HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-12-13 Planning PACKET
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DRAFTMinutes
November 8, 2022
I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m.in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Acting Community Development Director
Haywood Norton Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Lynn Thompson Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant
Eric Herron
Lisa Verner
Doug Knauer
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Acting Community Development DirectorBrandon Goldmanmade the following announcements:
Chair Norton will provide the annual Planning Commission report to the City Council on December 6, 2022.
On November 15, 2022 the Council will discuss the updated ordinance regarding Housing in E-1 and C-1 Zones
that the Commission recommended for approval at its September 27, 2022 Special Meeting.At a prior meeting
the Council discussed manufacturedhome parks, which has also been discussedby the Housing Production
Strategy(HPS)ad hoc group. Members of the community, including many who live in manufactured homes,
have requested that a new zone be definedin order to protect manufactured home parks from being
redevelopedin a different manner. The Council was generally in favor of including thecreation of a
manufactured home zone as part of the HPS. The Commission willhear this item at a later date.
The November 22, 2022 Commission meeting will be a Special Meeting.The Commissionwill look at the
Expedited Land Division code changesfor Middle Housingthat was brought to the Commission at its June 14,
2022 meeting.
III.CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.October 11, 2022 Regular Meeting
2.October 25, 2022 Study Session
Commissioners Verner/Knauer m/s to approve theConsent Agenda.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None
V.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.Approval of Findings for PA-T3-2022-00004, 1511 Highway 99 North
Ashland Planning Commission
November 8, 2022
Page 1 of 3
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioner KenCairn is part of the design team and abstained from the meeting.
Staff Presentation
Senior Planner Derek Severson began by noting severalchanges staff made to the Findings. The changes were made to pages:
19,22,31,and Conditions #8e and #10c, andclarified theareas ofrequired street frontage improvements(see attachment #1).
Mr. Severson informed the Commission that Commissioner Thompson had raised the question of affordability requirements with
staff, and that staff would allow the applicant to determine at final plan whether they would be partnering with an affordable
housing provider or would be dedicating the land to an affordable housing provider. Mr. Goldman added thatthe applicants,in the
event that theyare not willing to developitthemselves,could dedicate the land to affordable housing provider without concern for
the development timeframe.The applicantswould be required to provide additional affordable unitsif this route is taken.
Commissioner Thompsonasked where the partnership guidelines were in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)as referenced by
the Findings.Mr. Goldman responded that a partner would be considered a member of the applicant’s team, and would therefore
be beholden to the same developmentstandards. Commissioner Thompson questioned whether the inclusion of such an avenue
for development should be included in the Findings. Mr. Severson respondedthat the applicant would likely partner with an
affordable housing provider to handle the administrative aspects of screening tenants for the affordable units,resulting in its
inclusionas a potential development route under Option 1.Commissioner Thompson asked how the applicant could offload the
affordable housing units to an affordable housing provider without the land being dedicated. Mr. Goldman agreed that the AMC is
not clear on this topic, but that affordable housing providers haveworked with private property ownersin the past to receive land
dedicated to affordable housing, with the promise that they will build it concurrent with the for-market developmentand would
satisfy theOption 1a criteria.He added that this option is a widely preferred development method because an affordable housing
provider would be more adept at requesting grant funds for the affordable units. The land dedication process was createdin the
event that a developer could not find an affordable housing partner, so that the remainder of the project could begin unhindered.
Commissioner Herron inquired if it was common practice to use nearby businessesas reference points for the project,and
Commissioner Knauer suggested that the parcels be designatedinsteadof the currentoccupyingbusinessof a property.
Commissioner Thompson suggested some grammatical changes to pages 47-48of the Findings, and recommended removing
various inclusions of the phrase “is proposed”and replacing it with “shall be”to denote the current status of the Findings.
Commissioners Herron/Vernerm/s to approve theFindings with corrections.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motionpassed. 6-0.
Commissioner Dawkins departed from the agenda to state his aversion topermitting the separation ofthe affordablehousing
units from the market rate units, and that the quality and equity of these types of projects should be discussed by the
Commission.He suggested that the Commission explore ways in which to receiveclear answers from applicants regarding
affordable housing unit development and whether theapplicantwould engage in land dedication or develop the units themselves.
Commissioner Thompson responded thatthis would require a code change, andthe applicant had statedthatit was more
financially feasible to develop the affordable housing units in separate buildings, particularly when partnered with an affordable
housingorganization.Commissioner Dawkins replied that many affordable housing organizations are non-profit whoreceive
funding through taxes, and thattaxpayers would beindirectlyfunding the affordable units for this project. Commissioner Herron
noted that low-income housing do not pay income taxes, and wondered how that would work in a mixed-unit building.
Commissioner Dawkins commented that the administrative aspect should be figured out by the developer.
Mr. Goldman notedthat the annexation standards hadrecently been changed to remove the requirement for developers to mix
affordable units throughout a project. This was done after the Cityreceivedtestimony from affordable housing providers citingthe
difficulty in financing mixed housing units.
Commissioner Knauer remarked that he was more interested in the completion of the project itself, and asked about the
importance of unit distribution. Commissioner Dawkins stated that placing all affordable units in separate buildings could result in
stigmatization and discrimination against the tenants, to which Commissioner Knauer agreed. Commissioner Verner concurred
Ashland Planning Commission
November 8, 2022
Page 2 of 3
that affordable housing units shouldbe evenly distributed throughout future developments, and suggested that this be discussed
during the next series of AMC amendments.
Chair Norton inquiredif an applicantcould proposea project containing primarily two-bedroom market rate units, andonly one-
bedroom affordable housing units but in an increased number from the minimum required. Mr. Goldman responded thata
variance to the codecould be requested by the applicant,but that they would need toprovidea benefit that is greater than or
equal to what would be givenotherwise. Chair Norton suggested that a developer could then provide a higher number of one-
bedroomunitsfor residents. Commissioner Verner emphasized the need for lower-income families to have multi-bedroom units
as well, and Chair Norton agreed. Mr. Goldman commented that a project developed by KDA Homes was able to provide eight
affordable units up from six by dedicating the landand removing the parity required.
Chair Norton commented that he had consideredthe possibility of adding an Open Discussion item to the Commission’s agenda
in the future to facilitatesimilarlyimpromptudiscussionsas the onebrought up by Commissioner Dawkins.
Mr. Goldman noted the inclusion of the Community Development survey in the Commission’s packet, and stated that he would
share the results when they became available.
Chair Norton inquired about the state of the Tree Commission. Mr. Goldman responded that it will be changing tothe Tree and
Urban Forest Advisory Committee, and would operate as a management advisory committee.He stated thatthe Councilwas
providedwitha list of the current members of the Tree Commission to be appointed to this new committee, and that staff would
continue to meet with them monthly to review development plans.
VI.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:40p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant
Ashland Planning Commission
November 8, 2022
Page 3of 3
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DRAFTMinutes
November 22, 2022
I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m.in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:Staff Present:
Michael DawkinsBrandon Goldman, Acting Community Development Director
Haywood NortonDerek Severson, Senior Planner
Lynn ThompsonMichael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant
Eric Herron
Lisa Verner
Doug Knauer
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairnPaula Hyatt
II.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Acting Community Development DirectorBrandon Goldmanmade the following announcements:
The November 15, 2022 City Council meeting was cancelled. The discussion regardingPA-T3-2022,00004,the
annexation of 1511 Highway 99 N,was rescheduled for December 6, 2022.
The Planning Commission annual update to Council,and the first reading of PA-L-2021-00013regarding
housing in E-1 and C-1 zones,have both been rescheduled for January 3, 2023.
An appeal of the Commission’s decision to deny PA-T2-2022-00159, 165 Water Streetwill be heard by the
Council on January 17, 2023. The applicant submitted the appeal on May 20, 2022, butsubsequentlyrequested
a postponement. The Council is required to render a decision by February 10, 2023. Commissioner Thompson
asked who would be representing the Commission during the appeal process. Senior Planner Derek Severson
responded that it will be incumbent on the appellant to successfully contest the Commission’s decision todeny
the project, and that staff will be present to provide clarification and defend the decision. Chair Norton inquired if
the minutes of the relevant meetings would be sent to the Council, to which Mr. Severson said that they would.
III.PUBLIC FORUM
–None
IV.
LEGISLATIVE HEARING:
A.PLANNING ACTION: #PA-L-2022-00014
APPLICANT:City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:AMC 18.5.1General Review Procedures
AMC 18.5.3Land Divisions and
Property Line Adjustments
AMC 18.5.9Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and
Land Use Ordinance Amendments
REQUEST:The proposal would amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the requirements
of Oregon Senate Bill 458 by adding section 18.5.1.075 “Middle Housing Land Divisions” and section
18.5.3.140 “Middle Housing Land Divisions.”
Ashland Planning Commission
November 22, 2022
Page 1of 4
Staff Presentation
Mr. Goldman notedthat staff felt that it was important to import the state’s language into the City’s ordinance to provide clarity for
citizensreviewing the code.
Mr. Severson stated that there had been no significant changes to the ordinance since it was first presented at the June 14, 2022
Commission meeting. He gave a brief presentation on Senate Bill 458, which include changes to Middle Housing Lot Divisions
(MHLD) and Expedited Land Division codes, and also provided a timeline for the changes to be implemented. Under SB458
Expedited Land Divisions would not be considered land use actions, and any appeals of staff decisions would be decided by a
hearings officer or refereeinstead of being brought to the Commission. The noticing area for Expedited Land Divisions will also be
reduced to 100ft from 200ft, and the City would be required to make a final determination within 63 days of submittal.
House Bill 2001 will also institute code changesto theduplex and Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) approval criteria. Mr.
Severson outlined how duplexes would constitute two units on one lot,as attached or detached structures, and that two on-site
parking spaces would be required. ARUs would need to meet size guidelines, but that no on-site parking would be required.Both
duplexes and ARUs would be permitted with approval of a building permit.
Mr. Seversondescribedpreviously noted issues with the draft ordinance,the first beingwhether the MHLD procedure would apply
to duplexes permitted prior to HB 2001. The state has indicated that any middle housing lot division proposal would need to
demonstrate compliance with both applicable state building code and local middle housing code in order to be eligible underSB
458, and that it isunlikelybut not impossiblethat a pre-HB 2001 housing type would meet those criteria. The second issue was
whether MHLD procedure should apply to ARUs in addition to duplexes. Mr. Severson noted that SB 458 itself does not directly
address its applicability to ARUs, but that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has explicitly stated
that the MHLD procedure would not apply to ARUs.
Mr. Severson concluded bybrieflydetailing two staff-recommended additions to the ordinance (see attachment #1).
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Verner inquired if the City had a hearings officer or referee, andMr. Severson responded that one would need to
be hired specifically for this role. Chair Norton asked if they would be a fulltime staffer of the City, and Mr. Severson responded
that they would be contracted.He added that the appellant would be required to pay $300 of the officer’s contract fee, with the
possibility of levying an additional $500. Any further funding would be paid by the City. Mr. Severson stated that he is in contact
with other communities in the Rogue Valley to see who they are hiring forthis position and to review copiesof their contracts.
Commissioner Thompson asked how the division of a lot would be determined and if it would be at the discretion of the property
owner. Mr. Severson responded that it would be up to the property owner, likely with a surveyor’s assistance.They would have
great latitude to divide the property as there would no longer be setback, street-frontage, or lot size zone requirements. It would
be based on what worked best for the building configuration on the property, but would largely be limited to one dwelling per lot.
Commissioner Dawkins inquired if the new state guidelines would conflict with the current code.Mr. Severson responded that the
Commission would be required to approve a MHLD proposal if it came before them, but that if it was a land use action under the
flag drive partition regulations then the review process would not change. Mr. Goldman clarified that MHLD proposals are not land
use decisions, andwould not go before the Commission except underrare circumstances.
Commissioner Thompson asked whetherthe first of staff’s recommended additions to the guidelines would supplant cottage
housing codes. Mr. Severson commented that cottage housing is exempt from these rules.Mr. Goldman added that it would be
more expedient for an applicant to go through theperformance standards review process to create a cottage housing
development,rather than dividing up a property in an incrementalfashion. Commissioner Thompson inquired if her property in an
R-2 zone with two dwelling units would be able to be subdivided and sold separately under the new guidelines. Mr. Goldman
responded that she could, but that the secondary unit would need to meet building and setback requirements in relation to the
parent lot.He noted that both buildings would still be considered a duplex, and that the owners would not be permitted to develop
Ashland Planning Commission
November 22, 2022
Page 2of 4
an ARU in either property. Commissioner Thompson asked if bothpropertieswould be fully transferable. Mr. Seversonresponded
that neither property would have full developmentrights, but that they couldbothbe soldand resold.
Commissioner Herron asked whether ARUs need separate utilitiesfrom the parent property, and Mr. Severson responded that
they would only require separate electricalservice. Commissioner Herron commented that the parent property would then be
required to provide all other utilities in order to be legally divided, and asked if that was explicitly stated in the Ashland Municipal
Code. Mr. Seversonresponded that it is part of the building code requirements, and that separate utilities are required bystate
law.
Chair Norton noted thatdivided duplexes could nowdevelop their own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)under
the new guidelines.Mr. Severson stated that the duplex would still be subject to the originaldivisionapproval, which would
include building design and placement of a landscape plan. Commissioner Thompson noted that the state bill contains a clause
regarding plannedcommunities, and that the propertieswithin such a division would be subject to the governing documents of the
planned community, and would beallocated assessments and voting rights on the same basis as existing units. Commissioner
Verner requested clarification on when this situation would apply. Mr. Goldman respondedthata duplex in an existing planned
community thatwent through a middle housing land divisionwould have voting rights under the existing CC&Rs.The other
scenario would beifa single-family home,outside of an existing planned community,added a second unit to their property and
then went through the MHLD process. These two properties could thendeveloptheir ownCC&Rs for maintenance ofany
common areas.Chair Norton expressed concern that the conditions for the division could become confusedafter the properties
are sold and resold, which could result in conflicts arising between twofutureproperty owners. Commissioner Thompson pointed
outthat the City would not get involved insucha civil matter.
Commissioner Knauer inquired if the City actively observedmandates coming from the state, and whether the City had an
advocate at thestate level. Councilor Hyatt detailed how the League of Oregon Cities (LOC)will annually send outa list of priority
issues to a variety of committees, whicharethenplaced intorelevantcategories. One of those categories are land actions, and
the City votes on which it deems to be thetop sixhighest priority items.The LOC then leverages lobbyists at the league on behalf
of those cities. However, those lower priority items arenot overlooked, as environments and circumstances change rapidly. Land
use, affordability, and infrastructure are currently a high priority for the LOC and are being advocated for on behalf of Oregon
cities. A lobbyist within the LOC can also be approached if there is an issue that would be counter to the interests of a city.
Commissioner Thompson commented that there was a consortium of Oregon cities that is currently suing the DLCDoverthe
removal of parking mandates within the state’s new Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities guidelines. Chair Norton
inquired if the City was approached about joining the lawsuit. Councilor Hyatt respondedthatMedford and Grants Pass had
joined the lawsuit, butto herknowledgethe City had not entertained the notion of joining.
CommissionersThompson/Dawkins m/s to recommend that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance with staff’s
additional recommendations. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. 6-0.
V.
OPEN DISCUSSION
Mr. Goldman stated thattheopen discussionitemhad been added in order to address topics not on the agendathat
Commissioners would like to discuss, as well provide an opportunity for Commissioners to putforth topics for discussion at future
Study Sessions. He noted that no new items could be added to the current agenda during an Open Discussion, norcoulda
decisionbemade on such an item.
Chair Norton inquired if the Midtown Lofts project at 188 Garfield was progressing. Mr. Goldman responded that a site visit had
recently been conducted to look for tree protection fencing in advance of the permit being issued, and the developers would soon
begin work on the common areas. The Commission discussed a variety of projects that have yet to begin development.Mr.
Severson announced thattheColumbia Carefacilityand Plaza North on First Streetbothrecently obtained theiroccupancy
permits.
Chair Norton informed the Commission that Governor-Elect Tina Kotek hadexpressed the beliefthat the Urban Growth Boundary
Ashland Planning Commission
November 22, 2022
Page 3of 4
(UGB)washaving a detrimental effect on affordable housingin the state, and hadshown interest inmodifying State Bill 100 to
address thisissue.Commissioner Dawkinscommentedthat one of the incoming City Councilors appeared opento expandingthe
UGB.
Councilor Hyatt expressed her gratitude to the Commissionersfor theirdedication and willingness to delve into difficult issues,
and that she always appreciatedrecommendations that come from them.She also expressed her appreciation to staff.
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:52p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant
Ashland Planning Commission
November 22, 2022
Page 4of 4
-¨££«¤ (®´²¨¦ , £ $¨µ¨²¨®²
,¤¦¨²« ³¨µ¤ 4¨¬¤«¨¤
(" ͷ͵͵Ͷ 2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³²
-¨££«¤ (®´²¨¦ , £ $¨µ¨²¨®²
-¨££«¤ (®´²¨¦ , £ $¨µ¨²¨®²
("ͷ͵͵Ͷ #®£¤ #§ ¦¤²Ȃ
-¨££«¤ (®´²¨¦ , £ $¨µ¨²¨®²
.¤·³ 3³¤¯²
PlanningAction PA-L-2022-00015 FoodTrucksAshlandPlanningDivision – StaffReport
Applicant: CityofAshlandPage1 of 3
PlanningActionPA-L-2022-00015FoodTrucksAshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport
Applicant:CityofAshlandPage2of3
PlanningActionPA-L-2022-00015FoodTrucksAshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport
Applicant:CityofAshlandPage3of3
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.usTTY: 1-800-735-2900
NOTICE OFPUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2022-00015 Appealing PA-T1-2022-00185
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 897 Hillview Drive
APPLICANT & OWNER:Suncrest Homes, LLC
DESCRIPTION: An appeal of the administrative approval of planning action #PA-T1-2022-00185, An 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:R-1-7.5; MAP:
39 1E 15 AC;TAX LOT:900
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING:Tuesday,December13, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
at the Ashland Civic Center/City Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning
Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes.
PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT
18.5.3.050
The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met.
A.The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B.The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C.The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area.
D.The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
E.Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable
development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation).
F.Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition
Plat Criteria.
G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow
for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and
dedications.
H.Unpaved Streets.
1.Minimum Street Improvement.When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved
collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed
for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
2.Unpaved Streets.The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist.
a.The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded
(cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City.
b.The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
c.The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation
would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded tomeet 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 theundergrounding 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.
ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY FLAG LOT PARTITION PLAT CRITERIA
18.5.3.060
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 18.5.3.050are 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 approvalin 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, exceptthat:
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 3½ 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
.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 has at least three parking spaces situated to eliminate the necessity for vehicles backing out.
L. There shall be no parking within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on either side of the flag drive entrance.
M.Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in part 18.6, shall provide a fire work area of 20 feet by 40 feet clear of vertical
obstructions and within 50 feet of the structure. The fire work area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved
automatic sprinkler system installed.
N.Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a site-obscuring fence, wall or fire resistant broadleaf evergreen site-
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 lotsshall 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.
waived by applicant +90 days
Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck SmithDecember13, 2022 - Page 1 of 12
Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck SmithDecember13, 2022 - Page 2 of 12
Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 3 of 12
Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 4 of 12
flag drive area
except, where a lot is part of an approved flag partition
Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 5 of 12
Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 6 of 12
in a manner similar to the above
The Base Flood
Elevation, Floodplain Corridor Elevation, and Floodplain Boundary, per the Ashland Floodplain
;
Corridor Maps, as applicable
supplemental information submitted to staff following
the neighborhood meeting included self-imposed conditions that would require both
homes to have foundation drains systems that will be tied to the stormdrain system along
Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 7 of 12
the northern property line or directly tied to weep holes in the curb along Hillview Drive.
Either way, stormwater will be conveyed off site through an existing city facility and will
therefore not create any new stormwater management issues.
Infill
development in the City of Ashland is encouraged by both the Ashland Zoning Code as
well as the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The appellant contends that the proposed
partition, which is a standards-based review without much subjectivity will permanently
destroy the character of the neighborhood and that the number of houses could double if
all lots took advantage of partitioning their lots. It’s important to note that not all lots
can be divided because of the location of existing dwellings, size or dimension of existing
lots or parcels or the location of public infrastructure. Additionally, most houses in the
neighborhood have a substantial value, unlike the dwelling on the subject property.
Removal of the existing house in this situation not only removes a home that is in
disrepair and unattractive, but it allows the parcel to be redeveloped in a manner that
supports the goals and policies of Ashland’s Comprehensive Plan. Redevelopment
provides additionally housing opportunities and allows for the construction of single
family detached dwellings that are compatible with the character of the neighborhood
and constructed to building codes that address the stormwater concerns raised by the
appellant.
As detailed herein and noted by staff in the Findings and Orders, the application
applicable criteria and standards
complies with all of the Ashland Zoning Code either
outright or with the imposition of conditions of approval. The criteria noted by the
appellant has been addressed herein and either meets the standard or is not applicable.
The appellant also raises issues that are not directly tied to relevant criteria. These
issues are not addressed because the city land development code does not address issues
such as increased crime or neighborhood opinion. Policy makers have determined the
allowed uses in each zone, allowable densities and in some areas architectural design
requirements. The proposed partition will allow for the subject property to be
redeveloped at the city’s desired density while still constructing single-family detached
dwellings.
Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 8 of 12
Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 9 of 12
Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 10of 12
Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 11of 12
Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa
Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 12of 12
, in a manner similar to the above
The Base Flood Elevation, Floodplain Corridor Elevation, and
Floodplain Boundary, per the Ashland Floodplain Corridor Maps, as
applicable;
want
The purpose of this chapter is to provide rules, regulations and standards governing the approval of
subdivisions, partitions and property line adjustments as follows.
A. Carry out the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Encourage efficient use of land resources and public services, and to provide transportation options.
C. Protect the natural environment and encourage sustainable building practices.
D. Promote the public health, safety and general welfare through orderly and efficient urbanization.
E. Coordinate land division requirements with other code provisions such as the Performance Standards
Option.
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 and PSO Overlay, the
preliminary plat application shall consist of drawings and supplementary written material (i.e., on forms
and/or in a written narrative) adequate to provide the following information, in quantities determined by Staff
Advisor:
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:
e. The Base Flood Elevation, Floodplain Corridor Elevation, and Floodplain Boundary, per the Ashland
Floodplain Corridor Maps, as applicable;
The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of
the following criteria are 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.
A. Storm Drainage Plan Approval. Development permits for storm drainage and surface water management
plans must be approved by the City Engineer and Building Official.
B. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage. Culverts and other drainage facilities shall be sized to
accommodate existing and projected future runoff from upstream drainage area, considering the City’s
adopted facility master plans and applicable standards. Such facilities shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
C. Effect on Downstream Drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff
resulting from the development would overload an existing drainage facility, the City shall withhold approval
of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until
provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with
City standards.
D. Over-Sizing. The authority may require as a condition of approval that the storm drainage system serving
new development shall be sized to accommodate future development within the area as projected by the
applicable facility master plan; and the City may authorize other cost recovery or cost-sharing methods as
provided under state law.
E. Existing Watercourse. Where a watercourse, drainage way, channel, or stream traverses a proposed
development site, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming
substantially with the boundary or centerline of such watercourse, as applicable, and such further width as
will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance to protect the public health and safety.
1. This project is out of character for the neighborhood
a. Permanently destroys the character of the area that has attracted families to purchase and keep
homes in this neighborhood.
2. A single, larger structure would be in character and suit the neighborhood better.
3. Sets precedence for all lots being subdivided
a. The number of houses could double in the neighborhood
4. Traffic could double serving new houses
5. Hillview is main arterial evacuation route for the upper streets.
6.Leads to higher density residential zoning (supposedly 4 houses could be built on this lot)
a. Historically single family neighborhood
7. Encourages:
a. Tearing down houses to build more house
i. Creates higher density neighborhoods
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
h. Intensifies increased water runoff to neighboring properties.
8. Discourages long time area residents from remaining in this neighborhood.
a. Reduces quality of life, This quality of life attracted us to this neighborhood
9. Discourages members in the neighborhood to remain in this city
10. 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.
11. Hillview homes have larger yards.
12. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy at various times of the year
a. Rain water run off...
b. Runoff from homes on Harmony Lane above the alley flow north-east down the alley.
c. The alley stops at the corner of 897 and 895 Hillview on the alley and has nowhere to go.
d. Historically, during the winter, rain water 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
e. 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 boundary to collect water
iii. French drain tied to storm drain.
f. City of Ashland should be required:
i.Construct a collection point at the end of the alley to remover water runoff through
their storm drain easement through the alley.
ii. Make provisions on alley storm drain line to collect Harmony Lane rain gutter lines.
13. 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.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
Notice of Appeal
Time for Filing
Content of Notice of Appeal
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
Public Input
flag drive area
except, where a
lot is part of an approved flag partition
Decision
Interim
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.usTTY: 1-800-735-2900
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:R-1-7.5; MAP: 39 1E 15 AC;TAX LOT:900
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:September 26, 2022
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:October 10, 2022
OVER
PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT
18.5.3.050
The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met.
A.The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B.The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C.The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area.
D.The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
E.Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable
development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation).
F.Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition
Plat Criteria.
G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part18.4, 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 tomeet the final street
elevation.
d.Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights
of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements
and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements
shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final
survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
I.Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from thestreet.
J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development.
˟̀˵˾ ˘˿̅̃˵
The owners of 897 Hillview would like to invite you
over for a open house to learn more about the
upcoming lot split.
We will be onsite on
Wednesday September 21st
from 5:30pm-6:30pm to
review our plans for the lot
and answer any questions/
concerns about this lot split.
675FgjjtgcuBp
September 21, 2022
5:30 PM - 6:30 PM
Ƃ6ėáóÛ¶èÀèÀÆèĒÛèāúĒÉÛÛ«¶«ĆÉÛ²èâ
Njc_qchmglsqrm
jc_plkmpc,
If you are unable to make it and
have any questions, please
contact Charlie Hamilton
32/+722+1754
qslapcqr>kglb,lcr
Regan M. Trapp
other
than an alley
Karl Johnson, E.I.T., Associate Engineer
This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If
you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 488-5587. Thank you
If you spend too much time thinking about a thing, you’ll never get it done. – Bruce Lee
Aaron said there will be a 10' wide driveway from Hillview Drive providing vehicular access to
Parcel #2. Access to Parcel #2 is also allowed through the alley. From the Fire Department's
perspective, because the access to Parcel #2 does not strictly meet the Fire Code standards (20'
wide fire apparatus access road within 150' of all exterior portions of the home), a residential fire
sprinkler system is conditioned for the new home. This greatly reduces the chance of an out-of-
control home fire occurring on Parcel #2. For any emergency response to Parcel #2, the Fire
Department would park on Hillview Drive and not drive fire apparatus through the alley.
Thank you both
Thank you,
Emily Matlock
Senior Fire Department Analyst
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, OR 97520
emily.matlock@ashland.or.us
Office: 541-482-2770
Direct: 541-552-2216
TTY: 1-800-735-2900
Fax: 541-488-5318
This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received
this message in error, please notify me at 541-552-2216.
Hi Greg,
Short response time, but can you please see below 3 questions a citizen has in regards to the
partition that we have already provided comment on. Commenting period ends tomorrow I
believe. I just spoke with Aaron in planning to get some details about it and I have attached the
plat. In the comments you provided you had mentioned the residence being sprinklered. Robert
(citizen below) is concerned about fire access and how plot 2 would be defended and the access
that the plat is providing. Can you provide any additional comment or requirement for fire
department access issues if any?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron,
Please let me know if I misspoke above. I had tried to type out what we were discussing as we
talked but think maybe I missed the mark on the exact question.
Thank you both!
Thank you,
Emily Matlock
Senior Fire Department Analyst
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, OR 97520
emily.matlock@ashland.or.us
Office: 541-482-2770
Direct: 541-552-2216
TTY: 1-800-735-2900
Fax: 541-488-5318
This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have
received this message in error, please notify me at 541-552-2216.
We can discuss it although I donÔt think IÔm probably the right person to know anything ha but I
will do my best. I am here today until 430 today and in at 8am tomorrow but need to leave
around 3 for department errands
Thank you,
Emily Matlock
Senior Fire Department Analyst
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, OR 97520
emily.matlock@ashland.or.us
Office: 541-482-2770
Direct: 541-552-2216
TTY: 1-800-735-2900
Fax: 541-488-5318
This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have
received this message in error, please notify me at 541-552-2216.
Regan M. Trapp
Hi Regan,
I received a phone call from Robert Sellman (541-708-6032) 899 Hillview. He received a fire
prevention plan notification and has a few questions:
Once approved, is this a driveway or walkway?
He said in the paperwork that it calls it out a driveway in some areas and then a walkway in
others, heÔd like clarification on what it is and the
Once approved, is the ally the primary access off Ross way? He mentioned itÔs 230Ô of dirt
road access
Thank you,
Emily Matlock
Senior Fire Department Analyst
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, OR 97520
emily.matlock@ashland.or.us
Office: 541-482-2770
Direct: 541-552-2216
TTY: 1-800-735-2900
Fax: 541-488-5318
This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have
received this message in error, please notify me at 541-552-2216.
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.usTTY: 1-800-735-2900
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:R-1-7.5; MAP: 39 1E 15 AC;TAX LOT:900
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:June 3, 2022
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:June 17, 2022
OVER
PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT
18.5.3.050
The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met.
A.The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B.The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C.The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area.
D.The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
E.Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable
development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation).
F.Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition
Plat Criteria.
G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part18.4, 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 tomeet the final street
elevation.
d.Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights
of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements
and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements
shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final
survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
I.Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from thestreet.
J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development.