer will be revegetated with wetland appropriate, native plant materials
consistent with the standards found in AMC 18.3.11.
Parking, Access, Circulation:
According to 18.3.9.060 Parking Standards, the development under this chapter shall conform to the
following parking standards found within the Performance Standards Option Subdivision Chapter, in
addition to the requirements of chapter 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation. The proposal does not
involve the creation or improvement to a public street so no on-street parking space per dwelling unit is
provided. There are two vehicle garages proposed for the new residences, in addition, a surface parking
space adjacent to the garages will be provided. The lot currently has two parking areas along the existing
driveway which are not required for this development, they will be available for use by Lot #1 and Lot;
#2.
Page 7 of 26
I'
f
E
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Public right of way improvements:
The proposal to modify the driveway by widening the access approach within the Public Right-of-Way
for Tolman Creek Road will be performed under permitting and approval of the Ashland Public Works
Division.
Exception to Street Standards:
Tolman Creek Road is an un-improved city street lacking, curb, gutter, storm drain facilities,
sidewalks, etc. Tolman Creek Road also has significant grade changes along both sides of the
right-of-way and the FEMA floodplain for Hamilton Creek is within the right-of-way. It is the
property owner's desire to eventually see Tolman Creek Road improved to City street standards
since Tolman provides a direct connection to essential city services and facilities but due to the
existing conditions, Tolman will need to be comprehensively designed, constructed and financed
through either a Local Improvement District (LID) or through Capital Improvement Project
funding and cannot be completed one tax lot at a time. The property owners will agree to
participate in an LID and pay their proportionate costs of the necessary improvements.
On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are
provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Times New Roman font and the
applicant's responses are in Calibri font.
CRITERIA from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
18.2.2.030 Allowed Uses
A. Uses Allowed in Base Zones. Allowed uses include those that are permitted, permitted subject to
special use standards, and allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
A Performance Standards Subdivision for the creation of a three-lot partition accessed via a private drive
is a permitted use in the zone. The proposed subdivision will allow for two additional single family homes
to be constructed on site. Single family residences are a permitted use in the zone.
18.2.5.090 Standards for Single-Family Dwellings
A. The following standards apply to new single-family dwellings constructed in the R-1, R-1-3.5, R-2,
and R-3 zones; the standards do not apply to dwellings in the WR or RR zones.
B. Single-family dwellings subject to this section shall utilize at least two of the following design
features to provide visual relief along the front of the residence:
1. Dormers
2. Gables
3. Recessed entries
Page 8 of 26
1=
r
i
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
4. Covered porch entries
5. Cupolas
6. Pillars or posts
7. Bay window (min. 12" projection)
8. Eaves (min. 6" projection)
9. Off-sets in building face or roof (min. 16")
As evidenced in the attached Conceptual Building Elevations (Attachment #5), two or more of the design
features listed above will be provided on the two proposed single family residential units.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION
18.3.9.030 PSO - Overlay
The subject property is outside of the PSO Overlay.
D. Development Outside PSO-overlay. If a parcel is not in a PSO overlay, then development under
this chapter may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist.
1. The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width.
The parcel is less than two acres.
2. That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the
neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density
allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental
impact.
The lot area of 1.59 acres has the potential density of five dwelling units. The proposal is for a three-lot
Performance Standards Subdivision in order to preserve the existing dwelling and its accessory
structures (i.e. pool, pool house, greenhouse, garage, etc.) and the lot coverage created by the existing
structures and site improvements; to allow for lot areas similar to those found in the adjacent Tolman
Creek Road neighborhoods, to preserve the large, mature trees on the site and to preserve and enhance
the small wetland on the site.
The fewer number of total lots allows for the existing private driveway be utilized for access. More lots
would require a new public street. The public street would change the neighborhood dramatically with
the removal of a large number of the site trees, significant alterations to the topography, greater area
of disturbance within the floodplain and a general change in the character of the neighborhood.
3. The property is zoned R-2, R-3 or CM.
The property is zoned R-1-7.5
18.3.9.040. A.3. - Outline Plan Approval Criteria
Page 9 of 26
I
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have
been met.
a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
The applicant finds that all applicable ordinance requirements of the City have been met. As detailed in
the written summary above, the findings on the subsequent pages and the attached site plans, exhibits
and attached documents full compliance with city standards is met.
b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation;
and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
Adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the development. In consultation with
representatives of the various City of Ashland Departments (i.e. Water, Sewer, Streets and Electric
Division) the proposed two new lots will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees,
rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have
been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.
The proposal allows for the preservation of the natural features of the site. The naturally occurring
wetland will be preserved and enhanced. The existing drainage Swale that was covered by the man-made
pond that captures the wetland and surface drainage will be restored with the removal of the artificial
pond. The Hamilton Creek FEMA floodplain along the frontage of the property will have only minor
disturbances from the widening of the driveway approach a variable amount but in the range of two to
five feet and the installation of utilities (i.e. storm water conveyance, connection to water, sewer,
telecommunications and gas that all exist within Tolman Creek Road), but will generally be preserved by
not installing a driveway approach for proposed Lot #1. The plan calls for the preservation of the majority
of the 55 trees on site with the removal of only five trees.
The wetland is a protected feature, regulated by local and state laws, though not within an open space c`
due to no requirements for open space or common areas, the wetland will be protected with a
conservation easement. The entire wetland and its 20-foot buffer are on one tax lot (Lot #2) and an
adequate buildable area and private yard area outside of the wetland has been provided for. The trees
along the north property line are protected in an unbuildable area. This area is unbuildable due to the
presence of the driveway, inability to comply with the solar setback ordinance (a structure could not be
constructed on the lot and comply with Solar Setback Standard A, and the unimproved area is needed
to allow for the existing structures and site improvements on Lot #3 to be within permitted lot coverage
in the zone.
d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown
in the Comprehensive Plan.
The 1.46-acre property to the north of the subject site has development potential of 5 dwelling units.
The lot is similar to the subject property with a long private driveway accessing a large single family
Page 10 of 26
i
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
i
home. The proposal will not have an impact on the development potential of that property. The
properties to the east across Tolman Creek Road have limited development potential due to the
presence of the floodplain and water resource protection zone but the proposal will not have an impact
on those properties. The properties to the south and west are developed with single family residences
as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or
provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio
of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
Due to the small area of the development and limited number of lots provided within the subdivision,
open space and common areas are not required to be provided. The subdivision will be completed in
one phase.
f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter.
The lot area is 69,260 square feet or 1.59 acres. The base density in the R-1-7.5 zone is 3.6 du/acre. The
maximum density for the lot is five units (1.59 X 3.6 = 5.7) per AMC 18.3.9.050, fractional potion of the
final answer shall not apply towards the total density. No bonus density is sought with the proposal. The
proposal is for three dwelling units.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
Tolman Creek Road is an unimproved street, an exception to the Street Standards requiring full
improvements across the frontage of the property has been requested.
Connectivity standards regarding interconnection of public streets speaks to certain situations, when
physical features such as topographical constraints or other natural features such as mature trees,
drainage swales, wetlands, and floodplains can alter the required connection to adjacent properties
(18.4.6.E.1). We find that the site's constraints, the city's access management standards, and the
performance standards criteria encourage using the natural features of the landscape to their greatest
advantage and protects the environment from degradation. The private drive has little traffic from
anyone that does not reside on land adjacent to the driveway. A public street encourages additional
traffic. The development will be aesthetically pleasing and provides for more efficient land use, retaining
the neighborhood character. The proposal to slightly widen driveway and not provide a curb cut on
Tolman reduces the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood. The existing
private drive complies with maximum street grades and is less than 15 percent.
Exception to Street Standards 18.4.6.020.B.1.
1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the
standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards 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.
Tolman Creek Road is an un-improved city street lacking, curb, gutter, storm drain facilities,
Page 11 of 26
i
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
sidewalks, etc. Tolman Creek Road also has significant grade changes along both sides of the
right-of-way and the FEIVIA floodplain for Hamilton Creek is within the right-of-way. Along the
frontage of the property there is between 40 - 50 percent slope into the roadside ditch. The
entire street frontage of Tolman Creek Road is un-improved along the entire west side from
Siskiyou Blvd. to the City limits further up the street. These factors all contribute to the unique
aspect of Tolman Creek Road and demonstrate the demonstrable difficulty in installing street
E
improvements.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity
considering the following factors where applicable.
The exception is to not install street improvements to city standards on Tolman Creek Road until
a time when the entire streetscape can be evaluated. The street has a number of factors that
need to be evaluated comprehensively in order to create a cohesive, functional design that
cannot be accomplished one tax lot at a time.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
Signature in favor of a Local Improvement District is the minimum necessary to alleviate the
difficulty in installing full street improvements for the frontage of the property. There are no
street improvements in the form of bicycle or pedestrian facilities on Tolman Creek Road so there
is not a street system to connect the lot proposed for development too.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in
subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
The Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards section speaks to connectivity and design and to
creating a public space in the community. Tolman Creek Road is a semi-rural street that provides
access to the forest lands above Ashland. The proposal retains the existing semi-rural character
of Tolman Creek Road and will not negatively impact the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian
experience.
18.3.9.040.5.5. - Final Plan Approval Criteria
Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This
substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one
planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with
the final plan meets all of the following criteria.
Note: The proposal is for a three-lot partition utilizing the Performance Standards Option and the code
allows for consolidated review. Specific criteria listed below (specific to a. b. and d) will not be altered
and are not addressed individually.
a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline
plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan.
b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown
on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum
established within this Ordinance.
Page 12 of 26
i
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. I
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than
ten percent.
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and
intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
The proposed conceptual elevations provide for potential single or two story residences. The homes will
reflect the character and design that is occurring in the Tolman Creek Road neighborhood. Neutral,
earth-toned colors and natural materials to reflect the natural setting will be utilized. The applicant
contends this complies with the intent of the ordinance.
18.3.9.070 Setbacks
All development under this chapter shall conform to the following setback standards, which are in
addition to the requirements of the applicable zone.
A. Front Yard Setback. Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the underlying district.
The front yard setback for Lot #1 abutting Tolman Creek Road is shows at 15-feet, the minimum in the
zone.
B. Building Separation. The minimum separation between two buildings must be half of the height of
the tallest building, where building height is measured at the two closest exterior walls, and the
maximum required separation is 12 feet.
The separation between the two buildings on proposed Lots #1 and #2 is 12-feet.
f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval
have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed
to in the outline plan will be achieved.
No bonus points are requested.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
Tolman Creek Road is an unimproved street, an exception to the Street Standards requiring full
improvements across the frontage of the property has been requested.
The existing private drive complies with maximum street grades and is less than 15 percent.
h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space
provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another
phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan.
With three lots proposed, open space is not required by code. The development is proposed in one phase
and there will be no transferring of dwelling units.
6. Any substantial amendment to an approved Final Plan shall follow a Type I procedure in section
18.5.1.050 and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria.
Page 13 of 26
i
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
No amendments are proposed at this time.
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW FOR FLOODPLAIN
DEVELOPMENT
18.3.10.050 Approval Criteria
A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the
property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
The applicants have taken all reasonable steps as outline in Chapter 18.3.10.080, Development
Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands to minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties. Hamilton
Creek, is across Tolman Creek Road and below the grade of the street. The floodplain across the frontage
of the property is within a roadside ditch which has a depression that puts the floodplain below the
surface of the road on both the east and west sides of Tolman. The applicants have hired a professional
Civil Engineer, a Landscape Architect and a Land Surveyor to address any potential impacts associated
with construction. The widening of the driveway and the installation of the underground utilities will not
have any adverse impacts. The request to use the private drive for access vs. installing a new driveway
approach and culvert to access Lot #1, further minimizes impacts to the floodplain.
B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and
implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
The applicants have considered the potential hazards where the storm drainage facilities are proposed
adjacent to the floodplain and where the driveway meets Tolman Creek Road and have retained a Civil
Engineer to evaluate and design the construction. The storm water detention facilities will slow the rate
of infiltration into the storm drain system and into Hamilton Creek thereby reducing any potential
hazards that the development may create.
C. 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
development permitted by this ordinance.
The applicant and their team have taken all reasonable steps to reduce any adverse impacts on the
environment by comprehensively evaluating the proposal and addressing any impacts and reducing
them where possible by not installing a new driveway access across the floodplain and utilizing an
existing driveway. Silt fencing will be installed to further protect the environment from any erosion
during construction.
Development Standards for Floodplain Development
18.3.10.080 Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands
A. Standards for Fill in Flood Plain Corridor Lands.
Page 14 of 26
j
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC), and Oregon
Residential Specialty Code (ORSC), where applicable.
The widening of the driveway and the installation of utilities is not covered by the OSSC and ORSC.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in AMC 15. 10,
and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill.
No floodway channel is found on the property.
3. The amount of fill in the Flood Plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material
imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following.
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot.
N/A
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and
driveway construction.
The driveway widening is occurring to the north of the existing driveway away from the large trees and
will not require fill but will require a small cut to provide the necessary two to five feet of additional
width.
c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material.
N/A
d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
No fill is proposed in the floodplain.
e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts.
These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the
number of permits issued.
No fill is proposed in the floodplain.
4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in subsection 18.3.10.080.A.3, above, then
fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create
an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion
of the lot in the Flood Plain Corridor.
N/A
5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
No fill is proposed in the floodplain.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood Plain,
Corridor as feasible.
No buildings are proposed in the floodplain.
Page 15 of 26
i'
l
ti
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
B. Crossings. A crossing of any waterway identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section
18.3.10.070 Official Maps (e.g., for streets, property access or utilities) must be designed by an engineer.
Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of AMC 15.10, or where no floodway has been
identified, to pass a 100-year flood without any increase in the upstream flood height elevation.
No waterway crossings are proposed.
C. Elevation of Non-Residential Structures.
No structures are proposed within the floodplain
D. Elevation of Residential Structures.
As evidence with the proposed building envelope for Lot #1, no residential structures are proposed
within the floodplain.
E. Structure Placement.
No structures are proposed in the floodplain.
F. Residential Structure Placement.
The proposed residential structure on Lot #1 is outside of the FEMA floodplain boundary as depicted on
the Site Plan.
G. New Non-Residential Structures.
No new non-residential structures are proposed in or adjacent to the floodplain.
H. Building Envelopes. All lots modified by property line adjustments, and new lots created from
areas containing Flood Plain Corridor Land, must have building envelopes containing buildable area
of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is
for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit
further division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance.
The building envelope provided for Lot #1 is 3,900 square feet in area and the entire building envelope
is outside of the FEMA floodplain. This is adequate size for a single family residence and a garage. The
FEMA floodplain is within the required 15-foot front yard setback.
1. Basements.
With the proposed building envelope outside of the floodplain, there are no basements within the
floodplain.
J. Hazardous Chemicals. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals
is not permitted in Flood Plain Corridor Lands.
No hazardous chemicals are anticipated on the property and none will be stored in the floodplain.
h;
Page 16 of 26
I
i
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
K. Fences. Fences shall be located and constructed in accordance with subsection 18.3.11.050.B.3. Fences
shall not be constructed across any waterway or stream identified on the official maps adopted pursuant
to section 18.3.10.070 Official Maps. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway.
Hamilton Creek waterway or stream is the floodplain on the property but the creek is located across
Tolman Creek Road to the east of the property. No waterways or floodways are present on the property.
L. Decks and Other Structures. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood Plain
Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in subsections 18.3.10.080.C and D, shall be flood-
proofed to the standards contained in AMC 15.10.
As stated previously, no construction is proposed within the floodplain. The floodplain is within the front
yard setback and no structures are proposed to encroach into the front yard setback.
M. Local Streets and Utilities. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the
Flood Plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood Plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor,
except as provided for in chapter 18.3.11 Water Resources Overlay, or in the Flood Plain Corridor as
outlined below.
No public streets are proposed as part of the development. Utility connections from the private property
to the utilities that are within the public street, Tolman Creek Road and within the floodplain are
necessary and crossing the floodplain for public utility connections is permitted by the code and by the
Water Resource Overlay. The utility connections are outside of the buffer zone for Hamilton Creek, a
local stream with a 40-foot buffer from the centerline of the stream. The standards below referenced in
the criteria were removed as they only applied to the Bear Creek corridor.
LIMITED USE ACTIVITY PERMIT FOR WATER RESOURCE
18.3.11.060. A. Limited Activities and Uses within Water Resource Protection Zones.
3. Building, Paving, and Grading Activities. Permanent alteration of Water Resource Protection Zones by
grading or by the placement of structures, fill or impervious surfaces may be authorized as follows.
c. Storm Water Treatment Facility Installation. Installation of public and private storm water treatment
facilities such as detention ponds or sediment traps, vegetated swales, and constructed wetlands.
The removal of a man-made pond that altered the functions of the natural wetland is what triggers the
Limited Activity and Use within the Water Resource Protection Zone. The pond encroaches
approximately 545 square feet into the buffer zone of the wetland. The removal of the pond facilitates
that construction of the private storm water treatment facility including the vegetated Swale/detention
pond. The area disturbed following the removal of the pond that is within the wetland buffer zone will
be replanted with native species selected from the Water Resource Protection Zone guide and installed
and maintained in accordance with AMC 18.3.11.110.
i
18.3.11.060.D. Limited Activities and Uses Permit. All Limited Activities and Uses described in section
18.3.11.060 shall be subject to a Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050. An application for a Limited
Activities and Uses Permit shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following
criteria.
i
Page 17 of 26
Y
4
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
1. All activities shall be located as far away from streams and wetlands as practicable, designed to
minimize intrusion into the Water Resources Protection Zone and disturb as little of the surface area of
the Water Resource Protection Zone as practicable.
The proposed pond removal is occurring as far away from the wetland as possible and will disturb as
little of the surface area of the wetland as practicable. The removal of the pond should be seen as an
enhancement to the wetland as its natural drainage will be restored and the area where the pond is will
be replaced with native vegetation.
2. The proposed activity shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation, grading, area
of impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and other adverse impacts on Water Resources.
The proposed pond removal will restore the function of the wetland and will remove surface water that
is conducive to mosquito breeding with native wetlands vegetation. No impervious surfaces, loss of
native vegetation or other adverse impacts on the wetland will occur.
3. On stream beds or banks within the bank full stage, in wetlands, and on slopes of 25 percent or greater
in a Water Resource Protection Zone, excavation, grading, installation of impervious surfaces, and
removal of native vegetation shall be avoided except where no practicable alternative exists, or where
necessary to construct public facilities or to ensure slope stability.
No native vegetation associated with the wetland will be removed, in fact, post pond removal, native
vegetation on the site will be increased. The dead red maple will be removed from the wetland to
eliminate the future possibility of trunk failure and hazard to persons or property.
4. Water, storm drain, and sewer systems shall be designed, located and constructed to avoid exposure to
floodwaters, and to avoid accidental discharges to streams and wetlands.
All proposed public utilities are as far as practicable from the wetland. The storm drain facility
construction is outside of the delineated wetland area.
5. Stream channel repair and enhancement, riparian habitat restoration and enhancement, and wetland
restoration and enhancement will be restored through the implementation of a mitigation plan prepared in
accordance with the standards and requirements in section 18.3.11.110 Mitigation Requirements.
The area of the pond that is proposed for removal is outside of the protected wetland but within the
wetland buffer zone and is 545 square feet. The restoration of the buffer zone will be accomplished
through the standards in section 18.3.11.110. The proposed activity is the removal of an artificially
created pond. It is unknown the exact depth of the pond at the edge of the wetland and the pond so
calculating cubic yard is difficult. It appears that based on the area and the approximate depth, 20 - 50
cubic yards of pond will be removed. The surface area of the pond into the wetland buffer is 545 square
feet.
6. Long term conservation, management and maintenance of the Water Resource Protection Zone shall be
ensured through preparation and recordation of a management plan as described in subsection
18.3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a
single-family dwelling and accessory structures.
A management plan is not required for residentially zoned lots occupied by only a single family dwelling.
18.3.11.090 Approval Standards for Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments
fiee!
f..
C"
Page 18 of 2G
t
k
rr
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Planning actions and procedures containing Water Resource Protection Zones and involving the division
of land or property line adjustments shall comply with the following provisions and shall include the
plan requirements in subsection 18.3.11.100.A.3. j
A. Building Envelope Established. Each lot shall contain a building envelope outside the Water
Resource Protection Zone of sufficient size to permit the establishment of the use and associated
accessory uses.
Building envelopes have been established outside of the water resource protection zone.
B. Conservation Area. Performance Standards Option Subdivision, Subdivision, Partition, and Site r
Design Review applications shall include the Water Resource Protection Zone within a conservation
easement or recorded development restriction, which stipulates that the use or activity within the
Water Resource Protection Zone shall be consistent with the provisions of this chapter. The
approval authority may require that the Water Resource Protection Zone be included in a separate
tract of land managed by a homeowners' association or other common ownership entity responsible
for preservation.
The property owner is seeking to avoid having a complicated home owner's association. The small 718
square foot wetland and the required wetland buffer zone, which provides 4,845 square feet of area is
proposed to be protected within a single tax lot in perpetuity as it has been since the 1980s. The Water
Resource Protection Zone states that the approval authority may require a separate tract of land but
not that it is required (18.3.11.0908).
The Performance Standards Option does not require a small subdivision such as this to provide
common area or open space. The wetland will be within a conservation easement and will be retained
as unbuildable area.
C. Density Transfer. Density calculated from the land area contained within the Water Resource
Protection Zone may be transferred to lands outside the Water Resource Protection Zone provided
the following standards are met.
No density transfer is sought with the application.
D. Management Plan. Long term conservation, management, and maintenance of the Water
Resource Protection Zone consistent with the requirements of this chapter shall be ensured through
preparation and recordation of a management plan as described in subsection 18.3.11.110.C.
See findings above.
E. Mitigation Requirements. The approval authority may require a mitigation plan in accordance with
the requirements of section 18.3.11.110 Mitigation Requirements to mitigate impacts resulting from
land divisions.
A mitigation plan in accordance with 18.3.11.110 has been provided.
F. Exemptions for a Public Purpose. An exemption to the requirements described above shall be
granted for lots created for public park purposes, or privately-owned tracts created for the sole purpose
of conserving in perpetuity the natural functions and values of the lands contained within the Water
Resource Protection Zone.
Page 19 of 26
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
The lots are not proposed for public park purposes. The wetland will be completely within a private tax
lot that will have a conservation easement consistent with the requirements of the code recorded on
the property.
LAND DIVISIONS AND PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENTS
18.5.3.020 Applicability and General Requirements
A. Applicability. The requirements for partitions and subdivisions apply, as follows.
1. Subdivisions are the creation of four or more lots from one parent lot, parcel, or tract, within one
calendar year.
The request is for a three-lot, Performance Standards Option partition with access via a private drive as
permitted in AMC 18.5.3.020.A.2.
2. Partitions are the creation of three or fewer lots from one parent lot, parcel, or tract, each having
frontage on a public street, within one calendar year. (Note: Partitions of three lots with access
via a private drive are allowed under chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option.)
The request is for a three-lot, Performance Standards Option partition with access via a private drive.
i'
18.5.3.E. Future Re-Division Plan. When subdividing or partitioning tracts into large lots (i.e., greater
than two times or 200 percent the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying land use district), the lots
shall be of such size, shape, and orientation as to facilitate future re-division and extension of
streets and utilities. The approval authority may require a development plan indicating how further
division of oversized lots and extension of planned public facilities to adjacent parcels can occur in
the future. If the Planning Commission determines that an area or tract of land has been or is in the
process of being divided into four or more lots, the Commission can require full compliance with all
subdivision regulations.
The applicant has proposed large lots consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood.
The proposed layout, size, shape, orientation, etc., allows for the preservation of the majority of the
natural features on the site and preservation of the existing single family home and all of its accessory
structures and site improvements. The density of the property is five dwellings, three are proposed. The
applicant finds that two additional units would be detrimental to serenity of the property, and the
development pattern and character of the neighborhood.
18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
The proposal utilizes the entire property and there are no 'remnant' portions of the tract.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
The 1.46-acre property to the north of the subject site has development potential of 5 dwelling units.
The lot is similar to the subject property with a long private driveway accessing a large single family i
home. The proposal will not have an impact on the development potential of that property. The
properties to the east across Tolman Creek Road have limited development potential due to the
presence of the floodplain and water resource protection zone but the proposal will not have an impact
on those properties. The properties to the south and west are developed with single family residences
as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 20 of 26
i
t
Y` ' E
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
i
C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and
any previous land use approvals for the subject area.
To the applicant's knowledge there are no neighborhood or district plans. There are no previous land
use approvals that imposed stipulations on the subject property.
D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
The property has not been partitioned for 12 months.
E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay
zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking
and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation).
The proposal complies with the standards of the underlying zone and the development standards from
18.3. The proposal complies with all applicable development standards found in 18.4.
Solar Access (18.4.8.040): Assignment of solar factor.
Both new lots are subject to solar setback standard A. As demonstrated below, a 21-foot tall structure
can be constructed on either lot and will not exceed the north / south lot dimension.
Lot #1 has an average slope to the north of -.05 and an average north / south dimension of 204-feet
A 21-foot high structure must be setback 37.97 feet from the north property line
The proposed building footprint for Lot #1 is 75 feet from the north property line.
Lot #2 has an average slope to the north of -.036 and an average north / south dimension of 164-feet
A 21-foot high structure must be setback 36.67 feet from the north property line.
The proposed building envelope for Lot #2 is 15-feet from the north property line, the lot development
is proposed as a single story structure. With a ten-foot eave, and a 5 / 12 pitch roof, the required solar
setback is 9.8 feet. Additionally, the north property line falls into the middle of the private driveway. The r
private driveway, the parking bay and the portion of Lot three that is to the north of Lot #2 are all
undevelopable and the shadow cast by the future residence can cast a shadow across the undevelopable
portions of the property. Compliance with the solar setback assignment will be demonstrated with the
building permit submittal.
F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See
also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria.
The proposed 15-foot wide private driveway access the three proposed lots complies with the vehicle
area design. The driveway will have a 13.5-foot vertical clearance and the driveway grade is less than 15
percent.
There are two vehicle garages proposed for the new lots #1 and #2. A third surface parking space is
proposed for each unit. No parking is proposed in the front yard.
Page 21 of 26
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
The existing private drive complies with driveway separation standards and is more than 150-feet from
the driveway to the north and more than 150-feet from the driveway to the south.
The proposal calls for the shared use of the driveway. The site is not accessed by an alley or other shared
access.
The driveway will be widened according to the proposal prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
of either new residence.
G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design
standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future
development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and
i
dedications.
H. Unpaved Streets.
Tolman Creek Road is a paved street.
1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and
prohibited from the street.
There is not an alley adjacent to the property.
J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained
prior to development.
There are no State or Federal permits necessary for the development of the property. The State of
Oregon has concurred with the wetland delineation on the site.
K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section
18.5.3.060.
The proposal is for a three-lot performance standards option partition. Driveways greater than 50-feet
in length are required to demonstrate compliance with the width and design requirements of section
18.5.3.060 (AMC 18.4.3.080.D.1). None of the lots are proposed as a flag lot but are proposed as part of
a performance standards option development, therefore not all of the criteria for flag lot partitions is
addressed.
18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria
D. Except as provided in subsection 18.5.3.060.H, below, the flag drive serving a single flag lot shall
have a minimum width of 15 feet and contain a 12-foot-wide paved driving surface. For drives
serving two flag lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with a 15-foot-wide driving surface to the
back of the first lot, and a 12-foot-wide driving surface to the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent
properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Width shall be
increased on turns where necessary to ensure fire apparatus remain on a paved surface during travel.
Page 22 of 26
i
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
As demonstrated on the site plan, the existing private driveway will be widened to 15-feet of driving
surface to serve the first two lots (Lot #1 and Lot #2), then will remain in the current condition with 12-
feet of driving surface to the rear lot.
E. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. No more
than two flag lots are served by the flag drive.
There is only one driveway access for the property. The proposal is not for a typical flag lot configuration
and is a Performance Standards Subdivision accessed via a private drive, the flag drive criteria appears
to apply because the private driveway is more than 50-feet in length and Lot #3 will have a "flag pole"
connection with Tolman Creek Road in order to adequately comply with lot coverage standards.
F. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for
flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200
feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5
Variances.
The existing driveway grade is less than 15 percent and is between 8 -14 percent grade.
G. Flag drives shall be constructed to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other
public ways.
No surface drainage will flow onto any public way.
I
H. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that:
There are no alleys adjacent to the property.
1. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon
Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof.
The first 150-feet of the private driveway will be dedicated Fire Apparatus Access. The furthest point of
a proposed structure on Lot #2 is not more than 150-feet from where the fire truck would park. Lot #3
and the structures on Lot #3 are pre-existing and are not subject to the fire apparatus access standards
that apply to new development. There is a fire hydrant at the southeast corner of proposed Lot #1.
J. When required by the Oregon Fire Code, flag drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a
turnaround (see Figure 18.4.6.040.G.5). The Staff Advisor, in coordination with the Fire Code
Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround requirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in
length as allowed by Oregon Fire Code access exemptions.
In consultation with the Fire Marshall, a turnaround will not be required per Oregon Fire Code.
K. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated to eliminate the necessity for vehicles
backing out.
There are three parking spaces provided for on each lot. Additionally, there are parking "bays" adjacent
to the private driveway that can accommodate visitor vehicles.
Page 23 of 26
i
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
L. There shall be no parking within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on either side of the flag drive
entrance.
No parking is allowed on Tolman Creek Road due to the narrow driving surface and the roadside ditches.
M. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in part 18.6, shall provide a
fire work area of 20 feet by 40 feet clear of vertical obstructions and within 50 feet of the structure.
The fire work area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved
automatic sprinkler system installed.
The proposed structures will be less than 24-feet in height. If structures are greater than 24-feet in
height, an automatic sprinkler system will be installed as required by Building and Fire codes.
TREE REMOVAL
18.5.7.030. B. Tree Removal Permit.
There are 55 trees on the site. The largest concentrations of trees are directly to the west of the existing
residence and between the driveway and the north property line. The remainder are generally located
near the front of the property adjacent to Tolman Creek Road. The trees consist of a mixture of
deciduous and conifer trees. Of these, five are proposed for removal. Tree #12 is a nine-inch diameter
at breast height (DBH) Liquid Ambar tree. It is in the area of the widened parking area near the north
property line. Tree #35 is a dead Maple within the wetland buffer zone, tree #38 is a 16-inch DBH Silver
Maple which is in line with the proposed driveway to Lot #1, tree #43 is a 16-inch DBH White Oak and
tree #46 is a 9-inch DBH Ash tree.
The dead maple is not subject to the tree removal ordinance.
2. Tree that is Not a Hazard.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable
Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development
and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10.
i=
The proposed development has been planned with the utmost concern and consideration of the trees
on the site. The lot layout, dimensions, access, utility installation, etc. were all dependent upon the
natural features on the property including the trees. Three lots versus the five allowed were proposed
in order to allow for preservation of the trees. The four trees proposed for removal are the minimum to
achieve access, parking and the installation of the storm water facilities.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
The removal of the trees will not have any impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or
protection of adjacent trees. None of the trees proposed for removal are part of a windbreak.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies,
and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this
Page 24 of 26
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists'
i
to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
The removal of a Silver Maple, a white Oak, an Ash and a Liquid Ambar will not have any impacts on the
tree densities. These four trees constitute only seven percent of the total number of trees on the site.
The adjacent neighborhood has a significant number, density, tree canopy and species diversity that the
four trees will not negatively impact.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted
density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as
the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
The residential density has been reduced to preserve the majority of the sites trees.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant
to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
See below.
18.5.7.050 Mitigation Required
One or more of the following shall satisfy the mitigation requirement.
A. Replanting On-Site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 %2-inch caliper healthy and well-
branched deciduous tree or a five to six-foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed.
Four, healthy deciduous trees will be planted on site following the construction of the two single
family residence.
Conclusion:
The property owner and applicant's goal has been to create a residential living environment that will be
appreciated by its residents and the Tolman Creek Road neighborhood. The planned design will
accommodate this goal by creating two aesthetically pleasing residences on lots which reduced the
impact from development on the natural environment and in the neighborhood that what could be
created through a standard subdivision or standard minor land partition process.
Attachments:
1) TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY
2) CURRENT SITE PLAN (L/S PLAN 1990s)
3) FEMA FIRMETTE
4) WETLAND DELINATION PACKAGE
A. COVER LETTER
B. DELINEATION REPORT
C. DELINEATION MAP
D. DSL CONCURRENCE LETTER
5) CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS Co
Page 25 of 26
r
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
6) PLAN SUBMITTALS
A. SITE PLAN (L-1.0)
B. TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL (L-2.0)
C. LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION (L-2.1)
D. PRELIMINARY GRADING (C-1)
E. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN (C-2)
"i
E
Page 26 of 26
Attacp ent 5 - Concept Elevations
i
I
- k
t y
1 11 I
V
61fl, 1-
9~ p
T r~ cd m ~ ea4 .
r~ t
f~f
I'
ATTACHMENT #5
i
Attk.,;nent 5 - Concept Elevations
E
_ o.
1
K
Z
F i t
1 c iz ,o - h ~~`"~,p
• , r t off. _
„l
,i E }
i
tr
ATTACHMENT #5
o Oz9L6 N003ap'aNVIHSy r - - s
N ° a
_j LOL 311f1S `atl0~ 301371SIn OOL o I N003x0 'aNViH51~
ON) S1O31IHDNV 3dVDS4NYJ S31tlIowV.Ntl - - _ 9N GVOa MaA:) NVWWl$q£l
SMOatl3w 3UISJ133a~ rv N
0 a3xJtls a izinv~ _ J
E 25
a)
fY_
C
O
O
U ~W
N
O
d o ,
a)
o
c
-
(6 0 4
$ vise
z
4
l,- z
O
+tt I,- -
- - J
IF-
a
s
g F8°e ~3a - u
o r s "o ~
g a
E p \
-
S
a
- n E E 3S3"S MMCCrYV+Wvv
$ o
z R
x 'I' u+
O I
F n6 m z
k E +
I W
\y } a ~
01
tlo ~~~o~~~~E~~8ooS$88E~8~S8S8~~ 8~8~8 858888888ooS~o~S88~8
aa~~~~s~LLs~~LL~sg~ss~~a~LLs~sa ~ssn~ aaa~sLLLLaLL~sosas~~g~°s
~w
a= _ R¢ w m a ~ ~ nub I fit t AN I
02 °o d sw &w Exw w SS oo & S € gl ado. ~ ~
gQaw ~S9~ww'"k'w~f< 'M
a
8 g _ o ZI E et
NN~
VIA
ffislug
7 <3= z ~s-ma~xs Es ggE $i s
fc+ sas ~0 6 ° =~xa~,gx 3 ~ s m H! 'xg€
pg€ ~g~"$W oo ~s_~ ~g ~
na:
g
~~rc oho a~g`~N°3~~'~" m~~SN 8 ~8 ~g C' a g€_ ®F_ gro
- H
ugs~ wow ~o<w ooQ~- $s
> a.o s°~~m_a<ary<aaN Oo ao. o. ya«aao 8 ~a~g$°~ F € $ -€`0
_ s°'s ~U aaWeE_8 cgs°g~_ f °s5
o< m ao LLu B.sx _ a"D
z
a
CL 44
to ~ a ° ~ U ~ J c°, ~
r fr c k3o ~,~q S a „ w. ' a, wmmo
z x o~ I,sx>e~3=eo,s~<3;~~_ - o 'a as oq x -Z°°•~
y ~ag a e ~ a 5 0~ ~w
O z Q Q
F
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
q A
O I.L
III y \
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
V
/jd
\ I
R
a _ O
a
1
t ~Ir_
Q
I -
Via= ~ {
m
a:
U
77
s
w
_ ~ t r
a
K
x
iF r ~ - 'V.RK~N
S:.
a~
W
LL I
ch Q
b~
W y
J W
L!J
,4 V
~a Q
O
L ~ r 0
aB P_ i T• ca O
tel.
Attachment 4A - Cover Letter
Ecologists & Wetlands'* Specialists
21018 NE Bevy 99E o E0. Roc 5$9 • Aurora, OR 97002 (503) 678.6007 FAX: (503) 6786011
January 12 2016
John Clason
Clason Company LLC
220 Dead Indian Memorial Highway
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: 1365 Tolman Creek Rd - Wetlands
Dear John:
Attached is a copy of the wetland delineation report for the property located at 1365 Tolman Creek
Rd, Ashland. We did find a very small wetland, which was less than 800 sq ft. in addition, the
wetland drained to a small man-made pond. The pond drained into a culvert, which extended off the
property, where it went under Tolman Creek Rd. The wetland forms from the mouth of a culvert from
the adjacent property. Both the wetland and pond are functionally isolated, and surrounded by
development. Because of this isolation, combined with their very small size, the wetland functions
and values are very low. The pond is a potential hazard to small children, and would be an attractive
nuisance.
I know you met with two different representatives from the Oregon Department of State Lands (Bob
Lobdell and Lynn McAllister). Both of them-indicated to you that it would be a relatively simple
process to obtain permits to fill both the wetland and pond. I talked with Bob, and he told me the same
thing. We would have to obtain wetland fill permits from both DSL and the USACOE, and provide
off-site mitigation. It is possible to mitigate using the vernal pool mitigation bank. We would have to
justify out of kind mitigation, but there is president in the Rogue Valley.
Sincerely,
G~
Martin r. Schott, Ph.D.
i
Attachment 4, Wetland Delineation Report
li
c
r E y Ecologists & Wetlands Specialists
21018 NE Hwy 99E P.O. Box 589 ° Aurora, OR 97002 ° (503) 678-6007 FAX: (503) 678-6011
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
DELINEATION
FOR
1365 Tolman Creek Road
Ashland Oregon
T39S, R1E, Section 23, Tax Lot # 201
Prepared for
Clason Company LLC
220 Dead Indian Memorial Road
Ashland, OR 97520
Prepared by
Schott & Associates, Inc
Date:
December 2015
Project 2401
f
TABLE OF CONTENTS
l
(A) LANDSCAPE SETTING AND LAND USE 3
l
(B) SITE ALTERATIONS 3
(C) PRECIPITATION DATA AND ANALYSIS 3
(D) SITE SPECIFIC METHODS 4
(E) DESCRIPTION OF ALL WETLANDS AND OTHER NON-WETLAND WATERS 5
(F) DEVIATION FROM LWI OR NWI 5
(G) MAPPING METHOD 6
(H) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 6
(I) RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 6
(J) DISCLAIMER 6
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. PRECIPITATION SUMMARY FOR MAY 2015 TO AUGUST 2015 4
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: FIGURES 7
Figure 1: Location map 8
Figure 2: Tax Map 9
Figure 3: LWI 10
Figure 4: Soil Survey 11
Figure 5 (a-b) Aerial Photographs 12
Figure 6: Wetland Delineation Map 13
APPENDIX B: DATA FORMS 14
APPENDIX C: GROUND LEVEL PHOTOGRAPHS 15
APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 16
APPENDIX E: LITERATURE CITATIONS 17
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Sox 589, Aurora. OR. 970; ® (503) 678-6007 Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 2 S&A# 2401
(A) Landscape Setting and Land Use
The 1.59 acre site is located north of Blue Sky Lane, west of Apple Way, east of Tolman
Creek Road and south of Morada Lane at the street address of 1365 Tolman Creek Road,
Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon (T39S, R1E, Section 23 and Tax Lot # 201).
The project area consisted of a residential house and associated outbuildings on the
western third of the lot. A small, man-made pond occupied the southeast portion of the
lot. The pond was associated with a Swale coming from the southern boundary of the
property that extended northeast to the pond. An earthen dam formed the northern barrier
of the pond. The Swale extended north of the dam. The pond drained into a culvert
which extends through the property. The access road to the lot was located near the
northern border of the property extending west. The property was landscaped and
dominated by mowed grasses with some mature trees scattered throughout. The property
was surrounded on all sides by residential housing.
(B) Site Alterations
Google Earth images for this property are not of the best quality, however it does appear
that the site is undisturbed since prior to 1994. Gardening and landscaping for the
associated house on the lot appears to be the extent of activity. The on-site pond was
present in aerial photographs indicating the pond was historically present. Offsite housing
along the southern border appeared between 2012 and 2014. On-site investigations found
landscaping to the south was sloped north to the project area. A culvert was identified at
the property boundary. Associated hydrology flows from the culvert down the Swale to
the wetland.
An onsite wetland determination was conducted by Oregon Department of State Lands
(DSL) on October 22, 2015 (WD2015-0198). DSL inspected aerial photographs dating
back to 1939, the site work determined the pond would require a state permit for >50
cubic yards of fill, removal, or ground alteration in wetlands or waterways. Schott &
Associated visited the site in November to further define the wetland and pond sizes
located within the project boundary.
(C) Precipitation Data and Analysis
Schott and Associates visited the site to conduct field work on November 24, 2015.
Precipitation recorded for the day of the site visit totaled 0.52 inches. During the two
week period preceding the November field work 0.37 inches of precipitation had
occurred.
Hydrology for August and September preceding the November field work was below the
WETS range at 8 and 11 percent of average. October was also below the WETS average
and range reached only 39 percent of average. November was within the WETS range at
61 percent of average. November was only calculated to the site visit date with 1.75
inches total precipitation recorded. The average for the water year was calculated to 54
percent of average. Weather data was gathered from accuweather.com from Ashland,
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Box 589, Aurora, OR. 97002 ® (503) 678-6007 ® Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 3 S&A# 2401
{
I
I
I
I
i
Oregon weather station. The NRCS Ashland, OR0304 weather station was used as a
reference for the WETS table.
k
G
Table 1. Precipitation Summa for August 2015 to November 2015.
Field Date 2015 WETS WETS Range Percent of
Preci itation Avera e Avera e
November 0.52" N/A N/A N/A
24, 2015
Two-Weeks 0.37" N/A" N/A N/A
Prior
Month
August 0.05" 0.61" 0.08"-0.75" 8%
September 0.10" 0.88" 0.30"-1.13" 11%
October 0.57" 1.46" 0.78"-1.81" 39%
November 1.75" 2.85" 1.65"-3.46" 61%
Water 2.32" 4.31 N/A 54%
Year*
*November rain calculated to November 24, 2015.
**Water Year is calculated as October-November (per WETS table) and October 2015-
November 24, 2015 (per 2015 precipitation). (
I
(D Site Specific Methods
Prior to visiting the site, Schott and Associates gathered information including maps and
boundaries of the site location. Recent and historical aerial photographs provided by
Google Earth were reviewed to determine if there had been any site alterations. The
Oregon Department of State Lands website was checked for a Local Wetland Inventory
(LWI). Additionally, the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were generated using
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Mapper. A review of soils was performed by
accessing the online soils map generated using the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS) soil survey to identify hydric soils information. USGS topography maps
and the National Hydrography Dataset are reviewed prior to site visits.
Schott and Associates initially walked the subject property to assess the presence or
absence of onsite wetlands and waters prior to collecting data. The wetland delineation
field work was conducted on November 24, 2015. The 1987 Manual and Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual: Arid West were used to
determine presence or absence of State of Oregon wetland boundaries and the Federal
jurisdictional wetlands.
A total of 7 sample plots were placed where geomorphic location or vegetation indicated
the possibility of wetlands to document conditions. For each sample plot, data on
vegetation, hydrology and soils was collected, recorded in the field and later transferred to
data forms (Appendix B). Representative ground level photographs were taken to
document field findings (Appendix Q.
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Sox 589. Aurora. OR. 97002 (503) 678-6007 • Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 4 S&A# 2401
r
i
(E) Description of All Wetlands and Other Non-Wetland Waters
Two soil series were identified on site; Kubli loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes and Manita
loam, 7 to 20 percent slopes. Neither soil series is considered a hydric soil; however both
Kubli and Manita may have Aquills or Gregory hydric soil inclusions.
Based on soil, vegetation and hydrology data taken in the field one palustrine emergent
(PEM) sloped wetland and one palustrine unconsolidated bottom pond (PUBx) were
identified onsite totaling 2,860 sf. The713 sf PEM wetland was identified at the southern
border of the property where the adjacent property to the south slopes down to the north.
A culvert was placed at the property boundary where hydrology enters the site and runs
northwest down the broad Swale to the pond. The wetland was a narrow swath.
Vegetation consisted of white clover (Trifolium repens) (FAC) and colonial bent grass
(Agrostis capillaries) (FAC). Soils met the F3 Depleted Matrix hydric soil indicator.
Hydrology was present with primary indicators of surface water and saturation to 4 inches
(SP 1). Hydrology was surface runoff from properties to the south entering the site
through the culvert along the southern boundary.
Adjacent upland plots were higher in elevation and had a herbaceous layer that included
colonial bentgrass, white clover and tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceous) (FAC).
Soils did not meet hydric soil indicators. Hydrology was not present as the plots were
higher in elevation (SP2 and SP3).
The pond on site was 2,147sf in size. The embankment to the pond was deeply incised,
with a rapid change in elevation. Depth of the pond was undeterminable. Vegetation
included cattail (Typha latifolia) (OBL), hard-stem club-rush (Schoenoplectus acutus)
(OBL) and open water (SP5). A soil sample was not obtained due to deep water within
the pond. Hydrology was approximately 2 feet deep just within the pond edge. The paired
upland plot was higher in elevation. Vegetation was dominated by colonial bentgrass.
Soils had a matrix of 10YR 3/3 with 2 percent IOYR 3/a mottles, not meeting hydric soil
criteria. No hydrology was present (SP4).
(F) Deviation from LWI or NWI
The Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) for the City of Ashland was completed in 2007 by
SWCA. The LWI does not indicate any wetlands within the project area, but it does
recognize a pond on the property. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) does not
indicate any wetlands or ponds within the project area.
Schott and Associates found one 713 sf palustrine emergent sloped wetland that occupied
the bottom of a swale along the southern border of the property extending northeast to the
pond.
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Box 589, Aurora. OR. 97002 ® (503) 675-6007 ® Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 5 S&A# 2401
a
i
(G) Mapping Method
G
The mapped areas were based on soils, vegetation, and hydrology data gathered in the
field by Schott and Associates. Sample plots, photo points the ephemeral drainage
boundaries were flagged by Schott & Associates, Inc. Flagging was surveyed and
mapped to sub-foot accuracy by Polar Land Surveying, a Professional Land Surveyor.
Maps were created by Polaris Land Surveying.
.(I) Additional Information
An onsite wetland determination report was performed by DSL in October 2015
(WD2015-0198). See attached document in Appendix D.
( I) Results and Conclusions
Based on vegetation, soil and hydrology one 713sf PEM sloped wetland and one 2,147 sf
pond were identified within the study area boundary. The PEM wetland was identified in
the bottom of a Swale originating from a culvert along the southern properly line and
extending to the northwest to the pond. The pond was deeply incised with a rapid change
in elevation. The northern portion of the pond was bounded by a earthen berm. Below the
berm no indication of wetland was present.
A wetland determination was performed by DSL identifying the pond onsite.
Additionally, the LWI identified a pond within the project area boundary. Schott and
Associates performed a full delineation to further define the wetland and pond
boundaries.
(J) Disclaimer
This report documents the investigation, best professional judgment and the conclusions
of the investigators. It is correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. It should be
considered a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination of wetlands and other waters and
used at your own risk unless it has been reviewed and approved in writing by the Oregon
Department of State lands in accordance with OAR 141-090-0005 through 141-090-0055.
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Box 589. Aurora, OR. 970; a (503) 678-6007 . Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 6 S&_4 # 2401
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
G
r
c
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Box 589, Aurora OR. 97002 ® (503) 678-6007 ® Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 7 S&A# 2401
f ~
I
i
FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP
i
i.
I
I
t
I
i
j
t
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Box 589, Aurora, OR. 97002 ® (503) 678-6007 Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 8 S&A# 2401
122°42,000' W 122°41 X W 122°40.000' W ;S84 122°39.000' W
Z / 1978 Bl ate; ~1 b1 z
0 re°0
42 44 r 1 zf~ 1_
o u~ - _ < 1 Springs . n 5 eta z~ c
ornate ~
~ ft.~! ( ~ I V I ~,~i.., Ct~ ~ t t- f ~.~4 ~I~-._-..`~ J`~ ~~~~~~'CY G ? ~
575 ~ ~ 4 )
3
48
, - 1
8f •I 1x
7~ J
s 1 I I ) a jl nd b uniripal s
I at at F
Nat at F
E. 1 ~d 4 ..1977 5M
Hun.arli tsr19 _ i A
¢ 1 1 i "45 Par D~ Qr srn -
J
i
Cem _ _
l L7904 ° z
~Lj
Not
o } I mcauoo. • \ l ' 5o~f(. 53 r I o
(r I t\
rV `i J. k 1t - t 1;~ 7~r.~ •i!1 . CDUI'A uA' J 1 ~r_
4 1 1 x r- ~A V n M1 r
r ~ ~ t f ' ~ I r ~ fe iU c ~ t(i14' zneo
= ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ 4 t { ~ ; s\ ' ~,,Q.ta i ce~" . ill C i
V 4 t : ~ ~ ~ `~~~~4 e• + . 1, I .
1 ~
L ti }b_ 1 ~
~
- L, !J'o r 1 .fin ) ~ 1X --s~~~ k.~ e~'~t : J
Spring
' 1 1 ~1' r v,r< u i l L 54 56 `t
° o _ { $fl -
T is
d~ ` W
Pr-J ° ect Ulein1J - e - Commuumbat n ev
•\oTowers
L2 '
~.-_..~y ~~.~~~;r~`~~iil roe° ! ~li~- `'`i~ ~i ~ +i' ~ w~ ,1vv~ 1,~65~•` ~ _ t~
~~-1•.J1 l ~ ^~~r' J ~_1 ~ , .`1 Il~ :%%'~r ~ ~ lu n , 1~~\-~\~ ,l~~l ~ ~s 1~~ u7
1 l
Q o
`
r,. r o l1,~~ , ~a
4 0eoa r 1~ a flj "~`r I tt l F \ r z
12.
z > a7o r /i Wit,
c
f pi ,
7
ii
I/W
l
r :~_~i, r r 1 J 1 odd (r - t 1,
;J oo
71 11~~
f1 ° .%~L.-L ~rf// 1111"IE
122042.000' W 122°4110000' W 122o40.000' MiiE WGS84 122o39.000' W
1\t i:\
FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP Schott & Associates
1365 Tolman Creek Road P.O. Box 589
Aurora, OR. 97002
S&A# 2401 503.678.6007
i
FIGURE 2: TAX MAP
E'
r
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Boa 589, Aurora, OR. 97002 m (503) 678-6007 Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 9 S&A# 2401
I,
N.E•.114, N.WV4, SEC.23, T.39S., R_lE., VolM-
J.WKSON COUNTY
1°®1U7'
SJ "MV391H MCD
lAa+a"114 1,6:f
sl\-l`w [\~\~~l\1~ ti\'t'`S~\\SS\'~'l\111+.\ - ~eucrv. R.I. a~/¢~1:7
3 ~rt axe
,+I12 LS®' I M3
> ! V3J 276 1172 1D7
ti F m59 AC 034M 7
7'J '~lu7ulf , p
I~ f t~.ed°IF
R I\} rJ ef_j IlLB'
Ln-lam
nn t+r.,.r lux 25-2
14! AC_
p ail L ;4M
Project Area
3M { s
E s
I» ~u ~
'i ~~1~\\~ 9 h syn
3$d ue r }
ms:AC. , c , ~ h
F ~J
5--A
~ rJ
201
1.59ac,)
~lt f,;t ~ Ff ' 6 win
s' /may i G47 AG 4MAC
Lri4'J.U
S } , - _ - mar uaac a. e y i
IM 5-u
If q mm- 3`4A. 7i 4D2 4 ~
7 E C:5 AC m25AC DMAC
^
y S
b a c.•rl:ar ~
Ii./ Ttn ~/W ,
BLU SKY LANE _ ten,
X's E 1 : i v o c ms]rt
onu {l7
FIGURE 2. TAX MAP (T39S, R1E, SEC 23, TL#201) Schott A Associates
1365 Tolman Creek Road P.O. Box 589
Aurora, OR. 97002
S&A# 2401 503.678.6007
I'
j
FIGURE 3: LWI
E
I,
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Box 539, Aurora, OR. 97002 • (503) 675-6007 • Fax (503) 675-6011
Page 10 S&A# 2401
City of Anhltmd
CITY OF
-ASHLAND t A~:Rcarrrfi'- ; PDtVD
Icy:
• ~ P Approximate . , .
" Project Area
1 4-
l~ ~ 1
T dray' ,
and dk
L J W ndS, -
y unft
pow
V. ;
6 Cbwwv2*M POW
G;
FIGURE 3. LWI Schott & Associates
P. B
1365 Tolman Creek Road Box 5
Aurora, OR. 97002
S&A# 2401 503.678.6007
i
FIGURE 4: SOIL SURVEY I
c
i
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Box 589, Aurora, OR. 97002 a (503) 678-6007 ® Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 11 S&A# 2401
i
r r
r
Hydrir Soil List -All Components-011632tilaekson County Ares Oregon, Parts of Jackson and Klamath Counties
Map symbol and map unit name ComponenVLoral Camp. Landform Hydric Hydric criteria fret
Phase pot status (rode)
1 DC: Barron coarse sandy loam, 7 Barron 15 Ar vial fans No -
to 12 percent slopes
Clawson 2 Akavial fans Yes 2
Aquepts 1 Gartwash plains Yes 2
1009_ Ku loam, 8 to 7 percent Kubh 0 Stream terraces No -
stopes
Aquols 2 Terraces Yes 2
Greg ywy t Stream terraces Yes 2
1081): Manita loam, 7 to 20 percent Mlanita so A vvial fags No -
slopes
Gregcuy 2 Stream terraces Yes 2
Aqua"fs 1 Hills Yes 2
FIGURE 4. SOIL SURVEY Schott & Associates
P. B
1365 Tolman Creek Road Box 5
Aurora, OR. 97002
S&A# 2401 503.678.6007
I
l
G
1
FIGURE 5: LA-B) AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
i
r
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Box 589. Aurora. OR. 97002 ® (503) 678-6007 a Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 12 S&A# 2401
i
:
t'
} Project Area
N
i4 17 l'~ r~ j r
s,
P ~ s s +fi
a. Google Earth July 4, 2014.
F
fit. l F
1
4 k~ 'A. IE 2.
P 'ems J t . , r
b. Google Earth July 10, 2010.
FIGURE 5(a-b). AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Schott & Associates
P.O.
Tolman Creek Road .O. Box 5 Aurora, OR. 97002
S&A# 2401 503.678.6007
i
i
FIGURE 6: WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
I,
G,
I%
I
i
1=
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Box 539. Aurora, OR, 97002 0 (503) 678-6007 Fax (503) 673-6011
Page 13 S&A# 2401
F
I
~ I f
y i
lo Q3
IF,
'I x~Ll t'
!
2r
Zt-
k m
I k i p m T k ati f u. ~ 1 '
W f .x § n a { DWI
G~ I C _ F4 !
y~
-n t
big
O Z
Kwo 9
in q
b
° Nok®o w ~Dox ® ~°zd n o td
cn N Z ~ w
O O
-0 1
APPENDIX B: DATA FORMS
E
1
if
t.
1
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Box 589, Aurora, OR. 97002 • (503) 678-6007 a Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 14 S&A# 2401
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Arid Vilest Region
Project/Site: 1365 Tolman Creek Road City/County: Ashland/Jackson Sampling Date: November 24, 2015
Applicant/Owner: Clason Company State: OR Sampling Point: 1
Investigator(s): MRS, JRR Section, Township, Range: 23, T39S, R1E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope
Subregion (LRR):D Lat: 42.1694 Long: -122.6720 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Manita loam, 7 to 20 percent slopes NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes jR No II (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation 0, Soil or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No J~
Are Vegetation Soil), or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes El No II
within a Wetland? Yes ® No El
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [D No ❑
Remarks:Soils are saturated. The plot was placed next to a culvert, coming from the property line. The area is sloped down to the pond.
VEGETATION
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3, Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4• Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Total Cover: Prevalence Index worksheet:
1 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2 OBL species x 1 =
3 FACW species -x2=
4 FAC species x3=
5 FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Total Cover: Column Totals: (A)
(g)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'r)
1.Agrosfis capillaris 65 X FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.Trifolium repens 15 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
3. Dominance Test is >50%
4 Prevalence Index is 53.0'
5 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6.
~ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
8. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Total Cover: 80
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) HYdroPhYtic
1 Vegetation
2. Present? Yes No
Total Cover: Remarks:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 2C % Cover of Biotic Crust
i
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
t
SOIL Sampling Point: 1
i
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-9 10YR 3/2 100 L
9-16 2.5Y 4/2 80 7.5Y 3/4 20 C M L
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) ❑ Reduced Vertic (F18)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Vernal Pools (F9) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) ❑ Water Marks (61) (Riverine)
® Surface Water (Al) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) (Riverine)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Biotic Crust (1312) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) (Riverine)
® Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Water Marks (61) (Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) (Nonriverine) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Drift Deposits (63) (Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water-Stained Leaves (69) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): Surf
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 4" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Hydrology was surface runoff from the properties to the south. Hydrology was running downhill and entering the property though a culvert along the
property line.
ii
C
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
L
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ® Arid West Region
i
Project/Site: 1365 Tolman Creek Road City/County: Ashland/Jackson Sampling Date: November 24, 2015
Applicant/Owner: Ciason Company State: OR Sampling Point: 2
Investigator(s): MRS, JRR Section, Township, Range: 23, T39S, R1E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope
Subregion (LRR):D Lat: 42.1694 Long: -122.6720 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Manita loam, 7 to 20 percent slopes NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 0 No jl (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation 0, Soil or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes I. No
Are Vegetation Soil jj, or Hydrology II naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ® Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No IR
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:No hydrology or soils. The area is higher in elevation.
VEGETATION
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Total Cover: Prevalence Index worksheet:
1 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2 OBL species x 1 =
3 FACW species x2=
4 FAC species x3=
5 FACU species x4=
.
UPL species x5=
Total Cover: Column Totals: (A)
(g)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'r)
1.Agrostis capillaris 20 X FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.Trifolium repens 20 X FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ;
3.Hypochaeris radicata 15 x FACU M Dominance Test is >50%
4 Prevalence Index is 53.0'
5 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
8. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Total Cover: 55
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
Hydrophytic
1. Vegetation
2 Present? Yes Z_ No
Total Cover: Remarks:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 45 % Cover of Biotic Crust
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
i
SOIL Sampling Point: 2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tyoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 3/2 100 L
4-16 10YR 3/3 100 L
'T e: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1718)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ St'ratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Vernal Pools (F9) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) ❑ Water Marks (131) (Riverine)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) (Riverine)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Biotic Crust (1312) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) (Riverine)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Water Marks (131) (Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) (Nonriverine) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) (Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water-Stained Leaves (139) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: -
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
l !
I
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: 1365 Tolman Creek Road City/County: Ashland/Jackson Sampling Date: November 24, 2015
Applicant/Owner: Clason Company State: OR Sampling Point: 3
Investigator(s): MRS, JRR Section, Township, Range: 23, T39S, R1E
i
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope
Subregion (LRR):D Lat: 42.1694 Long: -122.6720 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Manita loam, 7 to 20 percent slopes NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes IR No 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.)
c.
Are Vegetation El, Soil or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No II
Are Vegetation Soil J2, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No IR
within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No J~
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks: No hydrology or soils. The area is higher in elevation.
VEGETATION
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3, Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'r)_ Total Cover: Prevalence Index worksheet:
_
1.Rubus armeniacus 10 X FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2 OBL species x 1 =
3 FACW species x 2 =
4 FAC species x3=
5 FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A)
Total Cover: 10 (g)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'r)
1.Schedonorus arundiaceus 70 X FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.Agrostis capillaris 10 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
3. = Dominance Testis >50%
4 F1_ Prevalence Index is s10'
5 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6' Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
8. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Total Cover: 80
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
Hydrophytic
1 • Vegetation
2. Present? Yes 0_ No Z
Total Cover: Remarks:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 % Cover of Biotic Crust
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 3 _
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 2/2 100 L
2-16 10YR 313 100 L
r
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) ,
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) ❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) f
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ❑ Depleted Matrix (173) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Vernal Pools (179) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) ❑ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) (Riverine)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Biotic Crust (1312) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) (Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Solis (C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water-Stained Leaves (139) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
i
i
t
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: 1365 Tolman Creek Road City/County: Ashland/Jackson Sampling Date: November 24, 2015
Applicant/Owner: Clason Company State: OR Sampling Point: 4
Investigator(s): MRS, JRR Section, Township, Range: 23, T39S, R1E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope
Subregion (LRR):D Lat: 42.1694 Long: -122.6720 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Manita loam, 7 to 20 percent slopes NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes IR No 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation II, Soil or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes JK No ❑
Are Vegetation Soil E2, or Hydrology E naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No [j
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No J~ ji
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:Upland sample plot to paired plot 5. Area is significantly higher in elevation.
VEGETATION
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Total Cover: Prevalence Index worksheet:
1 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2 OBL species x 1 =
3 FACW species x2=
4 FAC species x3=
5 FACU species x4=
.
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A)
Total Cover: (g)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'r)
1.Agrosfis capillaris 90 X FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.Schedonorus arundinaceus 5 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
3.Trifolium repens 5 FAC E_ Dominance Test is >50%
4 -J:L_ Prevalence Index is 53.0'
5 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6.
= Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
7.
8. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Total Cover: 100
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
Hydrophytic
1. Vegetation
2 Present? Yes No
Total Cover: Remarks:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 4 _
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tyoe LocZ Texture Remarks
0-16 10YR 3/3 100 L
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1718)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Vernal Pools (F9) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
I'rr,
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) ❑ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) (Riverine)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Biotic Crust (B12) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) (Riverine)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Water Marks (131) (Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No (D Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
I
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Arid West Region
Project/Site: 1365 Tolman Creek Road City/County: Ashland/Jackson Sampling Date: November 24, 2015
Applicant/Owner: Clason Company State: OR Sampling Point: 5
Investigator(s): MRS, JRR Section, Township, Range: 23, T39S, R1E
i
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope
Subregion (LRR):D Lat: 42.1694 Long: -122.6720 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Manita loam, 7 to 20 percent slopes NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes jRR No 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Ea, Soil or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes f~ No
Are Vegetation Soil 0, or Hydrology 0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes [D No II
within a Wetland? Yes ® No II
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® Non
Remarks:Sampie plot was taken within ponded area. Soil sample was not obtained as depth was to deep.
VEGETATION
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3, Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Total Cover: Prevalence Index worksheet:
1 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2 OBL species x 1 =
3 FACW species x2=
4 FAC species x3=
5 FACU species x4=
.
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A)
Total Cover: (g)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'r)
1.Typha latifolia 20 X OBL Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.Scirpus acutus 10 X OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
3. M Dominance Test is >50%
4 = Prevalence Index is :53.01
5 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
8. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Total Cover: 30
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
Hydrophytic
1 • Vegetation
2. Present? Yes No 0
Total Cover: Remarks: Ponded
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
i
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
i
SOIL Sampling Point: 5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc' Texture Remarks
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) ❑ Reduced Vertic (F18)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (176)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (177)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Vernal Pools (F9) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): FHydricil Present? Yes ® Non
Remarks:
Soils are assumed by best professional judement as the area is ponded. The vegetation occurs withing the ponded area. A very narrow fringe, about
V wide
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) ❑ Water Marks (131) (Riverine)
® Surface Water (Al) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
® High Water Table (A2) ❑ Biotic Crust (612) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) (Riverine)
® Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Water Marks (61) (Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) (Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ ShallowAquitard (D3)
❑ Water-Stained Leaves (139) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 3 ft
Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Area is ponded. Hydrology was about 2 feet deep.
E
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 I`
is
I
E
C
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Arid West Region
r
Project/Site: 1365 Tolman Creek Road City/County: Ashland/Jackson Sampling Date: November 24, 2015 t
Applicant/Owner: Clason Company State: OR Sampling Point: 6
Investigator(s): MRS, JRR Section, Township, Range: 23, T39S, R1E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope
Subregion (LRR):D Lat: 42.1694 Long: -122.6720 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Manita loam, 7 to 20 percent slopes NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes IR No 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation 0, Soil or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes I. No ❑
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 12 within a Wetland. Yes ❑ No )R
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3, Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Total Cover:
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Prevalence Index worksheet:
1 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2 OBL species x 1 =
3 FACW species x2=
4 FAC species x3=
5 FACU species x4=
.
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A)
Total Cover: (g)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'r)
1.Lolium perenne 40 X FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.Poa pratensis 30 X FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
3.Trifolium repens 25 X FAC _M Dominance Test is >50%
4.Ranunculus repens 5 FAC Prevalence Index is :53.01
5 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
8. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Total Cover: 100
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic
1 • Vegetation '
2 Present? Yes M No
Total Cover: Remarks:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
E
SOIL Sampling Point: 6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-13 10YR 3/3 100 L
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) ❑ Reduced Vertic (F18)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Vernal Pools (F9) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) ❑ Water Marks (131) (Riverine)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Salt Crust (811) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) (Riverine)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Biotic Crust (B12) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) (Riverine)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) (Nonriverine) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water-Stained Leaves (139) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
.s,1 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
r
I
i
f,
APPENDIX C: GROUND LEVEL PHOTOGRAPHS
I
i
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Box 589, Aurora OR. 97002 ® (503) 678-6007 a Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 15 M-49 2401
i
ti t t l l~7 i~l 1
c La !,y ~ ~ J ~ 1 f r '
r ` r
},.pry ~ r y a f
f 4 ~ ;
y r .n, X i~~ r- i ypP,
i ry;
NS ~ Y, ~ ` C i1~ K;_ ` . i4~ _ 1T ~ I t i., ♦ 1 + j \ ` t 'I
t 4~ i tit , ;t r ' u'14P l.' ¢ (t 3`c~ 5 ~`fg-'
✓i 5, W 'r l
! 4 l'o -p XJ~ 6. a^~r+. ~`tl..~~ ~.~hte w..'-Trvv
1. f ~ M-s i ~w9r - ~ x Pd~ ♦ }
F * fi Ala t Gr °
~,rs f r1h P it ti i o c
"`~~3. r h La ~~{e rrY c 1; ; ✓ Fem.. t ql` ! y r , e y -.s~ -'_'1 a h
~jg
V
"A'
Y e i;x r c ~f 5~, r- k s ~a
/F e. .;fid r f ~h r': r_ r z -k„r .,,i. ~ 3•, ci~`a w•rN~~ J ~ .'v _'T`~~"-,_~ , Q;P~~.
PP I. Facing south, showing culvert at southern property boundary.
r,
r 4
,a y _ ~ ~ c z ✓ : 1.: ' k7-" 4 r z~Ga kasL tfi \ ~ ~ ;ter.
_,,.v_• ! n-y (.cif L~" ~"~i. ~-^'J" { v~ ~ ~~,``f `c'.1 •R f
,1 ~g ~~q`~ t~ ~ t•l•1 \ , t P~ 3
URI
W 'N
41
l S
~ k r•~~~ x~r; bar ~
PP 1. Facing west toward SP2, higher in elevation.
APPENDIX C: GROUND LEVEL PHOTOGRAPHS Schott & Associates
1365 Tolman Creek Road P.O. Box 589
S&A # 2401 Aurora, OR, 97002
503.678.6007
~w f
5 f few 1 F~ -
y 6
C~,ti 7 J
/
lkltN
_ 1 , rr f r C
V .e,~'iWa diS(~,t
{ Y
P$ JI
rt11.. ✓ ' °v j~'>r ~ r ~ ~ctifi .~k~ --1.~Nyt ' `y i H'i ,V r l
r d lh a ~ r V e ~14t`#"~1'~ ~r,k~- ~y ~V `~y9: ~ r. Ili s ~ -
\ sf i F f dd~~ls~ ~Sd 1} as
s°l.~.^'~-~ R; ~,J sg~~lfv t.~ ~~,~.~E`j ~ •_y ~ n.~~~ fA P~ A L,~~
^ 1
. )
PP l.Facing east toward SP3, higher in elevation.
r-
\
~44 - ~ ~yp~1rr i
y \ ~2 _ ~V `~Mf h ~~.~A.• ~~YL ~iI!' 1}'~ FNl L 7 --1 1 f '
,'4 F,g C t I y ~ ~
r
e r - r~ ~c r-.~ s .J 4~
r ~/7
PP 1. Facing north, showing PEM wetland. Sloping northeast toward pond.
APPENDIX C: GROUND LEVEL PHOTOGRAPHS Schott & Associates
1365 Tolman Creek Road P.O. Box 589
S&A # 2401 Aurora, OR. 97002
503.678.6007
rd
,mot z;' ''~`1 t
1V ps . t 1
j9 M1-}, 3J`1'#14~ i V k r` - l t?` L y I j. i'
C + i }i t L ifs _ }F F ~t + tjy~ 1 i
u
~ ~ ,r t ~ itt t A - t
~f E r ~ ,~t; e~ 1 r >f r t
~9~ . C i q, r I V"., ~ 1 ' 6r 5 Utz
PP 2.Facing east toward pond.
sr~
t ~ ; c 1 r q' 1 / 5 1 ~
V, t"
15,
o >f z t~ Z r S.
1 )rY
,41 et ~f =
7 y 1~' '4 4
i 4y r`
~ ~ ~ rti _ in _ t r
k 6„f, ~ r ~ civ ~c
t'
M ; C.r t 2\ r
PP 2. Facing south, showing steep embankment to pond.
APPENDIX C: GROUND LEVEL PHOTOGRAPHS Schott & Associates
1365 Tolman Creek Road r P.O. Box 589
S&A # 2401 Aurora, OR. 97002
503.678.6007
i
"SF°'• C 1 7
W T;,
i I key 1„ ~ ( ~ €
s
~ ' jr r 7~ 1 1
i
a 'i r t
4iJf ~y ,r.~ , Sr f r 1~
r y 5t,r - _ '
,f ,,ti y - 1
J l; i r . fit r
r r~~.bst ~ to _ ~t~ ~ ~ tir ~ 1;4 L~1 ~Ff ~'I I
F ~Lf Y
PP 2. Facing north, showing pond embankment.
F;
s`~'n.>y~5~-'
r5 .-1 y '!S a y 41 ~~1 a, ' r' f c_: 4 S~ . 'l
i i3~ z "v. IL's i T"l ~ r~s` rid ~i r_ J~
} n
` '^4~ ~i ri'^ _ SL-, r' .p s,. t r . -•=a i~ c a t
y ri
VW-
11 r: ~ ,
vt-
4 -
PP 3.Facing southwest, earthen mound under the vegetation. No outlet from pond was
found.
APPENDIX C; GROUND LEVEL PHOTOGRAPHS Schott & Associates
P.O. Box 589
1365 Tolman Creek Road Aurora, OR. 97002
S&A 4 2401 503.678.6007
yy ,
77 t+~
- . 1 l~ ,II t , ' ~
-lam ^A. f , t _ L _ l 'J t 1, _ 1S ti_ d
~F ^ Sr F 1 W ? 1 - 9
PP 3. Facing northeast.
~ ~ ( { 1. K ~ 1 a t AJ
r 1
t
• E~. %i Tea ~yr~ ~ _ t ,
_1 tV
•V~~ ~s`~ s ~ ' 'Y y
.c ` 4 S a
31
r
3.Facing northwest.
APPENDIX C: GROUND LEVEL PHOTOGRAPHS Schott & Associates
1365 Tolman Creek Road P.O. Box 589
S&A # 2401 Aurora, OR. 97002
503,678.6007
k
r
APPENDIX E: LITERATURE CITATIONS
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Environmental Laboratory, 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2. 0),
Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program ERDC/EL TR-10-3 U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying
and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 138 pp.
Federal Register, 1980. 40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b)(1), Guidelines for Specification of
Disposal Sites of Dredged or Fill Material, Vol. 45, No. 249, pp. 85352_85353, U.S.
Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Federal Register, 1982. Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II1Regulatory
Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Vol. 47, No, 138, p. 31810, U.S. Govt. Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Federal Register, 1986. 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of
Engineers; Final Rule, Vol. 51, No. 219 pp. 41206-41259, U.S. Govt. Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Kollmorgen Corporation, 1975. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen
Corporation, Baltimore, MD.
Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014.
The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings.
Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42.
Oregon Division of State Lands and City of Ashland. 2007. City of Ashland Local Wetlands
Inventory and Riparian Inventory,
Natural Resource Conservation Service. Website (http://agacis.rce-acis.org/41029/wets).
Accessed January 5, 2016).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/.
Accessed [January/5/2016].
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
(CRREL). 2012. State of Oregon NWPL - Final Draft Ratings.
Schott & Associates
Ecologists and Wetland Specialists
PO Box 589, Aurora OR 97002 o (503) 678-6007 ® Fax (503) 678-6011
Page 17 S&49 2401
F~
a. Department of State Lands
0
m:
ilpxeh on
775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100
8__5g Kate Brown, Govemor Salem, OR 97301-1279
(503) 986-5200
FAX (503) 378-4844
April 5, 2016 www.oregon.gov/dsl
State Land Board
Clason Company, LLC
Attn: John Clason Kate Brown
220 Dead Indian Memorial Road Governor
Ashland, OR 97520
Jeanne P. Atkins
Re: WD # 2016-0019 Wetland Delineation Report for 1365 Tolman Secretary of State
Creek Road
Jackson County; T39S R1 E Sec. 23, Tax Lot 201 Ted Wheeler
City of Ashland Local Wetlands Inventory wetland OW594 State Treasurer
Dear Mr. Clason:
The Department of State Lands has reviewed the wetland delineation report prepared
by Schott & Associates for the site referenced above. Based upon the information
presented in the report, and additional information submitted upon request, we concur
with the wetland and waterway boundaries as mapped in revised Figure 6 of the report.
Please replace all copies of the preliminary wetland map with this final Department-
approved map.
Within the study area, one wetland, totaling approximately 0.016 acres and one pond
were identified. The wetland and pond are subject to the permit requirements of the
state Removal-Fill Law. Under current regulations, a state permit is required for
cumulative fill or annual excavation of 50 cubic yards or more in the wetland or below
the ordinary high water line (OHWL) of a waterway (or the 2 year recurrence interval
flood elevation if OHWL cannot be determined).
This concurrence is for purposes of the state Removal-Fill Law only. Federal or local
permit requirements may apply as well. The Army Corps of Engineers will review the
report and make a determination of jurisdiction for purposes of the Clean Water Act
at the time that a permit application is submitted. We recommend that you attach a
copy of this concurrence letter to both copies of any subsequent joint permit application
to speed application review.
Please be advised that state law establishes a preference for avoidance of wetland
impacts. Since measures to avoid and minimize wetland impacts may include
reconfiguring parcel layout and size or development design, we recommend that you
work with Department staff on appropriate site design before completing the city or
county land use approval process.
I
I
i
This concurrence is based on information provided to the agency. The jurisdictional
determination is valid for five years from the date of this letter unless new information
necessitates a revision. Circumstances under which the Department may change a
determination are found in OAR 141-090-0045 (available on our web site or upon
request). In addition, laws enacted by the legislature and/or rules adopted by the
Department may result in a change in jurisdiction; individuals and applicants are subject
to the regulations that are in effect at the time of the removal-fill activity or complete
permit application. The applicant, landowner, or agent may submit a request for
reconsideration of this determination in writing within six months of the date of this letter.
Thank you for having the site evaluated. Please phone me at 503-986-5246 if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Approved b
Chris Stevenson Kathy V rble, CPSS
Jurisdiction Coordinator Aquatic Resource Specialist
Enclosures
ec: Jodi Reed, Schott & Associates
City of Ashland Planning Department (Maps enclosed for updating LWI)
Benny Dean, Corps of Engineers
Bob Lobdell, DSL
i
I
i
WETLAND DELINEATION ! DETERMINATION REPORT COVER FORM
This form must be included with any wetland delineation report submitted to the Department of State Lands for review and approval.
A wetland delineation report submittal is not "complete" unless the fully completed and signed report cover form and the required fee
are submitted. Attach this form to the front of an unbound report or include a hard copy of the completed form with a CD/DVD that
includes a single PDF file of the report cover form and report (minimum 300 dpi resolution) and submit to: Oregon Department of
State Lands, 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100, Salem, OR 97301-1279. A single PDF attachment of the completed cover from
and report may be e-mailed to Wetland_Delineation@dsl.state.or.us. For submittal of PDF files larger than 10 MB, e-mail
instructions on how to access the file from your ftp or other file sharing website. Fees can be paid by check or credit card. Make the
check payable to the Oregon Department of State Lands. To a the fee b credit card, call 503-986-5200.
® Applicant ❑ Owner Name, Firm and Address: Business phone # 541-646-5444
John Clason Mobile phone # (optional) 541-646-5444
Clason Company LLC E-mail: john.clason@gmaii.com'
220 Dead Indian Memorial Road,
Ashland, OR 97520
® Authorized Legal Agent, Name and A v Business phone 503-678-6007
Jodi Reed Mobile phone #
Schott & Associates, Inc. JAN 2 2 2010 E-mail: Jodi@schottandassociates.com
PO Box 589
Aurora, OR 97002
DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS
I either own the property described below or I have legal authority to allow access to the property. u epartment to access the
property for the purpose of confirming the information in the report, after prior notification tot o
Typed/Printed Name: John Clason Signature: ®I
Date: 18 Jan 2016 Special instructions regarding site access:
Project and Site Information (using decimal degree format for lat/long.,enter centroid of site or start & end points of linear project)
Project Name: 1365 Tolman Creek Road Latitude: 42.1694Se~- Longitude: -122.6720
Proposed Use: 3-Lot Subdivision Tax Map # 39 1 E 23BA
Project Street Address (or other descriptive location): Township 39S Range 1E Section 23 QQ
NE/NW
1365 Tolman Creek Road Tax Lot(s) 201
Waterway: River Mile:
Cit : Ashland Count : Jackson NWI Quads :
Wetland Delineation Information
Wetland Consultant Name, Firm and Address: Phone # 503-678-6007
Jodi Reed Mobile phone #
Schott & Associates, Inc. E-mail: Jodi@schottandassociates.com
PO Box 589
Aurora, OR 97002
The information and conclusions on this form and in the attached report are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Consultant Signature: Date:
`bigIlS
Primary Contact for report review and site access is ® Consultant ❑ Applicant/Owner ❑ Authorized Agent
Wetland/Waters Present? ® Yes El No Study Area size: 1.59a Total Wetland Acreage: 0.066
Check Box Below if Applicable: Fees: $406.00
❑ R-F permit application submitted ® Fee payment submitted $ 406.00
❑ Mitigation bank site ❑ Fee ($100) for resubmittal of rejected report
❑ Wetland restoration/enhancement project (not mitigation) ❑ No fee for request for reissuance of an expired
❑ Industrial Land Certification Program Site report
❑ Reissuance of a recently expired delineation
Previous DSL # Expiration date
Other Information: Y N
Has previous delineation/application been made on parcel? ❑ ® If known, previous DSL #
Does LWI, if any, show wetland or waters on parcel? ® ❑
For Office Use Only
DSL Reviewer: Fee Paid Date: I I DSL WD # D
4-7
f a a/i~
form Updated 01/0312013
122°42.000' W 122'41.000'W 122°40.000' W WGS84 122'39.000'W
v re
42 a0
SAringt. 5 o
o erdbta
75
481
_ ~ t Mun '
{ ~ tan BM ~Sa
~ t ~•Tp~~ ,{j ~1 j5 ~ Pa; Lu d
4 l k
4-` D E ~k 3K d-~ Caul` } ri__ Nt 4~ •V ti
low
MI 0
.1 56 I
rv . iii/ ~3.~ ~-A fj L 1.` Yo,cauon.• I ~ ~ 53 a' ( i ; rv
1- c~~ ~SI~~~~ Ii• 1:14 /'~,~1f }
Olt.
a _ awn
h . , Sulphur ~DVO ~ t
bpring
56
0
ProjectVicinity ~
,~t;_ j---;.. I r~, ~~li~ `<f~~l ti 1 ~ Ai;}~ ~f~iZa~ ~
V
v - ~ I .~G4 /~/<~•'.~(~"~,y~J cif ~ ~ f
z z
VI A-
122°42.000' W 122'41.000'W s 122'40.000'W v~ WGS84 122°39.000' W
TNt/Z,V
FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP Schott & Associates
1365 Tolman Creek Road Aurorra a P. Box 5
7
S&A# 2401 , OR . 97002
503.678.6007
r
I
N.E.1/ RWI/4 SEC_23 T.39S., R- 1E.- WM.
JACKSON COUNTY
Ta°167 i
MIMP 39 HE 14CD
ncrr I
U2 Wa
} / 2~0 eu a 102
01 i n:aAC 6 n~arc. rsiA-
L'L 1D3111r Y f'.
rr - Y
~ w. 2IX3 ~
1 LL 335`x• u~c 1
l~h!Mk
C:'iYl~ D
Project Area
307 . a 1
11 314
fa 201 5-1 a~ `
y
11) 1.59ac t ,-A
103 iGt
o f . ~ ar_au ~xsc
h
4 '
f u-:.c:nrD 320 5-85321 pt 'ICI py' Y-
A ;F D27RC. 4011 371 4a2 f S
9 GSA= D$7D 02SA ,
Cr, ~ Y }
r n'~ --gym A saw _ G.:V7dD L"lr:d+Jl
)i BLUE SKY LANE 1Ga "
- U F
{
MAC
arA~
FIGURE 2. TAX MAP (T39S, RI E, SEC 23, TL#201) Schott & Associates
1365 Tolman Creek Road P. Box 5
Aurorra a,OR . 97
7002
S&A# 2401 503,678,6007
I
I
I
00 0
~ who a~a II h ~ m ~~~N wo ti = ~
j O ti ~a
Z~ a Q ~
p
4
,s hw ~ ,~y i
I~ r W
$s~y L
rr 4W o
e WV W
2
_ ~4Z2 A
M
z > N o
t
Fi
j
Q
U) N
U)
G d^y
C6 Fes". N -
Z,
O '4' R h co (,4
) r.. Z O
, W
W a F U" °a wnX om~ M~s
ci co
a
C) ~ ~ U W a W p3~s~ Ld
U d'02 U a~A, N _ a UU
j
a ~R~ ' s as W co pb
U _ . g l,.i Lr
~Q
4 ~ P ~E7fi7. ~ f'aS0 (3t1 N_ - ~ . s.~.
~ O i+~aaft.r -
W
O ~ x
;sue d ¢ ~ J,
a"r
cl~ Z ea: Y h~ k = x t'•¢ "r~gr +1 -a' -1'y ti m
QL" a
'a (0) zi
d
s ~w~o
i
wo a
s 4C la ? is $ > ¢ r. , Q
t VA
Q,
.nom .Be. ~.ata€'~ x W m O ~
s.m e
5 rz ,yam n 00'Qt
~R- ~M ~.LS.OOAD S
r
o6SL6 NOO3Np 'CNViHS)V a 9
O l06 31ins 'OYO~ 301371SIw OOL No93ao'UN-SV
:)NJ S13311HONV 3dY~SONVJ S3IVIJOSSd ®NV _ _ a g N "ON XMD Nvmoy Sq£"
N30VS 31N ItY'~ X SMOdV3w 341S)133N:)
aJ
in -
O % U)
\ z o
Y
° o
v ~o i ~ q ~6 w ~ a
w°v ~ ~ xp s
° ~oa R ° p gait
LLI t,
hw$ a coo c C
ago ~7
OGON NEI~b7 NHWflo1
- -
~adoaa- ~
_ t
Ia
r` s
~ o
L - °a m
6 +d
_w 3 J +
+
r~" dL4l d W
_
bg +
i- d
+ + +
OZ9L6 N0038p'aNVIHSV
LOZ 3Lin5 'avoN 301371ST n( OOL - m No~aap'oN nHSy
ENO 513011 HOVV 3dVOSONV S3IYIOOSS~ aN7 i 3 8 avow ~aaaZ) Nvrnol Sq£L
O MaOvs 31anvj - _ - ° SMOav3w 3a1SN33713 b, cr)
J
CL tF
a
>a o
cs s
z3
c~ - - - - - -
-
moo t~ o
z
- - - - - - w o
1 S2
- OV02J 7113bO NVMOi - z
i T
- _ { +
t3 _ Z97
L,
w +
q•zbw ~ uQl
p i1I -r z Pow
• i rc w • - t
77-
+ + /
J + +
+ +
a
_ at
ow
~ I I o
SEA o
6 $ io c¢ o~au an J l area :mnoaeae I-,~1"J' Z
~ _ vanoaade
J ~m ~~~.L.. 1K.L~ Ili ~.9yso :.v.va... e^'y Aaa~rta I ~ D~. z~ 14 I F 6
o~ ~e R z
c aaa ,ca exrv~l z O
Z 002
oez
I I w N w K4
~ Z ~ C7 W
C l7 3 U ~
w ~ ozaz
~ ° ~ ~oua
d. i ~ u O Q aY
o u
12
s ~
v
c~
d
a~
F ~ V
d OFF
O OO
O OF
O OQ ~
dU
- -
GVO'd )I33dD NtlW-10-L
- -
~ LL
s
Q
pp ' SO l
qq c
F J
3 ` / ~1' wpm O ~ ~ -i -
w y
t
1 ~
'
Z ' M =O
~ w
N
q z f
Z 0
O F a O
y O O - - -
0 ~
U U
O O y Z
oowo o
a
W J
I
W
J i
to ~xo a. ~z ,oe .o.a ~ 3rvo ~o~
_ ~'o S~`ti l 7 ~ 31 b0 :Q310NddY ` ~ a \ ~ ki Z C N ~
i a
- z
9t/SO 3(VO J70 ~.tH NN Yev,.. ~~n z
z
~ z ~I o0as,
A - ~W ti Y
ti
w 0zua
e
~fti
Oz
N Ow
j
E _ ¢ s °
m~ 0
0 -
_
LU 1 2
C
N
s w
U ~
N E
Q
~ p O
S ua
l7 Z ~
X zw ~ H~
m O 5z0
m wa
Oz
70
i
y E
x GVO'd . )133d:) NtTW 101 ~ivwN 9s Aa lNVS Ni ;
1 \
\ ~ O
~I I V Z
1 O t7Z wF
i
p F
w
0 0~ ` \1 'qo
a ~ z
z
~ GU N¢F- X
~OH m
O~w o I
r (jJ z
I
i
V
~ w
w
-IR IOW
\ I
A mo I
z - ~
E
< r a ~ w z ~ ~ z L~
22 a
< a N ~ a O J < O $ y ~ r ~ _ _ _ ,
3 u 0 0 0 p p p
z 0 O m O O O z
z z z z z z z ? z p o O O O
F N F y F F F y \
uYl w ~ w u~ w u~ w w ~ O O O a ~
w
J ~ ~
, ~ ~ F I 4 r
r _ ' 1 ra t r- 1 s~ f ~ a ~ r~' ~ s
l+ ! r
143
yr~~ _ F~ 1s ~ F. ~y i, t ~ - _ ~'l rw ~ y-- f y~ - t C s t•' ' , ~~r l . ~a.
.n t S LC S i~ ` l i h t ~4
x
P, _ r ! r ' s t z,
1
r1 y
.19P n „c,i-'
1
~ - ~ fY~,4 f,~! ~1 - ~ ~,i~~~ ~'z .yam
l Y' _ I
t
"Ilk
a~
3 ~ rF F ~
0
~~l ~ Vr 'LY,~1~ t `I ~~l, 'i.. 1~~ f 1 1 ~ Th~-~Y C lT~✓i
s~Ak
i , I aca.d+3 ~.Y r 1, f
L'
I
1. P~'~{;•' , ~ ~ to f ~ ~ - =
I
Z
N
T===
~ o
f ~
NN
021 N]J3 J NNW101;
1 i I ~Jf- L4~ II I
I _ L1 I r
~j J-
F-1
~ -
z E I L_- lji I F ~ JL W,
A
zT r ,
10
r J 111 L-_l ~Fj'
L,
_0 L
- -
L C 1
) I
I ~ I t
7
I
1
L
J _
t _I
/ / QI~ 1 O
\ \ \ C o
cl LO
_ o
t w
r F" 6~ x 1
~s fJ
T-N
1 I s J
Z
`3 'r'te I • ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ l ti r`'~~i ~ ~~r b~ ~ :L
1,7
a r i {r v 4`vi ...t J~~`' ~I
~Yl r'c.e t d ~ ~.b ~ I
'4W
~a.yei
.t - '3'+'
s'i'c ~ n~,~: ~t a~,'~~~>i r,.. yip ~
}w
r
4
-
r> -
m
~I
1 F
1+
1
f
_ $ au
1r`
P
- r
-
_ - - -
_
~ . ~ ' ' a ! `s is
- z ~
r yam. -~-~-y -
<< , . ~ ~ r, ~
_ ,
I
~ l
I
ill, 1
I~
~t9
.:z ~ ` a
. 7 ~
- .-r _
t x - .
~ Lt _
r - ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - _
t: - 1 ~r k x7 1 -
1 ~ 9
- 'r~~ ~c ' -
~ ! }
r- _ , ~
~ # h. i 1
iJ W ~
~ ~ "
- - i ~ ~~G ~ "E~f` ,,y
~ ~ j i ~
mss' f ~ _ _ ' a _r J~
t 1 F ~ t i
~ }~r I'~~
_ _ ~ ~k
u ~ i~ y
ti~
~j . , Y' v , s ~ ~ t z
t I~ i '~'rT ~ ' r .'tea \s~ ~ ~ 1
~ ~ NHS 1 ~r~~ r t,;~P ~ ~ ' {t~ v', a , ~ t"~
~ - € <s.~
~9 II
Y ~1 ~ .
t ~ i
_ ~
-yam„ r r_,ti
~s. r i ~1 y
re ~ ~
~ t + 4 \ ~ j
! l t~ ~ ,
' ~ - S _ ~ } - `(a ~4 1- 1 C., X73 ~f ^h- C
a7 ~ } a,
t i ~ ~ 1
5~1: v
_ - i' - ~ P~~~~., ~ k ,q,~~~,a aA7 ~
f ~iS ti ~ • x~~'~~~~55~ 3TS i ~sL' - i
~ ~ S
~ _
~
i }
II 1," 1..
i
Y
G BhYSB r t~I s
1 Y
"JR
g~. off. ~?i r yn. 1 ~1,. +~f r tax.t4
A At
+zS K I1 ? S rV^iIx R_,yr; St? r W fYY1' tti ~i ;5.
ri~
I
Cpl RA
~ ~s `r~~r ] F ~ l ~\"t • r ~ i ' : t ~ ~u~ ~ w Y ~ ~~4~ ~ r ~~r+ ^F - ~ r^ ~
F ~ a
1. _ y -r i of c
rv~
r
_ r•- i rr. ~rti 3y Yr r> - ~ ~~L
I F,:1{f ~ Z c ~ _ - ~ r-.i l~a{ yc Syr si >
~ I cat 'At ~ r i r '
~ i^ F s~, ~ y ~ iEa 1
( ' I
)AY
~ & E~ ♦ ~ Iii _ F k ~ ~ Jr
' ~ ~ ~ Ill! - 1~J r~•~AY~( j ~ ~ ~I
y
c t5 s t qq } f~ l d
rr ~ ~ s
r r
qi Z 1 S4' f 'k ~
u
4 1
~hn 4,
` t t_ 'Y f
7 ~ ~ ~ f 11t l]~.
r_.LZ {Yiti `t S1,' ?t;>f 1 ! f ,~1 / 1. yv~l-_.
t 1 TT
_ r
r ~ ;'`~i : r yo
1I
15
ad1 6 i{. y 4- _ s _
7'L ,F
T 17
4 2
z ja
rt mob' :.y ~c~r ~v. f}
r r ,
7
4N, ,F
I i tir; r KrlCt t t t
~F aka `3 S rt
r.V'C t Y
t
r y
f 1 J 1 << 1 1
r . a i ~f r
SA.
a9 i#i' 1'
x , 4 n
t ~
1P rFFrx y ra; `l
i vfr T f ~ 1 ~ 1 ~
J f
41
1 r' i
.F 4nK _ f~ ;1- ~ { 1- 1~ (1f fJ ~ y tit T' ) v ~C f
1 1
- 71•A 7 ~~~t yAl~ ~ 1 1
~t+ nnaa
h
I
K
i
MI q (P~ .i
w~~ Ipl t~ t. 1
4
.u'
t s
t b 3 r r
1~ hIC ~ ~ 5
II
~ f
Z t~~ ! - d t'~ _ t
A. 6
,S a=S~~1f 1~~4~ y T yia
J-
^J I 1 yi ~ R - ! ~i -
t
~ „ y,. ~ Iwo ~q, ~
i
J1
k J,
lam' 1 - ~~f ~ its M } y T4~ • \ @ M•'"
4
- y .ter. it ~ ,~.ti~ r T -,~a,
A
F ' d . I
v 'Rs
u Ja i 1 fi ~i. y ;K
~ y'[uur~~-'/.. -ad~La r_:.,:~'."`4'~,.v-'~.. uLCvi~ ✓QS -
N
T ~ U
R m O
= a. U L
~ O O
I I ( v a
o E
R d
I~ =y~
/ ?
- R _
Z5 2D
k U i d
i Rya
C
a
I yNa
Q N
0
9 0
CM >13]dD _ 01
i
N
I
!m `
'I
\ a
I
I
cat v
0
• LF g if 4 q F e-,. ~ -F 4•, AM i. Z ~ 'e ~ 3P ~ ~ = R
0 0
U
U
1-4 U
z
1¢ 1 - 0 E°
e ( ~
4" r iF'' V sy. y
a
{ 4 iv, i R 4 P 'Q, p~
'1 .7
I
-
- - T
s ~ ~ 7 F~~ r s'` .sr
51:5 K+ ic' S P * a}' ~A'ICiS
tom-
-lea
c
R 7~ ~ ffi 1 a5 yF# ~ ~'R > >K ~ S.-. ~ s , 1 1 ?i^ .v ~ ~ ,bq ' cam
x F .i ,r` ,.s a$ n It k r 3f L ,d,a p+ x A N. 3' j r ji,
3 E a_S. 4E ~ ~ i5 i , ~ k Fr C5 F ~,7 c ~rt - r`L~^ y t rK'k yd~ ~4 ,i h~.
. Y - b s. ~Fxnf Y 4 h -,•P 4$ r i .~l _ti 3 b i^
Y i~~ - x sr n z,5:. q yu d~ -~:'S s-~ c:-, ~
p ~ rv
vJu a 9.; -
@_~ r u _ c tt --~1r x~. ~•n ,r + , - ifs
17
~~e .A F 95
31
sa3
_~3v~' p > a'V r3e~i. 3,~^ -s i r.' I < F' e' a .:5---- 1 - 'I
A~:$ m t «3'~#~ ~ 4 ~ d. 11..~F+i4: ; n vF r.r t',g rfi ~ •-Y~rG .b§ a-~ ~ - y
5 s d > Y~y~ai ~ 6 _ fF 7 a a~ . _
4P
4,1 4
W-~ -1 Jt
tot,
pS p t _
~ ~ s c ar AVM r e r :~A ~ . ~ L i a4 r~-
ftge~~ C)
T C14
N
G R
~ p U
:Q O
s U s.
G Oy w
I
I G
_ p E 0 _
1 a9 eV pct F w
x'ti: n, e ~ ~ U aNi ~
`a
N N a
! M 9 .v i 4 .h 5.~.\ A C t ✓7 Pd y G •LS
y~ p t
E 4a~ for sal ~g~dy ~o.~ k 'ex• w
r
-F
- _ Los v~4 ti ~j~'~`£ SJ•FF $.4 "ii 4'h Z U]
~ - c...Y & ~ 'k - 44 V'-y Q'TR'7Y:'2 Y ! 4
~J 'A :IE &~f54 H Y -F~j. N ~ 1. ~e~ ~f 9~~ ~ 'dl . i n
FE
P` ~5} Z. d I 1 4-0+/F 3 YSl t b'p t if Py~ r
17,
h`
k
r
~e ae ' Y
x-• rs ~.k~ t . rY a ~G
I gg~gg~~ / a
V• Z
_ A di r _
'gym, S t S Yv,
YYLO'.+fF~e. s r; r A @` ~ ~~i ik~x a~4 r ~ x c ~ a a a dr ,
xi t ~ x s g o
,ham 'L F
gypp, ~ d
- I. h aa6' fi ~
fy t l.i l .:flu '4 d `a'.+i. k JR
,,3F~ y ti 1Sl .'4~ y. ,3'S •5
t n ~
X
1 'lV 1r
~ ~ # t Fxn 1;~
r Y y ~ Q. Y t F
- 1Sy \ F J~ /f _
4
I if M1 ny f..
^S P°$
V nyy fa 'jt ~y . .
_ t Tr ;r. 5 ~ V
W
# - T Sr cr f fi R p~i*
P'hls ss{ ' ~
ot,
4*4
€1 `r -Si. do { '.R~b+ r ,t + + 1 i -
s ~3R ~ c e'x - ~ 1 -~r9
C } ~ T5^ +~r'~ AEI' - { Nh - i
- it
t~W t t - A rF Y 1 X~ t#
> a Kit ~ E^*p f t. ~ e - ~s• F .
h> S t 4' rV nay
~F r 1~ ~ 4 5 aR Z: A y ,t
iA k vf. c.
14
5 rffa . Jy" t ./t n r E t t7 fl}.I ; y , 1~ M a7, _
41 V`,. r-~u s n5 1, gx 4. tY' f a. y14
t4 t .(I € 4 lli. X e{~f v`~ f AL? 5 ` ~/F ~5~ ~-.t
sr3 ac ~ - t b_ Ji¢ L 3 f 6'r gi@F5 L , y ~.t~~; 1~
r
.'t L~
ti
fJ
. ~µra~ BCD . ~ ~ ~ ? • ] ~
~ ~ ~4 ~ 444 ; r k
i't Y ~ y
f ~ } t 1 ~ I cr r( 6.~, f ~
s
30
t-
I
YJ(~yrl(_'~~ S v ~
O
r ag n aoa
U n E
m C _ m~ m Z w~ m E a ,1
m~ s p E L o a~ 5 _ :.l ~
F F
vrc r `o m ° mo a°
a o~
m~° ° JE ~t e8=
~ U t > m L ~ ~ ` 'n
li + nt~ mm na 0 -n m u _m ~
Z ~~$ZL ~ °b u~ w^
O « - N 89°49*45''W
Q o m ~ ~i sE SS l r~ 0(p' 195.62 (R-94.01 30 30 636.85 X 23
O ma
C5 a ° f ET.
M
O o z ° x - jS
z~~ c ®m n<
N m
~m m; s W m p N' T°~w`
0
ww°z~ = m
r 'm o ~ y o 0
mom ax a~
o~ w ~ ° $ oY - ~ ¢ m
pQo W g m O y r O~ _ Z` O m
G L
o m
O
~F$ Ywt n? y~ 3~ o
p.p~~ N n ~ ~ r O W@ L
rn a ~ i O
Q ~LL ° P ~ O
C Q a
330.31 U
J U s "E
o °0 2 05
a 'o J
m 3
¢ _ s
a` e
m ~`J # m 1"n
4 S 89° 48 ~1 E 368.0E ( Rec. E-1 3695.311
m
m
o a m
o a,
m U
E ~ m E of d s 30 30
<t
a
vl ~mS ~~,O~ ao~ cf; ~ 2 k J N N
#y
~v I z 8 °2~ ~a z u ~ xk~ad ° l 2 np ~ a R
u8 d ~ o x °o°~ fic`,,WWO c~v ~ H
Q Z ~ p gf z o i, ~ ~~4N ~ o ~oW~ ps3 d W (y I h
~ E,~ ~ 4 k a s2 3~ .a. ~ W o ~mx y c. ypW~ xo
(ti P ° w L aH R o' om ? z o 1 ~Jw~;x3 > WOor' Z
W zN 'p4 O a ow o rc o
n G'j v aq _ 20a1 ci;
w
WW ¢ 'z e w ~ ~ w a z z3 ~ 'a3 y 'C d Z yy F ~
y d k ~ 04 ao ° e xa ~y S z ~ ~ E z ' _ x1 q 4 0
Fe :pax°~r? a _ a o
yo nh M~ x wx a 3 a a, > aw"0 W d
Fti yti h i o a~~~
CNY Bz G® ® o a 0 0 • ( o ? ~oct~~E✓ i
I
Q V O X X 3 3 X O N d Lit 7 0 1
7 fE"t$f
ry '
.~'~J (,98YSt .iB FS. ~y
l 10
M i
I 1&a
,88'tbt - M .LFS0.00 N ~S I. ~ry
I
CA 1, w
8^ I ~
W w [Qi' ~ V y a n I 13 I vi l
x Q,
1
m~
I
I '+r
- ,BS'Yil_M .LF,S0.00 N _ _ o `J
I - - I
l ~
$ S$ I din
.P0'S4t ~ 2 ( _
4(' - - .5Y'SSt - M ~LF-o N - - a I S'
2g I I p ~ r
Oi I IZS'S$1 M .00.80.00 Nj i
` ~ I y o~ .Ot ~ N
~ r m m > m
O
g III ! F-
I I
I I li r--
I - I I ® r
-
i~ ~
- _
~I
_
~ ~ -
- - ~ f
~ ~ ~ _ - - -
I
~ c~ _ _
T~ ~
c
-
- I
~ - -
E:
`
~i
- _
_ .
~
~ ~
~ 1"
~
i , .
~ . _ _ ~ _ I~
~
~ x i;
~ ~
f
~ ~ I:
~ ~ ' .
I
~ ;
- - -
Y-
>J ,E ~ E ~ n ® ~ ~ ~ ~s~~ m w3 i3$II $3t3,ww3 #R3 Zw 3
o° a ~=~E~ ai-cR'i=~-°oov~in iv~in<ooan mtnh
j hry >o n NY5 ab' x 8~ s ggJaW e~tno~z~i '?Sab Ynm~m
K~p~ $ a E~ E~ ~ ~ 8 ~z.~e. rvn<mmnm Qx
Wm¢~.
c7 ~8 _a _ _E' ~ m
~a
OYO.Y X33N~ NYV✓701 ~ 4 a ~ ~
^ M - ~ god
~ a
~i tz~~ c y 3a n~ tig zry
O y ~~s~~ yr ssY.saD s '
Q'I
~ cn ~ ffi y O .cassi a,£Y.AOD s ~ ~ " h ~ 5~
too-' ~ n i ~ ~ 0 6
r~. ~w $ i ~a
a~-~e m N a ~ 1 ~ a
16
s _
$ n -srA~` a w Y6+'zs£ M12.iSDN __._._.v_..._..-..-..-___.
wurosa3 0l
r y o to z5f bd "WS rvz .roe r 9r1 _
Fop ML 3o929f 312.+CD5
3 ~g
V vi ri s E
m~ o'm!Ci 1rr'm "3 ~"r a a
n h h ;
~ Q
37ddY---.. _ .+oa~es Msc.rci
~.ws'LOC So.£ln N ~ ~ M11I'B jo
6y~N mY a !m ~ ~
aIm
r ~A„ MSOf D N _
- - - - -
.._.866 ,__MSO_£ a -
3f •Aa L, a u~
i V I a
e e
- - 3
q
c » .
v+
N J s a u ~
s
o F m h u
s
j
I
Z: CL
e
a
N
c
~ c b e
co
g N
L
4 _a
F r
~ a z
ii
_ r
:
i
r.
i
I
i
r,
J.
y
a
1
/ emu..
f
Department of State Lands
Oregon
775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100
e 5 g Kate Brown, Governor Salem, OR 97301-1279
(503) 986-5200
FAX (503) 3784844
April 5, 2016 www.oregon.gov/dsl'
c,
State Land Board
Clason Company, LLC
Attn: John Clason Kate Brown
220 Dead Indian Memorial Road Governor
Ashland, OR 97520
Jeanne P. Atkins
Re: WD # 2016-0019 Wetland Delineation Report for 1365 Tolman Secretary of State
Creek Road
Jackson County; T39S R1 E Sec. 23, Tax Lot 201 Ted Wheeler
City of Ashland Local Wetlands Inventory wetland OW594 State Treasurer
Dear Mr. Clason:
The Department of State Lands has reviewed the wetland delineation report prepared
by Schott & Associates for the site referenced above. Based upon the information
presented in the report, and additional information submitted upon request, we concur
with the wetland and waterway boundaries as mapped in revised Figure 6 of the report.
Please replace all copies of the preliminary wetland map with this final Department-
approved map.
Within the study area, one wetland, totaling approximately 0.016 acres and one pond
were identified. The wetland and pond are subject to the permit requirements of the
state Removal-Fill Law. Under current regulations, a state permit is required for
cumulative fill or annual excavation of 50 cubic yards or more in the wetland or below
the ordinary high water line (OHWL) of a waterway (or the 2 year recurrence interval
flood elevation if OHWL cannot be determined).
This concurrence is for purposes of the state Removal-Fill Law only. Federal or local
permit requirements may apply as well. The Army Corps of Engineers will review the
report and make a determination of jurisdiction for purposes of the Clean Water Act
at the time that a permit application is submitted. We recommend that you attach a
copy of this concurrence letter to both copies of any subsequent joint permit application
to speed application review.
Please be advised that state law establishes a preference for avoidance of wetland
impacts. Since measures to avoid and minimize wetland impacts may include
reconfiguring parcel layout and size or development design, we recommend that you
work with Department staff on appropriate site design before completing the city or
county land use approval process.
i
i,
i
i C
i
This concurrence is based on information provided to the agency. The jurisdictional
determination is valid for five years from the date of this letter unless new information
necessitates a revision. Circumstances under which the Department may change a
determination are found in OAR 141-090-0045 (available on our web site or upon
request). In addition, laws enacted by the legislature and/or rules adopted by the
Department may result in a change in jurisdiction; individuals and applicants are subject
to the regulations that are in effect at the time of the removal-fill activity or complete
permit application. The applicant, landowner, or agent may submit a request for
reconsideration of this determination in writing within six months of the date of this letter.
Thank you for having the site evaluated. Please phone me at 503-986-5246 if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Approved b
Chris Stevenson 'Kathy V rble, CPSS
Jurisdiction, Coordinator Aquatic Resource Specialist
Enclosures
ec: Jodi Reed, Schott & Associates
City of Ashland Planning Department (Maps enclosed for updating LWI)
Benny Dean, Corps of Engineers
Bob Lobdell, DSL
i
WETLAND DELINEATION / DETERMINATION REPORT COVER FORM
This form must be included with any wetland delineation report submitted to the Department of State Lands for review and approval.
A wetland delineation report submittal is not "complete" unless the fully completed and signed report cover form and the required fee
are submitted. Attach this form to the front of an unbound report or include a hard copy of the completed form with a CD/DVD that
includes a single PDF file of the report cover form and report (minimum 300 dpi resolution) and submit to: Oregon Department of
State Lands, 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100, Salem, OR 97301-1279. A single PDF attachment of the completed cover from
and report may be e-mailed to Wetland_Delineation@dsl.state.or.us. For submittal of PDF files larger than 10 MB, e-mail
instructions on how to access the file from your ftp or other file sharing website. Fees can be paid by check or credit card, Make the
check payable to the Oregon Department of State Lands. To a the fee b credit card, call 503-986-5200.
® Applicant ❑ Owner Name, Firm and Address: Business phone # 541-646.5444
John Clason Mobile phone # (optional) 541-646-5444
Clason Company LLC E-mail: 'ohn.clason
220 Dead Indian Memorial Road 1 @gmail.com
Ashland, OR 97520
® Authorized Legal Agent, Name and A Business phone # 503-678-6007
Jodi Reed Mobile phone #
Schott & Associates, Inc. JAN 2 2 2016 E-mail: Jodi@schottandassociates.com
PO Box 589
Aurora, OR 97002
DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS
I either own the property described below or I have legal authority to allow access to the property. u nt to a ccess the
property for the purpose of confirming the information in the report, after prior notificationto th 01epartme
7._
Typed/Printed Name: John Clason Signature: I
Date: 18 Jan 2016 Special instructions regarding site access: _
Project and Site Information (using decimal degree format for lat/long.,enter centroid of site or start & end oints of linear project)
Project Name: 1365 Tolman Creek Road Latitude: 42.1694S! D- Longitude: -122.6720
Proposed Use: 3-Lot Subdivision Tax Map # 39 1 E 23BA
Project Street Address (or other descriptive location): Township 39S Range 1E Section 23 QQ
1365 Tolman Creek Road NE/NW
Tax Lot(s) 201
Waterway: River Mile:
Cit : Ashland Count : Jackson NWI Quads :
Wetland Delineation Information
Wetland Consultant Name, Firm and Address: Phone # 503-678-6007
Jodi Reed Mobile phone #
Schott & Associates, Inc. E-mail: Jodi@schottandassociates.com
PO Box 589
Aurora, OR 97002
The information and conclusions on this form and in the attached report are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Consultant Signature Date:
t~a~1 ~S
Primary Contact for report review and site access is ® Consultant ❑ Applicant/Owner ❑ Authorized Agent
Wetland/Waters Present? ® Yes ❑ No Study Area size: 1.59a Total Wetland Acreage: 0.066
Check Box Below if Applicable: Fees: $406.00
❑ R-F permit application submitted ® Fee payment submitted $ 406.00
❑ Mitigation bank site ❑ Fee ($100) for resubmittal of rejected report
❑ Wetland restoration/enhancement project (not mitigation) ❑ No fee for request for reissuance of an expired
❑ Industrial Land Certification Program Site report
❑ Reissuance of a recently expired delineation
Previous DSL # Expiration date
Other Information: Y N
Has previous delineation/application been made on parcel? ❑ ® If known, previous DSL #
Does LWI, if any, show wetland or waters on parcel? ® ❑
For Office Use Only
DSL Reviewer: Fee Paid Date: I l DSL WD # D y
l a
Fonn Updated 01/03/2013
122'42,000'W 122'41.000'W 122'40.000'W WGS84 122°39.000' W
b. b
0 42 ~•.I ~,T~~ ~S r7og5 ' o
%lk
y~ I C7P l `I~§7_ 2 ` p. is p~k d
481
I u { I Hun ar
B" w4-
Lit IM
i \ i t,J t an hy~l i -li • I:-\ -
~r , , ]fli it , Via.. C wL\, • ~d-~
oI~ C rl f {~a~e G ✓l A iii ~L
o !tom d "Zo
53
'Iti ~ '1 - F_0. 2 ~ • ii t ' 1
ti I c~
jay., p V\
f ` - 11t
s
Spring - ,
55
54,
N } I l~ ~I~ Project Vlc(nIty
v r')7' `i';j 1 (11~~ '`i% JI}~ -1~ ; 1 ror~s v
]ill 1'`C,~~~o c ~ j- ~ i s ~ i•IJ rst { ,4 ,
f(j,
rsc €
"N .
^7 / , r r ~ ~ ~ . _~~1 fl`f% O~ % `t~toe•I(~•,,y~ 1~ f ~ ~ ~ 7~t ,lr,.~1
r' r Tca / e
CF.
~'il~ l~`~ r~>~ r!} v tw ~ ~A > >-71 l~ A~// „ ! pro" I
1
)
r) / - , II i ' II
All,
~ ~
122'42.000'W 122°41.0 00' W s 122°40.000'WAtF WGS84 122°39.000' W
iNt /NLN
FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP Schott & Associates
1365 Tolman Creek Road P. Box 589
Aurorra a, OR. 97002
S&A# 2401 503.678.6007
r ~ r:
i
1\T.E•.114, ItiTA V4, SEC_23, T.39S., R1E.,'-I+,'3.
JkCKSON COUNTY
~3?LL3P39 i~S~
r2 ,~a< s 333
FE / 23@ i 172
103 q
Y L'p.IC5a1a ~ a:aK 6 ~JJJL. 221 kS
Oyu / ~ r~~~y a
n `I w! J a ii ~ b ,uh
M1r r_
s
4 3W ~R ce.neu f
r~• 2C2 {
~ r 1~ ~rssa
c Aw!u e J
` Project Area
30
U~ 3G7 nk 1
asece.
~ e a ~r 1
o.ssu: a ai
a r' '`tl 201 `
k ~J) ! . ~r 1.59ac
lot
au.9syia a } ~
1 s c:!.a:aau 93M 26 5321 ° H~ I.7 I,y. N. ~
n c;ax. 4M 431 402 S y
a s 0ra= nsnc onu !
L3T~ ~ ca~l-r.r i
Ca.Yi!5
~ _ - C:!FY1CJ I~
p i GGVIaU L"VJ3".1i
uaw
BLUE SKY LANE `
a2:k : t I
FIGURE 2. TAX MAP (T39S, RI E, SEC 23, TL#201) Schott & Associates
1365 Tolman Creek Road P.o. Box 589
Aurora, OR. 97002
S&A# 2401 503,678.6007
c
lips
yti '~~j C7 U ~!T I I J tl Gnu Oq~ ~ ~ S art U I-
t
- _ ti•~
ONS
TWA 10,
O t y
Ali
Y E' 3 - rt 4 J. U k -L4
QUM
V
acr k> t ~~Tai7 yt .c -
2t o a N.
~i a _ QO y-
a~;X pe r~ ~°f 0 0
0
42-9
~ 1w,~
rn
~47
2Q22. ~LU
4.Y 2 h 2 No C
S 1, \'v • ~T A,
_ ~ ~t LY
i
Planning Division ZONING IT APPLICATION
C i v v o a 51 Winbtun Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE
-ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ❑ YES NO
Street Address 1365 Tolman Creek Road
Assessor's Map No. 391 E 23 BA 201
Tax Lot(s)
Zoning R-1-7.5 Comp Plan Designation Single Family Residential
APPLICANT
Name Clason Company LLC Phone 541-646-5444E-Mail John@ciasoncompany.com
Address 1424 S Ivy Street city Ashland Zip 97520
PROPERTY OWNER
Name Ronald Rezek Phone E-Mail:
Address 1424 S Ivy Street City Ashland Zip 97520
SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARGHITECT OTHER
Title Land Use Planner Name Amy Gunter Phone 541-951-4020 amyguntecplanning@gmail.com'
E-Mail
Address 1424 S Ivy Street Medford
City Zip 97501
Title Landscape Architect Name Laurie Thornton Phone 541-488-1664 E-Mail laurie@lauriesager.com
Address 700 Mistletoe Road City Ashland Zip 97520
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. /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, l 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 propedy located on the ground.
Failure in this regard will result most ' of only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be removed at my expe oubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
31 May 2016
Applica 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,
3
A
Property Owner's Signatur required) Date
(To be ca *Iod by Gry SM
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $
OVER
O:komm-dcv\planningTonns & Handoms\Zoning Permit Application.doc
i
i;
Job Address: 1365 TOLMAN CREEK RD Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
C
Owner's Name; REZEK RONALD ® Phone:
P Customer 08090 N State Lic No:
L CLASON COMPANY LLC T L City Lic No;
Applicant: 220 DEAD INDIAN MEM RD R
Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A ' Phone: (541) 646-5444 T Address:
N Applied: 06/01/2016
T Issued:
Expires: 11/28/2016 Phone;
State Lic No:
Maplot: City Lic No:
DESCRIPTION: Planning Action for a outline/final plan, P&E & Limited Use Permit
VALUATION
Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description
Total for Valuation:
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL
PERMIT FEE DETAIL
Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount
Final Plan with Outline type2 3,113.00 Physical Constraints Permit 1,012.00
Other Type 1 planning review 1,012.00
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 I T Y F
I
I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the
best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts
understood and agreed to the following:
Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
(180 days).
2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in
advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 5,137.00 $ 5,137.00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the
Sub-Total: $ 5,137.00
applicant. Fees Paid: $ 5,137.00
Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
wwmashland.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY F
SH" L AN 1E)"