Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutClover_580_PA-T1-2022-00187Jana Smith From: Regan Trapp Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 12:08 PM To: ljfriar@charter.net Cc: April Lucas; Dana Smith; Maria Harris; Liz Hamilton Subject: 345 Clinton Hi Jim, Thank you for updating your mailing address. We can mail you out a notice of decision to the updated address of: PO Box 1947 Phoenix, OR 97535 We will mail out the notice to you tomorrow, Friday July 31, 2020. Please confirm that you are OK with us mailing this to you on Friday July 31, 2020. Thank you! Permit Technician 11 — Community Development City of Ashland Regan.Trapp@ashla.nd.or.us 541-552-2233 TTY 800-735-2900 541-488-6006 (fax) This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records lase for disclosure and retention. if you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541-552-2233. Thank yore. 1 Planning Division CITY Of 5.1 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 ,HN 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Request for Extension PA -T1-2019-00109 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 345 Clinton Assessor's Map No. 39 IE 04 D B Zoning R -1-5-P APPLICANT FILE # �' 4 _ 0 Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ❑ YES H NO Tax Lot(s) 401 Comp Plan Designation Single Family Residential Name Rogue Planning & Development Services Phone 541-951-40202 E -Mail amygunter.planning@gmall.com Address 1314-B Center Dr,, PMl3#457 city Medford ,Zip PROPERTY OWNER Name Kathleen Kahle Address 345 Clinton Street Phone 541-941-9315 E -Mail SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Name Phone Address Title Name Phone Address 97501 katkahle@gmail.com City Ashland zip 97520 City City E -Mail Zip E -Mail 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. € understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. 1 further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. if 1 have any doubts, l am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance, 4LWff� Y 2A, - November 19, 2021 Applicant's Signa6rey Date As owner of the property involved in this request, t have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. 1 aath w IW4e Property Owner's Signature (required) ro be completed by City Staff 3 s Date Received ^ November 1, 2021 Date Zoning Permit Typefir,''`,.ti°'; Filing Fee$ ,.2 i OVER N GAcomm-devlplanning'Torms & ktaudoutst7..oning Nmlit Applicadon.doc E APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. 21 PLANNING FEES 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. ❑ TRUE SCALE PDF DRAWINGS — Standard scale and formatted to print no larger than 11x17 inches. include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details, 0 FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) ❑ LEED® 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 LEED® 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. 7LO-W-4 • 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. G:lcomm•devlpiamningTorms & Handouts%Zaning Pem3it Application.doc I--, 0cto`btr_ A' 21 City of Ashland Planning Division 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR RE: 345 Clinton Street (39 1E 04DB: 401) Request for Extension of Planning Action 2020-00109, a 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 acres and 3.35 acres in size with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast portion of the parent parcel. Findings addressing the criteria for Permit Extension found in 18.1.6.040. The Staff Advisor shall grant a timetable extension of any zoning permit or planning action approval under demonstrated compliance with all of the following conditions: A. One-time extension no longer than 24 months is allowed. Applicant's Finding: The request is to extend PA2020-00109 24 months. The application was approved by the Ashland Planning Commission on September 22, 2020, and the decision letter was mailed on October 14, 2020. The decision of the Planning Commission is valid until April 14, 2022. The request would extend the approved minor land partition decision until April 14, 2024. B, The Staff Advisor shall find that a change of conditions for which the applicant was not responsible prevented the applicant from completing the development within the original time limitation. Applicant's Finding: The year 2020 and 2021 will forever be marked as one of the most challenging not only locally following the Almeda Fire disaster, but the severe impacts to construction material supply, shipping, extreme costs and numerous other factors that prevented the installation of necessary infrastructure and creation of the final plat for the partition. Page 1 of 2 C. Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval. An extension rnay be granted, however, if requirements have changed and there is no material effect upon the original approval, and the applicant agrees to comply with any new requirernerits, as a condition of the extension. Applicant's Finding: To the applicant's knowledge in reviewing the decision that approved PA2020-00109, Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed that would have a measurable effect on the proposal since the original approval. Thank you, Amy Gunter 541-951-4020 Page 2 of 2 Dana Smith From: Dana Smith Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 3:24 PM To: katkahle@gmail.com, paul.mace@gmaii.com Subject: 345 Clinton Appeal NOD/Findings Attachments: Clinton -345 -PA -APPEAL -2020-0001 1 -Appeal Findings-signed.pdf, Clinton_345_PA- APPEAL-2020-00011 _Appeal-NOD.pdf Hello Kathleen and Paul, We mailed out the findings from the 345 Clinton Street appeal last week and yours was returned to sender. I am attaching the Notice of Decision and Findings to this email. Please contact me at 541-552-2072 if you would like a hard copy. Thank you. Dana Smith, Executive Assistant City of Ashland, Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-552-2072, TTY: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records taw for disclosure and retention. if you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541 ) 552-2072. Thank you. I W! w > M C-7 > r (I cl) NO c:> 1'r m o Co > m e r fj; Lo ry w BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2020 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA -APPEAL -2020-00011, AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF PLANNING ACTION #PA -T1-2020-00109, A TWO -LOT PARTITION OF A 12.29 - ACRE LOT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 345 CLINTON ST. THE TENTATIVE PARTITION PLAT CREATES TWO PARCELS THAT ARE 8.94 ACRES AND 3.35 ACRES IN SIZE. STAFF INITIALLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS. SUBSEQUENT TO THE MAILING OF A NOTICE OF DECISION, ERIC ELERATH AND BETSY MCLANE WHO RESIDE IN THE NOTICE AREA FILED AN APPEAL REQUI'ST. OV4'NER: PAUL MACE AND KATHLEEN KAHLE APPLICANT: ROGUE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPELLANT: ERIC ELERATH AND BETSY MCLANE RECITALS: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDERS. 1) Tax lot #401 of Assessor's Map 39 -1E -04 -DB is located at 345 Clinton Street is in the R-1- 7.5 zone and is 12.29 acres in size. 2) The application proposed a two -lot partition and included a tentative partition plat showing two parcels that are 8.94 acres and 3.35 acres in size. 3) In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Kate Brown issued the "Stay home, stay safe" order on March 23, 2020, after which the city took numerous actions including closing City offices to the public including the Community Development building. 4) State of Oregon Executive order 20-16 "Keep government working: Ordering necessary measures to ensure safe public meetings and continued operations by local governments during coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak" provides that any requirement of the ORS for public meetings may be satisfied by providing a method of appearing or meeting by telephone, video, or other electronic methods. As such, planning commission meetings have been conducted via Zoom. 5) On May 15, 2020 the application was deemed complete, and in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.05 0,13 .4 a Notice of Complete application was posted at the subj ect property in clear view from the public right-of-way and mailed to all property owners of record within 200 feet of the parcel. 6) The Staff Advisor approved the application on June 30, 2020 subject to several conditions of approval and a Notice of Decision (NOD) was mailed on the same date. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 1 October 14, 2020 Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services LLC 33 N Central Avenue Suite 213 Medford, OR 97501 Owner: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle 345 Clinton Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action 4PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 Notice of Decision CITY OF Appellant: Eric Elerath & Betsy McLane 419 Clinton Street Ashland, OR 97520 At its meeting of September 22, 2020, the Ashland Planning Commission denied your appeal request and upheld the administrative decision of Planning Action #PA -T1-2020-00109, a two - lot partition of a 12.29 -acre lot for the property located at 345 Clinton Street. The tentative partition plat showed that the two resultant parcels will be 8.94 acres and 3.35 acres with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. The Ashland Planning Commission adopted and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document on October 13, 2020. The Planning Commission's decision on appeal becomes final with this mailmi g of the Notice of Final Decision. (AMC 18.5.1.050.6.4) The 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. Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and evidence submitted, and applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. This decision may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in accordance with Oregon State Law. Please contact LUBA for specific appeal information, 1-ittp://www.orevon.Cov/LUBA/Pages/FAQ.aspx or 503-373-1255. They are located at 550 Capitol Street N.E., Suite 235, Salem, Oregon 97301-2552. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Aaron Anderson in the Community Development Department at (541) 552-2052. Enclosure cc: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle Parties of record COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Pax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www,ashland.or.us I� 7) After the mailing of the NOD, Eric Elerath and Betsy McLane, who reside at 419 Clinton Street, submitted an application to appeal the approval of the partition on July 13, 2020. 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on August 11, 2020. The meeting was conducted electronically by Zoom due to the ongoing emergency order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Public testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. 9) After the public hearing had concluded the appellant requested that the record remain open pursuant to ORS 197.763 (6). Therefore the record remained open to new evidence or argument from parties to the hearing until August 18, 2020 at 4:30 p.m., open to argument only from parties in response to new submittals until August 25, 2020 at 4:30 p.m., and open to final legal argument from the applicant until September 1, 2020 30p.m. The hearing was continued to a date and time certain: September 8, 2020 at 7 -per 10) During the period that the record remained open no additional arguments or evidence were submitted. 11) September 12, 2020 was the 120 -day time limit after the application was deemed complete. On September 10, 2020 the applicant signed a 30 -day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1). 12) On September 8, 2020 the Almeda fire took place which caused the scheduled hearing to be canceled. After the cancelation of the meeting a new notice was posted at the subject property in clear view from the public right-of-way and mailed to all property owners of record within 200 feet of the parcel that the hearing was rescheduled to September 22, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. 13) The Planning Commission reconvened on September 22, 2020 to deliberate. Ultimately, they determined that staff had not erred in approving the two -lot partition, denying the appeal and approving the application subject to conditions listed in the staff report, with the addition of condition 1 a below. 14) The criteria of approval for a Land Partition are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.3.050 which state that the approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all 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. PA -APPEAL -202000011 October 13, 2020 Page 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. 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 an 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 18.5.3.060. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION I. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with, a "P" PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 3 Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an. "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to render a decision based on the application, Staff Report, public hearing testimony, and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a two -lot partition meets all applicable criteria described in section 18.5.3.050, for preliminary partition plat approval. The Planning Commission notes that the preliminary partition plat details the two proposed parcels as 8.94 acres and 3.3 5 acres in size. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application was deemed complete on May 15, 2020 and notice was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within 200 -feet of the subject property. The Planning Commission finther finds that the application was approved by the Staff Advisor on June 30, 2020 with a 12 -day appeal period which extended through July 13, 2020. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that on July 13, 2020 prior to the end of the appeal period, Eric Elerath and Betsy McLane timely filed a notice of land use appeal. Mr. Elerath and Ms. McLane reside in the noticing area and Mr. Elerath had also submitted written comments during the public comment period and thus had standing to appeal. 2.5 The Planning Commission notes that the notice of appeal identified the following issues on appeal: 1) Incomplete application, 2) Defective notice, 3) Failure to provide access to personally inspect the application materials etc., 4) Failure to provide digital access to application materials etc., 5) the Staff Advisor's failure to grant Mr. Elerath's request for additional time to review the application materials, and 6) Defective submittal analysis. Following this list of six specific grounds of appeal the appellant goes on raise a seventh issue saying "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." The Notice of Appeal further stated that the appellant reserved the right to raise other issues at the hearing. AMC 18.5.1.050.G. explains that appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor are "de novo" hearings before the Planning Commission and follow the standard Type 11 public hearing procedure except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City. Consideration of the appeal is not 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. 2.6 The Planning Cormnission finds that the subject property is located within the R-1-7.5 zoning district and that land divisions are governed by AMC 18.5.3. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 4 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that AMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the division of land to carry out the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage efficient use of land resources among other goals. When considering the decision to approve or deny an application for land partition, the Staff Advisor considers the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in the AMC. The approval criteria for a preliminary partition plat are in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.3.050. The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to mare findings that each of the criteria have been met, as follows: 2.7.1 The Planning Commission notes the fast approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. " The application includes a discussion regarding the future development plan to demonstrate, that tie proposed partition will not impede future development of the arcels. T he More devlelo sent plan indicates that the proposed new arc --1 would be able to P� p p p p ^' p� .... be subdivided to create 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 development plan is not a subdivision proposal and is not approved with this two -lot partition approval. The Planning Commission finds that the two proposed lots are significantly larger than the minimum lot size for the zone, that both lots have frontage on the adjacent public streets, and that the development plan demonstrates that the f€uther development of the new parcel is feasible while not limiting possible future development. The Planning Commission further finds that future development of either lot created here is likely to require the extension of Phelps Street, and that the access as illustrated in the application materials has the potential to complicate the street extension once the two properties are under separate ownership. Phelps Street will need to be extended in alignment with its current terminus and ultimately completed to residential neighborhood street standards while addressing the Driveway Separation for Neighborhood Streets in AMC Figure 18.4.3.080.C.3.b. The current configuration does not provide for the extension of Phelps in alignment with its current terminus or account for driveway separation if the existing driveway to Parcel 1 is retained. A condition has been included below to require that the current configuration be adjusted to allow the extension of Phelps Street in beeping with residential neighborhood street standards and in alignment with its current terminus whale addressing the driveway separation requirements. 2.7.2 The Planning Commission notes the second approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. " The Planning Comrn.ission fords that based on the proposed property configuration on the preliminary partition plat the larger proposed parcel will continue to have access from Clinton St. stratifying this criterion. The Planning Commission notes that all other adjoining properties are either developed or constrained by the flood plain. 2.7.3 The Planning Commission notes the third approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and nay previous land use approvals for the subject area. " The Planning Commission notes that there are no adopted neighborhood or district plan that applies to the subject property, nor are there any conditions of approval from. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 5 previous land use approvals that are relevant. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is satisfied. 2.7.4 The Planning Commission notes the fourth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months." The Planning Commission finds that the land has not been partitioned for more than 12 months and that the last plat that adjusted the subject property was a property line adjustment that took place in 2018. 2.7.5 The Planning Commission notes the fifth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is the "Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). " The Planning Commission finds-t6fte preliminary partition plat indicates that the two proposed lots comply with the base standards for the zone including minimum area requirements and lot coverage, and that 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 Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is satisfied. 2.7.6 The Planning Commission notes the sixth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that "Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. " The Planning Commission finds that with the condition discussed in 2.7.1 .above, the lot configuration will be adjusted to provide for the future extension of Phelps Street in alignment with its current terminus to the south and in keeping with street standards while addressing the driveway separation requirements of AMC Figure 18.4.3.080.C.3.b, and that with the fin-ther development of Parcel 2, individual lots created will need to address the Vehicle Area Design standards. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is satisfied. 2.7.7 The Planning Commission notes the seventh approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow far transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. " The Planning Commission finds that the application materials make clear that all city facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way, including sanitary sewer, water and franchise utilities. There are no 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 residential neighborhood 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) indicates 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 Land Use Ordinance does not require PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 6 a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and Public Works had no concerns regarding traffic impacts of the proposed partition. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. 2.7.8 The Planning Commission notes the eighth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval addresses minimum improvements to the roadway: "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." The Planning Commission finds that the existing curb -to - curb width along Clinton and Ann Streets is twenty-seven feet which exceeds the required minimum width for residential neighborhood streets and allows for parking on both sides. The Plat�1-1ing Co further firids that Clinton and Sweet lack park row planting strips and sidewalks adjacent to the new parcel, and notes that the application requests to sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future improvement of Clinton and Ann Streets. A condition has been added below requiring that the applicant sign in favor of a LTD prior to approval of the final plat. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. 2.7.9 The Planning Commission notes the ninth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that "Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. " The Planning Commission finds that this criterion does not apply as there is no alley adjacent to the subject property. 2.7.10 The Planning Commission notes the tenth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that "Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. " The Planning Commission finds that at this time there is no development that would require such permits and that at the time of future development or land division the applicant will be required to address the Water Resource Protection standards and delineation of the possible wetland as identified in the Wetland Inventory and obtain the required state and federal permits should they be required. 2.7.11 The Planning Commission notes the final approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that "A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. " The Planning Commission fmds that this criterion does not apply as there is no proposed flag lot. 2.8 The Planning Commission notes the notice of appeal identified six specific items. It should be noted that none of these issues address the applicable approval criteria and are all focused on alleged failures to adequately notice the application and provide access to the application materials. The six specific items listed were: A. Incomplete application. B. Defective notice. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 7 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. The Planning Commission further acknowledges that the Notice of Intent to Appeal (NITA) document continues under a heading "Specific Grounds for Appeal" there are two sections numbered one and two (A&E above). These two sections develop Mr. Elerath's arguments, the first being that "The Director's decision was made without a complete application having been produced." The second being that "The Director failed to grant an extension of time to allow access to review the application." None of the other specific points listed (B, C, D, F above) have their arguments further developed. As stated above, following the list of -six appeal issues the „ appellant raises a seventh issue stating that two separate land use decision were made. Additionally, in a supplemental submittal the appellant raises the issue that the city failed to properly send a separate notice to co -appellant Betsy McLane, and that his due process rights under the 14th amendment had been prejudiced. Finally, during the hearing the appellant raised issues with easements of record that were not shown on the plat. Below each of these appeal issues is addressed in turn. 2.8.1 The Planning Commission notes that the first appeal issue was that the application was incomplete because the materials provided online did not include the application form itself or receipt for payment. The Planning Commission finds that the receipt and application were included in the physical record. The Planning Commission concludes that the application was complete, and fizrt er notes the application requirements of AMC 18.5.1.050.A are not approval criteria applicable to approving or denying a preliminary partition plat. 2.8.2 The Planning Commission notes that the second appeal issue was that the notice was defective. The Planning Commission notes that the notice that was posted stated that the documents would be available at the Community Development Building which was closed to the public during the public comment period. The Planning Commission notes that during the review period the appellant was in contact with staff and was directed to the City web site where the application materials were available. The Planning Commission further notes that while the posted notice stated that the application materials were available for review in the Community Development Building, with the Governor's Executive Order #20-16 and the city's declared State of Emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, city offices were closed to the public, and that the mailed and posted notices included the name and phone number of a city contact person as required in AMC 18.5.1.050.B.3.h. The Planning Commission notes that the application materials were made available on the "What's Happening in My City" page of the City web site, and people who called or emailed and were interested in reviewing the file were directed to the City's web site. The Planning Commission finds that any issue with defective notice was remedied by the notice for the appeal hearing. 2.8.3 The Planning Commission notes that the third appeal issue was failure to provide access to personally inspect the application file, evidence, and documents. The Planning PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 8 Commission finds that staff contacted Mr. Elerath multiple times to ensure that he had access to the electronic materials. The Planning Commission finds that after the Notice of Decision was sent but prior to the end of the appeal period the city made accommodations to allow Mr. Elerath access to the building to review the physical materials. Despite being contacted multiple times he did not respond to staff or take those opportunities that were available to him to review the application materials in person. The Planning Commission further finds that prior to the appeal hearing the appellant did visit the Community Development building on August 3, 2020 and reviewed the application materials in person. The Planning Commission concludes that this point of appeal is resolved. 2.8.4 The Planning Commission notes that the fourth appeal issue was an alleged failure to provide digital access to application file, material evidence and documents. The Planning Commission finds that' as noted previously the application materials were published on the City web site. °c 2.8.5 The Planning Commission notes that the fifth appeal issue was the appellant's request for additional time and the Director's failure to provide such. The Planning Commission finds that AMC 18.5.1.050.0 requires that, "The Staff Advisor shall prepare a decision within 45 days of the City's determination that an application is complete, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period." In addition, in keeping with the state's "120 -Day Rule," AMC 18.5.1.090.B requires that, "The City shall take final action on Administrative... land use applications, pursuant to this chapter, including resolution of all appeals, within .120 days from the date the StaffAdvisor deems the application complete for purposes of processing, unless the applicant requests an extension in writing." The Planning Commission concludes that there is no requirement in the code to provide additional time for review, and additionally, staffs review timeline is constrained by the time limits set by both city ordinance and state law to render a final decision. 2.8.6 The Planning Commission notes that the sixth appeal issue was an alleged `defective submittal analysis.' The Planning Commission finds that because this specific point of appeal was left undeveloped in the NITA the Planning Commission is left to surmise that this is an argument that ties into the complete application determination addressed below. 2.8.7 The Planning Commission notes that the final appeal issue raised was that the determination of a complete application was a second discrete `land use decision' which also required public notice etc. The Planning Commission finds that determination that an application meets the Type I application requirements of AMC 18.5.1.050.A is a procedural component of all Type I land use decisions, and AMC 18.5.1.090.A requires the Staff Advisor make such a determination for each application within 30 days of submittal. Completeness review in and of itself is not treated as a separate land use decision requiring substantial discretion, and as such is not included as a type of Planning Action approval in Table AMC 18.5.1.010 "Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedures." 2.8.8 In a supplemental submittal on August 10, 2020 the appellant raised additional issues including: the failure of staff to provide separate notice to co -appellant Betsy McLane, concerns with due process and equal protection under the 14'h Amendment, requesting additional time to review and inspect the application, and questioning the credibility of the PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 9 preliminary plat map prepared based on easements which could not be precisely located. The Planning Commission notes that after the notice of appeal, appellant Eric Elerath raised concerns with staff that co -appellant Betsy McLane had not received a mailed notice addressed to her. The Commission notes that Ms. McLane was listed as an appellant on the appeal form, however she did not sign the form. The Commission further notes that, as detailed in AMC 18.5.1.050.G.4, hearings for appeals of Type 1 decisions are to follow the Type 11 hearing procedures in AMC 18.5.1.060 A-E, which include that notices be mailed to owners of record of property on the most recent tax rolls (AMC 18.5.1.060.C.2) and posted on the property within view of the right-of-way. Mr. Elerath and Ms. McLane are both listed as owners of the property at 419 Clinton Street, and the current tax rolls list their mailing address as, and mailed notice was sent to, "Elerath, Eric J et al, 419 Clinton St, Ashland, OR 97520". The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.5.1.020 speaks to "Failure to Receive Notice" noting, "The failure ofa property owner to receive notice..'.' shall not invalidate such proceedings if the City can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was mailed. The failure to receive notice shall not invalidate the decision after the action is final if a good faith attempt was made to notify all persons entitled to receive notice." The Planning Commission finds that a copy of the notice received by the appellants is included in their August 10th submittal, and that required notice was also posted on the property in view of the right-of- way. The Planning Commission concludes that proper notice was provided as required in AMC 18.5.1.060.C. Appellant argues that the 120 -day rule for final decision on a permit, as required by the Oregon Legislature at ORS 227.178, violates his right to due process of law under the 14"' Amendment of the United States Constitution. Appellant has provided no authority for his argument, and the Planning Commission will abide by the requirements of state law as enacted by the Legislature. The appellant's request for additional time are addressed in 2.8.5 above. The Planning Commission notes that the appellant also raised concerns over notations on the preliminary plat that there were some easements identified through a title report which could not be precisely located on the property. These were noted on the preliminary plat with reference to the applicable Jackson County deed records and a notation that they cannot be located, and the appellant ,suggested that a partition should not be approved until these easement locations were resolved. The Planning Commission finds that such notations are typically made when a title report identifies older easements which are not described in sufficient detail to precisely locate them on the plat, and further finds that these easement locations do not relate to an approval criterion and as such do not provide a basis to approve or deny a partition application. 2.9 The Commission finds that with the conditions below attached, the proposal satisfies the applicable approval criteria and that neither the appeal issues raised in the initial notice nor those issues raised during the hearing provide a basis to reverse the initial decision of the Staff Advisor. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 10 SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for the partition approval to divide the property is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. 3.2 The Planning Commission denies the appeal and re -affirms the Staff Advisor's original approval of the partition. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then the Planning Action is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically 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. a. That the partition plat shall be adjusted such that the north -south property line between parcel 1 and parcel 2 is shifted to allow a future extension of Phelps St. consistent with the standards for a neighborhood street and in alignment with Phelps St. to the south, and that the drive way accessing the larger parcel be relocated to meet minimum spacing requirements. 3) That the property owner shall sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future street improvements, including but not limited to paving, curb gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks and undergrounding of utilities for Clinton and Ann Streets prior to signature of the final survey plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. 4) That prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for the review, approval and signature of the Ashland Planning Division, all easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus ai�cess, and reciprocal utility, maintenance, and access shall be indicated on the nal survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. -HAcf'��U-Avu Planning Commission Approval October 13, 2020 Date PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page II :murmxal Moo October 13, 2020 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA -APPEAL -2020-00011, AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF PLANNING ACTION #PA -T1-2020-00109, A TWO -LOT PARTITION OF A 12.29 - ACRE LOT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 345 CLINTON ST. THE TENTATIVE PARTITION PLAT CREATES TWO PARCELS THAT ARE 8.94 ACRES AND 3.35 ACRES IN SIZE. STAFF INITIALLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS. SUBSEQUENT TO THE MAILING OF A NOTICE OF DECISION, ERIC ELERATH AND BETSY MCLANE WHO RESIDE IN THE NOTICE AREA FILED AN APPEAL REQUEST, OWNER: PAUL MACE AND KATHLEEN DILE APPLICANT: ROGUE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPELLANT: ERIC ELERATH AND BETSY MCLANE RECITALS: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDERS. 1) Tax lot #401 of Assessor's Map 39 -IE -04 -DB is located at 345 Clinton Street is in the R-1- 7.5 zone and is 12.29 acres in size. 2) The application proposed a two -lot partition and included a tentative partition plat showing two parcels that are 8.94 acres and 3.35 acres in size. 3) In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Kate Brown issued the "Stay home, stay safe" order on March 23, 2020, after which the city took numerous actions including closing City offices to the public including the Community Development building. 4) State of Oregon Executive order 20-16 "Keep government working: Ordering necessary measures to ensure safe public meetings and continued operations by local governments during coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak" provides that any requirement of the ORS for public meetings may be satisfied by providing a method of appearing or meeting by telephone, video, or other electronic methods. As such, planning commission meetings have been conducted via Zoom. 5) On May 15, 2020 the application was deemed complete, and in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.050.B.4 a Notice of Complete application was posted at the subject property in clear view from the public right-of-way and mailed to all property owners of record within 200 feet of the parcel. 6) The Staff Advisor approved the application on June 30, 2020 subject to several conditions of approval and a Notice of Decision (NOD) was mailed on the same date. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 1 7) After the mailing of the NOD, Eric Elerath and Betsy McLane, who reside at 419 Clinton Street, submitted an application to appeal the approval of the partition on July 13, 2020. 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on August 11, 2020. The meeting was conducted electronically by Zoom due to the ongoing emergency order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Public testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. 9) After the public hearing had concluded the appellant requested that the record remain open pursuant to ORS 197.763 (6). Therefore the record remained open to new evidence or argument from parties to the hearing until August 18, 2020 at 4:30 p.m., open to argument only from parties in response to new submittals until August 25, 2020 at 4:30 p.m., and open to final legal argument from the applicant until September 1, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. The hearing was continued to a date and time certain: September 8, 2020 at 7 p.m. 10) During the period that the record remained open no additional arguments or evidence were submitted. 11) September 12, 2020 was the 120 -day time limit after the application was deemed complete. On September 10, 2020 the applicant signed a 30 -day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1). 12) On September 8, 2020 the Ahneda fire took place which caused the scheduled hearing to be canceled. After the cancelation of the meeting a new notice was posted at the subject property in clear view from the public right-of-way and mailed to all property owners of record within 200 feet of the parcel that the hearing was rescheduled to September 22, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. 13) The Planning Commission reconvened on September 22, 2020 to deliberate. Ultimately, they determined that staff had not erred in approving the two -lot partition, denying the appeal and approving the application subj eel to conditions listed in the staff report, with the addition of condition 1 a below. 14) The criteria of approval for a Land Partition are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.3.050 which state that the approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all 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). E 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. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 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. H. Unpaved Streets. 1. Minimum Street Imp rovement. 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. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3,060. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. ,Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 3 Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to render a decision based on the application, Staff Report, public hearing testimony, and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a two -lot partition meets all applicable criteria described in section 18.5.3.050, for preliminary partition plat approval. The Planning Commission notes that the preliminary partition plat details the two proposed parcels as 8.94 acres and 3.35 acres in size. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application was deemed complete on May 15, 2020 and notice was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within 200 -feet of the subject property. The Planning Commission further finds that the application was approved by the Staff Advisor on June 30, 2020 with a 12 -day appeal period which extended through July 13, 2020. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that on July 13, 2020 prior to the end of the appeal period, Eric Elerath and Betsy McLane timely filed a notice of land use appeal. Mr. Elerath and Ms. McLane reside in the noticing area and Mr. Elerath had also submitted written comments during the public comment period and thus had standing to appeal. 2.5 The Planning Commission notes that the notice of appeal identified the following issues on appeal: 1) Incomplete application, 2) Defective notice, 3) Failure to provide access to personally inspect the application materials etc., 4) Failure to provide digital access to application materials etc., 5) the Staff Advisor's failure to grant Mr. Elerath's request for additional time to review the application materials, and 6) Defective submittal analysis. Following this list of six specific grounds of appeal the appellant goes on raise a seventh issue saying "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." The Notice of Appeal further stated that the appellant reserved the right to raise other issues at the hearing. AMC 18.5.1.050.G. explains that appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor are "de novo" hearings before the Planning Commission and follow the standard Type II public hearing procedure except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City. Consideration of the appeal is not 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. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is located within the R-1-7.5 zoning district and that land divisions are governed by AMC 18.5.3. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 4 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that AMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the division of land to carry out the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage efficient use of land resources among other goals. When considering the decision to approve or deny an application for land partition, the Staff Advisor considers the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in the AMC. The approval criteria for a preliminary partition plat are in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.3.050. The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of the criteria have been met, as follows: 2.7.1 The Planning Commission notes the first approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. " 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 subdivided to create 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 development plan is not a subdivision proposal and is not approved with this two -lot partition approval. The Planning Commission finds that the two proposed lots are significantly larger than the minimum lot size for the zone, that both lots have frontage on the adjacent public streets, and that the development plan demonstrates that the further development of the new parcel is feasible while not limiting possible fature development. The Planning Commission further finds that future development of either lot created here is likely to require the extension of Phelps Street, and that the access as illustrated in the application materials has the potential to complicate the street extension once the two properties are under separate ownership. Phelps Street will need to be extended in alignment with its current terminus and ultimately completed to residential neighborhood street standards while addressing the Driveway Separation for Neighborhood Streets in AMC Figure 18.4.3.080.C.3.b. The current configuration does not provide for the extension of Phelps in alignment with its current terminus or account for driveway separation if the existing driveway to Parcel 1 is retained. A condition has been included below to require that the current configuration be adjusted to allow the extension of Phelps Street in keeping with residential neighborhood street standards and in alignment with its current terminus while addressing the driveway separation requirements. 2.7.2 The Planning Commission notes the second approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. " The Planning Commission finds that based on the proposed property configuration on the preliminary partition plat the larger proposed parcel will continue to have access from Clinton St. stratifying this criterion. The Planning Commission notes that all other adjoining properties are either developed or constrained by the flood plain. 2.7.3 The Planning Commission notes the third approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and nay previous land use approvals for the subject area. " The Planning Commission notes that there are no adopted neighborhood or district plan that applies to the subject property, nor are there any conditions of approval from PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 OctGber I3, 2020 Page 5 previous land use approvals that are relevant. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is satisfied. 2.7.4 The Planning Commission notes the fourth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months." The Planning Commission finds that the land has not been partitioned for more than 12 months and that the last plat that adjusted the subject property was a property line adjustment that took place in 2018. 2.7.5 The Planning Commission notes the fifth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is the "Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). " The Planning Commission finds that the preliminary partition plat indicates that the two proposed lots comply with the base standards for the zone including minimum area requirements and lot coverage, and that 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 Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is satisfied. 2.7.6 The Planning Commission notes the sixth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that "Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. " The Planning Commission finds that with the condition discussed in 2.7.1 above, the lot configuration will be adjusted to provide for the future extension of Phelps Street in alignment with its current terminus to the south and in keeping with street standards while addressing the driveway separation requirements of AMC Figure 18.4.3.080.C3.b, and that with the further development of Parcel 2, individual lots created will need to address the Vehicle Area Design standards. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is satisfied. 2.7.7 The Planning Commission notes the seventh approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4 and allow far transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications.' The Planning Commission finds that the application materials make clear that all city facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way, including sanitary sewer, water and franchise utilities. There are no 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 residential neighborhood 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) indicates that each of these roads operate :Ear 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 Land Use Ordinance does not refire PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 6 a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and Public Works had no concerns regarding traffic impacts of the proposed partition. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. 2.7.8 The Planning Commission notes the eighth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval addresses minimum improvements to the roadway: "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 2d feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department." The Planning Commission finds that the existing curb -to - curb width along Clinton and Ann Streets is twenty-seven feet which exceeds the required minimum width for residential neighborhood streets and allows for parking on both sides. The Planning Commission further finds that Clinton and Ann Street lack park row planting strips and sidewalks adjacent to the new parcel, and notes that the application requests to sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future improvement of Clinton and Ann Streets. A condition has been added below requiring that the applicant sign in favor of a LID prior to approval of the final plat. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. 2.7.9 The Planning Commission notes the ninth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that "Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. " The Planning Commission finds that this criterion does not apply as there is no alley adjacent to the subject property. 2.7.10 The Planning Commission notes the tenth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that "Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. " The Planning Commission finds that at this time there is no development that would require such permits and that at the time of future development or land division the applicant will be required to address the Water Resource Protection standards and delineation of the possible wetland as identified in the Wetland Inventory and obtain the required state and federal permits should they be required. 2.7.11 The Planning Commission notes the final approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that "A partition plan containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. " The Planning Commission finds that this criterion does not apply as there is no proposed flag lot. 2.8 The Planning Commission notes the notice of appeal identified six specific items. It should be noted that none of these issues address the applicable approval criteria and are all focused on alleged failures to adequately notice the application and provide access to the application materials. The six specific items listed were: A. Incomplete application. B. Defective notice. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 7 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. The Planning Commission further acknowledges that the Notice of Intent to Appeal (NITA) document continues under a heading "Specific Grounds for Appeal" there are two sections numbered one and two (A&E above). These two sections develop Mr. Elerath's arguments, the first being that "The Director's decision was made without a complete application having been produced." The second being that "The Director failed to grant an extension of time to allow access to review the application." None of the other specific points listed (B, C, D, F above) have their arguments further developed. As stated above, following the list of six appeal issues the appellant raises a seventh issue stating that two separate land use decision were made. Additionally, in a supplemental submittal the appellant raises the issue that the city failed to properly send a separate notice to co -appellant Betsy McLane, and that his due process rights under the 14'h amendment had been prejudiced. Finally, during the hearing the appellant raised issues with easements of record that were not shown on the plat. Below each of these appeal issues is addressed in turn. 2.8.1 The Planning Commission notes that the first appeal issue was that the application was incomplete because the materials provided online did not include the application form itself or receipt for payment. The Planning Commission finds that the receipt and application were included in the physical record. The Planning Commission concludes that the application was complete, and further notes the application requirements of AMC 18.5.1.050.A are not approval criteria applicable to approving or denying a preliminary partition plat. 2.8.2 The Planning Commission notes that the second appeal issue was that the notice was defective. The Planning Commission notes that the notice that was posted stated that the documents would be available at the Community Development Building which was closed to the public during the public comment period. The Planning Commission notes that during the review period the appellant was in contact with staff and was directed to the City web site where the application materials were available. The Planning Commission further notes that while the posted notice stated that the application materials were available for review in the Community Development Building, with the Governor's Executive Order #2016 and the city's declared State of Emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, city offices were closed to the public, and that the mailed and posted notices included the name and phone number of a city contact person as required in AMC 18.5.1.0503.31. The Planning Commission notes that the application materials were made available on the "What's Happening in My City" page of the City web site, and people who called or emailed and were interested in reviewing the file were directed to the City's web site. The Planning Commission finds that any issue with defective notice was remedied by the notice for the appeal hearing. 2.8.3 The Planning Commission notes that the third appeal issue was failure to provide access to personally inspect the application file, evidence, and documents. The Planning PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 8 Commission finds that staff contacted Mr. Elerath multiple times to ensure that he had access to the electronic materials. The Planning Commission finds that after the Notice of Decision was sent but prior to the end of the appeal period the city made accommodations to allow Mr. Elerath access to the building to review the physical materials. Despite being contacted multiple times he did not respond to staff or take those opportunities that were available to him to review the application materials in person. The Planning Commission further finds that prior to the appeal hearing the appellant did visit the Community Development building on August 3, 2020 and reviewed the application materials in person. The Planning Commission concludes that this point of appeal is resolved. 2.8.4 The Planning Commission notes that the fourth appeal issue was an alleged failure to provide digital access to application file, material evidence and documents. The Planning Commission finds that as noted previously the application materials were published on the City web site. 2.8.5 The Planning Commission notes that the fifth appeal issue was the appellant's request for additional time and the Director's failure to provide such. The Planning Commission finds that AMC 18.5.1.050.0 requires that, "The Staff Advisor shall prepare a decision within 45 days of the City's determination that an application is complete, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period." In addition, in keeping with the state's "120 -Day Rule," AMC 18.5.1.0903 requires that, "The City shall take final action on Administrative... land use applications, pursuant to this chapter, including resolution of all appeals, within 120 days from the date the Staff Advisor deems the application complete for purposes of processing, unless the applicant requests an extension in writing." The Planning Commission concludes that there is no requirement in the code to provide additional time for review, and additionally, staff s review timeline is constrained by the time limits set by both city ordinance and state law to render a final decision. 2.8.6 The Planning Commission notes that the sixth appeal issue was an alleged `defective submittal analysis.' The Planning Commission finds that because this specific point of appeal was left undeveloped in the NITA the Planning Commission is left to surmise that this is an argument that ties into the complete application determination addressed below. 2.8.7 The Planning Commission notes that the final appeal issue raised was that the determination of a complete application was a second discrete `land use decision' which also required public notice etc. The Planning Commission finds that determination that an application meets the Type I application requirements of AMC 18.5.1.050.A is a procedural component of all Type I land use decisions, and AMC 18.5.1.090.A requires the Staff Advisor make such a determination for each application within 3 0 days of submittal. Completeness review in and of itself is not treated as a separate land use decision requiring substantial discretion, and as such is not included as a type of Planning Action approval in Table AMC 18.5.1.010 "Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedures." 2.8.8 In a supplemental submittal on August 10, 2020 the appellant raised additional issues including: the failure of staff to provide separate notice to co -appellant Betsy McLane, concerns with due process and equal protection under the 14" Amendment, requesting additional time to review and inspect the application, and questioning the credibility of the PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 9 preliminary plat map prepared based on easements which could not be precisely located. The Planning Commission notes that after the notice of appeal, appellant Eric Elerath raised concerns with staff that co -appellant Betsy McLane had not received a mailed notice addressed to her. The Commission notes that Ms. McLane was listed as an appellant on the appeal form, however she did not sign the form.. The Commission further notes that, as detailed in AMC 18.5.1.050.G.4, hearings for appeals of Type 1 decisions are to follow the Type 11 hearing procedures in AMC 1.8.5.1.060 A-E, which include that notices be mailed to owners of record of property on the most recent tax rolls (AMC 18.5.1.060.C.2) and posted on the property within view of the right-of-way. Mr. Elerath and Ms. McLane are both listed as owners of the property at 419 Clinton Street, and the current tax rolls list their mailing address as, and mailed notice was sent to, "Elerath, Eric 7 et al, 419 Clinton St, Ashland, OR 97520". The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.5.1.020 speaks to "Failure to Receive Notice" noting, "The failure of a property owner to receive notice... shall not invalidate such proceedings if the City can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was mailed. The failure to receive notice shall not invalidate the decision after the action is final if a good faith attempt was made to notify all persons entitled to receive notice." The Planning Commission finds that a copy of the notice received by the appellants is included in their August 10th submittal, and that required notice was also posted on the property in view of the right-of- way. ight-ofway. The Planning Commission concludes that proper notice was provided as required in AMC 18.5.1.060.C. Appellant argues that the 120 -day rule for final decision on a permit, as required by the Oregon Legislature at ORS 227.178, violates his right to due process of law under the 10' Amendment of the United States Constitution. Appellant has provided no authority for his argument, and the Planning Commission will abide by the requirements of state law as enacted by the Legislature. The appellant's request for additional time are addressed in 2.8.5 above. The Planning Commission notes that the appellant also raised concerns over notations on the preliminary plat that there were some easements identified through a title report which could not be precisely located on the property. These were noted on the preliminary plat with reference to the applicable Jackson County deed records and a notation that they cannot be located, and the appellant suggested that a partition should not be approved until these easement locations were resolved. The Planning Commission finds that such notations are typically made when a title report identifies older easements which are not described in sufficient detail to precisely locate them on the plat, and further finds that these easement locations do not relate to an approval criterion and as such do not provide a basis to approve or deny a partition application. 2.9 The Commission finds that with the conditions below attached, the proposal satisfies the applicable approval criteria and that neither the appeal issues raised in the initial notice nor those issues raised during the hearing provide a basis to reverse the initial decision of the Staff Advisor. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 10 SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for the partition approval to divide the property is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. 3.2 The Planning Commission denies the appeal and re -affirms the Staff Advisor's original approval of the partition. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then the Planning Action is denied. The following axe the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) That a final suxvey 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. a. That the partition plat shall be adjusted such that the north -south property line between parcel 1 and parcel 2 is shifted to allow a future extension of Phelps St. consistent with the standards for a neighborhood street and in alignment with Phelps St. to the south, and that the drive way accessing the larger parcel be relocated to meet minimum spacing requirements. 3) That the property owner shall sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future street improvements, including but not limited to paving, curb gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks and undergrounding of utilities for Clinton and Ann Streets prior to signature of the final survey plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. 4) That prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for the review, approval and signature of the Ashland Planning Division, 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. . -&WOO Planning Commission Approval October 13 2020 Date PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 11 October 14, 2020 Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services 1,LC , 33 N Central Avenue Suite 213 Medford, OR 97501 Owner: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle 345 Clinton Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action ff-PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 Notice of Decision CITY OF -ASHLAND Aupellant. Eric Elcrath & Betsy McLane 419 Clinton Street Ashland, OR 97520 At its meeting of September 22, 2020, the Ashland Planning Commission denied your appeal request and upheld the administrative decision of Planning Action 4PAJI -2020-00109, a two - lot partition of a 12,29 -acre lot for the property located at 345 Clinton Street. The tentative partition plat showed that the two resultant parcels will be 8.94 acres and 3,35 acres with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. The Ashland Planning Commission adopted and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document on October 13, 2020. The Planning Commission's decision on appeal becomes final with this mailing of the Notice of Final Decision. (AMC 18.5.1 .050.6.4) The 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. Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and evidence submitted, and applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way, Copies of File documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. This decision may be appealed to the Oregon 1,and Use Board of Appeals (LURA) in accordance with Oregon State Law, Please contact LUBA for specific appeal information, hU Z/AY-NV- _v/ I IRA/ Pa Lle-d—,Q_ 0 or 503-373-1265. They are located at 550 Capitol Street N.E., Suite 235, Salem, Oregon 97301-2552. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Aaron Anderson in the Community Development Department at (541) 552-2052. Enclosure cc: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle Parties of record COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tet 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www,ahland.or.us AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson I The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2, On October 14, 2020 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, ina sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #P'A-APPEAL-2020- 00011, 345 Clinton Street. Signature of Employee C:lUserstsmthda,AFNHEDe:sktopVtFRDAVIT OF MAUNG,dou W4020 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB401 MACE PAUL BIKATHLEEN KAHLE 345 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT LJ FRAIR & ASSOC. GUNTER AMY PO Box 1947 33 N CENTRAL AVE STE 213 Phoenix, OR 97535 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-APPEAL-2020-00011391E04DD1607 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 10114/2020 ELERATH ERIC J ET AL MCLANE, BETSY 345 Clinton APPEAL NOD 419 CLINTON ST 419 CLINTON STREET 5 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Asliland, Oregon 97520 CITY OF wr 541488-5305 Fax:541�552-2050 wwmashiand,or,us TTY:1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: PA -APPEAL -2020-0001 I(Appealing 1'A -TI -20201-00109) SUBJECT PROPER,rY: 345 Clinton APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development for Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle DESCRIPTION: The Plarming COMMiSSiOrl Will consider an appeal of staff's approval for a two -lot partition of a 12,29 -acre lot. The Purpose of the partition was to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat indicated that the two, resultant parcels will be 8,943 a.c. and 3,35 ac with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. The public hearing was conducted on August 11"'. The record remained open until August 18"' during which time no additional items were submitted and the record subsequently closed. The hearing was continued until a date and time ceilain (9/8/2020) but was canceled due to the wildfire emergency. At the hearing on 9/22/2020 the Planning Commission will deliberate and render a decision, COMPRE, HENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONIN G: R-1-5; MAP: 39 1E 04 DB; TAX LOT: 401 ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: 1)in ::n "i September 22, 2020 The Public Hearing was concluded at the August 1111 hearing. The record was requested to remain open for a week, no other materials were received and the record was subsequently closed August '18th. At the September 2211d hearing the Planning Commission will reconvene to deliberate and render a decision. Subject Property 345 Clinton St., PA-AP'EAL-2020-00011 (appealing PA -TI -2020-001091 CT Actions\Ms by TI -2020-0917 MAPPEAL PA -APPEAL -2020-0001 I kNoticr_s1Clintoil-345PA-APPEAL-2020-0001 I 2nJN0C.d0cx Notice is hereby given that the ,Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the rneeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter meeting via the internet by going to L4y.q U.Edu and selecting Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the q "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 constitutbnai 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 COVI D-1 9 pandemic, application materials are provided online. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or pjar' [I!Ljg L@g§_Wan4_or Lis, 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,as.hIand.or,usLPgpackrp 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 pLannin cDLas The Public Hearing was concluded at the August 11th hearing. The record was requested to remain open for a week, no other materials were received and the record was subsequently closed August 18". At the September 22nd hearing the Planning Commission will reconvene to deliberate and render a decision. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.- 35.104 ADA Title 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-488-5305. 34,5 -APPEAL-2070-o= �_IWNQC doc% ActionsTA3 by Smet\CW'1int011\Qntu1� 34nPA-"rj-202Q-001MAPPEAL PA-APPEAL..2020.(,IooiiNc�ticcs\Cli,itaii 3 _pk 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. Gacomm-devlp1anningTianningAWons\PMbyStreetlCNClinlonlCIinton_34STA-TI-2020-001091APPEALPA-APPEAL-2020-0001 MoticeAClinton_345_PA-APPEAL-2020-00011_2ndNOC.docx AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On September 11, 20201 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -APPEAL -2020-00011, 345 Clinton. SigrYture of Employee Documenil 811112020 s}uege6ea-AiGAe e zailV PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC110 BARTON ANN REV LIV TRUST 361 PATTERSON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB900 BORGERSON BRUCE J/DORITA B 209 SLEEPY HOLLOW ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC108 CHAMBERS LINDA G 527 ANN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC 101 CITIZENS SAVINGS/LOAN ASSNC/O FIEDLER DENNIS/RITA 3260 BRYCELER DR EUGENE, OR 97405 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1700 DAVID SCOTT CONSTRUCTION LLC 876 CLAY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CA1007 FOSTER PETER S/KRISTAL 207 ALICIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC206 GUSS MICHAEL R 316 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC4100 HORTON DAVID C TRUSTEE ET AL 408 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CA1204 JAFFE SUE A 206 ALICIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC208 KIMBALL DORIS D TRUSTEE ET AL 557 PHELPS ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 i � 0�[531efdu3al�[�anyasn saaeldwaj/w0D'AA3Ae 0109 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC4400 BATES WILLIAM L TRUSTEE ET AL 414 BRISCOE PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC4200 CALKINS KEVIN DEAN TRUSTEE ET 414 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CAl 11 CHRISTIAN WILLIAM C/CATHY A 778 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC105 CROUCH LONALEE LINDEN 350 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DD1607 ELERATH ERIC J ET AL 419 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC 103 FUNK ROGER P TRUSTEE ET AL 7033 RAPP LN TALENT, OR 97540 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011391 E04DC4000 HILLIGOSS LAWRENCE O/LINDA A 534 ANN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011391 E04DC204 HUTCHINSON ANTHONY MELENA F 292 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011391 E04CA1008 KEARNS HANK J JR/ROBIN C 210 OAKLAWN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1400 LANG KATHERINE E TRUSTEE ETA PO BOX 7047 BROOKINGS, OR 97415 i obf)D di)-dod 0s0dxa oa au�E BUOIL? pua8 slagej ssaippV., load used PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC4600 BENBOUGH H L IIIIMARCIA M 224 JESSICA LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1100 CALLAGHAN PEGGY JOYCE 770 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CA700 CHRISTIAN WILLIAM CICATHY A 788 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CAl08 DALTON ROSEMARY D ET AL 208 SLEEPY HOLLOW ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC207 FINDLEY LINDSEY ATHERTON TRUS 328 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1000 GLOVER DENNIS A TRUSTEE ET AL 773 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC302 HINMAN BURT HUGH/DENISE G 587 CAROL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CA103 JACKSON JOSEPH C ET AL 207 SLEEPY HOLLOW ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC200 KENYON JACK LIKATHLEEN E 558 CAROL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC4500 LAWSON SCOTT DOUGLAS TRUSTEE 406 BRISCOE PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB523 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC209 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB401 LOFTUS JUSTIN AIHEIDI Y LONG BRIAN PATRICK MACE PAUL BIKATHLEEN KAHLE 403 BRISCOE PL 547 PHELPS ST 345 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1900 MOORE MATTHEW F/LIBBI L PO BOX 683 TALENT, OR 97540 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB522 NORVELL FAMILY TRUST ET AL 411 BRISCOE PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC3800 ORR HELEN T TRUSTEE ET AL 407 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC203 SAUER KAREN L 578 CAROL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC4300 SHIVERS JACQUELYN C TRUSTEE E 422 BRISCOE PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011391 E04DD3100 VITCOV BARRYISHIRLEY 430 BRISCOE PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC107 WEIBEL ROBERT W 394 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 DENNISIRITA FIEDLER 374 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 HOMEOWNER 371 TUDOR ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1300 MORLAN MARTIN DAVID 766 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB 1500 O'GRADY SEAN B DE COURCEYIO'G 740 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB 1800 PATRICK-RILEY KENT/COLLEEN C 675 CAROL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC3700 SENDAR STEPHEN MIMELIKIAN LIN 413 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC109 SMITH PETER EITRACY E 371 PATTERSON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011391 E04DB800 WALDMAN ELLEN 779 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC202 WHITNEY JOHN PO BOX 74 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 RIVERWALK HOA BOARDCAROLYN HUNSAKER 241 MAPLE ST, STE 100 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENTGUNTER AMY :33 N. CENTRAL, STE. 213 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DA3900 MOZINGO GEORGE L & DONNA E LI 360 STRAWBERRY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC3900 OHANA LIVING TRUST ET AL 100 LEONARD ST #APT 4-2 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC100 RALEIGH ELISABETH TRUSTEE ET 343 PATTERSON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DO205 SEQUEIRA LOUIS AISCHOONOVER H PO BOX 824 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1600 VANDYKE DANICLAUDIA 732 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1200 WALSH RICHARD LIGLENDA J 209 OAKLAWN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC 106 YASUTAKE KIM LIP HERDKLOTZ 384 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 REBECCA MCLENNAN 537 PHELPS ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 LJ FRAIR & ASSOC. 2714 N. PACIFIC HWY MEDFORD, OR 97501 9. 11.2020 Betsy McLane 345 Clinton APPEAL NOC 415 Clinton Street 61 Ashland, OR 97520 This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to Oregon's public records laws for disclosure and retention. if you've received this e-mail in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2040. Thank you. .... . . . ...... . ............ ....... Fnom: Eric Elerath <eelerath Pverizon. net> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:57 PM To: Dana Smith <dana.smith@ashla,nd,or.us>; Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC -public testimony@ashland.or.us> Subject: Re:, August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Planning Commission: I write to ask for a continuance of 30 days in the matter of: PLANNING ACTION: #PA -APPEAL -2020-00014 (appealing IIA -TI -2020-00109) PLANNING ACTION: PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 SUBJECT PROPERTY. 345 Clinton St, OWNER: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle If you have questions or wish to reply, the controlling case and its history may be found in: Eric EL BATH. La fitioner. v Frank A. McGUIRE, Clerk, Supreme Court of California, et a1.1'' 34 S.Ct. 1947 (2014) 188 L.Ed.2d 962, Supreme Court of United States. April 28, 2014. Thank you. Eric Elerath On Aug 10, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Dana Smith <dana.smith ashlandor.us> wrote: Thank you Eric. I wily distribute this to the Planning Commission and staff today. Dana Srnith, Executive Assistant City of Ashland, Community Development Department 51 Wfturn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-552-2072, TTY: 800-735-2900 This emaiI, transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention, If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2072. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: Eric Elerath <eelerathverizon.net> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 8:48 AM To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC-public-testiL ony(0)ashiand.or.us> 0 Subject: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Staff Please find enclosed comments for Planning Commissioners review. Thank you! Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. (310) 429-8093 From. Eric Elerath <eelerath@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 9:23, AM To: Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us> Cc: Dana Smith <da na.sm ith @ash land.or.us>; Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC -public - testimony @ashland.or,us>; Amy Gunter <annygunter.planning@gmail.corn> Subject: Re: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony Mr. Severson I interpret your answer as being "'Motion for continuance Denied" Is that correct? Thank you. Eric Elerath On Aug 14, 2020, at 9:18 AM, Derek Severson <derek.seversonCO)ashland.or,us> wrote: Mr. Elerath, At Tuesday's hearing, in response to your request the Planning Commission opted to close the hearing but leave the record open. This means that the following deadlines now apply, as was explained during the hearing: The record is left open as follows... Open to New Evidence or Argument from Parties to the Hearing Until: August 18, 2020 CcD 4:3,0 P.M. Open to Argument Only (Not New Evidence) from Parties in Response to New Submittals Until: August 25, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. Open to Final Legal Argument from the Applicant Only Until: September 1, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. The meeting was continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on September 8, 2020 @ 7:001 p.m. At that time, the Planning Commission will consider the evidence and arguments received while the record was left open and will deliberate to a decision. However, the public hearing is closed and there won't be an opportunity for further oral testimony on September 8th. IFIIT-M- Derek Severson, Senior Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520 PH: (541) 552-2040 FAX: (541) 552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 E-MAIL: derek.severson_@ashland.or.us 4"�1""""'I'lJi Dana Smith 111-`111-1111 �- ` 1 11- , From: Dana Smith Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 3:30 PM To: Eric Elerath; Derek Severson Subject., RE: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony Mr, Elerath, Meeting minutes do not typically post until the week before the next regular Planning Commission meeting. In this case, that will be no later than Monday, August 31, 2020, However, the video of the meeting posted Wednesday. Here is a link: https:Lvideo pl screen=false&showta bssearch=true&autostart=true It might be helpful until the minutes are available. Dana Smith, Executive Assistant City of Ashland, Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-552-2072, TTY: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law far disclosure and retention, if you have received this message in error, please contact me of (541) 552-2072. Thank you. From: Eric Elerath <eelerath @verizon. net> Sent. Friday, August 14, 2020 3:14 PM To: Derek Severson <derek,severson@ashland-or-us> Cc: Dana Smith <dana.sm ith @ash land.or, us>; Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC-public- testimony@ashland.or.us>; Amy Gunter <amyguriter.planning@gmail.corn> Subject* Re: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Mr. Severson Q. I don't see any minutes or transcript of the Tuesday meeting on the City website. Is one available? Thank you., Eric Elerath Cin Aug 14, 2020, at 9:18 AM, Derek Severson <derek.severson4ashland.or.us> wrote- Y"J, Mr. Elerath, At Tuesday's hearing, in response to your request the Planning Commission opted to close the hearing but leave the record open. This means that the following deadlines now apply, as was explained during the hearing: The record is left open as follows... Open to New Evidence or Argument from Parties to the Hearing Until: August 18, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. Open to Argument Only (Not New Evidence) from Parties in Response to New Submittals Until: August 25, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. Open, to Final Legal Argument from the Applicant Only Until, September 1, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m., The meeting was continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on September 8, 2.020 @ 7:00 p.m, At that time, the Planning Commission will consider the evidence and arguments received while the record was left open and will deliberate to a clecision. However, the public hearing is closed and there won't be an opportunity for further oral testimony on September 8th. - Derek Derek Severson, Senior Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development 5,1 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520 PH: (541) 552-2040 FAX: (541) 552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 E-MAIL: derek,,severson@ash.land.or.us This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to Oregon's public records lows for disclosure and retention. if you've received this e-mail in error, please contact me at (541) 552'-2040. Thank you. . . . .......... ... . ..... From: Eric Elerath <eelerath@verizon,net> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:57 PM To: Dana Smith <dana.smit Dashland.orus>; Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC-public- testi-nony Dashland.or.us> Subject: Re: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony (EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Planning Commission: I write to ask for a continuance of 30 days in the matter of: . .. . ... PLANNING ACTION: MPA -APPEAL -2020-00011 (appealing PA -TI -2020-00109) PLANNING ACTION: PA -APPEAL -2020-0001 I SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton St. OWNER: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle If you have questions or wish to reply, the controlling case and its history may be found in: Eric ELER.ATH etitioner v Frank A. McGUIRE Clerk Sulor.eme Court of California et at. 134 S,Ct. 1947 (2014) 188 L.Ed.2d 962, Supreme Court of United States. April 28, 2014. Thank You. Eric Elerath On Aug 10, 2020„ at 10:58 AM, Dana Smith <dana.smith@ashJand.or.us> wrote: Thank you Eric. I will distribute this to the Planning Commission and staff today. Dana Smith, Executive Assistant City of Ashland, Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone; 641-552-2072, TTY: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2072. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: Eric Elerath <eelerath-- @verizon,net> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026-8A8 AM To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC-public-testimc�n�ashla�nd.or.us> Subject: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Staff Please find enclosed comments for Planning Commissioners review. Thank you! E6c Elerath 419 Clinton St. (310) 429-8093 It ..... ....... Dana Smith From: Eric Elerath <eelerath@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 9:23 AM To: Derek Severson Cc: Dana Smith; Planning Commission - Public Testimony; Array Gunter Subject: Re: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Mr. Severson I interpret your answer as being "Motion for continuance Denied" Is that correct? Thank you. Eric Elerath On Aug 14, 2020, at 9:18 AM, Derek Severson <derek.severson(Pashland.or.us> wrote: Mr. Elerath, At Tuesday's hearing, in response to your request the Planning Commission opted to close the hearing but leave the record open. This means that the following deadlines now apply, as was explained during the hearing: The record is left open as follows... Open to New Evidence or Argument from Parties to the Hearing Until: August 18, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. Open to Argument Only (Not New Evidence) from Parties in Response to New Submittals Until: August 25, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. Open to Final Legal Argument from the Applicant Only Until: September 1, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. The meeting was continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on September 8, 2020 @ 7:00 p.m. At that time, the Planning Commission will consider the evidence and arguments received while the record was left open and will deliberate to a decision. However, the public hearing is closed and there won't be an opportunity for further oral testimony on September 8th. - Derek Derek Severson, Senior Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520 Y.......... . ... PH: (541) 552-2040 FAX: (541) 552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 E-MAIL., derek.severson@ashland..or.us This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to Oregon's public records lawsfor disclosure and retention. If you've received this e-mail in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2040., Thank you. I'll . . . ... .. ........ . . ..... .... ...... From: Eric Elerath <eelerath@verizo.n.net> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:57 PM To: Dana Smith <dana.smith@ashIan,d.or.us>; Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC-pubfic- testimonv2ashland.or.us> Subject: Re: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Planning Commission: I write to ask for a continuance of 30 days in the matter of: PLANNING ACTION. #PA -APPEAL -20,20-000 11 (appealing PA -TI -2020-00109 PLANNING ACTION: PA -APPEAL -20,20-0001.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton St. OWNER: Patil Mace & Kathleen Kahle If you have questions or wish to reply, the controlling case and its history may be found in: Eric ELERATH, petitioner v Frank A. McQUIRE Clerk, Supreme Court of California et a/134 S.Ct. 1947 (2014) 188 L.Ed.2d 962, Supreme Court of United States. April 28, 2014. Thank You. Eric Elerath On Aug 10, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Dana Smith <dana. smith@ ash land. or. up wrote: Thank you Eric. I will distribute this to the Planning Commission and staff today Dana Smith, Executive Assistant City of Ashland, Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-552-2072, TTY: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is Subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2072, Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: Eric Elerath <eelerath_@Merizon.net> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 8:48 AM To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PQ -p ubric-testi mony@ ashI a _nd, or, up Subject: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Staff C Please find enclosed comments for Planning Commissioners review, Thank youl 2 ................ Eric Elerath; 419 Clinton St. (81 a) 429-8093 Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 (310) 429-8063 August 10, 2020 Planning Department City of Ashland 51 Winborn Way Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-5305 PLANNING ACTION: #PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 (APPEALING PA- TI -2020-001091 PLANNING ACTION: SUBJECT PROPERTY: OWNER: PA -APPEAL -2020-00011. 345 Clinton St. Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle SUBJECT: Notice of Appeal of Planning Decision STAFF DECISION: June 30�, 2020 APPEALED: July 13, 2020 Issues De Novo I Due Process Failure to Notice Betsy McLane One of the two Appellants, Betsy A. McLane (McLane), did not receive any notice of this hearing. Page 1,32 of the packet 2020-08-11 — PC — PACKET-web.pdf lists the record for the current action. The chart header indicates the Date, Item, and Page # for each record item and the third line shows that Appellants Submittals were received on 7/13/2020 and begin on page 5. The document image on page 5, (or 137), shows two names listed as Appellants. 1. is Eric Elerath and 2. is Betsy McLane, Under D, both persons named in A.1 and A.2 qualify because they affirmed having received notice of the planning action. Page 6, (.pdf 138) shows that the Appeal Fee was paid, and the stamp on both pages shows that the copy is a conformed copy. The doCLIment shows Eric Elerath's handwritten signature in blue ink and the space above Betsy McLane's is unsigned on the document that the City chose to display, PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 I of 4 Enclosed exhibits also show Betsy McLane's qualification as a separate party: A. An email that Elerath sent to Planning staff on July 13 to show McLane's intent to be included as a party to the Appeal. B. A receipt for payment, showing Betsy's name appearing on the receipt. Betsy McLane is a person I trust. Incoming mail from the Post Office is scanned before delivery, and Betsy receives previews of the scanned envelopes by email, She has told me that, to the best of her memory, she did not receive an email with a scanned image of all envelope from the City of Ashland bearing her name, nor did she receive an paper letter of the Notice. Attached is a copy of the envelope that Elerath received containing his Notice of Appeal., dated July 29, 2020. It is addressed to: "ELERA-M ERIC J ET At," followed by the 419 Clinton Street address. The term "et al" is not a catch-all substitute to include unnamed parties, but an abbreviation referencing parties to a case, not to identify them. Betsy McLane's name does, not appear on the envelope, and Elerath requests a new hearing be scheduled pursuant to A.M.C. 2. Due Process Under the 14th Amendment " .- nor shall any state deprive, any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" f some government While health concerns may warrant the closure or partial closure o offices, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that requires an Oregon land use authority to approve a preliminary plat map within 120 days during a declared national pandemic and health emergency. However, due process is a basic requirement. 3. Equal Protection under the 1411, amendment ".., nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The processes created, judged and enforced through this Planning action may be exactly what this Clause was intended to prevent. By allowing land use approvals to be made on incomplete information„ additional Conditions may be brought through after approval, and architects, engineers, attorneys and other professionals may overrule 150 years worth of civil rights advancement in a week or two on that property. That must not happen. Under Oregon law, a property owner may have a right to have their lot adjustment speedily approved after three years of preparation, but the public also has a right to be sure that the process doesn't allow pernicious and illegal covenants to be recorded during a period of national health emergency, Currently, it appears that the City is favoring its relationship with one pair of property owners over a duty to serve the public interest. Director Molnar did not address Elerath's request, and the requests by others, for a time extension. Instead, the City deferred to Oregon statutes which impose a time limit. There is an inherent conflict of interest here, The City should be mediating the rights of the public against the rights of a property owner, but the public now confronts a City which lacks the judicial PA. -APPEAL -2020-00011 2 o 4 authority or will to do that. This seems to violate the principle that the judicial branch of government has authority over legislative branches. Since the Planning Commission is an adjudicative body, it might declare the 120 day LUBA time frame to be arbitrary and capricious and that higher principles govern, considering the circumstances. The Applicants could then appeal to have that overturned at a higher court. 4. Additional Time In his initial filing on May 28, Elerath asked to personally inspect relevant application documents and he asked for additional time to respond, but he received no reply from the City. He asked for both because the documents provided to the public did not match the descriptions of the documents described in the Notice. Further confusion resulted from various statements that the Development Director and others made which are not, and were not, supported by facts in evidence at the time. In, his report of June 30, the Director's report states, in part: "The planning application matcria9s were posted on "What's Happening in my City" on the City web site," There is no singular place as a "web site" nor is there a singular set of documents, nor did the documents I find referenced by the link match any document titled 'Application'. This is not a trivial or irrelevant concern. The Federal PACER system, in contrast, requires registration, log- in, searching, retrieval and download. Logs are kept, directories have indexes, receipts are given to confirm what documents were downloaded, etc. The Director's statements about what documents were available when was not true for this Petitioner. The request for both additional time and for inspection was a result of the City's posting of a Notice that didn't match the documents available; that was confusing. Elerath again contacted the City by appearing at, 51 Winburn Way, but was refused entry, despite Jackson County public buildings - such as the Ashland Branch Library - being open. A call to Mr. Aaron Anderson indicated that he was on vacation. A call to staff on Winburn Way directed him to documents online. The documents online were self-evidently incomplete. Elerath was directed back online, then referred to staff. Two emails from Ms. Smith via Ashland's internal servers to arrange a time were delayed. Elerath was not granted access, and did not actually see the paper files for more than 60 days after his first written request, and after he had paid an appeal fee. 5. Plat map In his initial filing of May 28, Elerath wrote'. "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 casements is for "Pole Lines" and another for cable TV lines, While it's possible that there is a simple PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 3 of 4 ... .. ....... 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." The City has not addressed this critical note on the proposed map. Are the easements written down on papers in the back of the surveyor's truck or in a file folder in his garage? Are there missing benchmarks in the field somewhere? Is there a document in an online map file that doesn't show up in a document search? What, else is missing from the preliminary plat map? With all due respect to the surveyor's integrity, these are the sorriest excuses for notes on a surveyor's map, ever, and call into serious question the credibility of the entire rnap. This is utter nonsense, and the Director's silence on this speaks Volumes. Summary Recent events across the nation, including protests, civil disturbances and sometimes violent demonstrations, have iflurninated this country's history of systemic civil rights violations. One of the more pernicious and insidious elements of this history has been the secret recording of restrictive covenants and the development procedures that allow them. to happen. Two years ago, Elerath brought this to the attention of this City in a related, action, but the same issue reappears again today. There appear to be systemic problems when hard working and experienced planners and conscientious staff can follow every rule and comply with every applicable ordinance and still be accused of violating the public's constitutional rights. Elerath again asks for time to review the matter under consideration. ALIgUSt 10, 2020 Eric Elcart h Date PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 4of 4 Frorn: Eric Ellerath eeleratli@verizon.net Lf Subject-. Re: Appeal Submittal for 345 Clinton Date: July 13, 2020 at 3:21 PM To: April Lucas april.lUcas@ashland,or,us, planning@ashland.or.us Hi April, Liz and Planning staff At your suggestion, I'm submitting this appeal electronically. Please find attached Appeal 2020Fi n al,pdf, It includes the 2 page cover sheet provided by the City and six pages of r( McLane's name is an the cover sheet as an additional Appellant - we share the same home and address - but I was un electronic signature before submitting. Please proceed with mine only, or I can bring over her signature on the paper fc The pdf can be opened, read and printed, but is protected from copying content. Please let me know if there problems As noted an, the cover letter page, there are no exhibits attached.I omitted them in the interests of brevity. Also please call to arrange payment. I prefer Visa, but electronic bank check will work too, If I don't hear from someon will call back again. Thank you for your work and patience! Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. (310) 429-8093 _-PDF.-j I of 2 City of Ashland Community Duvelwflfflt 20! F Main St Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 480-6004 01,717-0004 07/13/2020 03�46PH INVOICE Eleraih/HcClane, EOG/Betsy PA-APPFAL-2020-00011 2020 Item, IR -00005090 Balance due. 0,00 Balaj-joe tinpaid, 0,,001 planning Fee - 7�PpGlifl Huring Unitial public Hear 150,00 15t� .tial 'gubt-otal I bo, 00 Total 150 00 CRED11 CARDS COMDU150,00 V18a mmommum Re -f=000000124909 Wth=013666 'w ans If),000000124909 Entry Hetho&--VANUA1. TRN REV #�580195019484872 v) Chanoe due 0.00 Pald by Thank yct� for your payment CWTONER COPY ' . . . . . . .. ........... 2 of 2 m .... ..... . ..... . ... .. .... Good evening Planning Commissioners,. The hearing before you is a request for appeal of a Minor Land Partition which was administratively approved, by staff and, subsequently appealed by a neighbor with standing. Many of the issues raised by the appellant address procedural issues. The property owner and their agent cannot speak to how, or how much information was provided on the City website nor as to how in person file review was or was not accommodated for. The application form with: the property owner's and applicant's signatures, findings of fact and a preliminary partition plat map created by an Oregon Licensed Surveyor were submitted electronically to the City of Ashland on April 30, 2020, Based on the information submitted with the application the application was deemed complete by staff and a notice of application was sent to the property owners within 200 -feet. We believe that there was adequate notice to the neighbors as required by local code and the Oregon Revised Statutes, We believe if can be found that numerous public comments were received in the initial public comment period. We also believe that the Planning Commission can find that the proposed partition of the, property is consistent with the approval criteria from AMC 18,5.3, and that the conditions of approval from the administrative decision are consistent with the state laws (ORS 92) that allow for inclusion of conditions of approval on plats. The 12.29 -acre property is on thie north side of Clinton Street. The property is occupied by asingle-family residential home, a cletached garage, and a pole barn. The residence is accessed via a paved, private d,riveway that . . .. . ..... VI�111'111; i The subject property and the adjacent properties are R -1-5-P and are generally developed with, single-family residences and their outbuildings. 'D Y"" 5-01 Z11111 "I woa gib, as w)4' . ... I .... . . ......... -------- ------- --- VI�111'111; i The subject property and the adjacent properties are R -1-5-P and are generally developed with, single-family residences and their outbuildings. 'D Y"" 7 1�"0 V �-d j? ZV6ti PROPOSED PARTITIOPLAT 0, . . . . . . . . . . . The request is to divide the property into two parcel] Proposed Parcel 1 is 8i.36 acres. This parcel would retain t�h residence, garage and pole barn at 345 Clinton Street. Th vehicular access will be retained from Clinton Street utilizin the private driveway. The east side of the existing pirivat driveway is the aipproximate east property line of propose 11111=11 Proposed Parcel 2 is a vacant�, developable, approxima,tell 3.35 - acre parcel northwest of the intersection of Clinto Street and Ann Street. The parcel is proposed to have 358.3 feet of frontage along Clinton Street and extends 240 fe along Anne Street. Briscoe Place T's into the east side of Proposed Parcel 2. The future subdivision of Parcel 2, will be subjeict to review bi eithiier staff or the Planning Commission depending on th number of parcels. The future density is depenclent upon th� goals of the future developer. There is n,o minimum; clensity 1 the R -1-5-P zone and the maximum deinsity can be increase through clensity bonuses. Base clensity of the 3.350-acr parcel is 4.5 clu/acre or 15 dwelling uni'ts. I F:he proposed partition demonstrates compliance with Am 18.5.3 and fut�u�re clevelopment will address the specific code applicable at the time of applicati'on these includ,ei th physical and environmental constraints review chapter, th water resources protections zone, outliine and fi'nal pla poss,ibly site design review, tree removal or, protection ant The findings of fact ad,driess how the proposal com�pi'les with 18.5.3., The findings of fact advise that the future development will need to comply with a�pplicabl�e city M i There are niatural features identified on the property. Mook aka, Clear; Creel< enters the prope:rty near the southwest co,rner, traverses the site leadiing to the pon;d and continuing to Bear Creel< (Mook Creek is an intermittent or emphemeral stream which has a 20 -foot riparian buffer zone (Mook Creek is located on proposed Parce,l #1.)) Along the niorth portion of proposed Parcel 2, approximately .5i3O acres are within the Bear Creek, FEMIA floodpl i ain a�nd the Ashland Modified Floodplain of Bear Creek. Ashland Modified fl,00dp!lain hashed area; FEMA 100 Year floodplain clarker blue under: the hashed area; FEMA 500 year floodpl,ain (not regulatory) light blue a�rea. There is al,so a potential wetl,and (yellow circle) and i preliminary Wetland Delineation report has been complete'lo but not filed with the Department of State Lands. The floodplains a, nd wetlands will be further evaluated and planned for as required by state aind 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 preservatioln of the significant natural features., Future development of Parcel #2 would need to address the Physical Constraints Review Chapter which is triggered with the development of properties per 18.3.10.020. No development is proposed at this time with the partition request. 61-1 The proposed partition is to create a discrete parcel of record. Both parcels area and dimensions exceed the minimum lot size in the R- I -5-P zone, Adequate vehicular access presently exists to the property and future development will extend the public streets through the future development area of CONCLUSION Parcel #2. The parcels do have natural features such as floodplains and potential wetlands, as addressed in the findings.The future development will be retuned to consider the physical constraints as part of the future subdivision. The City of Ashland has adopted numerous documents addressing the need to additional housing.This partition creates a developable parcel i that allows for the future development of needed housing within the city limits. The City of Ashland Planning Commission can find that the proposed partition to create two discrete parcels of record conforms to the Partitions Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code and that the Community Development Department Director Decision is consistent with local and state Oregon Revised Statues that allow for the partitions and subdivisions within the city limits. Thank you for your consideration. �� �� �� r, ��,, � , „w m XU� 'All V9 AC m 4- (A E 0 0 ct -P 4J 4-1 qJ o V) 04-) ct E CO C) 0 A = u (A A L x 0 U -0 0 L- . X 0 M a) v) 4-J ct x L. wV) C Ct V) rd 4-1 C: 0 u w +J1.) a- -- o CL t- o ft 0 4-J 0 -0 n- LA E V) Zn E n o — C: ct 0 — 0 0 a) u > W 4-1 4-� ft — W > 0 V)cz a) 4J CL U -10, w I Ln m L- E m , — m :3 2 cd 0 (A0 Cd a) 0- M a) L- n 0. 0 0 ft 4-d > QJ V) V) 0 0) 4- 0 >-, 4J �V) C: 4 0 L- m -I-J Ln V) 0 0 Ln o) u _.c 0 0 rd a- 0 q-- 0 u as M c1d, C -L U col From: Eric Elerath <LqlLath( fy iizon,net> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 7:28 PM To: Bill Molnar <WlLniojnar _ashland.or. LIS> Cc: David Lohman <.d..avidAo.jiiMan( ashland.or.US>; Katrina Brown <ka,trina.brownj2Li.shlaind.c)r.us> Subject: Re: PA -TI -2020-00109 [EXTERNAL SENDER] Mr. Molnar Thank you for finally providing me access to the written file folder this afternoon via Dana Smith, There is more information there now than has been on the website, and I believe Ms. Smith stated that the balance of the documents would be available later today, Thank you. My objection and appeal, however, includes my assertion that the documents were not available as State law requires them to be, and the City's assertion that the complete application was available on the City's website when it was actually not available. I noticed that several people objected on the grounds that the information was incomplete and that they requested additional time. You did not grant any request for additional time to review the full record. To that end, I also did not see a copy of an email exchange between Maria Harris and myself, which I have attached here. It is dated July 6, and is relevant to my appeat, In response to one of my questions, and quoting from the email, Ms. I-larris wrote "'The W) �Iicatio here Id r l01jmrItL)� (L)f osal�Z_. Type in 345 Clinton in the "Near Me" box and the f documents." So we are Clear, the issues would now appear to include obstruction and the City's misrepresentation of facts, at least on the part of Ms. Harris, and acting under your direction and possibly others. Do you have a response to this or an explanation? Thank you. Eric Elerath .. . .......... I did not see copies of emails that I sent to On Aug 3, 2020, at 11:33 AM, Dana Smith <dana. sniii, 1h( shland,car .us> wrote: And here is my follow up email when I had not heard. back from you. Dana Smith, Executive Assistant City of Ashland, Community Development Departri.-lent 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-552-2072, TTY: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law ('or disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2072. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: Dana Smith Sent: 'Thursday, July 09, 2020 1:38 PM To: Eric Elerath <eeleratlix'i�),verizori .n - et> Subject: RE: PA -TI -2020-00109 I -Ii Eric, Are you still interested in viewing the planning, action file for 345 Clinton? I have not heard back so thought I would reach out. Dana Smith Legal Department 20 East Main Street 'Tel: 541-488-5350,,rTY: 800-735-2900 Fax: 541-552-2107 dajia.. init 111and.onus This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541-552-2107. Thank you. _----(Original. Message -,---- From: Eric Elerath Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 2:38 PM To: Dana Smith <dana.stni d.onus> Cc: Maria T-lairis <rn aria. harri s4i)ash land .01% LIS> Subject: Re: PA -T1-2020-00109 [EXTERNAL SENDER] I -Ii Dana R !F'o, T Vlk!) D I left a voice message with you just now, and am following up by email. I'd like to arrange a time to view the file for 345 Clinton. Thank you for your help. Eric Elerath 0,,i arid,orA1S> wrote: 'IrrL L-- , 'I'l S , sill On Jul 6, 2020, at, 4:10 PM, Maria Harris <rn I I, .hair —W III Eric, Bill Molnar asked me to get back to you. Please see nry responses below each of your. questions. I've copied in Dana Smith in our Department. She can help you arrange a time to come in and view the file. Per the Governor's latest order, a mask is required to come into the office to view the file. Please feel free to contact me if you need more information 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 transrii.ission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in. error, please contact me at 541.552,2045. Thank you. -----Original Message -,---- From: Eric ElerathEizonjig!] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2020 11:35 AM To: Bill Molnar < b i I I jii o 111 a Cc,, planning <Rlannirm-y W,rs nand.or.us>, Aaron Anderson <aaron.anders(L)n��r: liland.on.u.s>; Maria llarris<niaria.harris I I I a � il d. 0 r. L1. s> Subject: PA -T 1-2020-00109 [EXTERNAL SENDER] J Mr. Molnar V"3y: I received by mail your reply to my objection regarding the above Planning action. In your reply, you wrote that the application, all associated documents and evidence are available for review at the Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. 1) How can I access these documents wad review them in person as described above? Please contact Dana Smith to arrange a time to review the planning application file. I've copied her in this email or by phone you can contact her at (541) 552-2072, 2) Where can I find procedures to pursue an appeal of this decision? It appears that Planning will be making a Final. decision on. July 14, 2020, the day after the appeal deadline date of July 13, 2.020 at 4:30 pin. Will that be at a i-riecting of the Planning Commission? July 14, 2020 is the date the Type I administrative decision becomes final unless the decision is appealed by 4:30 p.m, on July 13, 2020, The Planning Commission will not review the decision unless the Type I administrative decision is appealed. I've attached the section of the Ashland Municipal Code that covers a Type I administrative decision appeal - see 18,5.1.050.G. I've also attached the appeal form. The fee foie an appeal for a public hearing is $150.00 3) As of this date, the application still does not appear to be available on the City's web site. Could you please provide a link to the application? The application is available on the City's web site here ]rites. ZrptS 11 land, or us/ I gD1prcn2g ild e—V C -o 12 111 _ ._,s„il.s/,Type in345Clinton intlic"Ne,-LrMe” box and the application and the notices are attached to the information as pdf documents. Thank you Eric Elerath <AMC l8.5,1.050.pdf!--<AppeaI Form_.'rypcl__2015.1-Fillable PDF,pdf> 1"ED BV� . ....... . ..... ................ BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2020 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA -APPEAL -2020-00011, AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF PLANNING ACTION #PA -TI -2020-00109, A TWO -LOT PARTITION OF A 12.29 - ACRE LOT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 345 CLINTON ST. THE TENTATIVE PARTITION PLAT CREATES TWO PARCELS THAT ARE S.94 ACRES AND 3.35 ACRES IN SIZE, STAFF INITIALLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS. SUBSEQUENT TO THE MAILING OF A NOTICE OF DECISION, ERIC ELERATH AND BETSY MCLANE WHO RESIDE IN THE NOTICE AREA FILED AN APPEAL REQUEST. OWNER: PAUL MACE AND KATHLEEN DILE APPLICANT: ROGUE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPELLANT: ERIC ELERATH AND BETSY MCLANE RECITALS: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDERS. 1) Tax lot 4401 of Assessor's Map 39 -1E -04 -DB is located at 345 Clinton Street is in the R-1- 7.5 zone and is 12.29 acres in size. 2) The application proposed a two -lot partition and included a tentative partition plat showing two parcels that are 5.94 acres and 3.3 5 acres in size. 3) In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Kate Brown issued the "Stay home, stay safe" order on March 23, 2020, after which the city took numerous actions including closing City offices to the public including the Community Development building. 4) State of Oregon Executive order 20-16 "Keep government working: Ordering necessary measures to ensure safe public meetings and continued operations by local governments during coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak" provides that any requirement of the ORS for public meetings may be satisfied by providing a method of appearing or meeting by telephone, video, or other electronic methods. As such, planning commission meetings have been conducted via Zoom. 5) On May 15, 2020 the application was deemed complete, and in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.050.B.4 a Notice of Complete application was posted at the subject property in clear view from the public right-of-way and mailed to all property owners of record within 200 feet of the parcel. 6) The Staff Advisor approved the application on June 30, 2020 subject to several conditions of approval and a Notice of Decision (NOD) was mailed on the same date. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 1 7) After the mailing of the NOD, Eric Elerath and Betsy McLane, who reside at 419 Clinton Street, submitted an application to appeal the approval of the partition on July 13, 2020. 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on August 11, 2020. The meeting was conducted electronically by Zoom due to the ongoing emergency order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Public testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. 9) After the public hearing had concluded the appellant requested that the record remain open pursuant to ORS 197.763(6). Therefore the record remained open to new evidence or argument from parties to the hearing until August 18, 2020 at 4:30 p.m., open to argument only from parties in response to new submittals until August 25, 2020 at 4:30 p.m., and open to final legal argument from the applicant until September 1, 2020 at 4:30 p,m. The hearing was continued to a date and time certain: September 8, 2020 at 7 p.m. 10) During the period that the record remained open no additional arguments or evidence were submitted. 11) September 12, 2020 was the 120 -day time limit after the application was deemed complete. On September 10, 2020 the applicant signed a 30 -day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1), 12) On September 8, 2020 the Almeda fire took place which caused the scheduled hearing to be canceled. After the cancelation of the meeting a new notice was posted at the subject property in clear view from the public right-of-way and mailed to all property owners of record within 200 feet of the parcel that the hearing was rescheduled to September 22, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. 13) The Planning Commission reconvened on September 22, 2020 to deliberate. Ultimately, they determined that staff had not erred in approving the two -lot partition, denying the appeal and approving the application subject to conditions listed in the staff report, with the addition of condition 1 a below. 14) The criteria of approval for a Land Partition are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.3.050 which state that the approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all 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. B. 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 18.43.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3,060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 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. H. Unpaved Streets. 1. Minimum Street improvement. When there exists a 20 -foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20 -feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2. Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a. The unpaved street is at least 20 -feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface, In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied, 1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 3 Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an. "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to render a decision based on the application, Staff Report, public hearing testimony, and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a two -lot partition meets all applicable criteria described in section 18.5.3.050, for preliminary partition plat approval. The Planning Commission notes that the preliminary partition plat details the two proposed parcels as 894 acres and 3.3 5 acres in size. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application was deemed complete on May 15, 2020 and notice was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within 200 -feet of the subject property. The Planning Commission further finds that the application was approved by the Staff Advisor on June 30, 2020 with a 12 -day appeal period which extended through July 13, 2020, 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that on July 13, 2020 prior to the end of the appeal period, Eric Elerath and Betsy McLane timely filed a notice of land use appeal. Mr. Elerath and Ms. McLane reside in the noticing area and Mr. Elerath had also submitted written comments during the public comment period and thus had standing to appeal. 2.5 The Planning Commission notes that the notice of appeal identified the following issues on appeal. 1) incomplete application, 2) Defective notice, 3) Failure to provide access to personally inspect the application materials etc., 4) Failure to provide digital access to application materials etc., 5) the Staff Advisor's failure to grant Mr. Elerath's request for additional time to review the application materials, and 6) Defective submittal analysis. Following this list of six specific grounds of appeal the appellant goes on raise a seventh issue saying "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." The Notice of Appeal further stated that the appellant reserved the right to raise other issues at the hearing. AMC 18.5.1.050.G. explains that appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor are "de novo" hearings before the Planning Commission and follow the standard Type 11 public hearing procedure except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City. Consideration of the appeal is not 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. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is located within the R-1-7.5 zoning district and that land divisions are governed by AMC 18.5.3. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 4 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that AMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the division of land to carry out the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage efficient use of land resources among other goals. When considering the decision to approve or deny an application for land partition, the Staff Advisor considers the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in the AMC. The approval criteria for a preliminary partition plat are in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.3.050. The Planning Commission finds that there. is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of the criteria have been met, as follows: 2.7.1 The Planning Commission notes the first approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. " 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 subdivided to create 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 development plan is not a subdivision proposal and is not approved with this two -lot partition approval. The Planning Commission finds that the two proposed lots are significantly larger than the minimum lot size for the zone, that both lots have frontage on the adjacent public streets, and that the development plan demonstrates that the farther development of the new parcel is feasible while not limiting possible future development. The Planning Commission further finds that future development of either lot created here is likely to require the extension of Phelps Street, and that the access as illustrated in the application materials has the potential to complicate the street extension once the two properties are under separate ownership. Phelps Street will need to be extended in alignment with its current terminus and ultimately completed to residential neighborhood street standards while addressing the Driveway Separation for Neighborhood Streets in AMC Figure 18.4.3.080.C.3.b. The current configuration does not provide for the extension of Phelps in alignment with its current terminus or account for driveway separation if the existing driveway to Parcel 1 is retained. A condition has been included below to require that the current configuration be adjusted to allow the extension of Phelps Street in keeping with residential neighborhood street standards and in alignment with its current terminus while addressing the driveway separation requirements. 2.7.2 The Planning Commission notes the second approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. " The Planning Commission finds that based on the proposed property configuration on the preliminary partition plat the larger proposed parcel will continue to have access from Clinton St. stratifying this criterion. The Planning Commission notes that all other adjoining properties are either developed or constrained by the flood plain. 2.7.3 The Planning Commission notes the third approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and nay previous land use approvals for the subject area. " The Planning Commission notes that there are no adopted neighborhood or district plan that applies to the subject property, nor are there any conditions of approval from PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 011 October 13, 2020 Page 5 previous land use approvals that are relevant. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is satisfied. 2.7.4 The Planning Commission notes the fourth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months." The Planning Commission finds that the land has not been partitioned for more than 12 months and that the last plat that adjusted the subject property was a property line adjustment that tools place in 2018. 2.7.5 The Planning Commission notes the fifth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is the "Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). " The Planning Commission finds that the preliminary partition plat indicates that the two proposed lots comply with the base standards for the zone including minimum area requirements and lot coverage, and that 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 Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is satisfied. 2.7.6 The Planning Commission notes the sixth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that "Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. " The Planning Commission finds that with the condition discussed in 2.7.1 above, the lot configuration will be adjusted to provide for the future extension of Phelps Street in alignment with its current terminus to the south and in keeping with street standards while addressing the driveway separation requirements of AMC Figure 18.4.3.080.C.3.b, and that with the further development of Parcel 2, individual lots created will need to address the Vehicle Area Design standards. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is satisfied. 2.7.7 The Planning Commission notes the seventh approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is "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."The Planning Commission finds that the application materials make clear that all city facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way, including sanitary sewer, water and franchise utilities. There are no public utilities proposed to be installed to serge 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 residential neighborhood 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) indicates 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 Land Use Ordinance does not require PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 6 a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and Public Works had no concerns regarding traffic impacts of the proposed partition. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. 2.7.8 The Planning Commission notes the eighth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval addresses minimum improvements to the roadway: "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." The Planning Commission finds that the existing curb -to - curb width along Clinton and Ann Streets is twenty-seven feet which exceeds the required minimum width for residential neighborhood streets and allows for parking on both sides. The Planning Commission further finds that Clinton and Ann Street lack park row planting strips and sidewalks adjacent to the new parcel, and notes that the application requests to sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future improvement of Clinton and Ann Streets. A condition has been added below requiring that the applicant sign in favor of a LID prior to approval of the final plat. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. 2.7.9 The Planning Commission notes the ninth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that "Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. " The Planning Commission finds that this criterion does not apply as there is no alley adjacent to the subject property. 2.7.10 The Planning Commission notes the tenth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that "Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. " The Planning Commission finds that at this time there is no development that would require such permits and that at the time of future development or land division the applicant will be required to address the Water Resource Protection standards and delineation of the possible wetland as identified in the Wetland Inventory and obtain the required state and federal permits should they be required. 2.7.11 The Planning Commission notes the final approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that "A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. " The Planning Commission finds that this criterion does not apply as there is no proposed flag lot. 2.8 The Planning Commission notes the notice of appeal identified six specific items. It should be noted that none of these issues address the applicable approval criteria and are all focused on alleged failures to adequately notice the application and provide access to the application materials. The six specific items listed were: A. Incomplete application. B. Defective notice. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 7 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. The Planning Comi-nission further acknowledges that the Notice of Intent to Appeal (NITA) document continues under a heading "Specific Grounds for Appeal" there are two sections numbered one and two (A&E above). These two sections develop Mr. Elerath's arguments, the first being that "The Director's decision was made without a complete application having been produced." The second being that "The Director failed to grant an extension of time to allow access to review the application." None of the other specific points listed (B, C, D, F above) have their arguments further developed. As stated above, following the list of six appeal 'issues the appellant raises a seventh issue stating that two separate land use decision were made. Additionally, in a supplemental submittal the appellant raises the issue that the city failed to properly send a separate notice to co -appellant Betsy McLane, and that his due process rights under the 14'h amendment had been prejudiced. Finally, during the hearing the appellant raised issues with easements of record that were not shown on the plat. Below each of these appeal issues is addressed in turn. 2.8.1 The Planning Commission notes that the first appeal issue was that the application was incomplete because the materials provided online did not include the application form itself or receipt for payment. The Planning Commission finds that the receipt and application were included in the physical record. The Planning Commission concludes that the application was complete, and further notes the application requirements of AMC 18.5.1.050.A are not approval criteria applicable to approving or denying a preliminary partition. plat. 2.8.2 The Planning Commission notes that the second appeal issue was that the notice was defective. The Planning Commission notes that the notice that was posted stated that the documents would be available at the Community Development Building which was closed to the public during the public comment period. The Planning Commission notes that during the review period the appellant was in contact with staff and was directed to the City web site where the application materials were available. The Planning Commission further notes that while the posted notice stated that the application materials were available for review in the Community Development Building, with the Governor's Executive Order #20-16 and the city's declared State of Emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, city offices were closed to the public, and that the mailed and posted notices included the name and phone number of a city contact person as required in AMC 18.5.1.050.B.3.h. The Planning Commission notes that the application materials were made available on the "What's Happening in My City" page of the City web site, and people who called or emailed and were interested in reviewing the file were directed to the City's web site. The Planning Commission finds that any issue with defective notice was remedied by the notice for the appeal hearing. 2.8.3 The Planning Commission notes that the third appeal issue was failure to provide access to personally inspect the application file, evidence, and documents. The Planning PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 9 Commission finds that staff contacted Mr. Elerath multiple times to ensure that he had access to the electronic materials. The Planning Commission finds that after the Notice of Decision was sent but prior to the end of the appeal period the city made accommodations to allow Mr. Elerath access to the building to review the physical materials. Despite being contacted multiple times he did not respond to staff or take those opportunities that were available to him to review the application materials in person. The Planning Commission further finds that prior to the appeal hearing the appellant did visit the Community Development building on August 3, 2020 and reviewed the application materials in person. The Planning Commission concludes that this point of appeal is resolved. 2.8.4 The Planning Commission notes that the fourth appeal issue was an alleged failure to provide digital access to application file, material evidence and documents. The Planning Commission finds that as noted previously the application materials were published on the City web site. 2.8.5 The Planning Commission notes that the fifth appeal issue was the appellant's request for additional time and the Director's failure to provide such. The Planning Commission finds that AMC 18.5.1.050.0 requires that, "The Staff Advisor shall prepare a decision within 45 days of the City's determination that an application is complete, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period." In addition, in keeping with the state's "120 -Day Rule," AMC 18. 5.1.09 0.13 requires that, "The City shall take final action on Administrative... land use applications, pursuant to this chapter, including resolution of all appeals, within .120 days from the date the StaffAdvisor deems the application complete for purposes of processing, unless the applicant requests an extension in writing." The Planning Commission concludes that there is no requirement in the code to provide additional time for review, and additionally, staff s review timeline is constrained by the time limits set by both city ordinance and state law to render a final decision. 2.8.6 The Planning Commission notes that the sixth appeal issue was an alleged `defective submittal analysis.' The Planning Commission finds that because this specific point of appeal was left undeveloped in the NITA the Planning Commission is left to surmise that this is an argument that ties into the complete application determination addressed below. 2.8.7 The Planning Commission notes that the final appeal issue raised was that the determination of a complete application was a second discrete `land use decision' which also required public notice etc. The Planning Commission finds that determination that an application meets the Type I application requirements of AMC 18.5.1.050.A is a procedural component of all Type I land use decisions, and AMC 18.5.1.090.A requires the Staff Advisor make such a determination for each application within 30 days of submittal. Completeness review in and of itself is not treated as a separate land use decision requiring substantial discretion, and as such is not included as a type of Planning Action approval in Table .AMC 18.5.1.010 "Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedures." 2.8.8 In a supplemental submittal on August 10, 2020 the appellant raised additional issues including: the failure of staff to provide separate notice to co -appellant Betsy McLane, concerns with due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment, requesting additional time to review and inspect the application, and questioning the credibility of the PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 9 preliminary plat map prepared based on easements which could not be precisely located The Planning Commission notes that after the notice of appeal, appellant Eric Elerath raised concerns with staff that co -appellant Betsy McLane had not received a mailed notice addressed to her. The Commission notes that Ms. McLane was listed as an appellant on the appeal fora, however she did not sign the form. The Commission further notes that, as detailed in AMC 18.5.1.050.G.4, hearings for appeals of Type I decisions are to follow the Type II hearing procedures in AMC 18.5.1.060 A-E, which include that notices be mailed to owners of record of property on the most recent tax rolls (AMC 18.5.1.060.C.2) and posted on the property within view of the right-of-way. Mr. Elerath and Ms. McLane are both listed as owners of the property at 419 Clinton Street, and the current tax rolls list their mailing address as, and mailed notice was sent to, "Elerath, Eric 3 et al, 419 Clinton St, Ashland, OR 97520". The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.5.1.020 speaks to "Failure to Receive Notice" noting, "The failure of a property owner to receive notice... shall not invalidate such proceedings if the City can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was mailed. The failure to receive notice shall not invalidate the decision after the action is final if a goad faith attempt was made to notify all persons entitled to receive notice." The Planning Commission finds that a copy of the notice received by the appellants is included in their August 10th submittal, and that required notice was also posted on the property in view of the right-of- way. The Planning Commission concludes that proper notice was provided as required in AMC 18.5.1.060.C. Appellant argues that the 120 -day rule for final decision on a permit, as required by the Oregon Legislature at ORS 227.178, violates his right to due process of law under the 101 Amendment of the United States Constitution. Appellant has provided no authority for his argument, and the Planning Commission will abide by the requirements of state law as enacted by the Legislature. The appellant's request for additional time are addressed in 2.8.5 above. The Planning Commission notes that the appellant also raised concerns over notations on the preliminary plat that there were some easements identified through a title report which could not be precisely located on the property. These were noted on the preliminary plat with reference to the applicable Jackson County deed records and a notation that they cannot be located, and the appellant suggested that a partition should not be approved until these easement locations were resolved. The Planning Commission finds that such notations are typically made when a title report identifies older easements which are not described in sufficient detail to precisely locate them on the plat, and further finds that these easement locations do not relate to an approval criterion and as such do not provide a basis to approve or deny a partition application. 2.9 The Commission finds that with the conditions below attached, the proposal satisfies the applicable approval criteria and that neither the appeal issues raised in the initial notice nor those issues raised during the hearing provide a basis to reverse the initial decision of the Staff Advisor. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 10 SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for the partition approval to divide the property is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. 3.2 The Planning Commission denies the appeal and re -affirms the Staff Advisor's original approval of the partition. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then the Planning Action is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically 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. a. That the partition plat shall be adjusted such that the north -south property line between parcel I and parcel 2 is shifted to allow a future extension of Phelps St. consistent with the standards for a neighborhood street and in alignment with Phelps St. to the south, and that the drive way accessing the larger parcel be relocated to meet minimum spacing requirements. 3) That the property owner shall sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future street improvements, including but not limited to paving, curb gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks and undergrounding of utilities for Clinton and Ann Streets prior to signature of the final survey plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. 4) That prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for the review, approval and signature of the Ashland Planning Division, all casements 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. Planning Commission Approval October 13 2020 Date PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 October 13, 2020 Page 11 October 14, 2020 Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services LLC. 33 N Central Avenue Suite 213 Medford, OR 97'501 Owner: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle 345 Clinton Street Ashland, OR 97520 FXi: Planning Action #PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 Notice of Decision Appellant: Eric Elerath & Betsy McLane 419 Clinton Street Ashland, OR 97520, At its meeting of September 22, 2020, the Ashland Planning Commission denied your appeal. request and upheld the administrative decision of Planning Action 4PA-TI-2020-00109, a two - ,lot partition of a 12.29 -acre lot lbr the property located at 345 Clinton Street, The tentative partition plat showed that the two resultant parcels will be 8.94 acres and 3.35 acres with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. The Ashland Plain-iing Commission adopted and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document on October 13, 2020. The Planning Commission's decision on appeal becomes final with this mailing of the: Notice of Final Decision, (AMC 18.5.1.050.6.4) The 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. Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and evidence submitted, and applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule, This decision nay be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LURA) in accordance with Oregon State Law. Please contact LURA for specific appeal information, W—tnL/i\A,v—Nvof "g(,)11,,anLMLL or 503-3733-1265. They are located at 550 Capitol Street N.E., Suite 235, Salem, Oregon 97301-2552. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Aaron Anderson in the Community Development Department at (541) 552-2051 Enclosure cc: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle Parties of record COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Wdnburn Way Fax; 641-552-2050 lwlali 11 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On October 14, 2020 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -APPEAL -2020- 00011, 345 Clinton Street. Y" Signature of Employee C:4UsersSsmithda,AFNtiE)Desktop4AFFIDA40� OF MAILING doGx 1011412020 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB401 MACE PAUL BIKATHLEEN KAHLE 345 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT GUNTER AMY 33 N CENTRAL AVE STE 213 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 LJ FRAIR & ASSOC. PO Box 1947 Phoenix, OR 97535 PA-APPEAL-2020-00011391E04DD1607 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 10114/2020 ELERATH ERIC J ET AL MCLANE, BETSY 345 Clinton APPEAL NOD 419 CLINTON ST 419 CLINTON STREET 5 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 CITY OF Planning Department, 51 Winburn Y. Oregon 97520 iii541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 wwmashland.orus TTY, 1-800-735-290�O -AS H LAN PLANNING ACTION: PA -APPEAL -2020-0001 I (Appealing PA -Tl -202(1-001 09) SUB,17 CT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development for Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider an appeal of staffs approval. for a two -lot partition of a 12,29 -acre lot. The Purpose of the partition was to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat indicated 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. The public hearing was conducted on August I I"'. The record remained open until August I8`" during which time no additional items were submitted and the record subsequently closed. The hearing was continued until a date and time certain (9/8/2020) but was canceled due to the wildfire emergency. At the hearing on 9/22/2020 the Planning Commission will deliberate and render a decision. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; MAP: 39 IE 04 DB; TAX LOT: 401 ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: 7 1) rn oin 2,, 020 The Public Hearing was concluded at the August 11th hearing,. The record was requested to remain open for a week, no other materials were received and the record was subsequently closed August 18th. At the September 22nd hearing the Planning Commission; will reconvene to deliberate and render a decision. Subject Property 345 Clli:nton St. PA-APEAL-2020-00011 (appealing PA -TI -2020-0101091 ActionsTAs by &ree0C\CNnwnTfinton 3459A TI-2020-001MAPPEAL PA-APPEAL-2020-000ilkNc)ticcs\Cninton 345_PA-A.PPFA[_-2020-0001Y 2ndNOC.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,1edL1 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 COVI D-1 9 pandemic, application, materials are provided online. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 orpLariliingLckaaiil,=incl.pr..qL,. 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,@sMa11LJ.gru;p/PC a <eLs seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonaNe 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 of, emailing p1gnnir1gJ�_Dashianqgr.us. The Public Hearing was concluded at the August 11"'" hearing. The record was requested to remain open for a week, no other materials were received and the record was subsequently closed August 181h. At the September 22 nd hearing the Planning Commission will reconvene to deliberate and render a decision. 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 1-800-735-2,900). 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 541-488-5305 'i" ",c; r��m-devM1pinornirt�4P47nnvn�. ActiansTAS by Streel\(;4CiiiijonCl�,itoti_345\PA-T I -2020-001MAPPEAT, P&-APPEAI.2020-0001 1 NoCicesAClink,)ii__345—PA-APPL,kl.,-2020-000 I I _2ndNOC.docx PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.5.3.050 The approval authority shail 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 Pian, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street, The minimum width of the street shall be 20 -feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2, Unpaved Streets, The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a. The unpaved street is at least 20 -feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City, b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent, c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. 1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street, J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. Cj Acomm-devlplanning\Planning Aclions\Ms by Street\C\ClintonlClinton_3451PA-T1-2020-001MA.PPEAL PA -APPEAL -2020-0001 kNodcesUinton_345 PA-APPEAL-2020-00011_2ndNOC.docx AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On September 11, 20201 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -APPEAL -2020-00011, 345 Clinton. Opf M Sig Lure of Employee Ommentt 9111/2620 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC110 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC4400 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391E04DC4600 BARTON ANN REV LIV TRUST BATES WILLIAM L TRUSTEE ET AL BENBOUGH H L IIIIMARCIA M 361 PATTERSON ST 414 BRISCOE PL 224 JESSICA LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB900 BORGERSON BRUCE JIDORITA B 209 SLEEPY HOLLOW ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DCI OB CHAMBERS LINDA G 527 ANN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC101 CITIZENS SAVINGS/LOAN ASSNCIO FIEDLER DENNIS/RITA 3260 BRYCELER DR EUGENE, OR 97405 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1700 DAVID SCOTT CONSTRUCTION LLC 876 CLAY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CAl 007 FOSTER PETER SIKRISTAL 207 ALICIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC206 GUSS MICHAEL R 316 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC4100 NORTON DAVID C TRUSTEE ET AL 408 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CA1204 JAFFE SUE A 206 ALICIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC4200 CALKINS KEVIN DEAN TRUSTEE ET 414 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CA111 CHRISTIAN WILLIAM CICATHY A 778 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC105 CROUCH LONALEE LINDEN 350 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DD1607 ELERATH ERIC J ET AL 419 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC 103 FUNK ROGER P TRUSTEE ET AL 7033 RAPP LN TALENT, OR 97540 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC4000 HILLIGOSS LAWRENCE OILINDA A 534 ANN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC204 HUTCHINSON ANTHONY MELENA F 292 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CAl 008 KEARNS HANK J JR/ROBIN C 210 OAKLAWN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1100 CALLAGHAN PEGGY JOYCE 770 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CA700 CHRISTIAN WILLIAM CICATHY A 788 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CAl 08 DALTON ROSEMARY D ET AL 208 SLEEPY HOLLOW ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC207 FINDLEY LINDSEY ATHERTON TRUS 328 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB 1000 GLOVER DENNIS A TRUSTEE ET AL 773 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC302 HINMAN BURT HUGH/DENISE G 587 CAROL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04CA103 JACKSON JOSEPH C ET AL 207 SLEEPY HOLLOW ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC200 KENYON JACK L/KATHLEEN E 558 CAROL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC208 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011391 E04DB1400 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC4500 KIMBALL DORIS D TRUSTEE ET AL LANG KATHERINE E TRUSTEE ET A LAWSON SCOTT DOUGLAS TRUSTEE 557 PHELPS ST PO BOX 7047 406 BRISCOE PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 BROOKINGS, OR 97415 ASHLAND, OR 97520 � 09 LS�t3an�Ji�e�eJa�za�yi?Ffl - s�ue�e6�ea•�Laaneezailb _ PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB523 LOFTUS JUSTIN AIHEIDI Y 403 BRISCOE PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1900 MOORE MATTHEW FILIBBI L PO BOX 683 TALENT, OR 97540 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB522 NORVELL FAMILY TRUST ET AL 411 BRISCOE PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC3800 ORR HELEN T TRUSTEE ET AL 407 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC203 SAUER KAREN L 578 CAROL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC4300 SHIVERS JACQUELYN C TRUSTEE E 422 BRISCOE PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DD3100 VITCOV BARRY/SHIRLEY 430 BRISCOE PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC107 WEIBEL ROBERT W 394 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 DENNISIRITA FIEDLER 374 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 HOMEOWNER 371 TUDOR ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 777, 7 d [)AogaJ ai JaianaJ ap uge aanyuey el � -gdea laad AS23 assaipe,p sallanbi;] PA -APPEAL -2020-00011391 E04DC209 LONG BRIAN PATRICK 547 PHELPS ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB 1300 MORLAN MARTIN DAVID 766 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1500 O'GRADY SEAN B DE COURCEYIO'G 740 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB 1800 PATRICK-RILEY KENT/COLLEEN C 675 CAROL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC3700 SENDAR STEPHEN MIMELIKIAN LIN 413 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC109 SMITH PETER EITRACY E 371 PATTERSON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB800 WALDMAN ELLEN 779 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011391 E04DC202 WHITNEY JOHN PO BOX 74 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 RIVERWALK HOA BOARDCAROLYN HUNSAKER 241 MAPLE ST, STE. 100 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENTGUNTER AMY 33 N. CENTRAL, STE. 213 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB401 MACE PAUL B/KATHLEEN KAHLE 345 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DA3900 MOZINGO GEORGE L & DONNA E LI 360 STRAWBERRY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC3900 GHANA LIVING TRUST ET AL 100 LEONARD ST #APT 4-2 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC100 RALEIGH ELISABETH TRUSTEE ET 343 PATTERSON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC205 SEQUEIRA LOUIS AISCHOONOVER H PO BOX 824 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1600 VANDYKE DAN/CLAUDIA 732 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DB1200 WALSH RICHARD L/GLENDA J 209 OAKLAWN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 391 E04DC106 YASUTAKE KIM L1P HERDKLOTZ 384 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 REBECCA MCLENNAN 537 PHELPS ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 Li FRAIR & ASSOC. 2714 N. PACIFIC HWY MEDFORD, OR 97501 9.11.2020 Betsy McLane 345 Clinton APPEAL NOC 416 Clinton Street 61 Ashland, OR 97520 This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to Oregon's public records laws for disclosure and retention. If you've received this e-mail in error, please contact meat (541) 552-2040. Thank you. ............ . ... ...... From: Eric Elerath <eelerath@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:57 PM To: Dana Smith <da na smith .ash land.or.us>; Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC-pubric- testimony@ ash la nd.o r. us> Subject: Re: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Planning Commission: I write to ask for a Continuance of 30 days in the matter of: PIANNING ACTION: #PA -APPEAL -2020-000 11 (appealing PA -T1-2020-00109) PI.,ANNING AC"HON: PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 Sl BJ 345 Clinton St. OWNER: Paul Mace& Kathleen Kahle If you have questions or wish to reply, the controlling case and its history may be found in: Eric ELERATH p_gtitjonerv. Frank A. McGUIRE Clerk Suorerne Court of California of al. 134 S.Ct. 1947 (2014) 188 L.Ed.2d 962. Supreme Court of United States. April 28, 2014, Thank you. Eric Elerath On Aug 1 Q, 2020, at 1&58 AM, Dana Smith <dana,s Dith@ashland.or,us> wrote: Thank you Eric. I will distribute this to the Planning Commission and staff today. Dana Smith, Executive Assistant City of Ashland, Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-552-2072, TTY: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. if you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 55,2-2072. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: Eric Elerath <eeIerathC5)v rizon.net> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 8:48 AM To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony =PC -Public -testimony ast7l1-0r.us> Subject: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Staff Please find enclosed comments for Planning Commissioners review, Thank you! Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. (310) 429-8093 ...... . . .. From: Eric Elerath <eelerath@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020, 9:23 AM To: Derel< Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us> Cc:! Dana Smith <dana.smlth@ashland.or.us>; Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC-public- testimony@ashland.or.us>; Amy Gunter <annygunter,planning@gmailcom> Subject: Re: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Mr. Severson I interpret your answer as being "Motion for continuance Denied" Is that correct? Thank you. Eric Elerath On Aug 14, 2020, at 9:18 AM, Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us> wrote: Mr. Elerath, At Tuesday's hearing, in response to your request the Planning Commission opted to close the hearing but leave the record open. This means that the following deadlines now apply, as was explained during the hearing: The record is left open as follows... Open to New Evidence or Argument from Parties to the Hearing Until: August 18, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. Open to Argument Only (Not New Evi:ldence) from Parties in Response to New Submittals Until: August 25, 2020, @ 4:30 p.m. Open to Final Legal Argument from the Applicant Only Until: September 1, 2020 @ 430 p.m. The meeting was continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on September 8, 2.0.2.0 @ 7:00 p.m. At that time, the Planning Commission will consider the evidence and arguments received while the record was left open and will deliberate to a decision. However, the public hearing is closed and there won't be an opportunity for further oral testimony on September 8th. Derek Severson, Senior Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520 PH: (541) 552-2040 FAX: (541) 552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 el E-MAIL. derek.seveirson @ash ]a nd.or.,u s 0 Dana Smith From: Dana Smith Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 3:30 PM To: Eric Elerath; Derek Severson Subject: RE; August 11 PC Hearing Testimony Mr. Eierath, Meeting minutes do not typically post until the week before the next regular Planning Commission meeting. In this case, that will be no later than Monday, August 31, 2020. However, the video of the meeting posted Wednesday. Here is a link: https://video fullscreen=false&showta bssearch=true&autostart=true It might be helpful until the minutes are available. Dana Smith, Executive Assistant City of Ashland, Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-552-2072, TTY: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records taw for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2072. Thank you. From: Eric Elerath <eelerath@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 3:14 PM To: Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashIand.or.us> Cc: Dana Smith <c1ana.smith@ashIand.or.us>; Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC-public- testimony@ashland,or.us>; Amy Gunter <amygunter.planning@gmail.com> Subject: Re: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Mr. Severson Q. I don't see any minutes or transcript of the Tuesday meeting on the City website., Is one available? Thank you. Eric Elerath On Aug 14, 2020, at 9:18 AM, Derek Severson <derek.seversonCdashland.or.us> wrote, . .. .. . . . . . . . . .... . ....... . Mr. Elerath, At Tuesday's hearing, in response to your request the Planning Commission opted to close the hearing but leave the record open. This means that the following deadlines now apply, as was explained during the hearing: The record is left open as follows... Open to New Evidence or Argument from Parties to the Hearing Until: August 18, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. Open to Argument Only (Not New Evidence) from Parties in Response to New Submittals Until: August 25, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. Open to Final Legal Argument from the, Applicant Only Until: September 1, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. The meeting was continued to the next regular Planning Commission, meeting on September 8, 2020 @ 7:00 p.m. At that time, the Planning Commission will consider the evidence and arguments received while the record was left open and will deliberate to a decision, However, the public hearing is closed and there won't be an opportunity for further oral testimony on September 8th. Derek Severson, Senior Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development 51 Winburn, Way, Ashland, O,R 97520 PH: (541) 552-2040 FAX: (541) 552-2050 TTY- 1-800-735-29001 E-MAIL: derek,severson2ashlan.d.or.us This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to Oregon's public records laws for disclosure and retention, if you've received this e-mail in error, please contact me of (541) 552-2040, Thank you. From: Eric Elerath <.eelerath@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2.020 10:57 PM To: Dana Smith <dana,smith@ashIand.or.us>; Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC-public- testimonV@a;hland.or.us> Subject: Re: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Planning Commission: t write to ask for a continuance of 30 days in the matter of: 962. Supreme Court of United States. April 28, 2014 . . .. . .. ..... PLANNING ACTION: #PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 (appealing PA -TI -2020-001109) PLANNING ACTION: PA -APP IAL -2020-00011 SUBJECT PROPERTY - 345 Clinton St. ...... ..... .......... OWNER: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle If you have questions or wish to reply, the controlling case and its history may be found in: Eric ELERA TH, Detitioner, v. Frank A. McGUIRE_Clerk Supreme Court of California et a/. 134 S,Ct. 1947 (2014) 188 L.Ed.2d 962. Supreme Court of United States. April 28, 2014 Thank you. Eric Elerath On Aug 10, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Dana Smith <dana.smith@ashland.or.us> wrote: Thank you Eric. I will distribute this to the Planning Commission and staff today. Dana Smith, Executive Assistant City of Ashland, Communfty Development Department 51 Wmburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-552-2072, TTY: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2072. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: Eric Elerath <eelerathpverizon.net> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 8:48, AM To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC-public-testirnpDy@@shland.or.us> Subject: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Staff Please find enclosed comments for Planning Commissioners review. Thank you! Eric Elerath 419 Clinton: St. (310) 429-8093 . .. ....... . V 2'. Dana Smith From: Eric Elerath <eelerath@ve6zon.net> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 9:23 AM To: Derek Severson Cc. Dana Smith; Planning Commission - Public Testimony; Amy Gunter Subject: Re: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony Mr. Severson I interpret your answer as being "Motion for continuance Denied" Is that correct? Thank you. Eric Elerath On Aug 14, 2020, at 9:18 AM, Derek Severson <derek.severson4ashland.or.us> wrote: Mr. Elerath, At Tuesday's hearing, in response to your request the Planning Commission opted to close the hearing but leave the record open. This means that the fallowing deadlines now apply, as was explained during the hearing: The record is left open as follows... Open to New Evidence or Argument from Parties to the Hearing Until: August 18, 2020 @ 4:30, p.m. Open to Argument Only (Not New Evidence) from Parties iin Response to New Submittals Until: August 25,,2020 @ 4:30 p.m., Open to Final Legal Argument from the Applicant Only Until: September 1, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. The meeting was continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on September 8, 2020 @ 7:00 p.rn. At that time, the Planning Commission will consider the evidence and arguments received while the record was left open and will deliberate to a decision. However, the public hearing is closed and there won't be an opportunity for further oral testimony on September 8th. ... ... ... � I . . . . ...... . , "JI Derek Severson, Senfor Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520 . ... ... ... ..... PH: (541) 552-2040 FAX: (541) 552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 E-MAIL- derek,,severson@ashland.or-us This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to Oregon's public records laves for disclosure and retention. if you've received this e-mail in error, please contact me at X541).552-2040. Thank you. From. Eric Elerath <eellerath@verizon. net> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:57 PM To: Dana Smith <dana,smit ashlancl.or,us>; Planning Commission - Public Testimony <?C� �ubric- testimonv@ash Land.or.US> Subject: Re: August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Planning Commissiow I write to ask for a continuance of 30 days in the matter of: PLANNING ACTION: HPA-APPEAL-2020-00011 (appealing PA -TI -2020-00109 PLANNING ACTION: PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 SUBJECT PROP ERTY: 345 Clinton St. OWNER: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle If You have questions or wish to reply, the controlling case and its history may be found in: Eric ELERATH petitioner v, Frank A. McGuiRE clerk, sume�court court California, �eta/.134 S.Ct. 1947 (2014) 188 L.Ed.2d 962, Supreme Court of United States. April 28, 2014. Thank you. Eric Elerath On Aug 10, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Dana Smith <dana.sniith(@ashIand.orus> wrote; Thank you Eric. I will distribute this to the Planning Commission and staff today. Dana Smith, Executive Assistant City of Ashland, Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-552-2072, TTY: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If You have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2072, Thank you. ---Original Message----- From: essage----- From: Eric Elerath <eelerathgverizon -net> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 8:48 AM To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony <EQ::public-testimonV :gshlandLorus> Subject August 11 PC Hearing Testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Staff P" Please find enclosed comments for Planning Commissioners review. Thank YOL0 ........................ Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. (310) 429-8093 . .. . . ............ "61 Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 (310) 429-8063 August 10, 2020 Planning Department City of Ashland 51 Winhurn Way Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-5305 PLANNING. ACTION: #PA-APPEAL-202()-0(1011..tAPPEALING PA- TI -2020-00109) PLANNING ACTION: PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 SUBJECT PROPERTY. 345 Clinton St. OWNER: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle SUBJECT: Notice of Appeal of Planning Decision STAFF DECISION: June 30, 2020 APPEALED: July 13, 2020 Issues De Novo 1. Due Process Failure to Notice Betsy McLane One of the two Appellants, Betsy A. McLane (McLane), did not receive any notice of this hearing. Page 132 of the packet 2020-08-11 PC — PACKET-web.pdf lists the record for the current action. The chart header indicates the Date, Item, and Page # for each record. item and the third line shows that Appellants Submittals were received on 7/13/2020 and begin on page 5. The document image on page 5, (or 137), shows two names listed as Appellants. 1. is Eric Elerath and 2. is Betsy McLane. Under D, both persons named in A.1 and A.2 qualify because they affirmed having received notice of the planning action. Page 6, (.pdf 138) shows that the Appeal Fee was paid, and the stamp on both pages shows that the copy is a conformed copy. The document shows Eric Elerath's handwritten signature in blue ink and the space above Betsy McLane's is unsigned on the docurnent that the City chose to display. PA -APPEAL -2020-00011 I of 4 y Enclosed exhibits also show Betsy McLane's qualification as a separate party: A. An email that Elerath sent to Planning staff on July 13 to show McLane's intent to be included as a party to the Appeal. B, A receipt for payment, showing Betsy's narne appearing on the receipt. Betsy McLane is a person I trust, Incoming mail from the Post Office is scanned before delivery, and Betsy receives previews of the scanned envelopes by email. She has told me that, to the best of her memory, she did not receive an email with a scanned image of an envelope from the City of Ashland bearing her name, nor did she receive an paper letter of the Notice. Attached is a copy of the envelope that Elerath received containing his Notice of Appeal, dated July 29, 2020. It is addressed to: "ELERArH ERIC J LT AL" followed by the 419 Clinton Street address. The term "et al" is not a catch-all substitute to include unnamed parties, but an abbreviation referencing parties to a case, not to identify them. Betsy McLanes name does not appear on the envelope, and Elerath requests a new hearing be scheduled pursuant to A.M.C. 2. Due, Process Under the 101 Amendment " I I , nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" While health concerns may warrant the closure or partial closure of some government offices, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that requires an Oregon land use authority to approve a preliminary plat map within 120 days during a declared national pandemic and health emergency. However, due process is a basic requirement. 3. Equal Protection under the 141h amendment "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The processes created, judged and enforced through this Planning action may be exactly what this clause was intended to prevent. By allowing land use approvals to be made on incomplete information, additional conditions may be brought through after approval, and architects, engineers, attorneys and other professionals may overrule 150 years worth of civil rights advancement in a week or two on that property. That must not happen. Under Oregon law, a property owner may have a right to have their lot adjustment speedily approved after three years of preparation, but the public also has a right to be sure that the process doesn't allow pernicious and illegal covenants to be recorded during a period of national health emergency. Currently, it appears that the City is favoring its relationship with one pair of property owners over a duty to serve the public interest. Director Molnar did not address Elerath's request, and the requests by others, for a time extension. Instead, the City deferred to Oregon statutes which impose a time limit. There is an inherent conflict of interest here. The City should be mediating the fights of the public against the rights of a property owner, but the public now confronts a City which lacks the judicial . . . ........ ... ......... ...... ... . el PA -APPEAL, -2020_000 I I 2of 4 authority or will to do that. This seems to violate the principle that the judicial branch of gOWI-M-nent has authority over legislative branches. Since the Planning Commission is an adjudicative body, it might declare the 120 day LURA time frame to be arbitrary and capricious and that higher principles govern, considering the ciycumstances, The Applicants could then appeal to have that overturned at a higher court. 4. Additional Time In his initial filing on May 28, Elerath asked to personally inspect relevant application documents and he asked for additional time to respond, but he received no reply from the City. He asked for both because the documents provided to the public did not match the descriptions of the documents described in the Notice. Further confusion resulted from various statements that the Development Director and others made which are not, and were not, supported by facts in evidence at the time. In his report of June 30, the Director's report states, in part: "The planning application materials were posted on "What's Happening in my City" on the City web site,"' There is no singular place as a "web site" nor is there a singular set of documents, nor did the documents I find referenced by the link match any docurnent titled 'Application'. This is not a trivial or irrelevant concerti, The Federal PACER system, in contrast, requires registration, log- in, searching, retrieval and download. Logs are kept, directories have indexes, receipts are given to confirm what documents were downloaded, etc. I I lie Director's statements about what docurnents were available when was not true for this Petitioner. The request for both additional time and for inspection was a result of the City's posting of a Notice that didnt. match the documents available; that was confusing. Elerath again contacted the City by appearing at 51 Winburn Way, but was refused entry, despite Jackson County public buildings - such as the Ashland Branch Library - being open. A call to M1-. Aaron Anderson indicated that he was on vacation. A call to staff on Winburn Way directed him to documents online. The docui-rents online were self --evidently incomplete. Elerath was directed back online, then referred to staff. Two ernails from Ms. Smith via Ashland's internal server's to arrange a time were delayed. Elerath was not granted access, and did not actually see the paper files for more than 60 days after his first written request, and after he had paid an appeal fee. S. Plat map In his initial filing of May 28, Elerath wrote: "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 casements is for "Pole Lines" and another for cable TV lines. While it's possible that there is a simple .. ...... .. .. . ..... . . TV E PA -APPEAL -2020-00O 11 3 of 4 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." The City has not addressed this critical note on the proposed map. Are the easements written down on papers in the back of the surveyor's truck or in a file folder in his garage? Are there missing benchmarks in the field somewhere? Is there a document in an online map file that doesn't show up in a document search? What else is missing from the preliminary plat map? With all due respect to the Surveyor's integrity, these are the sorriest excuses for notes on a surveyor's map, ever, and call into Serious question the credibility of the entire map. This is -utter nonsense, and the Director's silence on this speaks volurnes. Summary Recent events across the nation, including protests, civil disturbances and sometimes violent demonstrations, have illuminated this country's history of systemic civil rights violations. One of the more pernicious and insidious elements of this history has been the secret recording of restrictive covenants and the development, procedures that allow them to happen. Two years ago, Elerath brought this to the attention of this City in a related action, but the same issue reappears again today. There appear to be systemic problems when hard working and experienced planners and conscientious staff can follow every rule and comply with every applicable ordinance and still be accused of violating the public's constitutional rights. Elerath again asks for time to review the matter Linder consideration. August 10, 2020 ate Z, -o A%,"O PA -APPEAL --2020-00011 4of 4 Fron'i: Eric Elerath eelerath@veiizori.net Subject: Re: Appeal Submittal for 345 Clinton Date: July 13, 2020 at 3:21 PM To: April Lucas april.lucas@ashland.or.us, planning @ashland,OT'. LIS Hi April, Liz and Planning staff At your suggestion, I'm submitting this appeal electronically. Please find attached AppeaI2020—Final,pdf. It includes the 2 page cover sheet provided by the City and six pages of I,( McLane's name is on the cover sheet as an additional Appellant - we share the same home and address - but I was un electronic signature before submitting, Please proceed with mine only, or I can bring over her signature on, the paper fc The pdf can be opened, read and printed, but is protected from, copying content. Please let me know If there problems As noted on the cover letter page, there: are no exhibits attached,. I omitted them in the interests of brevity. Also please call to arrange payment, I prefer Visa, but electronic bank check will work too, If I don't hear from someon will call back again. Thank you for your work and patience! Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. (310) 429-8093 PDF I, of 2 ...... .. ......... City of Ashland CogfiItjIjjty Developunt 20 F Main 8t Wiland, OR 97520 (541) 480-6004 aa 4'! 17 - 0004 07/13/2020 03;46PH INVOICE Elbrathftl]lano, Ellc/BetsY PA -APPEAL -2020--00011 2.020 Itolil: I4iV-00005090 balance clue; 0,00 Ba I ance Linpaid: 0,00 Planning' Fee - Appeal llearing (nidal PUblic, Hear 150,00 150.00 Subtotal 150,00 Total 10t 00 CREDIT GARD8 CINDEV 1"0.00 Visa mommmmom RefL000000124909 ALI tN,0 13666 Trans lOm000000124909 n)try Nthod=MANUAI. TO RIF #n50o19511-19484872 Change due 0.00 Pald by; Herath/MuGlanv, Ellc/BPtsy Tilank YOU fol` YOL11' WIllent' CUSTOMER COPY ' .. .... . ... iz.' 10 7 of 2 Good evening Planning Commissioners, The hearing before you is a request for appeal of a Minor Land Partition which was administratively approved by staff and subsequently appealed by a, neighbor with standing. Many of the issues raised by the appellant address procedural issues. The property owner and their agent cannot speak to how, or how much information was provided on the City website nor as to how in person file review was or was not accommodated for The application form with the property owner's and applicant's signatures, findings of fact and a preliminary partition plat map created by an Oregon Licensed Surveyor were submitted electronically to the City of Ashland on April 30, 2020. Based on the information submitted with the application the application was deemed complete by staff and a notice of application was sent to the property owners within 200 -feet. We believe that there was adequate notice to the neighbors as required by local code and the Oregon Revised Statutes. We believe if can be found that numerous public comments were received in the initial public comment period. We also believe that the Planning Commission can find that the proposed partition of the property is consistent with the approval criteria from AMC 18.5.3, and that the conditions of approval from the administrative decision are consistent with the state laws (ORS 92) that allow for inclusion of conditions of approval on plats. The 12.29-acre; property is on the north side of Clinton Street. The property is occu�pied by a single -family residential home, a detached garage, and a poile barn. The residence is a,cceissed via a paved, private driveway that eytend,s from Clint,on Street to the resiidence. i The subject property and the adjacent properties are R -1 -5 - and are generally developed with single-family residences and their outbulildings. I M1 111 Vk 0 PROPOSED PARTITION, PLAT Mwz', if -I, V 31 z The request is to divide the property into two parcel] Proposed Parcel 1 is 8.36 alcres. This parcel would retain th residence, garage a!nid poile barn at 345 Clinton Street. Th vehicular access w,ill be retained from Clinton Street utilizin the private driveway. The east side of the existing privat driveway is the aipproximate east property line of propose Proposed Parcel 2 Is a vacant, clevelopable, apiproximatelly 3.35i -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. The futu,re subdivision of Parcel 2 will be subject to review by either staff or the Planning Commission depending on thie number of parcels. The future density is dependent upon the goals of the future developer. There is no minimum density in the R -1-5-P zone and the maximurn denisity ca;n be increased through density bonuses,. Base density of the 3.350 -acre paircel is 4.5 du/acre or 15 dwelling units. The proposed partition die;monstrates compliance; with AMI 18.5.3 and future development will address the specific code applicable at the time of application 'these include th physical and environmental constraints review chapter, th - wate;r resources protections zone, outline and final pla, possibly site design review, tree removal or, protection ans 11 The findings of fact address how the proposal compiles with 18.5.3. The findings of fact advise that the future development will need to comply with applicable city standards in the development proposal. fiF ........... M There are natural features identified on the proiperty. Mook aka Clear Creek enters the property near the southwest corner, traverses the site leadi'ng to the pond an continuing to Bear Creek (Mook Creek is an interm,ittent or empheimeral stream which has a 20 -foot r,iparian buffer zon (Mook Creek is, located on proposed Parcel #1.))l I Along the north poirtion of proposed Parcel 2, approximately .530 acres are within the Bear Creek, FEMA f;loodplain a:nd the Ashland Modified Floodplain of Bear Creek. Ashland Modified flolodpla,in hashed area; FEMA 100 Year floodplain clarker blue under the hiashed area; FEMA 500 year 5 There is also a potential wetland (yellow circ,le) and -,-IR preliminary Wetland Delineation report has been completed *ut not f'iled with the Department of State Lands. The floodplains and wetlands will be further evaluated and planned for as required by state and local o�rdinanc�es and future impacts mitigated through the site development of the residential homes. There is adequate area for the clevelopment of residential lots and the preservation of the significant natural featureis. Future development of Parcel #2 would need to address the Physical Constraints Review Chapter which is triggered with the development of properties per 18.3.10.020. No development is proposed at this time with the partition request. The proposed partition is to create a discrete parcel of record. Both parcels area and dimensions exceed the minimum lot size in the R- I -5-P zone. Adequate vehicular access presently exists to the property and future development will extend the public streets through the future development area of CONCLUSION Parcel #2. The parcels do have natural features such as floodplains and potential wetlands, as addressed in the findings.The future development will be required to consider the physical constraints as part of the future subdivision. The City of Ashland has adopted numerous documents addressing the need to additional housing.This partition creates a developable parcel that allows for the future development of needed housing within the city limits. The City of Ashland Planning Commission can find that the proposed partition to create two discrete parcels of record conforms to the Partitions Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code and that the Community Development Department Director Decision is consistent with local and state Oregon Revised Statues that allow for the partitions and subdivisions within the city limits. Thank you for your consideration. f; r . . . . . ......... . ...... . . 1.1 E V) E 0 0 0 4J 4-J 4-J E ct u 4-J 4-j 4.J 0 cn 0 41 E -01 V) 4-J 4-J CL 0 0:3 4-J ct :3 >E V) Ct V) 0 U vi M cri 4--j E C: 0 Cl - 0- W Ct c: 4-J a) 0 CL 4jCL L41 4— E c: 0 (A 0 Cld 00 — N a) > 41 4 Cld a) > 0 V) ct > .2 4J C: Q) = -40 ,j Ul) 4-1 c9d -0 E S� o o Cd 0- = 4-J L- CL In, 0 CL CL _C V) (1) 0) (A (3) 4,J _00 r— a$ < CIJ (D (n -C C: 4— 0 4-J U r14 u c — 0 >, vi 41 0 (t 4-J (n Cld —C V) 41 E N ul L C -L -0 U (1) — 0 -Cja. 4-j – u . -C u 0 4-J 0 °0 -C ca — 0- 0- CL q--- v ct CL 4.5 u From: Eric Elerath <eejerath@_yerizon—.net> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 7:28 PM To: Bill Molnar <bill,i,yi,pfriar K@ashia:idar,ijs> Cc-, David: Lohman <david.loh i@ashlar1d.qL.gs>; Katrina Brown <I<atrina.krowriLa)ashlaiid.or,(,is> Subject: Re: PA -T1-2020-00109 I -EXTERNAL SENDER] Mr. Molnar Thank you for finally providing me access to the written file folder this afternoon via Dana Smith. There is more information there now than has been on the website, and I believe Ms. Smith stated that the balance of the documents would be available later today. Thank you. My objection and appeal, however, includes my assertion that the documents were not available as State I aw requires them to be, and the City's assertion that the complete application was available on the City's website when it was actually not available. I noticed that several people objected on the grounds that the information was incomplete and that they requested additional time. You did not grant any request for additional time to review the full record. To that end, I also did not see copy of an cinail exchange between Maria Harris and myself, which I have attached here. It is dated July 6, and is relevant to my appeal. In response to one of my questions, and quoting from the ernail, Ms. Harris wrote : "The application is available on the City's web site here hqp, -1 1L - s�/�gi�iasljl� e( i tpLop.Q,qls/ -TYDe it, 34-5 Clinton in the "Near pid-omis/dev I �11L Me" box and the Wp&atiori and the notices are attached to the information as documents. So we are clear, the issues would now appear to include obstruction and the City's misrepresentation of facts, at least on the part of Ms. Harris, and acting Linder your direction and possibly others. Do you have a response to this or an explanation'? Thank you. Eric Elerath I did not see copies of emails that I sent to On Aug 3, 2020, at 11:33 AM, Dana Smith <dan ashland.or,us> wrote: And here is MYf0II0W up email when I had not heard back, from you. Dana Smith, Executive Assistant City of Ashland, Corrim unity Development Department 51 WinbLirn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-552-2072, T'1'Y: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the, City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in. error, please contact me at (541) 552-2072. Thank. you. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dana Smith Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2020 1:38 PM To: Eric Elerath < eeleradj� rizon.net> Subject: RE: PA -TI -2020-00109 1-11 Eric, Are you still interested in viewing the planning action file for 345 Clinton? I have not heard back so thought I would reach out. Dana Smith Legal Department 20 East Main Street Tel: 541-488-5350, TTY: 800-735-2900 Fax: 541-552-2107 LIS This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you :have received this message in error, please contact me at 541-552-2107, Thank you. ----Original Message ----- From: Eric Elerath <eel crath (d) verizon. net> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 2:38 PM To: Dana Smith <da,na.s.! shland.or.i.is> ... . ......... . . Cc: Maria Harris <rnari,'t. harriski)asb I and. o r. us> Subject: Re- PA -T'1-2020-00109 [EXTERNAL SENDER.] I -Ii Dana Or Ir NIE'.. D I left a voice message with you just now, and am following up by email. I'd like to arrange a time to view the file for 345 Clinton. Thank you for your help. Eric F,lerath On Jul 6, 2020, at 4:10 PM, Maria F[arris <111aria liarris(ii)ashland.or. Lis> wrote: Hi Eric, Bill Molnar asked me to get back to you. Please see my responses below each of your questions. I've copied in Dana Smith in our Departinent. She can help you arrange a time to come in and view the rile. Per the Governor's latest order, a mask is required to come into the office to view the file. Please feel free to contact me if you need more information or have further questions. Best Regards, Maria Harris, AICP Planning Manager City of Ashland, Community 20 E. Main St,, Ashland, OR 541.552.2045 Tel 800,735.2,900,1"ry 541,552.2050 Fax Development Department 97520 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subJect to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention, If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552,2045. Thank you. ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Elerath Sent: Friday, July 03, 2020 11:35 AM To: Bill Molnar <bill.rno1nar(i'- U,)jshland.or.us> Cc: planning <p Aaron Anderson .......... <aaron anderson(ii s>; Maria Harris <maria,haLtJi _-s2,'ct)�Lshland.or.us> Subject: P'A-TI-2020-00109 [EXTERNAL SENDER] Mr. Molnar I received by mail your reply to my objection regarding the above Planning action In your reply, you wrote that the application, all associated documents and evidence are available for review at the Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. 1) How can I access these documents and review them in person as described above? Please contact Dana Smith to arrange a time to review the planning application file. I've copied her in this email or by phone you can contact her at (541) 552-2072. 2) dere can I find procedures to pursue an appeal of this decision? It appears that Planning will be making a Final decision on July 14, 2020, the day after the appeal deadline date of July 13, 2020 at 4:30 pin, Will that be at a meeting of the Planning Commission? July 14, 2020 is the date theType I administrative decision becomes final unless the decision is appealed by 4:30 p.m. on July 13, 2020. The Planning Commission will not review the decision unless the Type I administrative decision is appealed. I've attached the section of the Ashland Municipal Code that covers a Type I administrative decision appeal - see 18.5.1.050.G. I've also attached the appeal form. The fee for an appeal for a public hearing is $150.00 3) As of this date, the application still does not appear to be available on the City's web site. Could you please provide a link to the application? The application is available on the City's web site here Type in 345 Clinton in the "Near Me" box and the application and the notices are attached to the information as pdf documents. Thank you Eric Elerath <AMC 18.5,1.050.pdf><Appea1 Form Typel_2015-1, illable PDRpff- ED . . .. ..... .. CITY 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 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 #: 391E04DB; TAX LOT: 401. DATE ITEM PAGE # 07/31/2020 Ashland Daily Tidings Notice of Public Hearing 1 07129/2020 Notice of Appeal to the Planning Commission 2 07/1312020 Appellants Submittals 5 06130/2020 Notice of Type I Administrative Decision 21 06130/2020 Type I Administrative Findings, Conclusions & Orders 23 06101/2020 Public Comment 28 0512912020 Public Comment 45 05/2612020 Public Comment 72 05/24/2020 Public Comment 74 05121/2020 Public Comment 77 05/20/2020 Public Comment 79 05/19/2020 Public Comment 80 05115/2020 Planning Commission Notice of Completeness 81 04/30/2020 Applicant's Submittals 83 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY OF 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAND 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: 391E 04 D8; TAX LOT: 401 G:kom de0p1=ning\Manning Action \PAs by StrodNClClinion\Cfinton.3455PA-'1-62020-001095AP Al, PA -APPEAL -2020-000L I \NoticeslCtinion_345_PA-APPEA3„-2020-00071 Piing Commission doca GScomm-devlplenninffla ing AMonsTAs by Street\CSClinton\Clinton_3451PA-T3-2020-001095APPEAL PA-APPEAL-2020-0001 IWoiices\Clinton_345_PA-APPEAL-2020-0001 I_PlIng Commission.dum PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.8.3,050 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 182, 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'lcomm-dev%pla ing\Planning AcdonsTAs by StmetkOClinton\Clinton_345TH-rl-Z020-001091APPEAL PA-APPEAL-2630-900111Notice\Ciinton_345_PA-APPEAL-2020-00011_1l4ning Commission.docx Notice of Land Use .Appeal -- Type 1 -- Ashland Municipal Code § 18.5.1.050.G. A, Name(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 -T1-2020-00109 (Not fndieated 1345 Clinton St.) D. Mow Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party For each person listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below. The person named in ❑ 1 am the applicant. Box A.1. above N I received notice of the planning action. qualifies as a party ❑ I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive because: notice due to error. The person named in ❑ 1 am the applicant. Sox A.2. above X l received notice of the planning action. qualities as a party ❑ 1 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive because: notice due to error. 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 lander "Specific Grounds for Appeal, pages 4, 5, G" 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 §M requires that _ (attach additional pages if necessary)= s 3 of 2 _ F l.I� } 5 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 lave that were violated. Appeal Fee With this notice of appeal I(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) tiling 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 541-488-5355, prior to the effective date of the decision sought to be reviewed. Effective dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Municipal Code Section 98.5.1.550. t 3 2of2 t Eric Elerath 41.9 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 PLANNING ACTION: SUBJECT PROPERTY' 0WNER: SUBJECT: DATE OF DECISION: NOTICE OF APPEAL PATI -2020-00109 345 Clinton St. Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle Notice of Appeal of Planning Decision June 30, 2020 City of Ashland planning Department: Eric Elerath ("Elerath", "Appellant") submits this document as notice of appeal of Planning Decision PA--TI-2020-001.09. 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 Appeal of PA -T1-2420-00109 t of 6 APPEAL CRITERIA: Appeal of a Type I decision is governed by A.M.0 18.5.1.050 (3: 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 TI pe I decision by tiling a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection. The fee required in thus section shall not apply to appeals trade by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the City and whose boundaries inelude the site. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing small be refunded b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content of Notice of A)eal. 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 net or the appeal will be considered by the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. 3. Scope of Ap )cal. 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 WITH AFpRAL 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 ernail 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 tithe 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 PAMTI-2020.00109, made on June 30, 2020. 18.5.1.050 G(2)fc)fii): 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 Tune 30, 2020, and his remarks were identified by name in the decision being appealed. These events indicate that Elerath has standing Appeal of PA-Tt-2020-00109 2of 6 i 81 PY-.-. ,«....... . .........,..... ,.�: to appeal this decision and that his continents 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 Preliminary Partition Plat. 18,5.1.050 G(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 subn-dttal 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 tinge that the state announces phase three of reopening. The planning application materials were posted on "What's Happening in nay City" on the City web site. People that called or emailed and were interested in reviewing the file were directed to the City's Nveb site. Appeal of PA -T1-2020-00109 3 of 6 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 I%. _ Incomplcte 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 1 or omission of material facts and evidence necessary to determine that a complete application was even' submitted. SCOPE Q APPEAL: Elerath nates 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 bearings 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. Rt: UEST FoR ADDITIONAL Taw I CONTINUANCE: Appellant asked for additional time to review materials in his original comments, and he repeats that request again here: 1) 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 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. SPEMile GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: The Director's decision should be reversed or modified on the following grounds: 1) The Director's decision was rnade without a complete Application having been produced. This is an error because: Appeal of PA -T 1-2020-00109 4 of G i By: A. Ashland Municipal Code § 18.5.1.050(A)(1) requires: 1. Application Form and Fee. Applications for Type l 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 Molnar'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 Iimited land use decision is subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection. (a) lir 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 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 lave, 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 -TI -2020-00109 5 of 6 )� Py:-- ...... .............. prohibited by Article I., Sections 9 and 10. The American public has been, and continues to be deprived of life, property and I or frecdorn 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 Molnar's decision, he 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 performed 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(13) requires: 1. Mailing of Notice of Application. The propose 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 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 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 Elerath's request, lie 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 he, has standing, that he has identified specific grounds for appeal, and that he has fulfilled the requirements to do so. Respectfully submitted, Eric Elerath Tidy 13, 2020 Appeal of PA -T1-2020-00109 Gof 5 I1Y, 12 Notice of Land Use Appeal -- Type I Ashland Municipal Code § 18.5.1.050.G. A. Names) 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, 2420 PA-Ti-2020.00109 (Not Indicated / 345 Clinton St.) D. plow Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party For each person listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below. The person named in ❑ I am the applicant. Box A.1. above N I received notice of the planning action.. qualifies as a party ❑ 1 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive because: notice due to error. The person named in ❑ 1 am the applicant. Box A.Z. 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. 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): _ l ut2 RECEIVED ' 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 1(we) submit the sum of $150.00 which is the appeal fee required by § '18.5.1.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code. ©ate: 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, 29 E Main St, Ashland, OR 97620, 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 18.5.9.050. E. C r. 2of2 Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 708-0149 July 13, 2020 Planning Department. City of Ashland 51 Witxburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-5305 PLANNING ACTION: SUBJECT PROPERTY: OWNER: SUBJECT: DATE OF DECISION: NOTICE OF APPEAL PA -T1-2020.00109 345 Clinton St. Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle Notice of Appeal of Planning Decision June 30, 2020 City of Ashland Planning Department: Eric Elcrath ("Elcrath", "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! Eric Elerath Appeal of PA-Tt-2020-00109 i of 6 APPEAL CRITERIA: Appeal of a Type I decision is governed by A.M.C. 18.5.1.050 G: 2. Acal 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 'Iype 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 heating shall be refunded b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the ,Staff Advisor within 42 days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content of Notice of A eal. 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. Sco e 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 WITH APPEAL CRITERIA AIiow: 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 he 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 0(2)(c)(i): The decision being appealed is PA -T1-2020-00109, made on June 30, 2020. 1853.050 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 RY-t-,C)SIVED Appeal of PA -T1-2020-00.109 2 of G 16 BY: 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(21(c)(iiil: 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. Ele;ath'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 Preliminmy 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 he 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)(O(iv): In his decision, Director Molnar wrote, in part: Eric Elerath submitted a written comment on May 29th raising additional conceals 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 subn-dtting 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 301h. 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 Appeal of PA -T1-2020-00109 3 of 67. 17 ....... ,.......... Nvere 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. Elerath has attached a copy of the letter that he submitted on May 29. In addition to thoseissues 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 II. 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 1 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 I`ype I appeals hearings shall be de novo hearings and "... shall not he 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 i+OR Ai3DMONAL TIME 1 CONTINUANCE' Appellant asked for additional time to review materials in his original comments, and he repeats that request again here: 1) 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 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 cheeks and balances or clear lines to distinguish the capacity in which it acts at any time. SPECIFIC GROUNDS I+oR APPEAL. - The Director's decision should be reversed or modified on the following grounds:. 7) The Director's decision was made without a complete Application having been produced. This is an error because: RE! It Appeal of PA -TI -2020-00109 4of 6 18 B: 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 owne€-s 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 Molnar's references to the Minor Land Partition as inadmissible heresay. B. 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 government shall follow the applicable procedures contained within its acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations and other applicable legal requireme-nts. (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 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-1.9 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 -T1-2020-00109 Sof 6CE prohibited by Article 1, Sections 9 and 10. The American public has been, and continues to be deprived of life, property and / or freedom without clue 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 Molnar's decision, be included conditions 2), 3), and 4). These involve unquantifiable parameters and conditions which may be beyond the control of the owner to perform, evert 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 seennn 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 males a decision on it. Within telt days of deeming a 'lope I application complete, the City shall snail 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 (hat a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or for the applicant, and the applicable criteria and standards arc 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 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 he has standing, that he has identified specific grounds for appeal, and that he has fulfilled the requirements to do so. Respectfully submitted, Eric Elerath July 13, 2020 V Appeal of PA -TI -2020-0.0109 hof 6 20 CITY OF ASHLAND June 30, 2020 Notice of Final Decision On June 30, 2020, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: 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 4: 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 P 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: I. 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 18.5.1:050.6.1, 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 H 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 fled with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 Nvwxv. ashland.on us Tel: 541488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 R�1 22 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA -T1-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development OWNER: 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 IE 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 Background The subject property has been modified by boundary line adjustments three times in the last decade (see PA#'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, Pa Proo er 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. Partition 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 2.5 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 -T1-2420-001.09 345 Clinton Street) 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 development plan 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 In ut 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 15`'h and ended on May 29'". 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 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 PA -T1-2020-00109 345 Minton Street//40 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,,, e 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 -TI -2020-00109 345 Clinton Street/ 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. 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. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. 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 #PA -TI -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-TI-2020-00109 is denied. The following conditions are attached to the approval. I) 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. "A �y ` 06.30.2020 Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Date Department of Community Development PA -T1-2020-00109 345 Clinton Street/AA Pa Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 708-0149 May 28, 2020 Planning Department, City of Ashland 51 Win burn Way Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-5305 PLANNING ACTION: PA -TI -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 emailed in electronic form. Thank you for your great work under difficult conditions! C, 4��- Eric Elerath W 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 -T1-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY., 345 Clinton St. SUBJECT: Request For Personal Inspection of Application Documents Request Tor Additional Time To Respond Dear City of Ashland Planning Department: My name is Eric Elerath. My partner Betsy McLane and 1 have lived at 41.9 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 snail from the City of Ashland about the application for a minor land partition, and 1 write this letter to object to the application. I ask for: • Ill -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 appticable 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 E E " RESPONSE TO PLANNING ACTION PA -T1-2020-00109 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 `t. 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 1.8.5.1.050(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. 2The incompleteness of the Application is addressed below, under the heading 11. Incomplete Application. 3 Exhibit 1, attached. R IT. C FT Y 4 Exhibit 2, attached. J UNI ( I 2 B Y: ---3-0.,".., R 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 s. 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. 1n 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:/i www.ashiand.or.uslnews.asp?news1D=4670 states: Alert: Jackson County has been approved to move ahead in a Phase 1 reopening 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 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 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 7, RIV 5 See II. Incomplete Application, below. rn•� G Exhibit 1, attached. , 3: effective May 15. A relevant State of Oregon website (https:/fgovstatus.egov,com/reopening- oregon#phasel) 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 inspeewd 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 j n o 8 See Exhibit 4 By. 4 32 11. Incomplete Applicatiotl Multiple tithes, 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. i .050, Subsection A. Application Requirements, reads, in part: 1> Ap lication Form and Fee. Applications for Type 1 review shall be made on forms provided by the Staff Advisor. One or more property owners of the properly 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 inforrnation 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 201' 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 2e). III. Defecf�ve 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 tunes the Applicant 9 See Exhibit S, 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 submittl tiffs'' City refers to as the 'Application'. I have not altered or deleted any information appearing on th i original document provided on the City's website. JUN, h' _I 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. SUMMary 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. 7J ISM'! ;:' .1 1i '�� ny. 6 34 Exhibit,� Planning Department, 51 Wirt—in Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 ww�rr.ashland.or.us TTY: t-800-735-2900 • NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA -TI -2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton OWNERIAPPLICANT: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle I Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request land use approval for a two -lot partition of a 12.29 -acre tot. 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 is the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 3911=04038; TAX LOT: 401 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: May 15, 2020 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: May 29, 2020 Exhibit 2 PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.5.3.854 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. 6, 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 18.1.3.080 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. I -I. 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 tilled) 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 decried. 1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the parfiton, 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;ScommKievl�fanningli'3anning AclionsSPtnfiang FoMeA,%faWNoima Sign36 s 2WA-T4-202&-MWf9.dmv Exhibit 4, pi From: Maria Harris maria.harrisgashland.or.us Subject. RE: Application documents for PA -T1-2020-00109 Date: May 27, 2020 at 1:37 PM To: Eric Clerath eelerath624(?�verizon.nei Cc: planning planning@ashland.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 planning(Washland.onus. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance or have further questions. Best Regards, Maria Harris, AICA Planning Manager City of Ashland, Community Development Department 20 E. Main St., Ashland, DR 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 Lawfor disclosure and retention. if you have received this message in error, please contact me at 542552.2045. Thank you. From: Eric Elerath <eelerath624@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 202012:56 PM To: planning <planning@ashland.or.us>; Maria Harris <maria.harris@ashland.or.us> Cc: Aaron Anderson <aaron.anderson@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 -Tl -2020-00109 is attached. The next to last paragraph on p1 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 NofwAwas-,-pri distributed.' ` :Y 38 Y:...-- - Exhibit 4, p2 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 htt s: is.ashland.or.us are is rest services lannin Plannin Action IMa pServer 0 20412 attachme nts 25617 and a document entitled "Minor Land Partition" located here: htt s: is. ash Iand. onus arc is rest services lannin Plannin g Action Ma Server 0 20412 attachme nts 25615 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! !uric Elerath 419 Clinton st. IT F,4D��33 1. •: g.;e 13 • - 39 Roguu Planning R Development Sery€nes, LLC Minor Land Partition 345 Clinton Street Exhibit 5 l Jl`l.a MY Received 4.30.2020 40 Exhibit 5 Minor Land Partition Property Address: 345 Clinton Street Map & Tax Lots: 391E 040B: 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. l : Received 4130.2020 41 Exhibit 5 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. 7777 't h 01 j �vAA L.iN u AVE. _ "CTA AVE ------------------ _ � T Received 4430.2020 42 Exhibit 5 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 Enventory (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. ,eCEIVP,D Received 4130.2020 Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Depaiik rtmeut, City of, ft-Whiburn WHY Ashland, 014 -97520 May 27, 2020 RE: Planning ActionPA-Ti-2020-00109 Subject Property: 345 Clinton Hello, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed action. We have been homeowners of an adjoining property, 374 Clinton St, sincel 983. 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? `climate Is the area less prone to flooding, particularly in this era of change'? Will the City of Ashland, should it approve any future development, be held liable for any property damage should future flooding occur? Thank you, Dennis and Rita Fiedler 45 .. ,1YEKWALK, eif5 As50ciLation City of Ashland Planning [department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Topic: Notice of Application for Planning Action PA -Tl -2020-00109 Az�klana, OK �z�zo www.riverwaI''Knrilsltla U :; May 2$, 2020 The Riverwalk Homeowners Association (MDA) 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 haw 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 the City of Ashland offices are closed, members of the Riverwalk HOA have not been able to inspect the application, documents and evidence that the Notice premises, 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 passible 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, The Riverwalk HOA has commented on previous plans for development of 345 Clinton Street, and the HOA will continue to be interested in the future development of this property as it will affect bath our residents' quality of life and property values, Please keep the Riverwalk HOA informed on this topic. Sincerely, Ila, Carolyn T. Hunsaker, President Riverwalk HOA Board ashlandriverwalkhoa@gmaii.com Received 5.29.2020 46 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. SUBJECL Peer 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 emailed in electronic form. Thank you for your great work under difficult conditions! 6�ff 4'-', � Eric Elerath RECEIVE M ?, 9, -00 BY:.......... . Eric Elerath 419 Clinton St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 708-0149 May 28, 2020 PIanning Department, City of Ashland 51 Win burn Way Ashland, OR 97520 (541.) 488-5305 PLANNING ACTION: PA -T1-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton St. SUBJECT: Request For Personal Inspection of Application 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? 6�f ��_ Eric Elerath CEIVED R 4 48 RESPONSE TO PLANNING ACTION PA -Ti -2020-00109 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. S. 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 185.3.050 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 fallow, (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. 2The incompleteness of the Application is addressed beloNv, under the heading 11. Incomplete Application. 3 Exhibit 1, attached Exhibit 2, attached.vp ` N! fi:' �- 3 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. `.l'he 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?newsID=4670 states: Alert: Jackson County has been approved to move ahead in a Phase 1 reopening 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 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 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 S See Il. Incomplete Application, below_ 1 N _ 6 l xhibit I, attached. MA Y 9 2023 e i.st3is1;tYsavT1+. effective May 15. A relevant State of Oregon website (https://govstatus.egov.com/reopening- oregoniphasel) states, for example: Local cultural, civic and faith gatherings are allowed for up to 25 people provided physical distancing can he 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, l 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 akolve 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 any 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 S See Exhi bit 4 4 M6 IL 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 part: 1. Application Form and Fee. Applications for Type 1 review shall be made on forms provided by the Stair 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 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 2e). Ill. 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 ether times the Applicant v 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 submittal document that the City refers to as the `Application'. I have not altered or deleted any information appearing on the origittalsi ument provided on the City's website.ED EID _s.e 5 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. SpmmaKy 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. RAM MAY e! 19 '111112U, 6 PLANNING ACTION: PA -T1-2020-00109 ` _ 102 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton OWNERIAPPLICANT: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle 1 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 large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat submitted witlx 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 PLAIT! 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 Exhibit 1 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Q€egon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 +rww.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-300-735-2900 CITY D -ASHLAND NOTICE OF APPLICATION yIVED PLANNING ACTION: PA -T1-2020-00109 ` _ 102 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton OWNERIAPPLICANT: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle 1 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 large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat submitted witlx 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 PLAIT! 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 Exhibit 2 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 worts 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. t. 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. RHC- f:kamm-de�SpianningV'lanaing ActimM(Kir!ng FotdeM ailed hWiees& Si s�zo2iU T1-2a2a-a6tov.duea Exhibit 4, pl From. Maria Harris maria.harr1s@ashland.or.us Subject: RIM: Application documents for PA -T7-2020.00709 Date: May 27, 2020 at 7:37 PM To. Eric Eierath eelerath624@verizon.net Cc: planning planningQashlarnd.orms 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 121anningPashiand.or.us. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance or have further questions. Best Regards, Maria Harris, AICD 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 Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.55.2.2045. Thank you. From: Eric Elerath <eelerath624@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 202012:56 PM To: planning <planning@ash Ian d.vr.us>; Maria Harris <maria.harris@ashland. or.us> Cc. Aaron Anderson <aaron.anderson@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 p1 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 he provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Ali 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 Notice was printed and distributed. w -- - �Y€ ) %57) Cd Y i. Exhibit 4, p2 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 htts: is.ash]and.or.us/3rCgisjrestLs erviceslannin Plannin g Action Ma Server 1a 2(3412 attachEne nt5 25617 and a document entitled "Minor Land Partition" located here: htt s: is.ashland.or.us arc is rest services lannin PIannin Action Ma Server 0 21341.2 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. SUVEID ! AY 9 09,11 58 Exhibit 5 Rogue Planning 6 Develapment Sef-Orus, LLU Minor Land Partition 345 Glintan Street fkf �I 1 .i1 l:�jaaa.. Received 4.30.2020 59 Exhibit 5 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: Array 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. Y Received 4130.2020 __ Exhibit 5 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. 1%Fr T, 7}�LLOiK riR ,I,aj �F �i q,L---.--.. 01 �! 1 tt1'�• t '�,,C` '4)AK L,%W4Ai • �� f(� •.� C. nom, ��.. �''r _ \ = r -----------------�ltl ,rw t r utccscaccn�maac�:'l cace�.u..... c�. - '4x' Jt u r= calto - J ------ ---------------------- I -_--- -------- --- � � x. a.ssrfs.+� crxra � Received 430,2020 r L3Y.—'111-111111 ,7e............. exhibit 5 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. I , MAY 7 Received 4130.2020DyLi3 Y �, Exhibit 5 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 develo meat of either earcel will demonstrate compliance with the cily 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 Received 430.2020 Exhibit 5 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 21D 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: ding; 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 adapted neighborhood or district plans that affect the property. To the applicant's knowledge, there are not 2revious approvals Lor the subject proe2rties that would impact the 2Loosal. 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 � MAY 2,()i' Received 4730.2020. Exhibit 5 The tract of land has not been partitioned for the past 12 months. F. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying None, 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 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. partici ate in the costs of a Local lm rovement 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. RF,CEIVED Received 4830.2020 �r..�s""=.... Exhibit 5 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 ano dedipations. This aQesn I appear to be a.finding of fact as it describes future development the current applicant has no control, Predictions of future possibilities appear to be legal opinions, n-01 facts. In ing: No new streets are proposed at this time. Future streets for the development of Parcel 2 will demonstrate compliance with the standards from 18.4.5. 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 .an rMbappitedfrom st earf6 Dee a Fireiing of fat r'b f-uture development over which the current applicqpt has..nQ..conJrQl. Predictions of future possibilities appear to bp, legal opinions, not facts, Finding: �At present, there are no alleys. The future development of Parcel 2 will likely include alleys for access to r the future individual lot development. ` I Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained before development. This doesn't_aMear_.to.be. a finding of fact. it appears 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. RECE AMY P Received 4930.2020 66 C F elk C77 + s, �r •rr� _.., ._ .. _ �. .. iia a a �.. .add >isx 4� 20 a ? r a °uKp40 * v M NN 4 he k {FA X � �Pjt'vgg mq 1 ibrBgS el S aa 9X r M. yy ttou Rai 4 1x a a gga 4 wzp�. 4� Ra Vid �gyUj o $irs �� �+ n FI n 555 \ \ yyjy��j - 'p2�y3lpF ��Sa]2 gg ;I�yy��1+7yyjj I k i 1 E/ k t l l 1 It llt131111 Fi tti Ill Flk lk it l[ 0 C F elk C77 + s, �r •rr� _.., ._ .. _ �. .. iia a a �.. .add >isx 4� 20 Aaron Anderson From: dollytravers <dollytraversPea rthlink.net> Sent: Friday, May 29, 20201:04 PM To: planning Subject: PA -T1-2020-00109 [EXTERNAL SENDER] Ashland City Planning Commission: Re: Notice of Application for Planning Action PA -T1-2020-001.09 I am concerned about four things: 1. Therp ocess 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 aide to inspect the documents and the information on the website was not complete. l have begun to question the thoroughness of process, procedures, and sharing information frorn 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 orderthat 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 CEIVED Y. Aaron Anderson From: sparc@mind.net Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 4:53 PM To: planning; hilligol@sou.edu Subject: Written Comments on Planning Action PA -1"1-2020-00109 Attachments: PA -TI -2020-00109 Public input Hilligoss .docx [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Ashland Planning Department, Please find the attached written comments on Planning Action PA -T1-20217-00109, Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Larry and Linda Hilligoss 534 Ann St. Ashland, Oregon 97520 541.-821-5522 Fv RECEIVED TO: Ashland Planning Department FROM: Larry and Linda Hilligoss. 534 Ann St, Ashland, Oregon. 97520 Date: May 29, 2020 RE: Planning Action: PA -TI -2020-00109. Tax Lot 401. Map# 391E04DB We have lived in Ashland for almost 40 years and in the Riverwalk neighborhood since 201.0. Our 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 homes on the proposed 3.35-aere parcel situated in the southeast corner of the Tax 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 oppoilunities to explore the documents associated with this planning action. • Recommendation: This Planning Action should be extended for further information eatherine (at least 60 days) with all documents made available -.-_o...t 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 ofAI)I)Iicntion posted on the corner of Ann and Clinton streets, the documents available on-line do not cover all of the relevant information needed for informed input and review by the community, adjacent neighbors, and the Planning Commission! Recommendation: Delay Planninz Action until ALL reporting documents related to subdivision development are complete AND available far 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 hornes. 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 limit as they head north (down the hill) and they tend to over -accelerate going tip the hill (south). It is a challenge to navigate with ice and snow. There have been several accidents on the corner of Clinton/Ann. Since the proposed building parcel is adjacent to several flood plain and wetlands designations, it seems odd that the applicant would note RECE17,7RD Received 5.29.2020 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 laid for building. Based on personal experiences of standing water and soil issues resulting in serious foundation and 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 reports are complete. Any preliminary action would be inappropriate and misleading to a builder. Please be transparent and submit all reports for review. 4. Concern: Density Transfer. Special Note: The is,illingness of the applicant to sella parcel (11.01 acres) o f Tax Lot 401 to the City ofAshland for $380,000 to adcl to a beoutif d Rh er walk Park and trail should be commended! The maajority of the portion was in the FE114 100 -Year Flood Ploin. This land will be appreciated and ei oyed by boih wild anhnal.s and humans! According to a document on the City of Ashland Parks & Recreation website from 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 homes proposed be increased due to the Density Transfer option? Would a builder "down -the -road" have an option to increase the number of hornes? if so -- how many additional homes 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 60 days. Thank you very much 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 floodplain? 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:IP annina Subject: PATI -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 Paul 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; Tax Lot 401. I'm issuing a major complaint to Aaron Anderson. HOPING TO BE HEARD!! Sent from my iPhone Received 5.26.2020 73 From: Ann Barton To:laP nning Cc: Becca McLennan Subject: Planning action PATI -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. httns://wwf.nanda.ora/our work)_wildlife/nroblems/ha.bitat loss deuradation/ 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 any 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:lap nning 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 iPhone Received 5.24.2020 76 Aaron Anderson Prom: Gordon l..oncghurst <gordon@budget.net> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:47 PM To: 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. Where 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 jams . 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. EE #.a rak Gordon Longhurst 515 Ann St gordon@gordonlonghurst.corn or gordon @budget.net 541 659 8584 RECEINISDI y�& �q p B 3 UQ Aaron Anderson From: Shelleerae <shelleerae@fastmail.frn> 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 -T1-2020-00109 (assessor's map 4391E04DB). The above referenced property is across the street from our home, The proposed building site is a wildlife refuge for many animals and birds. It is also the place on Clinton street where many walkers stop to enjoy the quail, geese, birds, deer and occasional foxes. On said property, the proximity to the creek is a riparian zone just downstream fronn the Nature Center on Mountain Avenue. We would like to rennind the city that when the bonne was purchased in 1983, the homeowners were told that the field across the street was in the 100 -year flood plain. In this new cra 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 us 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 Shellee rae Mitchell Christian 541.482.2211 &, YoriTuhe Channel ywiv.shelleeraccoin ow seeming realities are Qnly the 4imly lit su€,6ce orae iricreoic ar)4 sea-rca,.5ciousriess CE I V fID', E ,.. '..'.' 3: Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C.1 T v 0 F 541488-5305 Pax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland,or,us TTY: 1 -800 -735 -2900 -ASHLAND NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA -T1-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton OWNERIAPPLICANT, 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 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 aright to sobmit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winhurn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97524 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 fora 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 S.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,18.5AMO.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) an 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 ar nther 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 appiicant.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:Scomm-dci+mlmnin�Ttmn inn ActionSTAS hY 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. 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, G:lcom-deOplannin&]a mgActfonslPAsbyStreetNCSClinton\Clinton_34STA-TI-2020-0o1091Clinion_345_PA,&2020.o010g_i3OC,docx 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 M. PA -T1-2020-00109 Apply Date: 4/30/2020 Ma Tax i_at. bra , e Address. . . 391 E04DB401 345 Clinton St Owner: Paul/Kathleen Mace/Kahle Owner 345 Clinton St Address: Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: (541) 941-9315 MLP -2 Lots Applicant: Rogue Planning and Development Applicant 33 N Central Ave 213 Address: Medford, OR 97501 Phone: (541) 9514020 Fee Description: Amount: Land Partition (Type 1) $1,237.00 Applicant: Date: Total Fees; $1,237.00 Received 4.30.2020 83 I PF�4 Inil Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 CITY As F 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MINOR LAND PARTITIQLI -21 C)T-';---- ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION FILE # PA -T1-2024-00109 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED@ Certification? ❑ YES ® NO Street Address 345 CLINTON STREET Assessor's Map No. 391 E Tax Lot(s) 401 Zoning R -1-5-P Comp Plan Designation Single -Family Residential APPLICANT Name gue Planning & Development Services LLCPhone 041-951-4020 E-Mailtannin Y9 P 9@g am anter. maiLcom Address 33 N Central Avenue, Suite 213 City Medford Zip 97501 PROPERTY OWNER Name Paul Mace and Kathleen Kahle Phone 541 -941 -9315E -Mail katkahle mail.coml aut.mace mail.com Address 345 CLINTON STREET City Ashland Zip 97520 SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Surveyor Name L.J. Friar & Associates Address 2714 N. Pacific Hwy Title Address Phone 541-772-2782 City Medford Phone City E -Mail liftiarandassociates@charter.net Zip 97501 E -Mail 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 I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request, 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request, 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being bulli in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. if I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. {{yYr'G/ Grate/- 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.tteehtG� Apr 24, 2020 Property Owner's Signature (required) Date Apr 30 2020 iTo be completed by City Stat 4.30.2020 Type 1 1237.00 Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee �_ OVER /1 Received 4.3 D . 2 D 2 D 84 Cr\wa-devlplannin.Tu ms & Handonts2aning Permit Applicadon.doc ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS V APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. V 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) ❑ LEED® 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 LEED® Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and • The LEED® 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. Received4.3 0.2 0 2 0 G_lconvn-devlplanninglForms & HwWouulZoning Permit Apphi ation.doc Rogue Planning 5 Development Services, LLC Aft Ming .and Partition 345 Clinton Street Received 4.30.2024 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. Received 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 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. t]Ai: Received 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. Received 4.30.2020 89 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 Received 4.30.2020 90 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. A The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. Finding: Received 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 f/- 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. Received 4.30.2020 92