HomeMy WebLinkAboutStrawberry_365_PA-T1-2020-00146A 11� RLQUEST FOR TYPE I
51 Winbum Way
CITY OF PUBLIC NOTICE
ASHLAND Ashland, OR 97520
Date of Request: --LLL�
Requestor's Name:
Mai li ng Address
City: f\ �"A State: zip—!
ADDITIONAL INFOIMATION:
Date of Request:
Requestor's N=e:
Mailing Address:
Date of Request:
Requestor's Marne:
Mailing Address:
City:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
State:
State:
m
zip:
LAW OFFICE OF
DEBORAH K. VINCENT
A ttorney at Law
May 1, 2021
Mr. Aaron Anderson, CFM
Associate Planner
City of Ashland, Community Development
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
aaroii.andersori(j(a-,hlanci.or.us
RE: Application for Physical Constraints Permit and Exceptions
Planning Action PA-T 1 -2020-00146 regarding 265 Strawberry Lane
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I have been retained by Ms. Patricia Zolene to assist her with her valid concerns and
objections to the above referenced application. Ms. Zolene has owned her residential property at
240 Nutley, Ashland, Oregon since 1992 which is adjacent to the proposed development. She
has already provided the City of' Ashland with a letter dated April 15, 2021 during the comment
period.
The purpose of'this letter is to inform you that I would like to be added to the list of
people to receive notice of any staff decision, hearing, or changes submitted by the applicant.
I understand that the applicant has received all of the objections from his neighbors and is
considering changes to his plan, however his changes will likely be futile. The Hillside Design
Standards for this area are very specific. I do not understand how the City of Ashland could even
consider approval of development on steep slopes (>45%) on this lot.The building, envelope was
cut from the same steep slope and the retaining walls proposed will also be cut on the steep,
slopes.
I have attached an opinion from the Land Use Board of Appeals that I litigated on a City.
of Jacksonville land development case. The Assignment of Error I is found on pages 6 - 9 of the
opinion. The City of Jacksonville's approval of construction on the applicant's steep slopes of
>30% despite the neighbor's objections (my client) and the city codes caused a swift remand.
What appears to be happening in this application at hand is the same thing. It might be worth
taking a look at how LUBA feels about approvals that violate the Hillside Design Standards.
Thank you.
cerely,
Deborah K. Vincent
P'.O. Box 4606, Medford, Oregon. 97501 Phone/Fax (541) 840-0479
I BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON
3
4 ERNEST McCULLOH and PAM McCULLOH,
5 Petitioners,
6
7
8
9 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE,
0 Resliondent,
1
2 and
3
4 DAN I 1AWKINS and RHONDA HAW1,CINS,
5 Intei-venors-Respondent.
6
7 LUBA No. 2003-061
8
9 FINAL OPINION
0 AND ORDER
2 Appeal fi-orn City of Jacksonville,
Debbie V. Minder, Medford, filed the petition for review and argued on behalf of
petitioners.
No appearance by City of Jacksonville.
Alan D. B. Harper, Medford, filed the response brief and argued on behalf of ii-itervellors-
respondent. With him on the brief was Hornecker, Cowling, Hassen and Heysell, LLP.
BASSHAM, Board Chair; BRIGGS, Board Member; HOLSTUN, Board Member,
participated in the decision.
REMANDED
01/20/2004
You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is governed by the
provisions of ORS 197,850.
Page 1
I Opinion by Bassliam.
2 NATURIE, OF THE DECISION
3 Petitioners appeal city approval of a.fotir-lot residential subdivision.
4 FACTS,
5 The subject property is a 6.37-acre parcel zoned Hillside Residential (HR), situated on a
6 west -facing slope of the Daisy Creek drainage, The property is, rectangular in shape, and extends
7 from 3rd Street on the west, across a portion of Daisy Creek, and thence up an increasingly steep
8 and wooded slope. A single family dwelling is located on the western third of the property near
9 Daisy Creek. The 14R zone allows two single-fairffly dwelling urrits per acre, and allows subdivision
10 only with conditional use approval. The conditional use standards at Jacksonville 1'w'luiii6pal Code
I I (JMC) 17.104 and standards governing hillside residential development at JMC 17.16 apply to
12 such conditional use approvals.
13 On August 13, 2002, intervenors- respondent (intervenors) applied to the city for a
14 conditional use permit to divide the property ititofour residential lots. Lot I is .75-acre in size, and
15 includes the portion of Daisy Creek next to 3rd Street. Lot 2 is also .75-acre in size, and includes
16 the existing dwelling. Lot 3 is .55 acre in size, and is located just above the existing dwelling. Ilie
17 eastern two-thirds of the property consists of Lot 4, which is 4.0 acres in size.
18 Intervenors propose construction of a new public street, Lily Road, to provide access from
19 3rd Street to lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. The proposed new street runs along the southern border of the
20 subject property, and dead -ends at the western boundary of lot 4. The anticipated finished grade of
21 Lily Road will be 14 percent. The building footprint for the proposed dwelling on lot 4 is located in
22 the approximate middle of that lot, accessed by a serpentine driveway that winds up past a
23 proposed office/guest cottage fl-irough two S-curves to a hanirrierhead turnaround adjacent to the
24 dwelling, The proposed driveway crosses slopes greater than 30 percent, for which intervenor
25 proposes engineered cuts and fills to reduce the slopes to a maximum 18 percent grade.
Page 2
The plarining commission held a public healing oil the application October 9, 2002, at which
2 petitioners, who own the property to the south of intervenors' parcel, appeared in opposition. The
3 healing was continued several tinies at intervenors' request in order to submit additional evidence.
4 The continued hearing was uhnnately scheduled for March 12, 2003, On Febl-Liary 19, 2003, city
5 staff agreed with intervenors that intervenor could submit additional evidence no later than March 3,
6 2003, for the March 12, 2003 hearing. On February 24, 2003, petitioners objected that the
7 proposed schedule did not provide sufficient time for petitioners' expert to prepare for the March
8 12, 2003 hearitig. On March 3, 2003, intervenors subri-littcd additional material consisting of a
9 revised tentative subdivision map, a 48-page geologic hazards and geotechnical study, engineered
10 plans for roadways and drainage, a tree survey, traffic count, tree removal and mitigation plan, draft
I I covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), a real estate market analysis, a street section
12 diagram, an erosion control plan, and proposed lindings, of fact and conclusions of law, with
13 suggested conditions of approval. City staff issued a staff report March 6, 2003,
14 The planning commission denied petitioners" motion to continue the March 12, 2003
15 hearing, but left the evidentiary record open until March 21, 2003, On March 21, 2003,
16 intervenors Submitted a third revised tentative subdivision map, revised engineering plans, a new tree
17 inventory and a landscape plan. Petitioners subs pitted additional evidence with respect to uniform
18 fire code requirements. The planning commission allowed the parties, until March 28, 2003, to
19 respond to the new evidence submitted March 21, 2003. Petitioners submitted a response Oil
20 March 28, 2003. On April 4, 2003, intervenors submitted their final written rebuttal. The planning
21 cornmission deliberated oil April 7, 2003, and voted April 9, 2003, to approve the application with
22 conditions. This appeal followed,
23 FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
24 Petitioners argue that the planning conuilission erred in denying petitioners' request to
25 continue the March 12, 2003 hearing.
Page 3
I According to petitioners, the city allowed intervenor to submit a significant volurne of
2 technical evidence, found at Record 166 to 319, just 10 days prior to the March 12, 2003 hearing,
3 Petitioners contend that the revised subdivision plat and other new inforination amounted to a new
4 or at least significantly modified application. Petitioners explain that they appeared at county staff
5 offices on March 3, 2003, but due to intervenors' filing late in the day and the volume of new
6 evidence, petitioners were not able to obtain copies of the submitted material until the following day,
7 March 4, 2003. Petitioners assert that nine days was insufficient time to allow petitioners' experts
8 to examine the new evidence and prepare oral and written testimony for the hearing. For exaniple,
9 petitioners argue, with stifficient time their engineer could have prepared three-dimensional
10 computer -aided drawings depicting the impacts to the viewshed resulting from the proposed cuts,
11 fills and retaining wall on the newly revised lot 4, and presented that evidence at the hearing.
12 In addition, petitioners note that the notice of the March 12, 2003 hearing stated that, while
13 written comments may be submitted at the public hearing, Copies Would only be provided to the
14 planning commission inn advance of the hearing if received by March 6,, 2003. Petitioners contend
15 that two to three days is insufficient time to prepare written testimony, and argue that the city
16 effectively denied petitioners the same opportunity granted to intervenors to place written testimony
17 before the planning commission prior to the March 12, 2003 hearing, Similarly, petitioners note that
18 the supplemental staff report was not available until Match 6, 2003, the same day written coinnients
19 were due and six days prior to the hearing, which made it impossible for petitioners to provide
20 written responses to the staff report in advance of the hearing, Petitioners contend that city's
21 actions in this case prejudiced their substantial rights to prepare and participate in the evidentiary
22 proceedings.
23 JMC 16.12.14 provides in relevant part that the complete application for subdivision
24 approval "and all evidence to be used by the applicant in seeking approval" must be made available
25 for public inspection "no less than 14 days prior to the first public hearing date regarding the
26 proposal." Petitioners argue that the March 12, 2003 hearing should be viewed as the "first public
Page 4
I hearing date regarding the proposal," given the substantive changes to the application submitted
2 March 3, 2003, and therefore the city violated JMC 16.12.14 in providing less than 14 days for the
3 public to inspect all the evidence used by the applicant. Even if the March 12, 2003 hearing is not
4 viewed as the first public heating for purposes of JMC 16.1114, petitioners contend that implicit in
5 JMC 16,12.14 is the requirement that the public have an adequate opportunity to inspect significant
6 new evidence or revised applications submitted for continued hearitigs prior to such hearings, and
7 that an adequate opportunity was not provided in the present case.
8 Intervenors concede that the staff report was not made available a full seven days prior to
9 the hearing, as required by ORS 197.763(4)(b), but dispute that the city committed any other.
10 procedural error, or that any error prejudiced petitioners' substantial rights. According to
I I intervenors, the plarining commission left the record open to all parties an additional nine days after
12 the hearing, until March 21, 2003, and further allowed petitioners until March 28, 2003, to submit
13 rebuttal arguments related to any new evidence that was submitted on or before March 21, 2001
14 Intervenors argue that such post hearing, opportunities to submit evidence and argunient prevented
15 any prejudice that might have occurred to petitioners' right to participate in the city's proceedings.
16 We disagree with petitioners that the March 12, 2003 bearing should be viewed as the "first
17 public hearing" for purposes of JMC 16,12,14, Nothing in the text of the code suggests that
18 evidentiary submissions subsequent to the initial evidentiary hearing convert a subsequent hearing
19 into the "first public hearing." Even if JMC 16.12.14 ii-nplicitly requires that the city provide the
20 public with an adequate opportunity to inspect substantial new evidence submitted prior to a
21 continued hearing, we agree with intervenors that any prejudice that petitioners might have suffered
22 from having insufficient time to prepare testimony in response to the evidence submitted March 3,
23 2003, was avoided by allowing petitioners to submit additional evidence and argument following the
24 March 12, 2003 hearing, The statutes governing quasi-judicial hearings at ORS 197.763(6)
25 provide for past -bearing written submissions as an appropriate and sufficient means of allowing
26 participants to respond to new evidence submitted at or following a quasi-judicial hearing.
Page 5
I Petitioners do not explain why the similar post -hearing process employed here was insufficient to
2 avoid any prejudice to petitioners' substantial rights that might otherwise have resulted from the late:
3 staff report and late evidentiary submissions by intervenors,
4 The fourth assignment of error is denied.
5 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
6 JMC 17,16,090, which imposes "required conditions" for development iti the HR District,
7 provides that "[t]here shall be no construction on slopes greater than 30 [percent]."
8 JMC 17.16.090(C). Petitioners argue that the term "construction" includes roads, driveways,
9 retaining walls and other structures,, and therefore JMC 17.16.090(C) prohibits the proposed
10 driveway and retaining walls on lot 4, which will be built across slopes that exceed 30 percent.
I I The planning commission interpreted JMC 17,16.090(C) to prohibit only construction
12 within a building envelope on slopes that exceed 30 percent, The: plarining conrinission concluded
13 that the proposed driveway and retaining walls are not "construction" for prit-poses, of
14 JMC 17.16.09O because they are not within the residential building envelope proposed for lot 4,'
' The planning commission findings state, in relevant part:
"The Commission concludes that, based on the * * * revised subdivision plan and the
engineering plans submitted by Applicant, * * * all future hornesites, as depicted by tile
indicated building envelopes, are located on less than a 30 [percent] slope, By action of the
Planning Commission, moved and adopted, the: Commission determined that the terin
,construction' in this criterion does not, as a matter of law, apply to roadways, driveways or
utilities. The Commission specifically interpreted this term to refer to the construction of
buildings or structures. This conclusion is based on the following factors:
The terin 'construction' is not specifically defined in the JMC.
The purpose of this Chapter and historic use has been to apply (lie limitation to
buildings or structures.
A more expansive interpretation apply to roadways, driveways or utilities would not
be consistent with the City's understanding of the available future buildable land
inventory.
Roadway and driveway construction are specifically governed by other JMC
provisions.
Page 6
I Petitioners dispute that interpretation, arguing that nothing in the text or context of
2 JMC 17,16,090(C) limits the plain meaning of "construction" to buildings or structures erected
3 within a proposed building envelope, or would exclude construction of the proposed road with its
2
4 two switchbacks and engineered retaining walls. Petitioners note that other code provisions
5 contain specific limitations with respect to "building envelopes" and development on slopes
6 exceeding 30 percent, and argue that the city council clearly knows how to limit regulatory
7 application to "building envelopes" when that is its intent.' According to petitioners, the planning
8 coriiiiiission interpretation impermissibly reads JMC 17.16.090(C) to state that "[t]here shall be no
9 construction -�Wthin hitilcling envelopes on slopes greater than 30 [percent]," thus inserting
10 language not found in the code.
11 In addition, petitioners argue that one purpose of fMC 17,16.090(Q is to implement
12 comprehensive plan Policies requiring regulations that limit potential erosion, displacement of
13 vegetation and visual scarring that may result from development oil steep slopes within the HR
14 zone.`' According to petitioners, the plarinirig commission's interpretation of JMC 17 . 16,090(C) is
This provision should be interpreted to be consistent with [JMC] 18.20,090A(2) and
18,20,080(E)(1)(a) which limit the slope of buildingenvelopes." Record 22.
'The county's code does not define the term "construction." JMC 1,04,030 states in relevant part that "[alll
words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approve(] usage of the language
Petitioners note that the dictionary definition of "construction" includes "the act of putting parts together to
form a complete integrated object," Filebster's Third Neiv MCI Dictionary 489 (Unabridged ed 1976). Petitioners
argue that that broad definition would seem to include construction of the proposed driveway and retsuiuuirug
walls,
' Both the decision and petitioners cite to JMC 18.20,080(A)(2) and 18.20,080(E)(l) as context. The former
provides that "[a]tl newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a
slope of 30 [percent] or less," The latter provides standards for "building locations" in the HP zone and
provides in relevant part that "[flhe building envelope shall contain a buildable area with a slope of 30 [percent]
or less,"
' Petitioners cite to the following language frown the description of Hillside and Border Residential Zoning in
the Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan (JCP):
"In addition to the density and spatial separation issues, the urban/wildlife interface area also
presents problems for fire prevention and control while retaining wildlife habitat. The
preceding Comprehensive Plan stated that implementing ordinances should have provided for
special development standards in forest areas to minimize erosion problems, fire hazard, the
Page 7
I inconsistent with its purpose, because that interpretation allows significant cuts and fills for road
2 construction if that construction is outside a proposed building envelope. Petitioners argues that the
3 proposed road construction raises at least as much, if not more, concern regarding erosion, loss of
4 vegetation and visual scarring than would construction of a single - farnily dwelling within a building
5 envelope.
6 Intervenors respond that the planning con-anission interpretation of JMC 17.16.090(C) is
7 entitled to deference under Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508, 836 P2d 710 (1992) and
8 Church v. Grant Counv, 187 Or App 518, 69 P3d 759 (2003). According to intervenors, the
9 planning commission is empowered to interpret and apply the city's land use regulations, and is the
10 final decision maker for matters related to subdivision approval. Because the planinrig commission
I I stands in the shoes of the governing body in this matter, We understand intervenors to argue, its
12 code interpretation is entitled to the same deference that would be given to the governing body's
13 code interpretation.
14 We disagree. The deference described in Clark and Church applies only to a governing
15 body's interpretation of its local plan or code provisions. Gage v City qfPortland, 319 Or 308,
16 317, 877 P2d 1187 (1994) (Clark deference applies to governing body's code interpretation, not
17 a hearings officer's interpretation). LA,,e an interpretation of a hearings officer, a planning
18 coininission code interpretation is not entitled to deference under Clark. Derry v. Douglas
19 County, 132 Or App 386, 390, 888 P2d 588 (1995), The appropriate standard of review of the
20 planning comirrission's interpretation of local land use regulations is whether the interpretation is
21 reasonable and correct. McCoy v. Linn County, 90 Or App 271, 275-76, 752 P2d 323 (19'88).
22 We agree with petitioners that the planning con-linission's interpretation of
23 JMC 17.16.090(C) is incorrect. Nothhig in the text of JMC 1,7,16.090(C) suggests that
unnecessary displacement of natural vegetation and visual scarring of the landscape that
results from excessive cuts and fills for buildings and road construction. (Page I t6),
Therefore, new Hillside Residential and Border Residential zoning districts need to be created
to address the above issues." JCP Open Space Element 10.
Page 8
I "constitictioif'is limited to constiuctiontliat occurs within abuilding envelope. The plain meaning of
2 that term would seem to include construction of the proposed driveway and retaining walls. As
3 petitioners point out, the city council Icnows how to apply regulations governing steep slopes to
4 "building envelopes" and apparently chose not to do so in adopting JMC 17,16.090(C), That
5 apparent legislative choice is eliminated by the planning con-unission interpretation, which effectively
6 reduces JMC 17.16.090,(C) to the same regulatory scope as other code provisions that govern
7 construction on steel) slopes, such as JMC 18.20,080(E)(1). See n 3. Moreover, intervenors do
8 not dispute that the purposes of JMC 17,16.090(C) include limiting erosion, the loss of vegetation
9 and visual scarring on steep slopes iri the HR zone. Intervenors do not explain why those regulatory
10 concerns are not equally present when applied to the proposed driveway with its switchbacks and
11 engineered retaining walls. Intervenors express concern, as does the planning commission decision,
12 that viewing JMC IT 1 6.090(C) to regulate construction outside building envelopes may impact the
13 city's buildable lands inventory and render some, parcels effectively unbuildable,' Even if those
14 concerns are well -taken, which intervenors make no effort to demonstrate, that would not allow the
15 planning coniniission to, interpret JMC IT 16,090(C) to state what it plainly does not."
16 The first assignment of error is Sustained,
17 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
18 Petitioners argue that the planning commission failed to adopt adequate findings of
19 compliance with tentative subdivision approval criteria, and that the adopted findings are not
20 supported by Substantial evidence.
5 Those concerns do not appear to be applicable here, either with respect to the parcel as a whole or to lot 4.
As petitioners point out, the staff report recommended that the single-Camily dwelling building envelope on lot 4
be relocated near the terminus of Lily Road and combined with the office/guest cottage site, thus eliminating the
steep driveway, which suggests that lot 4 can be developed in compliance with JMC 17.16.090(c). Record 164.
6 Even if applying JMC IT16,090(C) as it is written could make development of some parcels difficult or
impossible, the variance procedures at JMC Chapter 17,100 would seem to be potentially applicable to allow
development.
Page 9
I A. Historic And Architectural Review Commission (11A17C) Approval of
2 CC&Rs (JMC 16.12.24(3))
3 JMC 16.12.24(3), requires for tentative subdivision approval a finding that "all proposed
4 deed restrictions have been approved by the HARC for historic compatibility." The planning
5 conarnission found in response to JMC 16,12.24(3) that "[t]he applicant has submitted proposed
6 CC&Rs, the adoption and recordation of which, in SUbstantially the same form, will be required for
7 final plat approval and HARC review, and will be a condition of this approval," Record 26. The
8 planning commission required several changes to the draft CC&Rs; submitted to the planning
9 commission. Record 50-51. Contrary to the above -quoted finding, the conditions of approval
10 attached to the planning commission decision do not appear to require HARC review and approval
11 of the draft CC&,Rs,' -1d. Nor do the conditions require adoption and recordation of the draft
12 CC&Rs, in any form, as a condition of final plat approval.
13 Petitioners contend that at the time of the planning commission decision, HARC had not yet
14 approved the draft CC&Rs, Therefore, petitioners argue, it was impossible for the planning
15 commission to conclude, as it arguably did, that the CC&Rs "have been approved" by HARC.
16 Petitioners explain that HARC review is a separate procedure governed by separate criteria at
17 fMC Title 18, and argue that the city's code apparently contemplates that FIARC complete its
IS review of proposed CC&Rs prior to planning commission tentative subdivision approval.
19 Intervenors respond that the planning corriti-iission properly found compliance with
20 J.MC 16.12.24(3), subject to the condition that intervenors obtain HARC approval of the CC&Rs,
21 as modified by the planning commission.
22 Petitioners are Correct that JMC 16.12,24(3) appears to contemplate that a planning
23 commission tentative subdivision decision occur after HARC has, reviewed and approved the draft
24 CC&Rs for that subdivision for compatibility with standards in JMC Title 18, The planning
' Condition 19 do"- require that "subsequent residential development" be subject to HARC review under
JMC Title 1, 9. Record 51. However, condition 19 does riot reference or require HARC review of tire proposed
CC&Rs.
Page 10
I comiTtission decision does not recognize the sequence of events that JMC 16,12,24(3) appears to
2 require, or explain why JMC 16 . 12,24(3) does not in fact require that sequence of events. It may
3 that JMC 16.12,24(3) can be interpreted to allow planning commission tentative plat approval to
4 precede HARC approval of the CC&Rs. If so, intervenors may be correct the planning
5 commission could find compliance or feasibility of compliance with JMC 16.12,24(3), with
6 imposition of appropriate conditions. See RhYne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442, 447-
7 48 (1992) (where there is conflicting evidence regardirig compliance with approval criteria, a local
8 government inust either (1) find compliance or feasibility of compliance with approval criteria and
9 impose conditions necessary to assure compliance, (2) deny the application, or (3) defer a finding of
10 compliance with criteria to a second stage that affords opportunity for notice: and hearing).
I I However, the planning- comrnission decision does not explain why the sequence that
12 JMC 16,12,24(3) appears to require can be dispensed with. To the extent the decision attempts to
13 condition tentative plat approval on subsequent HARC approval of the CC&Rs, as explained
14 above the decision does not in fact appear to impose any such condition,'
15 'This subassignment of error is sustained.
16 B. Street Grade and Safety Standards (JMC 18.21.050 and 16.12.24(9))
17 JMC 18.21,050 limits street grades to 12 percent, but allows a grade of up to 14 percent
18 Linder certain conditions.9 Relatedly, JMC 16.12,24(9) requires a finding that the project's
'All this may be academic, however, as we understand that subsequent to the close of the record before the.
planning commission regarding the proposed subdivision intervenors in fact obtained IIARC approval of the
draft CC&Rs. That HARC approval was separately appealed to LUBA and is CUrITTItly pending, AlIcCulloh v.
Cily of Jacksonville, LUBA No. 2003-083. If on remand in this case the planning commission can conclude that
the CC&Rs "have been approved" by HARC then there would obviously be no need to interpret JMC 16,12.24(3)
or to impose conditions to ensure compliance with that standard.
JMC 18,21.050(l) provides:
11* * * No street or highway shall have a grade of more than twelve percent (12%) unless,
because of topographical conditions, the planning commission determines that a grade in
excess of twelve percent is necessary, Permission may be granted to construct grades Lip to
fourteen percent (14%) if the following conditions are met:
Page 11.
I proposed transportation plan "affords the most economic, safe, efficient and least environmentally
2 damaging circulation of people * * *," Intervenors requested, and the planning commission
3 approved, a 14 percent grade for Lily Road, The planning cortunission concluded that a 14 percent
4 grade was "necessary" for purposes of JMC 18.21.50 and was also consistent with
5 JMC 16J2,24(9)-"'
6 Petitioners contend that the entire length of Lily Road as proposed is 14 percent in grade,
7 including where it hitcrsects with 3rd Street. Record 98, Petitioners challenge the planning
111. A contour map of the subdivision or development is presented showing, tile
proposed subdivision in relationship to existing contours. * * *
"2. That the location of the excessive grade be a minimum distance as determined by the
planning commission.
"1 That the location of the excessive gradient be outside the area of traffic turning
moveinents, or that guardrails or other protective structures be constructed along the
area of excessive grades. * * *
"4, The developer sliall present all information required by the planning commission W
determine the necessity for the excessive gradient in a written document."
to The planning commission findings state, in relevant part:
"The Commission concludes that it does grant and approve an excessive grade for the
Proposed Public street, Lily Road, Up to 14 [percent] [pursuant to JMC 18.21,050], as depicted
in tile revised engineering plans submitted by the applicant. * * * it was determined that the
length of the excessive grade as shown is the ininimuni length necessary to build this public
way, taking into account the efforts to ininimize visual and natural resource impacts, limit the
amount Of Cut and fill required, the topographical limitations of the parcel and the desired
length of this public -,xay as proposed by the City's future transportation plan (which calls for
a public way that extend[s] far enough into this parcel to then extend south to serve future
Hillside Residential development). It is further concluded that no turning movements are
currently proposed oil Lily Road so no guardrails or other barriers are made a condition of this
approval and gra tit, * * * " Record 48.
-* * * The Commission concludes that, based on the public testimony and entire series of
revisions to the subdivision plan and engineering proposals, the length of Lily Road has been
designed to be the least enviromrientally damaging and is requested to be the minimum length
of 14 [percent] grade necessary and possible, The Commission further concludes that
locating Lily Road oil [lie north side of this parcel would cause greater environmental damage
and that it would significantly impact Daisy Creek and the riparian boundary of that Class 11
stream. The Commission concludes that by avoiding having to construct a public road oil or
through that riparian corridor, the applicant has designed tile project in such a way as to
provide an efficient transportation system to each lot and, yet, minimize environmental
damage. * * " Record 30.
Page 12
I corm-nission's finding that "no turning movements are currently proposed on Lily Road" and the
2 consequent failure to require guardrails or other barriers, as required by JMC 18.21,050(3), While
3 that finding may be accurate with respect to the uphill terminus of Lily Road, which is proposed as a
4 dead-end until proposed future connections to the south are made, petitioners contend that the
5 plani-ring corrinrission failed to take into account the fact that vehicles will conduct turning iriovenients
6 through the intersection of Lily Road and 3rd Street, According to petitioners, the excessive grade
7 at the intersection creates unsafe situations where in icy conditions cars may slide down Lily Road
8 into oncoming traffic on 3rd Street. For this reason, petitioners argue, the city's Findings of
9 compliance with JMC 18,21.050(3) and 16.12.24(9) are inadequate and not supported by
10 substantial evidence.
11 Intervenors do not dispute that the grade at the Lily Road/3rd Street intersection is 14
12 percent, or specifically respond to petitioners' challenge to the city's findings with respect to turning
13 movements under JMC 18.21,050(3) and the related issue of safety under JMC 16. 12,24(9), We
14 agree with petitioners that the firidirig that no turning movements are proposed on Lily Road does
15 not appear to take into account turning movements at the Lily Road/3rd Street intersection or, for
16 that matter, turning movements to and from the proposed driveways along Lily Road, For that
17 reason we agree with petitioners that the platirling commission's -findings with respect to turning
18 movenients and the safety of Lily Road are inadequate. Because those findings are inadequate,, we
19 need not address petitioners' evidentiary challenge to those findings,
20 This subassigni-nent Of error is Sustained, in pail.
21 C. Dead End Street (JMC 17.40.00(A))
22 JMC 17.40,030(A) provides that "'[a]ll new public roads must have at least two access
23 points; no dead-end streets or cul-de-sacs unless no, other option is available or [can be] made
24 available," 'flie planning corntriission found that until Lily Road is extended to the south, as
25 contemplated in the city future transportation plan, a dead-end configuration is "the only option for
26 the construction of this public road[.]" Record 21.
Page 13
I Petitioners contend that the planning cormnission erred in approving Lily Road as a dead-
2 end road, contrary to JMC 17.40.030(A), According to petitioners, the planning commission
3 should have considered denial, rather than approving a dead-end road. However, as intervenors
4 point out, JMC 17,40,03,0(N) specifically allows a dead-end road if "no, other option" is available.
5 Petitioners identify no other road configuration that would not result in a dead-end, We disagree
6 with petitioners that the planning conunission was required to deny the application under these
7 circumstances.
8 This subassignment of error is denied.
9 D. Water Pressure (JMC 16.12.24(8)(3))
10 JMC 16,12.24(8) requires that the project de►nonstrate the "adequate availability" of
I I "municipal water facilities," among other public services. Petitioners cite to testirriony by the city
12 public works director that "additional engineering" will be necessary to ensure adequate water
13 pressure to all building sites and hydrants. Petitioners -argue that without the requested "additional
14 engineering" the city cannot adopt a finding of compliance with JMC 16,12,24(8)(3), and that the
15 city essentially deferred a finding of compliance with JMC 16.12,24(8)(3) to a second stage of
16 review that does not afford notice or opportunity for public participation. Rh.Yne, 23 Or LUBA at
17 447-48.
18 The city's findings recite evidence that adequate water capacity exists and conclude that
19 "adequate water• pressure for dornestic use and fire service can and will be available to each
20 subdivision lot." Record 17. Rather than defer a finding of compliai-ice, it appears that the city
21 found compliance with JMC 16.12.24(8)(3), Under such circumstances, the question becomes
22 whether that finding is adequate and Supported by substantial evidence. Salo v, City of Oregon.
23 City, 36 Cr LUBA 415, 425 (1999). Petitioners rely on a statement by the city public works
24 director that "additional engineering" is necessary to ensure adequate pressure. The full statement of
25 the director is that "there is adequate water and sewer to supply services, however, additional
26 engineering will be needed to ensure adequate pressure to all building sites and/or hydrants,"
Page 14
I Record 149, That testimony does not indicate, as petitioners suggest, that "additional engineering"
2 evidence must be presented to the planning commission in order to conclude that there will Tie
3 adequate water pressure for purposes of JMC 1, 6,12,24(8)(3). Rather, it simply notes that ensuring
4 adequate water pressure will require additional engineering, Nothing cited to us in the record
5 suggests that providing the engineering necessary to ensure adequate water pressure will present any
6 difficulty, and certainly the public works director's testfinony does not make that suggestion, The
7 plarming conimission's conclusion that "adequate water pressure * * * can and will be available to
8 each subdivision lot" is adequate and supported by substantial evidence,
9 This Slibassigi-anent of error is denied.
10 E. Fire Services (JMC 16.12.24(8)(5))
11 Among other things, JMC 16.12,24(8) requires "adequate availability" of "fire services,"
12 The city's decision concludes that "[t]he development will be acceptable for fire protection provided
13 that the driveways are constructed pursuant to Unifortri Fire Code specifications * * *." Record
14 18. The Uniform Fire Code (UFC) requires that "fire apparatus access roads" have an
15 "unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet" and an "unobstructed vertical clearance of not less
16 than 13 feet 6, inches[.]" UPC 902.2.2.1, However, applicable city standards at
17 JMC 17,40.030(D) provide that "[d]rive ways shall be built and maintained to provide a ininimurn
18 15-foot width with a 12-foot all-weather surface capable of supporting a fire apparatus weight of
19 24,000 pounds per rear axle and a vertical clearance of 13 [feet] 6 [inches]," The decision
20 approves driveways, including the long driveway on lot 4, with a 15-foot width and a 12-foot all-
21 weather surface, pursuant to JMC 17.40.030(D). In the alternative, the city adopted the position of
22 the city fire chief that even if UFC standards apply, those standards do not require a 20-foot built
23 width, as petitioners, asserted, but rather that access is "Unobstructed" for the required width.
24 Record 104, The city found that there is a 20-foot unobstructed access way for each driveway.
25 Petitioners contend that the city erred in relying on the 15-foot width standard at
26 JMC 17.40.30(D) rather than the 20-foot width UFC standard, Petitioners recognize that
Page 15
1 ORS 368.039(l) authorizes the city to supersede UFC requirements, but argues that the city has
2 not in fact done so in adopting JMC 17,40.030(D)," Petitioners point out that the city has adopted
3 the UFC by reference into the JMC, and argue that the UFC 20-foot width road standard has thus
4 not been superseded. Record 75, We disagree. It is not clear to us why the city adopted the UFC
5 by reference, but the city's code must be read as a whole. JMC 17.40,030(D) provides specific
6 design standards intended to allow for adequate fire apparatus access that vary in one dimension
7 from analogous UFC standards. We conclude, as did the city, that JMC 17,40,031)(D) Supersedes
8 the UFC width standards,
9 This subassignment of error is denied,
10 F. Housing Need (JMC 16.12,24(14)
11 JMC 16.12.24(14) requires a finding that "based on current market information there exists
12 a current need for the type of housing proposed by the project and that the project will not be
13 deleterious to any of Jacksonville's housing infill or rehabilitation policies that may exist at the time of
14 the application," The city found a current need for the proposed single-faliffly dwellings in the I-R
15 zone, based on a market analysis of current listings by a real estate agent. Record 32.
16 Petitioners fault the city for failing to require or conduct a detailed analysis of housing supply
17 and demand, including potential for redevelopment of developed lots and an updated population
18 projection. Petitioners also argue that the city's findings fail entirely to address whether the
19 proposed housing is deleterious to any housing infill or rehabilitation policies,
20 Intervenors respond, and we agree, that JMC 16.12.24(14) does not require the detailed
21 housing supply and demand analysis petitioners believe it does. JMC 16. 12.24(14) simply requires
22 a finding, of cur -rent need based upon "current rnarhet information," which was supplied in this case.
ORS 368,039(l) provides, in relevant part:
"When the governing body of a county or city adopts specifications and standards, including
standards for width for roads and streets under the jurisdiction of the governing body, such
specifications and standards shall supersede and prevail over any specifications and
standards for roads and streets that are set forth in [the UFC].
Page 16
1 While petitioners are correct that the city's findings do not address whether the proposed housing is
2 deleterious to applicable: housing infill or rehabilitation policies, petitioners do not argue that any SLICII
3 policies exist. Absent some indication that such policies exist and apply to the proposed
4 development, the city's failure to adopt an express finding addressing such policies is not a basis for
5 reversal or remand.
6 This subassignment of error is denied.
7 G. Wildlife Habitat (JMC 16.12.24(7)
8 JMC 16.12,24(7) requires a finding that "the project identifies, preserves, and protects
9 natural wildlife habitats and wetlands," The city found compliance with JMC 16. 12,24(7), based on
10 (1) the proposed dwelling density, which is less than the two dwellings per half -acre allowed in the
11 EIR zone, (2) the large hillside area left undisturbed on lot 4, and (3) the absence of encroachment
12 into the riparian areas of Daisy Creek. Record 29,
13 Petitioners argue that intervenors failed to "identify" the wildlife existing on the: property, and
14 without such evidence the record cannot support compliance with JMC 16.12.24(7). Petitioners
15 also dispute the city's reliance on the proposed density and the maxii-n-urn density a I towed in the I-M
16 zone. According to petitioners, given other code restrictions that poterifiatly limit development of the
17 property, intervenors are actually maximizing the residential density allowed under the code,
18 notwithstanding the theoretical maximum density allowed in the FIR zone.
19 Intervenors respond, and we agree, that JMC 16.12.47(7) requires identification of wildlife
20 habitat, not the specific wildlife species that currently reside on or use the property. Intervenor
21 argues that the wildlife habitat (principally the wooded hillside) is adequately identified by the tree
22 inventory and other evidence in the record. Intervenor further notes that the proposal retains 65
23 percent of the parcel in its natural wooded state. We agree with intervenors that petitioners have
24 failed to demonstrate evidentiary insufficiency with respect to the identification and preservation of
25 wildlife habitat, for piii-poses of JMC 16,1124(7). We also agree that the city did not err in relying
Page 17
I in part on the difference between the proposed and zoned density for purposes of finding that
2 intervenors had adequately "protected" wildlife habitat under JMC 16.12.24(7).
3 This subassigni-rent of error is denied.
4 H. Handicap Access (JMC: 16.12.24(11))
5 JMC 16.12.24(11) requires a finding that "the project, through sensitive housing and site
6 design, mirunuzes the cost of housing and barriers to the handicapped." The city found that the
7 proposed development complies with this standard, based on the location of three building
8 envelopes on less steep portions of the parcel, the almost level driveways to lots 1, 2 and 3, and the
9 tact that lots L, 2 and 3 will be roughly the minimum size allowed for new lots, and thus more
10 affordable than larger lots. Record 31.
I I Petitioners fault the city for failing to explain how the proposal minimizes "barriers" to the
12 handicapped, and argues that there is no evidence in the record with respect to "barriers,"
13 Petitioners do not identify what barriers the city failed to address, or suggest that another site design
14 could better minimize the barriers to the handicapped inherent in residential development on steel)
15 slopes, Absent a more developed argument, petitioners have failed to demonstrate reversible error
16 with respect to the city's finding of compliance with JMC 16.12.24(11).
17 This sr bassiginnent of error is denied.
The second assignment of error is sustained, in part.
19 THHZD ASSIGNMENT OF EIZROR
20 Petitioners challenge the city's findings with respect to three conditional use criteria,
21 A. Code Violations (JMC 17.104.050(C)(1))
22 JMC 17,104.05O(C)(1) requires a finding that "[flhere are no outstanding code violations
23 on the subject property," The city concluded that intervenors had adequately resolved two
24 potential code violations existing on the property, involving unauthorized removal of a tree and
25 unauthorized grading of an existing driveway in the approximate right of way of the proposed Lily
Page, 18
I Road. Intervenors agreed to provide mitigation for the removed tree and, if Lily Road was not
2 approved, return the graded portion of the existing driveway to its prior condition. Record 34.
3 Petitioners dispute the city's finding that intervenors had adequately resolved these potential
4 code violations. Petitioners contend that "mitigation" is not sufficient under the city's code
5 enforcement provisions, which specify fines for unauthorized tree removal. Further, petitioners
6 contend that a contingent agreement to restore the graded area to its prior condition in the event Lily
7 Road is not approved does not correct the existing code violation, or allow a finding that "there are
8 no outstanding code violations," as JMC 17.104.050(C)(1) requires.
9 JMC 17.104.050(C)(1) is apparently a means to require conditional use permit applicants
10 to correct or mitigate code violations, in order to obtain a conditional use permit. We disagree with
11 petitioners that JMC 17.104.050(C)(1) requires the city to formally adjudicate potential code
12 violations and impose the penalties that might be imposed in such proceedings, or that it requires
13 applicants to restore conditions to the status quo ante, notwithstanding that the existing condition is
14 consistent with the development application, if approved.
15 This subassignment of error is denied.
16 B. Need for Conditional Use (JMC 17.104.050(C)(3))
17 JMC 17.104.050(C)(3) requires a finding that, if a conditional use is a permitted use in any
18 other zone in the city, the "need would best be met by allowing the conditional use" on the subject
19 property. The city found that the subdivision of a FIR -zoned parcel is a `use" that is permitted only
20 in the subject zone, and is thus not a use that is a "permitted use in any other zone." Record 35.
21 Petitioners apparently view the proposed conditional use to be single-family dwellings rather
22 than a subdivision, and repeat their arguments that the analysis of market need challenged in the
23 second assignment of error under JMC 16.12.24(14) is inadequate to show that the need for single
24 family dwelling is best met on the subject property, for purposes of JMC 17.104.050(C)(3).
25 Petitioners fail to challenge the city's actual finding that the proposed conditional use is not a
Page 19
I permitted use in any other zone in the city. Petitioners' misdirected challenge provides no basis for
2 reversal or remand.
3 C. Complementary Design (JMC 17.104.050(C)(7))
4 JMC 17.104.050(C)(7) requires a finding that, in areas designated as requiring preservation
5 of historic attributes, "proposed structures will be of a design complementary to the surrounding
6 area. The city addressed this criterion by simply concluding that "residential development will be
7 subject to the design review process found in Chapter 18 of the JMC and be subject to HARC
8 review." Record 38.
9 Petitioners note that intervenors failed to provide architectural drawings of the proposed
10 dwelluags in submitting the subdivision application, as required by JMC 16.12.04(D).12 Petitioners
I I argue that, without such drawings, the planning commission could not, and did not, fund that the
12 proposed structures will be of a design complementary to the surrounding areas, as required by
13 JMC 17.104.050(C)(7). Instead, petitioners contend, the planning commission appears to defer
14 any finding of compliance with JMC 17.104.050(C)(7) to future HARC review. Petitioners argue
15 that such a finding is the responsibility of the planning commission.
16 Intervenors respond that deferral of findings regarding architectural details to HARC is
17 appropriate and permissible under Rhyne. Intervenors note that the design review process at
18 HARC affords notice and opportunity for a hearing, as required for deferral to a scond-stage
19 under Rhyne, and that in addition the city unposed a condition requiring that any HARC review of
20 proposed residential development provide the same notice and opportunity for hearing required by
21 state law, notwithstanding any conflicting notice provisions in JMC Title 18, Record 51.
12 JMC 16.12.04 prescribes the information that must be submitted for tentative subdivision plat approval,
and requires, in relevant part:
"D. Architectural Details. The applicant shall submit the details of any structures
proposed to be built in conjunction with the proposed subdivision. The applicant
shall acquire a Certificate of Appropriateness from [HARC] for such structures prior
to Final Plat approval in accordance with the City's Historic Protection Regulations,"
Page 20
I Given the absence of architectural drawings in the record, and evidence regarding the
2 architectural character of the neighborhood, the planning commission clearly chose to defer a finding
3 of compliance with that criterion to a second stage of review that affords notice and opportunity for
4 public participation, as Rhyne authorizes, rather than to deny the application. Petitioners do not
5 dispute that proceedings before HARC, as conditioned by this decision, will provide the same
b notice and opportunity for public participation as would a second stage proceeding before the
7 planning commission. Nor do petitioners advance any reason to believe that HARC is incapable of
8 addressing the requirements of JMC 17.104.050(C)(7). We agree with intervenors that the
9 planning commission's deferral with respect to JMC 17.104.050(C)(7) does not provide a basis for
10 reversal or remand.
i 1 This subassignment of error is denied.
12 The third assiginnent of error is denied.
13 The city's decision is remanded.
Page 21
Ii Planning Department, 51 WinL,.,n Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY OF
541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www,ashland,or,us TTY:1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAND
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2020-00146
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 365 Strawberry Ln.
APPLICANTIOWNER: Rogue Development Services / William Potts
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Hillside Development to,
allow the construction of a new, 1600 square foot, two story shop building with conditioned home off space above. The request
includes an exception to the hillside design standards with respect to the horizontal planes being greater than 36-feet. The
application also includes a request to remove five trees that are greater than six -inches DBH to alVo,w the construction of the
building, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; ZONING: RR-.5; MAP: 39 1E 08 AC; TAX
LOT: 602.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission wild review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 6:00 PM. See
page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing.
OVER
G��coiiini-dcv%planniii&l�Planoiii�g ActionsTAs by S4rect\SM1Sitawberry%Straeybeny__�65\Slra�yberiy_,365_PA-7,-2021-00146\Noticfing�Stra%vberry,,36.9—PA-TI-2021-001,16-NOC docx
Tree Commission Meetings
Notice is hereby given that the Tree Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on
the meeting date and time shown on Page 1. If you would like to watch and listen to the Tree Commission meeting virtually, but
not participate in any discussion, you can use the Zoom link posted on the City of Ashland calendar website
https://www.ashland�or.0 /cale Dcla r.,asl� ,
Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic
meeting, send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Thursday April 8, 2021I.In order to provide
testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject fine of the email "Advisory
Commission Testimony Request", 2) include your name, 3) specify the date and commission meeting you wish to testify at, 4)
specify the agenda item you wish to speak to, 5) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 6) the name you
will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact
the City Administrator's of 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).
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted on Page 1 of this notice.
Because of the COVI D-1 9 pandernic, application materials are provided online and comments will be accepted by email.
Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments, can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305
or planning COash land. or. us,.
A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at "What's
Happening in my City" at hops./ ashlandqrL s/gleyelopmeritpmp�gsals/. Copies of application materials will be provided
at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, applicafion 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 0anniagj1a&gasnh1La�ndor us,
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to 0anningl2ashiand.or.us or to the City of
Ashland Planning Division,, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4-.30 p.m, on the deadline date shown on Page
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon
determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property Submitting application
which allows for a 14-day comment period. After the comment period and not rnore than 45 days from the application being
deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to
the same properties within 5 days, of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision
must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision, (AMC
18,5,1,050.0)
The ordinance criteria applicable to this, application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an
objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an
opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue.
Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that
criterion, Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with
sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at
Aarop,An derson gash _1and. or. Lis or 541-488-5305.
(i:Nc,:ufnm-devplannii)g' PLinning Aefians9M by 3651S1Fa1VbCrFY .305PA-T I -2U21-00146\Noticiyic,,',Strawbefry., 165_PAIA-2021-00146 NOCdocx
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT
18.3.10.050
An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1,050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all
of the following criteria.
A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and
adverse impacts have been minimized.
B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards
caused by the development.
C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reversible actions, The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the
maximum development permitted by this ordinance.
Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets
all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints
in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable
alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d, Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this
determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact
on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
GAcomm-dev\p1anningT1anning Actions',Ms by Street\SlStrawbeny\Strawberry_3651Strawbeny_365_PA-T]-2021-001461Naticing\Stm vberry_365—PA-T I-2021-00146_NOC.docx
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 April 1, 2021, 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 the Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00146, 365
Strawberry Lane.
;Ze X
Signature of Employee
G:tcamm devVannin&1anning Acttonsfts by StreetlS4Strawberry4Strawberry-3WStrawberry_365_PA-T1-2021-001461NogdnglStrawbefry_365_PA-11-2021-00146_AfioNaiiing.docx 411I2021
„”' wr
/�'���i �
v" "�`N'w ,y�'"rt''�.n
,y? is :p'�✓.r"
z"%"�"',. '�"ar'�Y'�^'��Yi"
4--vI V-n 'WgIl
.r
PA-T1-2021-00146 391E08AD5300
BURTON BOB & LENNA TRUST ETA
187 STRAWBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2021-00146 391E08AD5302
XOENIG GREGORY A TRUSTEE ETA
j 162 ALN UT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
'PA-T1-2021-00146 391E08DB100
IOURSLER DAVID PAUL
252 STRAWBERRY LN
'ASHLAND, OR 97520
.PA-T1-2021-00146 391E08DB101
REECK JAY BERKLEY
i230 STRAWBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2021-00146
TERRAIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
`33 N. CENTRAL AVE #215
QEDFORD, OR 97501
i
l
PA-T1-2021-00146 391EOSAD5201
GILBERT RO BERT TRUSTEE ET AL
360 STRAWBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2021-00146 391E08AC501
MOZINGO GEORGE LTRUSTEE ETA
360 STRAWBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2021-00146 391E08AC602
POTTS WILLIAM J/ESTERLING SAR
365 STRAWBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2021-00146 391EOBAD8000
HEN IGSON LEAH K TRUSTEE ET AL
232 N UTLEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2021-00146 391E08AC502
OLSON MARGARETJ BROWN TRUSTE
385 STRAWBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2021-00146 391E08AC601
POTTS WILLIAM JOHN ET AL
365 STRAWBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2021-00146
PA-T1-2021-00146 391E08AC500
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
STRAWBERRY LANE MEADOWS HOMEO
CENTER DRIVE PMB 457
838 BLACKBERRY LN
MEDFORD, OR 97501
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2021-00146 391E08AC700
PA-T1-2021-00146
ZOLINE PATRICIA TRUSTEE
365 Strawberry
240 NUTLEY ST
NOC 14
ASHLAND, OR 97520
c
4.1.2021
4�
1A A I
Q44 m'_
Date: March 26, 2021
To: Bill Potts
P 541- 771-7115
From: Rick Swanson, P.E., G.E.
F 54 FT79-4079 1120 i A I JA(. I S( b'N P0 N)X 4'90 NA F 1) H ) R P t )R 97O 1
n hJ Pfin
C, IV
RE: Soil Engineering Design Recommendations
F KP 179,
Proposed Shop Building at 365 Strawberry Lane, Ashland, Oregon
MAI Job No. 21-1066
As requested, we have prepared this letter for your proposed shop building that you will
construct near your residence at 365 Strawberry Lane in Ashland, Oregon, As part of the
preparation of this letter, we met with you at your property on March 23, 2021, observed the
existing conditions and the staked location of the structure, and discussed the proposed
construction. We also reviewed the building plans (3 pages, prepared by Steve Renard) and the
drawings (13) prepared by Terrain Landscape Architecture from a soil engineering standpoint.
The shop building will be a two-story, wood -frame structure with a ground level slab floor and
will be about 21' by 40' in plan dimensions. Due to existing hillside slopes, the uphill (west)
side of the building will likely be a 6' or so high, concrete/masonry building retaining wall.
The building site lies on a graded, cut -fill pad on a steeply sloping, east -facing hillside. We
understand the grading was performed by the previous property owner.
The existing soil conditions at the site appear to be brown decomposed granite silty sand
underlain at some depth by decomposed granitic bedrock. The observed (surficial) portion of the
silty sand soils includes three soil types: (1) organic -laden soil (topsoil), mostly on the slope on
the west edge of the pad, (2) fill or disturbed natural silty sand along the east edge of the building
pad, and (3) original, undisturbed silty sand. No groundwater seeps were observed within the
building pad area.
Soil Engineering Recommendations
We recommend the following soil engineering and foundation design criteria for the proposed
structure:
All existing organic -laden soil and all existing old fill/disturbed soil, and any other weak
or deleterious soil, should be removed from beneath building footings and building stabs.
The expected removal depths will vary across the pad from perhaps less than 6" deep on
the uphill side to as much as perhaps 4' deep on the downhill side. Where the
excavations slope downhill, the excavations should be benched flat and stepped downhill.
IrAif11 PlanningDivision
t 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
CITY OF 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
ASHLAND
alm'
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT P&E for Hillside Development, tree removal, exception to the hillside design standards
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? El YES III NO
Street Address 365 Strawberry Lane
Assessor's Map No. 39 1E 08AC
i Tax Lot(s) 6 0 2
Comp Plan Degnation Ru'ral Residential
APPLICANT
Name Roque Planning & Development Services Phone 541-951-4020 E-mail am Inter. plan n i ngag mail,.com
Address Center Dr., PMB #457 - I City Medford_ zip 97501 —
PROPERTY OWNER
WilliPotts d Sarah Etli650-799-7870
am os and Phone
Name E-Mail Wjpottssesq(5)qrnai1Corn
Add,,, 365 Strawberry Lane City Ashland, _zip 97520
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title Landscape Architect Name Terrain Landscape Architecture Phone 541 -500-4776 E-Mail sam@terrainarch.com
Address.33 N Central Avenue #215 -City Medford _zip 97501 —
Title —Name Phone E-Mail
Address
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings offact, are in ailrespects,
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 J 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 resuff most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
RgA Ry i -d by A�.y Guntw
Amy Gunter D.L.': 202.1g.02.26 12:052 -08'00' 2/2612021
Applicant's Signature
MB
As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application arid its consequences to me as a property
owner,
Property Owner's Signature (required) Date
[ro be complelad by City SM9
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $
OVER IliR E I V E D BY EMAIL 0 3 / 01 (:515112, 0 22, , I —,& HandoutsVaning Permit Appltcation,doc
ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner,
FINDINGS OF FACT — Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or
findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include
information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre -Application Comment document.
2 SETS OF SCALED PLANS no larger than 11 "x17", Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape
details. (Optional —1 additional large set of plans, 2'0% to use in meetings)
FEE (Check, Charge or Cash)
LEEDO CERTIFICATION (optional) — Applicant's wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall
provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps:
• Hiring and retaining a LEEDO Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and
construction of the project; and
• The LEEDO checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued.
NOTE:
• Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis.
• Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property
owner(s), all required materials and full payment.
• All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance
with ORS 227,17&
• 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.
RECEIVED 1 EMAIL 0 3/ 512,021,-s & Handouts\Zmng Pemiit Appheation_doe
365 STRAWBERRY LANE
Physical Constraints Review Permit
Aft
ROGUE PLANNING G DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/15/202
March 12, 2021
Physical Constraints Review Permit for Hillside Development
Address: 365 Strawberry Lane
Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 08 AC; 602
Zoning: Rural Residential (RR-.5)
Overlay Zones: Hillside Overlay including Severe Constraints
Wildfire Land Overlay
Property Owners:
Building Designer:
William Potts and Sarah Esterling
365 Strawberry Lane
Ashland, OR 97520
Steve Renard Building Plans
2640 E Barnett Road E-210
Medford, OR 97504
Engineering and Geotech: Marquess and Associates
Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services
1314-B Center Dr., PMB #457
Medford, OR 97501
Request:
The request is for Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Hillside Development to
allow the construction of a new,1,600 square foot, two story shop building with conditioned home office
space above. The request includes an exception to the hillside design standards with respect to
horizontal planes being greater than 36-feet.
Property Description:
The subject property is located on the east side of Strawberry Lane. The parcel is north of the Alnutt
Street and Strawberry Lane intersection. Ditch Road (unimproved) follows the Ashland Canal which is at
the top of the
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/15/2021 Page 1of16
The subject property is zoned RR-.5, Rural Residential zoning with a '/-acre minimum lot size. The
irregular shaped lot was platted in 1977. A property line adjustment occurred in 2019 and increased the
lot area from just under % acre to a .96 acre, 41,640.68 square foot parcel.
The property slopes steeply, downhill from Strawberry above towards the property to the east and Alutt
Street. The average slope of the property is 32 percent, the majority of the property is more than 35
percent slopes, nearly all areas of the property excepting the building pad area. There are a few level
areas of the property. One is the pad area for the residence, garage, and parking area, the others are the
walkway from the front of the garage to the rear of the residence and the rear patio and yard area. A
slope analysis has been provided.
Proposal:
The request is to allow for the construction of a 1,600 square foot, two story shop building with home
office. The footprint of the structure is 858 square feet in area. The shop building provides an area for
the property owners to work on their projects, crafts, and to allow for telecommuting, the property
owner has worked internationally and with the COVID and travel restrictions all work is now occurring
at home. The proposed structure complies with all setbacks.
The structure is proposed to be more than 90-feet from Strawberry Lane and more than 60-feet from
Alnutt Street. The structure is more than 56 feet from the north property line. The structures eave line
and ridge line run parallel to the slope of the property and is tucked into the hillside and built upon an
area of fill to limit the new area of disturbance to the areas immediately in the area of the structure and
the access to the and around the structure.
The RR-.5 zoned lot allows for up to 8,328.00 square feet of area, with up to 200 SF of pervious deck area
for a total allowed coverage of 8,528 square feet. The proposed lot coverage of 8,512 square feet,
includes 8,312.1 square feet of impervious including some of the area of the pervious 740 square foot
deck. Of the 740 square foot of decking, 200 sf is allowed as a pervious coverage allotment. In this case,
the existing structure, and existing hardscape, proposed structure and proposed hardscape, the parcel
complies with the maximum allowed lot coverage of 8,528.1 square feet or 20.48 percent and there is
20.4 percent coverage.
The lot area, 41,640.68 square foot lot is required to retain 57 percent of the total lot as natural area.
The proposed layout, limited footprint area. No terracing and limited excavation and fill, reduces the
impacts to the hillside slopes the majority of the lot area is in a natural state.
There are significant slopes across the property ranging between 15.1 percent to over 45 percent. The
majority of the property exceeds the maximum slope areas allowed for development with more than 35
percent slopes. The slope of the property is pre-existing, non -conforming hillside parcel.
Marquess & Associates has provided a site -specific geotechnical review. The project geotechnical and
structural engineer will review all of the proposed documents for the land use application and provide
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/15/2021 Page 2of16
engineering, storm drainage, erosion control and long-term maintenance guidance for the proposed site
development.
There are five (5) trees proposed for removal. A 16-inch DBH, dead Ponderosa Pine, 24-inch DBH
Ponderosa Pine tree, two seven-inch DBH oak trees, and a 22-inch DBH Ponderosa Pine Street.
Findings addressing the approval criteria for Physical and Environmental Constraints Review for Hillside
Development and Wildfire Overlay, and tree removal permit are addressed below.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Ph sical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Hillside Development:
18.3.10.050 Approval Criteria
A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the
property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
Finding:
Through the application of the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, the oversight of a geotechnical
expert, a structural engineer, implementation of the erosion control plan, potential adverse impacts
have been minimized.
The proposed site development has structural retaining walls to lessen the impact of a structure on the
lot, no terracing limited tree removal is proposed. The proposed structure is to be cut into the uphill side
of the structure and construction on retained fill on the downhill side of the structure. The area of fill is
limited to the provide just the amount needed to withstand the surcharge of the structure and not to
create a yard area.
The proposed development complies with lot coverage and has little disturbance areas outside of the
footprint of the building to accommodate construction. All proposed construction occurs within the
boundaries of the property.
The proposed residence does not include gable ends on the downhill side. This reduces the building
height and mass, limiting visual impacts to the adjacent properties.
B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and
implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
Finding
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/15/2021 Page 3of16
The entire property exceeds 25 percent slopes and the majority of the parcel area exceeds 45 percent.
The average slope of the property is 32-percent. Based on the findings of the geotechnical expert, the
site is stable for construction. According to the geotechnical report, and based on geotechnical engineer
reconnaissance, the soils comprising the slope include granitic sands with variable silt/clay overlying
decomposed granitic bedrock. The proposed excavations for the foundation walls are expected to
expose decomposed granitic bedrock. There are no known concerns for liquefaction, ground rupture or
landslide issues or problems in the vicinity. The site, though steep displays no slipping or slumping (since
the walls were fixed in 2019).
Erosion control systems utilizing the installation of silt fencing and storm water drainage consistent with
the recommendations of the report from the Marquess and Associates, the proposed site development
will not create any hazards.
The foundation and structural retaining walls will be engineered, and the geotechnical expert will
provide periodic inspections of the site to verify the development recommendations are being complied
with.
Erosion control measures including silt fencing and bio-bags where required are proposed for erosion
control measures. Specific drainage recommendations are provided by the geotechnical expert that will
be incorporated into the grading and drainage plans created by the project engineer.
All erosion control measures will remain in place throughout the duration of the site work portions of
construction.
C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment.
Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or
Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum
development permitted by this ordinance.
Findings:
The limited footprint size and location of the proposed structure reduces the impacts of the proposed
development. The proposal utilizes cut and fill to create a buildable pad. The fill is retained by an an
engineered retaining wall on the east side.
Construction inspections will occur under the direction and guidance of the geotechnical expert, the
structurally engineered single family residence and the associated site development has taken all
reasonable steps to reduce adverse impact to the environment. The limited building footprint, reduced
driveway minimized driveway length and resulting impervious surface reduction, demonstrate all
reasonable steps have been taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment.
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/15/2021 Page 4of16
18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands
A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands.
1. Buildable Area. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area.
Finding:
The subject property is steep with an average slope of 32 percent. The proposed shop and home office
structure is in an area with the least slope, and that has been previously disturbed (graded out and a pad
with woodshed present).
The parcel was created in 1977. Prior to the site development standards. The average slope of the
property is 32 percent, the majority of the property is more than 35 percent slopes, nearly all areas of
the property excepting the building pad area. There are a few level areas of the property. One is the pad
area for the residence, garage, and parking area, the others are the walkway from the front of the garage
to the rear of the residence and the rear patio and yard area.
The only areas to build on the property includes lands of more than 35 percent. The lot is buildable and
based on the analysis of the Geotechnical firm, of the site is stable for construction.
2. Building Envglo2e. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a
building envelope with a slope of 35 percent or less.
Finding:
The parcel was created in 1977, prior to the adoption of this code.
3. New Streets and Driveways. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on
lands of less than or equal to 35 percent slope with the following exceptions.
Findin
No new street, driveway of flag driveway is proposed.
4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or
partitions, the following additional information is required: A geotechnical study prepared by a
geotechnical expert indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. The
study shall include the following information.
Finding:
A geotechnical study that contains the elements listed in the code, prepared by a geotechnical
expert has been undertaken. The site has been determined to be stable for construction.
B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as Hillside shall provide
plans conforming to the following items.
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/1512021 Page 5 of 16
1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on
Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform
to the International Building Code and be consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Erosion
control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from
disturbed areas.
Finding:
The project Geotech and the engineering firm, Marquess and Associates has provided
geotechnical oversite. The project P.E. has reviewed the grading, erosion control, drainage,
foundation and retaining wail plans that have been designed by others with demonstrable
expertise in the development of Hillside Lands. The plans provided demonstrate compliance with
the standards from the Land Use Ordinance.
Silt fencing is the proposed method of erosion control.
The proposed erosion control measures are consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. The
construction of a retaining wall for fill, and a limited cut area outside of the area of the foundation
will minimize the disturbance of the soil.
2. Timing of Improvements.
Finding:
The structure would be constructed during the allowed window of time and all excavation will occur
between May 1 and October 31.
3. Retention in natural state.
Finding:
The lot area, 41,640.68 square foot lot is required to retain 57 percent of the total lot as natural area.
The proposed small footprint, and limited area of disturbance allows the majority of the property to
remain in a natural state. There is approximately 8500 square feet of area that is covered with surfaces
and disturbed areas. The majority of the site that is outside of the coverage areas is in a natural state.
More than 79 percent of the total site area is undisturbed by this proposal.
4. Grading - Cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall
apply.
a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are
composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep
cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control
erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/15/2021 Page 6 of 16
(1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent
installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated.
Finding:
The cut slope will be [aid back following the foundation installation. The cut slope and the
structures foundation drains will limit the area of exposed slope.
b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than
seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum
height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction
of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of
15 feet. The top of cut slopes not utilizing structural retaining walls shall be located a minimum
setback of one-half the height of the cut slope from the nearest property line.
Finding:
No exposed cut slopes are proposed.
c. Cut slopes for structure foundations which reduce the effective visual bulls, such as split pad or
stepped footings, shall be exempted from the height limitations of this section.
Finding:
The entire west side of the structure is cut into the hill and the structures foundation retains the
hillside.
d. Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction of
top soil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas
shall be native, or species similar in resource value to native plants, which will survive, help reduce
the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush -
type plantings, and cascading vine -type plantings may be appropriate.
Finding:
The cut slope will be revegetated against the uphill side of the structure.
5. Grading - Fill. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall
apply.
a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not
utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.
Finding:
The proposed fill will be retained. The vertical height is less than 20-feet. There is substantially
more than six feet from the property lines to the retained fill.
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/1512021 Page 7of16
b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent.
Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood
fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion
does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in
accordance with manufacturer's recommendations.
Finding:
No un-retained fill slopes are proposed. No erosion control blankets, or netting is necessary and
are not proposed.
c. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined
that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical
expert.
Finding
The proposed structures utilities will connect to the existing residence. The area where the
utilities connect is on the bench that provides the grade for the proposed structure foundation.
There will not be utilities located in or on fill slopes.
d. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value
and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if
necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for
the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas.
Finding -
No unretained fill slopes are proposed.
6. Revegetation Requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill
slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey
plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner
as to be substantially established within one year of installation.
Finding:
No unretained cut or fill slopes are proposed.
7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures.
a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not
limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas
which have been disturbed, including public rights -of -way. The applicant shall provide evidence
indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures.
RECEIVED BY EIiVAIAIL 03/15/2021 Page 8of16
Findings:
The retaining walls and landscaping will be maintained in perpetuity.
b. Security.
Finding:
The parcel of land predates the period of time when a security bond can be required.
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following
factors.
a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for
providing vehicular access to the pad.
Findin :
A structural retaining wall on the downhill side is proposed. This is to create a level building pad
and not to create a terraced yard area.
b. & c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
Finding:
There were previously unstable cut slopes that had eroded. in late 2018 and early 2019. With the
site work that occurred at that time, the previously retained and eroding cut slopes were
repaired. There is no longer any physical evidence on the site of any hazardous or unstable
portions of the site.
d. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount
of yard space. fads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much
of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope.
Finding:
The proposed structure has a limited footprint to minimize the disturbance area. The location of
the structure is a previously graded pad and a small woodshed area. The majority of the parcel
is kept in the natural state of the original slope.
9. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final
survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project
geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion
control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per
18.3.10.090.A.4 j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project.
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/15/2021 Page 9of16
Finding:
The final inspection report completed by the geotechnical expert will be provided prior to the issuance
of the certificate of occupancy.
C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage.
Finding:
The surface and groundwater drainage on the site will be directed into the city's storm drain system and
designed in accordance with the Geotechnical Experts recommendations.
D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to
the following requirements.
1. Inventory of Existing Trees.
Finding:
There are numerous trees on the site. There are five trees in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
structure that require tree removal permits. Findings addressing tree removal are provided.
E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside
Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards.
1. Building Envelopes.
Finding:
The subject property was created via a partition in 1977, prior to the adoption of the Physical Constraints
Development for Hillside Development and Severe Constraint Standards. No building envelopes were
adopted in 1977.
2. Building Design. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive design techniques,
buildings on hillside Lands, excepting those lands within the designated Historic District, shall
incorporate the following into the building design and indicate features on required building permits.
a. The height of all structures shall be measured vertically from the natural grade to the uppermost
point of the roof edge or peak, wall, parapet, mansard, or other feature perpendicular to that grade.
Maximum hillside building height shall. be 35 feet.
Finding:
The structure is substantially less than 35-feet in height.
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/15/2021 Page 10of16
b. Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulls.
Finding:
The structure is cut into the hillside which falls steeply away from the street. The structure is
substantially below the surface of Strawberry Lane and more than 90-feet from the right-of-way.
The structure is more than 60-feet from Alnut Street below.
i. Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to allow
the structure to more closely follow the slope.
Finding:
The proposed structure is proposed on a bench. There is a cut on the uphill side
and retained fill on the downhill side.
ii. Reduce building mass by utilizing below grade rooms cut into the natural slope.
Finding:
The structure is cut into the hill on the uphill side and retained fill is proposed on
the downhill side.
c. A building step back shall be required on all downhill building walls greater than 20 feet in
height, as measured above natural grade. Step -backs shall be a minimum of six feet. Decks
projecting out from the building wall and hillside shall not be considered a building step -back. No
vertical walls on the downhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed a maximum height of 20
feet above natural grade.
Finding:
The downhill building wall is not more than 20-feet in height. The height from grade to the eave
on the downhill wall is 18.37-feet.
d. Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes
longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet.
Finding:
No horizontal planes exceed 36-feet in length without any offset.
e, It is recommended that roof forms and roof lines for new structures be broken into a series of
smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the surrounding hillside. Long, linear
unbroken roof lines are discouraged. Large gable ends on downhill elevations should be avoided,
however smaller gables may be permitted.
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/15/2021 Page 11of16
Finding;
The structure is small shop building with a low pitch roof that is below the grade of Strawberry
Lane above and is parallel to the hillside. There are no gable ends on the downhill elevation.
f. It is recommended that roofs of lower floor levels be used to provide deck or outdoor space for
upper floor levels. The use of overhanging decks with vertical supports in excess of 12 feet on
downhill elevations should be avoided.
Finding:
There are no overhanging decks proposed.
g. It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the predominant
colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural
environment.
Finding:
Natural colors selected from the predominant colors of the landscape will be used for the exterior
paint finishes. The metal roof will be non -reflective metal or class B or better shingles. The
exterior materials consist of natural wood, and stucco.
F. All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations designed by an engineer or architect with
demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working
drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer.
Finding:
The foundation plans will be engineered by Marquess and Associates. The engineered foundation plans
will be provided with the building permit set.
G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include building envelopes
containing a buildable area less than 35 percent slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted
in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation
purposes.
Finding:
This section is not applicable.
H. Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands.
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/15/2021 Page 12of16
Finding
The proposal requests an exception to the standards for continuous horizontal building plane of
36-feet (AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2.d)
The proposed structure is utilizing the least steep area of the property that is accessible from the
primary dwelling. It is an area that has previously been graded to allow for the construction of a
shed structure (by previous owner) and with the steep lot slopes and presence of large stature
trees,
It is difficult to construct a structure that is of adequate area to accommodate the property
owner's hobby and business that has a six-foot break in the length of the wall and not disturb
more areas of the steep hillside than is necessary to disturb with the requested with four,
additional feet of building length.
The structure has limited plate heights, excavation into the hill to limit fill, compliance with the
specific standard is not possible to achieve the area necessary far the property owners to do the
projects and work that is intended with the space. The structure is proposed to be built on a
narrow bench with a cut into the uphill side and fill on the downhill side, the structure is only 21
feet wide and a 6 foot off -set either substantially reduces the building width or causes additional
hillside disturbance by cutting further into the hill of filling more to provide more area around
the structure on the downhill side. The proposal is for a 40-foot horizontal plan vs. a 36-foot
horizontal.
2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this
chapter.
Finding:
The proposed exception allows for a detached, office and shop building very steep lot.
The requested exception to the horizonal plane limits excavation into the uphill slope for a six-
foot offset, or for a larger retaining wall and fill to support bumping the wall six feet out of the
hillside. The proposed are for construction utilizes an existing cut limiting additional cut and fill
areas. This reduces the areas of disturbance for cutting. On the east side if the structure stepped
out for six -feet, additional large stature tree removal is necessary. The proposed location
provides the greatest protection to the resources.
3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
Finding:
The requested exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of construction of the
proposed residence on the site.
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/15/2021 Page 13of16
The steep lot has very limited useable area. The shop cannot be located in the flat area near the house
as that is the back up and turn around area and guest parking area.
Impacts to adjacent neighbors is limited due to the large setbacks provided from all property lines and
the substantial distance from any public rights -of -way. The structure is only slightly longer than allowed
by code without an off -set and it is the minimum necessary to allow for the construction of the proposed
structure.
4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 1.8.3.10 Physical and
Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for
Hillside Lands.
The requested increase in the horizontal wall plane is due to the need to limit disturbance on the very
steep lot.
This is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter,
allows for the protection of the natural and topographic character of the property. More than 79 percent
of the site is proposed to be unexcavated or left in a natural state.
18.3.10.100 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands
B. Requirements for Construction of All Structures.
Fin. dingy
The property is within the wildfire overlay.
There is a substantial amount of vegetation on the large area property. Sheet 1-1.1 includes the Tree
Protection / Tree Removal Plan. There is a detailed site plan that shows canopies and demonstrates
spacing is met.
Fire trees require removal for the new structure to comply with the wildfire and structural spacing
standards. All newly planted vegetation within 50 feet of any building or deck will not include species
listed on the City's Prohibited Flammable Plant List.
According to the Fire Flow tests conducted by the Fire Department, there is adequate fire flow.
18.5.7.030. B. Tree Removal Permit.
2. Tree that is Not a Hazard.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site
Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part
1.8.3.10.
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 03/15/2021 Page 14of16
Finding
According to the table of allowed uses in the zone, the construction of a single-family residence
associated outbuildings is a permitted use in the RR-.5 zone. A permitted use is allowed provided they
comply with chapter and are subject to the development standards of the zone.
The proposal is to remove two larger (22 and 24-inch DBH Pine trees) and two smaller, 7-inch DBH Oak
trees, an additional 16-inch DBH dead pine is proposed for removal.
Due to the large optimal tree protection zone, and the wildfire hazard, spacing standards, any
construction would negatively impact the pine trees and the oak trees root systems. The proposal is to
retain that majority of the trees on the site while allowing for a permitted use structure to be
constructed. The removal of the trees allows for the site to be developed in accordance with the
outright permitted uses allowed in the zone, a detached accessory building.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of
surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
Findin
The removal of the Ponderosa pines and small diameter oaks will not have any negative impacts on
erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters and it is not part of any windbreak. The proposed
structure will be located on the site in the location that allows for the preservation for the majority of
the trees and does not create any erosion or soil stability issues. The surface waters (Ashland Canal)
are just off the site to the north.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies,
and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this
criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists
to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
Finding_:.
The tree removals will not have a negative impact on tree densities, sizes, canopies or species diversity
within 200 feet of the property. There are a number of other Ponderosa pines to be retained on the
subject property and the adjacent parcels. With the property being so close to the urban wildland
interface, there are a large number of Ponderosa pines and other conifer trees and numerous other
deciduous trees found within 200-feet of the property.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted
density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans
or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long
as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
RECEIVED Y EMAIL 03/ 5/2021 Page 15 of 16
Finding:
The proposal is to allow for the tree removals in order to allow for the construction of a detached
structure that complies with the minimum setback, lot coverage and parking standards. The tree
removal will allow for the construction of a detached structure.
The property is within the wildfire hazard area and the site is required to comply with the standards for
wildfire hazard areas found in AMC 18.3.10.100.13. A detailed tree inventory is provided with the
application plan set that details the trees, their canopies and the tree protection areas.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant
to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
See below.
18.5.7.050 Mitigation Required
One or more of the following shall satisfy the mitigation requirement.
A. Replanting On -Site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 %z-inch caliper healthy and well -
branched deciduous tree or a five to six-foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed.
Findin
Four smaller stature, two-inch caliper deciduous trees will be planted to replace the trees proposed for
removal. No replacement conifer trees are proposed. All new trees required for mitigation will be
planted prior to final building permit inspection.
RECEIVE® BY EMAIL 03/15/2021 Page 16of16
`;a"
SiIOJ
�y
> Q'
A L N !ET STREET
IS a a U
ui
L
LU
POSE,
/j
i
LLJ c.
aural Ajjaqmw qgc
3DNIOISIN SII-Od
2
cl
IZ
LU
LU
UO
a
P, z
< 0fK
n
vS
nL
<
LU
IN
m
W a- :L
uj
LU
la
OMCZ6 'aO 'PUIDMsV
ounj AijoqMDJ�S 99C U c
I-DNICESIN S1.L08
LU
>
0
:F
n
(D
LO
7L
0
D
19
NqZ6 'NO 'PLIDPW C,4
ounj AjjGqmojilS
gars
SL[
Od
i s in Ni v
WE
1cl
z u
0 < 0
n
/*
LIJ
L)
Z
:0i
z
0
n
aur)l AjjaqmmS qgc
IDNI-CIS;N SAO( 4
'v'
0�616210 C 0
11 2 21H, 2, s
U U U 0' 18 ".1,
-n
q MR
t
cab 06 Oor
I?
00
t
Fm �ffi� i�;� o'l '-n 'D 'j T-" 1 T,
L
- 6,zdT,;Z�1
ml� '6 Z 7,
�? ��' !r f
�6'�'Zi' w. Oic� . 0
I ZO 5' -7 7 z z z 11 zb I' Z 6 /0 72 b�
n 7 Z i Z z I Z 7 7, "'Z Z Z 7, 1 2 7 7
2'
Y, Ul
F5 �6 .6 yo�'O�'.
0 0
oj. ZO �70 7 7 z 7,
z "T)z .�Z "Z 7. 7
7iz "Z'7�7�z
'2
drjdi�
o �2 121 �a ny iv
�2
LU 1 0-
- — -
LLJ
LU
5 si -a.: -a
10 1a I.
-H '�aj �j—mu.:" -5 S n
au 71 W
I. Io T� tp" �' 1 �' 1 &! b � W , )
A� ic
a 10 u u
R U Ipj
U
LU
0 7- n
0' T (D < '
'7,
Im - m'o-,
P <
o.�
U, b C,
IQ 02prYp
z
'b 7'
0 % u -
T 76 .7; T 6 2 6
z x C� u >
10
Z
0 c L') 'C" -Z
, % c< 7" 2
;I a L"p -u <
<
u V a IM, '�z ft" g o
n'
7,
>
8 L
'C' W-1
<
3 - - z
n �'E
r< '7' 0 1,
< . t' z
Z Z.
z
in < - >
L z
z
0 0 V,
z L9 <
'0 < < j 7
LU 7, < u
0
< T < -6
Z oak < t� 7 , ,
71 0 -'0' . " , < z
c
< U Oz 43" GU
R ut 5 <
'j Li
LLI n'
o cl,
0' z -- q
Z
-Gi 7
6
<
c
1< 3 F�' g7C�raa3.
Cy
z
u <
'N�
n 0:j 'Ln te
Iz IS IS, 1, j < u Q -6
c' � L�� �a' F, X-- 'Z5 0
Z
Y u u
Jr'<% y
ig �Z� .2i BUS 0 >11 "1' �[ ") 7, i2
I - o
< T -H
P 2 0 'u
< u
>0 u, n
LLI Z 'k
_2 55
jl— T < . C Q a u � - �' . 6eur L�
> (S xj
< 7 < o 2 2 >! m pa. '<
0 <
X bOU
CL
>
<
tea"
, 7z o
LU Z j"' E c)� < 0 "1 n 0 :E T. 0
Lu 0 'z eD
33 u 0 u T
...........
............. . . ... —
...............
sv
9c
OZ�Z6 '�o 'PUCILl
<
ry
Lu—
IF- T)N]-GISI� SliC
z
cjz.
< z <
0-- 111 0 0 p 7�
LU ZE U
29
"0 � V, �j� <
o
< < : u <
<
-E b w :,' --_, ��; -
LU ILI ci
0
T
0 L, iz 7
zas < 20 o FD
7.
7 "'
=� p , 0
o z 0 u �,F c > I.
:E
C J)
< <
c z 0 c
ee Ca �. o
) I, < 0 0 t= < LL 0 >
0 u w �: D > -z H Cyw < T 3� 7 - c -5
>
>p,, mw�<
IL Z 7 Z
-Z 2 m
U- 0- h- - 0
21
u CN
z Lo
Lu
------ ----------- ------ LL.
z
0 CD
------------ >
Ilk
LU
- -------- -------- --- t4
7 LU
ix
LD c) <
I (L UJ 0
I R M
ox
------ ---------- u
------ -------------------- - C-- < -T U.-I
LU
Ld
Uj
.. . .......
I
re
UA
04
M
V
0,
�.
LU
'0
�41
CL
v
0
x
v
0
0
u
77
ac( Z6'aOPLIONSV
Lj
�
rm
our)] a' ij, MK.�J
�
a�I�13QIS�� SJ_LC��I
`'
n c
¢ w
¢¢ a
<3 0
�y
>
u
p`+4i
.nv7oW
.ate✓' C,4
�6 J"
.d
vBSi
C7
ca.
t.�
b
-�,
,i•Y"
r
anrk
0��SZ6 '80 'PUIDIL45V
n.
auo� Ajjaqmoj�� q9j:
DNS]. LOJ
, CIISJ N
rA
u
+
0
LLJ
tFj
u
z
.
0
U
.. t
0z -
—
U
LU U
LON
I
<
<
< uj
Q
>
m
q
<
OZS�Z6 'NO PuOILISV
@uD] AA.jE4qmmS SqC
SLIOd
0
m
0 o
>
tw
o
Lj
LIJ
ua
u
(D <
oc d
n-
<
7
u
C) <
u
a
x-
T-
(NJ
C)
uj
0-00
>
Lu
ad
3 CLI
C)
UJI
0>
o
C) a2
Z
o
Lu
'pLIDILISV
Cl)
7
C)
Lli
4i / '
UJ
Z
0(1.�ZC�O'PUDILISV
Guol AijoqmmS qgc
IONKIISIN slioli
z
Ta
in
z
LU
0
LIA
ui
0
z
z
0
a.
(D
= < Cl
j:j
z
w
< 0
0
C z
< <
0
< Ce 0 ZD
U <
z
0
cn
10
(I'.,
C4D
LO
C'D
0�gZ6 '2Jo 'Pur)iqsv
DDNICIISa� SliCd
r1
Eg
�2.
A.
-
O
fJ
fly
75
_3
'0
E
E
-2
LLu
>
;8
R
u
D
7 -6
I..
CNI
C)
C)
<!r,
z
LJJ
A
U LLj
C)
LIJ
(Y
10-1 v
UNZ6 'dO 'PUDNSV
ouol Ajjoqmoj4S gq�,,
....... . . ....... -
IDNKISM SLIOd
01-
Fv
L
>
0
u1i
>
Aeno X\Nl",,9
Lij
C4
<
z
b To
nl
LU
U
V)
j 7 1
Ci
Z�
U
g
7.
0 1
LU
0 b
z
Z
<
LU
0
g
rm
Ell
lu
<
0
t <
0
0
<LL
z
7=
0,
z
0 zz
Z�
0
= �O
L) N
u
z
UA
Ix
Ix
Ix
0
A- LU I'
A,
LU
Ul
V)
. ..... ... ... ..... .
.... . . .... ........
. ..... . ... .....
. .. . . .........
0 '9L6'NO'PUDlLlSV Z
Guol, Ajjoqmoj4S Sqc 5
. .... . ......
ui 3 DN-3 (11SIN SHOd
ev
. I? �T'
01-71
u <
C.)
C)
to
U
0 u < LIJ
>
<
LD C, 0 -_ >
=� < ui0�- o u
c) w 7
u 1 -7
r 3:
0 0 Lij
_lz _11E 0
Ll U, 0 0
cc)
u
< uo 4) r) < m c, Ya LJJ
0 ul I u,
0 IL
< 0
!� d U
c 0 u :s Z3 6
7 E 7 0
Sw 3;
T
Ti
0
cl,
<
LU
It I
I —A 1111 1 v:H �-
LU U
;7
- - ----- - - ----
n
ozqz6,�JO'PUOWsv
aural Ajjoqmmr s gqC
Silad
C", ;;�-T
ol- CD Lf
(D —
Gi
00
C) 0
-'r LO o Wz
0 (D C)
U-1
W W LU >
z
--i
r - -i
I I I Lij I I I W LU
0-
UJ
1.-
I0
C[
z
-.
0
111
>
ui
25
di
s.32 3
<
F o
OcZSZ6'�JOPUONW
Gun] AijoqMri�3 gq�
Rll�
o n c
5> >
C C j
UIP P F P P �E, -,2 UPa _6 , K, F3 1 p ❑ U U a, 1'. c U
iE t' t -E as
J'J' J
A Z
�6 b❑
1, 2 Z 7 �'7, Z .11Z,ZjZ Z Z
6
'Z,: Z-20 7, Z 'Z�y
42 �b 7�
ici
�l m 31
30, �6 I!, �!
f. r t2
2 it Pz 'Z 70 7� 2 7' 0 0 Z' Z' 2 :7. Z' I' -Z' -Z' Z 7 7 z
A, 2 5 2 2 rj �7 '7- �'zV'.- I Y
7
b
d j 17, TF
E 1W bo b� U6
q 2 'Fj 2 ci,
ci
's
Z �c c P I s
'14
CI U-'r < E iwE U, rz it �i, IL 2:43 U U"
tlX
W 0., 1� 5'.
CD
C-)
Uj
Uj >
C)
UJ
LU NUJ
CY, Q 1 z
�z
0
0�
;Ll 0 Cie T,
< j >
<
<
Z g Fj y 0 r� z
8, ")
0
U a, 10 T
'o
o
t;
to
z
<
U
2�
6
Z' Q
lk < - . ¢ � "2 :s Ui
LLI 0 zs P� ru >
> FDj 21 S� U,
Uj 2 7.
L > ;T 'z'
Ix "z C) z > o n
u, 7.
CL L r
<
Uj -0
<
M: lei A >zr
Z
1,
M
i�
a
os
�Ns
0 U
< <
ug
w z
CL
0 C
LL two
n
z
Lij 0 z
7 U U) F-
< LLJ
U) z
i w W
<L, 0,
<CY
c
0 >
'W"
w w
z z
< CD
ce z
0 w
LL
C. Ln
I
I
19 ! 1, $0v
0
T:
M
EL
0
I
'?0,P�qq"V qqE
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
do
Pr
M LO
w <
M3 aj
... ......... . . . .
. . . ..............
r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---- - ---- - - - - - - - - - - -
"Pi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — - - ------ _Y.
LLI
= 77�== ...... .....
............ . ...
P6,
'71
4 U",
dt H
2g
Ed��g —'9 3u.
n
4 nn'- I N
i'O 'R
wq H H,
H-H
all ff
'm
pa
F f0'
A IN,
a ol
M AM, z I.� '1 5
'MH 0
h
q . 2 1 '1
R 5", 4 20
R
'"tic P--14-v '.—I A nq.-s "qE
City of Ashland
Community Development Department
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Telephone: 541-488-5305
Inspection Line: 541-552-2080
Plan Type: Type I Planning Action
Work Class: Type I Planning Action
PERMIT NUMBER ;"
PA-T 1-2021-00146
Apply Date: 3/15/2021
Pro .,ert" Address
391 E08AC602
365 Strawberry Ln
Fee Description: Amount:
Physical Constraints Permit (Type 1) $1,092.00
Applicant:
Date:
Total: re.es€ $1,092.00