The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutClinton_345_PA-T1-2020-00109CITY OF ASHLAND RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION #PA-T1-2020-00109 PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 345 Clinton Street APPLICANT: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle / Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request land use approval for a two -lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot. The Purpose of the partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicate that the two resultant parcels will be 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391 E04DB; TAX LOT: 401. DATE ITEM PAGE # 07/31/2020 Ashland Daily Tidings Notice of Public Hearing 1 07/29/2020 Notice of Appeal to the Planning Commission 2 07/13/2020 Appellants Submittals 5 06/30/2020 Notice of Type I Administrative Decision 21 06/30/2020 Type I Administrative Findings, Conclusions & Orders 23 06/01/2020 Public Comment 28 05/29/2020 Public Comment 45 05/26/2020 Public Comment 72 05/24/2020 Public Comment 74 05/21/2020 Public Comment 77 05/20/2020 Public Comment 79 05/19/2020 Public Comment 80 05/15/2020 Planning Commission Notice of Completeness 81 04/30/2020 Applicant's Submittals 83 l owl Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY:1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 (appealing PA-T1-2020-00109) SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning and Development/Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle DESCRIPTION: On August 11, 2020, the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing to consider an appeal of the administrative approval PA-T1-2020-00109 of a two -lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot for the property located at 345 Clinton. The tentative partition plat creates two parcels that are 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac in size, with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; MAP: 39 1 E 04 DB; TAX LOT: 401 ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, August °11, 2020 at 2m22 PM subject Pir'011)Orty pp ohei -11- 0104p G:Acornet-devAplarmingAPLarnring Actions\PAs by StreetTTItriton\Cflnton_345\PA-T1-2020-00109AAPPEAL PA-APPEAL-2020-00011\Notices\Cflnton_345 PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 PlZing Commission.docx Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.edu and selecting `RVTV Prime.' The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or plannina ashland.or.us. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line at www.ashlackets seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in -person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre -arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing plannina ashland.or.us. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC -public -testimony ashland.or.us with the subject line "August 11 PC Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, August 10, 2020. If the applicant wishes to provide a written rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC -public -testimony ashland.or.us with the subject line "August 11 PC Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2020. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC�-testimonv ashland.oreus by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, August 10, 2020. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email "August 11 Speaker Request", 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.- 35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at #541-552-2052 or aaron.anderson ashland.or.us. G:Acornet-devAplarmingAPLarnring Actiom\PAs by StreetTTItriton\Cflnton_345\PA-T1-2020-0010MPPEAL PA-APPEAL-2020-00011\Notices\Cflnton_345 PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 Plaing Commission.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. 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. I. 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. G:Acornet-devAplarmingAPLarnring Actions\PAs by StreetTTItriton\Cflnton_345\PA-T1-2020-0010MPPEAL PA-APPEAL-2020-00011\Notices\Cflnton_345 PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 PLa ring Commission.docx Notice of Land Use Appeal — Type I (Ashland Municipal Code § 18.5.1.050.G. A. Narne(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es): 1 - Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 2. Betsy A. McLane 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal. C. Decision Being Appealed Date of Decision; Planning Action Title of planning action: June 30, 2020 IIA-TI-2020-00109 (Not Indicated / 345 Clinton St.) D:. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party For each pe son listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below.) The person named in El I am the applicant, Box A.1. above N I received notice of the planning action. qualifies as a party 01 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive because: notice due to error. The person named in El I am the applicant. Box A.2. above N I received notice of the planning action. qualifies as a party 0 1 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive because: notice due to error. I Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as a party. E. Specific Grounds for Appeal 1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): See attaclied Notice of Appeal under "Specific Grounds for Appeal, pages 4, 5, 6" This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code §1 or other law in § requires that (attach additional pages if necessary): 2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code § or other law in § requires that (attach additional pages if necessary): 3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code § or other law in requires that (attach additional pages if necessary): V I of 2 .................. 11.11--l-,- . ....... ....... 4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that exist. For each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other law that were violated.) Appeal Fee With this notice of appeal l(we) submit the sum of $150.00 which is the appeal fee required by § 18.5.1.050, of the Ashland Municipal Code. Date: July 13, 2020 Signature(s) of person(s) filing appeal (attach additional pages if necessary): Eric Elerath Betsy McLane Note• This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed with the Community Development Department, Attn: Planning Commission Secretary, 20 E Main St, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-5305, prior to the effective date of the decision sought to be reviewed. Effective dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.5.1.0,50. 242 Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 708-0149 July 13, 2020 Planning Department City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-5305 NOTICE OF APPEAL PLANNING ACTION: PA-TI-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton St. OWNER: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle SU13JECT: Notice of Appeal of Planning Decision DATE OF DECISION: June 30, 2020 City of Ashland Planning DepartmenV Eric Elerath ("Elerath", "Appellant") submits this document as notice of appeal of Planning Decision PA-TI-2020-00109'. It includes: 1) The Notice of Land Use Appeal (2 pages, signed, on the City's form) 2) Notice and Appeal (This document; 6 pages) No Exhibits are attached with this Notice. Appellant will comply with staff's request to develop the record for the appeal. Thank you! N Eric Elerath Appeal of PA-TI-2020-00109 I of 6 APPEAL CRrrER1A: Appeal of a Type I decision is governed by A.M.0 18.5.1.050 G: 2. Appeal Filing Procedure. a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18,5,1.050G,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 1). Time for 1•�ilina. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the DOtiCC 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 (late 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 rrict or the appeal will be considered by the City as ajurisdictional 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 nova 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, COMPLIANCE, WITH APPEAL CRITERIA ABOVE: 18.5.1.050 G(2)(a): Appellant has submitted the required fee of $150,00 by means of credit card payment by phone. Staff sent an email receipt and a copy of the receipt is available. 18.5.1,050 G(2)(b): The referenced decision indicates that it was mailed on June 30, 2020, and that the time for filing this appeal ends at 4:30 on July 13, 2020. Elerath submits this appeal on time. 185.1,050 G(2)CcJ Li: The decision being appealed is PA-TI -2020�-00 109, made on June 30, 2020, 18.5.1.050 G(ac)(ii): Elerath and McLane own the property addressed 419 Clinton St, Its border is within 200 feet of the subject property, and Elerath received the Notice of Application for this decision. Elerath replied in a timely manner, as noted in the Director's decision. On May 29, Elerath received written Notice of Final Decision dated June 30, 2020, and his remau•ks were identified by name in the decision being appealed. These events indicate that Elerath has standing to appeal this decision and that his comments were identified by the Director as raising additional concerns beyond the scope of those submitted by others. 18.5.1.050 G(2)(c)(iii): Elerath asserts the right to Continue to raise the issues broadly identified in his letter (hiring appeals. These issues include: A. Incomplete Application B. Defective Notice C. Failure to provide access to personally inspect the Application file, evidence, and documents. D. Failure to provide digital access to Application file, material evidence and documents. F. Elcrath's request. for additional time and the Director's failure to provide Such. F. Defective submittal analysis. Implicit in these issues is the apparent fact that two land use decisions were actually made. One decision was made by staff about. the Application's completeness, and the other was made regarding compliance with criteria for a Preliminary Partition Plat. 18.5.1.050G(2)(c)(iv): In his decision, Director Molnar wrote, in part: Eric Elerath submitted a written comment on May 29th raising additional concerns about the relevant approval criteria included in the mailed notice, and physical access to the application materials, and included a request for additional time to inspect and review the application materials. The mailed notice included the relevant approval criteria from AMC 18.5.3.050 for a Preliminary Partition Plat. The issue regarding an incomplete application was identified in the written comment as the application materials posted online did not include the receipt for payment for the planning application. AMC 18.5.1.050 requires the application form and fee for a planning application to be considered complete. ORS 227.178 requires a city to determine if a planning application is complete within 30 days of the applicant submitting the information and to notify the applicant if any required submittal information is missing. The Staff Advisor is responsible for determining whether the submittal information is complete for a Type I planning application and accordingly made the determination on May 15, 2020 that the application was complete, including that the preliminary partition plat fee had been paid on April 30th. The receipt for the payment is documented in the City's permitting software and a hard copy of the receipt is included in the planning application file. The notice stated that the application materials were available at the Winborn Way building during the period of public comment the building and included a staff contact with a telephone and email address. The Community Development Department offices were closed to the public during the 14-day comment period in response to the to the COVID-19 pandemic and the declared state of emergency. The City's emergency declaration on March 17, 2020 closed City offices to the public and continue to be closed to the public until Such time that the state announces Phase three of reopening. The planning application materials were posted on "What's Happening in my City" on the City web site. People that called or emailed and were interested in reviewing the file were directed to the City's web site. Appeal of PA -'r i -2(t20-00109 3of 6 'J 9 ............ ......... Elerath has attached a copy of the letter that lie Submitted on May 29. In addition to those issues noted by Director Molnar' above, Elerath indicated that the the "Application" - as it is defined and identified by Planning staff - also fails to include either the application form or the signature of either of the owners or of the agent, Amy Gunter. In his letter of May 29 comments are made under the bold underlined heading It. Incomplete Application Elerath reasserts that issue again here, without limiting the Application's incompleteness to the filing fee and City provided form. These are not minor oversights, but appear to show misrepresentation, destruction, and / or omission of material facts and evidence necessary to determine that a complete application was ever submitted, SCOPE OF APPEAL: Elerath notes thatconflicts appear to exist within the documented appeals process. In some instances, A.M.C. appears to limit issues on appeal to those previously identified during the time for public comment, but 18.5.1.050 GQ) - cited above - states that Type I appeals hearings shall be de novo, hearings and "... shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other - documentation, and specific issues, raised in the review leading up to theType I decision..." In making this appeal, Elerath requests leave to amend the appeal and to add, delete or augment his appeal documents to the extent that such amendments apply broadly to the categories of issues previously raised. For example, Elerath has already raised the City's procedural issues but not issues of vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, etc. REQUEST ]FOR ADDJTIONAL TIME / CONTINUANCE: Appellant asked for additional time to review materials in his original comments, and he repeats that request again here: I) A global pandemic appears to have occurred. Conditions for lockdown, sheltering -in -place, social distancing, the providing of public services, and public and private response to potential emergencies fluctuate and change on an almost (laity basis. 2) The issues Elerath raised require sonic research of statutes, procedures and requirements. Elerath is not an attorney and there is no recognized right to obtain legal services - including advice or comments - in civil matters in the United States. 3) There is an inequitable and uneven balance of power. The City has legislative, executive and quasi-judicial authority to decide the issues in question, and there appear to be no checks and balances or clear lines to distinguish the capacity in which it acts at any time. Smanc GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: The Director's decision should be reversed or modified on the following grounds: 1) The Director's decision was made without a complete Application having been produced. This is an error because-, ""%,.r . .. .... . % Appeal of PAJ 1 -2020-00109 4of6 ... ... . .. ... 10 A. Ashland Municipal Code § 18.5.1 .050(A)(1) requires: 1. Application Form and Fee. Applications for Type I review shall be made on forms provided by the Staff Advisor. One or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is requested, and their authorized agent, as applicable, must sign the application. The application shall not be considered complete unless the appropriate application fee accompanies it. The document entitled "Minor Land Partition," whether part of an Application or a Submittal, is unsigned. An unsigned document, or a document not referenced by a signed document, is not evidence that a complete application was ever submitted. Failure to sign is material, and Appellant objects to Director MoInar's references to the Minor Land Partition as inadmissible heresay. 13. Oregon Revised Statute ORS § 197.195(l) requires: (1) A limited land use decision shall be consistent with applicable provisions of city or county comprehensive plans and land use regulations. Oregon Revised Statute ORS § 197.195(3)(a) requires: (3) A limited land use decision is Subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection. (a) In making a limited land use decision, the local gOVel-IIIIIeDt shalt follow the applicable procedures contained within its acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations and other applicable legal requirements. (c) The notice and procedures used by local government shall: (F) State that copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for review, and that copies can be obtained at cost Oregon State Law, then, requires the City of Ashland to follow its own regulations to comply with US Constitutional requirements for due process. C. US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 reads, in part: "No state shall ... pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." Planning staff deemed the Application complete oil May 15, 2020. No notice was given prior to this determination, The Notice of Application, subsequently mailed to affected parties, does not even provide the criteria described in A.M.C. §18.5.1.0501(A) to be able to object to staff's decision, and review appears to apply only to decisions regarding the unsigned Preliminary Partition Plat subinittal, This appears to be a kind of Bill of Attainder because the determination of facts occurred both outside public view, without public hearing, without any signature, and it deprived the public of its right to speak on matters of public importance. Based on the above passage, the entire United States legislative and executive responses to the Covid-19 medical situation - including the response by Oregon Governor Brown and by the City of Ashland's municipal government - appear to involve widespread issuanc,e,.,.o,f.-.-b,i.1111's, of attainder Appeal of PA-TI-2020-00109 5 of 6 1z" .......... .. . ...... prohibited by Article 1, Sections 9 and 10. The Ainerican public has been, and Continues to be deprived of life, property and / or freedom without due process of law and, apparently, without signed medical opinions. Throughout the Ashland Planning process it. also appears common to attach conditions of approval where the content of those conditions extends the breadth and scope of the approval itself. In Director MoInar's decision, fie included conditions 2), 3), and 4). These involve unquantifiable parameters and conditions which may be beyond the control of the owner to perform, even though they could be identified and perfornied prior to the Director's final decision or Could be part of a preliminary decision. These conditions of approval also seem to conflict with prohibitions against laws being passed ex post facto. 2) In his Decision, the Director failed to grant an extension of time to allow access to review the application: Ashland Municipal Code § 18.5.1.050(B) requires: 1. Mailing of Notice of Application, The purpose of the notice of application is to give nearby property owners and other interested people the opportunity to review and submit written comments on the application before the City makes a decision on it. Within ten days of deeming aType I application complete, the City shall mail a notice of a pending Type I application to the following, 3. Content of Notice of Application The notice of application shall include all of the following: f. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or for the applicant, and the applicable criteria and standards are available for review and that copies will be provided at a reasonable cost. Appellant requested additional time to be able to perform the review actions promised by the notice. While the Director. noted Eleratli's request, lie did not grant tile request and instruct staff to make the application materials available in their entirety. It is not credible to believe that the City has no duty to perform that which the legal notice indicates it shall or will perform. SUMMARY: Petitioner has shown that lie has standing, that lie has identified specific grounds for appeal, and that he has fulfilled the requirements to do so. Respectfully Submitted, Eric Elerath July 13, 2020 Y P Appeal of PA-'r 1 -2020-00109 6of 6 12 Notice of Land Use Appeal — Type I (Ashland Municipal Code § 18.5.1.050.G. A. Narne(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es): 1. Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 2. Betsy A. McLane 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal. C. Decision Being Appealed Date of Decision: Planning Action #: Title of planning action: June 30, 2020 PA-T1-2020-001109 (Not Indicated / 345 Clinton St.) D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party For each pe son listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below.) The person named in 01 am the applicant, Box A. 1. above N I received notice of the planning action. qualifies as a party 17711 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive because: notice due to error. The person named in 01 am the applicant. Box A.2. above N I received notice of the planning action. qualifies as a party 111 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive because: notice due to error. -L Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as a party. E. Specific Grounds for Appeal 1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): See attached Notice of Appeal under "Specific Grounds for Appeal, pages 4, 5, 6" This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code § or other law in requires that (attach additional pages if necessary): 2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code § or other law in § requires that (attach additional pages if necessary): 3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code § or other law in § requires that (attach additional pages if necessary): I of 2 JJi, i If, /l [f, 114 V� 4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that exist. For each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other law that were violated.) . . .. ... . ...... Appeal Fee With this notice of appeal I(we) submit the sum of $150.0O whiich is the appeal fee requiired by § 18.5.1.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Date: July 13, 2020 Signature(s) of person(s) filing appeal (attach additional pages if necessary): Eric Elerath Betsy McLane, Note,: This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed with the Community Development Department, Attn: Planning Commission Secretary, 20 E Main St, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-5305, prior to the effective date of the decision sought to be reviewed. Effective dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.5.1.050. R E Cl' T V 2 of 2 Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 708-0149 July 13,2020 Planning Department City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-5305 NOTICE OF APPEAL PLANNING ACTION: PA-TI.2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton St. OWNER: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle SUBJECT- Notice of Appeal of Planning Decision DATE OF DECISION: June 30, 2020 City of Ashland Planning Department: Eric Elerath ("Elerath", "Appellant") submits this document as notice of appeal of Planning Decision PA-Tl -2020-00109. It includes: 1) The Notice of Land Use Appeal (2 pages, signed, on the City's form) 2) Notice and Appeal (This document; 6 pages) No Exhibits are attached with this Notice. Appellant will comply with staff's request to develop the record for the appeal. Thank you! Eric Elerath 1 '1111", 131"It" C111'R1*,-111V7E11,D1 Appea I of PA-T 1 -2020-00109 1 of 6 APPEAL CRITERIA: Appeal of a Type I decision is governed by AM.0 18.5.1,050 G: 2. Appeal Filing Procedure. a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5,1.050G.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 Filin& 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. COMPLIANCE WITij APPEAL CRITERIA ABOVE: 18.5.1,050 G(2)(a): Appellant has submitted the required fee of $150.00, by means of a check made payable to the City of Ashland. Elerath objects to this fee, as lie already pays taxes to the City. 18.5.1.050 G(2)(b): The referenced decision indicates that it was mailed on June 30, 2020, and that the time for filing this appeal ends at 4:30 on July 13, 2020. Elerath submits this appeal on time. 18.5.1.050 G(2)(c)(i): The decision being appealed is PA-TI-2020-00109, made on June 30, 2020. 18.5.1.0501 G(2)(c)(ii): Elerath and McLane own the property addressed 419 Clinton St. Its border is within 200 feet of the Subject property, and Elerath received the Notice of Application for this decision. Elerath replied in a timely manner, as noted in the Director's decision. On May 29, Elerath received written Notice of Final Decision dated June 30, 2020, and his remarks were identified by name in the decision being appealed. These events indicate that Elerath has standing 01 C,11,'- TV ED Appeal at PA-TI -2020-00109 2 of 6 16 to appeal this decision and that his comments were identified by the Director as raising additional concerns beyond the scope of those submitted by others, 18.5.1.050 G(2)(c)(iii): Elerath asserts the right to continue to raise the issues broadly identified in his letter during appeals. These issues include: A. Incomplete Application B. Defective Notice C. Failure to provide access to personally inspect the Application file, evidence, and documents. D. Failure to provide digital access to Application file, material evidence and documents, E. Elerath's request. for additional time and the Director's failure to provide such. F. Defective submittal analysis. Implicit in these issues is the apparent fact that two land use decisions were actually made. One decision was made by staff about the Application's completeness, and the other was made regarding compliance with criteria for a Prelin-iinary Partition Plat., Elerath also objects to the City's requirement to pay a fee for the Appeal. He is a taxpayer who pays his due share of the salaries of Planning staff, yet the objections lie raises here relate almost exclusively to the City's failure to perform those lawful duties for which all resident taxpayers pay, 18.5 . 1,050 G(2)(c)(iv): In his decision, Director Molnar wrote, in part: Eric Elerath submitted a written comment on May 29,th raising additional concerns about the relevant approval criteria included in the mailed notice, and physical access to the application materials, and included a request for additional time to inspect and review the application materials. The mailed notice included the relevant approval criteria from AMC 18.5.3.050 for a Preliminary Partition Plat. The issue regarding an incomplete application was identified in the written comment as the application materials posted online did not include the receipt for payment for the planning application. AMC 18.5.1.050 requires the application form and fee for a planning application to be considered complete. ORS 227.178 requires a city to determine if a planning application is complete within 30 days of the applicant submitting the information and to notify the applicant if any required Submittal information is missing. The Staff Advisor is responsible for determining whether the submittal information is complete for a Type I planning application and accordingly made the determination on May 15, 2020 that the application was complete, including that the preliminary partition plat fee had been paid on April 30th. The receipt for the payment is documented in the City's permitting software and a hard copy of the receipt is included in the planning application file. The notice stated that the application materials were available at the Winburn Way building during the period of public comment the building and included a staff contact with a telephone and email address. The Community Development Department offices were closed to the public during the 14-day comment period in response to the to the COVID-19 pandemic and the declared state of emergency. The City's emergency declaration on March 17, 2020 closed City offices to the public and continue to be closed to the public until such time that the state announces Phase three of reopening. The planning application materials . . . . ............... . 1�1(1 . . . . .... ..... E, D Appeal of PA-T 1 -2020-00109 3 of 6 El"Y 17 were posted on "What's Happening in my City" on the City web site. People that called or emaj led and were interested in reviewing the file were directed to tile City's web site. Elerath has attached a copy of the letter that he submitted on May 29. In addition to those issues noted by Director Molnar above, Elerath indicated that the the "Application" - as it is defined and identified by Planning staff - also fails to include either the application form or the signature Of either of the owners or of the agent, Amy Gunter. In his letter of May 29 comments are made under the bold underlined heading 11. Incon-ipMete Application Elerath reasserts that issue again here, without limiting the Application's incompleteness to the filing fee and City provided form. These are not minor oversights, but appear to show misrepresentation, destruction, and / or omission of material facts and evidence necessary to determine that a complete application was ever submitted, SCOPE, OF APPEAL: Elerath notes that conflicts appear to exist within the documented appeals process. In some instances, A.M.C. appears to limit issues on appeal to those previously identified during the time for public comment, but 18,5,1,050 G(3) - cited above - states that Type I appeals hearings shall be de novo hearings and "... 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..." In making this appeal, Elerath requests leave to amend the appeal and to add, delete or augment his appeal documents to the extent that Such amendments apply broadly to the categories of issues previously raised. For example, Elerath has already raised the City's procedural issues but not issues of vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, etc. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL Timr,; / CONTINUANCE: Appellant asked for additional time to review materials in his original comments, and he repeats that request again here: 1) A global pandernic appears to, have occurred. Conditions for lockdOWD, sheltering -in -place, social distancing, the providing of public services, and public and private response to potential emergencies fluctuate and change on an almost daily basis. 2) The issues Elerath raised require some research of statutes, procedures and requirements. Elerath is not an attorney and there is no recognized right to obtain legal services - including advice or comments - in civil matters, in the United States. 3) There is an inequitable and uneven balance of power. The City has legislative, executive and quasi-judicial authority to decide the issues in question, and there appear to be no checks and balances or clear lines to distinguish the capacity in which it acts at any time. SPECIFIC GROUNDs roR APPEAL: The Director's decision should be reversed or modified on the following grounds: 1) The Director's decision was made without a complete Application having been produced. This is an error because: Appeal of PA-TI-2020-00109 4of 6 BY: A. Ashland Municipal Code § 18.5.1.050(A)(1) requires: 1. Application Form and Fee. Applications for Type I review shall be made on forms provided by the Staff Advisor. One or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is requested, and their authorized agent, as applicable, must sign the application. The application shall not be considered complete unless the appropriate application fee accompanies it. The document entitled "Minor Land Partition," whether part of all Application or a Submittal, is unsigned. An unsigned document, or a document not referenced by a signed document, is not evidence that a complete application was ever submitted. Failure to sign is material, and Appellant objects to Director MoInar's references to the Minor Land Partition as inadmissible heresay. B. Oregon Revised Statute ORS § 197.195(1) requires: (1) A limited land use decision shall be consistent with applicable provisions of city or county comprehensive plans and land use regulations. Oregon Revised Statute ORS § 197.195(3)(a) requires: (3) A limited land use decision is subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection. (a) In making a limited land use decision, the local government: shall follow the applicable procedures contained within its acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations and other applicable legal requirements. (c) The notice and procedures used by local government shall: (F) State that copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for review, and that, copies call be obtained at cost Oregon State Law, then, requires the City of Ashland to follow its own regulations to comply with US Constitutional requirements for due process. C. US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 reads, in part: "No state shall ... pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." Planning staff deemed the Application complete on May 15, 2020. No notice was given prior to this determination. The Notice of Application, subsequently mailed to affected parties, does not even provide the criteria described in A.M.C. §18.5.1.050(A) to be able to object to staff's decision, and review appears to apply only to decisions regarding the unsigned Preliminary Partition Plat Submittal, This appears to be a kind of Bill of Attainder because the determination of facts occurred both Outside public view, without public hearing, without any signature, and it deprived the public of its right to speak on matters of public importance. Based on the above passage, the entire United States legislative and executive responses to the Covid-19 medical situation - including the response by Oregon Governor Brown and by the City of Ashland's municipal government, - appear to involve widespread issuance of bills of attainder Appeal of PA-T 1 -20 20-00109 5 of 6 1 VE D I Estt licaf prohibited by Article 1, Sections 9 and 10. 'File American public has been, and continues to be deprived of life, property and / or freedom without due process of law and, apparently, without signed medical opinions. TI-Lroughout the Ashland planning process it also appears common to attach conditions of approval where the content of those conditions extends the breadth and scope of the approval itself, In Director Molliar's decision, lie il101Uded conditions 2), 3), and 4). These involve unquantifiable parameters and conditions which may be beyond the control of the owner to perform., even though they could be identified and performed prior to the Director's final decision or could be part of a preliminary decision. These conditions of approval also seern to conflict with prohibitions against laws being passed ex post facto. 2) In his Decision, the Director failed to grant an extension of time to allow access to review the application: Ashland Municipal Code § 18 .5.1.050(B) requires: 1. Mailing of Notice of -Application. The purpose of the notice of application is to give nearby property owners and other interested people the opportunity to review all(] subtrut written comments on tile application before tile City makes a decision on it. Within ten days of deeming a Type I application complete, the City shall mail a notice of a pending Type I application to the following. 3. Content of Notice of The notice of application shall include all ot the following: fA statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence SUbinitted by or for the applicant, and the applicable criteria and standards are available for review and that copies will be provided at as reasonable cost. Appellant requested additional, time to be able to perform the review actions promised by the notice. While the Director noted Elerath's request, he did not, grant the request and instruct staff to make the application materials available in their entirety. It is, not credible to believe that the City has no duty to perform that which the legal notice indicates it, shall or will perform, SUMMARY: Petitioner has shown that lie has standing, that lie has identified specific grounds for appeal, and that he has fu I filled the requirements to do so. Respectfully submitted, Eric Elerath July 13, 2020 Appeal of PA-11 -2020-0,0109 6of 6 20 hiMuuiu�� June 30, 2020 Notice of Final Decision On June 30, 2020, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: Subject Property: PA-T1-2020-00109 345 Clinton Owner/Applicant: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle / Rogue Planning & Development Description: A request land use approval for a two -lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot. The Purpose of the partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single- family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicate that the two resultant parcels will be 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP 9: 391E04DB; TAX LOT: 401. The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12' 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 Aaron Anderson 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 www.ashland.or.us 21 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 error 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 ofNotice ofAppeal. 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 II 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 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.onus Tel 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 h�k 22 PLANNING ACTION: SUBJECT PROPERTY: APPLICANT: OWNER: ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PA-T1-2020-00109 345 Clinton Street Rogue Planning and Development Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle DESCRIPTION: A request for land use approval of a two -lot partition of a 12.29- acre lot. The purpose of the partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion of single-family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicates that the two proposed parcels will be 8.94 ac. and 3.35 ac in size with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single -Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; MAP: 39 lE 04 DB; TAX LOT: 401 SUBMITTAL DATE: April 30, 2020 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: May 15, 2020 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: June 30, 2020 APPEAL DEADLINE (4:30 P.M.) July 13, 2020 FINAL DECISION DATE: July 14, 2020 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: January 14, 2022 DECISION Proposal The application is a request for land use approval to partition a 12.29-acre lot into two lots, the proposed parcels would be 8.94 and 3.35 acres in size. The larger of the two parcels will contain the existing home site, and the smaller parcel would be vacant. The application materials include a tentative partition plat prepared by LJ Friar & Associates showing the proposed vacant parcel to be situated in the southeast corner of the lot with frontage on both Ann Street and Clinton Street. The application materials indicate that the purpose of the partition is to facilitate `the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property.' There is no additional development proposed at this time. Planning Back rg ound The subject property has been modified by boundary line adjustments three times in the last decade (see PA4's 2010-00474, 2015-00439, and 2018-00167). There was also a planning action for a density transfer (PA# 2017-02132) to allocate density from land in the flood plain, but the application was withdrawn prior to a decision being rendered. The most recent boundary line adjustment modified the property into its current configuration and is shown as parcel-1 of partition plat P-05-2018 (CS 22509 Jackson County Survey) which conveyed land in the flood plain to the City and also adjusted the property lines at the rear of the properties along Sylvia. PA-T1-2020-00109 345 Clinton Street//44 Pa Proper The subject property is an irregularly shaped 12.29-acre parcel located between Oak Street and North Mountain Avenue and bounded by Clinton Street to the south, Ann Street to the east, and the Bear Creek floodplain to the north. To the west is the rear of residential properties that front Sylvia St. The property is occupied by a 4,650 square foot single-family home, a detached garage, and barn. The residence is accessed via a private driveway that extends from Clinton Street to the residence. The subject property is zoned R-1-5, a single-family residential zoning with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. The surrounding properties are also zoned R-1-5 and are developed exclusively with single-family homes. The newly created lot, absent additional subdivision, would allow for the development of one single-family home. The property has several physical constraints including steep slopes along the eastern portion of the property with slopes exceeding 35-percent and minor areas along the northern side of the Clinton Street frontage with slopes between 25-35-percent. The property also has both FEMA / Ashland Flood zones. Mook Creek also traverses the property from southwest to northeast, which is identified as an intermittent/ephemeral stream by the Ashland Water Resource Protection Zone maps. Additionally, the Ashland Wetland Inventory indicates the presence of a wetland on the proposed vacant parcel. Future development will have to address the water resource protection zones and wetland protection. P"rtitin" As mentioned at the outset the proposal is a request for a land partition to create two lots for the property located at 345 Clinton Street. The lots as proposed comply with the base standards for the zone, minimum area requirements and lot coverage. The preliminary plat included with the application indicates that proposed Parcel one would retain the existing residence and would be 8.9 acres with 2.6 acers in the flood zone and proposed Parcel two will be vacant and measure 3.35 acres with approximately 0.5 acres in the flood zone. Based on the preliminary plat, both proposed parcels substantially exceed the 5,000 square feet minimum lot size and minimum width standards as well as lot width to depth ratio. The application explains that all city facilities are available within the adjacent rights -of -way, including sanitary sewer and water and franchise utilities. There are no proposed public utilities proposed to be installed to serve the new vacant parcel. The application explains that the size of these utilities will be predicated by the future development. Clinton, Ann and Briscoe streets are designated as local streets in the City of Ashland Transportation System Plan and are designed to have a capacity of up to 1500 daily trips. The most recent trip count data (captured between 2005 and 2008) indicate that each of these roads operate far below their design capacity: Carol 388 Average Daily Trips (ADT), Phelps 207 ADT, Clinton 143 ADT and Ann 157 ADT. According to City records in the past twenty years there have been two accidents at the point where Clinton St turns into Carol, one accident at the intersection of Clinton and Ann, and another at Phelps and Clinton, for a total of four accidents. The curb -to -curb width is twenty-seven feet which exceeds the required amount for local access streets and allows for parking on both sides. Clinton and Ann Street lack park row and sidewalks adjacent to the new parcel. The application PA-T1-2020-00109 345 Clinton Street /14A Pa requests to sign in favor of a LID for future development of Clinton Street, Ann Street. A condition has been added below requiring that the applicant sign in favor of a LID prior to approval of the final plat. The application includes a discussion regarding the future development plan to demonstrate that the proposed partition will not impede future development of the parcels. The future development plan indicates that the proposed new parcel would be able to be subdivide to approximately fifteen lots for the development of single-family homes with access provided by an extension of Briscoe and Phelps Streets as well as the alley between Clinton and Briscoe Place. The developmentplan is not a subdivision proposal and is not approved with this two -lot partition approval. Rather the development plan is simply to demonstrate that the further development of the new parcel is feasible. Public Input Notice of the planning action was mailed to all properties within 200 feet of the subject property as well as a physical notice posted along the frontage of the property. The notice included a staff contact name and number. Subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Application, written comments about the request were received from eleven concerned citizens. In accordance with Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.1.050, the Type I procedure for planning applications allows a 14-day period for the submission of written comments, starting from the date of mailing. For the subject application, the comment period began on May 151h and ended on May 29'h. Issues that were raised in relation to the planning application included concerns about open space preservation, habitat for wildlife, views, and concerns about future development of the property including noise, dust, and traffic. These issues are addressed by the application materials, as well as by this report. The applicant has dedicated land in the flood plain to the City in the past and will be kept as Parks land and open space. While there are portions of both proposed parcels that are in the flood plain no additional land is proposed to be conveyed to the City at this time. Concerns regarding loss of views are not protected by the Land Use Ordinance. Eric Elerath submitted a written comment on May 29 h raising additional concerns about the relevant approval criteria included in the mailed notice, and physical access to the application materials, and included a request for additional time to inspect and review the application materials. The mailed notice included the relevant approval criteria from AMC 18.5.3.050 for a Preliminary Partition Plat. The issue regarding an incomplete application was identified in the written comment as the application materials posted online did not include the receipt for payment for the planning application. AMC 18.5.1.050 requires the application form and fee for a planning application to be considered complete. ORS 227.178 requires a city to determine if a planning application is complete within 30 days of the applicant submitting the information and to notify the applicant if any required submittal information is missing. The Staff Advisor is responsible for determining whether the submittal information is complete for a Type I planning application and accordingly made the determination on May 15, 2020 that the application was complete, including that the preliminary partition plat fee had been paid on April 30'h. The receipt for the PA-T1-2020-00109 345 Clinton Street14 Pa payment is documented in the City's permitting software and a hard copy of the receipt is included in the planning application file. The notice stated that the application materials were available at the Winburn Way building during the period of public comment the building and included a staff contact with a telephone and email address. The Community Development Department offices were closed to the public during the 14-day comment period in response to the to the COVID-19 pandemic and the declared state of emergency. The City's emergency declaration on March 17, 2020 closed City offices to the public and continue to be closed to the public until such time that the state announces Phase three of reopening. The planning application materials were posted on "What's Happening in my City" on the City web site. People that called or emailed and were interested in reviewing the file were directed to the City's web site. The approval criteria for a Land Partition are detailed in AMC 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 PA-Tl-2020-00109 345 Clinton Street//40 Pa 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. 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. I. 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. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.53.060. Decision The applicants have submitted materials to the Planning Department to demonstrate compliance with the applicable approval standards for the proposed partition and by their reference are incorporated as if set out in full. In staff's assessment, the application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City Ordinances. Therefore, Planning Action 4PA-T1-2020-00109 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 4PA-T1-2020-00109 is denied. The following conditions are attached to the approval. 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2) That a final survey plat shall be submitted, reviewed and approved within 18 months of the final decision date of the preliminary partition plat approval by the City of Ashland. 3) That the applicant sign in favor of an LID for future development of Clinton and Ann Streets. 4) That prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for the review, approval and signature of the Ashland Planning Division: a) All easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus access, and reciprocal utility, maintenance, and access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. 06.30.2020 Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Date Department of Community Development PA-T1-2020-00109 345 Clinton Street/ Pa 5 Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 708-01.49 May 28, 2020 Planning Department, City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, CAR 97520 (541) 488-5305 PLANNING ACTION: P-Tl-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY- 345Clinton St. SUBJECT: Paper Copy Dear City of Ashland Planning Department: In order to ensure timely delivery and compliance with Notice requirements, the attached paper copy is being submitted either in person or by certified trail. It is an exact duplicate of the sarne docurnent emailed in electronic form. Thank you for your great work under difficult conditions! �." �.' Eric Elerathmm JLkhJ' f MO Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 708-0149 May 28,2020 Planning Department, City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-5305 PLANNING ACTION: PA-TI-2020-,00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton St. SUBJECT: Request For Personal Inspection of Application Documents Request F or Additional Time To Respond Dear City of Ashland Planning Department: My name is Eric Elerath. My partner Betsy McLane and I have lived at 419 Clinton St. in Ashland since we purchased the property in 2017. We are full time residents, taxpayers and property owners affected by the above action involving property at 345 Clinton St. We received written notice ("Notice") by mail from the City of Ashland about the application for a minor land partition, and I write this letter to object to the application. I ask for: • In -person access, while safely implementing the current coronavirus guidelines, to inspect the written application and all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria, as provided by the terms of the Notice of Application. • An additional 14 days to respond after the above documents are made available and I am notified of their availability for inspection. I contend that both the Notice and the Application are defective, incomplete and may violate Oregon and United States Constitutions, among others. In the short time available to respond to the Notice, I've written the following reply. Topics include: • Defective Notice • Incomplete Application • Defective Submittal Analysis 'I'liank You! 6 Eric Elerath R 1E., C Fr 17 T" D 13Y� ... ... 29 RESPONSE TO PLANNING ACTION PA-TI-20'20-00'109 1. Defective Notice A. The Notice Misrepresents the Substance of the Notice's Subject Matter. The front side of the Notice of Application I reads, in part: The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. This appears to be a factual statement affirming the receipt of an application for the property and affirming its completeness. The supporting document purported to be the Application, however, appears to be a submittal which is only one requirement of a completed application. It is evidence of neither an application nor of an application's completeness, 2, and therefore appears to be false. On the other hand, if the statement is true, then it appears to, be evidence that the City is in violation of Oregon's public records laws. B. The Notice References the Wrong Evaluation Criteria The Notice continues, in part 3,: The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. The referenced 'attachment' appears to be the text on the reverse side of the Notice 4. That text references A.M.C. Section 18.5.3.050, however, which is "Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria." Those criteria - A through J - are submittal requirements for Preliminary Partition Plats; they are not application requirements. A submittal addressing the Partition Plat criteria listed in 18.5.3.050 is required for a complete application, and meeting the criteria under that section is required for approval, but the application criteria are found tinder Section 18.,5.1.050(A). The subsections of 18.5.1.050 which follow, (B) through (G), appear to have important procedural information central to the reasons legal notices are provided at all. Their headings read: A. Application Requirements B. Notice of Application C. Decision D. Notice of Decision E. Effective Date of Decision I Exhibit 1, attached. 2 The incompleteness of the Application is addressed below, under the heading 11. Incomplete Application. 3 Exhibit 1, attached. TAF 4 Exhibit 2, attached. 2 30 . . ..... . . . .. E Reconsideration G. Appeal of Type I Decision In other words, the criteria provided on the reverse side of the Notice appear to be the wrong ones, as they apply to only one submittal included as pail of a completed application 5. C. The Documents Necessary to Review the Noticed Subject Are Being Withheld By the City In the upper third of the Notice, the effective date is given as: Notice of Complete Application: May 15, 2020 Paragraph 5 in the Notice's text box reads 6: 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. The Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way is currently closed as of this writing, and it appears to have been closed for the duration of the 14 day time period allotted for public inspection of the application, application criteria, related documents and evidence as required by the provisions of the Notice. In other words, the statement on the Notice is false and verifiably so, for the duration of the public review period. On the City's website, however, as of 12:00 a.m. May 29, 2020, language on page http:// www.ashland.or.us/news.asp?newslD=4670 states: Alert: Jackson County has been approved to move ahead in a Phase I reopening ing as of May 15. and: Reopening to Follow Governor's Orders, Oregon Health Authority, and Jackson County Public Health Directions Jackson County has been approved by the Governor's Office and Oregon Health Authority to move ahead in a Phase I reopening as of May 15. The City of Ashland will follow guidelines laid out by the Oregon Health Authority and Jackson County Health and Human Services. Citizens should understand that the City government, including Ashland Police Department, does not have enforcement authority during this public health emergency. Ashland City offices, however, appear to have remained closed voluntarily, even though orders by the Governor's office appear to permit partial opening, among many other social situations, and )11", "J"D ttk, C IET 5 See 11. Incomplete Application, below. 6 Exhibit 1, attached. '/JY�J 3 effective May 15. A relevant State of Oregon website (https://govstatus.egov.com/reopeiiiiig- oregon#phase 1) states, for example: Local cultural, civic and faith gatherings are allowed for up to 25 people provided physical distancing can be in place. Anyone who has ever inspected similar development applications over the counter at the offices on Winburn Way understand that any continuing health risk associated with inspecting such documents would seem to be far lower than the health risks associated with many other service functions open to the public effective May15, such as shopping for groceries, banking at a local branch office, or purchasing medical items at a pharmacy. The volume of public interface is very low, and the City could easily provide document files at reasonable cost, similar to the practice of allowing take-out orders by restaurant customers. Those 'take-out' and similar practices were allowable even during the most restrictive emergency phases of the recent coronavirus crisis. In lieu of making the documents available for inspection as stipulated by the Notice, the City opted to provide access to a limited and selective group of electronic documents through one of its web portals. While that might seem to be a reasonable and acceptable alternative during the recent crisis, the process allows the City to withhold information that the Notice indicates is available. That appears to have occurred, both factually and legally. Upon visiting the City portal where the Application was located, I was presented with a graphic disclaimer on my screen, a true and exact copy of which is attached. 7 As shown, that disclaimer requires the party wishing to see whatever documents and evidence the City made available to agree to terms which specifically absolve the City of any all responsibility for the accuracy, reliability, [n]or timeliness of any of the data provided herein." Thus, the City appears to expressly disavow the legal sufficiency of all electronic information it provides by internet access, although it has made a point to provide them in lieu of paper documents. Planning Manager Maria Harris replied to my inquiry about the online material in an email, on May 27, a copy of which is attached. 8 The meanings of both my inquiry and of Ms. Harris' reply are plain, and she appears to affirm the accuracy of my observations and analysis thus far. 7 See Exhibit 3 8 See Exhibit 4 ... . ...... -.1 . .Mww..... . 13y� . ..... . 4 32 11. Incoinplete Application Multiple times, the City has insisted that the document entitled 'Minor Land Use Partition,'9 attached as Exhibit 5, is the actual Application, and it represents that the Application is complete. A.M.C. Section 18.5.1.050, Subsection A. Application Requirements, reads, in part: 1. Application Form and Fee. Applications for Type I review shall be made on forms provided by the Staff Advisor. One or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is requested, and their authorized agent, as applicable, must sign the application. The application shall not be considered complete unless the appropriate application fee accompanies it. 2. Submittal Information. The application shall include all of the following information. a. The information requested on the application form. b. Plans and exhibits required for the specific approvals sought. c. A written statement or letter explaining how the application satisfies each and all of the relevant criteria and standards in sufficient detail. d. Information demonstrating compliance with all prior decision(s) and conditions of approval for the subject site, as applicable. e. The required fee. As can be seen from looking at Exhibit 5: ® There appears to be no included form "...provided by the Staff Advisor", nor are there signatures from either of the two owners or from the Applicant, Arny Gunter (Item 1) ® Since there is no application form, one cannot confirm that the requested information is included (Item 2a). • The markup comments appearing on the Exhibit rebut the City's position that the relevant criteria and standards have been satisfied (Item 2c). • An application involving this subject property was submitted in 2017 and the application contained many of the same deficiencies that this one does. It has been more than two years since this owner last submitted this property to the City for a development review, and the City does not appear to have come into compliance with its own procedural requirements since then (Item 2d). • There is no receipt for any fee paid to the City. If the Application is complete, then the fees have been paid, but no record exists of that payment. Was the fee received and processed? (Item 2c). 111. Defeefive Submittal AnalyLis As noted, comments addressing the submittal entitled "Minor Land Partition" are provided in magenta color and underlined. The most common defect appears to be the conflation of demonstrable fact and speculative or legal opinion. With respect to prospective future development, the Applicant sometimes anticipates a way in which a developer could eventually meet the criteria for this current land division at some unknown point in the future, and other times the Applicant 9 See Exhibit 5, below. I have marked up the Exhibit with comments, located between the lines of the original text. These appear as magenta text, arrows and bubbles, and reference the Applicant's fact finding efforts to show compliance with the appropriate development criteria. Everything not colored magenta is part of the submitt '�Omvf If City refers to as the 'Application'. I have not altered or deleted any information appearing on th f,011iriginal document provided on the City's web,site. f J(Jka' 0 [5 t�i Y, � ........ . 3 �- 11111,11-1- . .. .. ... . . . ........ simply asserts that such performance will occur. A significant problem is that the property is ostensibly being prepared for sale to a third party, but Oregon statutes appear to prohibit the withdrawal of an approval for a lot division after the lot is sold, should the third party fail to comply with conditions of the division that have not been met. What may be the most significant and 'mission -critical' reason to reject this proposal outright would seem to be four lines of text appearing on the survey drawing titled "Tentative Partition Plat." it appears that the surveyor can't locate four easements shown on the Title Report: One of the easements is for "Pole Lines" and another for cable TV lines. While it's possible that there is a simple mistake - the wrong Title Report, for example - there would seem to be no excuse for ignoring this conflict, especially when the City of Ashland owns adjacent property and has utility easements of its own on the north side. IV. Summala Under the circumstances and for the preceding reasons, this proposal should not be approved as submitted, All parties who received Notice, including this Petitioner should be allowed additional time to inspect and review a complete application. 6 34 �11 Exhibit 1 CITY OPlanning Department, 51 Win.,h Way, Ashland, Oregon F 97520 541488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 wwwashland.orms TTY; 1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAND E ki 14111014412,11:1 a q [1f.11 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton OWN ERIAPPLI CANT: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle / Rogue (Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request land use approval for a two -lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot. The Purpose of the partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicate that the two resultant parcels will be 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391 E04DB; TAX LOT: 4011 III 11 014 10401 W191 0136 IR61 1010 K41 Mill "A I a 9140KILO161 J, 144 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 430 pm. 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 a pplication being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision Is mailedto 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 18.5. 1.050.G) 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 thi$,,Depaome A' , o the - � issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. CA 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 w! provi d at reasonable cost, If requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Sel�� Bo)k:44 Mi , nb�urn ay, Ashland, Oregon 97520. if you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-488-5305. . . . . . . (',:komnl-dcvNplanninpVllanning ActioPANoticing Vold I e I i 'A f ailed Nafices& Signs\20201t'A-Tl-2020-00109 d 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 w)de 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. G. 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. 36 G:konini,dev\p$anningV'Iaiiiiing ActionsWoki"g Folde(VNfailed Notices s Sign 0020\PAJ2020-00109.dccx "fbe inn rnta ion on this website is provided ahr,'l_irosted by the C'i.t,'y of AsIkilarld, Oregon, 65'rit.,11"ttaP�'ci at:je'aai this raebsi;.e iti conditional tairrr: your eXp licit.: a cePt.wice of tire' `ertrms. and,`�e,t f:Cr.- 1 in Liars cSiselEaira"� r,, city �rra rtv , f'iae v1 at a prac�� asi�rf fie may be inaccurate and/or 014, of abate. nary paeiHon rtr e:nt~.i.ty Who areia.e"s orr tiais-t daul frrr any p.ttar•pose whaa:asoeyer° does o Via- t.lxr."ar Mo-le 1.sk.a p8ea.t.h er tii r;,.Y of :-hQ ind, rrr�ri ,i.ts empla�yee,= c�a.°�o Lcets� ;qF3rr°afM ° t..M w.cc°OY"acyo rek'iabilAty, nor tivie.fi.ne—is of any of the data provided herein, This data is; p y,(;)Vi,aieai " s s"� �w�.i;tr arf.< aaEjrrx-irtt,y of anykind. AMEMUMS Frorn: Maria Harris rnaria,ha(ris�ashland,or.us Subject: RE: Application documents for PA-T1-2020-00109 Date: May 27, 2020 at 1:37 PM To: Eric Elerath eeterath620-Pvorizon.net Ccr planning planning(Pashland,or.us Hello Eric, The application we have on file is the minor land partition file that you linked to below. The approval criteria are the second page of the notice that you have, also linked to below. As stated on the notice above the map, written comments are due on May 29, 2020. Comments can be submitted by email to plan ning@ashlan. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance or have further questions. Best Regards, Maria Harris, AICP Planning Manager City of Ashland, Community Development Department 20 E. Main St., Ashland, OR 97520 541.552.2045 Tel 800.735.2900 TTY 541.552.2050 Fax This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Caw for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2045. Thank you. From: Eric El�erath <eelerath624@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 12:56 PM To: planning <planning@ashiland.or.us>; Maria Harris <maria.harris@ashland.or.us> Cc: Aaron Anderson <aaronanderson @ash land or, us> Subject: Application documents for PA-T1-2020-00109 [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Planning A copy of Notice of Application for Planning Action PA-TI-2020-00109 is attached. The, next to last paragraph on pI states: "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." However, the Ashland Planning Division on, Winburn Way is, closed and it appears to have been closed on May 15, the effective date the calendar began and the presumptive date the No distributed. 38 Exhibit 4, p2 A Planning staff person informed me that the application materials are available oniline. Following links, I have been able to locate two documents: The attached Notice, at https://gis.ashland.or.us/arcgis/rest/`services/planniniz/Plannina Action /MapServer /0/20412/attachme nts/25617 and a document entitled "Minor Land Partition" located here: https://gis.ashland.o,r.us/arcgis/rest/services/planning/Planning Action ZMal2Server /0/20412/attachme nts/25616 Questions: 1) Could you please provide a link or links to the online Planning file(s) which include "A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria..."? 2) The Notice appears to be incorrect or out of date. Could you please reply with the correct date and time for reply? (Time received by staff on Winburn Way, postmark date and time, etc) 3) If the City is switching to online and electronic communication, can replies pursuant to this Notice be submitted by email instead of paper mail? If so, what email address should be used to reply, and what is the cutoff date for emails to be considered timely sent and received? Please clarify. Thank you for your help! Eric Elerath 419 Clinton st. R, 177,jr� rilip D W Roguie Planning 9 Development Services, LLE Minor Land Partition 345 Elintan Street Received 4.30.2020 41 ) Exhibit 5 Minor Land Partition Property Address: 345 Cl:inton Street Map & Tax Lots: 39 1E 04DB: Tax Lots: 401 Zoning: R-1-5 Adjacent Zones: R-1-5 Overlay Zones: Performance Standards Overlay Water Resource Protection, Zones FEMA Floodplain Ashland Modified Flood zone Lot Area: 12.29 acres Property Owner: Paul Mace and Kathleen Kahle 345 Clinton Street Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Consultant: Amy Guinter Rogue Planning & Development Services 33 N Central Avenue, Suite 213 Medford, OR 97501 Surveyor: U Friar and Associates 2714 N Pacific Hwy Medford, OR 97501 Reguest: A request for a minor land partition of an approximately 3.35-acre portion of a 12.29-acre parcel. The minor land partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property. rED 'BY, 41 Exhibit 5 Property., Descrlptlan. The 12.29-acre property is on the inorth side of Clinton Street, The property is occupied by a single-family residential home, a detached garage, and a pole barn. The residence is accessed via a paved, private driveway that extends from Clinton Street to the residence. The subject property and the adjacent properties are R-1-5-P and are generally developed with single- family residences and their outbuildings. Clinton Street, a neighborhood street is along the south property line. Ann .Street and the stub of Briscoe Place, also neighborhood streets, are along the east property line. Ann Street, along the frontage of the property, and Briscoe Place were partially improved with the development as part of the Riverwalk Subdivision. There are steep slopes on the west side of the property uphill'! to the properties further west that are developed with single-family residential homes and their accessory buildings. These properties are accessed from Sylvia Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive. Both are neighborhood streets, which are accessed from Oak Street further west. A portion of the subject property wraps around the Sylvia Street properties and connects to the intersection of Sylvia Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive. The north property line abuts City of Ashland properties that are an extension of Riverwalk Park. Bear Creek is to the north, within the city parcels. The properties to the east within Riverwalk and to the south, across Clinton Street are developed with primarily single-familNy residences. pill I T. ILI 5-01 IICJAAVr,: rP AM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W I'll t4sKmM1K4 - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------------------- I ----------- ------ MM 42 Exhibit 5 There are physical constraints on the northern portions of the property. These include steep slopes, the FEMA 100-year floodplain, FEMA 5,00-year floodplain, and Ashland Modified Flood zone for Bear Creek. Mook "Clear" Creek also traverses the property from north to south. According to the City of Ashland Water Resource Protection Zone maps, Mook Creek is an intermittent/epherneral stream. There are historical irrigation rights on the property. Over the years ponds for irrigation waiter storage have been created. Some of the pond areas have developed into wetlands. In addition, to the ponds, according to the Local Wetlands kinventory (LWI), there is a potential wetland located to the east of the ponds on the property. Schott & Associates, Wetlands Biologist have been on -site and completed a delineation report. This report will be filled by the future developer(s). The property has varying degrees of slope with a slight road slope along Clinton Street and the driveway. There are minor, variations across the larger property area with an average slope approximately four percent downhill from the southwest to the northeast. The west side of the property behind the Sylvia Street lots is steeply sloped up to the adjacent properties to the west. The property is subject to solar setback standard A. There are smaller stature trees, either on or directly adjacent to the subject property. Retention of the highest number of trees in the landscape areas is an important aspect of the project and as many trees as possible will be able, to be retained and still provide a buildable area for a new residlential. Clinton Street is paved with partial street improvements along both sides of the street that include curb, gutter, sidewalk and park row. Ann Street to the east and Briscoe Place are improved with curb, gutter, park row and sidewalk on the east side, the street side abutting the property hias, curb and gutter, no park row and sidewalk. The private drive is paved. Proposal: The request is to divide the property into two parcels. Proposed Parcel 1 is 8.36 acres. This parcel would retain the residence, garage and pole barn at 345 Clinton Street. The vehicular access will be retained from Clinton Street utilizing the private driveway. The east side of the existing private driveway is the approximate east property line of Parcel 1. Proposed Parcel I has a lot width of more than 100-feet, along Clinton Street, exceeding minimum lot width in the zone. The lot depth exceeds minimum lot depth in, the zone. The parcel substantially exceeds the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet required in the zone. . . . . . . . ....... . ..... . ....... . . `Ukil U IMIMMM ME Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Depakme it, City of. Ashland, 014.97520 MURMUM I I TIMM HNSI• TNEVIN: 1 0 1 � MI TT'e have been homeowners of an adjoining property, 374 Clinton ST, since 1983. When we purchased our home at that time, we were told that the field 'across the street' (an unpaved dirt road at the time ) was part of a 100 year flood plain and not slated for, development. Our comments/ questions, Has something changed to alter that designation? Is the area less prone to flooding, particularly in this era of Emm Will the City of Ashland, should it approve any future development, be held liable for any property damage should future flooding occur? Dennis and Rita Fiedler E RECEIVE MAY Clip ItY 01"AsI1,11, i 45 �F-'-1 City of Ashland PIanning De,*artme" 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 %IPIV �51Jeet, 5LAIfC100 ASklan,l, OK �75ZO zagmllm The Riverwalk Homeowners Association (HOA) is commenting on the proposed two -lot partition of the 345 Clinton property because our neighborhood borders this property. The Riverwalk HOA is made up of 62 homes. The HOA is very interested in the details of how this property will be developed because of the usual development issues of noise, dust, and increased traffic on our streets of Clinton and Briscoe, especially for safety and emergency vehicle reasons. Information on the City web site about this Notice of Application may be incomplete. Because t�he City of Ashland offices are closed, members of the Riverwalk HOA have not been able to inspect the application, documents and evidence thiat the Notice promises, The Proposed Parcel 2 is intended to be sold and developed by others as a future single-family residential development, Since the development of this parcel is stated to be performed by someone other than the current owners, there are statements in the Notice that can't be guaranteed by the current owners. Some of our homeowners have concerns about development in possible wetland areas on the property. A more detailed set of comments on this Notice will be provided by Eric Elerath, Chair of the Riverwalk Land Use Committee and Architectural Review Advisory Committee, continue to be interested in the future development of this property as it will affect both our residents' quality of life and property values. Please keep the Riverwalk HOA informed on this topic. Sincerely, Carolyn T. Hunsaker, President Riverwalk HOA Board ashlandriverwalkhoa@gmail.com I'll e46 ,,Zecved 5 29 2020 Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 708-0149 Planning Department, City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-5305 PLANNING ACTION: PA-Tl-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY- 345 Clinton St. SUBJECT: Paper Copy Dear City of Ashland Planning Department: In order to ensure timely delivery and compliance with Notice requirements, the attached paper copy is being submitted either in person or by certified mail. It is an exact duplicate of the same document ernailed in electronic form. Thank you for your great work under difficult conditions! Eric Elerath Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 708-0149 May 28,2020 Planning Department, City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-5305 PLANNING ACTION: PA-TI-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY- 345 Clinton St. SUBJECT: Request For Personal Inspection of Apphcation Documents Request For Additional Time To Respond Dear City of Ashland Planning Department: My name is Eric Elerath. My partner Betsy McLane and I have lived at 419 Clinton St. in Ashland since we purchased the property in 2017. We are full time residents, taxpayers and property owners affected by the above action involving property at 345 Clinton St. We received written notice ("Notice") by mail from the City of Ashland about the application for a minor land partition, and I write this letter to object to the application. I ask for: • In -person access, while safely implementing the current coronavirus guidelines, to inspect the written application and all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria, as provided by the terms of the Notice of Application. • An additional 14 days to respond after the above documents are made available and I am notified of their availability for inspection. I contend that both the Notice and the Application are defective, incomplete and may violate Oregon and United States Constitutions, among others. In the short time available to respond to the Notice, I've written the following reply. Topics include: • Defective Notice • Incomplete Application • Defective Submittal Analysis Thank you! Eric Elerath ECEIVED 48 RI+JSPONSE TO PLANNING ACTION PA-TI-20 0-00109 I» Defective Notice A. The Notice Misrepresents the Substance of the Notice's Subject Matter. The front side: of the Notice of Application t reads, in part: The Ashland planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. This appears to be a factual statement affirming the receipt of an application for the property and affirming its completeness. The supporting document purported to be the Application, however, appears to be a submittal which is only one requirement of a completed application. It is evidence of neither an application nor of an application's completeness 2, and therefore appears to be false. On the other hand, if the statement is true:, then it appears to be evidence that the City is in violation of Oregon's public records laws. B. The Notice References the Wrong Evaluation Criteria The Notice continues, in part 3: The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. The referenced `attachment' appears to be the text on the reverse side of the Notice 4. That text references A.M.C. Section 18.5.3.050, however, which is "Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria." Those criteria - A through J - are submittal requirements for Preliminary Partition Plats; they are not application requirements. A :Submittal addressing the Partition Plat criteria listed in 18.5.3.050 is required for a complete application, and meeting the criteria under that section is required for approval, but the application criteria are found under Section 18.5.1.050(A). The subsections of 18.5.1.050 which follow, (B) through (G), appear to have important procedural information central to the reasons legal notices are provided at all. Their headings read: A. Application Requirements B. Notice of Application C. Decision D. Notice of Decision. E. Effective Date of Decision Exhibit],attached. 2 The incompleteness of the Application is addressed below, under the heading It. Incomplete Application. 3 Exhibit l , attached. 4 Exhibit 2, attached. � d er ilk: ... ...,, .. F. Reconsideration G. Appeal of Type I Decision In other words, the criteria provided on the reverse side of the Notice appear to be the wrong ones, as they apply to only one submittal included as part of a completed application -5. C. The Documents Necessary to Review the Noticed SuNect Are Being Withheld By the City In the tipper third of the Notice, the effective date is given as: Notice of Complete Application: May 15, 2020 Paragraph 5 in the Notice's text box reads 6: 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. The Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way is currently closed as of this writing, and it appears to have been closed for the duration of the 14 day time period allotted for public inspection of the application, application criteria, related documents and evidence as required by the provisions of the Notice. In other words, the statement on the Notice is false and verifiably so, for the duration of the public review period. On the City's website, however, as of 12:00 a.m. May 29, 2020, language on page http:// t3 www.ashiand.or.us/iiews.asp?newslD=4670 states: Alert: Jackson County has been approved to move ahead in a, Phase I reopening as of May 15. Mm Reopening to Follow Governor's Orders, Oregon Health Authority, and Jackson County Public Health Directions Jackson County has been approved by the Governor's Office and Oregon Health Authority to move ahead in a Phase 1 reopening as of May 15. The City of Ashland will follow guidelines laid out by the Oregon Health, Authority and Jackson County Health and Human Services. Citizens should understand that the City government, including Ashland Police Department, does not have enforcement authority during thiis public health emergency. Ashland City offices, however, appear to have remained closed voluntarily, even though orders by the Governor's office appear to permit partial opening, among many other social situations, and 5 See 11. Incomplete Application, below. E"C"t rvd 6 Exhibit I, attached. (`4 Y 50 3 . .. . .......... ............... . ........... .......... effective May 15. A relevant State of Oregon website (https://govstattis.egov.com/reopeiiiiig- orcgon#phase 1) states, for example: Local cultural, civic and faith, gatherings are allowed for up to 25 people provided physical distancing can be in place. Anyone who has ever inspected similar development applications over the counter at the offices on Winburn Way understand that any continuing health risk associated with inspecting such documents would seem to be far lower than the health risks associated with many other service functions open to the public effective May 15, such as shopping for groceries, banking at a local branch office, or purchasing medical items at a pharmacy. The volume of public interface is very low, and the City could easily provide document files at reasonable cost, similar to the practice of allowing take-out orders by restaurant customers. Those 'take-out' and similar practices were allowable even during the most restrictive emergency phases of the recent coronavirus crisis. In lieu of making the documents available for inspection as stipulated by the Notice, the City opted to provide access to a limited and selective group of electronic documents through one of its web portals. While that might seem to be a reasonable and acceptable alternative during the recent crisis, the process allows the City to withhold information that the Notice indicates is available. That appears to have occurred, both factually and legally. Upon visiting the City portal where the Application was located, I was presented with a graphic disclaimer on my screen, a true and exact copy of which is attached. 7 As shown, that disclaimer requires the party wishing to see whatever documents and evidence the City made available to agree to terms which specifically absolve the City of any all responsibility for ". .. the accuracy, reliability, [nJor timeliness of any of the data provided herein." Thus, the City appears to expressly disavow the legal sufficiency of all electronic information it provides by internet access, although it has made a point to provide them in lieu of paper documents. Planning Manager Maria Harris replied to my inquiry about the online material in an email, On May 27, a copy of which is attached. 8 The meanings of both my inquiry and of Ms. Harris' reply are plain, and she appears to affirm the accuracy of my observations and analysis thus far. 7 See Exhibit 3 8 See Exhibit 4 21 11. Incomplete Application Multiple times, the City has insisted that the document entitled 'Minor Land Use Partition,'9 attached as Exhibit 5, is the actual Application, and it represents that the Application is complete. A.M.C. Section 18.5.1.050, Subsection A. Application Requirements, reads, in pail: 1. Application Form and Fee. Applications for Type I review shall be made on forms provided by the Staff Advisor. One or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is requested, and their authorized agent, as applicable, must sign the application. The application shall not be considered complete unless the appropriate application fee accompanies it. 2. Submittal Information. The application shall include all of the following information. a. The information requested on the application form. b. Plans and exhibits required for the specific approvals sought. c. A written statement or letter explaining how the application satisfies each and all of the relevant criteria and standards in sufficient detail. d. Information demonstrating compliance with all prior decision(s) and conditions of approval for the subject site, as applicable. e. The required fee. As can be seen from looking at Exhibit 5: • There appears to be no included form "—provided by the Staff Advisor", nor are there signatures from either of the two owners or from the Applicant,Amy Gunter (Item 1). • Since there is no application form, one cannot confirm that the requested information is included (Item 2a). • The markup comments appearing on the Exhibit rebut the City's position that the relevant criteria ,and standards have been satisfied (Item 2c). • An application involving this subject property was submitted in 2017 and the application contained many of the same deficiencies that this one does. It has been more than two years since this owner last submitted this property to the City for a development review, and the City does not appear to have come into compliance with its own procedural requirements since their (Item 2d). • There is no receipt for any fee paid to the City. If the Application is complete, then the fees have been paid, but no record exists of that payment. Was the fee received and processed? (Item 2e). 111. Defective Submittal Analysis As noted, comments addressing the submittal entitled "Minor Land Partition" are provided in magenta color and underlined. The most common defect appears to be the conflation of demonstrable fact and speculative or legal opinion. With respect to prospective future development, the Applicant sometimes anticipates a way in which a developer could eventually meet the criteria for this current land division at some unknown point in the future, and other times the Applicant 9 See Exhibit 5, Mow. I have marked up the Exhibit with comments, located between the lines of the original text. These appear as magenta text, arrows and bubbles, and reference the Applicant's fact finding efforts to show compliance with the appropriate development criteria. Everything not colored magenta is part of the submittal document that the City refers to as the 'Application. I have riot altered or deleted any information appearing on the .original -dogpment --- 11 11 provided on the City's website. 5 simply asserts that such performance will occur. A significant problern is that the property is ostensibly being prepared for sale to a third party, but Oregon statutes appear to prohibit the withdrawal of an approval for a lot division after the lot is sold, should the third party fail to comply with conditions of the division that have not been met. What may be the most significant and 'mission -critical' reason to reject this proposal outright would seem to be four lines of text appearing on the survey drawing titled "Tentative Partition Plat." It appears that the surveyor can't locate four easements shown on the Title Report: One of the easements is for "Pole Lines" and another for cable TV lines. While it's possible that there is a simple mistake - the wrong Title Report, for example - there would seem to be no excuse for ignoring this conflict, especially when the City of Ashland owns adjacent property and has utility easements of its own on the north side. IV. Summaa Under the circumstances and for the preceding reasons, this proposal should not be approved as submitted. All parties who received Notice, including this Petitioner should be allowed additional time to inspect and review a complete application. MIA"(1 �1) ",M'M 6 Exhibit 1 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 WFS3 1 541488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 M PLANNING ACTION: PA-Tl-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton OWNERIAP PLI CANT: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle I Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request land use approval for a two -lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot. The Purpose of the partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicate that the two resultant parcels will be 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391 E04DB; TAX LOT: 401 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 within5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decisionmustbe made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.5.1.050.434 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 tight 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 Aaron Anderson at 541-488-5305. A GkommAMplanningTianning Acfions\Noticing FoldeMlailed Noficts& Signs\202MIA-TI-2020-00109A 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 18.4.3.08,0 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 fuiture development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. 111. 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 aH of the following conditions, exist. a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the inearest fully improved collector or arterial street The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical Mth, 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. cl. 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. L 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. RECEIVED . . . ....... ��mmf.y� r! r! Gkomm-devkplanni ngWianftinb AcbimMod6ng FolderWailed Nofices & Signs\202YTY-11 -2020-00109.dm.x Tile i'llfoematian all this webaice i,-, pi-ovided and hosted by the City of Ashlarld, Oregon. Contibue�,A c,f this webfit-e is conditionai ,Ipol-. yotl): eXpj:iQjt aCept a �4)ee of the terms and Set forth in this di4;claimex, doCument. Tile data provided herein may be inacQurate and/or Out ;,)f date, Any persox) or entlity who relies on t-his data for" ony puirpose whatsoever does ;,30 44o,lelyl at, the�J.x oswn risk. Neither Tjie C.Lty of. AIqhLan(J, nor its (-,ff"icers warral'It t b a ccur,,,-tcy, reliatdl.it'y, flat—timejJakss of any of" Oe data provided hereiri. Thir> da-1--a is ils" wit jic,,vt wrrarrrant y, ki2 any kind- . ................. . . . ............... . . ........ .... W.Altj I a4FOelb-the above'terms and conditions From: Maria Harris rnaria.harrisCoashland.orus Subject: RE: Application documents for PA-T1-2020-00109 Date: hay 27,2020atl:37PM To: Eric Elerath eeleratl)624@verizon.net Cc: planning plan ning (Z� ash land.or.us Hello Eric, The application we have on file is the minor land partition file that you linked to below. The approval criteria are the second page of the notice that you have also linked to below. As stated on the notice above the map, written comments are due on, May 2-9, 2020. Comments can be submitted by email to plan ning@ashland.or.us. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance or have further questions. Best Regards, Maria Harris, AICP Planning Manager City of Ashland, Community Development Department 20 E. Main St., Ashland, OR 97520 541.552.2045 Tel 800.735.2900 TTY 541.552.2050 Fax This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Lamy for disclosure and retention. If you hove received this message in error, please contact me at 541,552.2045. Thank you. From: Eric Elerath <eelerath624@verizon. net> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 12:56 PM To: plann,iing <plan ning@ashland.or. us>; Maria Harris <maria.harris@ashiland.or.us> Cc: Aaron Anderson <aaronanderson@ashland.or.us> Subject: Application documents for PA-T1-2020-00109 [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Planning A copy of Notice of Application for Planning Action PA-T1-2020-00109 is attached. The next to last paragraph on pl states: "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 materiails are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 917520." However, the Ashland Planning Division on, Winburn Way is closed and it appears to have been closed on May 15, the effective date the calendar began and the, presumptive date the Notice was printed and distributed. 12"T d [vl 11) TIN't A Planning staff person informed me that the application materials are available online. Following links, I have been able to locate two documents: The attached Notice, at https:/Igis.ashland.or.us/arcgisZrestZservices/planning/Planning Action ZMapServer /QZ20412Zattachme nts/25617 and a document entitled: "Minor Land Partition" located here: https://gis.ashland.or.us/arcgis/rest/"`services/planning/Planning Action/MapServer/0/20412/attachme nts/25616 Questions: 1) Could you please provide a link or links to the online Planning file(s) which include "A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria..."? 2) The Notice appears to be incorrect or out of date. Could you please reply with the correct date and time for reply? (Time received by staff on Winburn Way, postmark date and time, etc) 3) If the City is switching to online and electronic communication, can replies pursuant to this Notice be submitted by email instead of paper mail? if so, what email address should be used to reply, and what is the cutoff date for emails to be considered timely sent and received?' Please clarify. Thank you for your hellp! Eric Elerath 419 Clinton st. . . .......... . . Y 9 10 58 Rogue Planning 9 fleyelopment Services, LLE 04 Minor land Partition, 345 Clinton Street Received 4.30.2020 59 • Property Address: Map & Tax Lots: Zoning: Adjacent Zones: Overlay Zones: Lot Area: FTf-T#T-TtIqr*7,q TM Planning Consultant: Minor Land Partition 345 Clinton Street 39 1E 04DB: Tax Lots: 401 R-1-5 R-1-5, Performance Standards Overlay Water Resource Protection Zones FEMA Floodplain Ashland Modified Flood zone 12.29 acres Paul Mace and Kathleen Kahle 345 Clinton Street Ashland, OR 97520 Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services 33 N Central Avenue, Suite 213 Medford, OR 97501 Surveyor: U Friar and Associates 2714 N Pacific Hwy Medford, OR 97501 Request: A request for, a minor land partition, of an, approximately 3.35-acre portion of a 12.29-acre parcel. The minor land partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-famiiilly residential zoned property. Property Description: The 12.29-acre property is on the north side of Clinton Street. The property is occupied by a single-family residential home, a detached garage, and a pole barn. The residence is accessed via a paved, private driveway that extends from Clinton Street to the residence. The subject property and the adjacent properties are R-1-5-P and are generally developed with single- family residences and their outbuildings. Clinton Street, a neighborhood street is along the south property line. Ann Street and the stub of Briscoe Place, also neighborhood streets, are along the east property line. Ann Street, along the frontage of the property, and Briscoe Place were partially improved with the development as part of the Riverwalk Subdivision. There are steep slopes on the west side of the property uphill to the properties further west that are developed with single-family residential homes and their accessory buildings. These properties are accessed from Sylvia Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive. Both are neighborhood streets, which are accessed from Oak Street further west. A portion of the, subject property wraps around the Sylvia Street properties and connects to the intersection of Sylvia Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive. The north property line abuts City of Ashland properties that are, an extension of Riverwalk Park. Bear Creek is to the, north,, within the city parcels. The properties to the east within Riverwalk and to the south, across Clinton Street are developed with primarily single-family residences. There are physical constraints on the northern portions of the property. These include steep slopes, the FEMA 100-year floodplain, FEMA 500-year floodplain, and Ashland Modified Flood zone for Bear Creek. Mook "Clear" Creek also traverses the property from north to south. According to the City of Ashland Water Resource Protection Zone maps, Molok Creek is an intermittent/ephemeral stream. There are historical irrigation rights on the property. Over the years ponds for irrigation water storage have been created. Some of the pond areas have developed into wetlands. In addition to the ponds, according to the Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI), there is a potential wetland located to, the east of the ponds on the property. Schott & Associates, Wetlands Biologist have been on -site and completed a delineation report. This report will be filed by the future developer(s). The property has varying degrees of slope with a slight road slope along Clinton Street and the driveway. There are minor variations across the larger property area with an average slope approximately four percent downhill from the southwest to the northeast. The west side of the property behind the Sylvia Street lots is steeply sloped up to the adjacent properties to the west. The property is subject to solar setback standard A. There are smaller stature trees either on or directly adjacent to the subject property. Retention of the highest number of trees in the landscape areas is an important aspect of the project and as many trees as possible will be able to be retained and still provide a buildable area for a, new residential. Clinton Street is paved with partial street improvements along both sides of the street that include curb, gutter, sidewalk and park row. Ann Street to the east and Briscoe Place are improved with curb, gutter, park row and sidewalk on, the east side, the street side abutting the property has curb and gutter, no park row and sidewalk. The private, drive is paved. Proposal: The request is to divide the property into two parcels. Proposed Parcel I is 8.36 acres. This parcel would retain the residence, garage and pole barn at 345 Clinton Street. The vehicular access will be retained from Clinton Street utilizing the private driveway. The east side of the existing private driveway is the approximate east property line of Parcel JL. Proposed Parcel 1 has a lot width of more than 100-feet, along Clinton Street, exceeding minimum lot width in the zone. The lot depth exceeds minimum lot depth in the zone. The parcel substantially exceeds the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet required in the zone. Mw�y d� (") ?020 Received 4-130;.2020 WTINOTV Proposed Parcel 2 is a vacant, developable, approximately 3.35-acre parcel northwest of the intersection of Clinton Street and Ann Street. The parcel is proposed to have 358.32 feet of frontage along Clinton Street and extends 240, feet along Anne Street. Briscoe Place T's into the east side of Proposed Parcel 2. This parcel is intended to be sold and developed by others as a future single-family residential development, on outright permitted, use in the zone. ADDlicant can not guarantee this. Once sold, compliance will be UD 10 someone else. The area for future development has the potential base density of approximately 15, single-family dwelling units. The Ashland Municipal Code The future development of eitherkarcel will demonstrate compliance with the city standards. Along the north portion of proposed Parcel 2, .545 acres are within the Bear Creek floodplain. The floodplain:s and wetlands willl be further evaluated and planned for as required by state and local ordinances and future impacts mitigated through the site development of the residential homes. There is adequate area for the development of residential lots and the preservation of the significant natural features. Findings addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal, Code can be found on the following pages. The applicant's findings are in Calibri font and the criteria are in Times New Roman font. Attachments: Proposed Tentative Plat . . .. . ....... Ldl VED FINDINGS OF FACT Mri4t Y Received 430.201 63 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria A. '1: he future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. Finding: Future urban, uses are not impeded with the proposed two parcel partition. The property is zoned R-1-5 and is within the Performance Standards Overlay. Development of the property as single-family residences is a permitted use in the zone. The proposal provides for a 3.35-acre parcel of developable land at the intersection of two, city streets (Parcel 2). A third street, Briscoe Place, stubs into the property approximately 210-feet north of the Ann Street and Clinton Street intersection. These streets will provide primary access to future residential uses. Proposed Parcel 1 has several physical constraints. Parcel 1 is also developed with the property owner's residence. There is a developable area in the southeast corner that has a frontage of 292.87feet along Clinton Street that will remain as part of Parcel 1. This partition does not impede the future development of the property where not prevented or restricted due to the property's physical constraints. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. Find]M The adjacent properties are mostly developed as single-family residence type developments or the land is within the floodplain, wetland, steep slopes, or treed and limited development area is present. The proposal will not impede access to adjoining lands. 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. There are no City adopted neighborhood or district plans that affect the property. To the applicant's knowledge, there are not previous approvals for the subject properties that would impacttly e proposal. The properties to the east were developed as part of the Riverwalk Subdivision. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. Finding. lt��;JE'd RECEIVED merg Y ?, BY 'Z4 The tract of land has not been partitioned for the past 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., The proposal complies with the requirements of the underlying zone. Both parcels will have substantially more than 7,500 square feet of area and greatly exceed the minimum lot dimensions. Parcel 1 is an 8.36-acre parcel that has FEMA floodplain, Ashland Adopted Floodplain, wetland area, and existing residential development. The floodplain is mapped on the tentative survey plat. Parcel 2 is proposed to be +/- 3.35 -acre acres in area. The future urbanization plan for the proposed Parcel 2 will conform to the standards of the Performance Standards Subdivision, water resource and physical and environmental constraint and natural area preservation. The future development will demonstrate compliance with parking, access, solar access, and orientation of the residences towards the future public streets. The property is within the Physical and Environmental Constraint Overlay from AMC 18.3.9. There are wetland areas and Floodplains. These have been mapped' * A preliminary wetlands delineation report has been completed but notfiled with the state. The wetland' has identified a wetland along the north property line of proposed Parcel 2. The floodplain boundaries are mapped. particieate in the costs I a Local Im2rovement District or both Clinton, Ann, and Briscoe Place. These streets are not fully improved, but the future proposal to develop the property would install improvements. When Clinton Street and Ann were developed, the property owners paid for one half of the cost of the improvements. At that time, there were utilities stubbed at the end of Briscoe Place. A public utility easement extends from the end of Briscoe Place to the north towards Bear Creek. No new public utilities are proposed to be installed to service proposed Parcel 2 as the future development utility sizing will be dependent upon the number of units, locations, etc. 18.4.8: Solar Setback Standards: Future development will demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback Standard A. 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. RECEIVED IVI/I� Y 12 9 K�M Received 4830.2020 Fines The driveway for Parcel 1 is proposed to remain. No new access for proposed Parcel 2. 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 andedipations. This ( Q—esn I apDear to be, a finding of fact, as it describes future development over which the current aDDHcant has no control, Predictions of future possibilities, appear to be legal opinions, not facts. I Finding: No new streets are proposed at this time. Future streets far the development of Parcel 2 will demonstrate compliance with the standards from 18.4.6. H. Unpaved Streets. FiEdinp: All streets are paved. I.Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley T and Bribited frthe strl his go yawl) appeom '66 a fin eein of fact, as it describes future development over which the current applint has n, _ Fug.Qntrol. Ear edicjion5 of future possibilities appear to be leflal opinions, not facts. At present, there are no alleys. The future development of Parcel 2 will likely include alleys for access to the future individual lot development. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained before development. This doesn't armear to be_a finding of fact. it aDDears to be a leaal Minion Finding: No state or federal permits are required to partition. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. Finding: No flag lots area proposed as part of the partition. ht,-'i PlAy Received 4M.2020 66 ncee� 't f s v ill1j I Ay P, 1 A . ...... ar rcai�� pA ° Po 1t � 1 .y 17 20 Aaron, Anderson From: dollytravers <dollytravers@earthlink,net> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 1:04 PM To: planning Subject: PA-T1 -2020-00109 [EXTERNAL SENDER] Ashland City Planning Commission: Re'. Notice of Application for Planning Action PA-T1-2020-00109 I am concerned about four things: 1. The process for this planning action seem very questionable to me. For example, I did not have access to all the documents and evidence because 51 Winburn Way was closed. I was not able to inspect the documents and the information on the website was not complete. I have begun to question the thoroughness of process, procedures, and sharing information from the Planning Commission. 2. The amount of natural underground water that flows somewhat parallel and a bit to the the east beneath Ann Street onto the property in question. 3. The certainty that the single family density would indeed be transferred unaltered to the two separated parcels. 4. 1 expect that the Planning Commission has pristine procedures, process, and provides access to all information and documents in order that the public has the whole picture of the proposal and can reflect and provide relevant feedback. Regards, Dolly Travers 426 Clinton Street Ashland, OR 97520 BY-- ... ..... . . ............. Aaron Anderson From: sparc@rnind,net Sent- Friday, May 29, 2020 4:53 PM To: planning; hilliga0@sou.edu Subject: Written Comments on Planning Action PA-T1 -2020-00109 Attachments: PA-Ti-2020-00109 Public Input HilHgoss docx [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Ashland Planning Department, Please find the attached written comments on Planning Action PA-TI-2020-00109. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Larry and Linda Hilligoss 534 Ann St. Ashland', Oregon 97520 BY:- .... ......... ... 69''_ TO: Ashland Planning Department FROM: Larry and Linda Hilligoss. 534 Ann St, Ashland, Oregon. 97520 Date: May 29, 2020 RE: Planning Action: PA-11-2020-00109. Tax Lot 401. Map#391E04DB We have lived in Ashland for almost 40 years and in the Riverwalk neighborhood since 2010. Out, home is located on the corner of Clinton and Ann St, essentially across the street from the property at 345 Clinton St. We will be directly impacted by the development of 15 single family hornes on the proposed 3.35-acre parcel Situated in the southeast corner of the 'Fax Lot #401. We would like to express several concerns and recommendations related to this Planning Action. 1. Concern: Accessibility of planning and assessment documents. Given the complexities of the Covid- 19 Situation and compliance to the Governor's stay-at-home orders resulting in the closure of City offices, there have been limited opportunities to explore the documents associated with this planning action, Recommendation: This Planning Action should be extended for further inforniationgathering (at least 60 dals) with all documents made available both in -person and on-line and transparent for public inspection prior to any action taken. 2. Concern: Completeness of the application and associated documents. Despite the information stated on the Notice ofA])I.Vication posted on the corner. of Ann and Clinton streets, the docurnents available on-line do not covet, all of the relevant information needed for informed input and review by the community, adjacent neighbors, and the Planning Commission! Recommendation: Delay Planning Action until ALL reporting documents related to subdivision development are complete AND available for public review. This could include those related to soil (permeability and percolation tests), geology/hydrology (especially related to underground springs), utilities, easements, and others. Note that on the Tentative Partition Plat (04/23/20) the professional Surveyor could not locate the easements. In addition, if there will be an entrance to the proposed subdivision off of Ann St. (as indicated) a complete report of traffic flow and carrying capacity of Ann St. should be completed since Hersey St, to Ann St. would likely be the most direct approach to the proposed liornes. Ann Street is narrow with parking allowed on only the east side. It is also a very steep street with cars often exceeding the speed lit -nit as they head north (down the hill) and they tend to over -accelerate going Lip the hill (South). It is a challenge to navigate with ice and snow. There have been several accidents an the corner of Clinton/Ann. Since the proposed building parcel is adjacent to several flood plain and wetlands designations, it seerns odd that the applicant would note 'I r Received 5.29.2020 B Y ......... ....... -7 . .. . ....... . ... . . that there are no reports pending from city, state and federal agencies. Could this be true? Is an Environmental Impact statement required? 3. Concern: Suitability of land foi- buil(Ling. Based on personal experiences of standing water and soil issues resulting in serious foundation mid landscape problems with our 15 year old home at 534 Ann St. (in Riverwalk), we question the appropriateness of building in areas known to be (or adjacent to) potential wetlands (or designated wetlands). OUr home is officially NOT in a wetland area or floodplain and we still have issues because of the soils and springs in this area. Let's work together to avoid future lawsuits directed at the builder and/or the City of Ashland. Recommendation: Delay any Planning Action until detailed i-eports al-e complete. Any preliminary action would be inappropriate and misleading to a builder. Please be transparent and submit all reports for review. 4. Concern: Density Transfei% 'Special Note: 1he ivillingness of the qpj�)licant to sell apamel (11.01 acr-es) of Tuy Lot 401 to the Ciij,, ol'Ashlamlfoi- $380, 000 to ack-1 to a beautiful Rivuivalk Poirk and tre-W should be commencled! The mcaforit), of the portion ivas in the FE JAIL4 I 00-Yem, Flood Plain, This Imid ivill be qj)preeiated (ind e)#o),ed bj, both wilcl anim(ils cind humans! According to a document on the City of Ashland Parks & Recreation website fi-orn Parks Director, Michael Black, dated December 5, 2017, the seller (Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle) have the right to transfer the density to a parcel on the same property. Questions: Is there a Density Transfer option as a result of this sale or was that option deleted? If so, will this transfer of density be used in the 3.35 acre parcel considered in this Planning Action? Will the 15 single family hornes proposed be increased due to the Density Transfer option? Would a builder "down -the -road" have an option to increase the number of' homes? If so — how many additional bores would be considered? This is confusing and not addressed by the applicant in the proposal, The City of Ashland typically takes great care to professionally research and present planning actions with attention to detail. It is disappointing to see so many "gaps" in this application process. Again, because of Covid- 19, please extend the review by at least 6O days. Thank YOU very ITILICh for your kind consideration. Larry and Linda Hilligoss Received 5.29.2020 From: Diana Standing To: planning Subject: Division of Paul Mace and Kathleen Kahle"s of 345 Clinton Street property Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 10:30:15 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] To: Planning Commission Twenty years ago when we bought our home on Clinton Street we were told by the realtor that the acreage across the Street was flood plain and no one could build on it. Paul Mace and Kathleen Kahle told us within a year of us moving in, that they had asked the city to allow them to build a few houses bordering Clinton Street at our end of their property. They were told it is a flood plain. How did that that acreage with its ponds and wildlife suddenly not become a floodplain7 What constitutes a flood plain? Three years after we moved to Clinton Street, the building of homes began in Riverwalk. And even though Paul and Kathleen's property was considered a flood zone, we knew it would be a matter of time before that acreage would also have homes. People in this neighborhood dealt with 4 months of increased traffic due to the improvements on Hersey Street. It was very disruptive to our lives. And now the thought of building a subdivision at this time of the virus, makes many of us uneasy. An increase in the number of homes in this area is of concern. Here are some of the reasons: 1. Increased traffic would jeopardize the safety of many neighborhood children who ride their bikes, scooters and skateboards. 2. Increased traffic would create considerably more noise. 3. There is a blind intersection at the corner of Ann & Clinton Streets. If this is used as an entrance to the buildable parcel/parcels this could increase accidents. 4. The acreage is a riparian zone. There are ponds, the water table is high. The area is home to trees, plants and food to many animals including ducks, geese, song birds, quail, coyote, fox, pheasants, to name a few. We need a balance between the natural world and homes. When Riverwalk was proposed, neighbors worked with the developers. It turned out to a nice addition to our neighborhood. We hope this history of all of us working together can continue if and when this parcel/parcels is divided and a planner is deciding its future, which affects our future. Thank you for your time. Diana Standing Bob Weibel Received 5.26.2020 72 From: Lindsey Findley To: planning Subject: PA-T1-2020-00109 Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 2:21:05 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Please hear my express concern after learning about the proposed building site for Pahl Mace and Kathleen Kahle. I bought my home in the 1980s. After finally retiring from nursing at RVMC, I've moved back into my home with my husband. I now learn the property across the street is to become `Single Family Residential' Zoning R-1-5: Assessor's Map # 391E04DB-1 Tax Lot 401. I'm issuing a major complaint to Aaron Anderson. HOPING TO BE HEARD!! Sent from my Whone Received 5.26.2020 73 From: Ann Barton To: planning Cc: Becca McLennan Subject: Planning action PA-T1-2020-00109 Date: Sunday, May 24, 2020 2:42:49 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Ashland Planning Department, I'd like to state my opinion about this piece of property. I live above Clinton on Patterson st. I look at this lovely piece of property from my windows (including my bedroom) and my deck. It is filled with wild life and beauty. It is next to a riparian zone which is important to our environment and the health of Bear creek. I know that this partition of property is the first stage in developing and turning this field into yet another development. I think the timing is totally wrong. We are heading into the unknown with at least a recession and probably a depression ahead of us. Not to mention a potentially heavy smoke year as we are in a drought. Our local economy has been hit hard as well, with no tourist industry for the unforeseeable future, we don't know how this will effect the popularity of this town. We do know the smoky summers has been a problem for our local economy. Also as my partner and I are in the vulnerable group for Covid we are staying home 90% of the time with an uncertain future for when it will be safe for us to go out again as Ashland doesn't have testing and very few people are wearing masks. Since I am home now so much it would be very upsetting to have to listen to development for what? years? Last week when the city was working on Clinton it was very loud and disturbing, it jangled my nerves. This noise will be the same if they develop this property, but it will be all day long! I'm very nervous about it. So much so I'm thinking of selling my house. Ideally I don't think this piece of property should ever be developed. We are Losing wildlife habitat rapidly. The WWF says wildlife habitat loss is the main threat to 85% of all species. That includes us because we depend on those species. https://wwf.panda.org/our_warlc/wildlife/nrobleinLhabi%at loss_ degradation/ Why destroy a land and wild life when we don't even know if those houses will get sold. We live in a time of the great unknown. It isn't a time to act as if it's normal. It isn't now and won't ever be the way it was. Please I ask you to hold off and be smart about our uncertain future, the health of our wildlife and those of us that will be most directly affected. Received 5.24.2020 74 I know that many in my neighborhood are in the same situation as we are and have the same views. I'd like to be updated on the status of this property. Thank You Sincerely, Ann Barton Received 5.24.2020 75 From: Rebecca McLennan To: planning Subject: Proposed subdivision on Clinton Date: Sunday, May 24, 2020 5:58:13 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] To whom it may concern: It seems like very bad planning to consider a major subdivision at this time. These are incredibly uncertain times and Ashland is affected on multiple levels: The virus and probable smoke in the valley this summer will likely lead to a recession in here; the country as we know is quickly headed in that direction. The impact on downtown businesses has yet to be assessed. Most likely many will close their doors. The Shakespeare Festival as we all know will be dark for at least this year, likely longer. And then there's yet another open space going away just to put some money in someone's pocket. Doesn't seem right. As well, many people in this neighborhood are elderly and already stressed dealing with the virus and social isolation. And, to add the noise and dust from building seems cruel and an invasion of lifestyles. I would like to be kept informed about this situation. Sincerely, Rebecca McLennan 537 Phelps St Ashland. OR 541-292-9888 Sent from my Whone Received 5.24.2020 76 Aaron Anderson From: Gordon Longhurst <gorclon@budget.net> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:47 PM T o.- Aaron Anderson Subject- 345 Clinton Street Asland OR [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hello Aaron, Thanks for getting the Planning application to me for the Minor Land Partition at 345 Clinton Street. Please enter my comments below in the record or tell me if there is a form or format that is required besides this e-mail, The Minor Land Partition is allowed and apparently meets all the criteria to be approved so In have no specific comments regarding that land use action. However the intent of the action is apparently to allow for future development of the 3.35 acre parcel and I would like to address that potential though I realize that there will be a different application for any development and opportunity to comment. There was a subdivision plat that had been submitted a couple of years ago for the property that was apparently withdrawn. The major concern I had with that plan was that the main egress from the subdivision would direct the traffic up (and down) Ann St to the intersection with Hersey St. There are two significant flaws with this design and I would like to point them out so that they will be considered at the next stage of any planning for the property. The first and biggest issue is the intersection off Ann and Hersey, Because Hersey meets Ann at the top of a hill, vehicles at the stop sign on Ann cannot see approaching vehicles until they crest the hill and are less than a hundred ft from the intersection, Cars travel ( too), fast on Hersey, especially since it has been repaved, and close calls at that intersection are not uncommon. Adding the traffic generated by a subdivision will compound an existing problem. The second issue is that Ann St is a very narrow street. Parking is prohibited on one side, but people often ignore this, and UPS and Fedex trucks, garbage trucks, etc create unsafe conditions or traffic isms . My hope would be that the subdivision layout would direct the traffic generated by it to Phelps St which is much wider and has an intersection with Hersey that has good visibility and is much safer. I realize that these issues do not directly bear on the land use action being proposed at this time, but my hope is that both Planning staff and any developer will consider these issues from the beginning rather than have to deal with them down the line when they would be a complication. . . .. ...... . . .. . . ........... . ....... R, E CFE� IV E. D BY:.. Gordon Longhurst 515 Ann St gordon@gordonlonghurst.com or gordon @budget.net 541 659 8584 R E C I Efe I N I E., 13, w 371 Tudor Street Ashland', OR 97520 Planning Department, City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland OR 97520 Dear Planning Department: My comments related to planning action PA-TI-2020-00107 are as follows. I have faith that City of Ashland Parks and Recreation will take all possible care as the group constructs a pedestrian boa rdwal k/b ridge in a wetland. However, I would like to express my concern that all activities stay not only as far away from streams and wetlands "as practicable" but will be proven to leave the wetland and natural environment almost undisturbed. I am hoping that this fact -based guarantee is represented in the planning, documents. The Water Resources Protection Zone should remain the priority, and this includes not only the construction phase but the post -construction phase as people use the platform. I am particularly concerned about the disruption to both flora and fauna by any construction project in this area, especially disruption to the smallest inhabitants including bees and frogs, along with native plants that prevent erosion; into the stream and wetlands. This may not be practicable, but bulldozers, for example, should not be allowed and any construction should be completed with the gentlest processes. I know that the experts in the Parks and Recreation department know this,, but I wanted to express my concern that any construction in this area be carefully done. Thank you. Sincerely, Homeowner, 371Tudor Street ("Quiet Village"), Ashland, OR 97601 10k C, 1100 R En �,Or 'wms mp �) MNY tc Y Of 79 Aaron Anderson From Shelleerae <shelleerae@fastrnail.fm> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:59 AM To: planning Cc. Mitchell Christian Subject- Clinton Street property development... [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Ashland Planning Department, We are writing in reference to PA-'r 1-2020-00109 (assessor's map #391 E04DB). The above referenced property is across the street from our home, The proposed building site is a wildlife refuge for many aninials and birds. It is also the place on Clinton street where many walkers stop to ejrjoy the quail, geese, birds, deer and occasional foxes. Oil said property, the proximity to the creek is a riparian zone just downstream from the Nature Center oil Mountain Avenue. We would like to remind the city that when the home, was purchased in 1983, the homeowners were told that the field across the street was in the I 00-year flood. plain. In this new era of climate change, flood plains and nature refuges should take precedence over new housing developments. The destruction of nature here will not only take away our favorite morning and evening meditation sight from the windows of our home, but will displace many of nature's 4-leggeds and winged friends. Yes, it will provide more homes but with that comes more noise, more traffic and evening lights. Over the years, we have enjoyed the open -space property in question and the quiet setting it brings to our home. It has given LIS wonderful views of deer grazing and playing and of the hills beyond. We find these views priceless. Please consider keeping nature alive here... Perhaps there is another choice? What if the Ashland Parks Dept were to purchase the property from Paul Mace at a highly discounted rate? Mr. Mace could then use the sale as a write-off and the parks dept could preserve the property as park lands. Sincerely, Clinton street neighbors Sliellee rae Mitchell Christian 541.482,2211 AbL_KQi iTy b(t_Chqn?Ll wivvlF.shelleeraexonj Our seeming rellitics are aoly the din-)ly [it sul-cice or�ln incrOible Ind V15k set 0CC01)Sd0U.5ne55 RECRIVED Hy� m owl Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY:1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton OWNER/APPLICANT: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle / Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request land use approval for a two -lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot. The Purpose of the partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicate that the two resultant parcels will be 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391 E04DB; TAX LOT: 401 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: May 15, 2020 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: May 29, 2020 The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.5.1.050.G) 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 Aaron Anderson at 541-488-5305. G:Acornet-devAolarmine\Ptarnrine Actions\PAs by StreetTTIinton\Ctinton 345\PA-Tl ocx 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. 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. I. 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. G:\coliuii-dev\ptaluliilg\PtaluiiilgActiolB\PAs by StreetT Gunton\Ctinton_345\PA-T1-2020-00109ACtinton 345 PA42020-00109 NOC.docx RIO wAj&" I City of Ashland Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone: 541-488-5305 Inspection Line: 541-552-2080 Plan Type: Type I Planning Action Work Class: Type I Planning Action PERMIT NUMBER PA-T 1-2020-00109 .Apply Date: 4/30/2020 Map & Tax Lot Property Address 391 E04DB401 345 Clinton St Owner: Paul/Kathleen Mace/Kahle Applicant: Rogue Planning and Development Owner 345 Clinton St Applicant 33 N Central Ave 213 Address: Ashland, OR 97520 Address: Medford, OR 97501 Phone: (541) 941-9315 Phone: (541) 951-4020 Project Description MLP-2 Lots Fee Description: Amount: Land Partition (Type 1) $1,237.00 Applicant: Date: Total F,ees:l $1,237.00 83 W I lni&l Planning Division CITY OF 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 AS H LAN D 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 345 CLINTON STREET Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E •�9C Tax Lot(s) ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION FILE # PA-T1-2020-00109 Pursuing LEED@ Certification? ❑ YES 0 NO 401 Zoning R-1-5-P Comp Plan Designation Single -Family Residential APPI IrANT Rogue Planning & Development Services LLC 541-951-4020 am unter. tannin mail.com Name Phone E-Mail yJ p 9@J Address 33 N Central Avenue, Suite 213 PROPERTY OWNER Name Paul Mace and Kathleen Kahle Address 345 CLINTON STREET City Medford Zip 97501 Phone 541-941-9315 E-Mail katkahleAgmail.com/paul.maceAgmail. om City Ashland Zip 97520 SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER Title Surveyor Name L.J. Friar & Associates Phone 541-772-2782 Address 2714 N. Pacific Hwy Title Address E-Mall Ijfriarandassociates@charter.net City Medford Phone E-Mail City Zip 97501 Zip 1 hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. 1 understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. 1 further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that 1 produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Amity OEMer April 16, 2020 Applicant's Signature Date As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner.,,,,, Apr 24, 2020 Property Owner's Signature (required) Date Apr 30, 2020 fro be completed by City Staff) 4.30.2020 Type 1 1237.00 Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER // "e""°" "�""°" �� "e""°" d . "" "" G:Acomm-devAplanning\Forms & Handouts\Zoning P84 ermit Application.doc ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. FINDINGS OF FACT — Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre -Application Comment document. 2 SETS OF SCALED PLANS no larger than 11"x17". Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. (Optional —1 additional large set of plans, 2'x3', to use in meetings) FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) ❑ LEEDO CERTIFICATION (optional) — Applicant's wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps: • Hiring and retaining a LEEDO Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and • The LEEDO checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. NOTE: • Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. • Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. • All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance with ORS 227.178. • The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission meeting. (Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St). • A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns. • If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions. �� e "�""°" �� e 4. "" "" G:Acomet-devAplanning\Forms & Handouts\Zoning Permit Application.doc Rogue Planning 6 Development Services, LIE Oft Minor Land Partition 345 Clinton Street Ill IIved 4. 30 2020 86 Minor Land Partition Property Address: 345 Clinton Street Map & Tax Lots: 39 1E 04DB: Tax Lots: 401 Zoning: R-1-5 Adjacent Zones: R-1-5 Overlay Zones: Performance Standards Overlay Water Resource Protection Zones FEMA Floodplain Ashland Modified Flood zone Lot Area: 12.29 acres Property Owner: Paul Mace and Kathleen Kahle 345 Clinton Street Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Consultant: Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services 33 N Central Avenue, Suite 213 Medford, OR 97501 Surveyor: U Friar and Associates 2714 N Pacific Hwy Medford, OR 97501 Request: A request for a minor land partition of an approximately 3.35-acre portion of a 12.29-acre parcel. The minor land partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property. III IIved 4. 30 2020 87 Property Description: The 12.29-acre property is on the north side of Clinton Street. The property is occupied by a single-family residential home, a detached garage, and a pole barn. The residence is accessed via a paved, private driveway that extends from Clinton Street to the residence. The subject property and the adjacent properties are R-1-5-P and are generally developed with single- family residences and their outbuildings. Clinton Street, a neighborhood street is along the south property line. Ann Street and the stub of Briscoe Place, also neighborhood streets, are along the east property line. Ann Street, along the frontage of the property, and Briscoe Place were partially improved with the development as part of the Riverwalk Subdivision. There are steep slopes on the west side of the property uphill to the properties further west that are developed with single-family residential homes and their accessory buildings. These properties are accessed from Sylvia Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive. Both are neighborhood streets, which are accessed from Oak Street furtherwest. A portion of the subject propertywraps around the Sylvia Street properties and connects to the intersection of Sylvia Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive. The north property line abuts City of Ashland properties that are an extension of Riverwalk Park. Bear Creek is to the north, within the city parcels. The properties to the east within Riverwalk and to the south, across Clinton Street are developed with primarily single-family residences. -. _ u III IIved 4. 30 2020 88 There are physical constraints on the northern portions of the property. These include steep slopes, the FEMA 100-year floodplain, FEMA 500-year floodplain, and Ashland Modified Flood zone for Bear Creek. Mook "Clear" Creek also traverses the property from north to south. According to the City of Ashland Water Resource Protection Zone maps, Mook Creek is an intermittent/ephemeral stream. There are historical irrigation rights on the property. Over the years ponds for irrigation water storage have been created. Some of the pond areas have developed into wetlands. In addition to the ponds, according to the Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI), there is a potential wetland located to the east of the ponds on the property. Schott & Associates, Wetlands Biologist have been on -site and completed a delineation report. This report will be filed by the future developer(s). The property has varying degrees of slope with a slight road slope along Clinton Street and the driveway. There are minor variations across the larger property area with an average slope approximately four percent downhill from the southwest to the northeast. The west side of the property behind the Sylvia Street lots is steeply sloped up to the adjacent properties to the west. The property is subject to solar setback standard A. There are smaller stature trees either on or directly adjacent to the subject property. Retention of the highest number of trees in the landscape areas is an important aspect of the project and as many trees as possible will be able to be retained and still provide a buildable area for a new residential. Clinton Street is paved with partial street improvements along both sides of the street that include curb, gutter, sidewalk and park row. Ann Street to the east and Briscoe Place are improved with curb, gutter, park row and sidewalk on the east side, the street side abutting the property has curb and gutter, no park row and sidewalk. The private drive is paved. Proposal: The request is to divide the property into two parcels. Proposed Parcel 1 is 8.36 acres. This parcel would retain the residence, garage and pole barn at 345 Clinton Street. The vehicular access will be retained from Clinton Street utilizing the private driveway. The east side of the existing private driveway is the approximate east property line of Parcel 1. Proposed Parcel 1 has a lot width of more than 100-feet, along Clinton Street, exceeding minimum lot width in the zone. The lot depth exceeds minimum lot depth in the zone. The parcel substantially exceeds the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet required in the zone. III �Zec6ved89 Proposed Parcel 2 is a vacant, developable, approximately 3.35-acre parcel northwest of the intersection of Clinton Street and Ann Street. The parcel is proposed to have 358.32 feet of frontage along Clinton Street and extends 240 feet along Anne Street. Briscoe Place T's into the east side of Proposed Parcel 2. This parcel is intended to be sold and developed by others as a future single-family residential development, on outright permitted use in the zone. The area for future development has the potential base density of approximately 15, single-family dwelling units. The Ashland Municipal Code The future development of either parcel will demonstrate compliance with the city standards. Along the north portion of proposed Parcel 2, .545 acres are within the Bear Creek floodplain. The floodplains and wetlands will be further evaluated and planned for as required by state and local ordinances and future impacts mitigated through the site development of the residential homes. There is adequate area for the development of residential lots and the preservation of the significant natural features. Findings addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code can be found on the following pages. The applicant's findings are in Calibri font and the criteria are in Times New Roman font. Attachments: Proposed Tentative Plat FINDINGS OF FACT Ill �Zec6ved90 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. Finding: Future urban uses are not impeded with the proposed two parcel partition. The property is zoned R-1-5 and is within the Performance Standards Overlay. Development of the property as single-family residences is a permitted use in the zone. The proposal provides for a 3.35-acre parcel of developable land at the intersection of two, city streets (Parcel 2). A third street, Briscoe Place, stubs into the property approximately 210 feet north of the Ann Street and Clinton Street intersection. These streets will provide primary access to future residential uses. Proposed Parcel 1 has several physical constraints. Parcel 1 is also developed with the property owner's residence. There is a developable area in the southeast corner that has a frontage of 292.87 feet along Clinton Street that will remain as part of Parcel 1. This partition does not impede the future development of the property where not prevented or restricted due to the property's physical constraints. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. Finding: The adjacent properties are mostly developed as single-family residence type developments or the land is within the floodplain, wetland, steep slopes, or treed and limited development area is present. The proposal will not impede access to adjoining lands. 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. Finding: There are no City adopted neighborhood or district plans that affect the property. To the applicant's knowledge, there are not previous approvals for the subject properties that would impact the proposal. The properties to the east were developed as part of the Riverwalk Subdivision. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. Finding: III IIved 4. 30 2020 91 The tract of land has not been partitioned for the past 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). Finding: The proposal complies with the requirements of the underlying zone. Both parcels will have substantially more than 7,500 square feet of area and greatly exceed the minimum lot dimensions. Parcel 1 is an 8.36-acre parcel that has FEMA floodplain, Ashland Adopted Floodplain, wetland area, and existing residential development. The floodplain is mapped on the tentative survey plat. Parcel 2 is proposed to be +/- 3.35 -acre acres in area. The future urbanization plan for the proposed Parcel 2 will conform to the standards of the Performance Standards Subdivision, water resource and physical and environmental constraint and natural area preservation. The future development will demonstrate compliance with parking, access, solar access, and orientation of the residences towards the future public streets. The property is within the Physical and Environmental Constraint Overlay from AMC 18.3.9. There are wetland areas and Floodplains. These have been mapped. A preliminary wetlands delineation report has been completed but not filed with the state. The wetland has identified a wetland along the north property line of proposed Parcel 2. The floodplain boundaries are mapped. 18.4.6: Public Facilities: As allowed in AMC 18.4.6.030, the request is to sign a waiver of consent to participate in the costs of a Local Improvement District for both Clinton, Ann, and Briscoe Place. These streets are not fully improved, but the future proposal to develop the property would install improvements. When Clinton Street and Ann were developed, the property owners paid for one half of the cost of the improvements. At that time, there were utilities stubbed at the end of Briscoe Place. A public utility easement extends from the end of Briscoe Place to the north towards Bear Creek. No new public utilities are proposed to be installed to service proposed Parcel 2 as the future development utility sizing will be dependent upon the number of units, locations, etc. 18.4.8: Solar Setback Standards: Future development will demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback Standard A. 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. III �Zec6ved92 Finding: The driveway for Parcel 1 is proposed to remain. No new access for proposed Parcel 2. 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. Finding: No new streets are proposed at this time. Future streets for the development of Parcel 2 will demonstrate compliance with the standards from 18.4.6. H. Unpaved Streets. Finding: All streets are paved. I. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. Finding: At present, there are no alleys. The future development of Parcel 2 will likely include alleys for access to the future individual lot development. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained before development. Finding: No state or federal permits are required to partition. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. Finding: No flag lots area proposed as part of the partition. III IIved 4. 30 2020 93 rco=a m _w N a Z Q i 0.n0 ?� - NU �Y 04 C �i O � IS2 a 0 All O OOOie zas 0 �'sE'sS Ir I � ro'b +� N e MO N J z rc � J Otl 41v- c0 p 5 iec iii a � R C �•;qo � io oilnio�EE55o ¢ E2 % <$�,:3 kk��kok=$c<d9�i "�� MOM geeeeeeeeeenwN3o; Na Na N O 1Q ll O i 1l x■ N