Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Hillview_843_PA-2016-00614
CITY F ASHLAND June 17, 2016 Notice of Final Decision On June 17, 2016, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA-2016-00614 Subject Property: 843 Hillview Drive Applicant: Jason & Kelly Eaton Description: A request for a Land Partition to create two lots for the property located at 843 Hillview Drive. The request also includes a Variance to access the newly created lot from Hillview Drive rather than from the alley, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove two clusters of Birch trees which are greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 15AC; TAX LOT 400. The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12th day after the 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. Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.5.1.050(F) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO 18.5.1.050(G). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 4 \ www.ashland.or.us F f I SECTION 18.5.1.050 Type I Procedure (Administrative Decision with Notice) E. Effective Date of Decision. Unless the conditions of approval specify otherwise or the decision is appealed pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.050.G, a Type I decision becomes effective 12 days after the City mails the notice of decision. F. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider a Type I decision as set forth below. 1. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City department may request reconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the Staff Advisor, might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. 2. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five days of mailing the notice of decision. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three days whether to reconsider the matter. 3. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an off or occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The City shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. 4. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. G. Appeal of Type I Decision. A Type I decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission, pursuant to the following: 1. Who May Appeal. The following persons have standing to appeal a Type I decision. a. The applicant or owner of the subject property. b. Any person who is entitled to written notice of the Type I decision pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.050.B. c. Any other person who participated in the proceeding by submitting written comments on the application to the City by the specified deadline. 2. Appeal Filing Procedure. a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.050.G.1, above, may appeal a Type I decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the City and whose boundaries include the site. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the required filing fee and shall contain. i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision. ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal. iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal. iv. A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public comment period. 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. Scope of Appeal. Appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor shall be de novo hearings before the Planning Commission. The appeal shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant ordinance provision. € 4. Appeal Hearing Procedure. Hearings on appeals of Type I decisions follow the Type 11 public hearing procedures, pursuant to section 18.5.1.060, subsections A - E, except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type I decision. A decision on an appeal is final the date the City mails the adopted and signed decision. Appeals of Commission decisions 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 - G ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: 2016-00614 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 843 Hillview Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Jason & Kelly Eaton DESCRIPTION: A request for a Land Partition to create two lots for the property located at 843 Hillview Drive. The request also includes a Variance to access the newly created lot from Hillview Drive rather than from the alley, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove two clusters of Birch trees which are greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 15AC; TAX LOT 400. I SUBMITTAL DATE: April 1, 2016 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: May 31, 2016 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: June 17, 2016 APPEAL DEADLINE (4:30 P.M.): June 29, 2016 FINAL DECISION DATE: June 30, 2016 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: December 30, 2017 E i DECISION: Site The subject property is an approximately 0.44 acre parcel located on the west side of Hillview Drive, I approximately 337 feet from its intersection with Siskiyou Boulevard. The zoning of the subject property is R-1-7.5, a Single Family Residential zone with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The subject property contains an existing single-story, 1,207 square foot residence built around 1950 and a 413 square foot garage according to the Jackson County Tax Assessor's records. The property is relatively flat, with the application noting an approximate six percent slope from south to north. The application explains that in addition to established landscaping, there are nine trees on the property, including a 12-inch diameter pine in front of the existing residence, a cluster of three Birch trees near the north property line, a triple- stemmed Cherry tree of 8-11 inches in diameter, and behind the house is an eight-inch diameter Birch and another cluster of three Birches with diameters from ten- to 24-inches. The two clusters of birch trees are proposed for removal in conjunction with the application. The birches within the driveway would be removed prior to the signature of the plat, and the birches on the newly created Parcel 2 would be removed in conjunction with the development of that lot. The subject property has approximately 100 linear feet of frontage on Hillview Drive, a residential neighborhood collector street. Hillview is currently improved with curbs, gutters and paving in place to a width of approximately 33 feet, but lacks sidewalks or parkrow planting strips along the subject property's frontage or within the immediate area. In addition, an alley extends from Clark Avenue and terminates at the northwest corner of the subject property. From the alley's terminus, a shared access easements extends the full length of the rear of the proposed flag lot and serves properties to the south. Planning Action #2016-00578 843 Hillview Drive/dds Page 1 Proposal The application proposes a Land Partition to create two lots. The first lot would contain the existing house and be approximately 8,802 square feet. The existing detached garage and a patio cover that is across the proposed property line would be removed. A new flag lot would be created at the rear of the property, I and would be approximately 10,173 square feet in area. Exclusive of the flag pole created, the lot would have an area of 8,611 square feet. A building envelope has been identified, and the application explains that the lot is large enough to allow for the construction of a new home to comply with Solar Access "Standard A". I In conjunction with the request, the existing nine- to 11-foot width driveway serving the existing home would be removed to comply with access management standards. A new driveway is proposed to serve a new parking pad on the applicants' Parcel 1 and would continue on to serve the flag lot Parcel 2. The applicants propose to initial surface the driveway to the parking pad on Parcel l in compacted gravel since it will be less than 50 feet in length, but the driveway would be paved with the extension of the driveway and construction of a home on Parcel 2 in the future. The application also requests a Variance to access the newly created lot from Hillview Drive rather than from the alley, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove two clusters of Birch trees which are greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Partition The subject property is 18, 974 square feet in area. The application proposes a Land Partition to create two lots. The first lot would contain the existing house and be approximately 8,802 square feet. The existing detached garage and a patio cover that is across the proposed property line would be removed. A new flag lot would be created at the rear of the property, and would be approximately 10,173 square feet in area. Exclusive of the flag pole created, the lot would have an area of 8,611 square feet. A building envelope has been identified, and the application explains that the lot is large enough to allow for the construction of a new home to comply with Solar Access "Standard A". The application notes that the partition will not impede the remainder of the tract from being developed. The parcel does not have sufficient area to create additional lots, and Parcel 1 will retain significant additional buildable area post partition while Parcel 2 has adequate building area for the construction of a new residence with required access and parking, and adequate yard area. At the time of development, the application recognizes that building permits for Parcel 2 will need to demonstrate compliance with the envelope, setbacks, solar access, lot coverage, access and parking. Additionally, the application explains that the partition as proposed will not impact the development of adjoining land or the use of the access easement at the rear of Parcel 2 by properties to the south. Prior to the partitioning, the application proposes to remove the existing home's driveway on Hillview and relocate it to the shared flag drive location under permit from the Public Works Department to minimize the number of curb cuts with the partition. The driveway will initially be installed in gravel to serve parking spaces for the existing home, but will be paved with its extension to serve a new home on Parcel 2 as required by flag drive standards. The flag drive is proposed to meet the width, paving and drainage requirements of the ordinance and will serve as a fire apparatus access road. The applicants recognize that given its length, fire sprinklers may be required with the development of a home on Parcel 2 and indicate that this would be preferable to providing a required fire apparatus turn-around. They further note that three parking spaces will be provided to serve the home on Parcel 2 as required for flag lots, and that no parking will be allowed within the flag drive or within ten feet on either side of its entrance. Prior to occupancy of the home on Parcel 2, the applicants propose to install a sight-obscuring Planning Action #2016-00578 843 Hillview Drive/dds Page 2 1 hedge or fence to address the screening requirements, and a paving and screening agreement is proposed to be provided. The application indicates that the existing Hillview Drive right-of-way does not appear to have the width to accommodate sidewalk installation, and the applicants propose to provide a public access easement of three feet along the property's fall frontage to accommodate future sidewalk construction when a cohesive street plan is brought forward. The applicants also indicate that they will sign in favor a future Local Improvement District (LID) prior to signature of the final partition plat. The application explains that the property is served by a four-inch water main, a six-inch sanitary sewer main and a 15-inch storm water sewer main, and overhead electric. They indicate that in conversations with the individual utilities it has been determined that there is adequate capacity to serve the new parcel, and they propose to stub utilities to the edge of the property to serve Parcel 2. Variance The partition approval criteria in AMC 18.5.3.050.17 require a demonstration that the proposal complies with the "Vehicle Area Design" requirements in AMC 18.4.3.080. AMC 18.4.3.080.C.4.c and C.5 require that"if the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or alley and not ftom the street fi°ontage," and "Where a property has alley access, vehicle access shall be taken Atom the alley and driveway approaches and curb cuts onto adjacent streets are not permitted. " Given that alley access is available and the applicants are instead proposing to take access from Hillview Drive, a Variance is required. The application materials provided explain that the existing alley terminates at the northwest corner of the subject property, is minimally used, and requires travel 400 feet from Harmony Lane (already a significant distance from the subject property) to reach the site which could complicate access, addressing, deliveries and emergency vehicles reaching the property. In addition, the application notes that the alley has a sharp turn with a radius that would be difficult to navigate for fire apparatus access and terminates in a dead- end after roughly 500 feet, and that there are no fire hydrants in place to support fire access from the alley. The application further explains that there is a large Ponderosa Pine on the property to the north immediately adjacent to the property's connection to the alley which would be negatively impacted with driveway construction through its critical root zone. The applicants suggest that the Variance requested is the minimum necessary, and allows the alley to remain as a secondary access while protecting the large Pine tree. The application emphasizes that the two lots would continue to be served by a single driveway, and the addition of a single family residence using a shared driveway would be more beneficial than the increase in vehicle trips from an unimproved, dead-end alley nearly 500 feet in length. In staff's assessment, the requirements to utilize shared driveways, minimize curb cuts and use alley access where available all relate in seeking to minimize conflict points on higher order streets and support their function to better and more safely serve all modes of transportation where alternatives are available. In staff s view, the alley requirement assumes an interconnected grid system rather than a long alley terminating in a private access easement that ultimately ends without any outlet. For staff, both the unique nature of this alley and the proximity of the large Pine tree can be found to be unique physical circumstances of the subject site. Use of a shared driveway from Hillview in combination with the proposed removal of the existing driveway is the minimum Variance necessary to address this circumstance, and in staff's view eliminating the potential impacts to the tree and maintaining only one driveway to serve the two properties will minimize conflicts points on Hillview while benefitting the tree. Planning Action #2016-00578 843 Hillview Drive/dds Page 3 i I j G i The tree's presence predates the current ownership of the property, and as such staff does not believe that it can be found to be a self-imposed condition by the current property owner. Tree Removal The application includes a request for Tree Removal Permits to remove two clusters of Birch trees which are greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). The birches within the driveway would be removed prior to the signature of the plat, and the birches on the newly created Parcel 2 would be removed in conjunction with the development of that lot. The application explains that relocation of the proposed driveway to preserve the first cluster of birches, Parcel 2 to save the second cluster were considered but that given and that modification of the envelope on the trees types, ages and conditions they did not feel these efforts were appropriate. The applicants explain that birches in Ashland and around the state are perishing from bronze birch borers and that this cannot be prevented without soaking the soil around the trees with pesticides. In addition, birches require large volumes of water and are not typical in Ashland's somewhat and climate. In addition, birches are heavy pollen producers, and are intolerant to construction disturbance, with shallow roots that damage sidewalks, driveways and building foundations. They suggest that shifting the driveway to preserve the trees would not be "in the best interest of the highest and best use of the property." The application notes that the existing pine at the front of the property would be preserved, and that one or two additional street trees appropriately selected for planting beneath power lines would be planted. The Tree Commission initially reviewed the request at their May meeting, prior to the applicants providing an arborist's report. A number of neighbors spoke in opposition to the request. The Commissioners noted that they had conducted site visits but had not carefully examined the trees, and that in the absence of an arborist's report the applicants' assertions could not be verified as the applicants' photos did not seem to show evidence of borers but only sapsuckers, and the trees did not appear to be in decline from cursory observations during site visits. At that time, the Commission recommended denial of the Tree Removal Permit request and asked that the applicants provide an arborist's report, mitigation details and appropriate protection plan before the application. The applicants have subsequently provided an arborist's report from J&J Tree Service, LLC, in which arborist Mark H. Brindle, a certified arborist, municipal specialist and ISA qualified tree risk assessor, notes that given the pests, age, rot and fungi present in every tree, the trees should be removed. Brindle explains that there are seven white birch trees on the property, one young and three older trees on the north side near the proposed driveway and three older trees at the rear within the proposed building envelope. He explains that all seven trees show evidence of bronze birch borers, which he notes are difficult to control and ultimately lethal. He provides photos illustrating the D-shaped holes of adult borers exiting the trees after pupating. He further indicates that most of the older trees have heart wood rot in their trunks and trunk flares, with staining from slime flux and fungi in a few of the larger trees. In the ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form included with the report, Mr. Brindle notes signs of both aphids and bronze birch borers being present, and associated signs of decay, sap ooze and upper crown dieback, and that he observed branch drop and evidence of heart wood rot in the trunks and concludes that failure of the trees is probable and could pose a high risk to neighboring homes if not removed. Brindle notes that removal Planning Action #2016-00578 843 Hillview Drive/dds Page 4 i I would be proactive rather than reactive, and would further reduce the risks that other trees in the area would become infested. The Tree Commission did not meet in June to review the arborist's report due to a lack of quorum, and the matter could not be continued another month given that AMC 18,5.1.050.C.1 requires a decision within 45 days of an initial determination of completeness. In staff's assessment, the applicants have provided a report from a qualified arborist demonstrating that the trees are infested with bronze birch borers, that heart wood rot is present, and that the trees pose a hazard if not removed. Conditions have been included below to require final mitigation and protection plans be provided prior to the submittal of the final partition plat as initially recommended by the Tree Commission. i Public Comments ~ Neighbors Ronald and Darlene Steffani have provided multiple written comments in opposition to the request. With regard to the proposed tree removals, they note that the neighborhood is distinguished by the many trees in the front and rear of the single family housing lots, that most of the trees are "old growth," and that the removal of a large number of trees will change the character of the neighborhood. They also indicate that traffic on Hillview Drive is already heavier than three-fourths of the other streets in Ashland because of the areas above the boulevard that have no other easy access and on the weekends this is exacerbated by services at the nearby church. The point out that there are no other flag lots in the area and that allowing infill in the area will change the nature of the neighborhood, and that allowing a "spec house" will increase the undesirability of living in the forest-like neighborhood, particularly if tree removal is allowed. They also question whether the electric capacity in the neighborhood is adequate, given two power outages in the past year. They note that there are underground water problems in the neighborhood, and that some homes need sump-pumps to keep their crawl spaces dry, and that storm drainage on the street is not adequate to handle run-off during heavy rains. They also suggest that placing two homes on a long lot will limit play areas for children and the flag drive will pose a danger for children who will play in the driveway. Neighbor Barbara Keen provided written comment in opposition to the request noting that in order to build a tiny structure, the owner would ruin the beauty of the land, impair the quality of life of the immediate neighbors, and create more traffic and parking issues on Hillview Drive. Ms. Keen notes that the lot is inadequate for another dwelling, and that she abhors the idea of allowing the owner to build an "investment structure." She asks that the application be denied. Neighbor Cyndi Dion has expressed concern because the proposal involved the addition of impervious surfaces in the form of a paved flag drive. Ms. Dion notes that she is not in favor of a flag drive or the creation of a flag lot, and believes that the same outcome could be achieved with a simple land partition taking access from the alley. She explains that the overabundance of flag drives cropping up all over Ashland has diminished many neighborhoods' feeling of cohesion and comfort, and she believes this is due less to the added numbers of people but instead to the increase in the amount of required paving. She recognizes that the application meets the zoning [ requirements for a partition in the zoning district, and she notes her grudging support for the partition request, but has concerns that with flag partition approval the requirement to pave the driveway comes into play. She emphasizes that in her view there is "nothing more abusive to a feeling of quality of life than a bunch of paved areas with cars and recreational vehicles parked everywhere steaming the sun of the summer, and flooding water off the drives in the winter and now spring! Not to mention oil spills, car washes and the like being sent directly to storm drains and from there to our creeks." She concludes that the more appropriate Variance request would be not to the Planning Action #2016-00578 843 Hillview Drive/dds Page 5 i alley access requirement but to the paving requirement, as she feels that this would mitigate the impact of massive swaths of cement in a beautiful neighborhood and allow the run-off to percolate into the soil. The criteria for a Preliminary Partition Plat are described in .AMC Chapter 18.5.3.050, as follows: A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D. The tract of land 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). 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. 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 dedications. H. Unpaved Streets. 1. Minimum Street Improvement. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2. Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. C. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. 1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. Planning Action #2016-00578 843 Hillview Drive/dds Page 6 i r The additional approval criteria for a Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.3.060 as follows: A. The criteria of section 18.5.3.050 are met. D. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. C. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. 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. 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. 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. G. Flag drives shall be constructed to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. H. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval. 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole. 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flagpole and improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface connecting the street to the buildable area of the flag lot. 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flag lot clearly visible from the street on a four-inch by four-inch post that is 31/2 feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers three inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two foot by three foot white sign clearly visible from the street with three-inch black numbers. 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. 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 Planning Action #2016-00578 843 Hillview Drive/dds Page 7 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. K. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated to eliminate the necessity for vehicles backing out. L. There shall be no parking within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on either side of the flag drive entrance. 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. N. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a site-obscuring fence, wall or evergreen hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed at the extreme outside of the flag drive in order to ensure adequate fire access. 0. The applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Department an agreement between applicant and the City for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Public Works Director and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening pursuant to this section, and assurance ongoing maintenance. P. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. The approval criteria for a Variance are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.5.050 as follows: 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.7.040.13 as follows: Planning Action #2016-00578 843 Hillview Drive/dds Page 8 I' I. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. i 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 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 18.10. 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. 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 criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. 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. 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. Decision In staff's assessment, the applicants have demonstrated that the proposal satisfies the requirements for approval of a Partition and Variance. Neighbors and the Tree Commission questioned the proposed Tree Removal Permits prior to the submittal of an arborist's report, but with the arborist's report now provided staff believes that the applicants have clearly demonstrated the presence of bronze birch borers and heart wood rot in the trees which pose a hazard and necessitate their removal. With regard to concerns with traffic raised by neighbors, staff would note that Hillview Drive is considered a neighborhood collector under the Transportation System Plan, and this street designation assumes traffic levels of up to 5,000 average daily trips (ADT). In 2001, trip counts were measured at 804 ADT. In response to neighbors' concerns, new traffic counts were taken on May 27, 2016 and 659 ADT were observed. This suggests an approximate 18 percent reduction in trips on Hillview since the 2001 measurement, and even with the addition of ten or so trips likely from a new flag lot is well within the Planning Action #2016-00578 843 Hillview Driveldds Page 9 I I anticipated traffic on a street of this designation (and well below the 1,500 trips typical of a lower order residential neighborhood street). The application demonstrates that parking satisfying the requirements for a flag lot can and will be provided. The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances. Planning Action #2016-00614 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2016- 00614 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That prior to signature of 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 all easements for public and private utilities, all reciprocal utility, maintenance, shared access and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. C) The final survey plat shall identify a sufficient public access easement or right-of-way dedication to accommodate future city standard frontage improvements to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisor and City Engineer. d) That a final utility plan for the parcels shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey plat. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines and electric services. e) That the electric service shall be installed underground to service the new parcels as required by the Ashland Electric Department prior to signature of the final survey plat. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to signature of the final survey plat. f) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for all parcels prior to the signature of final survey plat. All work shall be completed under review and approval of the Ashland Engineering Department prior to signature of the final survey plat. g) That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey plat.. h) That the property owner shall sign in favor of local improvement districts for the future street improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, parkrow, curb, gutter and storrn drainage, for Hillview Drive prior to signature of the final survey plat. The agreement shall be signed and recorded concurrently with the final survey plat. 3) That building permit submittals shall include: a) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula [(Height - 6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] Planning Action #2016-00578 843 Hillview Drive/dds Page 10 i and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. I b) That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 45 percent of the total lot area in accordance with 18.2.5.030 Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with the building permits. c) That a revised Tree Protection Plan consistent with the standards described in 18:4.5 be submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall identify the location and placement of fencing around the drip lines of trees identified for preservation. The amount of fill and grading within the drip line shall be minimized. Cuts within the drip line shall be noted on the tree protection plan, and shall be executed by handsaw and kept to a minimum. No fill shall be placed around the. trunk/crown root. This plan shall also identify proposed mitigation trees to replace the two clusters to be removed, and the placement and planting of required street trees. Street trees shall be selected from the approved street tree list for placement under power lines, located to accommodate the placement of a future city standard sidewalk, and planted and irrigated according to standard. d) That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 4) That the tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials or issuance of the building permit. The tree protection and the identification of trees to be removed shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of a building permit. No construction shall occur within the tree protection zone including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles. 5) That prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy: a) That the flag drive shall be paved to 12 foot, a vertical clearance of 13-feet, 6-inches and be able to withstand 44,000 lbs. prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the home to be constructed on Parcel 2. b) Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted and irrigated according to the approved plan. June 17, 2016 B' Molnar, irector Date epart ment f Community Development Planning Action #2016-00578 843 Hillview Drive/dds Page 11' i f AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING i STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) i The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On 6/17/16 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 #2016-00614, 843 Hillview. Signature of Employee DocumenQ 6/1712016 l€ I t j PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2100 PA-2016-00614 391 El5AC 2600 PA-2016-00614 391 El5AC 2800 DAVIDS-MARKS THAD WINSLOW BELL CHRISTOPHER RAND CRISWELL TIMOTHY A T AL 840 HARMONY LN 822 HARMONY LN TRUSTEE TEE E E OU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 A1808 SHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2500 PA-2016-00614 391 El5AC 400 PA-2016-00614 391 El5AD 2107 DAVIES GWEN C TRUSTEE ET AL EATON JASON/KELLY EATON LEONARD W/BARBARA E 860 HARMONY LN 865 HENRY 841 BESWICK WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 El5AC 200 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2108 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2400 GUSTAFSON PETER/FONTANA KRISTIN HOWARD MATTHEW R JOHNSON JEFFERY S/BLAIR B 809 HILLVIEW DR PO BOX 1254 870 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 El5AD 2101 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2900 PA-2016-00614 391 El5AC 401 JOHNSON ROBERT A TRUSTEE ET AL JONES LARRY D KEEN BARBARA J TRUSTEE FBO 850 HILLVIEW DR 1600 ASHLAND MINE RD 847 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, CA 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 100 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 601 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 3100 KELLEMS LARRY A TRUSTEE ET AL KLEINEDLER KEITH M LAWSON BARBARA ELAINE ET AL 805 HILLVIEW DR 873 HILLVIEW DR 800 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2102 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 104 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 500 LEIBOVITCH ERIC/HARRIET MEISSNER CHRISTIAN IRREVOCABLE NERENBERG NANCY TRUSTEE ET AL 9420 RESEDA 570 TRU ET AL 853 HILLVIEW DR NORTHRIDGE, CA 91324 760 OAKWAY CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2700 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2104 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 300 PILLER KARL/HUGO AUTUMN POWELL DAVID J/MURAWSKI WILLOW ROSTYKUS PAUL S 832 HARMONY LN 875 BESWICK WAY 436 GRANDVIEW ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 El5AD 2106 PA-2016-00614 391 El5AD 2105 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2103 SLADE PATRICIA ET AL STEFFANI RONALD R TRUSTEE ET AL SZELONG MICHAEL/LISA 836 HILLVIEW DR 872 HILLVIEW DR 851 BESWICK WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2901 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2109 PA-2016-00614 YATES SUSAN M TRUSTEE ET AL ZWIEBEL AVROHOM SHAWN KAMPMANN 806 HARMONY LN 804 HILLVIEW DR PO BO 459 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 PA-2016-00614 PA-2016-00614 CYNDI DION JASON EATON SUSAN YEAGLEY 897 HILLVIEW DR PO BOX 3205 836 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 \ ! -L' s ( 51 Winburn Way j C l CITY OF Ashland, OR 97520 ASHLAND Date of Request: Requestor's Name: 0, c,1 r Mailing Address: ~ .k City: ` i State: Zip: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Date of Request: Requestor's Name: Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Date of Request: - Requestor's Name: Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Re: One More Thought on 843 Hillview - Derek person https://outlook.office3f nom/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem& Re: One More Thought on 843 Hillview i is 4 t 6 Derek Severson Wed 6/8/2016 8:35 AM i' To:Cyndi Dion <ginkgo@mind.net>; We'll include your comments in the record. Thanks. - 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 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. From: Cyndi Dion <ginkgo@mind. net> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 3:07:48 PM To: Derek Severson Subject: Re: One More Thought on 843 Hillview Thank you Derek. Please use my original email about the paving of the flag drive as my comments to include in the packet. I am not in favor of a flag drive or a flag lot. I think much could be accomplished by a simple minor land partition without a flag that accesses off an alley like an ADU would access. Thank you, Cyndi Dion Original Message From: Derek Severson To: Cyndi Dion Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 10:37 AM Subject: Re: One More Thought on 843 Hillview The Variance they're asking for is to not be required to take access from the alley, and to instead use a driveway off of Hillview. As they've proposed it, they would get rid of the existing driveway and curbcut off of Hillview and a shared driveway would serve a garage for the existing house and extend back to the new lot. This elimination of the existing curb cut and driveway in favor of a shared drive on Hillview , 6/16/2016 11:02 AM Re: One More Thought on 843 Hillview - Derek,F -erson https:Houtlook.office3f' ^om/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem& 1 would off-set the new driveway paving to some degree. But as they've proposed it, a new driveway off of Hillview would be more than 50 feet in length, and as such it would need to be paved. If they were to take access from the alley instead, and their driveway was less than 50 feet in length it would not be required to be paved although they could pave it within the allowances of lot coverage for the zone. (Depending on Fire Department or Engineering issues, there might still be a need for paving to accommodate fire apparatus access and/or a fire work area. City street standards for an alley would typically require that an alley be paved to at least a 12-foot width and we'd need to look at the alley with Fire and Engineering if they were proposing that as an access instead.) - 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 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. From: Cyndi Dion <ginkgo a@mind.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 9:20:50 AM To: Derek Severson Subject: One More Thought on 843 Hillview Derek; It occurred to me that if the subject property divided with access on the alley, it would no longer be considered a "flag lot" with all the paving requiements of a flag drive. Is that the case? In the applicants findings, they continue to address the flag lot requirements but also address the variance requirements even though a flag would not be necessary in the case of an alley access. Could you elaborate on this a bit for me? Thanks, Cyndi Dion No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avq corn Version: 2016.0.7639 / Virus Database: 4598/12379 - Release Date: 06/07/16 6/16/2016 11:02 AM l Re: 843 Hillview variance findings - Derek Severn° https:Houtlook.off"ice365 -om/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&... I i I i C Re: 843 Hillview variance findings i I Cyndi Dion <ginkgo@mind.net> Mon 6/6/2016 5:58 PM I To:Brandon Goldman <brandon.goldman@ashIand.orus>; cc:Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us>; Hi Derek and Brandon; Thank you for forwarding the variance findings. While I understand the developer's need to address each and every point in the variance criteria, I am concerned about only a few. The overabundance of flag drives cropping up all over Ashland has diminished many neighborhoods' feeling of cohesion and comfort. In my opinion, this is not necessarily due to an increase in numbers of people, we're still a small town, but specifically an increase in the amount of required paving! The application in question fully meets the zoning requirements of lot size in this neighborhood, and I grudgingly support the request for lot division. However, in making the lot a flag lot, the City of Ashland's paving requirements come into play. There is nothing more abusive to a feeling of quality of life than a bunch of paved areas with cars and RV's parked everywhere steaming in the sun of the summer, and flooding water off the drives in the winter and now spring! Not to mention oil spills, car washes and the like being sent directly to storm drains and from there to our creeks. Then we get into the requirements for a fire truck turn around! Question: The City of Ashland continues to purchase larger and larger fire trucks. Does that mean that the paving requirements for flag drives will get bigger and bigger? Does it also mean that a homeowner with a flag drive has to keep it completely clear in the event a fire truck needs to turn around? I've discussed these questions with fire personnel in Ashland as well as fire marshalls. I'm usually told they try not to bring a fire truck down a flag drive, and much prefer to set up equipment from the street. Why then, these ridiculous paving requirements? In my opinion, I would like to see the applicant request a variance from the requirement of paving the flag drive if he is set on access off of Hillview. It would do much to mitigate the impact of massive swaths of cement in our beautiful neighborhood and allow the runoff from their property to percolate into the soil onsite. Please consider this option. Best regards, Cyndi Dion 897 Hillview Drive Ashland, OR 97520 Original Message From: Brandon Goldman To: ginkgo ,mind.net Cc: Derek Severson Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:51 AM Subject: 843 Hillview variance findings Cindy, Attached please find the 5/20/16 Variance findings submitted by the applicants at 843 Hillview as we discussed. I've copied Derek Severson, Associate Planner, on this email as he is the City Planner that will be drafting the Staff report and presenting the application to the Ashland Planning Commission. Should you have any comments regarding the proposed partition, variance request, or tree removal, please forward such comments to Derek so they could be considered by the Planning Commission during their deliberations. 6/16/2016 11:01 AM Re: 843 Hillview variance findings - Derek Sever--n https:Houtlook.office3F` -om/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&... t I hope you enjoy your upcoming vacation, Brandon Brandon Goldman, AICP Senior Planner City of Ashland, Planning Division I 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 (541) 552-2076, TTY: 1-800-735-2900 FAX: (541) 552-2050 brandon.goldman ashland.or.us This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541)552-2076. Thank you. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7639 / Virus Database: 4598/12373 - Release Date: 06/06/16 6/16/2016 11:01 AM I 770 760 - 80 Ft- ~ ❑ 804 ADT 280 ADT ` 01/~1i01 - 20.1 MPH, a) ~I X5.1 MPH, 85th9 2_ 1 801- ❑ 05/27/16 ❑ flSO 1 25 806 so I~O~ y 81 808 809 O 822 813 ❑ 821 831 - 82 422 ADT _ - r 1 01/01/01 - - 83 836 I1 - 1822 43 i _ 841 8551 84 ~ 5 6 El 853 8 30 - 5 7 847 i 846 5 8 8<( C o O- 659ADi - - 851 850 t - ❑ 26.4 MPH.'a~ g 85 0 _ 5 13 31.6 MPH, 85th Ji 7 853 I 6 72 05/27 `u. 881 882 873 872 0 - Q 891 --a ~ ~ h ~ . ~ 8 8 8 S92 ❑ 893 891 U 903 900 99 ❑ 90 - ❑ W 904 El 9_ 91 i ~1 910 9918❑ 2 - - )2 5 228 ADT L_J 922 i X) 25 MPH,'a~ ❑ ❑ 897 30.2 MPTT, R500, 05/27!16 35 J32 11 922 31 928 0 945 942 9~ 950 41 _ - 940 943 57 96 ❑ ° 939 ❑ 965 961 964 13 1755 945 958 955 OSS LN R 68 967 ❑ 98 f illvi Drive Traffic Counts I Traffic Count Map ~ Traffic Classifier k Date: 06/17/16 Traffic Counter 0 2550 100 150 200 250 300 P/ Feet Mapping is schematic only and bears no warranty of accuracy. All features, structures, facilities, easement or roadway locations should be independently field verified for existence and/or location. i t 7 IT - Planning Department, 51 Winuum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -HLY-1 c NOTICE OF APPLICATION i PLANNING ACTION: 2016-00614 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 843 Hillview Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Jason & Kelly Eaton DESCRIPTION: A request for a Land Partition to create two lots for the property located at 843 Hillview Drive. The request also includes a Variance to access the newly created lot from Hillview Drive rather than from the alley, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove two clusters of Birch trees which are greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), The Tree Commission will re-review the application on June 9th to consider an arborist's report provided by the applicants. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 15AC; TAX LOT : 400. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. t I NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: May 31, 2016 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: June 14, 2016 i PA-2016-00614 fl43.F91.LVIEW DR - +I Z I ' iSU6JECTPROPERTY I L - Q I ~ Q r W L - 1 L- A The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staffs decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing Folder\Tvlailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-00614 ReNotice.docx PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.5.3.050 The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D. The tract of land 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). 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. 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 dedications. H. Unpaved Streets. 1. Minimum Street Improvement. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2. Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist, a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface, In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. I d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. 1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. FLAG PARTITIONS 18.76.060 4 Partitions involving the creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission if the following conditions are satisfied: A. Conditions of the previous section have been met. B. Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.x, the flag drive for one flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways, Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15% but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide a Fire Work Area of 20 feet by 40 feet 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. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. When required by the Oregon Fire Code, flag drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090. 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. C. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated in such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for backing out. D. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. E. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a site-obscuring fence, wall or evergreen hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed at the extreme outside of the flag drive in order to ensure adequate fire access. Wcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing Folder%lailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-00614 ReNotice.doe\ F. The applicant has executed and filed with t' 'tannin Department an agreement between a it and the city for and screening of the flag paving drive. Such an agreement shall specify the`p- iod within which the applicant, or agent for applicari,, it contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Director of Public Works and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening to standards as indicated in this section and the assurance that such maintenance shall be continued. G. A site plan has been approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan shall be approved provided the regulations of the zoning and subdivision titles are satisfied. Such a site plan shall contain the map requirements listed in Section 18.76.050 and the following information: 1. The location of driveways, turnarounds parking spaces and useable yard areas. 2. The location and type of screening. 3. For site plans of a flag lot, the building envelope shall be identified. H. No more than two lots are served by the flag drive, 1. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. J. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term y "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. j' K. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval; 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole; 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flag pole, improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface from the street to the buildable area of the flag lot; 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flaglot clearly visible from the street on a 4" X 4" post 3% feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers 3 inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two feet by three feet white sign clearly visible from the street with three inch black numbers. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance, 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18.5.7.040.6 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 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 18.10. 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. 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 criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. 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. 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. GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-00614 ReNotice.docs PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2600 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2800 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2100 DAVIDS-MARKS RUSTEE E ET ET A THAD WINSLOW BELL CHRISTOPHER RAND CRISWELL TIMOTHY A T 840 HARMONY LN 822 HARMONY LN TRUST BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 1808 AND, OU ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2500 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 400 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2107 DAVIES GWEN C TRUSTEE ET AL EATON JASON/KELLY EATON LEONARD W/BARBARA E 860 HARMONY LN 865 HENRY 841 BESWICK WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 200 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2108 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2400 GUSTAFSON PETER/FONTANA KRISTIN HOWARD MATTHEW R JOHNSON JEFFERY S/BLAIR B 809 HILLVIEW DR PO BOX 1254 870 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2101 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2900 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 401 JOHNSON ROBERT A TRUSTEE ET AL JONES LARRY D KEEN BARBARA J TRUSTEE FBO 850 HILLVIEW DR 1600 ASHLAND MINE RD 847 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, CA 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 100 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 601 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 3100 KELLEMS LARRY A TRUSTEE ET AL KLEINEDLER KEITH M LAWSON BARBARA ELAINE ET AL 805 HILLVIEW DR 873 HILLVIEW DR 800 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 104 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2102 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 500 LEIBOVITCH ERIC/HARRIET MEI MEISSSNER CHRISTIAN IRREVOCABLE AL NERENBERG NANCY TRUSTEE ET AL 9420 RESEDA 570 TRU ET 853 HILLVIEW DR NORTHRIDGE, CA 91324 760 OAKWAY CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2700 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2104 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 300 PILLER KARL/HUGO AUTUMN POWELL DAVID J/MURAWSKI WILLOW ROSTYKUS PAUL S 832 HARMONY LN 875 BESWICK WAY 436 GRANDVIEW ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2106 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2105 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2103 SLADE PATRICIA ET AL STEFFANI RONALD R TRUSTEE ET AL SZELONG MICHAEL/LISA 836 HILLVIEW DR 872 HILLVIEW DR 851 BESWICK WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2901 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2109 PA-2016-00614: YATES SUSAN M TRUSTEE ET AL ZWIEBEL AVROHOM POLARIS LAND SURVEYING SHAWN 806 HARMONY LN 804 HILLVIEW DR KAMPMAMM ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PO BOX 459 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 PA-2016-00614 PA-2016-00614 JASON EATON CYNDI DION SUSAN YEAGLEY PO BOX 3205 897 HILLVIEW DR 836 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 'm i AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING G STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On 5/31/16 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 1 listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA-2016-00614, 843 Hillview. N. Signature of Employee I I f DocumenQ 5/3112016 t I a a s L, 9 i 111 law M I 320 AN ~~,~y Ill No .3300 ~.rJ 2 O "'00 t ] i}~ A M I .2700 400 I Sao S- ET AV Mot -u1 dUia,auu note M luI 7140 2241-D I Qua AUDI 2300 3163 L ~diiy,,p~ y 4100 z3,00 I 11 i i MAU Poll May 20, 2016 843 Hillview Drive Findings addendum: 2 103 The subject property at 843 Hillview SE CO extends from east to west away from 17669 otc4 CS4499 100 " Hillview Drive along the north property 1013 21a e y 3 C£..13095 line for 190 feet. There is a property line k ,o - - s - - - - - _ - _ - - - - _ _ - ~ jog to the north for five feet. This, north i s""~ s aj property line continues east for ten feet. i. ! p The north property line abuts the 0 - 3100 r terminus of a 20-foot wide public alley. a The rear, west property, line forms the W - centerline of an eight-foot wide access ; a ~o boo a - easement that was a result of some 1998 - F easements granted between the previous i property owner and the property owners 300 ;rAr of 832 Harmony (2700), 840 Harmony _ _ - - \ - (2600) and 860 Harmony Lane (2500), a:~ m 400 1 including the to the property to the south (tax lot 401) which historically was part of 2600`" °s"°'° the subject property. t~a°'~ x,9,89 2500 Hillview Drive is classified as a 5 ! SOO ' S CS.96795 Neighborhood Collector in the 9 ; zaoo Transportation System plan. - - ' ° - - - " - - - - - Neighborhood Collectors have 1,500 61 e 5,000 projected average daily trips (ADT). According to the ADT data collected by the 2200 City of Ashland Public Works Department the last vehicle counts for Hillview Drive were in 2001 and there were 804 ADT. Significantly less than the minimum end of the collector street threshold. Trip counters are being set on Hillview Drive to collect more current ADT, it is unlikely that the lower end of the trip threshold has been hit let along the maximum of 5,000 ADT. The partitions chapter approval criteria found in Ashland Municipal Code 18.5.3.050. F. Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria states "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." According to the staff advisor a Variance to 18.4.3.080 is necessary. The applicant finds that the last sentence of that criteria directs an applicant requesting a flag lot partition to see 18.5.3.060, Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria which has explicit criteria addressing alley access as it applies to flag lot partition access. AMC 18.5.3.060. H. "Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval." C The applicant finds that the existing bacl< yard, alley access, with a very low volume of traffic is inappropriate as the only "street frontage" and vehicular access for the proposed flag lot. There would be a negative impact when considered in the neighborhood context. Because, of the language found in AMC 18.5.3.060. H., where alley access shall be required only as a condition of approval which applies strictly to flag lots, but AMC 18.4.3.080.C applies to numerous lot configurations, the Ashland Municipal Code didn't intend for alley access to flag lots as required in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.4.c. and 5. The applicant believes that a finding can be made that a shared, 15-foot wide driveway accessing two single family residential lots from Hillview Drive, a neighborhood collector, is consistent with the neighborhood development pattern and can found to comply with the Ashland Municipal Code 18.4.3.080.C.4.a) Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts and that the plans submitted minimize the driveways for access management purposes. The Flag Lot approval criteria provides the decision mal<er flexibility regarding access as it applies to flag lot partitions should not trigger a variance to AMC 18.4.3.080.C.4.c and 5. I Regardless, staff finds a variance is necessary and below are the findings of fact addressing the variance criteria. This document is also an addendum to the findings regarding flag lot partitions from the applicant's submittal date stamped April 1, 2016. The applicant finds that the proposed flag lot complies with the requirements of the Ashland Municipal Code and that with the findings provided, the alley access should not be required as a condition of approval due to the circumstances regarding the improvements to the alley, the configuration of the alley and the changes that requiring the alley as the primary frontage would have on the adjacent properties. 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria The approval authority shall approve a preliminary plat application for a flag lot partition only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The criteria of section 18.5.3.050 are met. The applicant's find that the criteria of section 18.5.3.050 are met or can be met through the imposition of conditions. The applicant finds that AMC 18.5.3.050 directs an applicant to address the approval criteria for access to a flag lot found in AMC 18.5.3.060.H. B. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. The proposed lot area for Parcel #2, 8,613 square feet. This area is exclusive of the 1,530 square foot flag driveway. The proposed lot area exceeds the minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet for the R-1-7.5 zone. The remaining parcel with 8,802 square feet also exceeds the minimum lot area in the zone. C. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. The flag driveway is proposed to be owned by Parcel #2, one of the lots served by the driveway. Parcel #1 will have an ingress, egress access easement, mutual maintenance agreement and utility easements provided for Parcel #1 from Parcel #2. 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 I, I I 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. The proposed flag driveway, when installed, will comply with the minimum required area and driving surface widths. 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. I The existing curb cut serving the 9 -11-foot-wide driveway will be removed prior to signature of survey plat and both properties will share the flag driveway for access. 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. i There are no areas on the property which exceed 15 percent grade. f G. Flag drives shall be constructed to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. At the time of the construction of the flag driveway, the surface drainage will be accommodated for so as to not allow any surface drainage across property lines through the installation of a drainage system. E r H. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval. The applicant finds that the use of a flag driveway from the Neighborhood Collector Street is a better alternative, consistent with the development pattern of the impact area and that the vehicle access standards are met through the use of a shared driveway. The public alley terminates on the northwest corner of the property. This alley is minimally used (evidenced by the amount of vegetation along both sides of the alley and the height of the weeds between the wheel tracks). The alley from the north property line of the subject property to its intersection with Harmony Lane is approximately 400-feet in length. There is a large ponderosa pine on the property to the north that is adjacent to the alley right-of-way and the subject property's 10-foot wide connection with the alley right-of-way. The "alley" continues across the rear eight-feet of the property through shared ingress/egress access easement for the benefit of the three properties to the west across the easement (tax lots 2500, 2600 and 2700) and the property to the south of the subject lot (tax lot 401). The alley has 'typical' alley development with garages and accessory structures, rear yard access, gardens, fences and privacy hedges. There is one lot that takes its primary access from the alley (tax lot 401). It was created from the subject lot in 2001. That lot could not meet driveway separations on Hillview and use of the alley and the shared access easement was required. That lot is different than the proposed flag lot because it has more than 60-feet frontage on Hillview Drive and the residence has a clear orientation towards the public street. Vehicle access solely from the alley for this flag lot creates other difficulties that are not present in a non-flag lot partition situation. These include; first, the alley access creates a directional i dilemma when attempting to locate the parcel due to addressing issues. Would it make sense for E the lot be a Hillview address because of the narrow four-foot pedestrian path required when i vehicle access is from the shared access or alley, or a Harmony address due to the physical orientation of the vehicular access to the site? In addition to friends and family members locating and accessing your home, receiving deliveries typically available for a single family residence (UPS, FedEx, USPS, etc.) would prove to be an unnecessary challenge. Most importantly, fire apparatus and emergency vehicle access to the residents and the structure are hindered by the conditions of the alley and even with re-grading and pruning of the vegetation emergency vehicle access to the property would still prove to be difficult. The first responders would need to find the address and then, even with the inclusion of fire sprinklers, access to the property with their large rigs. The 20-foot dead end alley with a nearly 90-degree bend, 150-feet to the north of the subject property impedes site access. The bend in the alley, lacking minimum turning radi, outside of the control of the applicant, could create a cumbersome and slow response time. Additionally, there are no fire hydrants near the alley, which reduces the ability of Ashland Fire and Rescue to access the property. There is a fire hydrant on Hillview Drive approximately 150-feet to the south. This hydrant is accessible through the use of the proposed flag driveway as the Fire Apparatus Access. According to the Transportation System Plan, Hillview Drive is a Neighborhood Collector Street with an average Physical access to the site via the proposed flag driveway, which provides a logical vehicular access to the existing single family residence and future residence on the flag lot complies with the Vehicle Access and Design Standards and Access Management Standards. In discussing the proposal with staff from the Pre-application conference in February until May 18, 2016 requiring alley access has not been raised as an issues and had not been considered by the applicant due to the reasons provided above. 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole. Not applicable, the flagpole is not adjacent to the alley. 3. A four-foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flagpole and improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface connecting the street to the buildable area of the flag lot. Not applicable. The applicant is requesting that the flag lot be connected to the public street via the allowed 15-foot flag pole for driveway connections. 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flag lot clearly visible from the street on a four-inch by four-inch post that is 3'/2 feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers three inches high ruining vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two foot by three-foot white sign clearly visible from the street with three-inch black numbers. i The proposed flagpole is 15-feet in width accessed via Hillview Drive. The flag lot will bead dressed in accordance with the standards. 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 flag drive will be deemed a Fire Apparatus Access road. If the future single family residence is 24-feet in average height or greater, a fire work area will be provided on Parcel #2. 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. The flag driveway is greater than 150-feet in length. A turnaround is not proposed due to the large area of the lot that would be required to be devoted to driving surface and utilizing other alternatives such as fire sprinklers would be a preferred alternative. Additionally, the future residence could be constructed on the portion of the parcel that is within 150-feet of where a fire truck would park within the flag driveway. K. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated to eliminate the necessity for vehicles backing out. Adequate area has been provided for the flag lot to have three parking spaces situated in a manner that eliminates the necessity for vehicles to back out. Compliance with this standard will be addressed with the building permit submittals. L. There shall be no parking within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on either side of the flag drive entrance. No on-street parking will be within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on eitherside of the flag driveway entrance. If required, the curb will be painted yellow. 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. When the new single family residence for the flag lot is proposed, demonstration of compliance with the requirements of the Building and Fire Code and Officials will be addressed. N. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a site-obscuring fence, wall or evergreen hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed at the extreme outside of the flag drive in order to ensure adequate fire access. The flag drive is not proposed to be installed until construction commences on the flag lot. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the site-obscuring fence or hedge will be installed along the flag driveway. } A E r 0. The applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Department an agreement between applicant and the City for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Public Works Director and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening pursuant to this section, and assurance ongoing maintenance. An agreement will be executed for the paving and screening of the flag driveway. The applicant is not proposing to develop the flag lot at this time. The screening and paving of the driveway will be completed prior to issuance of a signature of occupancy for the residence on the flag lot. Ingress, egress access easements for the joint use of the flag driveway will be addressed on the partition plat. P. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the,ground upward. As demonstrated with the site plan, a useable yard area is able to be provided for the flag lot. Due to setback standards and maximum lot coverage, the yard area will likely exceed the 20 X 20 standard. Variance Approval Criteria 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. The partitions chapter approval criteria found in 18.5.3.050 states "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." According to the staff advisor a Variance to 18.4.3.080 is necessary. The applicant finds that the last sentence of the partitions approval criteria regarding vehicle area design directs an applicant requesting a flag lot partition to see 18.5.3.060, Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria which has explicit criteria addressing alley access. AMC 18.5.3.060. H. "Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval." We find that the alley right-of-way dead ends on the north property line which is a unique circumstance. The physical connection of the parcel with a 10-foot property line abutting the alley is unique when compared to typical alley frontages where the alley right-of-way traverses the entire property line. Typical alleys are also through accesses and do not dead end approximately 500-feet from their point of origin. A private ingress / egress access easement was granted to adjoining properties with eight-feet of the access easement on the subject property and an additional eight-feet on the property to the west in 1998. This ingress / egress access was not intended to provide primary property access as the alley and ingress / egress easement provides access to typical rear yard "development". For example, the alley and ingress / egress primarily provides access to shed, garages, extra vehicle storage areas, gardens, chicken coops and similar types of uses. There is one property, directly adjacent the subject property that has its access off the alley and does not have a curb-cut on Hillview. This lot (tax lot 401) was created from the parent parcel 843 Hillview in 2001. This lot could not meet required driveway separations at the time and alley access was required. This lot also differs from the proposed flag lot because it has 60 feet of street frontage on Hillview Drive. The subject property is unique because it has nearly 100 feet of frontage on Hillview Drive (99.99-feet surveyed). The properties that front on Hillview and Harmony Lane that are within 200-feet of the subject property have an average lot width of 84.5 feet. The proposed partition will result in a lot fronting on Hillview Drive that exceeds the average by only %2 of a foot versus more than 25-feet more than the average lot width in the impact area. This bring the non-conforming lot closer to conformance with the average lot width in the impact area. The creation of a firetruck turn around on the property would create a large area of asphalt that is not necessary with the proposed flag driveway being utilized as the fire apparatus access. Additionally, there are no fire hydrant near the alley, which reduces the ability of Ashland Fire and Rescue from accessing the property. There is a fire hydrant on Hillview Drive approximately 150-feet to the south. Which is accessible from the proposed flag driveway. Requiringthe primary access to the flag lotfrom the alley and the private access easement would be a change to the development pattern on the adjacent properties and have a negative impact to the privacy and enjoyment of their rear yards. There is a large Ponderosa Pine within two feet of the subject property's connection with the alley right- of-way that is located on the adjacent property to the north. The construction of a driveway directly adjacent to the Ponderosa Pine would have negative impacts to that trees critical root zone. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special physical circumstances related to the subject site. The existing lot width significantly exceeds the average lot width within 200-feet of the subject property where the average lot width is 84.5 feet; the existing lot width is 99.99 feet; proposed lot width (lot fronting on Hillview Drive) is 85 feet. The variance request allows for the alley to remain as a secondary access for 11 of the 12 properties it serves. The variance request allows for the shared ingress / egress to remain as a secondary access for four of the five properties it serves. The variance preserves and protects the large ponderosa pine tree on the adjacent property to the north by not increasing the disturbance within its root zone to create a driveway and does not increase the number of vehicle trips across its critical root zone leading to compaction issues. The proposed lots would continue to be served by a single driveway. The proposed driveway width at 15- feet wide is less than the average driveway width of the parcels within 200-feet of the subject property. Note: There are 20 properties fronting on Hillview and Harmony Lane that could be impacted by the proposed flag lot partition. Of those, we were able to measure the approximate driveway widths of 14 driveways using Google Earth Pro. The average driveway width was 20-feet. The proposed shared driveway is 15-feet wide, five feet less than the average in the impact area. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. ti 1 r The applicant finds that Hillview Drive is classified as a Neighborhood Collector in the Transportation System plan. Neighborhood Collectors have 1,500 - 5,000 projected average daily trips (ADT). According to the ADT data collected by the City of Ashland Public Works Department the last vehicle counts for Hillview Drive in 2001 and there were 804 ADT. Significantly less than the minimum end of the collector street threshold. The introduction of one additional single family residence utilizing a shared driveway is more beneficial than increasingthe number of vehicle trips on an unimproved, dead end, nearly 500-foot- long 20-foot alley that is unsigned and accessed from a completely different street. Requiring primary access for the proposed flag lot from the alley would change the character of the adjacent development. The subject property and the adjacent properties are zoned single family residential. The subject property exceeds the minimum lot area in the R-1-7.5 zone and has the lot area for two single family residences, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ashland Comprehensive Plan Single Family Residential (2.04.03) This designation allows single-family residential uses with some mixture of attached units. Lot sizes are generally sensitive to topography in that greater slopes should have lower densities. The zoning designations for areas designated as Single-Family Residential generally range from 10,000 sq. ft. lots, or areas which are from 3 to 5 dwelling units per acre, to areas with a minimum lot size of 5000 sq. ft., or which are from 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The zoning shall be varied, based on adjacent development densities, topography and access to collector and arterial streets. Flag lots typically have less resale value than large lots fronting on a public street, allowing for a more affordable construction and property ownership model. The allowance of a flag lot that complies with the standards of the zone and furthers the goals of the Land Use and Housing Elements of the Comprehensive Plan and provides needed housing inventory. The applicant finds the proposed flag lot is encouraged in the comprehensive plan to vary the development density due to the location of the lot on a collector street (Hillview Drive). Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, Chapter 6 6.10 Goal Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section of Ashland's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city. Additionally, the creation of the flag lot provides an avenue for implementation of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element which seeks to allow a wide variation in site-built housing types and encourage development of vacant available lots within the urban area, while providing sufficient new land to avoid an undue increase in land prices. (Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Policies 6.11) i l Based on the information found in the Comprehensive TABLE rill-3 LANG NEEDEC ANC AVAILABLE 117 UGE Plan regarding urbanization there is a defined need for sF~ srz 1aFe c E_ LOR buildable single family residential land within the city. gar„ . ; 127 83 54 98 202 104 (Comprehensive Plan Urbanization, Chapter 12) B'u,oi= = i 258 142 0 13 8 62 3 Na_ d_u in UG8 0 4fl 83 41 ' 139 Available in UGB 8 1811 89 49 5 138 27 Difference 0 +114 +8 +8 +11 + ' Zorea -en may be used for e- _r com ierolai or Incustria des. ReFcesents total demand for boll aimrr_rGI. and ndUSb+al needs- The ordinance which applies to flag lots allows for the decision makers to require alley access as a condition of approval but appears to provide leniency when applying the Vehicle Design Standards (AMC 18.4.3.080.C) due to the specific statement in the partitions chapter that references the Flag Lot approval criteria which has an explicit statement regarding alley access (AMC 18.5.3.060.H), as discussed previously in these findings. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan does not require new lots to take alley access. The plan recommends alley access but does not require it. (Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 10.05.05) 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. The need for variance is not self-imposed but is dependent upon many factors. Most importantly the applicant believes that is can be found that requiring alley and ingress/egress access easement as the primary access to the site would have a negative impact on the adjacent neighbors. Alley access would change the development pattern of the neighborhood, increase the number of vehicle trips on the alley that currently has few daily trips when there is frontage on a Neighborhood Collector street with a higher number of average vehicle trips. The type of vehicles utilizing the alley would also be modified if required as the primary access, delivery vehicles, fire apparatus access, construction vehicles, etc. The driveway access off of the alley would also have a negative impact on the large ponderosa Pine tree that is directly to the north of the existing driveway through construction and future compaction as a result of the a driveway installation. Below are some photos of the current alley conditions. The vehicle shown is a full-size pick-up truck not an oversized vehicle. i Alley intersection with Harmony Lane liv I f Alley (first 291-feet) A :h 1 r ti x i t i r 1 i l Bend in Alley (from West / East to North / South orientation) i - •S ~ Ids ~ ~ - i': 4J'~ i ifl, parr 7 t - 3 ~ <'sasc.. s ~ Alley looking south towards end of right-of-way (arrow indicates subject property) e- v i 'f dde. 4` F a I w - ~ III •I s k Rear property line of subject lot. Stakes next to large Ponderosa Pine tree in foreground are the property corners (arrows) I mss- - r ~Cti Ile ti _L E ' i»l I Turning around at the end of the access easement , r F'• T 1 Y Y' f Aerial Image of the property and approximate 200-foot impact area X43 IIillVlew Legend Y w F t _ ~ P43 Hill.ie,v Lot#2 aenalofurgpact srea ? I r,~- t h j N311111vevvdnve ie91 " y Ar~, I ~ f. ~ - ~ Yr- 1 I sa~ Al, Y x ! 5 F° A zV 7 - cl~ r~ ~ I ~ i to ~ " ~ ; j _ J "Vfi~ u 3~E \n jar-`.. ~ ^^^111° _ r ~ 1 _ 71 1 I r I Tax lot maps of impact area used for calculating average lot width LJLJ CS-8499 S 100 106 0.07 AC. j U w' 021 Ac. €g M1 °ass 3 CS-13095 / 2109 - _ _ - _ s nn 104 j 0.34 Ac. r o°t;nJ Av - - - - _ j`~•, 105 e4 ° 97..9D ` - 021 AC. QV 10 2100 I> + s / 3100 2110 0.21 Ac.. +a,,~ 44d t9sr % ~OdA 024 Ac. i rC 4 52.W j 1 i zlos 2 I / 027 Ac. ~ N S9-09 M/ / 2901 2900 0 saoo W % mans- - 5 3 028 Ac. 0.08 Ac. e _ 2U0 s12ez~ooiRa//J 9 U JJ AC. R. > CqP. DtD 15 2107 106 ,J o Q~ °'~$y tszW 7 A D .40 AC 0.27AC. $ . 2aW .team. 'i j 2800 tWm tW.W - - f!aAIE - 8 ° r> 0.J3Ac. 300 J d U..11 AC. R srss~w~t. cµ j s~\~ i4.on FR. _ I SE COP. DLc <5 2102 ~ j m• s s / 07 Ac. J 2700 :9ao 1° j -7 4 ilO.W 0.40Ac. I / ,2nos V 400 I WW / w2secµ S9.u 2103 f~ 0.44 AC.1 sEC'r~a maoFP. i 029AC. MOO MOd Irl 2101 a 2600 P1 e3.2e r CS-17070 / 027 G.c. - 8 9 Inds 0.32 Ac. Ir rare W-W ^ P a° S 401 R " o 30 Ac CS-10789 j ° 2104 { CS maW 8 / c 2500 ,xiW nl SOW „ P12 2nnW / a Ci 0.26 AC-.- - 10 ^ 2som / - g 500 2105 12 ` -13Q05 - - tsaW SS 0.56 AC. w2.9eaf,'lS9.tecµ C*L ae 0.33 Ac. f19M S 55~Dp, 1 ip p~FR. q $ SE CDR, DlC /5 LEVItc / CS-14735 2400 a / 2200 9 0,22 Ac. 0.43 Ac. - 3 - - 2£Dpp 5179.! W / ~ ldQ~ 13105 r• CORD C45 / 14 - iSD,W 21V W / 60 2300 0 4 lAc. 2300 022 Ac. $ 0.23 Ac. gg 13 R 1 MOO aaoa / CS-9590 9,?nn 21QW MW l / us19 1`$ I ~ w. ~ s ¢ , s / fi+ ~ ~ r r - s a,~ 4'iK=R ~ s Y~r. ~c ~ s ti'HS ♦ - y~ m _ ~ s > ~ ~~.z >G~ !K. ~sir~~ ~Se~' s.w ' ~tJM'z ~ ~ r• f wr'ti c a x -m a7#fi k4,C~ •~~mt .~-3 s-fi %aY fc s ~.x n fi~;♦ i- Afik ii,~s!s-jZt'~}, ,'A`r~F Kq•:_ b~C 'akne ~rl3f;K.~~'~ - ,k:: r x{ *~v,~+ r, •z t«, e+x a+I 1t f--ug.>,?Ic s - + r 3 r - 1 a s s$ heir! ~ a ~„rdr a ~~c, q t c' _ '.°r s u g¢; alr 52f. ~y bra ~ ?'}r.y6d. w yaw. ; • ~k a a ~ ~ ' sa V!, 4 iE 3 4-~ 7F: ~ ~ ii rC• TQ'',i 3. r_ a + `.7 kr. °~i2`A VF'Ya1-~-r3 ['1X'~G-rt '3+s:x i r k • F e 1 Fig ~ `I~ d', a~ . 9 < S I q Y' ~ f Y $4, 71 Y u. ~~a y `=a+ a r i s J popp ~ lF~r 3. 4 Ali 3£'R F Q FY Zy-. _ ~ r icY' ~ t A~ F W i'F JY ab~Y ~ f a_µv~ k~}'.{`#,'k.? ➢ ~ ~ ~x oaf I tv -A. u ggy tf r e~• is _ 4ed T Al E"~ _ hz~t r" fsri _ v w a ~ _ z Asa # - . pt d YK - +S Y-~-Y yY 1 - n s ;Al yr ~ J ~'s.ri, k'+!xfi•4._. ~ a" t ~~wS?k~k 69 ays rl m ~_e '~.;'l .rL ~ ~"~kdk i _ - ~ ~ ~ , ter - ~ _ - ; Vii' s;' ~ ~~'~f a # - _ ~ ^t~b~ g ~ ~ ` ~~ii ~ r - 4~ ~`il. ~ R k ~ _ rx~" ar h ~3 ~~4 ` ~ ~ ~ . Fyn ~ -a'~ c° r F-~. , ~ a ,'1 ~ ~ SK ~ j F .1 Yi~~,r~6~~~~F~F ~ ti~?F~i i r, .R . xx ! ~ _ `c ~F~ / S ~ Y ~ n ~ ~~t 1 l x_ i ti. ~ 1 ' ^ Y ti`w°.~r ' ~ ° xt,~'~ Jam. ~'a~ Y ~ f ~ ~ e~ t ~ z. r~ ~ ~ _ ~ l ~ ...v y i k ti ~~F ~ ~ ~ ~ y i~l i ~ V i~,b ~ ~ ~x~ y ~a~,~ ~ ~ ~ ' s c.a~ . a.. 'r._'~1a - a ~'t q'. s ` `E 843 Hillview Drive - Derek Severson https:Houtlook.officP365.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem& 843 Hiliview Drive I f f Susan Yeagley <soosanowc@gmail.com> I l Wed 5/18/2016 3:25 PM To:planning <planning@ashland.orus>; I I I To Whom It May Concern, I'd like to let it be known that I am not opposed to the zoning variance/permit for 843 Hillview. I have seen the work of Jason and Kelly, the co-owners of Conscious Construction, and believe they will proceed with their efforts to construct an additional dwelling on the property with respect for the land and neighbors. I always hope that trees can remain on any project, and I trust Jason and Kelly will make the right decision regarding any necessary tree removal. I believe in the end, their efforts will help to add beauty to the landscape which sits directly across from my home at 836 Hillview. The concerns voiced over added traffic, strain on the waste water system, etc. I believe are an unfounded attempt by one neighbor who seems firmly opposed to ANY change, regardless of the end result. Thank you for hearing my opinion. I look forward to seeing the end result of Jason and Kelly's vision. Sincerely, Susan Yeagley 836 Hillview Drive Ashland Sent from my iPhone r ~f r 6/29/2016 4:10 PM Form ~soc Tree Risk Ass t' c Client Date Tim $ y/ ( r. Try no. Sheet 1 of Address/Tree Ida ion Tree species dbh Height to ~ Crown spread dia. Time frame Tools used ti 1 w c) ~ I "tom r~ Assessor(s) - Target Assessment " Target zone Occupancy 't' r rate $ V an d v +o x 3 1-rare V m E C° x 2-occaslonal v r" Target description = IT t'n 3-frequenl o 3 ,,'~ff A-constant a ) V' Q V-\ N 2 3 G Site Factors History of failures Topography Flat'Q Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None [Grade change ❑ Site clearing ❑ Changed soil hydrology ❑ Root cuts ❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated[] Shallow❑ Compacted D Pavement over roots[] % Describe Describe Prevailing wind directiar(.Y) V1 ommon weather Strong winds El Ice El Snow ❑ Heavy rain 1:1 j Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor.-,Low ❑ Normai I' High Q: Foliage one (seasonal) 1:1 None (dead) ❑ Normal Q % Chlorotic 5 % Necrotic % Pests t~T av~ ~v 2'~ r~ qtr>? Ablo`tic Species failure profile Branches Trunk Ro ts❑ Describe 1`~~ `L 1~ 4`~ f"' t r,l r~ tt Load Factors I Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial 4 Full ❑ Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium Large ❑ Crown density Sparse ❑ Norma( Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal Dense D Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change In load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure ® Crown and Branches - Unbalanced crown ❑ I.CR % Cracks ❑ i 81 Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia. V__ Codominant ❑ NJ ~ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number /"l Max, dia. Weak attachments ❑ N Cavity/Nest hole circ. Over extended branches 11 Previous branch failures 11 ~1 Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history "11A Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galls/Burls 13 Sapwood damage/decay Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ~ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ \1111 rsr Flush cuts ❑ Other, 1- Response growth Main concern(s) alb - ( 1 v ti ,n X_ LN 1 1 t C i c 4 t;'. C' 1c t r P~ i Load on de ect N/A ❑ " Minor C Moderate Significant ❑ Imminent 11 Likelihood of failure improbable Ell Possible ❑ Probable L4.1 -Trunk ® - Roots and Root Collar - Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color' Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean Corrected? \ Response growth \NIO Response growth I' ~f ' n A,(I Main concern(s`)~x~t` Main concern(s) 7 Load on defect N/A ❑ inor ❑ oderate ❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable Imminent ❑ Improbable Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ i i Risk Categorization Likelihood equences o y Failure & Impact 4ons £ Failure Impact (from Matrix 1) Risk c c g o N ro c n M T ratin w R y 3 E > L Y of Part MConditions ® Target o y v ? 00 g o re ~ E o t? E Z c d m e o Y M g b (from v Tree part of concern a LL protection _ a a 0 > z v ~n Matrlj 2) ~j ~ O J / \ t~ h rb v 10 3 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. r { 1 Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target - of Failure Very low Low Medium High A~ C Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely_ Likely i i Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely ' Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix2, Risk rating matrix. Consequences of Failure i Likelihood of Failure & Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe I Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High North newhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate nlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions 4 L- r' / 1 r Cl 'I G t C t/ 1 t Residual risk !v Mi 'g lion options t,t./ r, Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk overall tree risk rating Low[] Moderate High Extreme ❑ Work priority 10 2 3 ❑ 4 ❑ overall residual risk Low Moderate ❑ High Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data ❑Final ❑ Preliminary Advance assessment needed CINo ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None Visibility Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe l1, A This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is Intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (IRAQ) arborists - 2013 Pond ^f 4+ I t 7)6',:ii,ic Tree Risk Assessmd C' Form Client _ Date / Time eil,., ~ Tree no.., Sheet of Address/Tree location Tree species dbh X~ wr r Height 610 -r• nt~Crown spread dia, Assessor(s) Time frame 1%N11 t" _ Tools used v"~,€4 Target Assessment i Target zone Occupancy x c rate e r _ x 1-rare B R C 2-occasional " Target description F- H t Lmi 3-frequent o V F 4-costant a E a 1 h~-- . , rJ N ~J l c~ 1^ tt a° r 3 4 Site Factors History of failures Topography Flat Slope[] % Aspect Site changes None X Grade change[] Site clearing[] Changed soil hydrology[] Root cuts[] Describe- Soilconditions Urnitedvolume❑Saturated ❑ Shallow[] Compacted[] Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe- I e° Prevailing wind direction ommon weather Strong winds El Ice ❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain 11 Describe i ; 'k'tt)a,??a/;~1 f? Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor L w Normal Hi ~hQ ollage None (seaso al)❑ None(dead)❑ Normal~% Chlorotic-jA--j_% Necrotic7.0 % Pests 1"'6,._ f - Abiotic V° ~~,,~t~~ Species failure profile Branches Trunk% Roots ❑ Describe )N r I, u ~ -„.t' Z 7 VE Load Factors Wind exposure Protected 0 Partial ❑ Full ❑ Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small Medium[] Large O Crown density Sparse Normal Dense 11 int rior branches Fewo Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ _A 1a Recent or planned change in load factors ri I Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown and Branches - Unbalanced crown ail LCR% Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches'l ~%overall Max. dia.`~,~_ Codominant Included bark Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. ° Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole circ. Over-extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures Similar branches present14 Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-tailed Conks ❑ - Heartwoo decay 12 ~ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth L / J✓ Main concern(s) Ir:. s t t° r 1 C J Load o defect N/A ❑ Minor 01~ Moderate Significant o I L'C Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable Imminent ❑ -14. el I -Trunk - Roots and Root Collar - Dead/Missing bark Z Abnormal bark texture/color Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling 103 Codominant stems Included barks Cracks Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay Cankers/Galls/Burls 14 Sap ooze 4 T Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay[] Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ, Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean 1L_° Correctec(? - Response growth tv`a Response growth Al' -7- Main concern(s) rS G ~Itl t 11 ain conce (s) /14 Load on defect /A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable[] Possible 1:1 Probable Imminent ❑ Improbable[] Possible) Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ I f l is Risk Categorization Likelihood 010 Failure & Impact Consequences E cu Failure Impact C u (from Matrix 1) Risk C o N _ u w c r m v c rating 01 3 E ? x ° of art Conditions $ m ° ° Y ' 0° `o `E p an Target c - a o E Z; v to c E v c c40 a (from U Tree part of concern o U. h protection a a E j ° S v°i 7 > Z n v~i Matrix 2) l~ VO G& 1 7, all `L n ln,~ 1(I ~i h~ ~'lt1 2 IT -F + 7 -1- fP 3 L 4 r Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Likelihood of impacting Target E of Failure Very low Low Medium High Uo - I l I Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely ? Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely I ! Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely _ ! I Matrix2. Risk rating matrix, j _ 1D I. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure t Failure & Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely_ Low Moderate High High North Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low & t` / I ~ r Noes, explanations, descriptions I\ I '~N Ck + 4 't Mid ation options,wl,"`k k. Residual risk. t I 1A Residual risk ! ~e n,t~~~_~,C•~ Residual risk Residual risk overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate High Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 211 3 ❑ 40 overall residual risk Low\lh Moderate ❑ High Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval II Data 41Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None [NVisibility Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe o Cli){ I Ibis datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by'rree Risk Assessment Qualified (IRAQ) arborists -2013 P~Re ^f i Client A V Date (s Time Address JTree location 71 Tr e no. Sheet _ of Tree species dbh 7 f> Height 1• h e, : Crown spread dia. 1/6 i Assessor(s) Time frame ,t r A Tools used Target Assessment Target zone e Occupancy m x L rate $ m c 3 c t ti y 1-rare ro C., ~ = Target description o. = x 2-occasional u v C F- ,mac If? 3-frequent r d 1 If0.0 ~ 4-constant a E rX T 3 a. - 4 Site Factors History of failures_ jr) - Topography FlatA~ Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes NoneA Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology El Root cuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited voi m ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor LowX Normaiq High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic I % Necrotic , Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches TrunkPiRoots ❑ Describe I v-rNti1f.1a tiyG , r, , fit; Load Factors Wind exposure Protected 13 Partial FuII❑ Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium Large❑ Crown density Sparse Normal Dense 1:1 Interior branches Few Normal 1:1 Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss El Recent or planned change in load factors ) nn, p Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure - Crown and Branches - Unbalanced crown LCR % Cracks v° -6 V q-,t Lightning damage 13 Dead twigs/branches J~ /Z% overall Max. dia. ~L Codominanty Included bark Broken/Hangers es r [I Over-extended branches Max. dia. Weak attachments 13 Cavity/Nest hole Z-% circ. `Pruning history Previous branch failures Similar branches present Crown cleaned 11 Thinned ❑ Raised Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galls/Burls ~i Sapwood darns e/d cay, "IQ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay" P., 11 = t..i~,C Nxa ~ It Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth w Main concern s) ~.1 / r4 01 q.~. =f ti rrN. G? ~y+ r~ t i~r9 . ) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable imminent ❑ - C-) 4 -Trunk - - Roots and Root Collar - Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems Included bark ❑ cracks' Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay 4 Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze Ooze ❑ Cavity El %circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay [ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk A Cavity/Nest hole ~ %circ, Depth It Poor taper 13 Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness El 1J Lean Corrected? 1 11 Response growth 1 - Response growth y Main congep(s) Ina t rf Main concern(s) / ~oa`d on ct N/A ❑ Minor ❑1 Moderate ❑ Significant Load on defect N/A Minor D Moderate D Significant O Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure ' V Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable Imminent ❑ Improbable❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ _ 1, Risk Categorization Likelihood W E `a Failure & Impact Consequences E Failure Impact c U (from Matrix 1) c C = 7-. Risk N t; n c rating Conditions 17 a0 Target a of pau° Tree art of concern o c c (from p a protection > g x J z in of Matrix 2) vo 'a r 2 2 n AA 3 4 iL 7t Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. ~ 4 I t A Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target I of Failure Very low Low Medium High ; Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikeiv Somewhat likely Likely Possible . Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe 1 Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme - - Likely Low Moderate High High ll Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions ~'k 1C 1 i~6 l~~ ' r - . IVIltigation o tions C' p Residual risk t Vn~ t r Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate Hig `Extreme ❑ Work priority I] 2 3 41:3 Overall residual risk Low Moderate Extreme Recommended inspection interval Data M Final Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No []Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations []None [AVisibility Access []Vines []Root collar buried Describe w if This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (IRAQ) arborists - 2013 P.,,.o .,f i cril 7 -772-9014 Submitted o: Jason and Kelly Eaton Phone: 541-973-8889 J location: 843 Hillview Dr. Date: 11MAY2016 To the City of Ashland, To whom it my concern, I have recently done a Tree Risk Assessment Inspection to give a professional opinion of 7 White Birch (Betula papyrifera) trees at the above address. There is 1 young and 3 very mature Birch on the North side of the property and there are 3 very mature Birch in the back yard. The property owner asked to have these trees evaluated for the possibility of developing part of the property and submitting an Arborist's report to the City of Ashland. I x I have been to the property and have inspected all 7 of the Birch trees. The young Birch is inundated with Bronze Birch Borer and Aphids ( A 111 The Bronze Birch Borer is both lethal and difficult to control. The damage, though, is not caused by the beetle itself but by the larvae which bore into the phloem and cambium layers after emerging from their eggs on the bark. The borers' tunneling weakens and kills trees by interrupting the flow of sap. The entire lifecycle of the borer is one year from egg to beetle. The telltale signs are a shaped hole of the adult emerging from within the tree and the other is dead or dying looking branches in the top of the canopy or around the tree itself. Evidence of borer infestation is a progressive thinning of the crown of the tree beginning at the top. Trees generally die after about two or three years, that is, after two or three infestations by the larvae. These insects proliferate when trees are stressed due to draught, soil conditions or other biotic problems already persisting. Such is evidence with the Aphids being another Biotic pest. i I i I i 1 I I i i f { i Looking at the other Birch on the side yard and in back, it was obvious that these 6 very mature Birches also had Bronze Birch Borer ( also found on most of the large mature Birches sign of heart wood rot. sounded the trunks with a solid limb to see if I could find any hollow sounds in the trunks ...and I did just that. Every one of the mature Birch had some hollow sounds in the trunk and also at the trunk flare. There is also staining from slime flux ad fungi growing on the trunk in a few of the large trees ( I' I' i } i Giving the pests, age (except the 1 young tree), rot and fungi that are persistent in every tree, make these the contributing factors that made my resolution. in my professional opinion, i feel these trees should be removed. This would be acting in the capacity of proactive versus reactive and reducing further chances of other trees in the area of being infested also. Certified r rist/ ni l al Specialist $ 0 alifie Trt-cy Risk ss ss'ar- hark H. Brindle 3 7 I i; _a i r r Jl3'~2'71ti9 ~a; 36 ~ Q ( r EASEMENT AGREEMENT 3 FOLLOWING is an Agreement among Everett H. Davies, Trustee of the Everett t H. Davies Revocable Trust, Vernon E, Hubka, Jr, and Beverly J. Hubko, husband and wife, Charles M. Anderson and Deanne W. Anderson, husband and wife, and Joe G. y Markham and Annabelle Markham, husband and wife, owners of adjoining real s property situated In Jackson County, Oregon, and described on Exhibits "A" through "D" attached. Each of the undersigned does hereby grant unto the other parties F hereto, their successors and assigns, a perpetual and non-exclusive easement for Ingress and egress on that certain strip encompassing the westerly 8 feet of the real i,• property described on Parcel 2 on Exhibit "B" and the easterly S feet of the parcels described on the other exhibits attached. This easement shall be deemed a urtenant to each of the arcels described herein t xtant t at t crosses arce ex ress hers a s 1811 a utilize a art es an r by ej successors n or access to their respective rosirlannAq for cons ruc on ro ec an servic a es. no ma she any 1 person obstruct lh(s access with parked vehicles, galas, or otherwise, . It is also expressly understood that this easement shall not be util(zed for traffic connected with a business pursued on any of the subject parcels. With respect to motor vehicles, this i easement is only for use by personal passenger vehicles (cars, trucks, vans, and motorcycles). It shall be permissible to use the easement as access for the parking of a single recreational vehicle on any of the subject parcels. If any party shall cause damage to the easement area, or otherwise changes same, It shall be promptly i restored to Its pre-existing condition at that party's expense, ` If all parties concur in writing, the above terms may be altered on a temporary or permanent basis. Permanent alterations shall be recorded In the official records of Jackson County, Oregon, to be effective. } i 7 1. , .,7 UW CfFXES OF ! j}J DAvis, Gnsrene, HAaws, HPAM & Wer.•rY j A RofefSktil CorOaWin ~ r~ EASEMENT AGREEMENT WEASn,WNSTAUT ° 'i ASKAK OKOON 97520 Page -1- (541)452-3111 FAZ0+o4a 4455 I Ifs:( t1.}.~:/{.. iir ll L i . I I i JS-~2'71t;h i ' E IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands on the dates set i forth below. i 9, Y, EVERETT H. DAVIES, Trustee of Date the Everett H. Davies z Revocable Trust, Y VERNON UBKA, Da a BEVERLY BKA Dale :s ARLES M: NDERSON Date DEANNE W. AN RSON Date E G. ARKHAM Data ANNABELLE MAR HAM Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ,r COUNTY OF 1ANr4 &Ix" j § On this 2~2 day of tL , 1998, personally appeared the above-named EVERETT H. DAVIES, Trus ei a of the Everett H. Davies Revocable Trust, and i acknowledged the foregoing Instrument to be a voluntary act. Before me: 3 i Notary Public for Califor Ir s: 3 •aL_ ~co/ 1 t, STATE OF OREGON ) COUNTY OF Jam. ) ? CWMr wra 4oourp MY11.r~ On this;r day of mc,..`, 1998, personal appear a bove•named VERNON E. HUBKA and acknowledged the foregoing ` i Instrument to be a voluntary act, Before me: uwOFMSOF DAvis, GILSTRAP, HARRts, HPARN& ftmy i A Roftsskrd C«Pw0cn j EASEMENT AGREEMENT ~i~TIU Page -2- nruta:orrt FAX(SI)W4*5 'til/."~ :r. t~,t ~ rr Y ' c it f 1 I' l 96-2'71GJ ~ # ' O i1 Notary Pu c for Oregon STATE OF OREGON ) My Commission Expires; as y~' COUNTY OF JACKSON ) ) § 111 On this I5 day of (Y-\(I,, 1998, personally appeared the above-named CHARLES M. ANDERSON, and acknowledged the foregoing Instrument to be a } voluntary act. Before me: OFFICIAL 6EAL TONYA L ANDERSON a l .~~5 rte) i I NoiARY Pu3UC • OREGON COMMISSION NO.044352 Notary FU D110 for Oregon K+TcomunialxMIIASEN.it" My Commission Expires: 5 STATE OF OREGON . COUNTY OF JACKSON On th!s5/"day of 1898, personalty appeared the above named DEANNE W. ANDERSON, and ac nowledged the foregoing Instrument to be a voluntary act. Before me; a P bite f r r STATE OF OREGON ) My o 0L cx Tl ; COUNTY OF ~1 ~d t l ) § ~TAAYp~iO.06mq N ; COYi1138 0N H0.06255: 1 I d O> MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 30, 2001 On this day of,~Lz~, 1998, personally appeared the above-named JOE O W. MARKHAM, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be a voluntary act. I Before me: ary ub!io for Oregon 3 M Commission Ex ires:5 gas OFFICK &M f STATE OF OREGON ) el MWJW"r NOTARY PUKIC-OREGON ) 0 09M11011 - COUNTY F - ) § MYCOMMISSONE PIRE6YAY~ 0$1001 On this// day QilKex-c- , 1998, personally appeared the above-named I EASEMENT AGREEMENT i` FWMaNT - Page -3• I.Aj zd..:±~..-,__-~.^ = - _ =~'T ++~5 l~l f t `'~i, ` ~.,,t 11 -51 ' . - t 38-2`7lfi`.) t { ANNABELLE MARKHAM, and acknowledged the foregoing Instrument to be a voluntary act. Before me: , ry bile for Oregon OFFICIAL SM 1 STATE OF OREGON ) NOTARY PUSLNO-OREOON g COMMISSION NO.cO COUNTY OF a ) YY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 30.2001 On IWA~ day of i 1998, personally appeared the above-named BEVERLY J. HUBKA, and ackn wledged the foregoing Instrument to be a voluntary act, Before me: t, e( tF '1 CN.'W L (k 5 NOtAn~ EI4iiC ~IiEGON 1 C~t1.Ih11S IUN NO. 1172 Notary Public for Oregon L MYro1Y,ssilrP~tsu'x.l?~ My Commission Expires: a A.91-]61.fAt191 i` 1 i f t i i i ' 'I S ! E 3 3 f 1~ t I y EASEMENT AGREEMENT FWMFaNT - Page -A- ~ list%` .'1!F u. , r i :F !,5 . ~ J6°2"J~,w9 i II 4 , ' The land referred to in this Po'_icy is described as follows: 3 TRACT A: Commencing at a point 2,90 chains West and 0.14 chains South of t the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 45 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon, thence South along the center line of Peachey Lane in the City of Ashland, Oregon, 484.50 feet, and thence West 270.0 feet to the true point of beginning; ? thence West 150.0 feet; thence South 17.5 feet; thence East 150.0 feet; i thence North 1.7.5 feet to the true point of beginning. # A i TRACT D: Commencing at a point 2,98 chains West and 0.14 chains South of } the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 45 in Township 39 South, C Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon, thence South along the center line of Peachey Lane in the City of Ashland, Oregon, c, 502.0 feet, and thence West 270 feet to the true point of beginning; thence 4= West 150,0 feet; thence South'50.0 feet; thence East 150.0 feet; thence i North 50.0 feet to the true point of beginning. TRACT C: Commencing at a point 2.98 chains West and 0.14 chains South of } the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 45 in Township 39 South, ; Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 484.5 feet; thence West 220.0 feet to the true point of beginning; thence West 50.0 feet; thence South 17.5 feet; thence East 50.0 feet; thence North 17.5 feet to the true point of beginning, (Code 5-1, Account 91-8583-1, Map 0391B15AC, Tax Lot 92500) { } a QXHIBIt'_-~_---_ PAGE- Policy No, 93-00-014-516 (5 li-AL Ilrr i tr 7i { `7t' t•: tl ` ,1 lit _ •._~.._i1=~`Zr..-._'.... ~!~.~.'~L^ ' 1i ~r I s~-~~1as E TRACT A: } Parcel 1: Commencing at a found 2-1/2" diameter brass cap' monumenting the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim•No. 45, Section 15, Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette r Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon, thence South 351.24 feet; ! thence West 217.36 feet to a 5/8" iron pin, a point situated on the westerly right of way of {iillview Drive and the true point of 1 beginning; thence leaving said right of way West 132.07 feet to a { 5/8" iron pin; thence South 0'21'44" West 97.64 feet to a 5/0" iron pin; thence South 89121117" East 132.07 feet to a 5/8" iron pin, a point situated on the westerly right of way of Hillview Drive; thence North 0121144" East 99.12 feet along said right of way to the true point of beginning. Parcel 2: Commencing at a found 2-1/2" diameter brass cap monumenting the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 45, Section 15, Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette, Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon, thence South 450.36 feet; thence West 217.98 feet to a 5/8" iron pin, a point situated on the westerly right of way of'Hillview Drive; the true point of i beginning; thence leaving said right of way, North 89'21'17" West j{ 132.07 feet to a 5/8" iron pin, thence North 0121144" East 97.64 , feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence West 57.93 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; =t thence North 0121144" East 5.00 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence West 10.00 feet to a 5/0" iron pin; thence South 0.21'44" West 'S 165.00 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence East 200.00 feet to a 5/0" iron pin, a point situated on the westerly right of way of Hillview j Drive; thence North 0.21144" East 60.88 feet along said right of way to the point of beginning. (Code 5-1, Account 91-8561-2, Map 4391E15AC, Tax Lot H400) € 1 SW3 col , EXHIBI>'~ pAGE.~. t ; i 'i1 j.;'s 4 L` I j F i t 1 3 .i j TRACT pi j Commencing at point 2.98 chains West and 0,14 ) the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No, chains South of in To South, Range 1 Bast of the Willamette Meridian inyJacksonnCounty, Oregon, thence South alon feet, thence WeS 220.0 faethe ctheerline of Peachoy Lane 414.5 thence Weat 200.0 feet; thence South true Point 70.0 feet. theneBas beginning, 200.0 feet; thence North 70,0 feet to the true point of beginning, 1 i (Code 5-1, Account #1-8584-0, Map 4391615AC, Tax 1: , / Lot 1)2600) ' i J i ~ ^t i1 1 y i "H AIT PAGE l f 4 ~ i~t1 i ;J~:~~I• 'fir ( - i GIs` jf%~ ! < r t tt~ f ~t 71 7t t r t {I E 4 1`: y 77)){ i ' ' 98°271b9 j 1 I , 1 f TRACT C: Parcel 1: Commencing at a point 2.9B chains West and 0.14 chains } i South of the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 45 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 337.0 feet; thence West 220.0 feet to the true point of beginning; thence West 50.0 feet, 3 thence South 77.5 feet; thence East 50.0 feet; thence North 77.5 g feet to the true point of beginning, Parcel 2: Commencing at a point 2.98 chains West and 0.14 chains South of the southeast corner of Donation Land Claim No. 45 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon, thence South 337.0 feet, thence West 20.0 feet to the west side-line of Peachey Lane in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, being the northeast corner of , tract described in volume 316 page 226 of the Deed Records of Jackson County,' Oregon, and thence West along the north line of said tract a distance of 210.0 feet to the true point of ' beginning; thence North 10.0 feet; thence West 190.0 feet; thence I j South 87.5 feet; thence East 150.0 feet; thence North 77.5 feet; and thence Beat 40.0 feet to the true point of beginning. (Code 5-1, Account ti1-8585-6, Map tt391E15AC, Tax Lot H2700) y V ' 163 f EXHIBIT a I PAGE i Jackson County,, Oregon OFFICIAL RECORDS j JUN 161996 T LER y , • 1•• 'i•`.ytt ( li~~, ;T tip! s ~ it ~~1 E i~___~a_ - ._:•...._~L:.~L_~~_ _ ~-.f~lY.-. d~ i LO cq ~a 3100 0.27 A,c_ 4 a.cra cs ia2Qf1. 'v E VIP N 8&-ng w _ 180,00 i~a~o - 2901 2900 N 0.28 Ac. 0.08 Ac. r;;. LO 200 0.33 AC. M w 152.01) 3Ei.ll0 - 26t3,~70 - 190.00 2800 300 0.33 AC. 0.67 Ac. av 2 t 190.00 20" 5• 2700 - 4U.aa ^ 1o' / 0.40 AC. 1° 400 ti / I G G f Co ~ , 0-44 AC. I m r rjO,OG r' 20G.00 P f CS-1707 2600 66.26 0.32 AC_ i 9Z50 91 401 t CS-10789 200.00 0 0:30 _ M 2500 OO Ac. - - to 0.56 AC. 142. MIN q 50 iO.r~S CSC 5E C DLO - C-147'35 4.22 Ac. S° _ X50.037 ~ ~ 25t~,Ui} 2300 0.48 AC. 0.22 AC, all CO 1 o r Z ~ ~ o ~ w c°~ o ° z_ G § 2 ~ ~ ~ Sad ✓ 2. U+ 5~,. V` n s rcw5~eh m Z 'a ~w ~ g o3~w~ rJ 4.,;N ~v3 u y o x z o x o ~m ~~z k fig" o 0 8y o a}z x ti a r g ~K Eli O -1k X a z `O ~ NWN _ ~LL z s°5 -z z 133HS 335 } ~I 3 A 12! M 3 I n l t H o a w~ ~ III-~` 66'66 10'08 z ~a~ i h w~ 8 I ~ a q^8 hx ~6 m ~x A ~ JvS ~ a mmK N ~ xg ~ W+i ~ a rcq ~~K III ^h xhk~,Z "y o a`}dI gt ggko ' 8j 7 ~r w~ ~ Q Yee ~ 1 z~ - NI < ~ i I >s i z z 7 ~ ff } ~ I P1 t-j- JfbG S£Z 7 k'l£'lOM1 l 9OB ! 7-1 - - - - - the tiirrosl a m I g4~3o n~ = m$~ , z n~m< UU, a.e..ruxx ',Qq8 s i~ S ~~~~y 8 0 o _ "4' °'£e 5 w~ adz WRh N w~ caow ~w q q V ° N Wos~~m.. ~<m~ Jy ag"<~W UZC. ai~g4 ~n p j ~N _ q ~i<or x~<$i,w,Rwc ~<o °h ~ a~ W rc~w°q~ox zN ~~Uay~'~~~ ~~nWg Z m U <s ya <zgaw 'sN x<o~w a ~ ~ W woo €4z WO>'~WY~i _FO ~,~~o Q ~ y E ma=y to u~~FO~~ g~<e ~~~0~°8?~~R~°ma o z W < $g ~maz~.oza~wWB~.w~a q z ; r W'p O HW22¢~n ~UaU N~o~dx 4' g r m w > ~daaiz~ °a..zw z ssa.~ww~~o 0 W o ° g Y o 4 a F Z'a„ai c n a v F- acx, z a H ~ezwo ~ 40 W cZ rc pOY aq„ ti 0 ~Ww ~ ~ O r >UQ ~ Q Y V Qom ~ o¢ m~ h h C ~ z~ n z N °o © Q~i yz =Krn-yam 33 G a ~..Fy Q O U m a1S 2 ho ~ ~ O ~3 a•ttxw ~o m 0 ¢ ¢ ro<~ N5o rc o o N I ~ w ~ q ~ y Z W as w Jig o nt°5 ~LL a vm3am I I ~Sg°$ Wm< ~¢~m o oz~'4 ma z mix o ~"gad ^~R i ~ € a ^o eN ~i S Z H~<tF4 ZN c`4F3 ZN SwF W O M1\'`< Oy Oy ZO S N~"~ J d r m m 'v Wa ~C~<o Wa Z i a Q< ~ Q w S~o~ w ' 0'~g~ ~o W'~ dh _ o ¢ as Q w a o x ~ N°u bra°4 N° ~mh< W 0 z s ~ n z' o g~ ~ o ~~vg L, o ~ n a \ w Q m a ti O C m 3 ~y U p W g ~d 4~i de o ng rv~ p W T ~'tl 'z bag Z 133HS 33S n A 1 8 Q M 3 A 7 l H o ~'-a---~ $ ~a aunos) ~ W w~ ,gyp .rr,z~.co s a o o a <Ca-nz~oo N _ n ~ I` ¢ ~ 3 ssr.ziooN j ¢ / ~~E W I M~ n ~ ° (1. ~ z g ~ n lu I Q 8'ag I 3~~~ zq~~C Q° Yi^ ~*8~R~ ~ oWx A(# "g83 €8~ m h~ ~ 8o n. ~ a 3 b( HL(IQS) m+ ix $ m i. ~q° ~ry ~~ol oN zxs as°~ ol" za R, ° ~a8~g2 ,~H an.}e;ae~ ;ie~a~ tlsGt; o}o s}s_svop ha;~rs s;ql c - L-6 a}e4 ' 03M M C4uno~ uosTTar. j To aaTT;1O e {a 4n aTTT uo 96081 SS tad Al 1L LT 68 se °pueTgsv ~ ,Cy?p ecT} ut `py 'oN ime~ PmeZ uogrc:uoQ To szauam } ~aglnos pae ~samggnos a~} Te pmuoT S?uacuuuoLU uuoxi uay- Rl set SoAlus n-o aoT Zo4u0a y"xmaq aoT auTT aauaaajm alu 'a wo voda-s kinnaJ uosrl-P am mi-A aT?T uo P-) 8961 m Pa4srTgn- 4au 'V "O*X aq4 fuoaT paArzap se 9T uoT4aaS To aa!TlaTuaa SN aq4 aE neipuam anay SOylu V;143 3O SISVff ao iaezng 4-(Yr) Pef' Oq4 3o 0at3.To aqp ut 01IJ uo %94()l .q_K SOAmg P 1!J uo 8 Toased P I i d se utouls PuY sP:dnaaTq IeP?T3O ,'4uno9 uosTJEV `1691 1S cagcunN 4uauT-"j pTre 9691 18 .Iaqum 4uawn;x~T uaat4aq eu T aq 1snCps oy =aSOdHIld uo,~a.rO `S}unv7 uos~Tael `PT~Iq:SV.To.i4T,~ `uetpuayu pine aseg a7gaTUeIITi415se3 I a~l-a `g4noS 68 di gwaoT,'9I uoAaaS To T/i N NOISVDO'I 08916uo~kasO PIIe[Ilsv 0,TLLa AOIA114 118 v,TgnH .CIaanag Pue uouiaA $O:I XgAullS 08P16 uo~IaaO `P-14SV Wo-psTTVnojl T2 unI `X0A.mgmu0Z =IfT: CL, ,J L IAi~IiS I008 '81 -~nL4 ,VCTAJaS AO 1 LVCI S[LT ,T,VS,S Q3SIA a _V OOAaO `098'608 HaNUOTTUVd H I IAj Ilj lKOJ O.L HAU,VH'RV d XHAH[IS sagmnN SOAanS G Io 7 o1pd n sa~~ex3 £SSZ 'oN H~bdS~b'd Qa-HOW 079L6•IO `FnmlgsF a~~t•eG,inr ooaao laa•ILS gpzno3 tL'G , uuI `Senmr~eJJaJ; S'Id `grid .a LgOE F10J 3 f1S -IHNOISS:I:~O~jd ///"2, .IB da[~+ c33ba1s I e3a -snoT}nooiamL,L}xadoadquaaeCpuzo;sSaemslo.Aero.,o~papueFnz you spur puree saoRmaTPeF SmAA Jo Iq .H JoJ augxapuaa uIg Iraq„ pa~sa. 7us e sp Sa ~.ms Imgl Sq Parl [gmisa Snm augJalta,,) sJOOUI~rt,,7 agl IMP srMAOJ e6ft [ I Jo anI}maamu $UT,fuedmoaan pnm dem oqI Jo mopes 8 -,)r}ai?} snolgnp a aq n} srq} anagaq j "eT j lQ Jo aug STJagpnos aqp Jo J:To satll gpuos- ipaou aqp JoJ as l gmlloJpnOO e sp 9GOEl ST Sq papuosmd oALTU Awu[IlH Jo aui p4aag szaomt uff, ISO sidopu eVp j I ~ ` ~aems silt} se uorpduusaP Tu aL ail To uoljmpeJdaapm Juhmis u `-&ISO dma af. TA1 gsa_M purr gpnaS eq} o} salpradoud Iuauetpm ecrp aoJ 9ELt [ glut sass esrp Slln adsaJ osle dan ms snU ggg parlMoa anmq plnom Sail gaTq:a a} papmaJu -aq aneq P1nom sdO slw.red asagl 3O q}oq Jo aaglpa pNs si=TquH Oqp PpII -salsepunoq STJaTsam pum STJOgIJOu Oqp uo umo PTP Cagf PumT POPIMo pup sang STJOTseo pis STJaglnos aqp uo umo you P?p %OKgnH oq} Puel popupui ',auamnuom pas op YuTJJ3JeJ San ms slip mOJJ nalplJ.m suogdrausap 100T Pun 486T uI uor{r}.ruff P--I aouzlT atr} lPgl sasOTusLP sTU 'uorpmOO[ pips .;o dl.Ia}samIaaJ 9"0 PLi"?lsaglaou IooJ T.TTa}Pmizozddu Saepunoq Jor.Iapxa aqI sarmld Puu 68LOI S3 Sq aamld sn iuodosd u3lquH aqp Jo uorluaoT ail TI& Baal; usTF SLIu3laodsaa ,{mans sT r{ `uol}u}azdca}uT scgl ~u tTdde Sg ' D"IQ JO oug S[raq}nos agp i}rm uo-grasza}ul 4! o} uoyoa.Irp glnos -cgxou aqp uT PaqTsggiw spur oup2 Sgauad Jo augaopuaa aqp `ouerl Sgoead ~urgTJas ip sleuJnop V`iuorss!mmOD marJ uoTpurua TuT glTm , uolm pup Sa<tirns slip Sq pa}daaw. aaam suoTpeaol asail; aauJ~ .fqunad aJagT~ aqp Jo Jauaoa 3S alrp Pus ausrl Sgaead Jo uoipu~rT psam~sr as aqI $uTlmuol uT 766[ uT 960CI S3 Sq PeLTddm sr:m pogpam pus ' ,II O6naa slq,T 'SMV aqI uT suopol" sap lr. al aqI;o vUIRIJm Ipul~lJo alp Jo sum} aqI }m algeTTmnm uaaq anmq plnom Imrll s~umuaq Jo slsuq e moat suolpooJTp rsulpxw,) t Uisn Sluo SOOT IOaJTp TeuzpaeO m papaaaoJd sezj San ms slip aauassa ul puueaq lr u preO a paaeplwoa ,mm auR snip amg Zell IV `Pal149 ST. PUB suoTldposep osagl 4pno Sul Op gaTgm moJJ aur'reaeJaJ Jo 1uTod Sluo agl uaaq Pmil - TMol~ol?sour plnom 9t n(I Jo aug STJaipnoS aqI sung pmgp TV -Para- Xjrm!~clo uagm pusl 3o slaoaud asagp flulgraosap uI z uan OS aqI Iua}ul aqI sT anagaq I s qj, DZQ JO aupl SrJ»gpnos aqp ; .ielnaTpuadaa l.ro glim lallm:rud Jagpla u?ag sauTl IF u spTnsoJ sTU •saug peap aqI ausld OT past a:ram saouppsrp Pus ( o06) -I- POOP OUR MCI agl mOJ3 '}b-uH uoI{aanp lmuTpsrra ar[p oq OT p norlp spur '(068 ")d `t97 "TOA Sop oT Salpumaff `TT61 parr) ue.ru sell uI spaap rem~cto aqp JOJ suo pdcrosop JPv~aT aqp Jo $ulpram aqp Jo Omrp aqp It, gOTgm '9t 0'IQ Jo amI SlJagpnos oqq $UOTm STJeTs ,&kWou 9t OUG Jo JeuJna U5 alp moat popaaaoad Sanms a qqi '68LOi SI Sq poSoldma s'e Sonms IueaaJ m nadn q svuq-,aq,}o sTseq a moJJ `paap aqp m pally se `9t DTla Jo Jauam psamgpnos aqp moJJ suOTTuaJTp l'Orpamu uI OrrTpaaOOJd u , Jagpug •ulaaalra panTvpum uoydposop lmdaT J o pus}uT a t L } o p aaso[a sl anagaq I ga?gv, I8Efi0 LL JOgmnN puamnOOp op uogu} udae}uz us 4nrSTddn SlJadoad v4quH eqp Sonans o} papaaaoJd [ mo}aaagy 'uorpr}.red puerl 1,96I oqp Jo bvpuuoq Jojialca oqp oqI Slpuanbasum Puu [F8t0-L,L Jagmnx moumaoq Sq pagj aw-p SJepunoq STradoad aqI Jo uoTTuooT agl y uruTur rapap "I 68LOT S3 Sq pedoldura poglem aqT glTm aafde Wu PIP I Will PuuoJ I `slaaJed ~u4mo aqI ap uommoo oug Spaado:rd aqp Isnrpu of paJinbaa pu [d uoT}Rxpd oqp JoJ San.rns sTq} ;lu[ue.gW ul 'SepoT SraTImo puaJJno ail are pus uegp sank -gdnaaoTuc pnogprm slauJed gpoq Jo dTgsrarrmo paulmpa.r aneq Sagl "G691-! Q JaglalkKpuamrrxrll Pue 969[-48 aogmnh IuaurnaoLl gpca sanlas uarr} a} a[I?7 paSannOO pup sleo.md one oTur panorlgaed Sprodoad J agp Pug Sagl L86T nI [85'40-414 JagmrN puommoq w.. popaoaaa paop S4 PJTuff glaq.;grj, pun prnuQ moJ•T SpJadatd JTaq} up ollpt pourpgo urlgnH Slaonaff pus uouae_14416[ uI ~1Q3:")ONd From: Ronald and Darlene Steffan 872 Hillview Drive, Ashland, 488-6434 To: Ashland Planning Commission Date: May 11, 2016 Subject: Proposed land partition at 843 Hillview Drive We are opposed to the land partition at 843 Hillview Drive for because: 1. The traffic on Hillview Drive is already heavier than on three-fourths of the other streets in Ashland because of the areas above the boulevard that have no other easier access. On weekends the services at the Church add to the heavy traffic on the street. 2. All the lots on Hillview are single family structures mostly built in the 1950's and later. There are no flag lots on the avenue. Allowing infill in the neighborhood will change the nature of the area. 3. Allowing a spec house will increase the undesirability of living in the forest-like neighborhood, particularly if the builder is allowed to remove six large trees on the lot. 4. The neighborhood also has at least two power outages every year. The last outage lasted for eight hours. Loading the system with more demand will not alleviate this problem. 5. There are underground water problems in the area with some homes needing sump-pumps to keep their crawl space dry. The storm drainage on the street is not adequate to handle the runoff during heavy rain storms. 6. Placing two homes on a long lot, limits play areas for children and the flag lot driveway is a danger for children who will play in the driveway. Re: 843 Hillview Drive - Derek Severson https:Houtlook.office36r, -^om/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&... Re: 843 H i I (view Drive Cyndi Dion <ginkgo@rnind.net> Tue 5/10/2016 10:07 AM To:Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us>; Thank you Derek. I will share your answers with my neighbors. There are many not in favor of this at all because it will change the feel of our neighborhood. However, my personal concerns are with too much paving, specifically impervious paving, but paving in general. In living in Ashland for 42 years, and on Hillview for 22 years, I am overwhelmed by how much paving has been required of people developing their lots! Specifically, I think the fire truck access needs to be addressed in the ordinances. I've been told by fire officials that fire trucks don't try to turn around at the end of a flag drive, so why do we need paving for that? I was also under the impression that, under planning rules, if there is alley access, that would be the first priority for access, not yet another flag drive. Hillview already has way too much traffic. It is used as an arterial to reach the upper hillside houses, as well as the Catholic Church. Also, with no required flag drive, the beautiful multi-limbed birch tree could be saved. It is healthy, and although not a native, is quite old and should not be condemned because "those trees can suffer from birch tree borers". It does not have borers, no need to take it out. As to your question about the easement, I think the property applying for the MLP is the original property that granted those easements. The property benefitting from that access was split off later from 843 Hillview. And that's an item of note. Even though the property immediately south of 843 is fully fronted on Hillview, the access is off the alley. I think they did that correctly! Cyndi Dion 897 Hillview Original Message From: Derek Severson To: ginkgo()mind.net Cc: Derek Severson Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:36 AM Subject: 843 Hillview Drive Cindi, April from our front office passed on some questions you had about 843 Hillview Drive; I've responded to each one below: Why is the flagdrive necessary if there is access off the alley? I'm looking into this; initially it appeared that the applicants eight-foot frontage on the alley was not sufficient to accommodate a standard width driveway and might also not work for fire access but a couple of neighbors have raised this question. The applicants are proposing the flag drive from Hillview Drive, but I'll find out what the history with the alley is. (I wasn't the planner who worked on this of the is 1 of 2 6/16/2016 11:00 AM Re: 843 Hillview Drive - Derek Severson https:Houtlook.office3,6' -om/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&... pre-application level, it was assigned to me after - let me find out the history both of the lot creation and of the alley situation and I'll get back to you. It will depend on whether the easement from the end of the alley to the garage on 847 Hillview is also available to the owners of 843 Hillview.) E Will the city require the flagdrive to be paved? (she hopes not) Flag drives are required to be paved and to be improved to accommodate fire apparatus access, so if it is installed it would need to be paved to current standards. If they took access from the alley, there would be no need for the flag drive. Would future development access the lot off the alley or the flagdrive? This will depend on the answer to your first question above; if access were available and required from the alley, they would be required to utilize that access rather than the flag drive. I'll let you know. When a partition is done, does the city require a building application or can they leave the lot empty for a period of time? There is no requirement to develop. Once an applicant installs the flag drive (if required), extends utilities, and records the plat, they have a legal lot of record that they could develop according to their timetable or let sit vacant for as long as they want. Our requirements are just to complete the requirements of the partition and record the plat within 18 months. Usually, if they go through that effort they are looking to develop right away. - 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 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 meat (541) 552-2040. Thank you. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG _3vg.com Version: 2016.0.7596 / Virus Database: 4568/12204 - Release Date: 05/10/16 2 of 2 6/16/2016 11:00 AM May 8, 2016 i Dear City of Ashland Planning Commission, r I have just become aware of the application to partition the lot at 843 Hillview Drive. I live at 853 Hillview Drive, and I would strongly hope that the city not split the lot, as I feel this would change the character of our street/neighborhood. E+ Sincerely, Nancy Nerenberg 853 Hillview Drive Ashland, OR 97520 541-301-8022 I I r I, 843 Hillview Drive statement: Due to illnesses we are unable to be present at this evenings meeting. Thank you for your service and we appreciate your thoughtful consideration. The request is for a Minor Land Partition approval to allow for the creation of a vacant flag lot for the property located at 843 Hillview Drive. : The lot significantly exceeds the minimum lot area in the R-1-7.5 zone. The proposed flag lot and the lot for existing residence will exceed minimum lot area in the zone. The existing residence on the new lot will meet lot coverage. When development happens on the new lot, it will comply with all standards regarding, lot coverage, setbacks, utility installation, storm water detention and drainage, driveway separations, etc. The request before you, is for the consideration of the removal of the group of three birches near the north property line within the footprint of the proposed flag driveway. Additionally, the request is to allow for the possible removal of the three birch trees in the rear yard of the proposed new parcel if the person that builds the future residence desires. We believe the findings submitted with the application clearly address the issues with birch trees in particular and specifically, the western paper birch as we have at 843 Hillview Drive. Birch trees are intolerant to changes in their "environment", they are heavy water consumers, they are not tolerant to construction, they have invasive, surfacing roots, and, have limited life spans and are not a tree that should be protected i rr due to its ability to live out a long life in a landscaped yard especially when compared to native, drought tolerant trees better suited to Ashland's climate. There are numerous other species of maple, oak, ash, pine, fir, etc. that are excellent candidates for preservation, for relocation of driveways and 'notching' of building envelopes. Birch trees in Ashland and throughout the state of Oregon are dying with many succumbing to the bronze birch borer others to the record breaking heat and years of drought. Upon closer inspection of the trees there appears to be evidence of the D shaped exit holes created by bronze birch borers, there is some rusting color. There are dying tops, and evidence of swelling and bumps under the bark. All six of the trees have evidence of sap suckers as well. Below are photographs of the trees on the subject property. The pictures on the following page are of the three trees in the proposed flag driveway. 1 ~r, i i Y.Z T x '4 ~ fix. J~ 7 yam'} - ~A~_.. i i i l I t ~ J 1 r 1`7 d ~~s Kai K ~5~i tY ~{T 6 `3. } Y > r ~ ;r S' ~fyµ, tF'~F ~~i.r- 1 .i ~ r .,C•. _ 'I . r /If , L s 1~ ~ 'w ; 1• ° } ~ ~ k {-r ~ ' i ~~al.y'}"~ ~ ~ 1~~ Y ¢ - ,T~ f +~t 7 2 Pictures of the trees in the rear yard of the subject property. 1 ti Y7'aF " t tiZ ~ L ~ h U y ,1 "lC Y..nsF " r L ~ tt L r , " 7 i ~l d r 1 ' •P f 2 r 5~ ~ 44 l emu', t I,~I it l i f Close up of 16-inch birch cr r T Z on left. k t ti Close up of 24-inch birch on right. ~a r • c j r' ti v 7 40 .Y ~ U.y 3 l If you performed a visit, at the intersection of Hillview Dr. and Siskiyou, you were greeted with this tree. This tree is within 200-feet of the subject property. The property immediately to the south of the subject property also has birch trees. These birches have evidence of canopy decline. The property at 873 Hillview also has a birch with canopy decline. These trees are all within 200-feet of the subject property. 805 Hillview } 847 Hilivievd a _ -T 1~ ,z f i w F sr i ¢ ~ cT~ :ta R_ a+ 873 Hillview 893 Hillview 4 ~ 1 I J f 1 - I, 44,' l I - - j ~ I!: i' I l' I'! I f i~ii I ~I+. f., i, F% Y A i j _ 'I i r' I I i i i r l s I I 1 I ` i I i I i i I i i I 77 V _ 1 i j I I I i i i 1 1 I i II 1 i I ~i i i i, f I~ tl'~ 1 i i i t Y I' it 847 Hillview Drive Ashland, OR 97520 3 May 2016 Ashland Planning Commission 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Planning Action: 2016-00614 Subject property: 843 Hillview Drive To Whom It May Concern: I have just become aware of an application being sought by the property owners at 843 Hillview Drive in Ashland to partition land, remove trees, and build a residential structure on this property. I live next door (847 Hillview) to this property and wish to express the following input. This is an old single family home neighborhood with homeowners who cherish and enjoy the quiet and respect of our block. I greatly resent a new buyer coming in to build a spec home for yet another investment property and destroy the integrity of our neighborhood. His request would also include the removal of several large and beautiful trees which would be very sad indeed. As you can see by the plot map, there is hardly room on this property for another dwelling. In order to build a tiny structure, the owner would ruin the beauty of this land, impair the quality of life of the immediate neighbors, create more traffic and parking issues on Hillview Drive. This lot is inadequate for another dwelling. To allow this request in order for the homeowner to build an investment structure is something I abhor. I sincerely hope that it is denied. Respectfully yours, P Barbara J. Keen I May 2na, 2016 Ashland Tree Commission 51 Winburn Way Ashland OR 97520 According to the notice of application fora land partition at 843 Hillview Drive, two clusters of Birch trees which are greater than 18 inches in diameter at breast height will need to be removed in order to create the new lot building site. I hope that before you approve the removal of these large trees, that the Commission members will visit the Hillview Drive neighborhood fiom Siskiyou Boulevard up to Peachy. I think you will notice that the neighborhood is distinguished by the many trees in the front and rear of the single family housing lots. Most of these trees are old growth. You will be able to see that if the removal of a large number of large trees will begin to change the nature of the neighborhood. Please deny the removal of the trees on this lot. Ronald and Darlene Steffani 872 Hillview Drive i i Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 [ x 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: 2016-00614 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 843 Hillview Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Jason & Kelly Eaton DESCRIPTION: A request for a Land Partition to create two lots for the property located at 843 Hillview Drive. The request also includes Tree Removal Permit to remove two clusters of Birch trees which are greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 15AC; TAX LOT : 400. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: April 29, 2016 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: May 13, 2016 1 7 _ L PA-2016-00614 77 843 HILLVIEw DR SUBJECT PROPERTY ~~r C z r r~ ry Of _ u. - - - - Q 1 - i~ El J f I~ N L. - E I The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staffs decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. Wcomm-dev\planning\Planning Aetions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-00614.docx PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.5.3.050 I The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded, C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D. The tract of land 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). 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. 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 r for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H. Unpaved Streets. 1. Minimum Street Improvement. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2. Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. 1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. FLAG PARTITIONS Section 18.76.060 Preliminary Approval of Flag Partitions. Partitions involving the creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission if the following conditions are satisfied: A. Conditions of the previous section have been met. B. Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the rear lot, Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15% but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide a Fire Work Area of 20 feet by 40 feet 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. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. When required by the Oregon Fire Code, flag drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090. 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. C. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated in such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for backing out. D. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. E. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a site-obscuring fence, wall or evergreen hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed at the extreme outside of the flag drive in order to ensure adequate fire access. GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-00614.docx F. The applicant has executed and filed with ' Tanning Department an agreement between app" ! and the city for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicam., or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Director of Public Works and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening to standards as indicated in this section and the assurance that such maintenance shall be continued. G. A site plan has been approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan shall be approved provided the regulations of the zoning and subdivision titles are satisfied. Such a site plan shall contain the map requirements listed in Section 18.76.050 and the following information: 1. The location of driveways, turnarounds parking spaces and useable yard areas, 2. The location and type of screening. 3. For site plans of a flag lot, the building envelope shall be identified. H. No more than two lots are served by the flag drive. 1. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. J. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. K. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval; 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole; 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flag pole, improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface from the street to the buildable area of the flag lot; 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flaglot clearly visible from the street on a 4" X 4" post 3'/2 feet high, The post shall be painted white with black numbers 3 inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two feet by three feet white sign clearly visible from the street with three inch black numbers. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18.5.7.040.8 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18,5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 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 18.10. 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. 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 criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. 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. 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. GAcomm-dev\planning\Plamring Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-00614.docx 4 I 1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING s STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On 4/29/16 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 #2016-00614, 843 Hillview. Signature of Employee Document2 4/29/2016 i ~l_'~ ~ ~1 ~ 0 i , • ~ .I J ll !_I ~k ~ it ill iJ~ r - d, i-~F•'. 1$Ji;~ 144 ' 10-0 r fl,d moil k1 10D :.2!A k_+ 14) I I I T 210Y i I L 3"o 2102 401 2540 r. Vii! )-105 2,U it 400 ~aulp 210 20uui o A,240 ~ll' U, 11 Cal AN PA-2016-00614 391E15AD 2100 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2600 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2800 DAVIDS-MARKS THAD WINSLOW BELL CHRISTOPHER RAND CRISWELL TIMOTHY A 840 HARMONY LN 822 HARMONY LN TRUSTEE ET AL ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 1808 OU BLVD ASHLAND, , OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2500 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 400 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2107 DAVIES GWEN C EATON JASON/KELLY EATON LEONARD W/BARBARA E 860 HARMONY LN 865 HENRY 841 BESWICK WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 200 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2108 PA-2016-00614 391E15AC 2400 GUSTAFSON PETER/FONTANA KRISTIN HANCOCK BRIAN S ET AL JOHNSON JEFFERY S/BLAIR B 809 HILLVIEW DR 1015 OAK KNOLL DR 870 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2101 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2900 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 401 JOHNSON ROBERT A TRUSTEE ET AL JONES LARRY D KEEN BARBARA J TRUSTEE FBO 850 HILLVIEW DR 1600 ASHLAND MINE RD 847 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, CA 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 100 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 601 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 3100 KELLEMS LARRY A TRUSTEE ET AL KLEINEDLER KEITH M LAWSON BARBARA ELAINE ET AL 805 HILLVIEW DR 873 HILLVIEW DR 800 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2102 PA-2016-00614 391 E1 5AC 104 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 500 LEIBOVITCH ERIC/HARRIET MEI MEISSSNER CHRISTIAN IRREVOCABLE AL NERENBERG NANCY TRUSTEE ET AL 9420 RESEDA 570 TRU ET 853 HILLVIEW DR NORTHRIDGE, CA 91324 760 OAKWAY CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2700 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2104 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 300 PILLER KARL/HUGO AUTUMN POWELL DAVID J/MURAWSKI WILLOW ROSTYKUS PAUL S 832 HARMONY LN 875 BESWICK WAY 436 GRANDVIEW ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2106 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2105 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2103 SLADE PATRICIA ET AL STEFFANI RONALD R TRUSTEE ET AL SZELONG MICHAEL/LISA 836 HILLVIEW DR 872 HILLVIEW DR 851 BESWICK WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AC 2901 PA-2016-00614 391 E15AD 2109 PA-2016-00614 YATES SUSAN M TRUSTEE ET AL ZWIEBEL AVROHOM SHAWN KAMPMANN 806 HARMONY LN 804 HILLVIEW DR PO BOX 459 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-00614 JASON EATON 843 Hillview 4/29/16 NOC PO BOX 3205 28 ASHLAND, OR 97520 28 6888 U6 1tr5 N003NO 'aNtl1NStl N00380 aNV1NStl - SOZE X09 Od - 3AIM M31A111H M "A'NoWMISNOaSnO10SNOO - - :_0 A12 uQa Mnli ~ t N01111M NOiV3 e1 r \ m w d A Al \ zr 4 ~ w bw ' 3d01S TA ` I - -ez Y _ i I! F s PEE =y w p~U I ~ s - ti 1= I t I = ~ _ Ii kN y, I` ' I I d L _ I 71 g 7 _ ~:V8135' - - i96i2'12A~1u^P tlt~ ~t 4 r' NOV2Y3a aro70S Jh8Q,.' II ~Q z Q e W / - / -zwCH Pm~aq cwztn SPJlPl3 -Z woa na I / -1-- - - - - - y tr nA - r - i HS yy lP~ a 1 -T r- a - w+6 a+mopsrwi / 4sro88tU,AmdoNd a>aar«> f P+W Wj1~90 t® WP -p .m1 3Atl N tlt1 - I SN3W350'3(SS30atl a n° m 1 a I d!jQ a q'.a o0 o^p ~a o pp 1 ~OOLZ302XV1 ~ P p _~n 1 r r l April 27, 2016 Jason Eaton P.O. Box 3205 Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Incompleteness Determination for PA-2016-00614/843 Hillview Drive. Good Day, After reviewing the April 1, 2016 application submittal requesting a land partition for 843 Hillview Drive, I have determined that the application is incomplete. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with state law (ORS 227.178), and cannot be further processed until the missing information listed below is submitted. Tree Removal Permit Findings: The application mentions that Tree Removal Permit findings are included for those trees over 18-inches to be removed, but I don't see them in what was submitted. I need the Tree Removal Permit findings and also something from an arborist that speaks to the tree removal (i.e. their condition necessitates their removal, there aren't alternative measures that can be taken, etc.) Staff cannot determine that the trees are birches and susceptible to disease and should thus be removed on that basis versus trying to preserve them by meandering the driveway or notching the envelope, and if that's the case being made there would need to be something strongly in support from an arborist. Written findings addressing the approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit from AMC 18.5.7.040 will need to be provided before the application can be deemed complete. 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. G. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. 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 18.10. Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 C Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ' wvAv,ashland, or.ts derek,severscr I's i 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, i sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. 4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below j, the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may c 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. 5. 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. To continue review of your application, you must either: 1. Submit all of the missing information listed above; 2. Submit some of the requested information and give the City of Ashland Planning Division written notice that the remaining information will not be provided; or 3. Submit written notice to the City of Ashland Planning Division indicating that no additional information will be provided. Please note that failure to complete one of the three options within 180 days of the original application submittal date of April 1, 2016 will result in your application being deemed void. The application will be deemed void if the additional information is not submitted by September 28, 2016. Planning staff will expedite review of the requested materials once they are received. I have enclosed a form, entitled the "Applicant's Statement of Completeness". Please review the enclosed form and return it to me with any additional material you will be submitting. Your application cannot be further processed until the Applicant's Statement of Completeness form is completed and received by the City of Ashland Planning Division. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (541) 552-2040 or via e-mail to or.us . Regards, Derek Severson, Associate Planner Encl: Applicant's Statement of Completeness Cc: File, Rogue Planning Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or us derek.se~ Date Received is (to be completed by staff) Applicant's Statement of Completeness (To be completed by the Applicant and returned to the City of Ashland Planning Division) Re: PA-2016-00614, 843 Hillview Drive Date Application Expires: September 28, 2016 Pursuant to an Incompleteness Determination, I, the undersigned applicant or agent for the applicant, elects one of the three options below by initialing: i 1. Submit All of the Missing Information (htilicil if c~lec/ed) I am submitting all of the information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter. Unless checked below, I am requesting that the City of Ashland Planning Division review this additional information within 30 days of submission to determine whether the application is complete. I understand that this 30-day review for completeness period for the new information preserves my opportunity to submit additional materials, should it be determined that the application is still incomplete after the second review. (Note: The 120-day period for the City of Ashland's final determination of compliance with applicable criteria does not commence until the additional review for completeness period is completed) (;beck if desired ❑ [ waive further review of the information submitted for completeness and direct review of the information submitted for compliance with the Community Development Code criteria, regardless of whether the application is, in fact, later determined by the staff to be incomplete. I understand that by checking the above statement the application will be evaluated based upon the material submitted and no notice of any missing information will be given. If material information is missing from the application, the application will fail to meet the burden of showing that all criteria are met, and the application will be denied. r Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040 20 E, Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 WW V. 0 s ( ) 2. Submit Some of the Requested Information: (Initial if 'electetT Decline to Provide Other Information I am submitting some of the information requested and declining to submit other information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter. I understand that by declining to submit all information the City of Ashland believes necessary, the Ashland Planning Division may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommended. ( _ ) 3. Decline to Provide any of the Requested Information (111itial if elec/ed) I decline to provide any of the information requested. I understand that the Community Development Department may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommended. Signed and Acknowledged (Applicant or Applicant's Agent) Date Return to: City of Ashland Planning Department Attn: Derek Severson, Associate Planner c/o 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 i Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 t WVAV derek.severson(o)ashland.or. a 843 Hillview Application - Derek Severson https:Houtlook.office3Ft -om/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&... 843 Hillview Application Derek Severson Wed 4/27/2016 1:40 PM ro:Amy Gunter <amygunter.planning@gmail.com>;jason@designbuildashland.com <jason@designbuildashland.com>; cc:Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us>; Jason & Amy, I E In reviewing the application for 843 Hillview in order to get the initial notice out, I've determined that I still need Tree Removal Permit findings and supporting information from an arborist to call the application E complete. The application mentions that Tree Removal Permit findings are included for those trees over I 18-inches to be removed, but I don't see them in what was submitted. I need the Tree Removal Permit I findings and we also need something from an arborist that speaks to the tree removal (i.e. their condition necessitates their removal, there aren't alternative measures that can be taken, etc.) Staff cannot determine that the trees are birches and susceptible to disease and should thus be removed on that basis versus trying to preserve them by meandering the driveway or notching the envelope, and if that's the case being made there would need to be something strongly in support from an arborist. If you can get me the above information, I'll expedite the further review and processing of the application. Thanks, [F[ tF, - Derek I h I 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 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. 1 of 1 4/27/2016 1:47 PM i i PROJECT PROPOSAL: A request for a Minor Land Partition approval to allow for the creation of a flag lot for the property located at 843 Hillview Drive. r Address: 843 Hillview Drive Map: 39 1E 15AC Tax Lot: 400 Lot Area: .44 acres Zoning: R-1-7.5 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Property Owner: Jason and Kelly Eaton Land Surveyor: Polaris Land Surveying; Shawn Kampmann PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located on the west side of Hillview Drive. The property was created as part of a 1986 minor land partition (PA86-061). In 2001, a boundary line adjustment between the subject property and the property to the south was approved, resulting in current lot configuration (PA2001- 037). The subject property is 18,974 square feet in area and is zoned single family residential (R-1-7.5) with a 7,500 square foot minimum lot area. The property is occupied by a 1,207 square foot, single story, residence and a 413 square foot garage. Both were constructed in 1950. All of the surrounding properties are also zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7.5). The subject property slopes gently at approximately six percent from south to north. There are no significant natural features on the property. Hillview Drive is improved with approximately 33-feet of pavement, curb and gutter. There are no sidewalks on either side of Hillview Drive within 800-feet of the property. A public alley which extends off of Clark Avenue is at the rear of the property. The public right-of-way ends at the properties northwest corner. From the end of the alley, serving properties to the south, there is a access easement along the rear property line. There are nine trees on the property. There is a 12-inch in diameter at breast height (DBH) pine in front of the existing residence, a clump of three, 18-inch DBH Birch trees near the north property line, a triple stemmed cherry tree that ranges from 8 -11 inches DBH. Behind the existing residence there is an fl- inch DBH birch tree and beyond that tree there are three additional Birch trees. They are 10-inches DBH, 16-inches DBH and 24-inches DBH. A discussion about proposed tree removal and tree protection can be found on the following pages. 012016 1 i PROJECT PROPOSAL: The request is for a Minor Land Partition to allow for the creation of a flag-lot. The front lot, Parcel #1, with the existing residence would be approximately 84-feet wide and approximately 104-feet deep for a total lot area of 8,802 square feet. As proposed, Parcel #1 provides for adequate setbacks to the existing residence. The residence is approximately 59-feet from the front property line, three feet from the south property line (pre-existing, non-conforming), 41-feet from the north property line (flag pole) and 13-feet from the rear property line. There is detached garage and patio cover that cross the proposed rear property line. This garage and patio cover will be removed to allow for the partition. A typical building envelope for Parcel 1 has been provided. The rear lot, (Parcel #2) has an average lot depth of 96-feet and an average lot width of 91.27-feet and a total lot area of 10,173 square feet. There is a 15-feet wide by 104-feet long flag pole connection to Hillview Drive. Excluding the flag pole area of 1,562 square feet, Parcel #2 is proposed to be 8,611 square feet in area. Parcel #2 is large enough to allow for the construction of a new single family residence that can comply with Solar Setback Standard A. The lot slopes approximately 6 percent downhill to the north. The proposed Parcel #2 is capable of having a 21-foot tall structure that is setback 38.96 feet from the north property line. This setback is less than 50 percent of the proposed parcel's north / south lot dimension. Additionally, a building envelope utilizing basic setbacks for the single family zone has been provided. There is a 9 -11-foot-wide driveway that provides stacked surface parking for the existing single family residence. In order to comply with access management standards that seek consolidated driveways, this driveway will be removed and the concrete surface will be removed. The curb cut will be relocated to provide an access to the flag lot and to a future garage for the residence on Parcel #1. In order to meet the parking standards for Parcel #1, following the removal of the existing driveway, a parking pad area adjacent to the future flag driveway will be installed. The surface of the flag drive accessing the parking pad is proposed to be compacted gravel, the proposed parking area will be less than 50-feet from the front property line. Following the construction of a residence on Parcel #2, the flag driveway will be greater than 50-feet in length and will be surfaced with an all-weather surface capable of accommodating 60,000 lbs. Trees: There are a few trees on the property that will be impacted by the installation of the driveway and/or are located within the buildable area for the proposed flag lot. There is cluster of three birch tree that are greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height located within the proposed flag pole. These trees will be removed prior to the signature of the survey plat. There is a multi-stemmed cherry tree between the existing residence and the proposed flag pole on proposed Parcel #1. These trees will be removed in order to accommodate the parking area and a future garage for Parcel #1. G:. 2 On proposed Parcel #2 there is cluster of three Birch trees. These trees are 10, 16, and 24-inches in diameter at breast height. The trees will not be protected as part of the development and will be removed as part of the future lot development. The reason for not relocating the driveway to preserve the trees near the north property line and for not "notching" the building envelope to preserve the trees near the south property line is due to the tree type, age and location. Birch trees around town (and the state) have been perishing from the bronze birch borer. The only way to slow the birch borer is to soak the surrounding soil of the tree with pesticides. htt~a:(1blo.ore~onlive.com kympokorny 2010/10Jbirch trees losing t;round.html Birch trees also require large volumes of water and are not typical in Ashland's somewhat arid climate. Birch trees are heavy pollen producers. One source finds that birch trees are responsible for 15 - 20 percent of the hay fever cases in the northern hemisphere. (htt:o://www.softschools,coLnILactsLplaiits/lYirch_ facts 5931) Birch trees are intolerant of construction and the Birch tree has shallow roots that damage sidewalks, driveways and foundations. These trees appear to have been planted by a previous property owner as a landscape feature. Shifting the driveway to preserve these trees is not in the best interest of highest and best use of the property. If the trees were a native species or a tree species that was not extremely susceptible to disease, this would have been considered. Due to the property's zoning of single family residential, the trees greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height proposed for removal prior to signature of a survey plat appear to be exempt from the Tree Removal section of the Ashland Unified Land Use Ordinance (AMC 18.5.7). The 24-inch DBH Birch on proposed Parcel 2 will be retained following the partition and until the plans for the new single family home are brought forward. Since trees greater than 18-inches DBH on vacant R-1 land require a tree removal permit, findings addressing the tree removal criteria are included in the proposal. There is a 12-inch DBH pine at the front of the property. This tree will be preserved and will be utilized as one of the required street trees. One or two additional street trees will be planted along the property frontage. The trees will be shorter in stature due to the overhead power lines along the frontage of the property. A Tree Protection and Preservation plan are included on the site plan provided as part of the application. Findings addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code for a Minor Land Partition including the creation of a flag lot is provided on the following pages. 3 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL; Ashland Un yled Land Use Ordinance 15.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. The partition will not impede the remainder of the tract from being developed. The parent parcel (Parcel #1) at 8,802 square feet in area exceeds the minimum lot size in the zone of 7,500 square feet and has significant additional buildable area remaining post partition. The proposed Parcel #2 at 8,611 square feet of buildable area has adequate buildable area to allow for the construction of a new residence, provide the required third parking space for flag lot and to provide an adequate yard area while complying with the lot coverage standards in the zone. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. The development of the adjoining land and access to those properties will not be impeded by the proposed partition. The 16-foot wide access easement for the property to the south to access Clark Avenue will not be impeded by the proposed partition. 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 City adopted neighborhood or district plans. There are not previous land use approvals with outstanding conditions that impact the property. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. The property was last "partitioned" with the lot line adjustment in 2001. 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 subject property is not part of any overlay zoning that would include specific development requirements. Parcel #1 is proposed to be 8,802 square feet which exceeds the minimum lot area in the single family zone. The residence on Parcel #1 is proposed to comply with setbacks from newly proposed lot lines. The existing side yard setback adjacent to the south property line is less than what is required by code but is pre-existing and not to be modified as part of the partition. Parcel #1 has approximately 3,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. This is approximately 34 percent. This is less than the maximum of 45 percent allowed in the zone. The proposed Parcel #2 at 10,173 square feet exceeds the minimum lot area in the R-1-7.5 zone. Excluding the 1,561.95 square foot of area of the flag pole, the remaining 8,613 square foot Parcel #2 exceeds the minimum lot area in the R-1-7.5 zone. The proposed lot complies with the dimensional 0 1- 4 standards. Parcel #2 has an average lot depth of 96-feet and an average width of 91.27-feet, thus complying with the required lot width to depth ratios. The proposed lot provides a buildable area that demonstrates the orientation and setback standards, including the Solar Setback Standard A required for newly created lots. The lot has an average slope of six percent downhill to the north. A 21-foot tall structure would require a 38.96-foot setback from the North property line. The average lot width is 91.27 feet; 38.96 feet does not exceed 50 percent of the proposed Parcel #2 N/S lot dimension. The proposed lot area is large enough to adequately provide a builable area including the parking required for flag lots (three off-street parking spaces). At the time of development, the property owner will need to demonstrate that in addition to setbacks, solar access ordinance and parking, that no more than 3,875 square feet of impervious area is on the property. The proposed partition complies with the minimum access requirements for flag lots. 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. Prior to signature of the final survey plat, the existing curb cut and driveway to the single family residence on proposed Parcel #1 will be removed. A new curb cut for the flag driveway will be installed under permit of Public Works Division. The driveway will be extended partially to provide access to Parcel #1. At the time of construction and before signature of the Certificate of Occupancy for proposed Parcel #2, the 12-wide paved width within the 15-foot clear width, constructed of all-weather surface materials that can withstand the weight of 60,000 lbs. will be installed. 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 dedications. Hillview Drive right-of-way does not appear to have enough width to accommodate sidewalk installation. A public access easement of three-feet will be provided along the frontage of the property to accommodate the future installation of sidewalk on Hillview Drive when a cohesive street improvement plan is brought forward. A local improvement district (LID) agreement will be signed prior to the signature of final survey plat. Proposed Parcel #2 will have utilities stubbed out to the edge of the property. The property is served by a four-inch water main, a six-inch sanitary sewer main and a 15-inch storm water sewer main. There is an overhead electric power pole in the northeast corner of the property adjacent to the front property line. In conversations with the City of Ashland representative of each department responsible for the maintenance of the public utility infrastructure, there is adequate capacity for an additional, developable parcel. Two deciduous street trees will be planted approximately 10 -12 feet behind the curb to comply with the street tree standards. Lot #1 frontage is proposed at 85-feet in width, there is an existing conifer tree that will remain, allowing for two additional trees. H. Unpaved Streets. 5 'cc Hillview Drive is a partially improved public street. Hiliview Drive is improved with approximately 33-feet of pavement, curb and gutter but lacks sidewalks. I. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided fiom the alley and prohibited fiom the street. A public alley does not exist adjacent to the property. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. There do not appear to be any required State or Federal permits that apply to the proposed partition or to the future development of Parcel #2. K A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. See additional findings addressing the partition plat criteria for a flag lot below. 18.5.3.060 Additional PretiminM Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria The approval authority shall approve a preliminary plat application for a flag lot partition only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The criteria of section 18.5.3.050 are met. The applicant's find that the criteria of section 18.5.3.050 are met or can be met through the imposition of conditions. B. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. The proposed lot area for Parcel #2, 8,613 square feet, exclusive of the 1,530 square foot flag driveway area exceeds the minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet for the R-1-7.5 zone. C. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. The flag driveway is proposed to be owned by Parcel #2, one of the lots served by the driveway. Parcel #1 will have an ingress, egress access easement and a mutual maintenance agreement provided to allow for a future garage for Parcel #1 to be constructed that takes access from the flag driveway. D. Except as provided in subsection 18.5.3.060.11, 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. I The driveway, when installed will comply with the required driving surface widths. 6 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. The existing curb cut serving the 9 -11 foot wide driveway will be removed prior to signature of survey plat and both properties will share the flag driveway for access. F. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maxirmim 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. There are no areas on the property which exceed 15 percent slopes. G. Flag drives shall be constructed to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. At the time of the construction of the flag driveway, the surface drainage will be accommodated for. H. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval. 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole. 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flagpole and improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface connecting the street to the buildable area of the flag lot. The flag lot is not adjacent to an alley. The driveway will be installed, centered within the flagpole. 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flag lot clearly visible fiom the street on a four-inch by four-inch post that is 31/2 feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers three inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two foot by three-foot white sign clearly visible from the street with three-inch black numbers. The proposed flag pole is 15-feet in width. The flag lot will be addressed in accordance with the standards. Io Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads sunder the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof The flag drive will be deemed a Fire Apparatus Access road. I 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. The flag driveway is greater than 150-feet in length. A turnaround is not proposed, utilizing other alternatives such as fire sprinklers would be a preferred alternative. 7 I ii K. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated to eliminate the necessity for vehicles backing out. Adequate area has been provided for the flag lot to have three parking spaces situated in a manner that eliminates the necessity for vehicles to back out. Compliance with this standard will be addressed with the building permit submittals. i L. There shall be no parking within ten feet of the centerline of the chive on either side of the flag drive entrance. No on-street parking will be within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on either side of the flag driveway entrance. If required, the curb will be painted yellow. 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. When the new structure for the flag lot is proposed, demonstration of compliance with the requirements of the Building and Fire Officials will be addressed. N. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a site-obscuring fence, wall or evergreen hedge to a height of fiom four to six feet, except in the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed at the extreme outside of the flag drive in order to ensure adequate fire access. The flag drive is not proposed to be installed until construction commences on the flag lot. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the site-obscuring fence or hedge will be installed along the flag driveway. The applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Department an agreement between applicant and the City for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Public Works Director and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening pursuant to this section, and assurance ongoing maintenance. An agreement will be executed for the paving and screening of the flag driveway. The applicant is not proposing to develop the flag lot at this time. The screening and paving of the driveway will be completed prior to issuance of a signature of occupancy for the residence on the flag lot. Ingress, egress access easements for the joint use of the flag driveway will be addressed on the partition plat. P. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstiucted by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. As demonstrated with the attached site plan a useable yard area is able to be provided for the flag lot. Due to setback standards and maximum lot coverage, the yard area will likely exceed the 20 X 20 standard. 8 i r i i 843 Hillview Drive i TREE REMOVAL FINDINGS: j At present the tree removal and tree protection and preservation ordinances do not apply to the trees discussed below. Due to the partition request the property owner is required to account for the trees but is not obligated to adhere to the tree removal criteria of the ordinance as it does not apply to single family residentially zoned lots occupied by a single family residential home. There is cluster of three birch trees that are 18-inches in diameter at breast height located within the proposed flag pole. These trees will be removed prior to the signature of the survey plat to allow for the construction of the new driveway access for both parcels. On proposed Parcel #2, there is cluster of three Birch trees. These trees are 10, 16, and 24- inches in diameter at breast height. The trees are not proposed to be protected as part of the development and will potentially be removed as part of the future lot development. The 10 and 16 inch DBH trees are not subject to the tree removal ordinance post partition until they grow considerably. Findings regarding the 24-inch birch tree are addressed below for the future removal following recording of the flag lot. The three birch trees on Parcel #2 are within the proposed building envelope. It is not the intention of the property owner to remove the trees at this time. The request is to allow for the future property owner or builder that constructs the new single family residence to determine whether they want to preserve the Birch trees, but not bind a property owner with the preservation of the trees. Birch trees have a documented history as a shallow rooted, water consuming, intolerant to construction, landscape tree. An arborist report is not being sought due to the costs involved with getting such a report completed, the cost of that report increases the cost of development in a situation where the removal of the trees on the property as it exists today is not subject to any City of Ashland regulation. The applicant finds that the criteria for tree removal is met with this proposal. 18.5.7.040.B.2: Tree that is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 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. The three birch trees along the north property line are requested for removal because they are within the proposed flag driveway. The flag driveway is placed along the north property line to i i retain the maximum amount of lot area for the existing residence without creating an unbuildable / unusable yard area divided by a driveway that would bisect the parcel. Additionally, due to the driveway consolidation standards and the driveway spacing standards, the driveway will be relocated from the front of the residence to the north property line to allow for shared access and the future construction of a garage for Lot #1. In order to retain the trees and to install the flag driveway pavement outside of the critical root zone, the driveway would need to be more than 30-feet from the north property line, again creating an unusable yard area bisected by a driveway. The removal of the 24-inch birch tree in the rear yard is requested to facilitate the development of a future single family residential home. The tree encompasses nearly 1/3 of the proposed lot area. With the solar access ordinance requiring that demonstration that a future 22-foot tall residence be located on the proposed lot, a 38-foot, 11-inch setback is necessary. The dripline of the birch tree is approximately 40-feet from the north property line. This tree is in the area that is suited for development of a new single family home on a single family lot or in the yard L I area of a new single family residence. Based on current research, Birch trees are sensitive to construction, will not tolerate increased heat, and light especially in the root zone; needs to be in its natural range to survive construction activity. Pamela C. Louks, Coordinator Community & Urban Forestry, Indiana Department of Natural Resources The protection zone is to the dripline. The critical root zone extends beyond the dripline. In the case of a birch tree which is sensitive to development and alterations in hydrology and their environment, it would be prudent to use the critical root zone as the protection area. A 24-inch DBH tree requires a 36-foot radius for tree protection. This puts the tree protection zone more than 50 percent of the lot width. With that information, notching the building envelope to accommodate a tree that would potentially be intolerant to the changes in its environment does not appear to be a logical approach to good site planning. Additionally, the critical root zone of the tree exceeds more than 50 percent of the properties width and greatly encroaches into the buildable area and prevents demonstration that a 21-foot tall structure can be constructed on the lot because the critical root zone exceeds the building envelope for demonstration that the solar access ordinance is met. 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 significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or protection of adjacent tree, or existing windbreaks. The lot has minimal slope and soil stability and erosion are not evident on the property. Following removal, the paved driveway and the future residence will provide soil stability in the place of the birch trees. The trees do not provide protection to adjacent trees nor are they part of a windbreak. There are no surface waters on the site. 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 removal of four birch trees that were planted as landscape features by a previous property owner will not have a negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200-feet of the subject property. There are birches in the front yard of the residence that is located across Hillview Drive. There is a large birch in the rear yard of the property to the south at 843 Hillview. There are large birches in the rear yard of other lots on the west side of Hillview Drive. There are birch trees in the front yard of the residence at 822 Harmony Lane. There are birch trees further up Hillview outside of the 200-foot distance but there are many in the neighborhood. There is a dead birch tree in front of the property at 922 Hillview Drive. 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. Though the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures, today, the trees are not subject to ordinance requirements. If the case is made that the application need to be altered to preserve the trees, the property owner would remove the trees as this point in time and not preserve until future development happens. The pending application plans would be altered and the trees would be eliminated from the plans. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval i pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 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 I/2-inch caliper healthy and well-branched deciduous tree or a five to six-foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually equal or exceed the removed tree in size if appropriate for the new location. Larger trees may be required where the mitigation is intended, in part, to replace a visual screen between land uses. Suitable species means the tree' s growth habits and environmental requirements are conducive to the site, given existing topography, soils, other vegetation, exposure to wind and sun, nearby structures, overhead wires, etc. The tree shall be planted and maintained per the specifications of the Recommended Street Tree Guide. Four trees that will achieve similar size and stature as the birch trees will be installed on the property following development of the single family residence. I ~ B QS "-as GS OS uS O N -7 1d Ci G 1C9 7 1 A 3 1 3 N o ~ S®~ \ \ C3ca 82(na 313 .i \ g~ t ( xovaas ONlCI37(l~ .g o p ,9 c u m I o x z w I " \ a ,9 I~~ `i N l f OU ~ ~ [ Z nVni ~I~ ~ e r _X_X~x-X e q I • I ~ ---2095--"` 5 z ~ I i ry (-du) 3d073MEi JNt071f1@'i ,I i 1 yam, ( vim _ , ~ ~ N 9 L>1 w - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 69CLt-96 VO &3d 1N33GSb3 op --,UXV 31YN9d ,91 w^ h ~ ~ N o a p ti e d 10 i i o~tl g~ d If f ul i_ C yx a i 1 _ J: ~31J s,•,I.EIddOad LtY I - i ! _ _ a~ i t = k !i! f r- s ~ , m ~ c t r f v f ! ~tg z " W p 1 i / f f 1 I ~ / f ww I I ~ xc t - - - - = - - a ~ ~ C us a. u - a I 4- ~ O ~ ~ C:T ~ g~ y - I O C Y O ~ i 1 ae`ua 3 ~ a. c.o -yr ~ uw w ES ~E C~ C5 ~ ~ ~ z ~ 1 en ~ 3 ~ a d ~ o I aeon w v 2 ~ ~ ~ ai ~ c7 2 g, ~ € ¢ ~ ~ - 3 x I d f I ~ e±s T:?~'•~`" v ,<a ~s~`~. per' k I I - *'1.. en :u 4 3 + I t~•a w ^~ia O cu w w O w u ~c w s s~c~u -~~o ! _ a®sn fey Oxa a c~CV ~m ¢aw j ~~~ii 5 cam. a o can V•C ua ¢ ' ~c ~c°. vaua~~ j a i -'-r c: m ei ® s:i ri oocs eeaoo~~~o ] o a..za o o aas..~o ~ ~ V 4 a r. ~ o c LL f hs sb~ ~ N ev ea ~ ° ~ r a e,^ eas ~ ,e ~ a m sr N m ~ j ~ I ! aim®~~cc ^~ec~ -ne 4 I l11 i + + i ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division C_ I T V 0 ~ 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE p6HLAr1 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Minor Land Partition to create a two parcels DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? ® YES ;7AO Street Address 843 Hillview Drive Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E 15 AC Tax Lot(s) 400 Zoning R-1-7.5 Comp Plan Designation Single Family Residential APPLICANT Name Jason Eaton Phone 541.973.8889 E-Mail jason@designbuildashland.com Address PO BOX 3205 City Ashland Zip 97520 PROPERTY OWNER Name Jason & Kelly Eaton Phone 541.973.8889 E-Mail jason@designbuildashland.com Address PO BOX 3205 City Ashland Zip 97520 SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Surveyor Name Polaris Land Surveying Phone 541.482.5009 E-Mail Shawn@polarissurvey.com Address PO BOX 459 City Ashland Zip 97520 Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip l 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 1 produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request,' 2) that the findings of fact fumishedjustifies the granting of the request, 3) that the findings of fact fumished by me are adequate,, and further 4) that all stnrctures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removedN my fp0nse. Ifl have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professi Tal fdvice and assistance. Applicant's Signature Date As owner of the propetty involved in this request, l ha ve read and understood the complete application and its consequences tome as a property owner, Property vu ner's Signature (required) Date Fro be completed by Qty Stall] Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ ~6z~o Y OVER G:\comm-dov\planningT, orms & Handouts\Zonmg Permit Application.doc r Job Address: 843 HILLVIEW DR Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A Owner's Name: JASON/KELLY EATON 0 Phone: P Customer 08459 N State Lie No: P JASON/KELLY EATON T City Lie No: L Applicant: 865 HENRY ST R I Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: (541) 973-8889 T Address: N Applied: 04/01/2016 p T Issued: R Expires: 09/28/2016 Phone: State Lie No: Maplot: 391E15AC400 City Lie No: DESCRIPTION: Minor Land Partition 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 Land Partition (type 1) 1,146.00 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 CITY F Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 l r 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: $ 1,146.00 $ 1,146.00 or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Sub-Total: $ 1,146.00 Fees Paid: $ 1,146.00 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 www.ashland.or.us CITY F Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080