The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHillview_897_PA-T1-2022-00185CITY OF -ASHLAND October 20, 2022 Notice of Final Decision On October 20, 2022, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: Subject Property Applicant: PA -'I' 1-2022-00185 897 flillview Drive SuncrestHomes, LLC Description: A request for land use approval for a two -lot partition of a 0,36 -acre lot. T he tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicates that the two resultant parcels will be 0.18 and 0.17 acres in size. The application includes detailed findings explaining how the proposal meets the relevant criteria, COMPRE IIENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; MAP: 39 1F 15 AC; TAX LOT: 90,0 The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12"' day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed, Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to proJect completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of.* file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.5.1.050(F) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO 1.8.5.1.050(0;). TheALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Aaron Anderson in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305, = Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 07520 TTY: 800-735-2900 1 L-1 SECTION 18.5.1.050 Type I Procedure (Administrative Decision with Notice) E. Effective Date of Decision. Unless the conditions of approval specify otherwise or the decision is appealed pursuant to subsection 18.5.1,050.G, a Type I decision becomes effective 12 days after the City mails the notice of decision. F. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider a Type I decision as set forth below. 1. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City department may request reconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to tire Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no fault Of tile party asking for reconsideration, which in tile opinion of the Staff Advisor, might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to Factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor all opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. 1 Reconsideration requests shall be received within five days of mailing the notice of decision. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three days whether to reconsider the matter. 3. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred Crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The City shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. 4. if the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error Occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. G. Appeal of Type I Decision. A Type I decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission, pursuant to the following: I Who May Appeal. The following persons have standing to appeal a Type I decision. a. The applicant or owner of the subject property b. Any person who is entitled to written notice of the Type I decision pursuant to subsection 10J.050.13. c. Any other person who participated in the proceeding by submitting written comments on the application to the city by the specified deadline. 2. Appeal Filing Procedure. a. Noliee ofAppeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.050,G.1, above, may appeal a . Type I decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to tile procedures of this subsection, The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the City and whose boundaries include the site. if all appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, tile fee for tile initial hearing shall be refunded. b. Thnefior Ffflng. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the notice of decision is mailed, red ding fee and shall contain. c' Conten/ offolice oj'Appecd. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the reqUi L Ali identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of tile decision. ii. A statement dernonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal. iii, A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal. iv. A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public comment period. d. The appeal requirements of this section 1-nUst be fully met or the appeal will be considered by tile City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. 3. Scope of Appeal. Appeal hearings oil Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor shall be de novo hearings before the Planning Collunissiorl.The appeal shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the review leading tip to the "Type I decision but may include other relevant evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant ordinance provision, 4. Appeal Hearing Procedure. hearings on appeals of Type I decisions follow tile "I'ype 11 public hearing procedures, Pursuant to section 18.5.1.060, subsections A -- E, except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of tile City on an appeal of a Type I decision, A decision on an appeal is final the date the City mails the adopted and signed decision. Appeals of Commission decisions must be filed with the State L,and Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 Fwl."r, 11 Ashland, Oregon 97520 V, %V%rAS h I al uL or. us ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA -T1-2022-00185 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 897 Hillview Drive APPLICANT & OWNER: Suncrest Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for land use approval for a two -lot partition of a Q.36- acre lot. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicates that the two resultant parcels will be 0.18 and 0.17 acres in size. The application includes detailed findings explaining how the proposal meets the relevant criteria. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; MAP: 39 1E 15 AC; TAX LOT: 900 SUBMITTAL DATE: DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: RE --NOTICED DATE: STAFF APPROVAL DATE: APPEAL DEADLINE (4:30 P.M.) FINAL DECISION DATE: APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: DECISION May 13, 2022 May 31, 2022 September 26, 2022 October 20, 2022 November 1, 2022 November 2, 2022 May 1, 2024 The application is a request for a land partition to divide the property at 897 Hillview Drive into two separate parcels. The property is on the west side of Hillview Drive between Siskiyou Blvd. and Ross Lane. The property also abuts an alley on its western side which terminates at the northern edge of the subject property. The existing single-family home is to be demolished to enable the partition. The subject property and surrounding neighborhood is located in the R-1-7.5 zoning district, a Single Family Residential zone with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The property measures 82' x 190' which make it slightly over twice the minimum for the zone at 15,580 square feet. The applicant has proposed an eight -foot flagpole as allowed at AMC 18.5.3.060.14.4 when adjacent to an alley. The subject property contains an existing single -story, 1,228 square foot residence built in 1947 according to the Jackson County Tax Assessor's records. The house is in poor condition and will be demolished to allow for the partition to occur. All structures larger than 500 square feet are required to demonstrate compliance with the demolition permit, and a condition of approval to that effect has been included below. The applicant has proposed that Parcel 1 measures 103' x 74' for a size of 7,622 sq. ft., and Parcel 2's body measures 87' x 82' with an eight -foot flagpole extending to Hillview for a total size of 7,958 sq. ft. Adjacent to the flagpole is a proposed 2' access easement giving Parcel 2 ten -feet of vehicular access. The next page shows the proposed parcel configuration. PA -T1-2022-00185 897 Hillview Dr./aha Page I 20 as zs � r y'xxo• as i is a 3 aa� 4 %3a' PS x PARCEL 2 w , 7958 S4 FT l5°'Vy� t lea Z J 9 °E HOUSE TO BE REWEOVED _ I — T --Na9'47'I7 PARCEL 1 7622 SO FT 190.00 The application includes a complete inventory of 39 trees that are greater than 6 inches Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). The application also includes a proposed `building envelope' and tree protection plan however it is not supported hat ins ead theroposed in inventory andsidential grecomff feels that rnendations rather than approve the requested removals should be considered at the time of future development. Staff carefully considered the proposal and found that it meets all the relevant approval criteria as explained further below. As staff understands the proposal, the existing driveway on the south side of the property will be retained and unproved to provide vehicle access to the rear property as well. The drive will still be able to provide the required pedestrian connection while also providing secondary vehicle access to the rear lot. Below we address the application materials against the relevant approval criteria. The first two criteria of approval for a partition are that "The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded." and that "The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded." Staff finds that the proposal for the two -lot partition is the maximum density allowed and that there is no remaining development potential and that all adjacent properties are developed meeting these standards. The third criteria of approval for a partition are that "The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area." Staff fords that there are Do city previous land use adopted approvals that affectorhood or dth srct plans properiyhat affect this property and that there are no prey p The fourth criteria of approval for a partition are that "tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. The applicants assert, and after examining the Jackson County Survey records staff concurs that the tract of land has not been partitioned for twelve months meeting this standard. The fifth criteria of approval for a partition are that "Proposed lots conform to the ereq art 8 3is of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlayzone requirements, p p and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree PA -T1-2022-00185 897 Hillview Dr./aha Page 2 preservation, solar access and orientation). Most development standards relate to the future construction of new homes with regards to setbacks, solar standards and lot coverage. Each of these will be evaluated in concert with the review of the future building permits. Staff finds that the proposed lots do conform to the dimensional requirements of the base zone and further notes that all future building permits will be required to demonstrate compliance will all standards of the Land Use Ordinance for site design review (including building placement, orientation, and design.). The sixth criteria of approval for a partition are that "Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design..." Staff notes that AMC 18.4.3.080.0.5 provides that "Where a property has alley access, vehicle access shall be taken from the alley..." Staff finds that the application demonstrates that vehicular access can be provided from the alley and the site plan demonstrates area for two parked cars which will be required to be improved with a gravel at a minimum. Staff notes that the applicant intends to improve the existing driveway to a width of ten -feet and provide proposed parcel 2 with a two -foot access easement adjacent to the eight -foot flagpole. A conceptual layout of the driveway and home development was submitted with supplemental materials is shown at right. Staff finds that this vehicular access is in addition to the alley access. Staff further notes that it also is proposed to serve parcel 1 as well and that the curb cut is existing. Staff finds that this is in conformance with AMC 18.4.3.080.c.4 which provides for "Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts." The seventh criteria of approval for a partition are that "The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4 and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications." Staff finds that the standards provided at AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1 only require a public street dedication when serving four or more lots. Staff finds that utilities are available to each of the proposed lots including water, sewer, and all franchise utilities. The eighth criteria of approval for a partition include standards for situations where there are unpaved streets. Staff notes that Hillview Drive has a 40 -foot public right of way and is paved with curb and gutter. Staff notes that while the Land Use Ordinance prescribes improvement standards for alleys historically alleys have not been required to be improved unless there was a commercial use, this is because of the need for both a nexus to the improvement as well as a rough proportionality (Nolan/Dolan tests). Staff further notes AMC 18.5.3.050.H.2 allows the Public Works Director to permit a land partition with access to an unpaved street subject to certain provisions including waiving the right to remonstrate with respect to the formation of an PA -T1-2022-00185 897 Hillview Dr./aha Page 3 LID. A conditional of approval will require that the property owner sign in favor of an LID for such improvements. Staff finds that with the forgoing this approval criterion is satisfied. The ninth criteria of approval for a partition relates to situations where there is an alley adjacent to the partition. As mentioned above the applicant has shown the vehicle access and parking will be provided off the alley. Staff notes that this satisfies the requirements of the land use ordinance. The tenth criteria of approval for a partition is regarding compliance with any required state or federal permits. Staff finds that there are no known required state or federal permits satisfying this approval criterion. Finally, the eleventh criteria of approval for a partition invokes section AMC 18.5.3.060 which is "additional preliminary flag lot partition plat criteria" which contains a total of eleven additional approval criteria. These approval criteria address standards for vehicle access over proposed flag drives and provides options when a lot is adjacent to an alley. The section dealing with alleys is subpart `H' which provides for the eight -foot flagpole option when vehicle access is provided off the alley as it is in this case. The section requires that the flagpole be improved with a pedestrian access at least four feet in width. Staff finds that the proposed alternative vehicle access which will be improved to a width of ten feet meet this standard and find that this approval criterion is met. Public Input Notice of the planning action was mailed to all properties within 200 feet of the subject property as well as a physical notice posted along the frontage of the property. The notice included a staff contact name and number. In accordance with AMC 18.5.1.050, the Type 1 procedure for planning applications, allows a 14 -day period for the submission of written comments, starting from the date of mailing. Subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Complete application seventeen written comments about the request were received expressing concerns about the development, and by their reference are incorporated herein. These comments ranged from brief objections to much longer written responses. Aside from concerns regarding increased density and neighborhood character many of the complaints centered around a concern about increased impact on the unimproved alley, despite the fact that the applicant's intention is to minimize impact on the alley by providing secondary vehicular access across the front parcel. One of the public comments that was received provided citations regarding concerns raised the issue that the second of the eleven criterion under the eleventh criteria of approval for a partition provides that "For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the a drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district." Staff notes that the required drive area is adjacent to the alley as mentioned above, and that because the alley option was used in this context there is no `flag drive area,' staff further notes that while there is a proposed easement for a total access width of 10' for vehicle access it is secondary and in addition to the alley vehicle access. Another concern raised had to do with compliance with AMC 18.2.4.010 which states: "Each lot shall abut a public street other than an alley for a width of not less than 40 feet; except, where a lot is part of an approved flag partition or abuts a cul-de-sac vehicle turn -around area, the PA -T1-2022-00185 897 Hillview Dr./aha Page 4 minimum width is 25 feet." Staff would note that the construction of this provision provides that a lot shall have 40' of frontage along a street, or 25' feet in the case of a cul-de-sac, and then exempts this provision from a flag partition. Additionally, the LUO provides a definition for street which includes that an alley is a type of street*. The letter goes on to raised concerns about both a usable yard area and parking stating that the `proposed building envelopes appear to preclude meeting the required yard areas.' Staff notes that the preliminary plat shows the required building setbacks, and the parking required off the alley as required, so this is not the area that the proposed building will occupy but the maximum area any part of the building would be able to be located. When building permits are reviewed and approved, they will be required to demonstrate that the yard area, and parking area are met in addition to al[ the applicable base standards of the zone including lot coverage, and solar setbacks. An additional concern was about improvements and impacts on the alley. As mentioned above the city has historically not required improvements to alleys for residential development. The applicant has demonstrated proposed parcel 2 is served by the alley, and as shown above is also including additional paved vehicle access over the eight -foot flagpole. Following the conclusion of the public comment period the applicant requested a waiver to the local 45 -day timeline as well as the 120 -day rule. The reason for these extensions were at the applicants request to address neighborhood concerns. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on September 21, 2022. The applicant also submitted supplemental materials in the form a single page letter submitted following a neighborhood meeting, and a handout advertising the public meeting; That handout included a conceptual layout of how the lots are proposed to be developed included above. The letter included four specific proposals that intended to alleviate concerns of neighborhood property owners. Those items were: 1) Parcel #2, is not allowed to use the alley for its primary access. Parcel 42 shall have its primary access off of Hillview, the house shall be oriented towards Hillview and the garage shall be accessed off of Hillview. 2) No construction vehicles shall use the alley at the rear of the property during the construction of either parcel 91 or Parcel 42. 3) Both homes on parcel #1 & 42 shall a foundation drain systems, each will be tied into the storm drain system that runs along the North property line. If for any reason these lines can't be tied into said storm drain, they shall be run out to the street via a weep hole. 4) All roof drains and landscape drains are required to be tied into the storm drain system that runs along the North property line. If for any reason these lines can't be tied into said storm drain, they shall be run out to the street via a weep hole. Due to the length of time that elapsed from the close of the public comment period Staff decided to re -notice the application for an additional period of public comment. During this second public comment period four additional comments were received, and by their reference are incorporated herein. * Street. A public right-of-way for roadway, sidewalk, and utility installation including the terms road, highway, land, place, avenue, alley, or other similar designations PA -TI -2022-00185 897 Hillview Dr./aha Page 5 Each of these four letters varied in length from a brief paragraph summarizing their concerns, to a single page letter listing seven items, to a three-page letter itemizing 21 specific concerns. Generally, the concerns relate to interconnected impacts regarding to new development, specifically: traffic generation, character of the neighborhood, density, and speculation real estate / out of town investment owners, and that these collective impacts set a precedent for future development but also impact to property values and generally be a detriment to the neighborhood. In considering the public comment staff notes that the proposal is within the accepted development density envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and allowed by the zoning district. Staff has addressed the concerns that provided citation to the relevant approval criteria and finds that the proposal meets all the required approval criteria, and that none of the objections raised in the public comment offer a valid reason for denial of the application. The anoroval criteria for a Land Partition are _detailed in AMC 18.5.3.050 as follows: A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H. Unpaved Streets. 1. Minimum Street Improvement. When there exists a 20 -foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20 -feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2. Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a. The unpaved street is at least 20 -feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to PA -T1-2022-00185 897 Hillview Dr./aha Page 6 remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. I. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. The Additional Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria are _detailed _in_AMC 18.5.3.060 as follows: A. The criteria of section 18.5.3.050 are met. B. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. C. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. D. Except as provided in subsection 18.5.3.060.H, below, the flag drive serving a single flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet and contain a 12 foot wide paved driving surface. For drives serving two flag lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with a 15 foot wide driving surface to the back of the first lot, and a 12 foot wide driving surface to the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Width shall be increased on turns where necessary to ensure fire apparatus remain on a paved surface during travel. E. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. No more than two flag lots are served by the flag drive. F. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances. G. Flag drives shall be constructed to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. H. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval. 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole. 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flagpole and improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface connecting the street to the buildable area of the flag lot. 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flag lot clearly visible from the street on a four -inch by four - inch post that is 3'/ feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers three inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two foot by three foot white sign clearly visible from the street with three-inch black numbers. I. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. J. When required by the Oregon Fire Code, flag drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround (see Figure 18.4.6.040.6.5). The Staff Advisor, in coordination with the Fire Code Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround requirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in length as allowed by Oregon Fire Code access exemptions. PA -TI -2022-00185 897 Hillview Dr./aha Page 7 K. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated to eliminate the necessity for vehicles backing out. L. There shall be no parking within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on either side of the flag drive entrance. M. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in part 18.6, shall provide a fire work area of 20 feet by 40 feet clear of vertical obstructions and within 60 feet of the structure. The fire work area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. N. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a sight -obscuring fence, wall or fire-resistant broadleaf evergreen sight -obscuring hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed to ensure fire apparatus access is not obstructed by the encroachment of mature landscaping. O. The applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Department an agreement between applicant and the City for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Public Works Director and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening pursuant to this section, and assurance ongoing maintenance. P. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. Decision The applicants have submitted a complete set of Findings addressing their burden of proof to the Planning Department to demonstrate compliance with the applicable approval standards for the proposed partition and by their reference are incorporated as if set out in full. In staff's assessment, the application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City Ordinances. Therefore, Planning Action #PA -T1-2022-00185 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #PA -T1-2022-00185 is denied. The following conditions are attached to the approval. 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2) That any new address shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. 3) That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for driveway approaches, utilities or any necessary encroachments. 4) That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. PA -T1-2022-00185 897 Hillview Dr./aha Page 8 5) That the following items shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning Division prior to signature of the final survey. a) That a demolition permit be applied for, and the existing house removed from the property in its entirety. b) That a final utility plan for the parcels shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning, Engineering, Electric and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey plat. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines and electric services. c) All easements for public and private utilities and access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. d) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for the new vacant lot prior to the signature of final survey plat. c) That the property owner shall sign in favor of local improvement districts for the future street improvements, including but not limited to park -row and sidewalks prior to signature of the final survey plat. The agreement shall be signed and recorded concurrently with the final survey plat. i) That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. �October 20, 2022 Brandon Goldman, MCP Date Interim Community Development Director Department of Community Development PA -T1-2022-00185 897 Hillview Dr./aha Page 9 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On October 20, 2022, 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 -T1-2022- 0000185 for 897 Hillview ;Ze,9" X. � Signature of Employee G:1Usersltrapp€1Deskiop%TemplalesLAFFIDAVIT OF MAILING_Regan.dam 1 612 01202 2 AVERY PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AD2304 APPLEGATE RORY 940 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 CANOPY LLC PO BOX 3511 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC700 COLEMAN ALEXANDRA BIRD ETAL 893 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1200 DOYLE RONALD 945 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AD2303 HILLENGA MARK A TRUSTEE ET AL 1480 CREEKVIEW LN SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062 PA -T1-2022-00185 JUNE MATHER juneinjanuary@hofmail.com NO ADDRESS PROVIDED PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AD5100 LIGHTHART ROGER 0 TRUSTEE ET 943 BESWICK WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1300 MOLAHAN KENNETH J TRUSTEE ET PO BOX 183 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1800 SELF CAROLYN F TRUSTEE ET AL 932 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 Fasy Peel Address labels } Go to avery.com/templates � c )eI ilowl iim Yo i-xposc Pop-up EcIT, IL Ilse Hvr�y tF npintt� :�i (0 3 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC2000 BARNES JOHN W JR/ASHA N 910 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 CHARLIE HAMILTON 125 SCHOOL HOUSE RD TALENT, OR 97540 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AD2400 COOK RICHARD G TRUSTEE ET AL PO BOX 692 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1400 FREY ROBERT ET AL 964 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AD5000 JERALD AND LESLIE BRYAN REVOC 931 BESWICK WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC601 KLEINEDLER KEITH M 873 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 U FRIAR & ASSOCIATES, PC PO BOX 1947 PHOENIX, OR 97535 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1900 BROWN RYLAND A ET AL 922 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1700 COCHRAN BEN ET AL 942 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC2200 COSTANTINO JOANNE M REV TRUST 892 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC900 HAMILTON CHARLES D ET AL PO BOX 1313 TALENT, OR 97540 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AD2302 JOHNSON JERRY TRUSTEE ET AL 958 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC2100 KNAPP MICHAEL E/PATRICIA A 902 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1600 MAXWELL JEAN A TRUSTEE ET AL 950 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AD2308 PACIFIC GEOGRAPHIC CONSULTANTS SCHAEFF LINDA M TRUSTEE ET AL LLC 904 HILLVIEW DR 4620 FERN VALLEY RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1000 SELLMAN ROBERT W/SELLMAN CHRI 899 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC800 SMITH JON CHARLES PO BOX 802 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1500 PA -T1-2022-00185 PA -T1-2022-00185 391EISAD2309 SPENCER LISA C ET AL SUNCREST HOMES LLC TAYLOR ROBERT K/CRISPINO-TAYL 960 HARMONY LN PO BOX 1313 4041 SE GRANT CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 PORTLAND, OR 97214 Allez a avery.ca/gaharits � Uliiisez le Galaai It Avery 5160 1 PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AD2300 PA-T1-2022-00185 PA-Tl-2022-00185 391E15AC1100 TRACHTENBERG NEVA L ROTA WAYNE & ELAINE HAMLIN WHITE JAMES R TRUSTEE ET AL 900 HILLVIEW DR 1039 HILLVIEW 939 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 NOD 897 Hillview 10/20/2022 33 09 t 5 �ic�du�a_L AA3AV om sajejdwa}/ul0D-AJ3Ae 04 00 From: cobm��C, To: 8mo��m�u�u�c�o�mx SuMect� mrtherComments onPlanning Action PA-Tla022-0o185,m/Hillview m Date; Monday, October 1.0, 2022 12:28:33 PM [EXTERNAL. SENDER] Dear Mr. Anderson and Planning Department, I want to share further comments regarding the proposed 897 Hillview D,r. lot split and building plan. |amopposed tothe lot split inthis neighborhood ofsingle homesonsimilarly-sized lots. |nwaiving long-established neighborhood planning and dividing this lot split would be a significant move toward changing the neighborhood's char,acter. It would also set a precedent for more lot splits — presurnably each wa�ved to the point of doubling the number of hornes, people, automobiles, and city services needed inthe neighborhood. Certainly any orall ofthat growth would diminish the qua|ityof|ifeherm—forihe enrichmentofabui|dinQcumpanybutdetrimen1ufaneighborhood. Please reconsider the reasons for the long-standing, building |anning ordinances for dividing lots — which |beUcvevverecreated and praciicad6vAsh| Thank You, Robert Frey gG4Harmony Lane Ashland, Oregon Sent from LLL for Windows ............ From: Elaine Hamlin <007hamiin@grnail,com> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2022 932 PM To: Aaron, Anderson; planning Subject: Planning Action PS -11--2002-00185: proposed partition of 897 Hillview Drive into lots/two houses [EXTERNAL SENDER] We, Elaine and Wayne Hamlin, have owned our home at 1039 Hillview Drive for over thirty years, and', we are writing to oppose the partition of 897 Hillview Drive to subdivide the property in order to build two houses onto a property that now has one house. We bases our opposition to this proposal on the following considerations: 1. Hillview Drive is historically a single family neighborhood, and the division into a lot similar in size to lots in the neighborhood permanently destroys the character of the area. 2. This type of subdivision can lead to rental unit development and absentee ownership on Hillview Drive. 3. The property under consideration is near a seasonal creek and removal of trees impacts wildlife and pollinators and water runoff will be redirected to adjoining properties. 4. The change from one residential unit to two encourages higher density residential areas and definitely increases traffic in the area as well as encourages more orf-�6-6'J � U n g . ..... . . . .. . . . ............ . ....... . . . . . . . ........ . ..... . .. .... 11�117-1111111-111111 �� . . ...... — 5. Hillview homes have front yards,, and the reduced setbacks of the proposed home facing Hillview Drive has a reduced setback which is out 6T-ffi-a—racte-r'with the rest of the homes on Hillview Drive. 6. Hillview Drive is a major artery for fire evacuation, and adding density to the neighborhood creates higher fire danger in the neighborhood as well as impacting fire egress for residents in homes on the upper Hillview Drive as well as higher streets that enter onto Hillview Drive. oe'"' 7. Permanently changing the character of the Hillview Drive neighborhood could open the door to similar proposals to change the neighborhood to multi -unit lots, and Hillview Drive could evolve into an arterial street such as Normal Avenue between Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street, a move Hillview Drive residents would highly resist. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on Planning Action Proposal PS -11-2002-00185, and we trust you will listen to and hear our objections to partitioning 897 Hillview Drive into two lots and the construction of two houses on the property. Sincerely, Elaine and Wayne Hamlin 1039 Hillview Drive, Ashland ra:pp ... ..... ... . ... ...... From: Chuck Smith <csmith.now@hotmafl.com> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2022 8:18 AM To: Aaron Anderson Cc: planning Subject: Planning Action PA -11-2002-0D0185, 897 Hillview Drive [EXTERNAL SENDER] To: Aaron Anderson, Planning Department, City of Ashland October 8, 2022 LOP, ito", 1 111111111 W aff F_Iomq�ffi I W411014*1 Comments written to Aaron Anderson (aaron.anderson@ashiand.or.,us) and the Ashland Planning Department (planning@ ashland.or.us) regarding the proposed lot partition of 897 Hillview Drive and construction of two houses. The primary takeaway from conversations with Hillyiew Drive and Harmony Lane, neighbors and comments made to the Ashland Planning Department : 1. This prolect is out of character for the neighborhood 2. Sets precedence for all lots being subdivided The number of houses could double in the neighborhood 3. Traffic could double serving new houses a. Impedes access to homes b. Noise c. Pedestrian/bike rider safety, traffic already averages above 25mph on Hillview d. Catholic church already contributes to higher than average traffic 4. Leads to higher density residential zoning (supposedly 4 houses could be built on this lot) a. Historically, single family neighborhood 5. Permanently destroys the character of the area a. Has attracted families to purchase and keep homes in this neighborhood. 6. Encourages: a. Tearing down houses to build more houses L Creates higher population density b. Property speculators c. Absentee ownership d. Rental, unit development (in single family neighborhoods) e. Leads to deteriorating property f. Higher crime from higher density neighborhoods. g. Impacts urban wildlife and pollinators 7. Habitat is replaced with higher density dwellings. i. Removes trees 1. Reduces excess water runoff 8. Intensifies a. Light pollution b. Reduce airflow c. Increase water runoff to neighboring properties. 9. Impact all neighbors that access their properties via the alley off Ross Lane a. Adding traffic flow and impeding access to properties in an area previously unaffected 10. Budget shortfall a. Alley improvements are in opposition with the City of Ashland's proposal for spending reductions 11. Encourages higher density residential areas 12. Discourages long time area residents from remaining in this neighborhood. 13. Reduces quality of life a. This quality of life attracted us to this neighborhood 14. Discourages members in the neighborhood to remain in this city 15. Setback from the street. a. Existing setback of 897 Hillview Drive is around 66 feet b. New setback for Parcel 1 (closest to Hillview) would be 27 feet c. No other house on that side of the street has that close of a setback d. This is completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. 16. Hillview homes have larger yards. 17. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy at various times of the year a. Rain water run off... b. floes the City have the funds to upgrade the alley? c. Runoff from homes on Harmony Lane above the alley flow north-east down the alley. d. The alley stops at the corner of 897 and 895 Hillview on the alley and has nowhere to go. e. Historicallv, during the winter, rainwater runoff has run through 897, 895.893, and 873 Hillview Drive from the alley unabated. i. To abate rain runoff some Hillview residents below the alley have had to install 1. French drains 2. 897 Hillview tree roots and runners are clogging neighbors French drain lines, reducing water runoff collection capability. 3. Sump pumps 4. Had to raising foundation height 5. Had to regrade property to redirect runoff f. To abate and collect water runoff. i. 897 Hillview rain gutters need to be tied to city storm drain ii. 897 required to install French drain along north property boundarV to collect water iii. French drain tied to storm drain. g. City of Ashland should be required: L Regrade the alley, stabilize the substrate, direct run off into collection point at end of alley. ii. Construct a collection point at the end of the alley to remover water runoff through their storm drain easement through the alley. iii. Make provisions on alley storm drain line to collect Harmony Lane rain gutter lines. 18. An example of poorly executed division and structure construction of aesthetic questionability a. Lot split of 831 and 843 Hillview Drive. It is time to learn from mistakes. b. The slice and dice lot partitions up the hill in upper Beach Street area 19. The builder does not live in this neighborhood, nor does he plan to. a. The neighborhood has to live with the consequences his decisions to modify this lot. 20. New residents that have purchased homes recently in this neighborhood (within the last 6) months are shocked that the city would potentially allow this. a. They specifically moved here because of the type of neighborhood it is. b. "I didn't sign up for this" Thigh density housing> c. one new owner has taken possession within the last 7 days 21. A single, larger structure would be in character and suit the neighborhood better. I oppose the 897 Hillview Drive lot partition. I request that the lot partition be denied. Best regards, Chuck Smith 895 Hillview Drive From: To: Cc: Subject: Lot partition of 897 Hillview Dr Date: Sunday, October 09, 2022 11:20:54 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER,] Let it be noted that my concerns echo those residents who are opposed to the above partition and 1, too, request that the permit to Subdivide be denied, --I live in a historically single family neighborhood and I fear that approval of this partition would set a dangerous precedent in the: area. This is, completely OUlt of character with the existing neighborhood. --This partition Would encourage absentee ownership which could lead to deteriorating property and reduced property values. Respectfully submitted, June Mather w,y A/ Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY OF 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us1-80iO-735-2900 H -ASLAND NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA -T1-2022-00185 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 897 Hillview Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Suncrest Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for land use approval for a two -lot partition of a 0.36 -acre lot. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicates that the two resultant parcels will be 0.18 and 0.17 acres in size. The application includes detailed findings explaining how the proposal meets the relevant criteria, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: -1-7,5; MAP: 39 1 E 15 AQ TAX LOT: 900 01 ail $011 ON 21101 011V411 0-lih 161. IN n "z 9CM2 1_900 "z F] 902 1895 9110 E F� Suibject Property NE9'97 Hillview Dr. PA -TI -2022-00185 925 97 El 931 V1+2 8991 94 11� 950 940 943 �w_ �- %%' _ 939] 9- L60 L I N 9145 955 958 A 964" tj AR 1755 ..... .. ... . . . . ....... . j Ni 1.591 indequalgeet M 2.5 0 W ion t5a 200 Mappxrg as schemak only and tears no waffaigy. of acsuracy. CITY OF Afi tealuees, gruclums, facififies, ewenvenl of ra"nizy locaVans 0 15 30 60 90 120 -ASHLAND i Feet Feet 1:591 OVER Q kco.v,n-dev\p1anningT1 ann�ng AcfiansWs by StycefflR11i I fviewVii I [view 89NUIview 897 PA-TI-2022-0018,5ANcticiiig�NOC,tY2%tlillvimv_85 97 PA-TI-2022-0018NOC92Aox C The Ashland Planning Division Staff has n ed a complete application for the property no" -in Page 1 of this notice Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materlals are provided online and comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements for reviewMg the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or p_Jq_nn1 ng@A_hIancLg_rus. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at "'What's Happening in my City" at h s11 is. ashIand.or.us/d eve lopmentp rop2sa Is/. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre -arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planni ngfq)_ashland. or. Lis. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to ILIginnLin c ashlan�.q�t.LLs or to the City of Ashland _q@_t_ _ Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m, on the deadline date shown on Page 1. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application, is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property Submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staffs decision roust 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 drcult court. If You have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-552-2052 or aaron.andersonCa ashlanA-gr-us. PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.5.3.050 The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. X The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B, The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C, The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the: subject area. D, The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18,3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18,4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5 3,060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing; and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H. Unpaved Streets. 1. Minimum Street Improvement, When there exists a 20 -foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20 -feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2. Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a. The unpaved street is at least 20 -feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City, b, The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded: to meet the final street elevation, d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. 1, Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J, Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. by StreeftTAfiiMeiv\1iJ1vww PA-Tll-2022-00189.,NOC-92.doex 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 September 20, 2022 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -T1-2022- 00185, 897 Hillview Drive. AlichaeCSuCCivan Signature of Employee Gicomm-devVanNnff1ann1ngAdonsftsbySVeetlH4Hill ievilHillview_8971HillvEew_897_PA-T1-2822-00185ftficingMC_92lHMview_897_PA-T1-2022-00185_NOC_AffidaWofM;Ang_#2.donx 912612022 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 El5AD2304 APPLEGATE RORY 940 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 CANOPY LLC PO BOX 3511 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 El5AC700 COLEMAN ALEXANDRA BIRD ET AL 893 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 E15AC 1200 DOYLE RONALD 945 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 El5AD2303 HILLENGA MARK A TRUSTEE ET AL 1480 CREEKVIEW LN SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC601 KLEINEDLER KEITH M 873 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 LJ FRIAR & ASSOCIATES, PC PO BOX 1947 PHOENIX, OR 97535 PA -T1-2022-00185 39IE15AC2000 BARNES JOHN W JRIASHA N 910 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 CHARLIE HAMILTON 125 SCHOOL HOUSE RD TALENT, OR 97540 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 E15AD2400 COOK RICHARD G TRUSTEE ET AL PO BOX 692 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 E15AC1400 FREY ROBERT ET AL 964 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 E15AD5000 JERALD AND LESLIE BRYAN REVOC 931 BESWICK WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 El5AC2100 KNAPP MICHAEL EIPATRICIA A 902 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391EI5AC1600 MAXWELL JEAN A TRUSTEE ET AL 950 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 E15AD2308 PACIFIC GEOGRAPHIC CONSULTANTS SCHAEFF LINDA M TRUSTEE ET AL LLC 904 HILLVIEW DR 4620 FERN VALLEY RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1000 SELLMAN ROBERT W/SELLMAN CHRI 899 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 E15AC800 SMITH JON CHARLES PO BOX 802 ASHLAND, OR 97520 Go to wkry.convtr i�ipf�tcs � PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1900 BROWN RYLAND A ET AL 922 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1700 COCHRAN BEN ET AL 942 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 39IE15AC2200 COSTANTINO JOANNE M REV TRUST 892 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 EI5AC900 HAMILTON CHARLES D ET AL PO BOX 1313 TALENT, OR 97540 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 E15AD2302 JOHNSON JERRY TRUSTEE ET AL 958 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 El5AD5100 LIGHTHART ROGER 0 TRUSTEE ET 943 BESWICK WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1300 MOLAHAN KENNETH J TRUSTEE ET PO BOX 183 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 EI5AC1800 SELF CAROLYN F TRUSTEE ET AL 932 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1500 SPENCER LISA C ET AL 960 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 EI5AD2309 PA -T1-2022-00185 391 E15AD2300 SUNCREST HOMES LLC TAYLOR ROBERT KICRISPINO-TAYL TRACHTENBERG NEVA L BOTA PO BOX 1313 4041 SE GRANT CT 900 HILLVIEW DR TALENT, OR 97540 PORTLAND, OR 97214 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2022-00185 391El5AC1100 897 Hiliview NOC WHITE JAMES R TRUSTEE ET AL 09/26/22 939 HILLVIEW DR 31 ASHLAND, OR 97520 BEFORE THE ASHLAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JACKSON COUNTY OREGON: IN THE MATTER OF A TYPE I PARTITION REVIEW ) FOR A PARCEL OF LAND ZONED RESIDENTIAL ) (R-1-7.5); T.39S, R.1 E, SEC.I5AC, TAX LOT 900 ) FINDING OF FACT SUNCREST HOMES, OWNERS; PACIFIC ) GEOGRAPHIC CONSULTANTS, LLC., AGENT ) A. Applicant Information OwnerslAppllcants Suncrest Homes, LLC. PO Box 1313 Talent, OR 97540 Agent Pacific Geographic Consultants, LLC 4020 Fern Valley fid. Medford, OR 97504 Arborist Canopy, LLC. PO Box 3511 Ashland, OR 97520 Surveyor LJ Friar & Associates, PC PO Box 1847 Phoenix, OR 97535 APPLICATION FINDINGS page 1 of 15 B. Property Description The subject lot totals approximately 0.36 acres and is zoned Residential (R-1-7.5), The subject parcel is located at 897 Hillview Drive, a publicly owned and maintained street. The subject parcel is located within the Ashland Fire Department boundary. The subject parcel is developed with a 1,228 square foot, 2 -bedroom single family dwelling built in 1947. The existing dwelling is proposed for removal upon approval of the Tentative Plat. The property has numerous trees of various size and species and gently slopes to the west towards the public alley. Transportation Service Access is available to proposed Parcel 1 from Hillview Drive, a partially improved public street. Access to Parcel 2 will from the public alley. This section of Hillview Drive features partial improvements, i.e.: paved roads with curbs and gutters, but without sidewalks. Hillview Drive is identified as a "Local" Street in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). No new public streets or dedications are required as part of this request. Improvements to the public alley and Hillview Drive (i.e. sidewalks) will be completed as necessary. Conversations with Public Works has indicated that graveling the alley will be sufficient to provide access. Wastewater Service Wastewater service is currently provided to the subject parcel. Water Service Water service currently supplies the existing residence and is adjacent to the proposed new parcel_ C. Proposal The request is for the approval of a preliminary plat to divide one (1) parcel: 897 Hillview Drive, into two (2) parcels. The parcel currently totals 0.36 Acres (15,580ftz). As proposed, Parcel 1 is 7,622ft2 and Parcel 2, is 7,958ft' (EXHIBIT "B"). D. Lot Legality The subject lot was first described in its original configuration in March 1951 by deed vol. 348 Pg. 172. (EXHIBIT "A"). E. Applicable Criteria The purpose of this application is to clearly demonstrate that the subject parcel is in compliance with the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC). The applicant is proposing a partition to divide the subject property into two buildable lots. Pursuant to the AMC, the following criteria are applicable to this application: AMC Chapter 18.2,4.010 — Access and Minimum Street Frontage AMC Chapter 18.2.5.030 — Unified Standards for Residential Zone AMC Chapter 18.3.10.090 — Development Standards for Hillside Lands AMC Chapter 18.3.10.100 — Development standards for Wildfire Lands AMC Chapter 18.4.5.0311— Tree Protection AMC Chapter 18.4.8 — Solar Access AMC Chapter 18.5.3.050 — Preliminary Plat Criteria (Partitions) APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 2 of 15 AMC Chapter 18.5.3.060 —Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria Please refer to maps and documents in the attached exhibits for demonstration of compliance with these standards. With this review, Ashland Community Development can find that this application is consistent with applicable subdivision and zoning code standards and criteria. Exhibit List Exhibit A — Lot Legality Exhibit B — Preliminary Plat; Zoning Map Exhibit C — Tree Inventory and Protection Plan Exhibit D - Pre -Application Memo Exhibit E — Site Photos Exhibit F - Fire Prevention and Control Plan TITLE 18: LAND USE ORDINANCE 18.2.4.010 Access and Minimum Street Frontage Each lot shall abut a public street other than an alley for a width of not less than 40 feet; except, where a lot is part of an approved flag partition or abuts a cul-de-sac vehicle turn -around area, the minimum width is 25 feet. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 exceed the minimum frontage width of 40 feet. As proposed, Parcel 1 has 74 feet of frontage and Parcel 2 has 82 feet of frontage on the alley and the required 8 feet of pedestrian access from Hillview Drive. The standard is met. 18.2.5.030 Unified Standards for Residential Zone Table 18.2.5.030,A. Standards for Urban Residential zones Residentiat Density (dwelling unitslacrey Minimum NA NA NA NA See densitys€andards in Sec. Maximum Per Min. Lot Per Min, Lot Per loin. lot Per Min. Lot Area Area Area Area See also Sec. 18.2-5-08 for R•2 and R-3 zones Lot Area - Minimum (square feet) APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 3 of 15 - Lot 10,000 sf 7,500 sf S'norl sf, 600 5,000 sf I See density standards in sec. sf for corner {4g lots 'Exception providing for minimum lot area of 3,500 sf in a-1-3.5 zone applies only where the lot contains an existing single-family dwelling that meets setback, density, and lot coverage standards; variances under this section are subject to Type I procedure. Lot Width - Minimum 75 ftZ 55 Ftp 50 fe 50 ftZ So It 50 ft (feet) 2Width shall not exceed depth Lot Depth (feet) -Minimum 80 ft [so It 80 It I SO ft $oft 80 ft - maximum3 1150 ft 115o ft 150 ft 1250% of width 1250% of width 125046 of FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), both parcels meet the minimum lot depth and width standards for the R-1-7.5 zoning district. As proposed, Parcel 1 is 7,622ft2 and Parcel 2, is 7,958ft2. The standard Is met. 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands A. General Requirements, The following general require ments shall apply in Hillside Lands: 1. Buildable Area. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35 percent shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Exceptions may he granted to this requirement only as provided in subsection 18.3.10.090, H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35 percent shall be considered buildable for one single-family dwelling and an accessory residential unit or a duplex in accordance with the standards in sections 18, 2.3, 040 and 1$.2.3.170. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), the elevation of the property at its highest point is approximately 2118 feet. The property slopes to Hillview Drive to a final site elevation of approximately 2112 feet. The resulting slope is approximately 3.2 percent (2118-2112 = 6 feet/190 feet (riselrun)). The site has a slope substantially less than 35 feet, The standard is met. 2. Building Envelf3 e. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35 percent or less. APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 4 of 15 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; a. The street is indicated on the Street Dedication reap. b_ The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35 percent slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), the elevation of the property at its highest point is approximately 2118 feet. The property slopes to Hillview Drive to a final site elevation of approximately 2112 feet. The resulting slope for the building envelope for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 is less than 5 percent. The slope of the proposed driveway does not exceed 35 percent, The standard is met. 0. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height (DBH) identified by DBH, species, and approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified, Croups of trees in close proximity (i.e., those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on. the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. 2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. The following factors shall be included in this determination: a. Tree Health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than nonvigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Longevity. Potential longevity. e. Variety, A variety of native tree species and ages. f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. FINDING As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), there are thirty-nine (39) trees on the subject property. The Tree Survey completed by Canopy, LLC, (Exhibit C) identifies all trees on the property and details their suitability for conservation. The survey includes the tree health, structure species health, variety and size. The survey identifies fifteen (15) trees that are suitable APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 5 of 15 for conservation. The other trees listed are either within the proposed building footprint, in poor health or a potential fire hazard, The standard is met. 3. Tree Conservation in Proiect Design. Significant conifer trees having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH), and broadleaf trees having a trunk 12 caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height (OBH), shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. a. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. See Figure 18.3.90.090. Q. 3-a. : Existing site with significant trees Sensitive development option for property Figure M3.10.090.D.3.a. Site Planning for Tree Preservation b. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the general fuel modification standards if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. C. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. FINDING: The proposed Tentative Plat (Exhibit B) and building footprints were designed in a manner that minimizes tree removal_ A number of trees on the northwest and northeast corners of the property have been proposed for protection. There are six (6) trees planned for removal on Parcel 1. Trees 6, 7, 9 and 10 are all within the proposed building envelop of Parcel 1 and in either poor or moderate health. Trees 11 and 12 are in moderate health condition and are located within the proposed access easement. There are nine (9) trees on Parcel 2. Trees 14-17 are within the proposed building envelope, Only one of the trees (Tree 16) is in good health. This tree is approximately 9 inches DBH. Tree 17 is a Birch, 7.5 inches DBH and is dead. Trees 29-33 are also within the proposed building envelope of Parcel 2. With exception to Tree 31, all trees are 12 inches or smaller and Tree 33 is dead. The location of the trees to be protected are outside of any potential utility areas and will not be impacted by the development with appropriate tree protection measures in place. The standard is met. 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: a, All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install tree protection APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 6 of 15 fencing in accordance with section 18.4.5.030.C. Prior to any construction activity, the site shall be inspected pursuant to section 18.4.5.430.©. b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction, and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. G. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading pleas; as approved by the City and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the drip line, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. d. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter. FINDING: As required by this section, the applicant engaged the services of Canopy, LLC. to prepare a Tree Protection Plan. The plan, dated April 12, 2022 {Exhlbit Cj, addresses onsite protection measures that must take place in order to protect the trees not proposed for removal_ The plan includes mitigation measures for tree protection zone, soil compaction, tree care, root protection and watering. The standard is met. 5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. C, The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in subsection 18.3.10.090.D.2. e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. f. The tree is identified for removal as part of an approved Fire Prevention and Control Plan per subsection 18.3.10.10Q.A, or with the exception of significant trees the tree removal is recommended by the Fire Code Official, and approved by the Staff Advisor, as part of a comprehensive fuels reduction strategy to implement a General Fuel Modification Area consistent with subsection 18.3. 10. 100. B. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), there are thirty-nine (39) trees on the subject property. The Tree Survey completed by Canopy, LLC. (Exhibit Cy identifies all trees on the property and details their suitability for conservation. The survey includes the tree health, structure species health, variety and size. The survey identifies fifteen (15) trees that are suitable APPLICATION FINDING$ Page 7 of 15 for conservation. The other trees listed are either within the proposed building footprint, in poor health or a potential fire hazard. The proposed Tentative flat (Exhibit B) and building footprints were designed in a manner that minimizes tree removal. A number of trees on the northwest and northeast corners of the property have been proposed for protection. There are six (6) trees planned for removal on Parcel 1. Trees 6, 7, 9 and 10 are all within the proposed building envelop of Parcel 1 and in either poor or moderate health. Trees 11 and 12 are in moderate health condition and are located within the proposed access easement. There are nine (9) trees on Parcel 2. Trees 14-17 are within the proposed building envelope. Only one of the trees (Tree 16) is in good health. This tree is approximately 9 inches DBH. Tree 17 is a Birch, 7.5 inches DBH and is dead. Trees 29-33 are also within the proposed building envelope of Parcel 2. With exception to Tree 31, all trees are 12 inches or smaller and Tree 33 is dead. The location of the trees to be protected are outside of any potential utility areas and will not be impacted by the development with appropriate tree protection measures in place. The standard is met. - 6. Tree Rep a4Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, a hazard, or to comply with General Fuel Modification Area requirements, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a free replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also Indicate tree planting details, b. Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the properly. See Figure 18.3,10,090. D_ 6_ b. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion, and increase slope stability. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the Wildfire Prevention and Control Plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. FINDING: As shown in the Tree Inventory (Exhibit C), many of the trees proposed for removal are in poor health or deemed a fire hazard by their type. The applicant acknowledges that there are some trees within the building envelope that are in good condition and agrees to replace all trees over 12 inches DBH (broadleaf) or 18 inches DBH (conifer)_ Considering the development constraints (i -e. setbacks, solar, roof orientation and other onsite development considerations, the applicant respectfully requests that a replanting plan be a condition of development approval. The standard is met. 18.3.10.100 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands A. Requirements for Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, Site Design Review or Partitions. APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 8 of 15 2. Plan Submission Requirements. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan, prepared at the same scale as the development plans, shall address the General Fuel Modification Area requirements outlined in subsection 18.3,10. 100.81 and include the submission materials listed below. The Staff Advisor may waive a plan submittal requirement if the Staff Advisor determines it is not reasonably necessary in order to make a decision on the application. a. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures, parking areas and driveways on the property. b. The location, dimension, and grade of fire apparatus access reads and driveways serving all structures on the property. C. The location and dimensions of all structures upon adjoining properties located within 30 feet of a shared property line. d. The location of all existing and proposed fire hydrants. e, Site contours showing two -foot intervals detailing elevation and slope. F. A tree and vegetation management plan showing: 1. Areas where shrubs and bushes will be removed including a description of the species and size; U. Areas where trees will be removed to reduce interlocking tree canopies including a description of the species and diameter at breast height {SBH}; W. New trees, shrubs and bushes to be planted including the species, location and size at maturity; iv. Significant trees to be retained. g. The location of and information addressing required General Fuel Modification Area setback areas as described in subsection 78.3,10.700.B. h, A schedule and timetable for vegetation removal and thinning shall be included in the Fire Prevention and Control Plan. An exception to the implementation schedule may be granted by the Fire Code Official. FINDING: The proposed Fire Prevention and Control Plan (Exhibit F) identifies all structures upon adjoining properties within 30 feet of the shared property line_ The plan also shows the location of existing fire hydrants. The Tree Survey (Exhibit C) provides the required vegetation management plan, including trees to removed, their caliper and species and trees to remain. Upon approval of the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), vegetation removal and thinning will commence unless otherwise prohibited due to fire danger. The standard is met. 3. Approval Criteria. The hearing authority, in consultation with the Fire Code Official, shall approve the Fire Prevention and Control Plan upon demonstration of compliance with the standards required by this chapter. a. In order to meet the purpose and standards of this chapter the hearing authority, in consultation with the Fire Code Official, may require the following through the imposition of conditions attached to the approval: i. Delineation of areas of heavy vegetation to be thinned and a formal plan for such thinning. ii. Clearing of sufficient vegetation to reduce fuel load. iii. Removal of all dead and dying trees. iv. Relocation of proposed structures and roads to reduce the risks of wildfire and improve the chances of successful fire suppression. V. Preservation or planting a sufficient number of trees and plants for erosion prevention and enhancement of water resources. APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 9 of 15 FINDING: Although overgrown, the site does not have areas of heavy vegetation in need of thinning. As shown in the Site Photos (Exhibit E), the area is covered in high grass and new blackberry growth. The site includes a few moderately sized shrubs that will likely be removed as part of the redevelopment of both parcels. All trees identified as dead or dying in the Tree Survey (Exhibit C) will be removed. Reduction of the high grass, blackberries and dead trees as shown on the Fire Prevention and Control Plan (Exhibit F) will reduce the risks of wildfire and improve the changes of successful fire suppression. The standard is met. 4. Fire Prevention and Control Plan Maintenance. The property owner of a lot, or homeowners' association for areas held in common, shall be responsible for maintaining the property in accord with the requirements of the Fire Prevention and Control Pian approved by the hearing authority. a. Provisions for the maintenance of a required Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the development, or otherwise recorded in the Jackson County real property records, and the City shall be named as a beneficiary of such covenants, restrictions, and conditions. FINDING: Upon approval of the Tentative Plat, the applicant agrees to record the Fire Prevention and Control Plan as necessary. The standard is met with conditions. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location. 3_ In all residential zones, off-street parking in a front yard for all vehicles, including trailers and recreational vehicles, is limited to a contiguous area no more than 25 percent of the area of the front yard, or a contiguous area 25 feet wide and the depth of the front yard, whichever is greater. Since parking in violation of this section is occasional in nature, and is incidental to the primary use of the site, no vested rights are deemed to exist and violations of this section are not subject to the protection of the nonconforming use sections of this code. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), the street frontage of Parcel 1 is 82 feet; therefore, the no more than 15 percent of the front yard is consumed by parking. Parcel 2 will take access from the public alley and include a standard residential driveway. The standard is met, 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded, FINDING: The subject parcel is an individual lot or record and is not part of a tract. The standard is met. APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 10 of 15 B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. FINDING: The proposed two parcels will not impede development of any adjoining land or access thereto as development is to be confined within the two proposed parcels and access readily exists to the adjoining property east of the subject parcels, along a public alley and west along Hillview Drive. The standard is met, C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. FINDING. As demonstrated in the findings herein, the proposed partition conforms to all applicable city ordinance. No adopted neighborhood or district plans were identified in the pre -application memo, and none appear to be present In the area_ The standard is met. D. The tract of lana has not been partitioned for 12 months. FINDING: No partitions have been approved or submitted in the past 12 months. The standard is met. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18,2 ., any applicable overlay zone requirements, per pail 18.3, and any applicable development standard's, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). FINDING: The proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying R-1-7.5 zone per Chapter 18.2 as well as 183 and 18.4 relating to lot dimension, coverage requirements, solar access, vehicular access, etc. As shown on the Tentative Plat, building envelopes are large enough to allow for all Solar Access Standards to be met. Solar access will be verified at the time of each parcel's building permit, Tree preservation, hillside standards and: wildfire standards are addressed in the findings above. The standard is met. F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 98.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 1$,5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. FINDING: Access to the Parcel 1 is from Hillview Drive, utilizing the existing curb cut and will otherwise conform to the standards in Section 18.4.3,080. Findings of compliance for Section 18.4.3-080 are addressed above. The proposal includes a request for a flag lot, therefore the provisions of Section 18.5.3.060 apply and are addressed below. The standard is met. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. FINDING: All utilities are available in Hillview Drive and will be extended through the private access and utility easement shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B) to Parcel 2. No addition right of way dedication required_ The standard is met. APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 11 of 15 18,5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria The approval authority shall approve a preliminary plat application for a flag lot partition only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The criteria of section 98.5.3.050 are met FINDING: The criteria of section 18.5.3.050 are addressed in the findings above and either meet or meet with conditions. The standard is met. B. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B) both parcels exceed the minimum lot area, exclusive of the flag pole area. The standard is met. C. Flag drives shalt be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the some flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), the flag pole is part of Parcel 2 and includes an access and utility easement of 10 feet for Parcel 1. The flag pole will owned by the owner of Parcel 2. The standard is met. D. Except as provided in subsection 18.5.3.060-H, below, the flag drive serving a single flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet and contain a 12 foot wide paved driving surface. For drives serving two flag lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with a 15 foot wide driving surface to the back of the first lot, and a 12 foot wide driving surface to the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Width shall be increased on turns where necessary to ensure fire apparatus remain on a paved surface during travel. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), Parcel 2 will take access from the public alley. Subsection 18.5.3.060(H) applies to this application and allows for a flag pole 8 feet in width, provided a 4 -foot paved pedestrian path is provided. Based on subsection 18.5.3.060(H), the 15 foot flag pole width requirement and 12 -foot paving surface does not apply. Parcel 1 will use the proposed flag pole and additional easement (2 feet) for vehicular access. The driveway will be paved to accommodate vehicle access, but minimized to the 4 -foot paved surface area where vehicular access is not necessary. The standard is met. E Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. No more than two flag lots are served by the flag drive. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), Parcel 1 will utilize the existing curb cut for access. Parcel 2 will access from the public alley. No more than two flag lots are served by the proposed access. The standard is met. APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 12 of 1$ Ashland Pianning Department June 17, 2022 51 Winburn Way Ashland Oregon 97520 Attn: Aaron Anderson Subject: PA -T1-2022-00185, 897 Hillview Response to Partition and Construction Proposal, amended. Dear Mr. Anderson I have concerns with the application as proposed. This partition application contains some errors and does not seem to compiy with code requirements. Concerns with the submitted planning action application PA -T1-2022-00185: A. Building footprint to constructed over the 10' TI D easement on TID runoff line located parallel to the north parcel boundary. Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat 1. Exhibit "A" (SW Y4NEY4 SEC 15 T39S RlE WM Jackson Co.) does not demonstrate Talent irrigation District 10' easement located along 897 Hillview [hive north boundary, as depicted on my section plat, when I purchased my home in the mid 1980s, 2. Archived section maps prior to 1970s,may need to be accessed. B. 18,53.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section V: Access to individual lots to conform to standards in sections 18.5.3,080, 18.5.3.060. 1. Finding: Access to proposed lots will be from a shared access, utilizing the existing curb cut out conforming to Section 18.14.3.080" 1. Pedestrian walkway (Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat) or proposed driveway (Exhibit "F", Fire Prevention and Control Plan),,,., Which is it? 2. is the developer planning to use the front yard as a parking lot for both parcel 1 and 2? 3. Would structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. a. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy and possibly not passable at various times of the year "Proposal does not include a request for a Flag Lot" C. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design 1. Parking, this is not described clearly i. No off street parking provided. Parcel 1, 15' structure footprint setback from Hillview Drive (east parcel boundary) does not provide enough room for off street vehicle. ii. No off street parking provided. Parcel 2, 15' structure footprint setback from unimproved dirt alley (west parcel 2 boundary). 1. Is parcel 2 access from the west parcel 2 boundary? D. Setbacks: Comparison to other homes located in the general vicinity 1. 15' Parcel 1 structure footprint setback is out of character for the neighborhood (east property boundary). 2. Parcel 1, 10' backyard building setback, really? 3. Parcel 2, 10' back yard building setback, really? 4. Parcel 1 and 2, 6' side lot access L 10' Talent Irrigation District easement? 1. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. E. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section 'G': Proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities to conform to street design standards part (18.4). 1. Provision not met. 2, Structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. 3. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy at various times of the year 4. Rain water run off... This is a real issue. Runoff from homes on Harmony Lane above the alley flow north-east down the alley. The alley stops at the corner of 897 and 895 Hillview and has nowhere to go. Historically, during the winter, rain water runoff has run through 897, 895, 893, and 873 Hillview Drive unabated. i. I have personally invested several thousand dollars to install 800+ feet of 4'deep lined French drain to remove water runoff from my property and abate runoff onto 893 and 873 Hillview. ii. I was forced to raise my house 16" in altitude during rebuilding my foundation to protect my house from water runoff. Water still runs under my house and into the garage during hard rains. iii. I had to partially regrade my property to redirect runoff at north and south partition boundaries iv. Regrading is still needed on the south side of my house to further redirect water runoff away from the house. 5. 893 Hillview sometimes experiences runoff into their back bedroom even with additional surface drain tile installed on my north boundary line. 6. Aspen nuisance trees that are located along 897 Hillview south parcel boundary are planted too close to the parcel boundary line, within 5 feet of 895 Hillview French drain line parallel to the parcel boundary line. Roots and runners clogging lines are reducing water runoff collection capability. Aspen leaves are a nuisance in the fall F. Abate and collect water runoff 1. Property owners at 897 Hillview and on Harmony Lane, above the unimproved dirt alley, should be required to abate and collect water runoff 2. City of Ashland would be required regrade the alley and stabilize the substrate i. City of Ashland would need to coordinate with Talent Irrigation District since the alley carries the shallow, main 6" irrigation pipe and most likely has seniority easement rights. 3. The City of Ashland should be required to construct a collection point at the end of the alley and remove runoff through the TID easement through the alley. G. I object to the possible street address renumbering for my house (895) to accommodate the two new street addresses caused by the 897 partition division Inconvenience, having to change my address on legal documents, checks, passports, etc. 1. Time consumed 2. Monetary cost Based on the above, I request that the application be denied as not complying with the minimum requirements of City code Please acknowledge return receipt if this reply. Best regards, Jon Charles Smith PO Box 802 895 Hillview Drive Ashland Oregon, 97520 PS. I feel that dividing this lot into 2 parcels, is out of character for the neighborhood, regardless of what has happened in the past. An example of poorly executed division and structure construction of aesthetic questionability is the lot split of 831 and 843 Hillview Drive. It is time to learn from mistakes. I request that the lot split into two parcels would be denied. A single, larger structure would be in character and suit the neighborhood better. Ashland Planning Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland Oregon 97520 Attn: Aaron Anderson Subject: PA -T1-2022-00185, 897 Hillview Response to Partition and Construction Proposal Dear Mr. Anderson I have concerns with the application as proposed. June 17, 2022 This partition application contains some errors and does not seem to comply with code requirements. Concerns with the submitted planning action application PA -T1-2022-00185: A. Building footprint to constructed over the 10' TID easement on TID runoff line located parallel to the north parcel boundary. Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat 1. Exhibit "A" (SW % NE % SEC 15 T39S R1E WM Jackson Co.) does not demonstrate Talent Irrigation District 10' easement located along 899 Hillview Drive north boundary, as depicted on my section plat, when I purchased my home in the mid 1980s. 2. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. B. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section 'F': Access to individual lots to conform to standards in sections 18.5.3.080, 18.5.3.060. 1. Finding: Access to proposed lots will be from a shared access, utilizing the existing curb cut out conforming to Section 18.14.3.080" 1. Pedestrian walkway (Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat) or proposed driveway (Exhibit "F", Fire Prevention and Control Plan)... Which is it? 2. Is the developer planning to use the front yard as a parking lot for both parcel 1 and 2? 3. Would structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. a. Ailey behind 897 Hillview is swampy and possibly not passable at various times of the year "Proposal does not include a request for a Flag Lot" C. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design 1. Parking, this is not described clearly i. No off street parking provided. Parcel 1, 15' structure footprint setback from Hillview Drive (east parcel boundary) does not provide enough room for off street vehicle. No off street parking provided. Parcel 2, 15' structure footprint setback from unimproved dirt alley (west parcel 2 boundary). 1. Is parcel 2 access from the west parcel 2 boundary? D. Setbacks: Comparison to other homes located in the general vicinity 1. 15' Parcel 1 structure footprint setback is out of character for the neighborhood (east property boundary). 2. Parcel 1, 10' back yard building setback, really? 3. Parcel 2, 10' back yard building setback, really? 4. Parcel 1 and 2, 6' side lot access 10' Talent Irrigation District easement? 1. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. E. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section 'G': Proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities to conform to street design standards part (18.4). 1. Provision not met. 2. Structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. 3. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy at various times of the year 4. Rain water run off... This is a real issue. Runoff from homes on Harmony lane above the alley flow north-east down the alley. The alley stops at the corner of 897 and 895 Hillview and has nowhere to go. Historically, during the winter, rain water runoff has run through 897, 895, 893, and 873 Hillview Drive unabated. i. I have personally invested several thousand dollars to install 800+ feet of 4'deep lined French drain to remove water runoff from my property and abate runoff onto 893 and 873 Hillview. ii. I was forced to raise my house 16" in altitude during rebuilding my foundation to protect my house from water runoff. Water still runs under my house and into the garage during hard rains. iii. I had to partially regrade my property to redirect runoff at north and south partition boundaries iv. Regrading is still needed on the south side of my house to further redirect water runoff away from the house. 5. 893 Hillview sometimes experiences runoff into their back bedroom even with additional surface drain tile installed on my north boundary line. 6. Aspen nuisance trees that are located along 897 Hillview south parcel boundary are planted too close to the parcel boundary line, within 5 feet of 895 Hillview French drain line parallel to the parcel boundary line. Roots and runners clogging lines are reducing water runoff collection capability. Aspen leaves are a nuisance in the fall F. Abate and collect water runoff 1. Property owners at 897 Hillview and on Harmony Lane, above the unimproved dirt alley, should be required to abate and collect water runoff 2. City of Ashland would be required regrade the alley and stabilize the substrate i. City of Ashland would need to coordinate with Talent Irrigation District since the alley carries the shallow, main 5" irrigation pipe and most likely has seniority easement rights. 3. The City of Ashland should be required to construct a collection point at the end of the alley and remove runoff through the TID easement through the alley. G. I object to the possible street address renumbering for my house (895) to accommodate the two new street addresses caused by the 897 partition division i. Inconvenience, having to change my address on legal documents, checks, passports, etc. 1. Time consumed 2. Monetary cost Based on the above, I request that the application be denied as not complying with the minimum requirements of City code Please acknowledge return receipt if this reply. Best regards, Jon Charles Smith PO Box 802 895 Hillview Drive Ashland Oregon, 97520 PS. I feel that dividing this lot into 2 parcels, is out of character for the neighborhood, regardless of what has happened in the past. An example of poorly executed division and structure construction of aesthetic questionability is the lot split of 831 and 843 Hillview Drive. It is time to learn from mistakes. I request that the lot split into two parcels would be denied. A single, larger structure would be in character and suit the neighborhood better. Zoning Map OW. 0 80 180 Feet City of Ashland N I inch = 80 feet Date Printed: 112712022 NEW 0 9Fk- � � f ro 3 i� a 0 From: Ronald Doyle To: Regan Trapp Subject: Re: PA -Ti -2022-00185-897 Hillview Drive Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 9:12:17 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Thank you for your notification, I need to correct a misstatement I made in my earlier submittal. I live within 200 feet ( 2 lots south), not 100 feet, from 897 Hillview. Ronald L. Doyle On Jun 17, 2022, at 3:50 PM, Regan Trapp <Regan.Trapon.ashland.or.us> wrote: Your comment in regards to 897 Hiilview Drive has been received. We will add this to the record of the application. Thank you, Permit Technician II —Community Development City of Ashland OPTA Secretary & Membership Chair R n r Main Line: 541-488-5305 Desk line: 541-552-2233 TTY 800-735-2900 541-488-6006 (fax) This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records lav for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact ane at 541-552-2233. Thank you. From: Ronald Doyle <rldoyle49C@gmai1.com> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 3:09 PM To; planning <planning( ash land.or.us> Subject: PA -T1-2022-00185-897 Hillview Drive [EXTERNAL SENDER] I am writing to object to this application. My name is Ronald L. Doyle. My address is 945 Hillview Drive, Ashland. I received written notice of this application, and live within 100 feet of the property line. Approving this application as submitted will cause adverse impacts on my property. The application sloes not meet the approval criteria of the Ashland Municipal Code. Section 1824.010 requires each lot to abut (adjacent to and touching) a public street other than an alley for a width of not less than 40 feet, 25 feet in the case of a flag lot. Proposed Lot 2 does not abut a public street; it abuts a semi -abandoned, unpaved alley. Applicant's proposed findings say that the pole on Lot 2 provides frontage to Hillview. That pole frontage on Hillview is only 8 feet wide. The 82 feet of alley frontage for Lot 2 does not meet the public street frontage width requirement for either a flag lot or standard lot. Section 18.5.3.060.P requires minimum useable yard areas of 20 feet by 20 feet (400 square feet). Neither proposed lot appears to have a minimum useable yard area. The proposed plat's building envelopes appear to preclude meeting the required yard areas. Subsection K of this section requires each lot to have 3 parking spaces, yet those are not shown on this application. It is impossible to find that the yard requirements can be met without seeing how the code parking requirements are going to be placed on the proposed lots. Dated this 17fth day of June, 2022. Ronald L Doyle From: Asha Barnes To: planning Subject: 897 Hillview drive Date: Friday, dune 17, 2022 9:25:39 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] To whom it may concern. We have some great concerns over the plans we have been shown for the changes to the alleyway that butts up to our property. We have an organic garden and pay for our TID and we're concerned that part of your changes will affect our TID. We would fake to receive a copy of the impact statement for this zoning proposal and how it will affect our TID. Respectfully, John and Asha Barnes 910 Harmony Lane From; ben cochran To:planning Subject. PA -T1-2022-00185 Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 3:56:50 PM [EXTERNAL SENDE] Reference to.....PA-TI-2022-00185 Good day„ My neighbor just informed my oil the notice.. [he sent one to me was probably tossed as junk Un knowingly.... I would kindly like it to be known of my displeasure in hearing of this proposed plan ... Using the Alley as a main access would not be nice for those of Lis who use that alley.... Also my neighbor a few houses up got shut down on this very thing a few years ago... I this company was allowed to use the alley now as a main access it would not be fair to him so see it :now opened Lip... I also think it will be a call of worms cause if this is allowed the that would eventually iriean that every house oil this alley would now be granted access to use, it too so they could build axilery buildings in the back of [lie lots... So T understand the need for infill—if that is the primary goal then make a Variance to allow for a flag lot on the property please and keep the traffic on main roads and not alleys... Thanks Ben Cochran 942 harmony In From: dave dedinskv To: Aaron Anderson;la�nning Subject: Planning Action: PA--Ti-2022-00185 Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 8:41:47 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hello. As residents of over twenty years at the adjoining property at 932 Harmony Lane, the purpose of this email is to state our vehement opposition to Planning Action: PA -T1-2022-00185, which proposes a lot partition into two separate resultant parcels at 897 Hillview Drive. Planning Action: PA -T1-2022-00185 does not satisfy ALL ordinance criteria of Preliminary Partition Plat 18.5.3.050. The following is a list of objections to this plat partition: 1) Planning Action: PA -T1-2022-00185 sets a precedent for higher density residential zoning in a historically single family neighborhood, permanently destroying the character of the area that has attracted families, including ours, to purchase and keep homes in this neighborhood. 2) Planning Action: PATI -2022-00185 encourages property speculators, absentee ownership and rental unit development, which leads to deteriorating property and negative impacts due to higher crime from higher density neighborhoods. 3) Planning Action: PA -T1-2022-00185 will negatively impact urban wildlife and pollinators, due to habitat that is replaced with higher density dwellings. 4) Planning Action: PA -T1-2022-00185 will destroy a grove of aspen trees that have significant benefits of absorbing water runoff in this swale of land. Without these trees, water runoff will be redirected to adjoining properties with negative impact. 5) Planning Action: PA -T1-2022-00185 will intensify light pollution, reduce airflow and increase water runoff to neighboring properties. 6) Planning Action: PA -T1-2022-00185 will negatively impact all neighbors that access their properties via the alley off Ross Lane, adding traffic flow and impeding access to properties in an area previously unaffected by added vehicles moving through a fragile and unimproved alley surface that due to water flow in this area will not sustain a new roadbed. The alley off Ross Lane is not wide enough to accommodate Minimum Street Improvements criteria. Additionally, with budget shortfalls, Street Improvements proposed for the alley off Ross Lane are in opposition with the City of Ashland's proposal for spending reductions, especially considering these Street Improvements would benefit only the party developing the lot at 897 Hillview Drive and no one else. 7) Planning Action: PA -TI -2022-00185 will negatively impact residents of adjoining properties that use the extremely fragile and very scarce resource that is the T.I.D. system that neighbors have historically relied on to keep properties green and healthy. 8) Planning Action: PA -Tl -2022-00185 does not allow enough space between buildings, violating established coding setbacks from adjoining properties. 9) Planning Action: PA -T1-2022-00185 encourages higher density residential areas, which in turn discourages long time area residents from remaining in this neighborhood. We implore the City of Ashland Planning Department to reject Planning Action: PA -T1-2022- 00185 allowing for the continued duality of life that initially attracted us and will hopefully encourage us to remain in this city and in this neighborhood specifically. Sincerely, David Dedinsky & Carolyn Self From, robert frey To- Acton Atidam ;p�anning Subject: Comments on Planning Action PA -TI -2022-001.85, 897 HiUview Dr Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 7:40M PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Mr. Anderson and Planning Department, We are writing to express opposition to the planned lot split as proposed in Planning Action PA -TI - 2022 -00.1.85. We own and live at 964 Harmony Lane with an eastern property line adjacent to the unimproved dirt alley between Harmony and Hillview, With sole street access via this unimproved dirt alley, the proposed western lot would create a nuiisance with increased traffic creating increased noise and hazardous dust, No one with property adjacent to this dirt alley uses it as a primary property access let alone exclusive access. The dirt alley was not designed for or should be considered a sole -access to anyone's property. The area is a calm space with very little traffic. I believe everyone currently living adjacent to it want to stay the same. And just as the City is finally doing something about the hazardous dust of Ross Lane we do not want a new source of dust polluting our property and lungs. We expect that all sides of this proposed lot split are considered. We are strongly opposed to the proposed plan. Certainly the lot can be split in a design with primary access for both new lots on Hillview. I apologize for the late comments but, although we were informed of the proposed lot split earlier, we only learned of the lot split design using the unimproved dirt alley this evening. Respectively, Robert Frey and Rosemary McAuley 964 Harmony Lane Sent frorn Mail for Windows From: Keith Kleinedler To: plannmg Subject: Fwd: comments for planning ac on 897 Hillview Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 10:33:59 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Don't know if you got this the first time. 1 received a failure notice. Sent front my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Keith Kleinedler <kleinedler53@yahoo.com> Date: June 17, 2022 at 8:38:18 PM PDT To: plannning@ashland.or.us,, aai-ori.aridei-son@asliland.,or.us Subject: comments for planning action 897 Hillview Hello Planning Department - My address, is 873 Hillview. I'm three houses down the street from 897. I've lived here since 1993. I have several comments regarding the Tentative Partition Plat . First- I see that the house on the street (parcel 1) has a 15 foot setback from the street. This is completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. No homes in this neighborhood are that close to the street. Second- the Parcel 2 has alley access. T.I.D. has a 4 inch pipe which runs down the alley - it's the irrigation water for my house, and all the homes below 897. Does T. I.D. know that you're providing access to this parcel across their easement? If the alley access on top of the pipe results in breaking the pipe, there will be considerable flooding until the water is shut off, and then the neighborhood below 897 will have no irrigation (during the irrigation season- which has been, in the past , Memorial Day until the end of September) until a repair is made. Third- where is the parking for Parcell 2 going to be? The alley? Again, out of character, How about a driveway, like all the other homes have. Fourth- the alley is more or less a swampy type of soil. Does the city intend to excavate down a foot or more, and back fill with gravel? The alley in it's current state isn't used much- but if it's going to be the access for a home, then, the current alley may need to be upgraded. Does the City have the funds to upgrade the alley? It appears that the City is in a minor financial crisis. I just got a survey in the rnaill asking me question about trimming the budget. Fifth- are there going to be driveways/garages for these two parcels? Or is parking going to be on the street and in the alley? Presently, to the best of my knowledge, the homes on Hillview have off street parking. No off street parking would be out of character for this neighborhood. Sixth- where are the yards for these two parcels? Hillview homes have yards, What I'm seeing from this Tentative Partition Plat is a building envelope which goes to the setbacks - which again would be out of character for the neighborhood. Seventh- These homes would be only ten feet apart- if one home were to have a structure fire, it could easily spread to the second home. Did we learn a few things from the Almeda Fire? None of the homes on Hillview are separated by such a small distance. Again, out out of character with the neighborhood. Maybe this Tentative Partition needs to be re -thought- Respectfully - Keith Kleinedler From: Chuck Smith To: Aaron Anderson Cc:Ian nnino Subject: Response to Application PA -Ti -2 22-0085, address correction, TZD easement maps Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 4:56:43 PM Attachments: 897 Hillview Parcel Division complaint B.docx [EXTERNAL SENDER] Ashland Planning Department June 17, 2022 51 Winburn Way Ashland Oregon 97520 Attn: Aaron Anderson Subject: PA -T1-2022-00185, 897 Hillview Response to Partition and Construction Proposal Diagrams of Talent Irrigation District easement plat Attachments: Corrections to TID easement location address (897, not 899) Section (1) map of TID easement located on 897 Hillview Drive Section (2) map of TID easement located on 897 Hillview Drive Dear Mr. Anderson, Below is an corrected amendment to my original letter (also attached) A. Building footprint to constructed over the 10' TID easement on TID runoff line located parallel to the north parcel boundary. Exhibit "B', Tentative Partition Plat 1. Exhibit "A" (SW 74 NE "4 SEC 15 T39S R1E WM Jackson Co.) does not demonstrate Talent Irrigation District 10' easement located along $97,, NOT 899 Hillview Drive north boundary, as depicted on my section plat, when I purchased my home in the mid 1980s. 2. Archived section maps mode prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. Subsequent maps do not show the easement. Also, attached are two maps depicting the location of the Talent Irrigation District's 10' easement along the north boundary line of 897 Hillview Drive. I suspect that there is another TID easement running the length of the alley for both the 6" irrigation water line and the "run-off" line. There is a posted TID Irrigation District irrigation pipe identification sign located in the middle of the alley roughly at the 897 and 899 Hillview Drive west corner boundaries. This is the location where the ground in the alley gets fairly soupy. TID has assured me in the past, that their lines are not leaking and that it is most likely runoff from springs. Best regards, Chuck Smith From: Chuck Smith Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 3:56 PM To: Aaron Anderson Cc: planning(@ashland.or.us Subject: RE: Response to Application PA -T1-2 22-0085 Ashland Planning Department June 17, 2022 51 Winburn Way Ashland Oregon 97520 Attn: Aaron Anderson Subject: PA -T1-2022-00185, 897 Hillview Response to Partition and Construction Proposal Dear Mr. Anderson I have concerns with the application as proposed. This partition application contains some errors and does not seem to comply with code requirements. Concerns with the submitted planning action application PA -T1-2022-00185: B. Building footprint to constructed over the 10' TID easement on TID runoff line located parallel to the north parcel boundary. Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat 1. Exhibit "A" (SW % ISE % SEC 15 T39S RlE WM Jackson Co.) does not demonstrate Talent Irrigation District 10' easement located along 899 Hillview Drive north boundary, as depicted on my section plat, when I purchased my home in the mid 1980s. 2. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. C. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section `i=': Access to individual lots to conform to standards in sections 18.5.3.080, 18.5.3.060, 1. Finding: Access to proposed lots will be from a shared access, utilizing the existing curb cut out conforming to Section 18.14.3.080" 1. Pedestrian walkway (Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat) or proposed driveway (Exhibit "F", Fire Prevention and Control Plan)... Which is it? 2. Is the developer planning to use the front yard as a parking lot for both parcel 1 and 2? 3. Would structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. a. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy and possibly not passable at various times of the year H. "Proposal does not include a request for a Flag Lot" D. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design 1. Parking, this is not described clearly I. No off street parking provided. Parcel 1, 15' structure footprint setback from Hillview Drive (east parcel boundary) does not provide enough room for off street vehicle. H. No off street parking provided. Parcel 2, 15' structure footprint setback from unimproved dirt alley (west parcel 2 boundary). 1. Is parcel 2 access from the west parcel 2 boundary? E. Setbacks: Comparison to other homes located in the general vicinity 1. 15' Parcel 1 structure footprint setback is out of character forthe neighborhood (east property boundary). 2. Parcel 1, 10' backyard building setback, really? 3. Parcel 2, 10' backyard building setback, really? 4. Parcel 1 and 2, 6' side lot access i. 10' Talent Irrigation District easement on north parcel boundry? 1. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. F. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section 'G'; Proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities to conform to street design standards part (18.4). 1. Provision not met. 2. Structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. 3. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy at various times of the year 4. Rain water run off... This is a real issue. Runoff from homes on Harmony Lane above the alley flow north-east down the alley. The alley stops at the corner of 897 and 895 Hillview and has nowhere to go. Historically, during the winter, rain water runoff has run through 897, 895, 893, and 873 Hillview Drive unabated. i. I have personally invested several thousand dollars to install 800+ feet of 4'deep lined French drain to remove water runoff from my property and abate runoff onto 893 and 873 Hillview. ii. I was forced to raise my house 16" in altitude during rebuilding my foundation to protect my house from water runoff. Water still runs under my house and into the garage during hard rains. iii. I had to partially regrade my property to redirect runoff at north and south partition boundaries iv. Regrading is still needed on the south side of my house to further redirect water runoff away from the house. S. 893 Hillview sometimes experiences runoff into their back bedroom even with additional surface drain the installed on my north boundary line. 6. Aspen nuisance trees that are located along 897 Hillview south parcel boundary are planted too close to the parcel boundary line, within 5 feet of 895 Hillview French drain line parallel to the parcel boundary line. i. Roots and runners clogging lines are reducing water runoff collection capability, ii. Aspen leaves are a nuisance In the fall G. Abate and collect water runoff 1. Property owners at 897 Hillview and on Harmony Lane, above the unimproved dirt alley, should be required to abate and collect water runoff 2. City of Ashland should be required regrade the alley and stabilize the substrate I, City of Ashland would need to coordinate with Talent Irrigation District since the alley carries the shallow, main 6" irrigation pipe and most likely has seniority easement rights. 3. The City of Ashland should he required to construct a collection point at the end of the alley and remove runoff through the TlD easement through the alley. H. I object to the possible street address renumbering for my house (895) to accommodate the two new street addresses caused by the 897 partition division i, Inconvenience, having to change my address on legal documents, checks, passports, etc. 1. Time consumed 2. Monetary cost Based on the above, I request that the application be denied as not complying with the rninimum requirements of City code Please acknowledge return receipt if this reply. Best regards, Jon Charles Smith 1011 ffewaox 895 Hillview Drive Ashland Oregon, 97520 PS. I feel that dividing this lot into 2 parcels, is out of character for the neighborhood, regardless of what has happened in the past. An example of p '"rly executed diVjs-ioa,-@,w d structure construction of aesthetic questionability is the lot split o 831 and 843 Hillview Drive .`]% is time to learn from mistakes. I request that the 161-s-p4,,�t.i,,nte-two"'p'a-rcels would be denied. A single, larger structure would be in character and suit the neighborhood better. From Carlameta To: Aaron Anderson Cc:Ip anning Subject: PA -T1-2022-00185 897Hillview Drive Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 7:31:59 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] I strongly protest this action for the following reasons. This would create more dense housing, which would create higher fire danger in the neighborhood. There would be more parking on the street, which would impact fire egress for all the people on the upper streets from Hillview. Hillview is the major artery for fire evacuation. There is a 4" TO line that would be impacted by heavy traffic to the lower end of the alley. As I understand it, there is a TO easement on the property in question. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. James R. White 939 Hillview Dr. From: Ronald Doyle To:planning Subject: PA -TI -2022-00185-897 lflMew Drive Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 3:08:41 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] I am writing to, object to this application. My name is, Ronald L. Doyle. My address is 945 Hillview Drive, Ashland. T received written notice of this application, and live within 100 feet of the property line. Approving this application as submitted will cause adverse impacts on rny property. The application does not rnect the approval criteria of the Ashland Municipal Code. Section 18.2,.4.01 O requires each lot to abut (adjacent to and touching) a public street otheiA than an alley for a width of not less, than 40 feet, 25 feet in the case of a flag lot. Proposed Lot 2 does not abut a public street; it abuts a semi -abandoned, unpaved alley. Applicant's proposed findings say that [lie pole on Lot 2 provides frontage to Hillview. That pole frontage on Hillview is only 8 feet wide. The 82 feet of alley frontage for Lot 2 does not meet the public street frontage width requirement for either a flag lot or standard lot. Section 18.5.3.060.P requires minimum useable yard areas of 20 feet by 20 feet (400 square feet). Neither proposed lot appears to have a minimum useable yard area. The proposed plat's building envelopes appear to preclude meeting the required yard areas. Subsection K of this section requires each lot to have 3 parking spaces, yet those are not shown on this application. It is impossible to find that the yard requirements can be met without seeing how the code parking requirements are going to be placed on the proposed lots. Dated this 17fth day of June, 2022. Ronald L Doyle Ashland Planning Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland Oregon 79520 Attn: Aaron Anderson Subject: PA -T1-2022-00185 Response to Proposal Dear Mr. Anderson June 17, 2022 I am filing this response to the above referenced application. We Have a number of concerns with the application as proposed: Although there is no reference within the application proper, a comment contained within the Staff letter to Cindi Dion dated May 19, 2020 attached to the application from GIS Staff indicates that the City will renumber my house and the property on the north side of the property to accommodate the proposed land division. We strongly oppose this requirement! The time and expense to change residence information on passports, drivers' licenses, vehicle registrations, banking, medical contacts and mortgage documents, to name just a few of the changes needed, is substantial. This renumbering is not needed, but for the proposed division. As there is no additional vehicular access proposed off of Hillview and the property is only 82 feet wide, the geographic location of the property is already addressed by the existing house number. The application indicates all vehicular access to parcel 2 will be via an unimproved alley from Ross Lane therefore the proposed parcel 2 could be addressed off of Ross Lane. As an alternative, the new units could be addressed by simply adding a number extension (i.e., 987A, 987B). Implementing either if the above options will avoid the adverse impacts and expense of requiring the neighbors to renumber. The application does not seem to comply with the requirements as set forth in code. For simplicity I have included the entire code but have highlighted the areas of concern. My comments are in bold and follow each highlighted section 118.5.3.050Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. 1 A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 15.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). This finding seems to address uses and compliance with codes and plans. This section does not seem to address compliance with minimum parcel size requirements which is my concern. . ards in section 1'x.4.3;08 Veincle Area See Comments Below on paragraph "18.5.3.060 - H" G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18. , and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. The Application Findings do NOT address the following sections H through K H ;Unpaved S leets 2. Unpaved Streets. The PdbRc Works Director. may allow an unpaved sheet far' access for 2 and surfaced as required in chapter prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the city. b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent, c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would. produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street .and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs, and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing) of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. 1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. See Comments Below on paragraph "1:8-5.3.060 - H" I Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.06OAdditional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria r The approval authority shall approve a preliminary plat application for a flag lot partition only where all of the following criteria are rnet. A. The criteria of section are met, B. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the st meet the i riurri square footage requirements of the zoning district. , 01" By my calculation (82ft x 87ft =7'1 34 sq. ft.) The proposed parcel 2 does not meet the minimum parcel size required by the zoniing. C. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. D. Except as provided in subsection [ 4.5.3.OGO.N, below, the flag drive serving a single flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet and contain a 12 foot wide paved driving surface. For drives serving two flag lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with a 15 foot wide driving surface to the back of the first lot, and a 12 foot wide driving surface to the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Width shall be increased on turns where necessary to ensure -fire apparatus remain on a paved surface during travel. E. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. No more than two flag lots are served by the flag drive. F. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances. G. Flag drives shall be constructed to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. D. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval. The design of the flag lot seems to require vehicle access be from the alley. Any improvements needed to support this design are not d. Since Alley access is a major concern, the conclusion of suff! "ency under ransportation Services (Pg 2 of Applicant Findings)" is simply a aked Findin ' since it does not detail what improvements are proposed or woul ` ed. At this time there is no way for the public to determine if the proposed improvements will be sufficient to address the increased use of the alley. The Municipal Code, Title 11, Vehicles and Traffic, contains the following definition. 11.08.00 Alley Means a narrow street through the middle of a block(Ord. 1557 § 2(1), amended, 1965) Further Figure 18.4.6.040.6.6. Alley sets a standard of 12 ft paved with 2 ft gravel or planted strips on both sides. While there may be a basis for reducing the 4 improvement to less than the apparent code requirement, there is again no way to evaluate the proposed reduction: there is no discussion of the physical condition of the alley, the ability of the alley to serve as primary access to an additional parcel any proposed improvements to the alley On 6/612022 1 spoke with Karl Johnson, Assistant Engineer, City of Ashland and he stated that he does not have any proposed design yet which could be evaluated. 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole. 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flagpole and improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface connecting the street to the buildable area of the flag lot. 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flag lot clearly visible from the street on a four - inch by four -inch post that is 3 1/2feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers three inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two foot by three foot white sign clearly visible from the street with three-inch black numbers. f. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. J. When required by the Oregon Fire Code, fla drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround (see Figure 18.4.6.040.6.5. The Staff Advisor, in coordination with the Fire Code Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround requirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in length as allowed by Oregon Fire Code access exemptions. K Each flag lot:has at least three parking spaces situated to'eliminate the ;necessity for vehicles backing out: The Proposed lot does not show how this requirement is met. In fact, the "Building Envelope" as designated may actually preclude compliance. The application should be revised to show compliance with this requirement. L. There shall be no parking within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on either side of the flag drive entrance. M. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in part 18.6, shall provide a fire work area of 20 feet by 40 feet clear of vertical obstructions and within 50 feet of the structure. The fire work area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. 61 N. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a sight -obscuring fence, wall or fire- resistant broadleaf evergreen sight -obscuring hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed to ensure fire apparatus access is not obstructed by the encroachment of mature landscaping. O. The applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Department an agreement between applicant and the City for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Public Works Director and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening pursuant to this section, and assurance ongoing maintenance. P. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. (Ord. 3158 § 9, amended, 09/18/2018) Under "Transportation Services (Pg 2 of Applicant Findings)" the applicant states "improvement to the alley and Hillview Drive (i.e., sidewalks) will be completed as necessary. The Tree Preservation Plan as proposed precludes any sidewalks along Hillview. In addition, a very short section of sidewalk which would not connect to any other sidewalk would serve no useful purpose. Based upon all of the above we recommend that the application be denied as not complying with the minimum requirements of City code In the alternative the application consideration should be postponed to allow the applicant time to revise the application to comply with the requirements of code. We look forward to seeing your review and decision on the application. Respectfully submitted, Robert And Christine Sellman 899 Hillview Drive Ashland 0 From: Chu___k Smith To: Aaron Anderson Cc:Ian nninp Subject: RE: Response to Application PA -Tl -2 22-0085 Bate: Friday, June 17, 2022 3:56:45 PM Attachments: 897 Hiliview Parcel Division Complaint.docx [EXTERNAL SENDER] Ashland Planning Department June 17, 2022 51 Winburn Way Ashland Oregon 97520 Attn: Aaron Anderson Subject: PA -TI -2022-00185, 897 Hillview Response to Partition and Construction Proposal Dear Mr. Anderson I have concerns with the application as proposed. This partition application contains some errors and does not seem to comply with code requirements. Concerns with the submitted planning action application PA -T1--2022-00185: A. Building footprint to constructed over the 10' TID easement on TID runoff line located parallel to the north parcel boundary. Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat 1. Exhibit "A" (SW % NE % SEC 15 T39S RIE WM Jackson Co.) does not demonstrate Talent Irrigation District 10' easement located along 899 Hillview Drive north boundary, as depicted on my section plat, when I purchased my home in the mid 1980s. 2. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. B. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section 'F': Access to individual lots to conform to standards in sections 18.5.3.080, 18.5.3.060. 1. Finding: i. Access to proposed lots will be from a shared access, utilizing the existing curb cutout conforming to Section 18.14.3.080" 1. Pedestrian walkway (Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat) or proposed driveway (Exhibit "F", Fire Prevention and Control Plan)... Which is it? 2. Is the developer planning to use the front yard as a parking lot for both parcel 1 and 2? 3. Would structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. a. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy and possibly not passable at various times of the year ii. "Proposal does not include a request for a Flag Lot" C. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design 1. Parking, this is not described clearly i. No off street parking provided. Parcel 1, 15' structure footprint setback from Hillview Drive (east parcel boundary) does not provide enough room for off street vehicle. ii. No off street parking provided. Parcel 2, 15' structure footprint setback from unimproved dirt alley (west parcel 2 boundary). 1. Is parcel 2 access from the west parcel 2 boundary? D. Setbacks: Comparison to other homes located in the general vicinity 1. 15' Parcel 1 structure footprint setback is out of character for the neighborhood (east property boundary). 2. Parcel 1, 10' back yard building setback, really? 3. Parcel 2, 10' back yard building setback, really? 4. Parcel 1 and 2, 6' side lot access i. 10' Talent Irrigation District easement on north parcel boundry? 1. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. L. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section 'G': Proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities to conform to street design standards part (18.4). I. Provision not met. 2. Structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. 3. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy at various times of the year 4. Rainwater runoff... This is a real issue. Runoff from homes on Harmony Lane above the alley flow north-east down the alley. The alley stops at the corner of 897 and 895 Hiliview and has nowhere to go. Historically, during the winter, rain water runoff has run through 897, 895, 893, and 873 Hillview Drive unabated. i. I have personally invested several thousand dollars to install 800+ feet of 4'deep lined French drain to remove water runoff from my property and abate runoff onto 893 and 873 Hillview. H. I was forced to raise my house 16" in altitude during rebuilding my foundation to protect my house from water runoff. Water still runs under my house and into the garage during hard rains. iii. I had to partially regrade my property to redirect runoff at north and south partition boundaries iv. Regrading is still needed on the south side of my house to further redirect water runoff away from the house. S. 893 Hillview sometimes experiences runoff into their back bedroom even with additional surface drain tile installed on my north boundary line. 6. Aspen nuisance trees that are located along 897 Hillview south parcel boundary are planted too close to the parcel boundary line, within 5 feet of 895 Hillview French drain line parallel to the parcel boundary line. L Roots and runners clogging lines are reducing water runoff collection capability. ii. Aspen leaves are a nuisance in the fall F. Abate and collect water runoff 1. Property owners at 897 Hillview and on Harmony Lane, above the unimproved dirt alley, should be required to abate and collect water runoff 2, City of Ashland should be required regrade the alley and stabilize the substrate i. City of Ashland would need to coordinate with Talent Irrigation District since the alley carries the shallow, main 6" irrigation pipe and most likely has seniority easement rights. 3. The City of Ashland should be required to construct a collection point at the end of the alley and remove runoff through the TID easement through the alley. G. I object to the possible street address renumbering for my house (895) to accommodate the two new street addresses caused by the 897 partition division i. Inconvenience, having to change my address on legal documents, checks, passports, etc. 1. Time consumed 2. Monetary cost Based on the above, I request that the application be denied as not complying with the minimum requirements of City code Please acknowledge return receipt if this reply. Best regards, Jon Charles Smith PO Box 802 895 Hillview Drive Ashland Oregon, 97520 PS. I feel that dividing this lot into 2 parcels, is out of character for the neighborhood, regardless of what has happened in the past. An example of poorly executed division and structure construction of aesthetic questionability is the lot split of 831 and 843 Hillview Drive. It is time to learn from mistakes. I request that the lot split into two parcels would be denied. A single, larger structure would be in character and suit the neighborhood better. From- 0112 C—k 3 -TT -11 tLi To. AAn P�i i d_ Cc: d2an "I Subject: Response to Application PA -TI -2 22-0085, address correction, TID easement maps Date: Friday, June 1.7, 2022 4:5663 PM Attachments: HZ±1_0 _Um [EXTERNAL SENDER] Ashland Planning Department June 17, 2022 51 Winburn Way Ashland Oregon 97520 Attn: Aaron Anderson Subject: PA -T1-2022-00185, 897 Hillview Response to Partition and Construction Proposal Diagrams of Talent Irrigation District easement plat Attachments: Corrections to TID easement location address (897, not 899) Section (1) map of TlD easement located on 897 Hillview Drive Section (2) map of TID easernent located on 897 Hillview Drive Dear Mr. Anderson, Below is an corrected amendment to my original letter (also attached) A. Building footprint to constructed over the 10' TID easement ora TID runoff line located parallel to the north parcel boundary. Exhibit "B', Tentative Partition Plat 1, Exhibit "A- (SWX NE SEC 15 T39S R1 WMJackson Co.) does not demonstrate Talent Irrigation District I Oeasement located along 89.7 NOT 899 Hillview Drive north boundary, as depicted on my section plot, when I purchased my home in the INTITUT. "I 2. ,archived section mops made prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. Subsequent maps do not show the easement, Also, attached are two maps depicting the location of the Talent Irrigation District's 10' easement along the north boundary line of 897 Hillview Drive, I Suspect that there is another TID easement running the length of the alley for both the 6" irrigation water line and the "run-off" line. There is a posted TID Irrigation District irrigation pipe identification sign located in the middle of the alley roughly at the 897 and 899 Hillview Drive west corner boundaries. This is the location where the ground in the alley gets fairly soupy. TID has assured me in the past, that their lines are not leaking and that it is most likely runoff from springs. Best regards, Chuck Smith Fnom:l3I��i�[Di�� Sent: Friday, June 17,2022356PK1 To: Cc: Subject: RE: Response to Apph,cation PA -T1-2 22-0085 Ashland Planning Department June 17,2Q22 51VVinburDWay Ashland Oregon 9757D Attn� Aaron Anderson Subject: PA -TI -2022-00185, 897 Hillview Response to Partition and Construction Proposal Dear Mr. Anderson I have concerns with the application as proposed. This partition application contains some errors and does not seem tocomply with code requirements. Concerns with the submitted planning action application PAl-1-2022-80185: B. Building footprint &oconstructed over the IO UOeasement onTlOrunoff line located parallel to the north parcel boundary. Exhibit °B°, Tentative Partition Mat 1. Exhibit "A" (SW X NE X SEC 15 T39S R1E WIV Jackson Co.) does not demonstrate Talent Irrigation District 10' easementlocated along 899 Hillview Drive north boundary, as depicted on my section plat when | purchased n0yhome inthe mid 1980s. 2. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. C. 1.8.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Crrter�a, Section V: Access to individual lots to conform to standards in sections 18,5.3.080, 1&5.1060, 1 Finding: i Access to proposed lots will be from a shared access, utilizing the existing curb Cut out conforming to Section 18.14,3,080" 1, Pedestrian walkway (Exhibit ^B",Tentative Partition Plat) orproposed driveway (Exhibit "F", Fire Prevention and Control Plan).,.. Which is it? l Is the developer planning to use, -the front yard as a parking lot for both parcel 1and 27 3. VVnu|d structure access to Parcel 2from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2property boundary. a. Alley behind 897Hillview isswampy and possibly not passable at various times of the year ii. "Proposal does not include a request for a Flag Lot" D. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design 1. Parking, this is not described clearly i. No off street parking provided. Parcel 1, 15' structure footprint setback from Hillview Drive (east parcel boundary) does not provide enough room for off street vehicle. ii. No off street parking provided. Parcel 2, 15' structure footprint setback from unimproved dirt alley (west parcel 2 boundary). 1. Is parcel 2 access from the west parcel 2 boundary? E. Setbacks: Comparison to other homes located in the general vicinity 1. 15' Parcel 1 structure footprint setback is out of character forthe neighborhood (east property boundary). 2. Parcel 1, 10' backyard building setback, really? 3. Parcel 2, 10' hack yard building setback, really? 4. Parcel 1 and 2, 6' side lot access i. 10' Talent Irrigation District easement on north parcel boundry? 1. Archived section reaps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. F. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section 'G': Proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities to conform to street design standards part (18.4). 1. Provision not met. 2. Structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. 3. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy at various times of the year 4. Rain water run off— This is a real issue. Runoff from homes on Harmony Lane above the alley flow north-east down the alley. The alley stops at the corner of 897 and 895 Hillview and has nowhere to go. Historically, during the winter, rain water runoff has run through 897, 895, 893, and 873 Hillview Drive unabated. i. I have personally invested several thousand dollars to install 800+ feet of 4'deep lined French drain to remove water runoff from my property and abate runoff onto 893 and 873 Hillview. ii. I was forced to raise my house 16" in altitude during rebuilding my foundation to protect my house from water runoff. Water still runs under my house and into the garage during hard rains. iii. 1 had to partially regrade my property to redirect runoff at north and south partition boundaries iv. Regrading is still needed on the south side of my house to further redirect water runoff away from the house. 5. 893 Hillview sometimes experiences runoff into their back bedroom even with additional surface drain tile installed on my north boundary line. 6. Aspen nuisance trees that are located along 897 Hillview south parcel boundary are planted too close to the parcel boundary line, within 5 feet of 895 Hillview French drain line parallel to the parcel boundary line. i. Roots and runners clogging lines are reducing water runoff collection capability. ii. Aspen leaves are a nuisance in the fall G. Abate and collect water runoff 1. Property owners at 897 Hillview and on Harmony Lane, above the unimproved dirt alley, should be required to abate and collect water runoff 2. City of Ashland should be required regrade the alley and stabilize the substrate L City of Ashland would need to coordinate with Talent Irrigation District since the alley carries the shallow, main 6" irrigation pipe and most likely has seniority easement rights. 3. The City of Ashland should be required to construct a collection point at the end of the alley and remove runoff through the TID easement through the alley. H. I object to the possible street address renumbering for my house (895) to accommodate the two new street addresses caused by the 897 partition division Inconvenience, having to change my address on legal documents, checks, passports, etc. 1. Time consumed 2. Monetary cost Based on the above, I request that the application be denied as not complying with the minimum requirements of City code Please acknowledge return receipt if this reply. Best regards, .ton Charles Smith PO Box 802 895 Hillview Drive Ashland Oregon, 97520 PS. I feel that dividing this lot into 2 parcels, is out of characterfor the neighborhood, regardless of what has happened in the past. An example of poorly executed division and structure construction of aesthetic questionability is the lot split of 831 and 843 Hillview Drive. It is time to learn from mistakes. I request that the lot split into two parcels would be denied. A single, larger structure would be in character and suit the neighborhood better. Ashland Planning Department June 17, 2022 51 Winburn Way Ashland Oregon 97520 Attn: Aaron Anderson Subject: PA -T1-2022-00185, 897 Hillview Response to Partition and Construction Proposal, amended. Dear Mr. Anderson I have concerns with the application as proposed. This partition application contains some errors and does not seem to comply with code requirements. Concerns with the submitted planning action application PA -T1-2022-00185: A. Building footprint to constructed over the 10' TID easement on TID runoff line located parallel to the north parcel boundary. Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat 1. Exhibit "A" (SW % NE % SEC 15 T39S RIE WM Jackson Co.) does not demonstrate Talent Irrigation District 10' easement located along 897 Hillview Drive north boundary, as depicted on my section plat, when I purchased my home in the mid 1980s. 2. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. B. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section `F': Access to individual lots to conform to standards in sections 18.5.3.080, 18.5.3.060. 1. Finding: L Access to proposed lots will be from a shared access, utilizing the existing curb cut out conforming to Section 18.14.3.080" 1. Pedestrian walkway (Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat) or proposed driveway (Exhibit "F", Fire Prevention and Control Plan)... Which is it? 2. Is the developer planning to use the front yard as a parking lot for both parcel 1 and 2? 3. Would structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. a. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy and possibly not passable at various times of the year ii. "Proposal does not include a request for a Flag Lot" C. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design 1. Parking, this is not described clearly L No off street parking provided. Parcel 1, 15' structure footprint setback from Hillview Drive (east parcel boundary) does not provide enough room for off street vehicle. No off street parking provided. Parcel 2, 15' structure footprint setback from unimproved dirt alley (west parcel 2 boundary). 1. Is parcel 2 access from the west parcel 2 boundary? D. Setbacks: Comparison to other homes located in the general vicinity 1. 15' Parcel 1 structure footprint setback is out of character for the neighborhood (east property boundary). 2. Parcel 1, 10' back yard building setback, really? 3. Parcel 2, 10' back yard building setback, really? 4. Parcel 1 and 2, 6' side lot access 10' Talent Irrigation District easement? 1. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. E. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section 'G': Proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities to conform to street design standards part (18.4). 1. Provision not met. 2. Structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. 3. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy at various times of the year 4. Rain water run off... This is a real issue. Runoff from homes on Harmony Lane above the alley flow north-east down the alley. The alley stops at the corner of 897 and 895 Hillview and has nowhere to go. Historically, during the winter, rain water runoff has run through 897, 895, 893, and 873 Hillview Drive unabated. L I have personally invested several thousand dollars to install 800+ feet of 4'deep lined French drain to remove water runoff from my property and abate runoff onto 893 and 873 Hillview. ii. I was forced to raise my house 16" in altitude during rebuilding my foundation to protect my house from water runoff. Water still runs under my house and into the garage during hard rains. iii. I had to partially regrade my property to redirect runoff at north and south partition boundaries iv. Regrading is still needed on the south side of my house to further redirect water runoff away from the house. 5. 893 Hillview sometimes experiences runoff into their back bedroom even with additional surface drain tile installed on my north boundary line. 6. Aspen nuisance trees that are located along 897 Hillview south parcel boundary are planted too close to the parcel boundary line, within 5 feet of 895 Hillview French drain line parallel to the parcel boundary line. i. Roots and runners clogging lines are reducing water runoff collection capability. ii. Aspen leaves are a nuisance in the fall F. Abate and collect water runoff 1. Property owners at 897 Hillview and on Harmony Lane, above the unimproved dirt alley, should be required to abate and collect water runoff 2. City of Ashland would be required regrade the alley and stabilize the substrate i. City of Ashland would need to coordinate with Talent Irrigation District since the alley carries the shallow, main 6" irrigation pipe and most likely has seniority easement rights. 3. The City of Ashland should be required to construct a collection point at the end of the alley and remove runoff through the TID easement through the alley. G. I object to the possible street address renumbering for my house (895) to accommodate the two new street addresses caused by the 897 partition division Inconvenience, having to change my address on legal documents, checks, passports, etc. 1. Time consumed 2. Monetary cost Based on the above, I request that the application be denied as not complying with the minimum requirements of City code Please acknowledge return receipt if this reply. Best regards, Jon Charles Smith PO Box 802 895 Hillview Drive Ashland Oregon, 97520 PS. I feel that dividing this lot into 2 parcels, is out of character for the neighborhood, regardless of what has happened in the past. An example of poorly executed division and structure construction of aesthetic questionability is the lot split of 831 and 843 Hillview Drive. It is time to learn from mistakes. I request that the lot split into two parcels would be denied. A single, larger structure would be in character and suit the neighborhood better. . . ....... ....... . ..... . ........... I f) I 41 80 I I From. Carlanieta To., Aa ron.AiJ__QL Cc: plan ni n q Subject- PA-TI-2022-00185 897Hillview Drive Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 7:31:59 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] I strongly protest this action for the following reasons., This would create more dense housing, which would create higher fire danger in the neighborhood. There would be moire parki�ng on the street, which would impact fire egress for all the peopile on the upper streets from Hillview. Hiliviewis the major artery for fire evacuation. There is a 4" TO line that would be impacted by h eavy traffic to the lower end of the alley. As I understand there is a TO easement on the property in question. Thank you for your consideration, of these concerns. James R. Whiite 9391 Hillview Dr., From: u2L�-q-Lrpu To: Aau�u�d�:�c�Rm�z mmmjeu: Comments onPlanning Action pa-TI-2naz-0ozas,ayrHillview o, Date: Friday, June 17,znzr�*n:cmpm [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Mr. Anderson and Planning Department, We are writing to express opposition to the, planned lot split as proposed in Planning Action PA,T1202)-00185. We own and live at 964 Harmony Lane with an eastern property line adjacent to the - unimproved dirt alley between Harmony and Ifillview. VWth sole street access via this unimproved dirt alley, the proposed western lot would create nuisance with increased traffic creating increased noise and hazardous dust, No one with property adjacent to this dirt alley uses it as a primary property access let alone exclusive access. The dirt alley was not designed for or should be considered a soie-access to anyone's property. The area is aca|m space with very little traffic. | be|ieve everyone currendy living adjacent toitwant tostay the same.And just asthe City isfinally doing something about the hazardous dust of Ross Lane we do not want a n:ew source of dust polluting our property and lungs. We expect that all sides of this proposed lot split are considered. We are strongly opposed to the proposed plan. Certainly the lot can besplit inadesign with primary access for both new lots on Hillview. I apologize for the late comments but, a|though we were informed of the proposed lot split earher, we only learned of the lot split design using the unimproved dirt alley this evening, Respectively, Robert Frey andRosemary McAuley 964 Harmony Lane Sent from.M-ail.for Windows From day tLIgAJ i nky To. Aaron Ander5gn; pLdntfinjr. Subject. Planning Action: PA -TI -2022-00185 Date: Friday, lune 17, 2022 8:41:47 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hello. As residents of over twenty years at the adjoining property at 932 Harmony Lane, the purpose of this ernail is to state our vehement opposition to Planning Action: PA -T1-2022-00185, which proposes a lot partition into two separate resultant parcels at 897 Hillview Drive. Planning Action: PA -TI -2022-00185 does not satisfy ALL ordinance criteria of Preliminary Partition Plat 18.5.3,050. The following is a list of objections to this plat partition: 1) Planning Action: PA -TI -2022-00185 sets a precedent for higher density residential zoning, in a historically single family neighborhood, permanently destroying the character of the area that has attracted families, including ours, to purchase and keep homes in this neighborhood. 2) Planning Action: PA -T1-2022-00185 encourages property speculators, absentee ownership and rental unit development, which leads to deteriorating property and negative impacts due to higher crime from higher density neighborhoods. 3) Planning Action: PA -T1-2022-00185 will negatively impact urban wildlife and pollinators, due to habitat that is replaced with higher density dwellings. 4) Planning Action: PA -TI -2022-00185 will destroy a grove of aspen trees that have significant benefits of absorbing water runoff in this swale of land. Without these trees, water runoff will be redirected to adjoining properties with negative impact. 5) Planning Action: PA -TI -2022-001.85 will intensify light pollution, reduce airflow and increase water runoff to neighboring properties. 6) Planning Action: PA -°f'1-2022-001'85 will negatively impact all neighbors that access their properties via the alley off Ross Lane, adding traffic flow and impeding access to properties in an area previously unaffected by added vehicles moving through a fragile and unimproved alley surface that dLIC to water flow in this area will not sustain a new roadbed. The alley off Ross Lane is not wide enough to accon-imodate Minimum Street Improvements criteria. Additionally, with budget shortfalls, Street Improvements proposed for the alley off Ross Lane are in opposition with the City of'Ashland's proposal for spending reductions, especially considering these Street Improvements would benefit only the party developing the lot at 897 Hillview Drive and no one else. 7).Planning Action: PA -TI -2022-00185 will negatively impact residents of adjoining properties that use the extremely fragile and very scarce resource that is the T.I.D. system that neighbors have historically relied on to keep properties green and healthy, 8) Planning Action: PA -TI -2022-00185 does not allow enough space between buildings, violating established coding setbacks frorn adjoining properties, 9) Planning Action: PA -T1-2022-00 1 85 encourages higher density residential areas, which in turn discourages long time area residents from remaining in this neighborhood. We implore the City of Ashland Planning Department to reject Planning Action: PA -TI -2022- 00 185 allowing for the continued quality of life that initially attracted us and will hopefully encourage Lis to remain in this city and in this neighborhood specifically. Sincerely, David Dedinsky & Carolyn Self From: Ro�na �I Qgy.Lc To: B-C&L1 rlx2 Subject: Re: PA -T1-.2022-00185-897 Hillview Drive Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 9:12:17 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Thank you for your notification, I need to correct a misstatement I made in my earlier submittal. I live within 200 feet ( 2 lots South), not 100 feet, from 897 Hillview. Ronald 1,— Doyle On Jun 17, 2022, at 3:50 PIA, Regan Trapp <Ee wrote: YOUrcornment in regards to 897 Hillview Drive has been received. We will add this to the record of the application. Thank YOU, Rql-eto Permit Technician 11— Community Development City of Ashland OPT A Secretary & Membership Chair Re an.TratmPashland.orms Main Line: 541-488-5305 Desk line: 541-552-2233 TTY 800-735-29010 541-488-6006 (fiax) This einail is offickfl business ol"Itic, (110, of'Asldand, and it is subjecl to OR-L�gon pubhe records haw for disclosure and relenfiogi, If You have received this Ines'sage in error, ph."Ise collil'ad Inn at 541-552-2233, Thank you. From: Ronald Doyle —U) ml> Sent: Friday, ]Line 1.7, 2022 109 PM To- planning <111.o - .11=. J F > Subject: PA -T1-2022-00185-897 Hillview Drive [EXTERNAL SENDER] I am writing to object to this application, My name is Ronald L. Doyle, My address is 945 Hillview Drive, Ashland. I received written notice of this application, and live within 1.00 feel of the property line. Approving this application as submitted will cause adverse impacts on my property. The application does not meet the approval criteria of the Ashland IVILII'licipal Code. Section 18.2.4.010 requires each lot to abut (adjacent to and touching) a public street other than an alley for a width of not less than 40 feet, 25 feet in the case of a flag lot. Proposed Lot 2 does not abut a public street; it abuts a semi -abandoned, unpaved alley. Applicant's proposed findings say that the pole on Lot 2 provides frontage to Hillview. That pole frontage on Hillview is only 8 feet wide. The 82 feet of alley frontage for Lot 2 does not meet the public street frontage width requirement for either a flag lot or standard lot. Section 18.5.3.060.P requires minimum useable yard areas of 20 feet by 20 feet (400 square feet). Neither proposed lot appears to have a minimum useable yard area. The proposed plat's building envelopes appear to preclude meeting the required yard areas. Subsection K of this section requires each lot to have 3 parking spaces, yet those are not shown on this application. It is impossible to find that the yard requirements can be met without seeing how the code parking requirements are going to be placed on the proposed lots. Dated this 17fth day of June, 2022. Ronald L Doyle Fromt Asha Barnes To- PALI-InIng Subject: 897 Hillview Drive Date: Friday, AMC 17, 2022 9:25:39 RM [EXTERNAL SENDER] TO whom it may concern.. We have some great concerns Over the plans we have been shown for the changes to the alleyway that bLIttS Lip to our property. We have: an organic garden and pay for ow -']ID and were concerned that part Of YOLII- changes will affect our TID. We would like to receive a copy of the impact statement for this zoning proposal and how it will affect our'"I'll). Respectful ly, John and Asha Barnes 910 Harmony Lane From: &P_iUi J_16n.2d_gr To: P11 r �ic Subject: Fwd: comnients for planning action 897 Kliview Date: Friday, 3une 17, 2022 10:33:59 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Don't know if you got this the first time. I received a failure notice. Sent from my Whone Begin forwarded message: Frorn: Keith Kleinedler <kleinedler53Ca�yahoo.corn> Date: June 17, 2022 at 8:38:18 PM PDT To: plannning( o ,ashland.or.us, aaron anderson@)ash land. Or. LIS Subject: corritnents for planning action 897 Hillview Hello Planning Department - My address is 873 Hillview. I'm three houses down the street from 897. I've lived here since 1993. I have several comments regarding the Tentative Partition Plat . First- I see that the house on the street (parcel 1 has a 15 foot setback from the street. This is completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. No homes in this neighborhood are that close to the street. Second- the Parcel 2 has alley access. T.I.D. has a 4 inch pipe which runs down the alley - it's the irrigation water for my house, and all the homes below 897. Does T.I.D. know that you're providing access to this parcel across their easement? If the alley access on top of the pipe results in breaking the pipe, there will be: considerable flooding until the water is shut off, and then the neighborhood below 897 will have no irrigation (during the irrigation season- which has been, in the past , Memorial Day until the end of Septernber) until a repair is made. Third- where is the parking for Parcel 2 going to be? The alley? Again, out of character. How about a driveway, like ail the other homes have. Fourth- the alley is more or less a swampy type of soil. Does the city intend to excavate down a foot or more, and back fill with gravel? The alley in it's current state isn't used much- but if its going to be the access for a home, then the current alley may need to be upgraded. Does the City have the funds to upgrade the alley? It appears that the City is in a minor financial crisis. I just got a survey in the mail asking me question about trimming the budget. Fifth- are there going to be driveways/garages for these two parcels? Or is parking going to be on the street and in the alley? Presently, to the best of my knowledge, the homes on Hillview have off street parking. No off street parking Would be out of character for this neighborhood. Sixth- where are the yards for these two parcels? Hillview homes have yards. What I'm seeing from this Tentative Partition Plat is a building envelope which goes to the setbacks - which again would be out of character for the neighborhood. Seventh- These homes would be only ten feet apart- if one home were to have a structure fire, it could easily spread to the second home. [did we learn a few things from the Almeda Fire? None of the homes on Hillview are separated by such a small distance. Again, out out of character with the neighborhood. Maybe this Tentative Partition needs to be re -thought- Respectfully - Keith Kleinedler Ashland Planning Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland Oregon 97520 Attn: Aaron Anderson Subject: PA -T1-2022-00185, 897 Hillview Response to Partition and Construction Proposal Dear Mr. Anderson I have concerns with the application as proposed. June 17, 2022 This partition application contains some errors and does not seem to comply with code requirements. Concerns with the submitted planning action application PA -T1-2022-00185: A. Building footprint to constructed over the 10' TID easement on TID runoff line located parallel to the north parcel boundary. Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat 1. Exhibit "A" (SW % NE % SEC 15 T39S R1E WM Jackson Co.) does not demonstrate Talent Irrigation District 10' easement located along 899 Hillview Drive north boundary, as depicted on my section plat, when I purchased my home in the mid 1980s. 2. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. B. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section `F': Access to individual lots to conform to standards in sections 18.5.3.080, 18.5.3.060. 1. Finding: Access to proposed lots will be from a shared access, utilizing the existing curb cut out conforming to Section 18.14.3.080" 1. Pedestrian walkway (Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat) or proposed driveway (Exhibit "F", Fire Prevention and Control Plan)... Which is it? 2. Is the developer planning to use the front yard as a parking lot for both parcel 1 and 2? 3. Would structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. a. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy and possibly not passable at various times of the year ii. "Proposal does not include a request for a Flag Lot" C. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design 1. Parking, this is not described clearly i. No off street parking provided. Parcel 1, 15' structure footprint setback from Hillview Drive (east parcel boundary) does not provide enough room for off street vehicle. ii. No off street parking provided. Parcel 2, 15' structure footprint setback from unimproved dirt alley (west parcel 2 boundary). 1. Is parcel 2 access from the west parcel 2 boundary? D. Setbacks: Comparison to other homes located in the general vicinity 1. 15' Parcel 1 structure footprint setback is out of character for the neighborhood (east property boundary). 2. Parcel 1, 10' backyard building setback, really? 3. Parcel 2, 10' backyard building setback, really? 4. Parcel 1 and 2, 6' side lot access 10' Talent Irrigation District easement? 1. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section 'G': Proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities to conform to street design standards part (18.4). 1. Provision not met. 2. Structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. 3. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy at various times of the year 4. Rain water run off... This is a real issue. Runoff from homes on Harmony Lane above the alley flow north-east down the alley. The alley stops at the corner of 897 and 895 Hillview and has nowhere to go. Historically, during the winter, rain water runoff has run through 897, 895, 893, and 873 Hillview Drive unabated. i. I have personally invested several thousand dollars to install 800+ feet of 4'deep lined French drain to remove water runoff from my property and abate runoff onto 893 and 873 Hillview. ii. I was forced to raise my house 16" in altitude during rebuilding my foundation to protect my house from water runoff. Water still runs under my house and into the garage during hard rains. iii. I had to partially regrade my property to redirect runoff at north and south partition boundaries iv. Regrading is still needed on the south side of my house to further redirect water runoff away from the house. 5. 893 Hillview sometimes experiences runoff into their back bedroom even with additional surface drain tile installed on my north boundary line. 6. Aspen nuisance trees that are located along 897 Hillview south parcel boundary are planted too close to the parcel boundary line, within 5 feet of 895 Hillview French drain line parallel to the parcel boundary line. Roots and runners clogging lines are reducing water runoff collection capability. Aspen leaves are a nuisance in the fall F. Abate and collect water runoff 1. Property owners at 897 Hillview and on Harmony Lane, above the unimproved dirt alley, should be required to abate and collect water runoff 2. City of Ashland would be required regrade the alley and stabilize the substrate i. City of Ashland would need to coordinate with Talent Irrigation district since the alley carries the shallow, main 6" irrigation pipe and most likely has seniority easement rights. 3. The City of Ashland should be required to construct a collection point at the end of the alley and remove runoff through the TID easement through the alley. G. 1 object to the possible street address renumbering for my house (895) to accommodate the two new street addresses caused by the 897 partition division Inconvenience, having to change my address on legal documents, checks, passports, etc. 1. Time consumed 2. Monetary cost Based on the above, I request that the application be denied as not complying with the minimum requirements of City code Please acknowledge return receipt if this reply. Best regards, Jon Charles Smith PO Box 802 895 Hillview Drive Ashland Oregon, 97520 PS. I feel that dividing this lot into 2 parcels, is out of character for the neighborhood, regardless of what has happened in the past. An example of poorly executed division and structure construction of aesthetic questionability is the lot split of 831 and 843 Hillview Drive. It is time to learn from mistakes. I request that the lot split into two parcels would be denied. A single, larger structure would be in character and suit the neighborhood better. From: Ch To: Cc:: "nniggc Subject: RE Response to Application PA-TI-2 22-0085 Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 3:56:45 PM Attachments: –89LdJ1—MQvL2&rc-Ql DLvJsiQn C [EXTERNAL SENDER] Ashland Planning Department 51 Winhurn Way Ashland Oregon 97520 Attm Aaron Anderson Subject: PA -TI -2022-00185, 897 Hillview Response to Partition and Construction Proposal Dear Mr. Anderson I have concerns with the application as proposed. This partition application contains some errors and does not seem to comply with code requirements. Concerns with the, submitted planning action application PA -T1-2022-00185: A. Building footprint to constructed over the 1.0' TID easement on TID runoff line located parallel to the north parcel boundary. Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat 1. Exhibit "A" (SW 1 N X SEC 15 T39S RIE PJM Jackson Co.) does not demonstrate Talent Irrigation District 10' easement located along 899 Hillview Drive north boundary, as depicted on my section plat, when I purchased my home in the mid 1980s. 2. Archived section maps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. B. 18,53.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section 'F': Access to individual lots to conform to standards in, sections 18.53,080, 18.5.3.060. 1. Finding: i. Access to proposed lots will be from a shared access, utilizing the existing curb cut out conforming to Section 18.14.3.080" 1, Pedestrian walkway (Exhibit "B", Tentative Partition Plat) or proposed driveway (Exhibit 'T", Fire Prevention and Control Plan).., Which is it? 2. Is the developer planning to use the front yard as a parking lot for both parcel I and 2? 3. Would structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dart alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. a. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy and possibly not passable at various times of the year ii. "Proposal does not include a request for a Flag Lot" C. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design 1. Parking, this is not described clearly i. No off street parking provided. Parcel 1, 15' structure footprint setback from Hillview Drive (east parcel boundary) does not provide enough room for off street vehicle. ii. No off street parking provided. Parcel 2, 15' structure footprint setback from unimproved dirt alley (west parcel 2 boundary). 1. Is parcel 2 access from the west parcel 2 boundary? D. Setbacks: Comparison to other homes located in the general vicinity 1. 15' Parcel 1 structure footprint setback is out of character for the neighborhood (east property boundary). 2. Parcel 1, 10' backyard building setback, really? 3. Parcel 2, 10' back yard building setback, really? 4. Parcel 1 and 2, 6' side lot access i. 10' Talent Irrigation District easement on north parcel boundry? 1. Archived section reaps prior to 1970s may need to be accessed. E. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria, Section 'G': Proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities to conform to street design standards part (18.4). 1. Provision not met. 2. Structure access to Parcel 2 from an unimproved dirt alley located along the west parcel 2 property boundary. 3. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy at various times of the year 4. Rain water run off... This is a real issue, Runoff from homes on Harmony Lane above the alleyflow north-east down the alley. The alley stops at the corner of 897 and 895 Hillview and has nowhere to go. Historically, during the winter, rain water runoff has run through 897, 895, 893, and 873 Hillview Drive unabated. i. I have personally invested several thousand dollars to install 800+ feet of 4'deep lined French drain to remove water runoff from my property and abate runoff onto 893 and 873 Hillview. ii. I was forced to raise my house 16" in altitude during rebuilding my foundation to protect my house from water runoff. Water still runs under my house and into the garage during hard rains. iii. I had to partially regrade my property to redirect runoff at north and south partition boundaries iv. Regrading is still needed on the south side of my house to further redirect water runoff away from the house. 5. 893 Hillview sometimes experiences runoff into their back bedroom even with additional surface drain tile installed on my north boundary line. 6. Aspen nuisance trees that are located along 897 Hillview south parcel boundary are planted too close to the parcel boundary line, within 5 feet of 895 Hillview French drain line parallel to the parcel boundary line. i. Roots and runners clogging lines are reducing water runoff collection capability. ii. Aspen leaves are a nuisance in the fall F. Abate and collect water runoff 1. Property owners at 897 Hillview and on Harmony Lane, above the unimproved dirt alley, should be required to abate and collect water runoff 2. City of Ashland should be required regrade the alley and stabilize the substrate i. City of Ashland would need to coordinate with Talent Irrigation District since the alley carries the shallow, main 6" irrigation pipe and most likely has seniority easement rights. 3. The City of Ashland should be required to construct a collection point at the end of the alley and remove runoff through the TID easement through the alley. G. I object to the possible street address renumbering for my house (895) to accommodate the two new street addresses caused by the 897 partition division i. Inconvenience, having to change my address on legal documents, checks, passports, etc. 1. Time consumed 2. Monetary cost Based on the above, I request that the application be denied as not complying with the minimum requirements of City code Please acknowledge return receipt if this reply. Best regards, ]on Charles Smith PO Box 802 895 Hillview Drive Ashland Oregon, 97520 PS. I feel that dividing this lot into 2 parcels, is out of characterfor the neighborhood, regardless of what has happened in the past. An example of poorly executed division and structure construction of aesthetic cluestionability is the lot split of 831 and 843 Hillview Drive, It is time to learn from mistakes. I request that the lot split into two parcels would be denied. A single, larger structure would be in character and suit the neighborhood better, From: ben coghLa To: Piamma Subject: PA -TI -2022-00185 Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 3:56:50 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Reference to.....PA-TI-2022-00185 Good day, My neighbors just informed my on the notice -the sent one to me was probably tossed as junk un knowingly.... 1,would kindly like it to be known of my displeasure in hearing of this proposed plan—Using the Alley as a main access would not be nice fbi, those of us who use that alley.... Also my neighbor a few houses up got shut down on this very thing a few years ago... I this company was allowed to use the alley now as a main access it would not be fait, to him so see it now opened UP... I also think it will be a can Of WOFMS CaLISO if this is aliowed the that would eventually mean that every hOLISC, on this alley would now be granted access to use it too so they could build axilery buildings in the back ol'the lots... So I understand the need for infill ... if that is the primary goal then make a variance to allow for a flag lot on the property please and keep the traffic on main roads and not alleys... "I'hanks Bell Cochran 942 harmony In From: Ron i I d."LgyJ2 To. J:)fdI!nin.4 Subject: PA -Tl -2022-00185-897 HIMview Dr7ve Date. Friday, June 17, 2022 3:�08:41 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] I am writing to obJect to this application. My name is Ronald L. Doyle. My address is 945 Hillview Drive, Ashland. I received written notice of this application, and live within 100 feet of the property line. Approving this application as submitted will cause adverse impacts on my property. The application does not meet the approval criteria of the Ashland Municipal Code. Section 18.2.4.010 requires each lot to abut (adjacent to, and touching) a public street other than an alley for a width of not less than 40 feet, 25 feet in the case of a flag lot. Proposed Lot 2 does not abut a public street; it abuts a semi -abandoned, unpaved alley. Applicant's proposed findings say that the pole on Lot 2 provides frontage to Hiliview. That pole frontage on fliliview is only 8 feet wide. The 82 feet, of alley frontage for Lot 2 does not meet the public street frontage width requirement for either a flag lot or standard lot. Section 18,53.060T requires rninirnurn useable yard areas of 20 feet by 20 feet (400 square feet). Neither proposed lot appears to have a rninimunn useable yard area. The proposed plat's building envelopes appear to preclude meeting the required yard areas. Subsection K of this section requires each lot to have 3 parking spaces, yet those are not shown on this application. It is impossible to find that the yard requirements can be met 'Without seeing flow the code parking requirements are going to be placed on the proposed lots. bated this l7fth day of June, 2022. Ronald L Doyle Ashland Planning Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland Oregon 79520 Attn: Aaron Anderson Subject: PA -T1--2022-00185 Response to Proposal Dear Mr. Anderson June 17, 2022 I am filing this response to the above referenced application. We Have a number of concerns with the application as proposed: Although there is no reference within the application proper, a comment contained within the Staff letter to Cindi Dion dated May 19, 2020 attached to the application from GIS Staff indicates that the City will renumber my house and the property on the north side of the property to accommodate the proposed land division. We strongly oppose this requirement! The time and expense to change residence information on passports, drivers' licenses, vehicle registrations, banking, medical contacts and mortgage documents, to name just a few of the changes needed, is substantial. This renumbering is not needed, but for the proposed division. As there is no additional vehicular access proposed off of Hillview and the property is only 82 feet wide, the geographic location of the property is already addressed by the existing house number. The application indicates all vehicular access to parcel 2 will be via an unimproved alley from Ross Lane therefore the proposed parcel 2 could be addressed off of Ross Lane. As an alternative, the new units could be addressed by simply adding a number extension (i.e., 987A, 987B). Implementing either if the above options will avoid the adverse impacts and expense of requiring the neighbors to renumber. The application does not seem to comply with the requirements as set forth in code. For simplicity I have included the entire code but have highlighted the areas of concern. My comments are in bold and follow each highlighted section 18.5.3.05OPreliminary Partition Plat Criteria The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. 1 and'surfaced as required in chapterprior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City; b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten,percent? L Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition; access may be required to be provided from: the alley andprohibited frozn the `street: See Comments Below on paragraph "18.5.3.060 - H" I Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section18.5.3.060. 18.5.3.060Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria r The approval authority shall approve a preliminary plat application for a flag lot partition only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The criteria of section ] 8.5.3.050 are met. By my calculation (82ft x 87ft =7134 sq. ft.) The proposed parcel 2 does not meet the minimum parcel size required by the zoning. A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots confor to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part F]8_.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). This finding seems to address uses and compliance with codes and plans. This section does not seem to address compliance with minimum parcel size requirements which is my concern. See Comments Below on paragraph "18.5.3.060 - H" G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 14.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. The Application Findings do NOT address the following sections H through K H. ;Unpaved Streets: C. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. D. Except as provided in subsection if 8.5.3.060.H, below, the flag drive serving a single flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet and contain a 12 foot wide paved driving surface. For drives serving two flag lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with a 15 foot wide driving surface to the back of the first lot, and a 12 foot wide driving surface to the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Width shall be increased on turns where necessary to ensure fire apparatus remain on a paved surface during travel. E. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. No more than two flag lots are served by the flag drive. F. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances. G. Flag drives shall be constructed to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. H. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: ...... ................ 1. Vehicle access shall befrom the alley only where required as a condition of approval. The design of the flag lot seems to require vehicle access be from the alley. Any improvements needed to support this design are not addressed. Since Alley access is a major concern, the conclusion of sufficiency under "Transportation Services (Pg 2 of Applicant Findings)" is simply a Naked Finding" since it does not detail what improvements are proposed or would be required. At this time there is no way for the public to determine if the proposed improvements will be sufficient to address the increased use of the alley. The Municipal Code, Title 11, Vehicles and Traffic, contains the following definition. 11.08.00 Alley Means a narrow street through the middle of a block(Ord. 1557 § 2(1), amended, 1968) Further Figure 18.4.6.040.6.6. Alley sets a standard of 12 ft paved with 2 ft gravel or planted strips on both sides. While there may be a basis for reducing the M improvement to less than the apparent code requirement, there is again no way to evaluate the proposed reduction: there is no discussion of the physical condition of the alley, the ability of the alley to serve as primary access to an additional parcel any proposed improvements to the alley On 616!2022 l spoke with Karl Johnson, Assistant Engineer, City of Ashland and he stated that he does not have any proposed design yet which could be evaluated. 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole. 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flagpole and improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface connecting the street to the buildable area of the flag lot. 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flag lot clearly visible from the street on a four - inch by four -inch post that is 31/2 feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers three inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two foot by three foot white sign clearly visible from the street with three-inch black numbers. I. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. J. When required by the Oregon Fire Code, fl a drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround (see Figure 11 8.4.6.040.G.5). The Staff Advisor, in coordination with the Fire Code Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround requirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in length as allowed by Oregon Fire Code access exemptions. K. Each flag lot h as.:a.t. least three parlcing'spaces situated to eliminate the'recessity for vehicles backing oxt The Proposed lot does not show how this requirement is met. In fact, the "Building Envelope" as designated may actually preclude compliance. The application should be revised to show compliance with this requirement. L. There shall be no parking within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on either side of the flag drive entrance. M. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in part 18.6, shall provide a fire work area of 20 feet by 40 feet clear of vertical obstructions and within 50 feet of the structure. The fire work area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. 5 N. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a sight -obscuring fence, wall or fire- resistant broadleaf evergreen sight -obscuring hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed to ensure fire apparatus access is not obstructed by the encroachment of mature landscaping. O. The applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Department an agreement between applicant and the City for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Public Works Director and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening pursuant to this section, and assurance ongoing maintenance. P. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. (Ord. 3158 § 9, amended, 09/1812018) Under "Transportation Services (Pg 2 of Applicant Findings)" the applicant states "improvement to the alley and Hillview Drive (i.e., sidewalks) will be completed as necessary. The Tree Preservation Plan as proposed precludes any sidewalks along Hillview. In addition, a very short section of sidewalk which would not connect to any other sidewalk would serve no useful purpose. Based upon all of the above we recommend that the application be denied as not complying with the minimum requirements of City code In the alternative the application consideration should be postponed to allow the applicant time to revise the application to comply with the requirements of code. We look forward to seeing your review and decision on the application. Respectfully submitted, Robert And Christine Sellman 899 Hillview Drive Ashland w kq 10 "" The Ashland Planning Division Staff has r edmcomplete application for the property nc nnPage 1cfthis notice. Because ofthe CDV|[-19pondemic.application materials oraprovidedoo|ineandoommentowQboanoeptedbyemaiU.Abemmtiva arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or lannina . A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at "What's Happening in my City" at httDs://ois.aslila�iid,or.LAs/develor)rTientijrori,osals/. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community DewmUnpment&Engineering Services Building, 51 WinburnWay, via apre-arranged appointment bycalling (541)488-5385nremai|lng Any affected property owner or resident has u right to submit written comments to 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 1. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if Land Use application in complete within 30 days of submittal, Upon determination of completeness,, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period, After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make m final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the oema properties within 5 days of decision. An uppmm| to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12days from the date ufthe mailing nffinal decision. (AMC 18.51.05O.G) The ordinance &tedaapplicable tothis application are attached tothis 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 tospecify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right cfappeal to, LUBAonthat criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise oonmdtmtiuma[ur other issues relating toproposed 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 omucmm[oA this request, p|weoe feel free to contact Aaron Anderson /t 541-552,2052 or PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT i0�1050 The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approvalonly where all nfthe following criteria are met, A. The future use for urban purposes ofthe remainder ofthe tract will not beimpeded. B. The development ofthe remainder n{any adjoining land uraccess thereto will not beimpeded. C, The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D The tract o[land has not been partitioned for 12months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 183, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18,43,080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3,060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in pmt 184. and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The pm|im[nury plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H. Unpaved Streets. 1. Minimum Street Improvement. When there exists a 20 -foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector orarterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive P|an, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20 -feet with all work done Linder permit of the Public Works Department. 2. Unpaved Streets, The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. e. The unpaved street is at least 20 -feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, The City may require the street to be graded (out and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. o. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment ofthe elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the: final street elevation. d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights ofthe owner ofthe subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to partiolpate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrOUnding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines hnaoagree, then the application shall bedenied. i Where analley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J. Required State and Federal ponnits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. mmu-Co, '-2n22-0o/oNuod"cx 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 June 3, 2022 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -T1-2022-00185, 897 Hillview Drive, ichaeCSuCCivan Signature of Employee G'Acomm-devTlanning0anning Aadon51PA5 by Street HHilfviewlH gview_89?1 Hillview _897_PA-T1-2022-001851NoficingVl1€view_897_PA-Ti-2022-00185_NOC_AKidavif of Mailing,dccx 61312022 t Benc� Meng line to expose Pop-up EdqQ PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AD2304 PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AC2000 PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1900 ARVIZO JAMIE J BARNES JOHN W JR/ASHA N BROWN RYLAND A ET AL 940 HILLVIEW DR 910 HARMONY LN 922 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T1-2022-00185 PA-T1-2022-00185 PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1700 CANOPY, LLC CHARLIE HAMILTON COCHRAN BEN ET AL PO BOX 3511 125 SCHOOL HOUSE RD 942 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AC700 PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AD2400 PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AC2200 COLEMAN ALEXANDRA BIRD ET AL COOK RICHARD G TRUSTEE ET AL COSTANTINO JOANNE M REV TRUST 893 HILLVIEW DR PO BOX 692 892 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T1-2022-00185 391 E15AC1200 PA-T1-2022-00185 391 E15AC1400 PA-T1-2022-00185 391 EI5AC900 DOYLE RONALD FREY ROBERT ET AL HAMILTON CHARLES D ET AL 945 HILLVIEW DR 964 HARMONY LN PO BOX 1313 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AD5000 PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AD2303 PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AD2302 HART LINDSEY HILLENGA MARK A TRUSTEE ET AL JOHNSON JERRY TRUSTEE ET AL 44911 HWY 101 PMB 107 1480 CREEKVIEW LN 958 HILLVIEW DR LAYTONVILLE, CA 95454 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T1-2022-00185 391 E15AC601 PA-T1-2022-00185 391 E15AC2100 PA-T1-2022-00185 391 El5AD5100 KLEINEDLER KEITH M KNAPP MICHAEL EIPATRICIA A LIGHTHART ROGER 0 TRUSTEE ET 873 HILLVIEW DR 902 HARMONY LN 943 BESWICK WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T1-2022-00185 PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1600 PA-T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1300 LJ FRIAR & ASSOCIATES MAXWELL JEAN A TRUSTEE ET AL MOLAHAN KENNETH J TRUSTEE ET PO BOX 1947 950 HARMONY LN PO BOX 183 PHOENIX, OR 97535 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-T1-2022-00185 PA-T1 -2022-00185 391 E 1 5AD2308 PA-T1 -2022-00185 391 E 1 5AC 1800 PACIFIC GEOGRAPHIC CONSULTANTS SCHAEFF LINDA M TRUSTEE ET AL SELF CAROLYN F TRUSTEE ET AL 4620 FERN VALLEY RD 904 HILLVIEW DR 932 HARMONY LN MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T1-2022-00185391E15AC1000 PA-T1 -2022-00185 391 E 1 5AC800 PA-T1 -2022-00185 391 E 1 5AC1 500 SELLMAN ROBERT WISELLMAN CHRI SMITH JON CHARLES SPENCER LISA C ET AL 899 HILLVIEW DR PO BOX 802 960 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T1-2022-00185 PA-T 1 -2022-00185 3 91 E 1 5AD2309 PA-T1 -2022-00185 391 E 1 5AD2300 SUNCREST HOMES TAYLOR ROBERT KICRISPINO-TAYL TRACHTENBERG NEVA L BOTA PO BOX 1313 4041 SE GRANT CT 900 HILLVIEW DR TALENT, OR 97540 PORTLAND, OR 97214 ASHLAND, OR 97520 �y Peel •Utilisez l� PA -T1-2022-00185 391E15AC1100 WHITE JAMES R TRUSTEE ET AL 939 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 it Ernd ❑lo��g line to expose Pop up Cdge t Use /�vcry Ten�E3l;etc 5! G(} i f 897 Hillview • 06/03/22 ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division CITY OF 51 Winbw-n Way, Ashland OR 97520 F'ILE # PA -TI -2022-00185 ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 2 Lot Partition I # 0� - NN =-- RMS MINOR, My Pursuing LEEDO certification? 0 YES ig NO Assessor's Map No. 391 E 15A Tax Lot(s) 000 ME Comp Plan Designation Residential Name, Pacific Geographic Consultants, LLC Phone 541-225-'8686 E -Mail pacificgeographic@gmail.com Add,,,, 4620 Fern Valley Rd. city Medford PROPEATT Name Suncrest Homes Phone Contact Agent E -Mail l, �= Address PO Box 1313 --- City Talent — 497540 SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER Title Surveyor Name U Friar & Associates Phone 541-772-2782 R.,R,YILIDA"-,O�o 01 Title Name Address sm E-MaU 1j riara nd aseodates@ch a rler. ne t Cit, Phoen:ix Zip 97535 City Zip I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that ail 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 responsibi1q. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request, - 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that iall structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being, required to be reFr -an I am advised to seek competent professional a vicynd assistance. p9Vdd at my exp [3 7 Applicant's 9fg-0a'itU'-`re,,,, Date As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. See LOA dated 5/13/2022 Property Own,er's Signature (required) Date [ro be completed by City SlaN Date Received 5.13-2022 Zoning Permit Type 'Fyile I Filing Fee$ $1269.25 & Hmdua,Zuniug Ninth Application.cloc )( APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. PLANNING FEES FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. FINDINGS OF FACT — Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or findinN s of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and theevidence that supports it. Include information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre-Applicabon Comment document. TRUE SCALE PDF DRAWINGS — Standard scale and formatted to print no larger than 11 x17 inches. Include site plan, building el!evations, parking and landscape details. FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) LEEDOCERTIFICATION (optional) — Applicant's wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of'the following steps: • Hiring and retaining a LEED@ Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and • The LEED@) checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. NOTE: * Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. * Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s), AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. date in accordance * All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application da with ORS 227.178. * The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission meeting, (Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, wNch meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which meets at 7Z 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. Ulcamm-de Aplamlinffoms & Rmdous2oninq Ptrmit Applicalion.im PACIFIC GEOGRAPHIC CONSULTANTS, LLC. LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION 4620 Fern Valley Road Medford, Oregon 97504 Phone: 541-225-8686 Email; pacMcgeograpNc@gm@i1,com LET IT BE KNOWN THAT Pacific Geographic Consultants, LLC. has been retained to act as Agent to perform all acts for development on my property identified below, These acts include: Pre-appiication Conference, Filing applications and/or other required documents relative to all Zoning Applications, Sewage Disposal Permits and Inspections, Assigning an Address, Road Approach Permits, Manufactured Dwelling Permits, Building Permits, and Mechanical Permits (authorization not useable for Plumbing or Bectrical Permits per State regulations). 897 Hillview Drive, Ashland, OR 97520 (Address or Road) TOWNSHIP 39 RANGE JE SECTION 15AC , TAX LOT(S) 900 TOWNSHIP , RANGE _, SECTION , TAX LOT(S) THE COSTS OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS, WHICH ARE NOT SATISFICED BY THE AGENT, ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNER. PROPERTY OWNER: This a0thorization is valid for El I year; F1 2 years; [] Other PRINTED NAME: Suncrest Homes, LLC, ADDRESS: PO Box 1313 CITYISTATE/ZIP, Talent, OR 97540 CHECK ONE: Q APPLICANT [XI AGENT (Must select one) DATE: 5/1312022 PHONE: Contact Argent FAX: DATE: 5/13/2022 C. PHONE: 541-225-8686 CITY/STATE/ZIP: Medford, OR 97504 FAX: Additional, if necessary —CHECK ,;bNE.- M APP41CANT F AGENT SIGNATURE: DATE: PRINTED NAME- �" I -e El", . . . ..... 76- ADDRESS: PHONE:. CITY/STATE/ZIP: '175 - FAX: 5<4 1 5 3 5' BEFORE THE ASHLAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JACKSON COUNTY OREGON: IN THE MATTER OF A TYPE I PARTITION REVIEW ) FOR A PARCEL OF LAND ZONED RESIDENTIAL } (R-4-7.5); T.39S, RAE, SEC.I5AC, TAX LOT 900 ) FINDING OF FACT SUNCREST HOMES, OWNERS; PACIFIC } GEOGRAPHIC CONSULTANTS, LLC., AGENT ) A. Applicant Information Owners/Applicants Suncrest Homes, LLC. PO Box 1313 Talent, OR 97540 Agent Pacific Geographic Consultants, LLC 4620 Fern Valley Rd. Medford, OR 97504 Arborist Canopy, LLC_ PO Box 3511 Ashland, OR 97520 Surveyor LJ Friar & Associates, PC PO Box 1947 Phoenix, OR 97535 APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 1 of 12 B. Property Description The subject lot totals approximately 0.36 acres and is zoned Residential (R-1-7.5). The subject parcel is located at 897 Hillview Drive, a publicly owned and maintained street. The subject parcel is located within the Ashland Fire Department boundary. The subject parcel is developed with a 1,228 square foot, 2 -bedroom single family dwelling built in 1947. The existing dwelling is proposed for removal upon approval of the Tentative Plat. The property has numerous trees of various size and species and gently slopes to the west towards the public alley. Transportation Service Access is available to proposed Parcel 1 from Hillview Drive, a partially improved public street. Access to Parcel 2 will be either from the public alley or Hillview Drive. This section of Hillview Drive features partial improvements, i.e.: paved roads with curbs and gutters, but without sidewalks. Hillview Drive is identified as a "Local' Street in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). No new public streets or dedications are required as part of this request. Improvements to the public alley and Hillview Drive (i.e. sidewalks) Wastewater Service Wastewater service is currently provided to the subject parcel. Water Service Water service currently supplies the existing residence and is adjacent to the proposed new parcel. C. Proposal The request is for the approval of a preliminary plat to divide one (1) parcel: 897 Hillview Drive, into two (2) parcels. The parcel currently totals 0.36 Acres (15,580ft2). As proposed, Parcel 1 is 7,790ft2 and Parcel 2, is 7,790ft2 (EXHIBIT "B") D. Lot Legality The subject lot was first described in its original configuration in March 1951 by deed Vol. 348 Pg. 172. (EXHIBIT "A"). E. Applicable Criteria The purpose of this application is to clearly demonstrate that the subject parcel is in compliance with the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC). The applicant is proposing a partition to divide the subject property into two buildable lots. Pursuant to the AMC, the following criteria are applicable to this application: AMC Chapter 18.2.4.010 —Access and Minimum Street Frontage AMC Chapter 18.2.5.030 — Unified Standards for Residential Zone AMC Chapter 18.3.10.090 — Development Standards for Hillside Lands AMC Chapter 18.3.10.100 — Development Standards for Wildfire Lands AMC Chapter 18.4.5.030 — Tree Protection AMC Chapter 18.4.8 — Solar Access AMC Chapter 18.5.3.050 — Preliminary Plat Criteria (Partitions) APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 2 of 12 nr demonstration of com liance with WMI1111 I'll owl 11111 ININIMM11111IM11111 'WW sit, Exhibit List Exhibit A — Lot Legality Exhibit B — Preliminary Plat; Zoning Map Exhibit C — Tree Inventory and Protection Plar Exhibit D - Pre -Application Memo Exhibit E — Site Photos Exhibit F - Fire Prevention and Control Plan Each lot shall abut a publicstreet other than an alley for a width of not less than 40 feet, except, where a lot is part of an approved flag partition or abuts a cul-de-sac vehicle turn -around area, the minimum width is 25 feet. I IN .9, two frontage width of 4# Teet. ^5 pf N r a public alley. The standard is met. 18.2.5.030 Unified Standards for Residential Zone Table 18.2.5.030.A. Standards for Urban Residential Zones - Maximum Per Min. Lot Per Min. Lot Per Min. Lot Per Min. Lot Area Area Area Area See also Sec.1 —P for R-2 and R-3 Zones I Lot Area - Minim rn (square feet) - Lot 10,000 Sf 7,500 5f 5,000 sf, 6,000 5,000 sf, See density Standards in Sec. Sf for corner lots APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 3 of 12 'Exception providing for minimum lot area of 3,500 sf In R-1-3,.5 zone applies only where the lot contains an existing single- family dwelling that meets setback, density, and lot coverage standards; variances under this section are subject to Type I FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), both parcels meet the minimum lot de i pth and width standards for the R-1-7,5 zoning district, Both lots are 7790 square feet in Sze, exceeding! the minimum lot area of 75001 square feet. The standard is met. 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. Slopes greater than 35 percent shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Exceptions may be granted to this requirement only as provided in subsection 18.3.10.090,.H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35 percent shall be Considered buildable for one single-family dwelling and an accessory residential unit or a duplex in accordance with the standards in sections 18,2.3.040 and 18, 2,3, 110. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B)i, the elevation of the property at its highest point is approximately 2118 feet. The property slopes to Hillview Drive to a final site elevation of approximately 2112 feet, The resulting slope is approximately 3.2 percent (2118-2112 = 6 feet/1 90 feet (risefrun)). The site has a slope substantially less than 35 feet. The standard is met. 2. Building EnygLope. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35 percent or less. 3. New New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than, or equal to 35 percent slope with the following exceptions: APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 4 of 12 a. The street is indicated on the Street Dedication map. b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35 percent slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), the elevation of the property at its highest point is approximately 2918 feet. The property slopes to Hillview Drive to a final site elevation of approximately 2112 feet. The resulting slope for the building envelope for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 is less than 5 percent. The slope of the proposed driveway does not exceed 35 percent. The standard is met. D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: 1. Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height (DBH) identified by DBH, species, and approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (ie., those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. 2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. The following factors shall be included in this determination.- Tree etermination:Tree Health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than nonvigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. C. Species_ Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Longe . Potential longevity. e. Vade . A variety of native tree species and ages. f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), there are thirty-nine (39) trees on the subject property. The Tree Survey completed by Canopy, LLC. (Exhibit C) identifies all trees on the property and details their suitability for conservation. The survey includes the tree health, structure species health, variety and size_ The survey identifies fifteen (15) trees that are suitable for conservation. The other trees listed are either within the proposed building footprint, in poor health or a potential fire hazard. The standard is met. APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 5of12 3. Tree Conservation in Prokot DeS410. Significant conifer trees having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH), and broadleaf trees having a trunk 12 caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH), shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. a,. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands, See Figure 18.3.10,090. B. 3. a. Existing site with significant trees Sensitive development option for property Figure 18.3.10.090.D.3.a. Site Planning for Tree Preservation b. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the general fuel modification standards if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. C. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. FINDING: The proposed Tentative Plat (Exhibit B) and building footprints were designed in a manner that minimize$ tree removal. A number of trees on the northwest and northeast corners of the property have been proposed for protection. There are six (6) trees planned for removal on Parcel 1. Trees 6, 7, 9 and 10 are all within the proposed building envelop of Parcel 1 and in either poor or moderate health, Trees 11 and 12 are in moderate health condition and are located within the proposed access easement, There are nine (9) trees on Parcel 2. Trees 14-17 are wn the proposed building enve�ope. Only one of the trees (Tree 16) is in good health. This tree 'is approximately 9 inches DeH. Tree 17 is a Birch, 7.5 inches DBH and is dead. Trees 29-33 are also within the proposed building en�velope of Parcel 2. VVith exception to Tree 31, all trees are 12 inches or smaller and Tree 33 is dead. The location of the trees to be protected are outside of any potential utility areas and will not be impacted by the development with appropriate tree protection measures in place. The standard is met. 4. Tree Protection, On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: a. All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install tree protection fencing in accordance with section 1_8.4.5.030.C. Prior to any construction activity, the site shall be inspected pursuant to section If.4, d. Q30tD. APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 6 of 12 b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction, and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. cNo grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the drip line, a landscape professional may be req uired to be present during grading opera tions, a nd shall ha ve auth ority to req uire protective measures to protect the roots. d. Changes in soil hydrology end site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized, Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area Occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss, Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter. FINDING: As required by this section, the applicant engaged the services of Canopy, LLC. to prepare a Tree Protection Plan, The plan, dated April 12, 2022 (Exhiibit G), addresses onsite protection measures that must take place in order to protect the trees not proposed for removal. The plan includes mitigation measures for tree protection zone, soil compaction, tree care, root protection and watering, The standard isi met. 5. Tree Removal, Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site, The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions, - a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. C. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in subsection �1 8, 3, 1 _0,090. Q. 2. f cuts or fills that are deemed e. The tree is located within or adjacent to, areas o threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professionaL f. The tree is identified for removal as part of an approved Fire Prevention and Control Plan per subsection 18. 3. 10, 1 00._,� or with the exception of significant trees the tree removal is recommended by the Fire Code official, and approved by the Staff Advisor, as part of a comprehensive fuels reduction strategy to implement a General Fuel Modification Area consistent with subsection 18.,!, 10'..l B. FINDING: As shown,on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), there are thirty-nine (39) trees on the subject property. The Tree Survey completed by Canopy, LLC, (Exhibit C) identifies all trees on the property and details their suitability for conservation. The survey includes the tree health, structure species health, variety and size. The survey identifies fifteen (15) trees that are suitable for conservation. The other trees listed are either within the proposed building footprint, in poor health or a potential fire hazard. APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 7 of 12 The proposed Tentative Plat (Exhibit 1 and building, footprints were designed r manner that minimizes tree removal. A number of trees on the northwest and northeast corners of the property have been proposed for protection. There are six (6) trees planned for removW on Parcel 1. Trees 6, 7, 9 and 10 are all within the proposed bung envelop of Parcel 1 and in either poor or moderate health, Trees 11 and 12 are in moderate health condition and are located 'within the proposed accWss easement. There; are nine (9) trees on Parcel: 2. Trees 14-17 are within the proposed building envelope. Only one of the trees (Tree 16) is in good health. This tree is approximately 9 inches DBH. Tree 17 is a Birch, 7.5 inches DBH and is dead. Trees 29-33 are also within the proposed building envelope of Parcel 2. VVJth exception to Tree 31, all trees are 12 inches or smaller and Tree 33 is dead. The location of the trees to be protected are outside of any potential; in place. The standard is met 6. Tree Replacement, Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, a hazardor to comply with General Fuel Modification Area requirements, shall be replaced in: compliance with the following #. a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan- The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details. b. Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. See Figure 18 3 10 090. D, 6. b. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion, and increase slope stability. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the Wildfire Prevention and Control Plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. FINDING: As shown in the Tree Inventory (Exhibit C), many of the trees proposed for removal are in poor health or deemed a fire hazard by their type. The applicant acknow�edges that there are some trees within the building envelope that are in good condition and agrees to replace all trees over 12 inches DBH (broadleaf) or 18 inches DBH (conifer). Considering the development constraints (i.e. setbacks, solar, roof orientation and other onsite development considerations, the applicant respectfully requests that a replanting plan be a condition of development approvaL The standard is met. ME= A. Requirements for Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, Site Design Review or Partitions. APPLICATION FINUNGS Page 8 of 12 2, Plan Submission Requirements. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan, prepared at the same scale as the development plans, shall address the General Fuel Modification Area requirements outlined in subsection 18,3. "0.100,B and include the submission materials listed below. The Staff Advisor may waive a plan submittal requirement if the Staff Advisor determines it is not reasonably necessary in order to make a decision on the application. a. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures, parking areas and driveways on the property. apparatus access roads and driveways b. The location, dimension, and grade of fire app serving all structures on the property. roperties located within c. The location and dimensions of all structures upon adjoining p 30 feet of a shared property line, d. The location of all existing and proposed fire hydrants, e. Site contours showing two -foot intervals detailing elevation and slope. f A tree and vegetation management plan showing: n of the i. Areas where shrubs and bushes will be removed including a descriptio species and size, - ii. Areas where trees will be removed to reduce interiocking tree canopies including a description of the species and diameter at breast height (DBH); iii. New trees, shrubs and bushes to be planted including the species, location and size ze at maturity; iv. Significant trees to be retained, d General Fuel Modification Area 9. The location of and information addressing require setback areas as described in subsection 1�13,,J 0.l ur_B. h. A schedule and timetable for vegetation removal and thinning shall be included in the Fire Prevention and Control Plan. An exception to the implementation schedule may be granted by the Fire Code Official. FINDING: The proposed Fire Prevention and Control Plan (Exhibit F) identifies all structures upon adjoining properties within 30 feet of the shared property line, The plan also shows the location of existing fire hydrants. The Tree Survey (Exhibit C) provides the required vegetation management p,lan, including trees to removed, their caliper and species and trees to remain, Upon approval of the o Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), vegetation removal and thinning will commence unless•therwise prohibited •due to fire dangler. The standard is met. 3. At2proval Criteria. The hearing authority, in consultation with the Fire Code Official, shall approve the Fire Prevention and Control Plan upon demonstration of compliance with the standards required by this chapter. f this chapter the hearing authority, in a. In order to meet the purpose and standards o consultation with the Fire Code Official, may require the following through the imposition of conditions attached to the approval. - i. Delineation of areas of heavy vegetation to be thinned and a formal plan for such thinning. fi, Clearing of sufficient vegetation to reduce fuel load. iii, Removal of all dead and dying trees. iv. Relocation of proposed structures and roads to reduce the risks of wildfire and improve the chances of successful fire suppression. for erosion V: Preservation or planting a sufficient number of trees and plants prevention and enhancement of water resources. APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 9 of 12 FINDING: Although overgrown, the site does not have areas of heavy vegetation in need of thinning. As shown in the Site Photos (Exhibit E), the area is covered in high grass and new blackberry growth. The site includes a few moderately sized shrubs that will likely be removed as part of the redevelopment of both parcels. All trees identified as dead or dying in the Tree Survey (Exhibit C) will be removed. Reduction of the high grass, blackberries and dead trees as shown on the Fire Prevention and Control Plan (Exhibit F) will reduce the risks of wildfire and improve the changes of successful fire suppression. The standard is met. 4. Fire Prevention and Control Plan Maintenance. The property owner of a lot or homeowners' association for areas held in common, shall be responsible for maintaining the property in accord with the requirements of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the hearing authority. a. Provisions for the maintenance of a required Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the development, or otherwise recorded in the Jackson County real property records, and the City shall be named as a beneficiary of such covenants, restrictions, and conditions. FINDING: Upon approval of the Tentative Plat, the applicant agrees to record the Fire Prevention and Control Plan as necessary. The standard is met with conditions. 18.4,3.088 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location. 3. in all residential zones, off-street parking in a front yard for all vehicles, including trailers and recreational vehicles, is limited to a contiguous area no more than 25 percent of the area of the front yard, or a contiguous area 25 feet wide and the depth of the front yard, whichever is greater. Since parking in violation of this section is occasional in nature, and is incidental to the primary use of the site, no vested rights are deemed to exist and violations of this section are not subject to the protection of the nonconforming use sections of this code. FINDING: As shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B), both parcels are served by a 12 -foot private access easement. The street frontage of Parcel 1 is 82 feet; therefore, the no more than 15 percent of the front yard is consumed by parking. The standard is met. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. FINDING: The subject parcel is an individual lot or record and is not part of a tract. The standard is met. APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 10 of 12 B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. FINDING: The proposed two parcels will not impede development of any adjoining land or' access thereto as development is to be confined within the two proposed parcels and access readily exists to the adjoining property east of the subject parcels along a public alley and west along Hillview Drive. The standard is met. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if ally, and any previous land use approvals for the, subject area. FINDING: As demonstrated in the findings herein, the proposed partition conforms to all applicable city ordinance. No adopted neighborhood or district plans were identified in the pre -application memo, and none appear to be present in the area, The standard is met. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. FINDING: No partitions have been, approved or submitted in the past 12 months. 'The standard is met. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 1 . any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part '18.3 'and any applicable development standards, per part 18A (e -g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). FINDING: The proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying R-1-7.5 zone per Chapter 18.2, as well as 18.3 and 18.4 relating to lot dimension, coverage requirements, solar access, vehicular access, etc. As shown on the Tentative Plat, building envelopes are large enough to allow for all Solar Access Standards to be met. Solar access will be verified at the time of each parcel's building permit. Tree preservation, hillside standards and wildfire standards are addressed in the findings above. The standard is met. F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18,5.3..l 0 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Mat _ L FINDING: Access to the proposed lots will be from a shared access, utilizing the existing curb cut and will otherwise conform to the standards in Section 18.4.3.080. Findings of compliance for Section 18.4.3.080 are addressed above. The proposal does not include a request for a flag lot, therefore the provisions of Section 18.5.3.060 do not apply. The standard is met. acl e, e G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18. 4 'and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. FINDING. All utilities are available in Hillview Drive and will be extended through the private access and utility easement shown on the Tentative Plat (Exhibit B) to Parcel 2. No addition right of way dedication, required. The standard is met. APPLICATION FINDINGS Page 11 of 12 Based upon the information submitted within this application, Ashland Community Development finds that the applicant has provided information demonstrating that the proposed partition meets or can meet with conditions the provisions of the Ashland Land Development Code. Based on this information and exhibits attached, the; applicant respectfully requests approval of this application. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Zac Moody Pacific Geographic Consultants, LLC APPUCATION FINDINGS Page 12 of 12 r � GIS DATA 13!112020 SATOAM:thonw m G \� �> >GF mu, sa I I; I sno , % E 20, •bC ,�--_NORidAL AVE. � N o 'off_ S.§X x ,t O w za W n SFT MAPM iu 130 E , I r rs C n I .r z WALKER � I i AVE. G \� �> >GF mu, sa I I; I sno , % E 20, •bC ,�--_NORidAL AVE. � N o 'off_ S.§X x ,t O w za W n c la lu 3a .' tt n� e' ua� a w I ! !k J! a "ri, ou IN W I G \� �> >GF mu, sa I I; I sno , % E 20, •bC ,�--_NORidAL AVE. � N o 'off_ S.§X x ,t O w za W n s ✓ I gi f �I I ! !k J! G \� �> >GF mu, sa I I; I sno , % E 20, •bC ,�--_NORidAL AVE. � N o 'off_ S.§X x ,t O w za W n TAX LOT Nulam - 114 OF'FICiAL RECORD OF t3ESCRIPT !�P 1 8567-0 5-1 CiFF10E OF CO1JNTY ASSESSOR, Jji CODE NUMBER 391E15ACOD900 00501 XMAL PHOTO secrtox TOWNSHIP __ _s F "or. w.U. I U" NO. -- LOT RLOCC FORMATION L Ashland NO. NO. N 1NDWT rAcs NW LECaAL aE5CRiPTION ANO T zY'�T JN covin TO Irm LIKE 1 PURPUSES George, Don 0. & SosephineK. . Commencing at a point 2.98 chains West and Oe14 chains South of the southeast corner of D.L.C. 45 in Twp. 39 South of Range 1 East of the W,M. in .TCC.,; thence south 872 feet 11 inches; thence west 20 feet to the gest line of Peachey Lane, to the true point of beginning; thence south., along the west line of Peachey Lane 82 feet; thence west 190 feet; thence north 82 feet; thence east 190 feet to the true point of beginning. Pittman, Carroll C. & Lou 'l.len Johnson, Margaret D. Driscoll, Edwin E. Crawford, Margaret D and Edna M Dillstrom Hollister, Lyra W & Carol L Comstock, Clarende D & Alice H Downs, Louis L & Rita T DION, CYNTHIA V DEED RECO" A YEAR VOLUME I PAGX R.Sid.AINSNC� :951 31,8 17% ,956 431 34. iv 57--8 4 1950 482 441 iv4"-4444 196T3V 57 445 6 7661 1963 557 1447 JV 6 —76 O. R • 68-0 127 V 68 Q.O.R. 73-° 136 !JV 74 Q.R. 87-2 S67 iv 8 -Q1D { R..�-- i I z After recording return to: Charles D. Hamilton and Mary C. Stelnbergs PO Box 1313 Talent, OR 97540 Until a change is requested all tax statements shall be sent to the following address: Charles D. Hamilton and Mary C. Steinbergs PO Box 1313 'talent, OR 975Q File No.: 7152-3890797 (]S) Date: February 02, 2022 Jackson County Official Records 2022-004457 R -WD Stn=16 MORGANSS 02107/2022 02:11:15 PM $15.00 $10.00 $11.00 $11.00 $60.00 $107.00 I, Christine Walker, county Clerk for Jackson County, Oregon, certify THIS SPACE RES that the instrument identified herein was recorded in the Clerk records. Christine Walker - County Clerk STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Cynthia Martin l)lon, Trustee of the Martin Dion f=amily Trust dated April 21, 2020, Grantor, conveys and warrants to Charles D. Hamilton and Mary c. Steinbergs, tenants by the entirety , Grantee, the following described real property free of liens and encumbrances, except as specifically set forth herein: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Real property in the County of Jackson, State of Oregon, described as follows: Commencing at a point 2.98 chains West and 0.14 chains South from the Southeast corner of Donation Lancs claim No. 45 in Township 39 South, Ranee 1 East of the Willamette Meridian, Jackson county, Oregon; and thence South a distance of 872.0 feet 11 inches and West 20.0 feet to the West line of Peachey Lane, to thee point of thence West 190.0 feet, thence North 82.0 feet; beginning; thence East 190 0 the {n feet to e tree o's t of feet, beginning. NOTE. This legal description was created prior to January 1, 2008 Subject to:ar in the 1. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements, if any, affecting tide, which may appear public record, including those shown on any recorded plat or survey. The true consideration for this conveyance is $400,000.00• (Here compN,,M regtff emnts of ORS 93.030) Page 1 of 2 APN: 1-008567-0 Statutory Warranty Deed He No.: 7162-3890737 IM -continued BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING EEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.341 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST" FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. Dated this +4ay of Cynthia Martin Dion Family Trust dated April 2 , 2020 Cynthia ariin Dion, Trustee f STATE OF Oregon ) )ss. County of Jackson in This instrument was acknowledged bis day of 20 by Cynthia Martin Dion as Trusteeof artin Dion Family Trust dated April 21, 2020, on behalf of the trust. Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: Page 2 of 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or Other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of IMPERIAL On ��r �! , before me, MARCELLA M. ZAMORA, NOTARY PUBLIC �..,.. (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared 1G.rvi �i who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the pers n(s) whose name(s isz e subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledge me that sh til executed the same in h e fth authorized capacity{les} and that by hi he ttml;rsignature(s) on the instrument the per bn(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct - WETNESS my hand and official seal.MARC�LIA M. ZAMORA COMM. #A 2398506 r NOTARY PUBLIC. 6 CALIFORNIA ,h IMPERIAL. C6UNTY Comm. Ex . FEB. 1',2024 Signature 3 t a34 � WARRANTY DEED 3�$Pagz_I-�A THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH: That WILLIAM 14. DALY and ALICE 14. DALY, husband and wife, For and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars, and other goad and sufficient considera— tion, ha ve bargained and sold, and by this instrument do hereby grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto their heirs DON 0. GEORGE and JOSEPHINE M. GEORGE, husband and wife, and assigns, the real property situated in the Jackson State of Oregon, particularly described as fol - County of lows, to-cvit: Commencing at a point 2.98 chains west and 0.14 chains Lz south of the SouthhofsRangenlrEastof DafathenWillamettemMeridianin Township Oregon; tact south 872 feet 11 inches; in Jackson CountY, g Lane, to the thence west 20 feet to the west line of peachey true point of beginning; thence south, along the west line of Peaehey Lane 82 feet; thence west 190 feet; int ofebeginning•nce north 82 feet; thence east 190 feet to the true p SUBJECT TO reservations, easements and rights of way of record. SUBJECT T4 a mortgage given by the grantors herein to the First National Bank of Portland, dated July 3, 1947, recorded July 7, 194'7, in Volume 163 et pages 56,57,58.59 and 60 of the Mortgage Records of 3aokson County, Oregon. given to secure the payment of a note for $5700.00, together with interest thereon. Ila A 1. ;.1_x TO HAVE. AND TO HOLD, the above described premises unto the said grantee e their heirs andtee S, assigns, forever. their heirs The grantor s herein do covenant withhe d Vale, in fee simple of the above de - and assigns that t be y rances except as stated scribed premises, and that same theirs forme *$e ere ixbors and administrators, shall warrant and that they will and and defend the title to said premises against the lawful claims -and dem nds of all persons '19S_/ whomsoever. s and seaE g� 1 tt1,i�S C day WITNESS our bandf _ .. - --- ----(SEAT.) (SEAL) •n' --- --. (SEAT) r --------------- L - �. 303444 1'75 STA'T'E q. County ----- BE IT REMEA B1✓ That on this_ - - ..-day _...._------------- A. D., iH_ f before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for sai County and State, personally Willium M. Daly and Alice M. Daly, husband appeared the within name ---- _---- --------•------------ - -------------- ...._..._._---------- •---- nd.,wiYe - -...- - - ----------------..-------------•-----------------ora ---------------..._. ........... .... ---- who ------ Yocvn to me to be the identical individual -e ___described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that._�jjey... Each executed the same freely and voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my d and of- ficial seal the day and year aia' rltten. - - ---- - ---- 'a; Plotary Public for x - My Gommission ExPires�'r c:pyus;h r::t >-;-------•• • •5 tsri! k, ,b� STA.'1'E OR------------- ------- _ -------- - ---) ss County of . .:--- ------------ BE IT RD, MEMBnRED, That on this_. -._-._..._.._..-•---•-••---day of --- - - — $efare me, the undersigned, a-------•-----• - - ._.-._...__. - - - - - w„ in and for said County andState, Personally appeared the within named__--- - ---------•---•_-------------- --------- own .,S -- .' to me to be the identleat intlividual_...described its and who executed tha jthin instrument and acknowledged tom IN a�STIKON� �RBOre I have hereuntoe same saeltdmy h- and af- :,:. �7� Heial seal t]se day and year last above written- - --- - ------ - -- ritten. -..-_-._------.. Notary Public for regan. tviy Commission expires :-.___.------------------------ C.1 m ; i, W z . P4 Fr.ell F1 j vm, N F3 l y, �iGyip Igo. u m rd i,�1i C7 -"uA rn 111os cii r� ,� i i y m i i m Uc. O a to l Z 0 C I iA rte] 'L' '�'' n. d i v I L ` !` t t 1 11 0 c •S : q° H H cam. o sem, y- p" Qj a . STA.'1'E OR------------- ------- _ -------- - ---) ss County of . .:--- ------------ BE IT RD, MEMBnRED, That on this_. -._-._..._.._..-•---•-••---day of --- - - — $efare me, the undersigned, a-------•-----• - - ._.-._...__. - - - - - w„ in and for said County andState, Personally appeared the within named__--- - ---------•---•_-------------- --------- own .,S -- .' to me to be the identleat intlividual_...described its and who executed tha jthin instrument and acknowledged tom IN a�STIKON� �RBOre I have hereuntoe same saeltdmy h- and af- :,:. �7� Heial seal t]se day and year last above written- - --- - ------ - -- ritten. -..-_-._------.. Notary Public for regan. tviy Commission expires :-.___.------------------------ ON COUNTY improvement Summary JACKSON County For Assessment Year 2022 AccountID 10085670 897 HILLVIEW DR ASHLAND OR 97520 Map 391F15 -AC -00900 Situ$ Mailing FIAMILTON CHARLES D E'r AL PO BOX 1313 TALENT OR 97540 Code Stat Year Sqft Bldg Area 1,228 1 0501 131 1,947 100 131 -One story Rooms: 2 - ED,, I - FI3, I - FP Description Class Comp % CSR % Sqft 3 100 1228 First Floor 3 100 377 G arage PORCH -COLIC -ROLL COVER 248 DEC K-RWITREX-NO COVER improvement! Inventory Description Otv/Size n.ApVlnn Qty/Size COMP SHGL 1228 ROLL ROOFING 377 DISHWASHER I SINGLE FP I HOOD/FAN I TOILET I LAVATORY I TUB/SHOWER I WALL UNIT 1228 Tr�! Total RMV $69,960 5/10/2022 Page 1 of 1 Size Qty Description OTHER -RESIDENT IAL 96 GP SHED 930 1 CONCRETE 154 PORCH -COLIC -ROLL COVER 248 DEC K-RWITREX-NO COVER Total RMV $69,960 5/10/2022 Page 1 of 1 MA HIM ALLEY 0i �F-, A SD0I!e43W 12 Bzw ra L 12 -7- 4 IC4: mL H VIEW 2 M, zj 1 CANOPY LLC The Care of Trees canopyarborcarexom p,o. Box 3511 Ashland, OR 97520 ¢5 1) 631-80GD CCS 199334 April 12, 2022 City of Ashland Planning 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Tree protection plan for 997 Hillview The following are guidelines recommended for the protection of the trees at, 897 during any construction or other planned site changes. These guidelines are to be used in concert with the prepared tree inventory and site plan which designates the approximate location of tree protection zones. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): It is recommended that a tree protection zone be established around the root zone of these trees before any construction, excavation, land clearing, or grading begins. This zone should be established with temporary Ea' tall fencing and remain in place through project completion. This protection zone should be established at Jeast at the furthest extent of the dripline of these trees. Where applicable, such as with closely growing, groups Of trees, this protection zone can be modified to encompass the entire group as opposed to fencing each individual tree. Soil Compaction: To avoid soil compaction, heavy materials should not be stored, vehicles maneuvered or parked, grade changed, or paved surfaces constructed within the TPZ, If -for construction case, it is necessary for vehicles or machinery to access the area, a layer of mulch (6"-1.2" deep) should be applied for vehicles to drive on. This mulch layer should be reduced to a depth of 3"-4" upon project completion. Tree Care. If machinery needs to operate within the TPZ, steps should be taken to protect the tree trunk from injury. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be inspected by an arborist or landscape professional for evaluation and treatment recomrncndafions. Tree pruning required during construction should be perforrned by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel. Root Protection: If excavation is necessary at or near the tree protection area, avoid cutting roots over I "diameter where possible. If roots are severed, it is recommended that they be cut "cleanly" with a saw or bypass pruners at a 90 degree angle (as opposed to being left "torn" by machinery). Pruned roots should not be left exposed for extended periods of time. Cover exposed roots with moist soil after pruning. if pruning of roots over 2" diameter are encountered near the TPZ, consultation with an arborist is advised. If excavation or trenching needs to occur in the protection area, it is recommended that you contact an arborist for additional evaluation and options_ Water: If construction is occurring during the driest months of lune thru September, it is recommended that the trees receive a deep watering throughout their root zone 3-4x per month. Water should permeate to a depth of 30". A layer of mulch can be of great benefit before, during, and after construction. It is suggested that a 3"-4" layer of mulch be added to the root zone of each tree. Feel free to get in touch if there are any questions. Christopher John Canopy LLC ISA Board Certified Master Arborist #WE -9504B ....... - Tree Inventory .._. Date: April 12, 2D22 - 897 Hilivlew Drive, Ashland Tree # Species DBH (inches) Haalth NotesMecommenclations _ Spruce Picea s PP ......._ 16.5 Poor Remove. Has been topped. Higher fire danger. -_ 2 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesfi 29 Good Protect. Prune to remove lower deadwood. 3 Magnolia : Magnolia grandiflora 12 Good Protect 4 ' Ponderosa . pine Pinusus ponderosa 31 Goad Remove Dripline and cri#ioal root zone within building footprint. 5 Pine Pinus spp 34 Moderate Protect Prune to raise dripline. 6 Red maple Acer rubra 6.5 Poor rint. Remove. Within buildin5 footprint, 7 Birch Betula pendula 9 Moderate Remove_ Within building footprint. 8 Plum Prunus cerasifera 11 Poor Remove. Poor health and structure. 9 Plum Prunus cerasifera 9 Moderate Remove. Within building footprint. 10 Birch Betula pendula 5.5 Moderate Remove. Within building footprint 11 Hawthorne Craraegus spp 6 Good . Remove. _ 12 Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 8 Good Remove. Proximity to existing homelfire fuels. 19 Walnut Jugians nigra 20Good protect Neighbor's tree. 14 Apple Malas Sop 8 Moderated Remove Within building footprint. 15 Willow Salix spp 60 Poor Remove. Within building footprint. Poor health. 16 Mountain ash . Sorbus aucuparia 9 Good Remove. Within building footprint. 17 Birch Betula pendula 7.5 Dead Remove 18 Aspen Populus tremuioides 14 Good Protect 19 Italian cypress Cupressus sempervirens 6.5 Good Remove. Fire hazard. 20 Aspen Populus tremuloides 12.5112.51125 Good Protect 21 Aspen Populus tremuloides 15 Good Protect 22 Italian cypress Cupressus sempervirens 6.5 Good Remove. Fire hazard. 23 Italian cypress Cupmssus sempervirens 6.5 Good Remove, Fire hazard. 24 Italian cypress Cupressus sempervirens 6.5 Good Remove sre hazard. 25 Aspen Populus tremuloides S Good Protect 26 Aspen Populus tremuloides 8 Good Protect - 27 Aspen Populus tramuloldes 8 Good Protect - ........... 28 Aspen Populus tremuloides 8 Goad Prated -_ 29 Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 11 Good Remove. Within building foot p tint. 30 ......... Aspen Populus tremuloides 12 Goad Remove. Within building footprint. 31 Aspen Populus tremmloides 15 Good Remove. Within building footprint. 32 Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa 8 Good Remove Within building footprint. 33 Walnut luglans nigra 12 Dead Remove .... 34 _ Aspen . Populus tremuloides 6 Good Protect S 5 Aspen Populus tremuloides 6 Good Protect 36 Aspen Populus tremulaides 6 Good . Protect 37 Aspen Populus tmmuloides 6 Goad Protect .. ......... ... 36 Spruce Picea spp 16.6 Poor Remove Poor health. Fire fuels. - 39 Aspen ............. Populus tremuloides 6 _ Moderate Remove 1 EXH I BIT D The comments of this pre -app are preliminary in nature and subject to change based upon the submittal of additional or different information. The Planning Commission or City Council are the final decision making authority of the City, and are not bound by the comments made by the Staff as part of this prem application. ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISON SITE;: 897 Hillview PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE APPLICANT: Zac Moody C0,1111VIENT SHEET March 16,2022 REQUEST: Land Partition PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: This pre -application conference is intended to highlight significant issues of concern to staffand bring them to the applicant's attention prior to their preparing as for applieation submittal. Summary: Staff examined a version of this application in 2019 and identified three primary issues with the proposed land partition as submitted: concerns regarding minimum lot size, requirement for a flag lot, and potential variance for side yard setback. Following the 2019 pre -application there were many conversations about a proposal that would comply with the standards. This was predicated on a distinction between a flag drive and a flag lot. The preliminary plat submitted with this pre -application appears to reflect those changes and can be approved without variances so long as the garage is removed. From: Aaron Anderson Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 8:00:41 AM To: Cyndi Dion Cc: Shawn Kampmann Subject- RE. 897 Hillview MLP Good Morning Cyndi, l wanted to get back to you regarding the preliminary plat prepared by Polaris survey dated May 8 2020, 1 had an opportunity to discuss this with senior planning staff and have the following comments. The plat as presented would require two, variances for approval, one for rear yard setback, the other for minimum lot size as the front parcel is less than 7500 sq. ft-.... this boils down to a distinction between a flag drive and a flag Pole (Definitions from AMC 18.6 below), in short because you are taking vehicle access off the alley there is no flag drive, because you are not proposing vehicular access down that part of the pole that is meant to provide pedestrian access as provided in AMC 18.5.3.060-H-3, We propose that you modify your preliminary partition plat so that the front lot measures 74' wide x 102' deep (7548 sq, ft. and meets 10' rear yard setback). The rear parcel would then measure 82' x 88' with an 8' flag pole (8x102) for a lot size of 8032 sq. ft. A partition plat drawn as such would meet all the approval criteria and base zone standards and could be approved without any exceptions or variances. Subsequent to this conversation a new plat was created that appears to be identical to the one submitted for this pre -app. 897 Hiliview Dr. March, 16 2022/aa Page I Note from GIS: if this partition happens, we are going to have to reassign addresses along this street. There is no room here to add an additional number. I would likely have to renumber 895, 897 and 899. RMC 18.5.3.060 B. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag.drive area must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. Definitions provide in AMC 18.6.1.030 Drive, Flag: A driveway that serves a single lot or parcel and is greater than 50 feet in length, or provides vehicular access to a flag lot(s). See also, section 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. Flag Lot: A lot with two distinct parts. 1. The flag, which is the building site; and is located behind another lot. 2. The pole, which connects the flag to the street; provides the only street frontage for the lot with less than 40 feet of frontage on a street; and unless an alley provides access, includes a driveway providing access. Additionally, a complete application will need to address proposed building envelope for the newly created parcel, and tree inventory / proposed tree protection plan for all trees in excess of six -inches DBH. Other Issues: Scalable Plans: The plans submitted for the pre -application conference are not to scale. Scalable plans are required for the application to be deemed complete. Tree Preservation/Protection/Removal: All planning actions are required to include a tree preservation/protection plan in accordance with AMC 18.61; this is intended to ensure that trees are protected during all site disturbance {including demolition, construction, driveway/parking installation, staging of materials, etc. In addition, this proposal is in the hillside lands overlay and is subject to the tree preservation requirements for hillside lands in section 183.10.090. Wildfire Lauds: The parent parcel is located in the wildfire lands overlay. As a result, the application to divide the lot into two parcels requires a fire prevention and control plan to be submitted with the application. The approved plan is then required to be implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit for structures located on the lots created by the partition. See subsection 18.3.10.100.A for the fire prevention and control plan requirements. Local Improvement District: The two proposed parcels will be required to sign in favor of a local improvement district for future improvements to Scenic Dr. Solar Setback: The application will need to demonstrate that a home can be located on the new vacant lot and meet the solar setback requirement as required in section 18.4.8.040. Neighborhood Outreach: Projects involving changes to established neighborhood patterns can be a concern for neighbors, and staff always recommends that applicants approach the affected neighbors, make them aware of the proposal, and try to address any concerns as early in the process as possible. Notices are sent to neighbors within a 200 -foot radius of the property. 897 Hillview Dr. March, 16 2022/aa Page 2 Written Findings/Burden of Proof- Applicants should be aware that written findings addressing the ordinance and all applicable criteria are required, and are heavily depended on when granting approval for a planning action. In addition, the required plans are explained in writing below. The burden of proof is on the applicant(s), to ensure that all applicable criteria are addressed in writing and that all required plans, written findings, and other materials are submitted even if those items were not discussed in spec if itemized detail during this initial pre -application conference. MW ==now mmmmmmommmm mmmm OTHER DEPARTMENTS' COMMENTS BUILDING DEPT.: Please contact the Building Division for any Building Code -related information at 541-488-5305. STREETS / PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT.- Public Works comments provided at the end of this document.. Please contact Karl Johnson of the Engineering Division for any further information at 541-552-2415 or via e-mail to 1La�rt._phL1s1irii) slfland.onus . i a FIRE DEPARTMENT: Fire Department comments provided at the end of this document. Please contact Ralph Sartain from the Fire, Department for any Fire Department -related information at 541-552- 2229 or ralph.sattain@ashland.onus. CONSERVATION: For more information on available water conservation programs, including any available appliance rebates or assistance with landscaping and irrigation system requirements, please contact Water Conservation Specialist Julie Smitherman of Conservation Division at 541-552-,2062 or via e-mail to, For information on any financial or technical assistance available for the construction of Earth Advantage/Energy Star buildings, please contact Conservation ADalyst/inspector Dan Cunningham at 541-552-2063 or via e-mail to dancum'�ind_VLJP_( �JS_ WATER AND SEWER SERVICE: "If the project will require additional water sen)ices the applicantlowner will need to contact the City of Ashland Water Department for the availability, placement and costs associated with the installation oj'these set -vices (ureters;).The fees forty water service installations are separate charges paid to the water division and iv ill t ypically runfi-om less than S500 into the thousands depending on size and number o 'services. " Please Contact Steve Walker at 541 - 552-2326owat r(kei-s(r-i,',,asii,�,inci()r,Li with any questions regarding water utilities. 01 STORM WATER DRAINAGE: Please contact Karl Johnson of the Engineering Division for any further information at 541-552-2415 or via e-mail to ELECTRIC SERVICE: Please contact Dave Tygerson in the Electric Department for service and meter location requirements and fee information at 541-552-2389 or via e-mail to lygersqd(i' �ashlangl.or, Lis. Dave will arrange an on-site meeting, and develop a preliminary electrical service plan for the site. Please allow additional time to accommodate scheduling of this on-site meeting and preparing the preliminary plan. Submittals will not be deemed complete without a preliminary approved plan from the Electric Department. 897 Hillview Dr. Marcb, 16 2022/aa Page 3 UNDERLYING ZONE PROVISIONS (18.2.5.030.A.) ZONING. R-1-7.5, Single Family Residential with a 7,500 square foot minimum lot size. Minimum lot width is 65 feet. Lot depth 80-150 feet. Lot width shall not exceed lot depth. OVERLAYS: The properNis located in the wild re lands overly SETBACKS: Eight feet for unenclosed porches, 15 feet for front yards, and 20 feet for front -facing garages. Six feet for side yards but ten feet for side yards abutting a public street. Ten feet per story and five feet per half -story for rear yards. In addition, the setbacks must comply with the solar access requirements. LOT COVERAGE: A maximum of 45 percent of the lot may be covered with impervious surface. Please identify on site plan and in text all areas of landscaping, impervious surface, patio space, outdoor recreational space, etc. �[ ■ P Y P P t P P i tl tl P d i■ K M N 8 P tl P Y K 11 P# P P i tl tl R P P tl P■ tl tl tl l P P i P P p P P tl tl tl P P tl P■ tl 1 P i tl p P P tl tl P P tl g P P tl ®� i PROCEDURE: Regulations provide for administrative ("Type 111) decisions on these applications, however there is the possibility for a public hearing if an appeal is requested. Application Requirements. The application is required to include: 1) clear, legible, scalable drawings of the proposal (i.e. plan requirements), and 2) written findings addressing the applicable approval criteria in accordance with the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), Chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code. The following sections include the requirements for plans and approval criteria which are applicable to the proposal as described in the pre -application submittals. When more than one planning approval is required for the proposal, multiple sections of the ALUO may apply. The burden of proof is on the applicant(s) to ensure that all applicable criteria are addressed in writing and that all required plans, written findings, and other materials are submitted even if those items were not discussed in specific, itemized detail during this initial pre -application conference. All submittals must also include: 1. Application Form and Fee, Applications for Type 11 review shall be made on forms provided by the Staff Advisor. One or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is requested, and their authorized agent, as applicable, must sign the application. The required application fee must accompany the application for it to be considered complete. 2. Submittal Information. The application shall include all of the following information. a. The information requested on the application form. b. Plans and exhibits required for the specific approvals sought. c. A written statement or letter explaining how the application satisfies each and all of the relevant criteria and standards in sufficient detail. d. Information demonstrating compliance with all prior decision(s) and conditions of approval for the subject site, as applicable. e. The required fee. 897 Hillview Dr. March, 16 2022/aa Page 4 1. PLAN & EXHIBIT RE UH7ENIENTS: Two (2) copies of the plans below on paper no larger than 11 "x 17 ". Note: These copies maybe used for the Planning Commission packets and for the notices mailed to neighbors -please submit clear, readable, reproducible copies. Two (2) Copies of the preliminary plat as required in section 18.5,3.040. The following information is required for a partition application submittal. A. General Submission Requirements. 1_ Partitions. Information required for a Type I review (see section 18.5.1.050), including but not limited to a written statement or letter explaining how the application satisfies each and all of the relevant criteria and standards. S. Preliminary Plat Information. In addition to the general information described in subsection A, above, and any information required pursuant to chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards option, the preliminary plat application shall consist of drawings and supplementary written material (i.e., on forms andlor in a written narrative) adequate to provide the following information, in quantities determined by Staff Advisor. 1. General information a. Name of subdivision (partitions are named by year and file number). This name shall not duplicate the name of another land division in the City or vicinity. b. Date, north arrow, and scale of drawing. c. Location of the development sufficient to define its location in the City, boundaries. d. Zoning of parcel to be divided, including any overlay zones. e. A title block specifying "minor or major partition' and including the partition number, City of Ashland, the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the owners of the subject property and, as applicable, the name of the engineer and surveyor, and the date of the survey. f. Identification of the drawing as a "preliminary plat'. 2. Existing Conditions. Except where the Staff Advisor deems certain information is not relevant, applications for Preliminary Plat approval shall contain all of the following information on existing conditions of the site. a. Streets. Location, name, and present width of all streets, alleys, and rights-of-way on and abutting the site. b. Easements. Width, location, and purpose of all existing easements of record on and abutting the site; c. Utilities. Location and identity of all utilities on and abutting the site. if water mains and sewers are not on or abutting the site, indicate the direction and distance to the nearest one and show how utilities will be brought to standards; d. Topography and Natural Features. A topographic map showing contour intervals of five feet or less and the location of any physical constrained lands, pursuant to chapter 18.3.10, and any natural features, such as rock outcroppings, wetlands, streams, wooded areas, and isolated preservable trees_ e. The Base Flood Elevation, Floodplain Corridor Elevation, and Floodplain Boundary, per the Ashland Floodplain Corridor Maps, as applicable. f. North arrow and scale. 3. Proposed Development. Except where the Staff Advisor deems certain information is not relevant, applications for Preliminary Plat approval shall contain all of the following information on the proposed development. a. Proposed lots, streets, tracts, open space, and park land (if any); location, names, right-of-way dimensions. b. Location, width, and purpose of all proposed easements; C. Approximate dimensions, area calculation (e.g., in square feet), and identification numbers for all proposed lots and private tracts (e.g., private open space, common area, or street). d_ Proposed uses of the property, including all areas proposed to be dedicated as public right-of-way or reserved as open space for the purpose of surface water management, recreation, or other use. e. Proposed public street improvements, pursuant to chapter 18.4.6. f. preliminary design for extending City water and sewer service to each lot, pursuant to chapter 18.4.6. 897 Hillview Dr. March, 16 2022/aa Page 5 g. Proposed method of storm water drainage and treatment, if required, pursuant to chapter 18.4-6. h. The approximate location and identity of other facilities, including the locations of electric, fire hydrants, streetlights, and utilities, as applicable,. i. Evidence of compliance with applicable overlay zones, Two (2) Copies of a Tree Protection Plan as required chapter 18.4.5.030. A tree protection plan shall be approved by the Staff Advisor concurrent with applications for Type 1, Type 11, and Type III planning actions. If tree removal is proposed, a Tree Removal Permit addressing the tree conservation, protection, and removal standards for Hillside Lands in. section 18.3.1.090.13 and the requirements of chapter 18.5.7 may be required. B. Tree Protection Plan Submission Requirements. In order to obtain approval of a tree protection plan; an, applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following. 1. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site, Z Location of the drip line of each tree, site, and recommendations for treatment 3. An inventory of the health and hazard of each tree on s for each tree. ewer, irrigation, and other 4. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm s utility lines/facilities and easements. 5. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches, & Location of proposed and existing structures. 7. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction. 8. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces. for implementing and 9. Identification of a contact person andior arborist who will be responsible maintaining the approved tree protection plan. ion 18.4.5.030.C, 10. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per sect 2. RELEVANT CRITERRIIA AND STANDARDS: Applicants are advised that in addition to required plans, written findings addressing how the ordinance criteria are sati,sfied in narrative format are required The applicable criteria are included below, The Ashland Land Use Ordinance in its entirety may be accessed on-line at. - Two (2) copies of written findings addressing the preliminary partition plat criteria found in section 18.5.3.050. and .060 A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C. Thee partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and, any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e,.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation), F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design, See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria, G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in: part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H. Unpaved Streets. 1. Minimum Street improvement, When there exists a 20 -foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20 -feet with all, work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and 897 11illview Dr. March, 16 2022/aa Page 6 prohibited from the street. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section "18.5.3,,060. 18.6.3.060 Additional Prollminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria The approval authority shall approve a preliminary plat application for a flag lot partition only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The criteria of section 18.5.3,050 are met. B, For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. C. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. D. Except as provided in subsection 1'1.5.3.050.'F, �.3060�-H, below, the flag drive serving a single flag lot shall have a minimum width of 16 feet and contain a 12 foot wide paved driving Surface. For drives serving two flag lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with a 15 foot wide driving surface to the back of the first lot, and a 12 foot wide driving surface to the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Width shall be increased on turns where necessary to ensure fire apparatus remain on a paved surface during travel, E. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. No more than two flag lots are served by the flag drive. F. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances, G. Flag drives shall be constructed to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. H. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that.. 1, Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval. 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole. 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flagpole and improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface connecting the street to the buildable area of the flag lot. 4. The flag pole width: shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of: the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flag lot clearly visible from the street on a four -inch by four -inch post that is 31/2 feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers three inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two foot by three foot white sign clearly visible from the street with three-inch black numbers. 1. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof, J. When required by the Oregon Fire Code, flag drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround (see Figure 18,4,3.040.%,5), The Staff Advisor, in coordination with the Fire Code Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround requirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in length as allowed by Oregon Fire Code access exemptions. K. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated to eliminate the necessity for vehicles backing out. L. There shall be no parking within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on either side of the flag, drive entrance, Mi. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in part 18,6, shall provide a fire work area of 20 feet by 40 feet clear of vertical obstructions and within 50 feet of the structure. The fire work area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system 897 Hillview Dr. March. 16 20222/aa Page 7 installed. N. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a sight -obscuring fence, wall or fire-resistant broadleaf evergreen sight -obscuring hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed to ensure fire apparatus access is not obstructed by the encroachment of mature landscaping. 0. The applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Department an agreement between applicant and the City for paving and screening of the flag drive- Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Public' orks Director and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening pursuant to this section, and assurance ongoing maintenance. P. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. (Ord. 3158 § 9, amended, 09/18/2018) FEES (non-refundable): Partition $ 1,125 + 72.5 per unit Variance (Type 1) $ 1,125 *NOTE: Applications are accepted on a first come -first, served basis, All applications received are reviewed by staff, and must be found to be complete before being processed or scheduled at a Planning Commission meeting. Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicants) and property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. Applications are reviewed for completeness in accordance with ORS 227.178. The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the :next available planning Commission meeting. For further informatio I 'please contact: March 16, 2022 Aaron Anderson, Associate Planner Date City of Ashland, Department of Community Development Phone (541) 552-2052 or e-mail aarpaandersqn( 997 Hillview Dr. March, 16 2022/aa Page 8 EXHIBIT It F *11 M vr Is, a, ID 0 CL- -0 CL 19 (D 0) 2 (D 0 0 U) C) 0 cz 9 L JA Is, a, ID 0 CL- -0 CL 19 (D 0) 2 (D 0 0 U) C) 0 cz 9 L Is, C I T V 0 F Planning Division 11 Winlurn Way, Ashland, OR ASIALAND 97520 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Project Description 2 Lot Partition I APPLICANT I 11,2ite Pacific Geographic Consultants, LLC. Phone 541-225-8686 1140 Address4620 Fern Valley Rd. City Medford I PROPERTY OWNER Name Martin Dion Family Trust (soon to be Charlie Hamilton) Day Time Phone City Ta I ent - padricgeographic@9maiLcum V'I DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY I Street Address897 Hillview Drive Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E 15ACTax Lot(s) 9!00 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS To request a pre -application conference, submit this form with true scale PDF drawings to.. . d.or,us. The ... ..... ..... application will need to include plans addressing the application submission requirements including site and landscaping plans drawn to a standard scale and formatted to print to scale on paper no larger than 11 -inches by 17 -inches, 1. Completed Application. 2. Narrative — Provide a written description of proposal and request. (If in Historic District, provide pictures of existing structures, elevations of proposed structures and details of planned exterior design features and materials) I Site Plan — The site plan should contain all applicable elements in the Site Plan Checklist (see page 2) plus any other information pertinent to this proposal. The site plan will be checked to insure all applicable information is included at the time the pre -application date is set. 4. Additional information - Provide in the narrative or with the site plan: 1 ) Number of acres in development 2) Total gross square footage of all structures 3) Number of stories on each structure 4) Indicate number of and square footage of, a) Dwelling Units (include the units by the number of bedrooms in each unit— e,g, 10 1 -bedroom, 25 2 -bedroom, etc) b) Office Spaces c) Retail Units d) Other Spaces 5) Percentage of lot coverage by: a) Structures e) Landscaping b) Streets & Roads f) Number of parking spaces c) Parking Areas/Driveways g) Total, square footage of landscaped areas, d) Recreation Areas h) Other pertinent information of the proposed development 5. LEEDO Certification —Indicate whether project will be pursuing LEEDO certification, 6, Submittal Fee Pg.2 of 5 PRE -APPLICATION SITE PLAN CHECKLIST `!ES NO N/A 1, Project Name ✓ 2, Owner Name ✓ 3, Site Address arEd Vap & Taxlot Number ✓ i Vicinity !Vlap - With Oreet names and locations of all existing and nropncr�d streets within or on the boundary of the proposed development l 5. Scale & North Arrow ✓ 6. Lot Layout with approximate dimensions for all lot lines 7. Zoning Designations in proposed development and surrounding ro a pies 8. Location & Use of all proposed and existing building, fences and structures 0. Indicate which buildings are to remain and which are to be removed l ✓ 101. 1 Location of all landscaped areas. indicate existing trees, size, species, and a roximate drip line outer branch location). Identifytrees to be removed. ✓ " ' 11. Location and size of all public utilities in and adjacent to the proposed development including water line and meter size, sewer lines, storm drain lines, nearest fire hydrant. ✓ 12. Locations of drainage ways or public utility easements in and adjacent to I proposed development. 13. Location, size and use of all contemplated and existing public areas 14. Approximate topography (sloe of the site 15. Location of all parking areas and individual and handicap parking spaces, ingress and a ress on the site and on-site circulation ✓ 16. Use designation for the areas not covered by buildings (e.g. loading, storage, vacant. oven soace. etc. 17. � Elevations of the buildings) 18. Construction materials — wood frame, masonry, etc. (If project is in a Historic District provide pictures of existing structures and indicate proposed exterior materials for siding, windows, trim and roofing) ✓ PRE -APPLICATION BUILDING INFORMATION Please attempt to indicate the following (Note: if information is not known please leave blank) Current Building Occupancy Type (select one): 7Assembly = More than 50 occupants '--'Theaters, Restaurants, Nightclubs, Taverns and Bars, Community Halls, Art Galleries. Places of Worship, Arenas, Bleacher's, etc. Business = Less than 50 occupants Professional Service Office, Barber and Beauty Salons, Training and Skill Development not within a school or academic program, Bank, Print Shop, etc. Educational Schools K -12th Grade, Religious Educational Rooms and Auditoriums, Day Care Facilities 71 Factory t� (i=- Occupancy's include, among others, the use of a building or structure or portion thereof, for assembling, disassembling, fabricating, finishing, manufacturing, packaging, repair or processing operations that are not classified as Group H -Hazardous or Group S -Storage Occupancy's Pg -3 of 5 2. lit High Hazard H -Occupancy's includes, among others, the use of a structure, or a portion thereof, that involves the manufacturing, processing, generation or storage of materials that constitute a physical or health hazard in quantities allowed in control areas complying with section 414 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. Institutional l -Occupancy's includes, among others, the use of a building or structure or a portion thereof for more than 16 persons, excluding staff, who reside on a 24 hr. basis in a supervised environment and receive custodial care. Detoxification Facilities, Hospitals, Medical Care, Nursing Homes, Congregate Living Facilities, Social Rehabilitation Facilities, Assisted Living Facilities, Alcohol and Drug Centers, Correction Centers, Jails, Reformatories, Adult and Child Day Care Facilities. Mercantile Department Stores, Drug Stores, Markets, Motor Fuel -Dispensing Facilities, Retail or Wholesale Stores, Sales Rooms, Residential Single Family Residence, Hotels, Motels, Apartment Houses, Vacation Time Shares, Congregate Living Facilities (more than 16 occupants), Assisted Living Facilities (with or without a Memory Care Endorsement), Residential Treatment Facilities, etc. Is a Change of Occupancy being requested? If yes, please indicate the proposed Occupancy Type: ❑ Assembly ❑ High Hazard ❑ Business ❑ Institutional ❑ Educational ❑ Mercantile ❑ Factory C7 Residential If Residential please indicate which type (select one): R-1 Occupancy Hotels (transient), Motels (transient), Boarding Houses (transient) with more than 10 occupants. ❑ R-2 Occupancy Apartment Houses, Congregate Living Facilities (non -transient) with more than 16 occupants, Dormitories, Hotels (non -transient), Motels (non -transient), Vacation Time Share Properties, Boarding Houses (non -transient) with more than 16 occupants, etc. R-3 Occupancy Detached One and Two Family Dwellings and Townhouses, Adult Care Facilities (six or fewer persons of any age less than 24 hrs.), Adult Foster Homes as defined in ORS Chapter 443, or Family Child Care Homes located in a private residence as defined in the Oregon Structural Specialty Code section 310.2. Buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units, Boarding Houses (non -transient), Child Care Facilities that provide accommodations for six or fewer persons of any age for less than 24 hrs., Congregate Living Facilities (non -transient) with 16 or fewer occupants, Lodging Houses, etc.) R-4 Occupancy This occupancy shall include buildings, structures or portions thereof for more than five but not more than 16 persons, excluding staff, who reside on a 24 -hr. basis in a supervised residential environment and receive custodial care, Congregate Living Facilities, Halfway Houses, Social Rehabilitation Facilities, Alcohol and Drug Centers Assisted Living Facilities (with or without a Memory Care Endorsement), Residential Care Facilities (with or without a Memory Care Endorsement), Residential Treatment Facilities, Group Homes and Facilities, etc.) PgAof5 4. Type of Building Construction: Types I and 11 construction are those types of construction in which the building elements listed in Table 601 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code are of noncombustible materials, Type III construction is that type of construction in which the exterior walls are of noncombustible materials and the interior building elements are of any material permitted by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. Type IV Construction (Heavy Timber) is that type of Construction in which the exterior wails are of noncombustible materials and the interior building elements are of solid or laminated wood without concealed spaces. Type V Construction, is that type of construction in which the structural elements, exterior walls and interior walls are of any materials permitted by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. El Type I El Type IV M Type 11 M Type V E] Type III 5, Is the building equipped or proposed to be equipped with a Fire Protection System? (e.g., Fire Sprinklers or Fire Alarms) El Yes Fel No Pg -5 of 5 TAX TOT 1700 -- TAX LOT 1800 � TAXLOT 7906 o / A L L, E�Y WN tial o IdCu R N ... b q N I I �II� tii J�8 �'nll I 97�! f 0. 74.08' I o_ I� o i Q �+ I TO' SEf84CK LINE— — — — 9 �d m ti ps I I g I ti Oji n _ q 8971 LS/IB DRIV1? i I o N 11 f I O pp CQVCR£!E ii]UNDAWN E ji i i r a. O N K I`g�1 15 SE7WCK LINE ti 1 I _ 74.00 — 1 WATER LINE , I------��F \e aN 0 12'4.i" '�2.88.\, 'WA7ER'CN71 CURB UN n � rQQ C x� o N�xCbey ztl o x .. ..... . . ... l5 i . ..... .....I. -:89 ggn . . ........ . LU J- . . ....... .... . ...... ...... . . ......... H ..... . ..... .. ... ...... II dml 046 Ashland PIS, City f Ashland Adab" silasemap; Zoning Map N C ity of Ashland 0 80 160 1 inch = 80 feet Feet Date Printed: 1127/2022