HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-13 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, oive your name and complete address for the record.
You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is
not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 13, 2010
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. March 9, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-00726
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 720 Grandview Drive
APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
DESCRIPTION: Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Staff Advisor's decision to approve a Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. Planning
Action #2006-01784 previously granted approval for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and
Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the
transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension
of utilities to serve a new single-family residence. The current application again requests a Physical &
Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and
Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the
transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension
of utilities to serve a new single-family residence. The current request differs from the previous
approval in that it involves alterations to accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request for a
Tree Removal Permit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 05 CD;
TAX LOT: 500.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for 2010-2020 SOU Campus Master Plan
VII. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF
ASHLAND
r.,
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104
ADA Title 1 ).
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
March 9, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Michael Dawkins
Dave Dotterrer
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
John Rinaldi, Jr.
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
*Larry Blake
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas, absent
*Commissioner Blake did not attend the first pari of the meeting for the SOU Master Plan public hearing,
but was present for the Croman Minority Repori and TGM Grant Application agenda items.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh noted the Economic Development update will come before the Commission at their April meeting and
stated their March 30th Study Session will likely be canceled. Marsh also added "Consideration of 2010 TGM Grant
Application" to the end of the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. February 23,2010 Planning Commission Minutes.
Commissioner Dotterrer clarified on Page 3 under Discussion of the motion, the minutes should indicate he was against the
properties at 650-750 Mistletoe Rd. being included in the Detail Site Review zone.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Morris to approve the minutes as amended. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-00817
APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University
DESCRIPTION: A request for adoption ofthe Southern Oregon University Campus Master Plan 2010-2020 as part
of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (This plan replaces the previously approved 2000-2010 Campus Master Plan.)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: S-O.
Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Miller stated she performed a site visit. No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners.
Staff Report
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained in July 2009 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
2010-2020 Campus Master Plan but ran out of time before the Commission could take a vote. A week later, the University
asked the City to put this item on hold so that they could conduct further outreach with the community. In December 2009, the
University submitted a revised plan and requested that this be put back on the Planning Commission's agenda. Mr. Molnar
stated tonight the Planning Commission will hold a new public hearing and issue a recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Molnar reviewed the suggested conditions presented by staff. In terms of the faculty housing proposed for Ashland
St./Mountain Ave. and Henry Street, staff recommends: 1) conditional use permits be required, 2) the University adopt
additional design standards addressing building scale, bulk, coverage and articulation, and 3) a Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) be completed prior to final design. In regards to the faculty housing proposed for Walker Ave., staff is
recommending: 1) the University adopt additional design standards addressing building scale, bulk, coverage, and articulation,
2) the Transportation Impact Analysis be completed prior to final design, and 3) conditional use permits be required for
locations within 50 ft. of private property. For the mixed use development proposed for Ashland Street, staff recommends: 1)
the project be subject to the City's Detail Site Review and Large Scale Development standards, 2) a Transportation Impact
Analysis be conducted prior to final design, and 3) the University adopt a Pedestrian Safety Plan and timeline for
implementation.
Mr. Molnar explained one area of concern the University has identified is the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement in the Detail
Site Review zone. He stated the University has indicated the FAR maximum may be problematic for the types of buildings
they may propose, and since this standard was formulated to apply to discrete commercial parcels, staff is open to some
relaxation of this standard.
In regards to the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, Mr. Molnar stated staff is recommending SOU
promote the use of alternate modes of transportation and refine the campus parking requirements. In addition, staff is
recommending the University provide the City with their TGM strategies and a timeline for implementation.
Mr. Molnar clarified staff is recommending all of the above be conditions of approval. He also clarified that while the City
Council will review and adopt the entire plan, the Planning staff focused its review of the plan on the land use projects and
elements that will come before the Planning Commission as the master plan is implemented.
Comment was made questioning why staff is not recommending the TIA be completed prior to the adoption of the master plan.
Mr. Molnar explained master plans often indicate placeholders for development; however accurate traffic impact details are
not available until specific projects are ready to move forward. He stated at this point looking at intersection changes based on
the elements identified in the master plan would be premature; however the City's upcoming Transportation System Plan
update may identify areas within the campus where development is proposed and incorporate necessary facility
improvements.
Applicant's Presentation
Craig Morris and Eric Ridenour addressed the Commission. Mr. Morris noted last time they were before the Commission the
neighbors had a lot of misunderstandings about the University's proposed master plan; however since then, the University has
given the community time to share their concerns and also arranged a public meeting last October to discuss the plan.
Mr. Ridenour stated the master plan elements are driven by retention, recruitment, and fiscal responsibility; and he listed the
key elements of the plan as follows:
1 ) Two academic buildings are proposed for capital investments. Theater Arts will have a major renovation and addition, and
an addition is proposed for the Sciences Complex.
2) Five buildings are identified for deferred maintenance projects: Churchill, Sciences, Britt, Central and McNeal.
3) The University's athletics program anticipates potential field use changes and increased access and visibility projects.
4) The plan proposes to remove the Cascade Complex and outlines a new generation of modern housing located north of
Ashland St. and Siskiyou Blvd.
5) Faculty housing is proposed on Walker Ave. north of the railroad tracks, and also on Henry St. and Ashland St west of
Mountain Ave.
Mr. Ridenour clarified of the two housing types proposed, the student housing project is by far the higher priority of the
University. He also commented briefly on the circulation issues identified in the master plan, the enhanced pedestrian core,
and noted the master plan also lays out a series of sustainability strategies.
Mr. Ridenour stated following the last Planning Commission hearing the University held a neighborhood meeting and
members of the public were asked to vote on key questions. He shared some of the results from that activity and also
provided the following clarifications: 1) the Ecos Garden site will remain intact under the update, 2) Oregon state funds will not
be used to develop the proposed student and faculty housing, 3) the faculty housing improvements could be subject to
property taxes, 4) the University does not have plans to acquire additional property in the next decade, 5) all plans for
perimeter properties will have to follow the City's conditional use process, 6) any faculty housing developed on Ashland St. will
be limited to a 1 Y2 story height limit, and 2 stories for housing west of Mountain Ave., and 7) SOU has owned the softball
fields north of Iowa St. for decades.
Mr. Ridenour noted the following elements of the proposed master plan have changed since the Planning Commission's first
hearing: 1) graphics and text have been updated to clarify that SOU does not have plans to expand into properties not
currently owned by SOU, 2) the housing goals have been refined and clarified (up to 800 beds of new housing with the intent
to replace beds in Cascade and potentially Susanne Homes), 3) the plan includes more data on commute patterns, 4) there is
additional information on the condition of the Cascade Complex, and 5) added the statement "New faculty housing on Ashland
St. (west of Mountain Ave) will not be more than 1 Y2 stories taiL"
Questions of Applicant
Mr. Ridenour clarified in general, the University has no objections with the conditions proposed by staff; however for the TIA
they would like to look at the whole student housing area as a cluster rather than project by project.
Mr. Morris clarified the University is potentially looking at 600-1000 new students and roughly 40 new staff and faculty
positions over the next 10 years.
Mr. Morris commented on the student housing element and stated replacing the Cascade Complex is a major priority for them.
He explained they have talked with students and they have indicated their disapproval of this style of housing and stated
students now desire apartment-type living with living room spaces, kitchens and private bathrooms. He added the University
views this as a recruitment and retention issue and it will be a priority for them to move forward with this relatively quickly. Mr.
Ridenour noted their proposal is not to replace Cascade Hall on the same site, but rather to build new housing on the north
side of Siskiyou Blvd. He also indicated the University will conduct a market study to ensure there is a market for this type of
mixed use construction before they more forward. He stated they would not build the commercial square footage if they didn't
believe they could fill it, and clarified the commercial uses would be targeted to the student body.
Comment was made questioning if the University anticipates the increased number of students using public transportation
since the master plan does not propose additional parking. Mr. Morris stated the University plans on making better use of their
existing facilities and explained most classes currently occur between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. He stated as the student body
expands they will hold classes later in the afternoon, hold more evening classes, and have more use of their Medford facility.
Mr. Ridenour noted the master plan does recommend a review of the parking standards and to look for shared parking
opportunities.
Comment was made questioning if the University would be willing to do some of this transportation modeling upfront rather
than on a project by project basis. Mr. Morris provided an explanation of how the University receives funding and stated they
will not have the money to conduct a comprehensive transportation study until specific projects are identified and approved by
the board. He added it would be a financial hardship for them to agree to do a comprehensive study right now.
Mr. Molnar clarified the City's TSP update will evaluate the impacts of the campus master plan if it is adopted, and noted the
TSP will be looking at all modes of transportation. It was also clarified the University will be require to provide a pedestrian
safety plan before anything can be built north of Siskiyou Blvd.
Mr. Morris commented briefly on the proposed faculty housing and noted the difficulty the University faces in attracting new
staff due to Ashland's housing market. He stated the master plan indicates a placeholder for this, but he does not anticipate
the University will move forward with this right away.
Public Testimonv
Dominique Brown, Abraham Bettinger, Keith Erickson, and Lindsay Tidwell allocated their time to Rivers Brown.
Rivers Brown/1067 Ashland StlExpressed his concern with the prioritized phased development of the faculty village and
recommended the University prioritize their development as follows: 1) fully develop the north campus site first, 2) develop
faculty housing along Henry Street adjacent to where apartments already exist and gradually move eastward, and 3) develop
along Ashland St. just west of S. Mountain Ave. in the older established single-family neighborhood. Mr. Brown presented the
reasoning behind this recommendation and stated the faculty village would fit in best at the north campus location since this is
where all of the amenities for young families exist. Mr. Brown commented on why the faculty village may fail and shared his
concerns with abandoning student housing above the boulevard. He stated the traffic and safety problems on Siskiyou Blvd.
will only get worse and stated there is no good way to accommodate 3,000-6,000 extra crossings per day at the already
congested SiskiyoulWightmanllndiana intersection. Mr. Brown shared his concerns with the proposed mixed use student
housing and stated it is only the privatization aspect of this housing scheme that dictates transferring the students to below the
boulevard. He also shared his concerns with the University's open house and felt the University was not open to their input.
(Mr. Brown's full written testimony was submitted into the record.)
Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Stated SOU is integral to the community and it is good to see the University has plans to
replace the dorms; however, if this is a conceptual plan, the traffic and pedestrian issues should not be. Ms. Hartzell
recommended the Planning Commission ask staff to research the possibility of grant opportunities for the City and University
to come together and get the traffic study financed. She also recommended the mixed use housing be studied carefully given
the commercial property market in Ashland and cautioned that it may take some time before that kind of commercial property
fills up.
Sandra SIattery/1405 Pinecrest TeITace/lndicated she is speaking as a member of the SOU President's Advisory Board. Ms.
Slattery noted the University has 775 employees and the payroll alone contributes 48 million dollars annually into the City's
economy. She stated the connection between SOU and the growth and development of our community cannot be
underestimated, and in order to ensure SOU's continued success in this economy it must have a master plan. She stated the
proposed improvements will enrich and expand the existing educational and recreational opportunities, as well as provide
student and faculty enhancements. Ms. Slattery stated the development of faculty housing is an important incentive for the
future of the University, especially in the recruitment of young professionals that we need in this community. She stated
student housing options is an important selection criteria prospective students use, and urged the Commission to support the
SOU Master Plan.
Alan DeBoer/2260 Morada Ln/lndicated he is also a member of the SOU President's Advisory Board but is speaking as a
citizen. Mr. DeBoer stated SOU is one of the great things about Ashland and asked that the Commission support this plan. He
voiced his support for the proposed student housing upgrades and the potential for faculty housing. Mr. DeBoer stated he
hopes the Commission does not require the University to do a transportation study up front. He noted they are a couple years
away from building anything identified in the plan and he anticipates there will be some changes in transportation over the
next 10 years. He added it makes more sense to do this study prior to the application when the University determines the
specifics about what they want to build.
James Ford/507 Tucker StlStated he is also a member of the SOU President's Advisory Board. Mr. Ford voiced his support
for the Campus Master Plan for the following six reasons: 1) the plan represents developments specific to the University's
existing education district and no new property acquisition is proposed, 2) the plan allows the University to become
operationally efficient and ready to act as opportunities and the economy allows, 3) the plan will provide for facilities with the
flexibility necessary to meet the ever changing needs of the campus, 4) SOU is a good steward and has been an excellent
corporate citizen, 5) the University is committed to recruiting, developing and retaining outstanding faculty and staff, and this
necessitates flexibility in facilities and housing on campus, and 6) the plan will help SOU become more financially sustainable
by improving the academic facilities and residential options.
Rick Bleiweiss/1131 Highwood DrlStated he is a member of the SOU President Advisory Board but is speaking as a private
citizen. Mr. Bleiweiss voiced his support for the approval of the University's master plan. He stated in addition to being the
largest employer in Ashland, SOU has the number one theater program west of the Rockies. Mr. Bleiweiss stated the theater
renovation project is going to be critical to keeping and maximizing that status, and it is also going to bring a lot of jobs. He
stated this plan creates a campus atmosphere committed to sustainability and he believes this plan goes hand in hand with
the University's climate action plan which set benchmarks for reducing carbon emissions and improving sustainable practices.
Mr. Bleiweiss stated the University is trying to be a responsible member of this community and thinks they should do whatever
they can to support SOU.
Rebuttal bv the Applicant
Mr. Ridenour clarified the proposed housing is compatible with the surrounding area and noted the new design guidelines that
were submitted with the plan. He also clarified the mixed use development will not be a gated area, but rather will incorporate
good urban design principles and will also comply with the City's Detail Site Review Zone requirements. Regarding the
transportation issues, Mr. Ridenour stated they believe the strategy proposed by staff to tie the TIA assessment to significant
development that will change circulation is the logical way to go. He stated this will allow the University to move forward with
the master plan and pursue the funding they need to complete these projects and to do the necessary studies. He stated they
believe this gives the City and the community the assurance they need that the planning will be done in advance of the
impacts.
Mr. Morris commented on the process they have to follow with the State legislature for capital projects. He explained they
need to have a master plan that sets a vision so they have a concrete basis for the prjoects they will start talking to
legislatures about over the next few months. He asked the Commission to consider the impact not adopting this plan will have
on them.
Advice from LeClal Counsel & Staff
Mr. Molnar clarified if the City's TSP update identifies issues with the University's plan, the master plan can be modified or the
City could impose conditions as these projects move forward.
Comment was made questioning if the TIA condition could be expanded to include all future housing projects, and not just
those within the north campus area. Mr. Molnar clarified the general focus was on the larger mixed use project on Ashland
Street, but this condition could be extended.
Comment was made questioning why the TIA is tied to the housing since the larger issue is the commuter traffic and how the
core of campus will be affected. Mr. Molnar commented that the appropriate vehicle to address the issue of future growth on
the campus is the City's TSP. Comment was made that this seems appropriate so long as the University is a player in that
process since it is their goals, their campus, and their impact.
Comment was made expressing concern with the pedestrian situation on Siskiyou Blvd. and with the options that have been
presented.
Comment was made questioning if the City has enough housing in the inventory for 600 more students. Mr. Molnar clarified
there is enough land within the City's urban growth boundary to meet our housing needs for the next 20 years, however the 5-
year inventory for multi-family housing within the City limits is pretty tight.
Commissioner Marsh closed the record and public hearing at 9:03 p.m.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Dotterrer/Rinaldi mls to recommend the Council's adoption of the 2010-2020 SOU Campus Master
Plan as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, with the inclusion of staff's recommended conditions on pages 2-6 of
the Staff Report Addendum. DISCUSSION: Dotterrer clarified this recommendation includes the exemption for maximum
Floor Area Ratio (FAR), but does not exempt the separation of buildings requirement in the Detail Site Review standards.
Rinaldi recommended the Pedestrian Safety Plan condition be amended to read, "The Plan shall include but not be limited to
improved crossings with enhanced pavement design and access controls with an on-going monitoring of pedestrian flow
and safety issues." Commissioner Dotterrer accepted this amendment as part of the motion.
Rinaldi recommended the condition regarding the Transportation Impact Analysis and Access Management also be amended
to read, "All future housing projects prfJposed v:ithiR the north G3mpUS area shall be subject to a transporiation impact
analysis (TIA) and access management standards described in the City of Ashland Transporiation System Plan (TSP)."
Dotterrer accepted this amendment as part of the motion.
Commissioner Miller suggested the faculty housing be constructed at the Walker Ave. location before the Ashland
StlGlenwood Dr. area. Rinaldi commented that this could case the University some hardship and he would prefer to leave this
to the University's market analysis. He added he believes there is some benefit to having faculty housing closer to campus.
Miller voiced her concern with adding more student housing on the north side of campus. She stated this takes away from the
campus feeling and stated she also has concerns with the proposed mixed use buildings. Dawkins shared his concern that the
proposed attached housing won't match the surrounding neighborhood. He stated he also has concerns with moving housing
below the boulevard. Marsh commented that she is comfortable moving this forward because the overall transportation
impacts will be incorporated into the City's TSP. She stated she believes the faculty housing on Henry St. is within the same
impact as the other housing in the area. Marsh also commented on the student housing component and voiced her support for
creating a zone of student activity near recreational facilities and potentially a commercial area. She acknowledged there is an
issue with students crossing Siskiyou Blvd, but stated crossing the street is an age appropriate activity for a college student.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Mindlin, Morris, Marsh, Dotterrer, Rinaldi and Miller, YES. Motion passed 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Croman Mill District Plan - Minority Report
Commissioner Marsh explained this is the first time she has dealt with a minority report; and while she was initially open to
doing this, at this point she does not believe the report meets her personal standard for a minority report. She stated she
believes this report addresses issues the Commission never discussed and is much broader than she was anticipating.
Commissioner Marsh provided her opinion that the report should be presented to the City Council at their public hearing by the
individual members who drafted it.
The commissioners shared their opinions on whether it is appropriate to forward the minority report along with their formal
recommendations to the City Council. Commissioner Miller stated the report addresses a lot of the issues that have been of
concern to her and she is in favor of forwarding it to the City Council. Commissioner Morris gave his opinion that the report
addresses items that were not on the record and stated he is in favor of the commissioners going before the Council as
individuals and presenting their concerns. Commissioner Dotterrer stated he is comfortable with forwarding the minority report
to the City Council and if it makes the other members more comfortable suggested adding a caveat that approval by the
Commission does not imply an endorsement of the minority report's content. Commissioner Marsh clarified her primary issue
is that if the minority report is incorporated into the Commission's official recommendation, it needs to be based on the same
record of information. Commissioner Rinaldi voiced his support for others right to have a dissenting viewpoint, but does not
know why that should carry the stamp of the Planning Commission.
Commissioners MillerlMindlin mls to forward the Minority Report to the City Council. DISCUSSION: Commissioner
Mindlin commented that forwarding the minority report would accomplish recognition that there were considerable issues
discussed that are not represented in the recommendation. She stated everything in the report she attempted to bring forward
during their discussions, and since they do not have verbatim minutes from their meetings it is difficult to see what was
actually discussed. Mindlin stated she was encouraged to do this and would like to see the minority report move forward.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Mindlin and Miller, YES. Commissioners Rinaldi, Dotterrer, Morris, Blake and
Marsh, NO. Motion fails 5-3.
Commissioner Marsh indicated she would like for the Commission to revisit the process that was used for the Croman Master
Plan at a later date, possibly at a study session or at their annual retreat.
2. City of Ashland 2010 TGM Grant Application
Commissioner Marsh explained the Planning Commission is being asked to endorse a Transportation and Growth
Management (TGM) Grant Application. Mr. Molnar explained it is that time of year when the City competes for potential grant
dollars to do more advanced or long range planning. He stated the area identified for this grant is just south of Normal Ave.
and East Main St; it is within the City's urban growth boundary, but outside the City limits. Mr. Molnar stated some of the
property owners in this neighborhood have approached the City over the years with an interest in master planning the area,
but up until this point we have not been able to take on this project.
Mr. Molnar clarified in the past 6-months the Planning Division received a pre-application for a large development in this area
and the property owners are seeking direction from the City on what they want to see happen for this area. He added if this
grant was obtained this project would be meshed with the City's TSP update.
Comment was made questioning if there are other areas the City could apply this grant to instead, such as the Tolman Creek
RdlAshland St area. Mr. Molnar clarified the Normal neighborhood is the main area within the City's urban growth boundary
that is slated for future development that at this point the City does not have a comprehensive plan for. He added the City
already received a grant for the TSP update and this project will evaluate the Tolman Creekl Ashland area.
Commissioner Miller noted she lives within the area identified. She stated there are areas along East Main that are not going
to be densely populated and stated she would rather seek funding for areas that really have a problem.
Commission Mindlin indicated she would not be anxious to take this on unless there was development being pressed. Mr.
Molnar clarified the pre-application the City received was a proposal for annexation and zone change to construct 160
apartments.
General consensus was reached for Commission Chair Marsh to sign the letter of support.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
c ~
~z ~
o~ j
>.J
~~
V'IJ
~
...
c
m
:J
C'
m
Ifj
.0
:J
Ifj
U
C
to
to
>
o
I.
0.
0.
to
Ifj
:J
o
'S
m
I.
0.
m
.c
...
m
ID
~
ID
')
'tl
I:
m
l..
o
"
f/J
:l
l..
o
'tl
I:
m
.c:
f/J
m
to
2 ~
E.. ~
... m "
m~ ...
:i. ...
()..: .c:
to to
o.m
I. 0.
00.
IU
o
...
Cl
C
~
to
m
I.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
April 14th, 2010
Ashland Planning Commission
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
720 Grandview Dr. Appeal
Staff Response to Issues raised by Appellant
The current application was scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing at
the February 9th, 2010 regular meeting. The appellant, neighbor Bonnie Brodersen, submitted a letter
raising a number of issues including:
o That mailed notices of the hearing were not received by neighboring property owners.
o That the placement of the public notice sign on the property was not clearly visible from
the adjacent right of way due to topography, vegetation, and the configuration of the lot
relative to the right of way.
o That the previous land use approval (P A #2006-01784) expired on February ih, 2010
(prior to the February 9th hearing date) and could thus not be modified or amended.
In order to allow for full consideration of the issues raised by Ms. Brodersen, and to allow are-noticing
of the hearing to eliminate any question of noticing irregularities, the applicants asked that the February
9th hearing be postponed. Concurrently with this request, the applicants provided an additional 60-day
extension to the 120-day time limit.
The requisite mailed notices for the rescheduled April 13 th hearing have been mailed to surrounding
property owners within the prescribed timeframe. Notice of the hearing was also published in the
Ashland Daily Tidings as required by ordinance. And in addition to the required sign which was posted
on the subject property in a location selected for better visibility from the Grandview Drive right-of-
way, a second sign (not required by ordinance) was also placed at the intersection of Grandview and
Wrights Creek Drives as requested by the appellant. In staffs view, the applicants' request for
postponement and the subsequent efforts to ensure proper notice be provided for the rescheduled hearing
have more than adequately addressed any noticing concerns raised by the appellant.
In terms of Ms. Brodersen's challenging the validity of the current application based on the original
approval having expired and thus being ineligible for modification or amendment, staff would note that
while AM9 18.108,040.A.2.a provides for amendments or modifications to conditions of approval for
Type I planning actions, both the current proposal and the procedural review it is subject to are
indistinguishable from a new application. Ms. Brodersen herself has previously asserted in the first
specific ground for appeal in her current appeal request that, "This is not a modification but a new
application.... "
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
r.,
Both a modification of a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit and a new Physical &
Environmental Constraints Review Permit are considered to be Type I procedures, allowing for
administrative approval and subject to appeal. Both are subject to the same $917 application fee, both
receive the same procedural handling including the required noticing and review, and both are
considered in light of the same review criteria and standards for a Physical & Environmental Constraints
Review Permit found in AMC 18.62. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, the work proposed to
be completed here remains the same regardless of whether the request is termed a modification of the
previously approved Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit or simply a Physical &
Environmental Constraints Review Permit, and as such staff view the modification issue as a semantic
argument. The reference to a modification is as much as anything a means of putting the current request
in context in light of what is now a six-year history for the applicants, the appellant, staff and the
commission, as evidenced by the 400+ page record, and in staff s view an understanding of this context
is essential to considering the current request and the additional surface disturbance it entails.
In staff s view, the expiration of the previous approval has no bearing on the review of the current
proposal, which remains subject to the same procedures and the same review criteria and standards, and
which will result in the same work being completed on the ground if approved. As such, staff believe
that the current application remains valid and should be considered by the Commission in terms of the
Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit review criteria under which it has been considered by staff
since being deemed complete in September of 2009, which were addressed in the applicants' submittals
and the staff report distributed for the previously scheduled February hearing, and which have been
included in the notices at each juncture in the review process to date. Staff would accordingly continue
to recommend approval subject to the conditions included in the February staff report included in your
packets.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
r.,
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
18.62.040.1 Criteria for Approyal
A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff AdYisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas haye been
considered, and adyerse impacts haye been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the deyelopment may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential
hazards caused by the deyelopment.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. lrreyersible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reyersible actions. The Staff AdYisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and
the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
(ORD 2808,1997; ORD 2834,1998; ORD 2951,2008)
TREE REMOVAL
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Remoyal - Staff Permit
An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff AdYisor may require an arborist's report to
substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff AdYisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants
removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree
may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such
facilities or serYices cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents
a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be
alleyiated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the remoyal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements
shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
S. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for remoyal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance
requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The
Staff Adyisor may require the building footprint of the deyelopment to be staked to allow for accurate yerification of the permit application; and
2, Remoyal of the tree will not have a significant negatiYe impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not haye a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree remoyal have been considered and no reasonable
alternatiye exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be
reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternatiye site plans or placement of
structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other
proYisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the remoyal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approyal of the permit.
(ORD 2951, 2008; ORD 2883, 2002)
G:\comm-devlplanninglNotlces Malled\20t0\2009-00726 4-02-10,doc
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On April 2, 2010 I 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-2009-00726, 720 Grandview Dr.
.~.~} . &~
~.cn4-~,' . . .~~>>._..
Signature' f Employee-
G:\comm-dev\plannlng\TemplateslAffidavit of Mailing_Planning Action Notice.doc 4/2/201 0
f
I
I
PA-2009-00726 391 E05 1900
735 GRANDVIEW LLC
821 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
r mdn-dOd p.loqaJ al Jal~^~
I ap Ulpl eJnlpsq Sl '1 zandau
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 602
CROSS W J/PAULA P GREIST
715 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
~uawa6Je4)
ap suas
..
A1I3^,,-og-oOB-1,
WOy,uaA8-'MMM
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 407
GOLDMAN LOUIS ET AL
705 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 502
HAINES LLOYD M
96 MAIN ST 202
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 410
HULSE BETTY JANE TRSTEE FBO
863 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 409
HULSE JAMES L1L1NDA RAE
416 WIMER ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 405
KITZMAN DAVID M
1780 NE BEULAH
ROSEBURG OR 97470
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 501
LOUISE NANCY ET AL
507 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 411,
ROBBINS EUGENE
635 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 412
ROBBINS EUGENE K1BRODERSEN
BONNIE
635 WRIGHTS CREEK RD
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 400
RUNDELL ANDREW RNlCTORIA L
545 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 403
TIEFER HILLARY A
565 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
T e09l,li @AlIaJ\V \tl
r w1:~~~I~Q~~: :~~:xa = Jade~aa~
r Qj)09I,S Qj)AU3^" llJeqs6 al zas!I!ln
I Jalad 'it S9IP&:J sa:a.lanbll~
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 402
GETZOFF HOWARD/LYNN W
779 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 408
HULSE BETTY JANE
863 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 406
JONES RICHARD J/LEIGH E
705 WRIGHTS CREEK RD
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 500
MC DONALD WILLIAM J JR ET AL
8621 OAK BRANCH AVE
BAKERSFIELD CA 93311
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 404
ROBBINS EUGENE/BONNIE L B
635 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391 E05CD 401
VAN VLECK JON/DIANA D
869 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
r
I
!
Qj)09I,S a~eldwal Qj)J.JaNv asn
SlaQB1 ""Iaad .(se:r
g
G
1100
A 100
,t]
UI"
1~1 I 151~=
l ~ woLd-
11.................1.............,.................
1~1~1"W\Lt~II~
I.. .... .IN. .\.1......1 .........
~1 I~\~J~
I~ r~~~;;~'::c
'......'L.........I .................1'.0 r'"
,i~:I~~\\~~~........I.... ....r.." \i'.~f~
I~JI~I b~."il ~~;;~
If., ll(r-;.YI ,1....
I.GJ~I~Jl!31 .. ,I I@:
'GRAk\UJ.VU'!.\\/'
~1"";~!~lr~Jn""J(
[~j~~~t~J~
~ (1. 3">. \\ . i~i\~
It;, iJ!P. /' .' ......, (31}:
;:..,-....., i .~13\..o/\..... .'
ooi/~/ /\ ....( . /
. I " JJ1~.:
, ~ 1"'01 I4lO \~I~
~ l,lt:l ~f\ r 11~~11.g
\/ I 1,
{) ,r:H,t\R:tJ. ' '.
11"0611'" ....11
II ~ I n:.l i r::::-l
~"(t~!Ir;1
2i)1 jID, " G!~ .1JiIDrlID r
'900
1404
1000
002 0
003 a
1001
16.00
1i' C::J
1aoo
.." i'r."'"""'\ I n
000 . r~""" I 6(tf-J
>. \~ '1!f i
~~>). ....... ....s~~J~i.I~l
1....:'-.0:,..
C:ir~@'
'l...rl
r ~ 006
,i/ '1. ............
ei 300 ~~ 30'
,"~,./. ~~, ~.;
i:~I/ .' ...1 5.1)1 'I,~-'~I
?i/M 001 I
400
@ Please recycle with colored office grade paper
JJ
t1~j~~lj;
I ~~O I 5.1)1
i
!
~
&05
&02
Q
1m
!.~
Q
Q
JACKSON COUNTY
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Map Maker
Application
Front Counter Legend
Hlghllghled Feature
IheBurrer
theBurrerTarget
Tax Lot Outlines
Tax Lot Numbers
. Mobile Home Parks
. Apartments
/./ Buildings
JACKSON
COUNTY
Oregon
This map Is based on a digItal database
complied by Jackson County From a varIety
of sources. Jackson County cannot accept
responslblly for errors, omissIons, or
poslllonal accuracy. There are no
warrantles, expressed or Implied.
Map created on 3130/2010 12:00:15 PM using web.Jacksoncounty.org
Created with MapMaker
Page 1 of 1
Derek Severson
From:
To:
Date:
CC:
"Mark S. Bartholomew" <msb@roguelaw.com>
"Derek Severson" <dereks@ashland.or.us>
2/9/103:11 PM
"Richard Appicello" <appice1r@ashland.or.us>, "Mark S. Bartholomew"
<msb@roguelaw.com>
Derek, please postpone the hearing tonight for the McDonald property. I will provide you with an
extension of the 120 day limit.
Mark S. Bartholomew
Hornecker, Cowling, Hassen & Heysell LLP
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
541-779-8900 voice
541-773-2635 fax
http://www.roguelaw.com
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
(ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
file:/ /C: \Documents and Settings\seversod\Local Settings\ Temp \XPGrp Wise\4 B 717B29 Ash... 2/9/2010
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2009-00726, a request for a )
modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental Constraints )
Review Permit (PA #2006"01784) for the propeliy located at 720 Grandview )
Drive. The original approval was for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain
and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing )
driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the )
installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-
family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval )
already in place in order to accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request )
for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included. )
APPLICANTS: Lynn and Bill McDonald
REQUEST FOR
AN
EXTENSION
OF THE TIME
LIMIT
ORS 227.178(1)
Applicants request a 60-day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1).
~
A:. phcant
13( : yV(",A... i?c~/ t10~~
._~~_ ( ( f)
Date
Applicant
Date
[Note: ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120-day period set in (ORS 227,178(1)) may
be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant The total
of all extensions may not exceed 245 days,"]
EI
FEB 0 9 2010
635 Wrights Creek Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
February 9, 2010
City of Ashland
Field_Office_County_
Planning Department
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Planning Commission Meeting of Feb. 9,2010
P A # 2009-00726
Appeal of Bonnie Brodersen
To the Planning Department Staff Advisor:
Pursuant to ALUO 18.108.080 (G) I am hereby requesting redress for inadequate notice
of the referenced Planning Action on February 9, 2010 for the following reasons:
1. The city did not comply with the sign posting requirements of ALUO 18.108.080
(C) as further explained in the attached letter of 2/8/1 0 to the City Attorney and as
documented by photos attached.
2. I am the Appellant in the captioned matter and I did not receive notice ofthe
Planning Commission hearing scheduled for 2/9/10 until yesterday afternoon,
when I saw some activity on the subject property and decided to stop by the
Planning Department to review the file. At that time, I was apprised of the
hearing scheduled for today. My substantial rights have been adversely affected
and prejudiced, because I do not have time to submit a brief in response to the
twenty-page Staff Report (dated Feb. 9,2010) and the Applicants' written
submissions. From perusing the Report, it raises issues, not heretofore addressed.
I have not had time to fully review the file and documents and will be unable to
make a substantive oral or written presentation at the hearing before the Planning
Commission because of the lack of adequate notic,e.
3. The failure of the City to comply with the posted (sign) notification is especially
significant, because I did not receive notice of the hearing by mail. Had a sign
been posted in a way that it could been clearly and properly seen by the public,
the failure of mailed notice would have been inconsequential. As I noted in the
letter to the City Attorney, there have been other planning actions for properties in
the area of the subject property and the signs for those planning actions have been
posted at the comer of Wrights Creek and Grandview Drive where everyone in
the neighborhood could easily see them.
4. The redress to be taken by the Staff Advisor is provided in ALUO
18.108.080 (G) 3.
I think an appropriate alternative, would be to re-set the hearing for the captioned
matter for the fIrst Planning Commission meeting 10 days subsequent to February 9th. If
the sign had been properly posted or in had received notice by mail, I would have had 10
days to prepare a response brief.
Finally, on another subject, pursuant to ALUO 18.112.030 Applicant's permit
expired on February 7, 2010. It is impossible to "modify" a permit that does not exist
because it has expired. Applicants' attempt at an extension pursuant to ORS 227.178(1)
is insufficient and an extension cannot be granted, because ORS 227.178(1) applies only
to an "application for a permit, a limited land use decision or zone change". Applicants'
application for a "modification" of a permit does not fall within the purview of the cited
statute.
I hope you can see the importance of giving me an opportunity to be heard as
required by the procedural due process clause of the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions.
Hopefully this situation can be easily resolved at the local level.
I await your timely response.
Very truly yours,
c#~~
Bonnie Brodersen
541-482~O 180
cc: City Attorney
Planning Commission
I
FEB 09 2010
City of Ashland
Field_Office_County_
635 Wrights Creek Dr.
Ashland, OR 97520
Februrary 8, 2010
Mr. Richard Appicello
Ashland City Attorney
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: Planning Commission Meeting of Feb. 9,2010
P A # 2009-00726
Appeal of Bonnie Brodersen
Dear Mr. Appicello:
I learned, today when I stopped by the Planning Department to inquire about the status of
my appeal of the Planning Department decision concerning the captioned matter, that a
hearing is being held tomorrow evening before the Planning Commission. I did not
receive notice by mail of the hearing (even though a Planning Department employee said
that I was on the list of those sent notices and I have received notices by mail in the past),
and I did not see any posted sign of a Planning Action. Derek said he posted a sign
directly on the property. I told him I had just walked down to the area this morning and
had seen no sign. I walked to the area again and now I see a sign but it is only possible
to read it if one is on the property itself. The sign cannot be seen from the dirt portion of
Grandview Drive (where neighbors drive) because the riparian area to the south obstructs
any view. Furthermore, it cannot be read -- to read the sign, one would have to trespass
onto the McDonald's property. The sign is placed in such a way as to obstruct anyone
from receiving notice. I am taking photos and will submit them to the Planning
Commission.
There have been several planning actions in the past years for properties in this area. For
previous actions requiring notice, the sign posting notice was placed at the comer of
Grandview Drive and Wrights Creek Drive for properties in the area of the McDonald's
property, so that all neighbors would have clear and proper notice. The placing of the
sign for this planning action violates ALUO 18.108.080 (C) which provides that "failure
by the city to post [a notice] in clear view from a public right-of-way shall be
considered an incomplete application." (Emphasis added).
Because I did not receive adequate notice (mailed or posted 10 days prior to the hearing
per ALUO) of the hearing tomorrow evening, I am unable to present my case. I have
several photographs that I want to present and intend to research and write a Brief. Due
process requires that an Appellant be given adequate notice so that she has adequate time
to prepare for a hearing.
I am therefore requesting an extension and request that this matter be heard at the first
Planning Commission hearing subsequent to tomorrow's hearing. This will give me time
to adequately prepare. In light of the fact that the Applicants McDonald filed for an
Amendment to their Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit in June, 2009 but
failed to complete their application until January, 2010, an additional four weeks should
not present a hardship to the Applicants. I don't think anyone wants to make the issue of
adequate notice and opportunity to prepare an in issue in this proceeding or in a possible
LUBA appeal. I refer you to ALUO 18.108.080 (G) which provides the proper remedy
for failure of notice and which is the remedy I am requesting.
The foregoing may become a moot issue because the Applicants' Physical and
Environmental Constraint permit expired on February 7, 2010. It is impossible to
"amend" a permit that has expired. It appears that an application for a new permit is
required.
Please let me hear whether this matter will be postponed until the March Commission
meeting before tomorrow's hearing commences.
Very truly yours,
/Signed/
Bonnie Brodersen
541-482-0180
cc: Derek Seversen, Planner
Planning Commission
ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (Nick)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following item with respect to the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission, February 9, 2010 at 7:00
p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any
person is entitled to be heard.
Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Staff Advisor's decision to approve a request for a modification of a
previously approved Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit (PA #2006-01784) for the
property located at 720 Grandview Drive. The original approval was for development in the Wrights
Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing
driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm
drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence. The proposed modification
involves alterations to the approval already in place in order to accommodate changes in vehicular
access. A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to
make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
By order of the Community Development Director
Bill Molnar
Publish: 1/27/2010
Date e-mailed: 1/21/2010
Purchase Order: 85778
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 January 21, 2010 I 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 #20.09-00726, 720
Grandview.
Cl{r: ~ .
.'~ A)~ ~~
Signa e of Employee
Comm-Dev\Planning\ Templates
i I
Easy Peel@ Labels A Bend along line to I
I I
I Feed Paper I
Use Avery@Template S160@ 1.. expose Pop-Up Edge™ .A
PA-2009-00726 39lE05 1900 PA-2009-00726 39lE05CD 602
735 GRANDVIEW LLC CROSS W J/P AULA P GREIST
821 GRANDVIEW DR 715 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391E05CD 407 PA-2009-00726 391E05CD 502
GOLDMAN LOUIS TRUSTEE HAINES LLOYD M
705 GRANDVIEW DR 96 MAIN ST 202
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391E05CD 409 PA-2009-00726 391E05CD 406
HULSE JAMES L/LINDA RAE JONES RICHARD J/LEIGH E
416 WIMER ST 705 WRIGHTS CREEK RD
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391E05CD 501 PA-2009-00726 391E05CD 500
LOUISE NANCY ET AL MC DONALD WILLIAM J JR
507 GRANDVIEW DR 8621 OAK BRANCH AVE
ASHLAND OR 97520 BAKERSFIELD CA 93311
PA-2009-00726 391E05CD 400 PA-2009-00726 39lE05CD 403
RUNDELL ANDREW TIEFER HILLARY A
R/VICTORIA L 565 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
545 WRIGHTS CREEK DR ASHLAND OR 97520
ASHLAND OR 97520
P A-2009-00726 P A-2009-00726
Tom Giordano Terra Survey
2635 Takelma Wy 274 Fourth St
Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520
P A-2009-00726 P A-2009-00726
Ken Snelling ~ Upper Limb-it
1625 Cady Rd Tom Meyers
Jacksonville OR 97530 Ashland, OR 97520
Etiquettes faciles a peler
IItiliC:1'>7 II'> n;:lh;:lrit lI.\II=RY@ E;1I;O@
.6.
Sens de
I
Repliez it fa hachure afin de I
rA"Alor 10 rohnrti Pnn.llnTM I
I
~ AVERY@ 5160@ 1
PA-2009-00726 39lE05CD 402
GETZOFF HOW ARD/L YNN W
779 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 391E05CD 408
HULSE BETTY JANE
863 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 39lE05CD 405
KITZMAN DAVID M
1780 NE BEULAH
ROSEBURG OR 97470
PA-2009-00726 39lE05CD 404
ROBBINS EUGENE/BONNIE L B
635 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-00726 39lE05CD 401
V AN VLECK JON/DIANA D
869 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
P A-2009-00726
Thornton Engineering
1236 Disk Drive
Medford, OR 97504
P A-2009-00726
Ken-Cairn Landscape Architecture
545 A Street
Ashland, OR 97520
720 Grandview (appeal)
Planning Commission Mtg 2-9:" I 0
Mailed 1-21-10
21
www.avery.com
1.Rnn.r.n.A \lI:DV
PLANNING ACTION:
SUBJECT PROPERTIES:
APPLICANT:
DESCRIPTION:
2009~00726
720 Orand view Drive
McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Staff Advisor's decision to approve a
approved Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Pennit (P A
Sh
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 05 CD; TAX LOT:
Family Residential; ZONING: R-I-IO;
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
l't ~'$
n:;di
F~ ":1'"'"'/;,< ,1, "",,," -~J>? ~"}i"'","...", ",,-J;J, ""'~ ,""',,,l,,.,,,l>I,,
O;\<tm1.Irt~tlcv'pbnrliiJlg\l'ernp~ate:5'NOT1CE-PC2 NE\V FORM.doc
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
18.62.040.1 Criteria for Approyal
A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered, and adverse impacts haye been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential
hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps 10 reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reversible actions. The Staff AdYisor or Planning Commission shaH consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and
the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
(ORD 2808,1997; ORD 2834, 1998; ORD 2951, 2(08)
TREE REMOVAL
18.61.080 Crileria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit
An applicant for a Tree Remoyal Perml! shall demonstrate thaI the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborisl's report to
substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and
warrants remoyal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that jf is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard
tree may also include a tree Ihat is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and
such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree
presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot
reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the remoyal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements
shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the
following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance
requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Sile Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints.
The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate yerification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feel of
the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal haye been considered and no
reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permilled in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential
density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative sile plans or
placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with
other proYisrons of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit
(ORD 2951, 2008; ORD 2883, 2002)
G:>comm"de\''.planning\Templates'.NOT1C E- pe2 NEW fOR~I.doc
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
February 9, 2010
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2009-00726
APPLICANT: Lynn and Bill McDonald
LOCATION: 720 Grandview Drive
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: September 23,2009
120'.DAY TIME LIMIT: March 22,2010 (* - with a 60-day extension from applicants)
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.20 R~l Single Family Residential District
18,61 Tree Preservation and Protection
18.62 Physical & Environmental Constraints
18.72.030.B Site Design Review, Exemptions
18,108.020.A.9 Ministerial Actions, Extension of Time
18,108.022 Ministerial Action Time Limits
18.112.030 Revocation - permit expiration
REQUEST: A request for a modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Permit (P A #2006-0 1784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive, The
original approval was for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation
Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the
driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension ofutilities to
serve a new single-family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval
already in place in order to accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request for a Tree Removal
Permit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background. History of Application
Planning Action #2008-01250, an 18-month extension of Planning Action #2006-01784 was
approved ministerially in August of 2008 as allowed in AMC 18.112,030, to extend the
original approval until Febl'UalY 7,2010.
Planning Action #2006-01784, a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit
(PA #2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive was approved by the
City Council in August of 2007. The approval was for development in the Wrights Creek
Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement and widening of a portion
of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 1 of 20
installation of a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family
residence. This application had initially been approved by the Planning Commission in
March of 2007, and that approval was appealed to the City Council by neighbor Bonnie
Brodersen. In August of2007, the Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval of
the project and Brodersen subsequently appealed the Council decision to the Oregon Land
Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Brodersen made eight assignments of enor in her brief to
LUBA. Of those eight assignments of error only four of them challenged the City's findings
that the applicant complied with the Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit
criteria. LUBA agreed with the City that there was substantial evidence to support the City's
interpretation on each one of those assignments of error, and the City's approval of the
project was affirmed by LUBA. (In addition to those arguments, Brodersen had included
four additional assignments of error that did not involve the criteria for a Physical &
Environmental Constraints Revie.w Permit. LUBA found that the argument that Chapter
18.62 was in violation of state land use Goal 5 was a collateral attack and that argument
was therefore barred. L UBA then stated it did not have to decide the three remaining errors
because those arguments were not specific to a Physical & Environmental Constraints
Review Permit.)
The applicants initially applied for and received a building permit (BD~2004-00284) to
construct a single family residence in 2004. Neighbor Bonnie Brodersen appealed the
issuance of the building permit to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) alleging
that certain land use approvals were required. The applicants chose a "voluntary remand" of
the permit decision and the City agreed to address Brodersen's assignments of error. At this
level, because of the voluntary remand, the appeal was not reviewed by LUBA and no errors
were adjudicated or determined by LUBA. Because the original decision was not a land use
decision but rather a building permit, the applicants were required to submit a land use
application for the proposed development and to address the alleged assignments of error.
B. Detailed Descriptlon of the Site and Proposal
Site Description
The subject propeliy is a vacant, approximately 0.54-acre rectangular lot located on the n0l1h
side of Grandview Drive. This pOl1ion of Grandview Drive is the western terminus of the
city street, and is located west of the intersection with Wrights Creek Drive. Grandview
Drive in this vicinity is a gravel road.
The subject property contains slopes of approximately a 14-percent grade sloping downhill in
an easterly and northeasterly direction. The application survey identifies three trees on the
site including a cluster of plum trees and two poplar trees that are eight- and ten-inches in
diameter-at-breast-height (d,b.h.). The two poplars are identified as being dead. The
remainder of the site is covered primarily in native grasses. One of the forks of Wrights
Creek, a Riparian Preservation Creek, runs to the south of the subject property. The creek is
culvel1ed to the south of Grandview Drive and daylights at the edge of the Grandview Drive
right-of-way near the southwestern corner of the parcel. The top of the creek bank, and the
associated protection zone extending 20-feet beyond the top of bank, are pm1ially located in
the southwest corner of the parcel and is identified on the Topographic Survey included in
the application.
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant McDonald, Lynn & BiH
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 2 of 20
The subject parcel as well as the surrounding propeliies to the east} north and south are
located in the R-I-10 Single-Family Residential zoning district. The Ashland city limits are
located on the western border of the property. As a result, the propeliies to the west ofthe
parcel are under the jurisdiction of Jackson County. There are several parcels to the nOlih
and to the east of the subject propeliy that are also vacant.
A segment of the Wrights Creek drainage runs generally parallel to and south of Wrights
Creek Drive in this vicinity} and is cu1velied at driveway crossings for properties on the south
side of the road. The creek turns nOlih and is culvelied under Wrights Creek Drive,
daylighting approximately 22 feet southwest of the subject propeliy's southwestern-most
corner,
An existing driveway currently provides access to the subject parcel as well as the parcel to
the west at 507 Grandview Drive. This shared driveway splits off from Grandview Drive
within the right-of-way approximately 40 feet east of the subject property, and Grandview
Drive continues to the southwest. The driveway splits again ShOlily after entering the subject
propelty, with one driveway going to the nOlih onto the subject property, and the other
driveway continuing west to serve the residence located at 507 Grandview Drive. The
driveway is surfaced in gravel and varies from nine to 15 feet in width. The property located
at 507 Grandview Drive contains an existing single-family residence and is located outside of
the Ashland city limits. The pOliion ofthe driveway serving 507 Grandview Drive is located
within a 20-foot wide access easement that traverses the southern pOliion of the subject
parcel.
This shared driveway also crosses the corner ofthe vacant propelty to the east of the subject
propelty (39 IE 05 CD Tax Lot #411). The previous owner of Tax Lot #411 had authorized
the applicants to proceed with their original application in anticipation of granting an access
easement. However subsequent to the approval of Planning Action #2006-01784, Tax Lot
#411 was sold and the new owner (the appellant) has been unwilling to allow the applicants
an access easement over the corner of this lot. The modifications making up the current
application are proposed by the applicants as a response to the loss of this access, which
requires that the proposed driveway be extended fUliher into the right-of-way and
consequently further towards Wrights Creek in order to provide access from the street right-
of-way to the subject property.
Amendment/Modification of Phvslcal & Environmental Constraints Review Permit Proposal
It is impOltant to first clarify that the scope of review for the Physical Constraints Review
Permit, both in the original application and the proposed modification here, is limited to the
development of the portion of the driveway and utility trenches located within the floodplain.
The single-family home and most of the driveway are not located in the Wrights Creek
Floodplain, and as a result are not subject to the Physical Constraints Review Permit. The
propelty is located in the R.l-1 0 Single-Family Residential zoning district} and a single-
family home is an outright permitted use. As an outright permitted use, the construction of a
single- family home requires only a building permit, and does not require a land use action in
and of itself.
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 3 of 20
Planning Action #2006-01784, the previously approved Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Permit, allowed for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and
Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, the
re-grading of the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation of a private
storm drain, and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence. The
applicants are now proposing to modify this approval in order to accommodate changes in
vehicular access, as the neighboring property to the east was sold subsequent to the previous
approval and the new owner (the appellant here) has been unwilling to provide the access
easement over the corner of the parcel which is necessary to access the subject propelty in a
manner consistent with the existing approval.
In response to this change in vehicular access, the proposed modification places the access
drive in closer proximity to the creek by approximately 13 feet in order to avoid the comer of
the neighbor's property while providing the necessary driveway width and clearance.
Previously approved improvements would have resulted in approximately 324 square feet of
disturbance within the riparian zone, and avoided disturbance between the top of bank and
the centerline of the creek. With the current proposal, the disturbed area has been increased
to 743 square feet, and 275 square feet of this disturbance is below the identified top of bank.
Tree Removal Proposal
The application includes a request to remove two poplars (populus nigra) identified as Tree
#4 and Tree #5 on the tree inventOlY provided. These trees are located on the southern
portion ofthe subject property, roughly near the centerline of the lot. Both trees are located
more than twenty feet from the top of the creek bank identified in the application in an area
with a slope of less than 25 percent according to city geographic information system (GIS)
data, and as such their removal is not subject to review under the Physical & Environmental
Constraints Ordinance.
Tree #4 is described as being nine-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) and is
identified as dead; Tree #5 is described as being six-inches d.b.h. and is also identified as
being dead. Tree removal on vacant, residentially-zoned property is subject to permitting
only for the removal of significant trees (Le. those having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger
in diameter at breast height) as noted in AMC 18.61.042.D.1.c. In addition, the removal of
dead trees is specifically exempted from regulation in AMC 18.61.035.G.
Given the trees' locations, their sizes and the fact that they are dead, staff determined in the
initial administrative approval that no tree removal permit were required for the applicants to
remove these two poplars.
Site Review Proposal
The application submittal includes a request for Site Review approval as the question of
whether Site Review approval was required for the proposed home was raised during an
appeal of the original application. On appeal, the Site Review requirement was ultimately
rejected by the City Council, and that rejection upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals.
Ordinance modifications made subsequent to the original approval also specifically address
this issue in AMC 18.72.030 in listing exemptions:
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 4 of 20
B. Exemptions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review
application and procedure requirements provided that the development
complies with applicable standards as set forth by this Chapter.
1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessoty
structures and uses.
The proposal is not subject to requirements for Site Review approval.
II. Proiect Impact
The Land Use Ordinance provides for amendments or modifications to the conditions of
approval of previously approved 'Type l' planning actions as a miscellaneous action subject
to 'Type l' review (i.e. administrative approval) under AMC 18.108.040.A.2.a. The
application was initially approved administratively on November 6,2009, with the decision
specifically addressing the elements of the proposal which were subject to modification and
the whole record of the previously approved action being modified adopted by reference.
Neighbor Bonnie Brodersen subsequently appealed the approval on November 20, 2009.
The applicants requested that the hearing of the appeal be delayed as their attorney was
unavailable at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on December 8,
2009, and with this request, the applicants granted a 60wday extension to the 120-day time
limit.
Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit
As noted above, the scope of review for the Physical Constraints Review Permit, both in the
original application and the proposed modification here, is limited to the development of the
pOltion of the driveway and utility trenches located within the Wrights Creek floodplain.
The single-family home and most of the driveway are not located in the floodplain and are
not subject to the Physical Constraints Review Permit review. The propelty is located in the
R-I-10 Single-Family Residential zoning district, and a single-family home is an outright
permitted use. As an outright permitted use, the construction of a single-family home
requires a building permit, and does not require a land use action in and of itself.
Planning Action #2006-01784, the previously approved Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Permit, allowed for development in the Wrights Creek floodplain and
Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, the
re-grading of the transition ofthe driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation of a private
storm drain, and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence. The
applicants are now proposing to modify the approval to accommodate changes in vehicular
access, as the neighboring property to the east was sold subsequent to the previous approval
and the new owner (the appellant) has been unwilling to provide the access easement over
the corner of the parcel which is necessary to access the subject property in a manner
consistent with the existing approval.
The proposed modification places the access drive in closer proximity to the creek by
approximately 13 feet in order to avoid the corner of the neighbor's property while providing
the necessary driveway width. The previously approved improvements would have resulted
in approximately 324 square feet of disturbance within the riparian zone, and avoided
disturbance between the top of bank and the centerline of the creek. With the current
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & 8iH
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 5 of 20
proposal, the disturbed area has been increased to 743 square feet, and 275 square feet ofthis
disturbance is below the identified top of bank.
The submittals note that all imported material to be used for driveway construction is to be
placed at the original ground elevation, so that there is no additional fill which would impede
floodwaters. A Grading Plan prepared by Thornton Engineering, Inc. has been provided by
the applicants to demonstrate how the grading necessalY to accommodate the proposed
driveway is to be accomplished, to specifically delineate the disturbed area within the
Riparian Preservations Lands and to illustrate the relationship of the disturbance to the creek,
top of bank, and to existing improvements already in place.
The applicants have proposed to utilize permeable asphalt for the driveway surface to control
drainage and filter possible pollutants through the driveway's sand and gravel base, and they
have also proposed to plant riparian-appropriate ground cover and shrubs in the area to curb
erosion and assist in screening the creek. In addition, the applicants propose to utilize a
combination of silt fencing, hay bales, "V" ditches and underground drainage pipes to convey
drainage. Drainage and Erosion Control Plans prepared by the project civil engineers,
Thornton Engineering, Inc. have been provided.
A Tree Protection Plan and arborist' s reports have been provided to address protection of the
trees to be retained on and adjacent to the site. These materials note that Tree #1, a 28-inch
Ponderosa Pine within the Grandview Drive rightwof-way and the Riparian Protection Zone,
merits special attention given the proximity of the driveway access to the tree's trunk. The
project arborist, Tom Myers of Upper Limb wIt, notes that Grandview Drive and associated
gravel driveways are already within the tree's protection zone. He indicates that the standard
tree protection fencing around the protection zone will need to be adjusted to the edge ofthe
existing road improvement rather than the typical installation which would fence to the full
extent of the 28-foot radius ofthe tree protection zone. Myers also indicates that an arborist
will need to be on-site when paving begins to ensure that all necessmy precautions are taken
to protect the tree. Myers recommends that paving of the driveway be done with minimal
grading to minimize root damage, noting that it would be preferable to raise the grade of the
road surface within the tree's protection zone rather than cutting and filling to achieve the
desired road surface. Myers also recommends that equipment be kept away from the trees
tmnk in order to avoid structural damage, and he indicates that if these precautions are taken
the tree should survive the proposed constmction without damaging its health. The
application materials note that the engineered design proposed was developed based on these
recommendations.
The Tree Commission reviewed arborist Myers' recommendations at their meeting of
October 8, 2009. They were in general conCUlTence, emphasizing that a permeable material
should be used within the tree protection zone and that the driveway be installed at surface
grade within the tree protection zone. The Commission also recommended that the tree be
pruned to I3-feet 6-inches above the finished driving surface prior to site work to provide
adequate vehicular and fire apparatus clearance. In their discussion, Tree Commissioners
noted that Ponderosa Pines are generally better able to handle construction and compaction
when traffic is concentrated closer to the trunk where stabilizing roots are located, and that
this could be preferable to having traffic and compaction concentrated more to the outer,
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 6 of 20
smaller feeder roots. The Tree Commission had additional recommendations with regard to
the project's Tree Protection, specifically that tree protection fencing be provided along the
west property line to protect trees on the property to the west, at 507 Grandview Drive, from
impacts relating to driveway construction and that tree preservation and protection measures
listed in the arborist's recommendations be followed during driveway construction adjacent
to this property. A condition has been included below requiring that a revised Tree
Protection and Preservation Plan be provided incorporating the recommendations of the Tree
Commission.
The Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands require that trees over six
inches be retained to the greatest extent feasible and limit fill to streets, access and utilities,
noting that any crossings shall occur at right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent
possible. Fill is to be kept to a minimum and the general topography of the Riparian
Preservation lands is to be retained. As proposed, the applicants have provided a plan for
retaining and protecting Tree #1, the Ponderosa Pine located on the Riparian Preservation
Lands affected here. The work proposed is limited to that necessalY to provide access and
utilities to a single family home on a single family residentially~zoned lot and is to be
installed within existing Grandview Drive street right-of-way. While no new crossing of
Wrights Creek is being proposed, the angle of the transition from the existing street to the
new driveway improvements minimizes the disturbance within the Riparian Preservation
Lands while responding to applicable driveway standards, avoiding the neighboring propel1y
to the east, and retaining and protecting the Ponderosa Pine. The application notes that
imported fill materials for driveway construction are to be placed at the original ground
elevation, generally retaining the existing topography to the extent possible and avoiding
additional fill that would impede floodwaters. In considering these impacts, staff noted that
the existing topography is located within existing street right-of-way and already
accommodates established driveways in the immediate vicinity. The applicable
Development Standards for Flood Plain Conidor Lands set limits for fill, but expressly
allows outside fill material associated with public and private street and driveway
construction as proposed herein provided that it is "kept to a minimum." In staffs view, the
proposed installation of a driveway at the minimum allowed width from the only available
adjacent right-of-way, installed to the original ground elevation so as not to impede flood
waters and limited to permeable materials, can be found to be kept to a minimum.
The applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and
implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
Specifically, the applicant has proposed grading, drainage and erosion control measures as
well as the placement of improvements, use of permeable paving materials, minimization of
fill and revegetation to minimize the impacts of the proposal. While these impacts have
increased over the original approval, the applicants' response to changes in available
vehicular access is the minimum necessmy to provide vehicular access to the site from the
only available adjacent right-of-way while avoiding impacts to the adjacent Tax Lot #411 or
the large Ponderosa Pine, and appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed in detail
in the application materials.
The section of Grandview Drive from the intersection with Wrights Creek Drive to the
subject parcel is located within 20 feet from the top of bank ofa fork ofWrights Creek, and
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Slaff Report
Page 7 of 20
therefore is located in Floodplain COll'idor Lands. Grandview Drive is a public street right-
of~way and the section of Grandview Drive from the intersection with Wrights Creek Drive
to the southeast corner of the subject parcel was dedicated as street right-of-way in 1971.
The portion of the Grandview Drive right-of-way adjacent to the southern boundary ofthe
subject parcel was dedicated as pati of the land partition process that created the parcel in
1979. Chapter 18.62, Physical and Environmental Constraints including development
standards for riparian corridor lands was adopted in 1986.
The floodplain was obviously altered at some time in the past in the construction of
Grandview Drive and the adjacent driveways. The section of the driveway that serves the
subject property is an existing driveway that is improved with a gravel surface. In review of
the Land Partition file that created the subject parcel, Grandview Drive was in place and was
required to be re-graded as a condition of the plalll1ing approval. This indicates that the
gravel driving surface that constitutes Grandview Drive was in place at least as far back as
1979. The applicants call110t control the location of Grandview Drive, nor can they change
the fact that it was platted adjacent to and in a riparian corridor. Furthermore, the applicants
did not have any influence over the location of Grandview Drive. The previously established
location of the street rightwof-way dictates the location of the driveway access and utility
cOlll1ections to serve the subject parcel. Given the location of the Grandview Drive right-of-
way, there are no alternative locations available for the driveway or private storm drain line
located outside of the Wrights Creek floodplain.
An alternative access to the subject parcel is not available because the subject propeliy is not
adjacent to any other street right-of-ways, nor does it have any other available access
easements. In staffs opinion, the impact to the Wrights Creek floodplain occurred prior to
the current proposal when Grandview Drive and the existing shared driveway were located
and constructed. FUlihermore, regardless of the development of the subject parcel, the
existing gravel driveway will continue to serve the existing home on the adjacent parcel to
the west at 507 Grandview Drive.
In staff s view, the applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts on
the environment. Their proposal preserves and protects the large Ponderosa Pine, and the
improvements proposed are limited to those necessaty to provide access and utilities to a
single family home on a single family residentially-zoned lot fr9m the only adjacent, existing
street right-of-way available to provide utilities and vehicular access. The driveway is
proposed at the minimum widths and clearances allowed by city standard, is to be installed in
permeable materials, and grading and erosion control plans have been provided
demonstrating the effOlis to be made to minimize fill and control erosion.
Initial Concerns Raised by Bonnie Brodersen
During the initial comment period prior to administrative approval, neighbor Bonnie Brodersen met
with staff on-site and submitted comments identif).ring ten issues of concern as detailed in her letter of
October 8,2009. These concerns were carefully considered in reviewing the proposed modifications.
The concerns and staff responses thereto are briefly summarized below:
1) That there are not code provisions for amending a previously approved application, and the current
application must be processed as a new action.
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 8 of 20
As noted in the narrative above, the Land Use Ordinance provides for amendments or
modifications to the conditions of approval of previously approved Type I planning actions
as a miscellaneous action subject to Type I review (Le. administrative approval) under AMC
18.108.040.A.2.a.
2) That the applicants' proposed driveway wlll negatively effect entry onto the public street from TL #411
because the proposal places the driveway in part in the right-ot-way,
ImpOlied materials for driveway construction are to be placed at original ground elevation, as
noted and illustrated on the grading plan provided. With these improvements installed at the
original ground level, and within public right-of-way, it does not appear that physical access
to the parcel would be negatively impacted. While the driveway improvements proposed are
to be installed to provide access to the applicantsl parcell they are located within public street
right-of-way and no easement would be required for the owners oftax lot #411 to cross them
in gaining access to their property.
Landscape improvements within the right-of-way just south of the frontage of tax lot
4110utlined in the applicants landscape plan submittal could present a barrier to future
vehicular access to that site, and as such, a condition of approval has been added to require
that these plant materials be removed from a revised landscape plan to be provided before
building pennit approval.
3) That the applicants' proposal changes the topography and natural state ot the Riparian Preservation
area within the City-owned right-ot-way.
The City-owned right-of-way predates current regulations and provides the only available
access to the subject propeliy. As indicated on the applicants' grading plan, the proposal
generally maintains the existing grade and topography. As noted in the Council findings for
the previous approval, absolute in situ preservation of Riparian Preservation Lands is not
required the Code and alteration is permitted under many specific elements within the
Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands and to require otherwise would
render the standards themselves moot.
4) That the 28-inch Ponderosa Pine may not survive the proposed development in the riparian area;
A Tree Protection Plan prepared by a local celiified arborist has been provided. This plan
includes specific recommendations intended to preserve and protect the Ponderosa Pine
given the development proposed, and notes that the tree should survive the construction
process without damage to its health. This plan was reviewed by the City's Tree
Commission, and they made recommendations in support of the plan.
5) That the applicants' utility plan shows storm water being piped directly into Wrights Creek which flows
into Bear Creek, protected as a water quality limited creek, and may be a violation ot Ashland's DEQ-approved
TMDL plan.
In the original application, the Planning Commission determined that direct discharge into
Wrights Creek may not be appropriate given its Riparian Preservation designation. A
condition (#5) was added to the original approval requiring pre-treatment measures; this
Planning Action PA # 2009.00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 9 of 20
condition was reviewed and accepted as appropriate by the Council on appeal and was agreed
to by the applicants. The condition remains in effect, and the applicants will need to address
the requirements of the condition prior to permit issuance.
6) That there is no estimate of the amount of fill required orwhether the project can be feasibly completed
using only on-site fill.
The Development Standards for Flood Plain Conidor Lands expressly provide for the use of
off-site fill within the limitations of AMC 18.62.070.A.3. Off-site fill in the form of
aggregate base, paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street
and driveway construction are expressly permitted. All fill proposed within the Riparian
Preservation and Flood Plain Corridor Lands in the application is limited to these purposes.
7) That the AMC requires applications for all permits required of the development to be submitted
simultaneously, and that the city should require findings that the applicant can meet all requirements of the
zoning district and for issuance of an encroachment permit simultaneously.
The requirement that other applications be filed simultaneously and reviews conducted
simultaneously within AMC 18.62.040.E and G refers to Site Review, Performance
Standards Development, Conditional Use Permits, Subdivisions, Pat1itions, master site plans
or other plaill1ing actions and does not apply to other permits such as encroaclunents which
have other reviewing authorities and/or may require that land use approval be in place prior
to review. In this instance, the applicants have submitted for the applicable planning action
approvals, and a building permit application has also been made although the building permit
review is on hold pending land use approval.
8) That there is no documentation in the Planning Department file that the MacDonald's property was
legally created and is a legal lot of record,
This argument was considered and rejected by the Council during the last appeal of the
original approval, and that rejection was upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals. The lot
status is not an applicable approval criterion; however in the Council findings for the original
approval the City Council previously found that the lot was legally created pursuant to a 1981
partition plat, and that the plat was valid.
9) That the proposal places a driveway in the middle of a riparian area where Wrights Creek daylights
within the city right-of-way, that the riparian area is elevated from approximately one to four feet, and that there
is no information on how the topography of the riparian preservation area will be retained while placing a
driveway through the daylighted area.
The applicants have provided a grading plan from a licensed professional engineering firm
illustrating the proposed driveway installation. Plan details and notes illustrate installation of
the driveway at original ground elevation and identify both the existing and proposed finish
grades.
10) That there are no studies of how run-off from a driveway in excess of 250 feet, a required turnaround,
and large home site will affect the floodplain corridor which flooded in 1997.
The scope of review for the Physical Constraints Review Permit, both in the original
application and the modifications proposed here, is limited to only that pOliion of the
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 10 of 20
driveway and utility trenches located in the floodplain. The single-family home and most of
the driveway are not located in the Wrights Creek Floodplain, and as a result are not subject
to the Physical Constraints Review Permit. The property is located in the R-1-1O Single-
Family Residential zoning district, and a single-family home is an outright permitted use. As
an outright permitted use, the construction of a single-family home requires only a building
permit, and does not require a planning action in and of itself.
Appeal Issues Raised by Bonnie Brodersen
Following a November 6,2009 administrative approval, neighbor Bonnie Brodersen appealed the
application. The issues she raised and staff responses thereto are provided below:
1) The City states the application is a "modification of conditions of approval. n This is not a modification
but a new application which more than doubles the square footage of construction, places driveway In a new
location, adds new proposals, e.g, drainage ditches et ai, the changes proposed are the "meat" of the original
application. This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
918.1 08.040A requires that this be reviewed as a new application.
As noted in the narrative above, the Land Use Ordinance explicitly provides for amendments
or modifications to the conditions of approval of previously approved Type I planning
actions as a miscellaneous action subject to Type I review (i.e. administrative approval)
under AMC 18.108.040.A.2.a.
2) There can be no "modification" of a permit that is revoked. The City ignores the AMC which is clear on
its face. This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
918.112.030 requires that the permit was revoked on 8/07/08.
The "error" referred to is in fact an attempt to appeal a previously approved ministerial action
which extended the applicants' original land use approval, and which was not appealed - or
what is often referred to as a "collateral attack." AMC 18.112.030 notes that planning
actions are deemed revoked if not used within one year from the date of approval, unless
another time period is specified in another section of the Land Use Ordinance. The previous
land use approval was extended as a ministerial action as specified in another section of the
ordinance, in AMC 18.1 08.02D.A, which empowers the Staff Advisor to review and approve
the extension of time limits of approved planning actions as provided in AMC 18.112.030.
The applicants made application for an 18-month extension as Planning Action #2008-01250
on July 30, 2008 and paid the required fee for a ministerial action on August 6, 2008 - prior
to the previous approval's expiration on August 7, 2008. This extension request was
reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor. On August 20, 2008 - within 21 days of the
extension being requested, and thus within the time frame allowed by ordinance - written
notice of the extension's approval was provided to the applicants. As explained in AMC
18.108.070.A, ministerial actions are effective on the date of the decision of the Staff
Advisor and are not subject to appeal. To challenge a ministerial action, the appellant would
need to have raised the issue before the Land Use Board of Appeals or in Circuit Court
within 21 days of becoming aware of what she believed to be an error. While this issue was
raised by the appellant in her hearing request to the city in November, indicating that she was
aware of it, no attempt has been made to address that error through proper legal chatmels
Planning Action PA # 2009.00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning DiVision - Staff Report
Page 11 of 20
within the time limits prescribed by law and as such the ministerial action's approval by the
Staff Advisor may not be challenged through this hearing.
3) This application is for a severe constraints land and the city has failed to apply the review required for
development on said land, This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland
Municipal Code S 18.62.050 requires that the city apply provisions for severe constraints land.
Severe constraints lands are defined in AMC 18.62.050.D as "Lands with severe
development characteristics which generally limit normal development. The following lands
are classified as Severe Constraint Lands: 1) All areas which are within the floodway
channels, as defined in Chapter 15.10; and 2) All lands with a slope greater than 35 percent."
While the Physical & Environmental Constraints Ordinance (AMC 18.62) classes all lands within 20
feet of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation as Flood Plain Corridor Lands, the floodway
channel is much more narrowly defined to those lands defined as such under AMC 15.10.
AMC 15.10.050(1) defines the flood-way as, "... that channel of a river or other lvatercourse and the
adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base jlood without cumulatively
increasing the water surface elevation more than one (1) foot." 15.1 0.050(D) ftnther defines a base
floods as, "... the jl ood having a one percent (1 %) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given
year. Also referred to as the '100-yearjlood'. Designation onjlood maps always includes the letters
A or V" Under the general provisions for that chapter, AMC 9S 15.10.060.A. ftnther clarifies that
"This Chapter shall apply to all areas of special jlood hazards within the jurisdiction of the City of
Ashland, Oregon." The basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard is explained in AMC
S 1 5.1 0.060.B as "The areas of special jlood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance
Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study: City of
Ashland, Oregon, Jackson County", dated June 1, 1981, with accompanying Flood Insurance Maps is
hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Ordinance. The Flood Insurance Study
and accompanying maps (as updated) are onfile at City Hall, Ashland, Oregon." No area of special
flood hazard, floodplain, floodway or floodway channel was identified for Wrights Creek or its
tributaries in this vicinity as patt ofthe study cited (see Staff Exhibit S-1 taken from "Floodway Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map for the City of Ashland, Oregon, Jackson County Community Panel 1 of
3 Community-Panel Number 41 00900001 Effective Date June 1, 1981" showing no areas ofspecial
flood hazard.)
In the absence of the requisite federal study, the applicants' engineer Mike Thornton of Thornton
Engineering, Inc, has prepared a "Flood Analysis" and delineated the 100-year flood boundary,
concluding that, "The improvements comply with both sections 15.10 (Flood Damage Prevention
Regulations) and 18.62.070 (Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands). The proposed
improvements are more than 20 feet beyond the flood plain boundary and are not located within a
flood hazard area or within a floodway." (See July 20, 2009 letter fi'om Thornton and applicants'
sUPPOlting sheet C- 3.) Based on both Chapter 15. I 0 and the flood analysis by Thornton Engineering,
the area of disturbance is outside of the floodway channel.
Based on City of Ashland Geographic Information System (GIS) data (see Staff Exhibit S-2)
and on-site observations by staff, there are no lands with slopes greater than 35 percent in the
area proposed for disturbance; and as such the area in question is not classified as "Severe
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 12 of 20
Constraints Lands" and is not subject to the development standards associated with those
lands.
4) Piping of stormwater directly into Wrights Creek, an historically fish-bearing creek, violates Ashland's
Master Stormwater & Drainage Plan, the Bear Creek Watershed TMDL's (as applied to the City) & it's NPDES
Phase 2 permit and the federal Clean Water Act. Dumping of large amounts of water at one time creates
erosion of the creek bank at the point of entry. Best Management Practices and required state permits have not
been addressed. Further, the City is approving the dumping of stormwater runoff from a City property into
Wrights Creek where it is located outside of the city and in the county. The City has not addressed how county
ordinances/approvals come into play.
In the original application, the Planning Commission determined that direct discharge into
Wrights Creek may not be appropriate given its Riparian Preservation designation. A
condition (#5) was added to the original approval requiring pre-treatment measures; this
condition was reviewed and accepted as appropriate by the Council on appeal and was agreed
to by the applicants. The condition remains in effect, and the applicants will need to address
the requirements of the condition prior to permit issuance as well as obtaining any necessalY
permits or approvals from other jurisdictions which may have authority, such as Jackson
County.
5) The City has failed to enforce Street Standards requirements: (See for example, AMC 18.88.050(B).
With the proposed development, Grandview Drive will provide access to four or more homes. Four driveways
within a few feet of each other will enter Grandview Drive. Implementation of mandatory Street Standards will
fall within the riparianlfloodplain corridors requiring a physical and environmental constraints review.
The propelty is located in the R-l-l 0 Single-Family Residential zoning district, and a single-
family home is an outright permitted use. As an outright permitted use, the construction of a
single-family home requires only a building permit and is not subject to a land use action
which would require street improvements to comply with Street Standards. The application
involves the construction of a private driveway within the Grandview Drive right-of-way,
and because of its length the driveway is subject to, and complies with, the width and paving
standards for a flag drive found in AMC 18.76.060.B. Where serving two lots or being
shared by adjacent properties, the flag drive must have a 20-foot width with a 15-foot paved
driving surface. Where the drive serves only one lot it may be reduced to a l5-foot width
with a 12-foot paved driving surface.
6) The City's findings are inadequate when the City states "imported fill materials for driveway
construction are to be placed at the "original ground elevation" and Applicants Narrative provides no info on how
a 20-foot wide paved driveway will be placed at the original ground elevation when Grandview Drive sits
anywhere between 2-9 feet below the elevated riparian/wetland.
The applicants have provided a grading plan from a licensed professional engineering firm,
Thornton Engineering, Inc., illustrating the proposed driveway installation. The grading plan
details and notes illustrate installation of the driveway at the original ground elevation and
identify both the existing grade and proposed finish grades. Based on this plan, the area of
disturbance within Grandview Drive is at most one to four feet above the existing grade at
the tree - not two to nine feet below it - and finished grade details and section drawings are
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 13 of 20
provided to demonstrate how the driveway installation is to be accomplished. (See
applicants' Sheet C-l.)
7) City's Order violates the Tree Ordinance when Applicant's arborist recommends the "paving of the new
road should be done with a minimum of grading In order to keep root damage to a minimum, n yet there are no
findings on how close to the surface the tree root system is, how the root system wlll be protected, how the
driveway's sand and gravel base will affect the root system, how compaction from heavy construction equipment
will affect the significant pine and oak trees and how a permanent paved driveway extending from the trunk of
the pine and over its drip line will affect its long-term survival and the long-term survival of the riparian area.
A Tree Protection Plan and arborist's reports have been provided to address protection of the
trees to be retained on and adjacent to the site. These materials note that Tree #1, a 28-inch
Ponderosa Pine within the Grandview Drive right-of-way and the Riparian Protection Zone,
merits special attention given the proximity of the driveway access to the tree's trunk. The
project arborist, Tom Myers of Upper Limb-It, notes that Grandview Drive and associated
gravel driveways are already in use within the tree's protection zone, He indicates that the
standard tree protection fencing around the protection zone will need to be adjusted to the
edge of the existing road improvement rather than the typical installation which would fence
to the full extent of the 28-foot radius of the tree protection zone. Myers also indicates that
an arborist will need to be on-site when paving begins to ensure that all necessary
precautions are taken to protect the tree, Myers recommends that paving of the driveway be
done with minimal grading to minimize root damage, noting that it would be preferable to
raise the grade of the road surface within the tree's protection zone rather than cutting and
filling to achieve the desired road surface. Myers also recommends that equipment be kept
away from the trees trunk in order to avoid structural damage, and he indicates that if these
precautions are taken the tree should survive the proposed construction without damaging its
health, The application materials note that the engineered design proposed was developed
based on these recommendations.
The Tree Commission reviewed arborist Myers' recommendations at their meeting of
October 8, 2009, They were in general concurrence, emphasizing that a permeable material
should be used within the tree protection zone and that the driveway be installed at surface
grade within the tree protection zone. The Commission also recommended that the tree be
pruned to 13-feet 6-inches above the finished driving surface prior to site work to provide
adequate vehicular and fire apparatus clearance. In their discussion, Tree Commissioners
noted that Ponderosa Pines are generally better able to handle construction and compaction
when traffic is concentrated closer to the trunk where stabilizing roots are located, and that
this could be preferable to having traffic and compaction concentrated more to the outer,
smaller feeder roots. The Tree Commission had additional recommendations with regard to
the project's Tree Protection, specifically that tree protection fencing be provided along the
west property line to protect trees on the property to the west, at 507 Grandview Drive, from
impacts relating to driveway construction and that tree preservation and protection measures
listed in the arborist's recommendations be followed during driveway construction adjacent
to this property. A condition has been included below requiring that a revised Tree
Protection and Preservation Plan be provided incorporating the recommendations of the Tree
Commission,
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Sill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 140f20
8) The City violates ALUa 18.62.075 requiring that "the general topography of riparian preservation lands
shall be retained" because, among other things, the new proposals (placing 743 square feet of driveway in the
protected riparian corridor and 275 square feet below the top of the bank of the creek) will decimate the
topography of the riparian area which is in the city-owned right-of-way. It's incomprehensible that the City
spends time/money/energy restoring the fish-habitat of lower Wrights Creek, while at the same time
relinquishing the City-owned (right-of-way) Wrights Creek riparian corridor at Grandview Drive, to destructive
private development, which development will cause irretrievable harm by reducing shade and wildlife habitat,
increasing sediment flow into the Creek and increasing water temperature, among other things.
The City-owned right-of-way predates current regulations and provides the only available
access to the subject property. As indicated on the applicants' grading plan, prepared by a
licensed professional engineer, the proposal generally maintains the existing grade and
topography. As noted in the Council findings for the previous approval, absolute in situ
preservation of Riparian Preservation Lands is not required the Code and alteration is
permitted under many specific elements within the Development Standards for Flood Plain
Corridor Lands and to require otherwise would render the standards themselves moot.
9) The City fails to enforce ALUa 18.62,070 and violates the NDES Phase II permit when it fails to find
that the toe of the fill will be kept at least 10 feet out of floodway channels and when it fails to determine how
much fill is being used, Is a removalffill permit required? There is no finding about how the development will
affect flow of sutiace waters and bank erosion.
As noted above, no floodway channel is defined for this tributary of Wrights Creek as
determined by the scientific and engineering studies conducted by FEMA and referenced as
the basis for a floodway determination in AMC Chapter 15.10. An analysis by the
applicants' engineer, Thomton Engineering, Inc. has determined that the area of disturbance
is more than 20 feet beyond the flood plain boundmy, which would also place it more than 20
feet from the floodway channel.
The Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands expressly provide for the use of
off-site fill within the limitations of AMC 18.62.070 (A)(3). Off-site fill in the form of
aggregate base, paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street
and driveway construction are expressly permitted without a specific limitation on the
amount of fill used for these purposes beyond that it be "kept to a minimum". In this
instance, all fill proposed within the Riparian Preservation and Flood Plain Conidor Lands in
the application is limited to these purposes and is being used to construct a paved driveway
to minimum city standards within existing right-of-way which already accommodates a
gravel driveway. This fill is to be installed to existing ground level except within the tree
protection zone to accommodate the tree protection recommendations of the project arborist,
which were supported by the Tree Commission in their review and which were a basis of the
engineered plans. The engineered plans provided detail the proposed driveway installation
and associated grading and erosion control, and in staff's view clearly demonstrate that the
proposed fill in the Flood Plain Corridor has been kept to a minimum.
10) The City engages in an unconstitutional taking of property when it allows applicant's proposed
driveway to be constructed over a public city-owned right-of-way, which right-of-way provides in part,
unobstructed access to tax lot#411. Ingress and egress for tax lot#411 onto Grandview Drive was approved by
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 15 of 20
the City when tax lot #411 was created by partition years ago. Further, because Applicant's property is located
to the west and sits significantly below tax lot #411, there is a blind area at the point where a vehicle from tax lot
#411 will enter the public right-of-way. In other words, both driveways will meet at a "V". If the applicant's
driveway is constructed as proposed this will create a dangerous intersection where a vehicle from applicant's
property could collide with a vehicle entering from tax lot #411 because of vision clearance issues. Other issues
the City hasn't addressed include: who will be liable in the event of an injury on that area ofthe driveway located
in the public right-of-way which would have to be used for ingress and egress to both tax lot #411 and
applicants' property. Who will be responsible for maintaining that area of the driveway? Note that the City
found "problems with access to the lot," in 1982 in advising a minor land partition. The City is compounding the
problem it was instrumental in causing by previous code-violating actions.
Imported materials for driveway construction are to be placed at original ground elevation, as
noted and illustrated on the grading plan provided. With these improvements installed at the
original ground level, and within public right-of-way, it does not appear that physical access
to tax lot #411 would be obstructed beyond any already existing topographic obstruction.
While the driveway improvements proposed are to be installed to provide access to the
applicants' parcel, they are located within public street right-of-way and no easement would
be required for the owners oftax lot #411 to cross them in gaining access to their property.
Landscape improvements within the right-of-way just south of the frontage of tax lot
#4110utlined in the applicants landscape plan submittal could present a barrier to future
vehicular access to that site, and as such, a condition of approval has been recommended to
require that these plant materials be removed from a revised landscape plan to be provided
before building permit approval.
The driveway installation would be subject to a demonstration of compliance with the vision
clearance requirements of the ordinance at building permit. This would limit the height of
obstructions within a ten foot triangle around the property corner, and it would be the
applicants' responsibility to maintain the driveway as approved. In the event of an accident,
the police and/or the court system would make an ultimate determination of liability
following investigation of the specifics of the incident in light of applicable laws in place at
the time.
11) All assignments of error appeal to LUBA which LUBA did not decide or which LUBA denied because
said assignments of error were not ripe for decision or were considered dicta for appeal (Final Order for LUBA
No. 2007-162) are hereby incorporated by reference and considered part of this appeal to the Planning
Commission.
Neighbor Bonnie Brodersen, the appellant, made eight assignments of elTor in her brief to the
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Of those eight assignments of error, only four
challenged the City's findings that the applicant complied with the Physical & Environmental
Constraints Review Permit criteria. LUBA agreed with the City that there was substantial
evidence to support the City's interpretation on each one of those assignments of enol'.
Ms. Brodersen had challenged whether the plan submittal requirements detailed in AMC
18 .62.040(H)(1 ) (m), (n) and (q) were met. Those provisions require:
PlannIng Action PA # 2009.00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & 8[11
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 16 of 20
m Accurate locations of all exisUng natural features including, but not limited to, all
trees as required in 18.62.080.0.1, including those of a caliper equal to or greater
than six inches d.b.h., native shrub masses with a diameter often feet or greater,
natural drainage, swales, wetlands, ponds, springs, or creeks on the site, and
outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. Natural features on adjacent properties
potenUally impacted by the proposed development shall also be included, such as
trees with driplines extending across property lines. In forested areas, it is necessary
to identify only those trees which will be affected or removed by the proposed
development. Indicate any contemplated modifications to a natural feature.
n. The proposed method of erosion control, water runoff control, and tree protection for
the development as required by this chapter.
q. LocaUon of all areas of land disturbance, including cuts, fills, driveways, building
sites, and other construction areas. Indicate total area of disturbance, total
percentage of project site proposed for disturbance, and maximum depths and
heights of cuts and fill.
LUBA denied this assignment of err01\ noting that the application was limited in scope and
did not apply to the development of the entire subject propelty but rather only the limited
portion within the riparian/floodplain area that was subject to the Physical & Environmental
Constraints Review Permit. LUBA then concluded that the appellant had failed to explain
why more information was needed to address specific approval criteria than was provided on
the plans.
With the current modification proposal} the applicants have provided a site plan and
supporting topographic surveys identifying trees and natural features on and adjacent to the
site, and a tree protection plan and supplementary recommendations from the project arborist
detailing measures necessaty to provide tree protection} so the requirements of AMC
1 8.62.040(H)(1 )(m) have been satisfied. To comply with 18.62.040(H)(1 )(n)} Erosion
Control plans have also been provided from the project engineer specifying construction
entrance preparations} inlet protection, sediment fencing placement, drainage ditches, and
wattle/fiber roll installation necessaty to address erosion and run-off. The Grading Plan
meets the requirements of AMC 18.62.040(H)(I)( q) because it clearly specifies the area of
disturbance as 743 square feet within the Riparian Protection Zone} although this is not
specified as a percentage of the site area because the bulk of this disturbance is within the
right-of~way rather than on the site. The plan notes fmiher address 18.62.040(H)(1)(q) as
well as the Development Standards for Flood Plain Conidor Lands in 18.62.070(A)(3)
because they clearly indicate that all imported material is to be placed at the original ground
elevation so that there will be no excess fill which would impede flood waters, and this is
supported with the grading details and section drawings provided.
In addition to those arguments the appellant included four additional assignments of error
that did not involve the criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review permit.
LUBA found that appellant's argument that Chapter 18.62 of the Land Use Ordinance was in
violation of the state's Goal 5 was a collateral attack and the argument was therefore barred.
LUBA then stated that it did not have to decide the three remaining assignments of enol'
because the arguments made were not specific to a Physical & Environmental Constraints
Review permit. Because the current appeal request is again a challenge to a Physical &
Environmental Constraints Review permit, these assignments of error are not related to the
request being considered by the Commission} or the applicable approval criteria} and are not
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 17 of 20
further addressed here.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit are descl'ibed in AMC
Chapter 18.62.040 as follows:
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the
Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the app/icaUon of the development standards of this chapter, the
potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered,
and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the
development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potenUal
hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse
impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reversible acUons. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission
shaJl consider the exisUng development of the surrounding area, and the
maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
(Ord 2834 S1, 1998)
(ORD 2951, amended, 07/01/2008; Ord, 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18,62,040 J"deleted'; Ord 2808, Added,
12/02/1997)
The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.61.080 as follows:
An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the foJlowing criteria are satisfied.
The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shaJl issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if
the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear
that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also
include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing
damage to exisUng public or private facilities or seNices and such facilities or
seNices cannot be relocated or the damage aJleviated. The applicant must
demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public
safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing
structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be aJleviated by
treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard
tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigaUon requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shaJl issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is
not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the applicaUon to be
consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements
and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use
Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor
Planning Action PA # 2009.00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report,
Page 18 of 20
may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for
accurate verificaUon of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion,
soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or exisUng
windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negaUve impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property.
The City shall grant an excepUon to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow
the properly to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall
require that the residenUal density be reduced below the permitted density
allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider
alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping
designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives
conUnue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
granted approval pursuant toAMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements
shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
As noted above, in staffs view the applicants have carefully considered the proposal in terms of the
potential impacts to the property and nearby areas, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
Potential hazards that the development may create have been identified and considered, and the plans
submitted identifY measures to mitigate any potential hazards that might otherwise be created. The
applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impacts of the proposal on the
environment. The proposal preserves and protects the large Ponderosa Pine, and the improvements
proposed are limited to those necessmy to provide access and utilities to a single family home on a
single family residentially-zoned lot from the only adjacent, existing street right-of-way available to
provide utilities and vehicular access. The driveway is proposed at the minimum widths and
clearances allowed under city standards, is to be installed in permeable materials, and grading and
erosion control plans have been provided demonstrating the eff0l1s to be made both to minimize fill
and control erosion. In addition, the applicants have provided a flood analysis prepared by a licensed
professional engineer to demonstrate that the area to be disturbed is more than 20-feet beyond the
1 OO-year flood plain boundary, is not located within a flood hazard area or floodway, and has been
designed not to impede floodwaters regardless of the frequency of the flood-event. Staff would
accordingly recommend approval of the application with the following six conditions attached:
1) That all conditions of Planning Action #2006-01784 shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified herein.
2) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
3) That a revised landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted with the building permit.
Plant materials which would impede vehicular access to Tax Lot 411 shall be removed from
this plan. The landscaping shall be installed and irrigated prior to issuance of the certificate
of occupancy.
4) That the recommendations of the Tree Commission's October 81h, 2009 meeting shall be
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
'Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 19 of 20
incorporated in a revised Tree Protection Plan to be submitted for the review and approval of
the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit. These recommendations are: 1) that
the applicants install tree protection fencing along the west prope11y line where proposed
driveway is adjacent to the trees on the neighboring property directly west; 2) that the
measures outlined in narrative of the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan shall be
implemented during excavation and construction of the driveway near west prope11y line at
location of neighbor's shed to where driveway tums back east; 3) that the Ponderosa Pine
tree within public right-of-way shall be pruned prior to sitework to provide adequate
vehicular clearance C13-feet 6-inches above driving surface); 4) that a paver system, cold-
mix asphalt/concrete mix, gravel or similar material shall be used under the dripline of the
Ponderosa Pine where the driveway encroaches into the dripline area; and 5) that the
driveway shall be installed at surface grade within the dripline of the Ponderosa Pine. In
addition, unless the applicants can provide evidence of agreement from the neighbors to the
n011h and east allowing the installation of the proposed tree protection fencing for Trees #7
and #8 on their respective properties, the Tree Protection Plan shall be modified to reflect
placement of the fencing necessary to protect these two trees solely on the applicants'
property.
5) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the requirements of the Fire
Department shall be satisfactorily addressed including: approved addressing; fire apparatus
access including angle of approach, shared access agreements, tum-around, and approval of
any gates or fences; firefighter access pathway; fire flow; fire hydrant distance to structures;
and fire department work area. Temporary addressing must be in place prior to any sitework,
and an approved "fuel break" must be in place prior to bringing combustible materials onto
the site.
6) That a Tree Verification inspection shall be applied for and approved by the Staff Advisor
prior to site work, storage of materials or building pellnit issuance. This Verification Permit
is to inspect the COl1'ect identification of the two dead poplar trees to be removed and the
installation oftree protection fencing for the trees to remain on and adjacent to the site. The
tree protection shall consist of chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with
18.61.200.B. Property lines shall be clearly identified within and adjacent to the tree
protection zones at the time of inspection.
Planning Aclion PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 20 of 20
a.
I- ...a:: 0'
ill :::e w
ill r- QC:CO
Il. Z
1M 1.1.11
0 ~ ~ !I: ;:; !:
0 ll..
~ Z 0 Il.l i:
...: r- ::::il0 Cl 0
0 <<l .-
Il!::: ~ Z XC 1.1.1- .....
::::ll ... ~
II') ~ '" ....uCl >1.0.1 !: ....
W .J III 1;;
.J :E r:d "'" w 1.1.11~ -z i= '-
"" Z ZO I-::l _ i:
U 0 ~ <( ~- IV .-
Vl ~ ll.. <0 Ol E
w ~~ !I: ii:l-.... 1.1.. m'tl
I- ,'lI::I" 1.1.. ~ <<l
<1;0 ~Q M~ >- I.l.I E Il.l
~ Zl;.;l !::: CJ
I.4-X >- l:
X \::>;.,<02: o~ :z: IJ <!l
0 ~~Q ....~ :;;;J c ....
a:: :E tI> :l
~ if..l Ol '"
~ >tt::Cl:C: ....Jll.. :E .... l::
.( 1.0.1< <l.l .-
Eo< 00 1;;) Z:; (;.) E 7Q
-~~ .cc~ (.) III '-
Q ""'l III
01 Q..!;! "0
~
0'
<:
'"
i=
o
u.i
..J
/l.
<(
~
<.)
w
2:
o
N
,...
w
w
it:
I-
(J)
Cl
0:
.:
r
<)
tJ:
o
LL
LL
<I;
51
Nov 300904: 15p
rhonda
!
1-061-832-9011
p.2
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2009-00726, a request for a )
modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental Constraints )
Review Permit (FA #2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview )
Drive. The original approval was for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain I
and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing )
driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the )
installation a private storm drain and the extension ofutiHties to serve a new single-
family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval )
already in place in order to accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request )
for a Tree Removal Pennit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included. )
I APPLICANTS: Ly'nn and Bill McDonald
REQUEST FOR
AN
EXTENSION
OF THE TIME
LIMIT
ORS 227.178(1)
Applicants request a 60-day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1).
~.~
Applicant
~~rfuQ~~
Applicant
r!ll.2 sf tJ C;
J (.. ;)<;~ 0 9
Date
f,? ~ ~~.::. f~_. ~.~.~~) :;~~~
NOV 3 0 2009
(">1",/ " ~. '. " ;": ".~,--l'
C,-,:""'" .,:, , ., ",'
.. - I', ~ '" I' t', J ~ ,,' .:;.' -'1 -...-, Iii t
.... """J.'>.,i~ ~
[Note: ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120wday period set in (ORS 227.178(1)) may
be extended for a specified period oftime at the written request ofthe applicant. The total
of all extensions may not exceed 245 days."]
.i
RECEiVE[)
DEe 2 0 2009 If,' O~
Notice of Land Us~ Appeal - Type'l . I Y 0 anc@
Ashland Munlci al Code 18.108.070.B.2.c
A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es):
1.
~3
.e /~ [21)-
~d h rt
Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal.
2.
C. Decision Being Appealed
Date of Decision: Planning Action #: Title of planning action:
//- Of, -0 r :A6Cfl-- oor;;z(p [?Ay>/c-rl if- s~:~
D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party
For each erson listed above in Box A, check the a ro riate box below.
The person named in D 1)iWl1 the applicant.
Box A.1. above lQf received notice of the planning action.
qualifies as a party D I was entftled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
because: notice due to error.
The person named in
Box A.2. above
qualifies as a party
because:
D I am the applicant.
D I received notice of the planning action.
D I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as
a art.
E. Specific Grounds for Appeal
1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modjfied is (attach
additional pages if necessary): ~ ~ S"~ j/1(J. ~~ ..0 ef ....("
'f~~~,t~",,;,,~ .M"d,.fII:..;;LnI/.~1 ~ '"
~'w-Idt(~~ ~ 'Hu ~ .tt4c~tI1) ~/~~ lite'{
This Is an error because the applicable criteria or ~r8cedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
9 /S./Og,O'l6A or other law In 9 requires that
attach additional a as if necessa : . k 4 C"4A-~
2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modifJe IS
(attach additional pages If necessary): ,~ ~ .tJc. .;Kr J'/x:to~~ It d t.\..
~ ~ ~ ~,. 7A( e ~ I~ tfv..I4/1(G ~~
r-t. ,,"'1$ ~.
This Is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
9 (tJ. /I~ . 0300r other law in 9 requires t at
attach additional a es if necessa : ~ Vo 3 0 S-
3. The third 'specific ground for which the decisi n should be reversed or modified is (a ach
E:'~~A::l~fi~~~ r
This iS~fie apPI" criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
9 (1, (oj .050 or other law In 9 requires that
(attach additional pages if necessary): ~ ~- _ (;; ~
,_91:~~~ ~.
.." ~t#;,
'u
I. ~, d,l,p.4UMr~~<,~'7' ~ ~ d~
Ph. ~ r?~ dAl ~ :i.u.d".( yu ~. ~
4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, In a manner similar to the above, that exist. For
each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other
law that were violated.
Appeal Fee
With this notIce of appeall(we) submit the sum of $0.00 which is the appeal fee required by
9 18.108.11 a.A of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Date: I//r/or
Signature(s) d{p:rson(s) filing appeal (attach additional pages if necessary):
-A/~-,~
Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together wIth the appeal fee must be filed
with the Community Development Department, Attn: Planning Commission Secretary. 20 E
Main St, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-5305, prior to the effective date of the
decision sought to be reviewed. Effective dates of decisions are set forth In Ashland Mun;clpal
Code Section 18.108.070.
,.
f~~ECE~VED
DEe 2 0 2009
City of Ash~and
,. . ~
r:l ~~~ r"" F" ~ \ l t:' r,'j,'
~,J~--o.j 'f;f k-'l~
DEe 2 0 2009
Notice of Land Use Appeal- Type I
Nov. 20, 2009
Appellant: Bonnie Brodersen
CC';HV Ole f1~o'!?'k1't,:,f',',~
, ~ l) J -\..t)~ ~~L.\~ ~t...J
Attachment
4. Piping of stormwater directly into Wrights Creek, an historically fish-bearing
creek, violates Ashland's Master Stormwater & Drainage Plan, The Bear Creek
Watershed TMDL's (as applied to the City) & its NPDES Phase 2 permit and the
federal Clean Water Act. Dumping oflarge amounts of water at one time creates
erosion of the creek bank at the point of entry. Best Management Practices and
required state permits have not been addressed. Further, the City is approving the
dumping of stormwater runoff from a City property into Wrights Creek where it is
located outside of the city and in the county. The City has not addressed how county
ordinances/approval come into play.
5. The City has failed to enforce Street Standards requirements: (See for example,
AMC 18.88.050(B). With the proposed development, Grandview Drive will provide
access to four or more homes. Four driveways within a few feet of each other will
enter Grandview Drive. Implementation of mandatory Street Standards will fall
within the riparian/floodplain corridors requiring a physical and environmental
constraints review.
6. The City's findings are inadequate when the City states "imported fill materials
for driveway construction are to be placed at the "original ground elevation" and
Applicants Narrative provides no info on how a 20' wide paved driveway will be
placed at the original ground elevation when Grandview Drive sits anywhere
between 2-9 feet below the elevated green riparian/wetland.
7. City's Order violates the Tree Ordinance when Applicant's arborist recommends
the "paving ofthe new road should be done with a minimum of grading in order to
keep root damage to a minimum," yet there are no findings on how close to the
surface the tree root system is, how the root system will be protected, how the
driveway's sand and gravel base will affect the root system, how compaction from
heavy construction equipment will affect the significant pine and oak trees and how
a permanent paved driveway extending from the trunk ofthe pine and over its drip
line will affect its long-term survival and the long term survival of the riparian area.
8. The City violates ALUO 18.62.075 requiring that "the general topography of
riparian preservation lands shall be retained" because, among other things, the new
proposals (placing 743 sq ft of driveway in the protected riparian corridor and 275
sq ft below the top ofthe bank ofthe creek) will decimate the topography of the
riparian area which is in the city-owned ROW. It's incomprehensible that the City
spends time/money/energy restoring the fish-habitat of lower Wrights Creek, while
at the same time relinquishing the City-owned (ROW) Wrights Creek riparian
corridor at Grandview Drive, to destructive private development, which
development will cause irretrievable harm by reducing shade and wildlife habitat,
increasing sediment flow into the Creek and increasing water temperature, among
other things.
9. The City fails to enforce ALua 18.62.070 and violates its NDES Phase II permit
when it fails to find that the toe of the fill will be kept at least 10 feet out of floodway
channels and when it fails to determine how much fill is being used. Is a
removal/fill permit required? There is no finding about how the development will
affect flow of surface waters and bank erosion.
10. The City engages in an unconstitutional taking of property when it allows
applicant's proposed driveway to be constructed over a public city-owned ROW,
which ROW provides in part, unobstructed access to TL 411. Ingress & egress for TL
411 onto Grandview Dr. was approved by the City when TL 411 was created by
partition years ago. Further, because Applicant's property is located to the west,
and sits significantly below TL 411, there is a blind area at the point where a vehicle
from TL 411 will enter the public ROW. In other words, both driveways will meet at
a A. Ifthe applicant's driveway is constructed as proposed this will create a
dangerous intersection where a vehicle from applicant's property could collide wI a
vehicle entering from TL 411 blc of vision clearance issues. Other issues the City
hasn't addressed include: who will be liable in the event of injury on that area of the
driveway located in the public ROW which would have to be used for ingress and
egress to both TL 411 and applicants property. Who will be responsible for
maintaining that area of the driveway? Note that the City found "problems w /
access to lot," in 1982 in advising on a minor land partition. The City is
compounding the problems it was instrumental in causing by previous code-
violating actions.
11. All assignments of error appealed to LUBA which LUBA did not decide or which
LUBA denied blc said assignments of error were not ripe for decision or were
considered dicta for that appeal (Final Order for LUBA No. 2007-162) are hereby
incorporated by reference and considered part of this appeal to the Planning
Commission.
~'{ECE~VEO
DEe 2 0 2009
rl''';~'\~,f 0" ~ 1\" c-h1"'\fI'\("
~}~~J ,~r~;5~ ~.~{)i~ G~~.J
CITY OF
ASHLAND
November 9,2009
Bill & Lynn McDonald
8621 Oak Branch Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Notice of Final Decision
On November 6,2009, the Staff Advisor for the Ashland Planning Division administratively approved
your request for the following:
A modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit (P A
#2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. The original approval was for
development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a
portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the
installation a private storm drain and the extension ofuti]ities to serve a new single-family residence. The
proposed modification involves alterations to the approval to accommodate changes in vehicular access.
A request for a Tree Remova] Permit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included. .
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-1O;
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500
The Staff Advisor's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13lh day after the Notice of Final
Decision is mailed.
Prior to that date, anyone who was mailed this Notice Of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of
the action by the Staff Advisor as set fOlih in the Ashland Land Vse Ordinance (ALVO)
18.1 08.070(B)(2)(b) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in the ALUO
l8.108.070(B)(2)(c).
An appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. 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 LUBA on that
issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of
appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to
proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the
issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available
for review at no cost at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
Copies offile documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee
schedule.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Department of Community
Development between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Parties of Record
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Slreel
Ashland, Oregon 97520
W'MY.ashland,or,us
Tel: 541--188-5305
Fax; 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00726
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 720 Grandview Drive
APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
DESCRIPTION: A request for a modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Penuit (P A #2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. The
original approval was for development in the WriglIts Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for
the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to
Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-
family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval already in place in order to
accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request for a Tree Removal Pennit to remove two dead poplar
trees is also included.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-I-lO;
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500
SUBMITTAL DATE:
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE:
STAFF APPROVAL DATE:
FINAL DECISION DATE:
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE:
June 5, 2009
September 23,2009
November 6, 2009
November 22, 2009
November 22, 2010
DECISION
The proposal is a request for a modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Pennit (P A #2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. The
original approval was for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for
the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to
Grandview Drive, the installation of a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-
family residence. P A-2008-01250, an IS-month extension of Planning Action #2006-01784 was approved
ministerially as allowed in AMC 18.112.030, and the original approval thus remains valid until February 7,
2010. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval to accommodate changes in vehicular
access. A request for a Tree Removal Pennit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included.
The subject property is a vacant, approximately O.54-acre rectangular lot located on the north side of
Grandview Drive. This portion ofGrandview Drive is the western terminus of the city street, and is located
west ofthe intersection with Wrights Creek Drive. Grandview Drive in this vicinity is a gravel road.
The subject property contains slopes of approximately a 14 percent grade sloping downhill in an easterly and
northeasterly direction. The application survey identifies three trees on the site including a cluster of plum
trees and two poplar trees that are eight- and ten-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.). The two
poplars are identified as being dead. The remainder of the site is covered primarily in native grasses. One of
the forks ofWrights CreekJ a Riparian Preservation Creek, runs to the south of the subject property. The
P A #2009-00726
720 Grandview DriveIDS
Page 1
creek is culverted to the south of Grand view Drive and daylights at the edge of the Grandview Drive right-
of-way near the southwestern corner ofthe parcel. The top of the creek bank, and the associated protection
zone extending 20-feet beyond the top of bank, are partially located in the southwest corner of the parcel and
is identified on the Topographic Survey included in the application.
The subject parcel as well as the surrounding properties to the east, north and south are located in the R-l-1 0
Single-Family Residential zoning district. The Ashland city limits are located on the western border of the
property. As a result, the properties to the west of the parcel are under the jurisdiction of Jackson County.
There are several parcels to the north and to the east oftlx subject property that are also vacant.
A segment of the Wrights Creek drainage runs generally parallel to and south ofWrights Creek Drive in this
vicinity, and is culverted at driveway crossings for properties on the south side of the road. The creek turns
north and is culverted under Wrights Creek Drive, daylighting approximately 22 feet southwest of the
subject property's southwestern-most comer.
An existing driveway currently provides access to the subject parcel as well as the parcel to the west at 507
Grandview Drive. This shared driveway splits off from Grandview Drive within the right-of-way
approximately 40 feet east of the subject property, and Grandview Drive continues to the southwest. The
driveway splits again shortly after entering the subject property, with one driveway going to the north onto
the subject property, and the other driveway continuing west to serve the residence located at 507 Grandview
Drive. The driveway is surfaced in gravel agl1 varies from nine to 15 feet in width. The property located at
507 Grandview Drive contains an existing ~gle-fami1yresidence and is located outside of the Ashland city
limits. The portion of the driveway serving 507 Grandview Drive is located within a 20-foot wide access
easement that traverses the southern portion of the subject parcel.
This shared driveway also crosses the comer of the vacant property to the east of the subject property (39 IE
05 CD Tax Lot #411). The previous owner of Tax Lot #411 had authorized the applicants to proceed with
their original application in anticipation of granting an access easement. However subsequent to the
approval of Planning Action #2006-01784, Tax Lot #411 was sold and the new owner has been unwilling to
allow the applicants an access easement over the comer of this lot. The modifications making up the current
application are proposed by the applicants as a response 00 the loss of this access, which requires that the
proposed driveway be extended further into the right-of-way and consequently further towards Wright's
Creek in order to provide access from the street right-of-way to the subject property.
ModifIcation
The Land Use Ordinance provides for wnendments or modifications to the conditions of approval of
previously approved Type I planning actions as a miscellaneous action subject to Type I review (i.e.
administrative approval) under AMC 18.1 08.040.A.2.a. The whole record of the original approval is thus
adopted here by reference, with the decision below to address those elements of the proposal which are
subject to modification with the request.
Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit
It is important to first clarify that the scope of review for a Physical Constraints Review Pennit, both in the
original application and the proposed modification here, is limited to the development of the portion of the
driveway and utility trenches located in the floodplain. The single--family home and most ofthe driveway
are not located in the Wrights Creek Floodplain, and as a result are not subject to the Physical Constraints
P A #2009-00726
720 Grandview DrivelDS
Page 2
Review Permit. The property is located In the R-l-lO Single-Family Residential zoning district, and a
single-family home is an outright pennitted use. As an outright pennitted use. the construction ofa single-
family home requires a building permit, and does not require a planning action in and of itself.
Planning Action #2006-01784, the previously approved Physical and Environmental Constraints Review
Permit, allowed for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the
improvement of a portion of an existing ?riveway, the re-grading of the transition of the driveway to
Grandview Drive, the installation of a private stonn drain, and the extension of utilities to serve a new
single- family residence. The applicants are now proposing to modify this approval in order to accommodate
changes in vehicular access, as the neighboring property to the east was sold subsequent to the previous
approval and the new owner has been unwilling to provide the access easement over the comer ofthe parcel
which is necessary to access the subject property in a manner consistent with the existing approval.
In response to this change in vehicular access, the proposed modification places the access drive in closer
proximity to the creek by approximately 13 feet in order to avoid the comer of the neighbor's property while
providing the necessary driveway width. Previously approved improvements would have resulted in
approximately 324 square feet of disturbance within the riparian zone, and avoided disturbance between the
top of bank and the centerline of the creek. With the current proposal, the disturbed area has been increased
to 743 square feet, and 275 square feet ofthis disturbance is below the identified top of bank.
The materials provided note that all imported material to be used for driveway construction is to be placed at
the original ground elevation, so that there is no additional fill which would impede floodwaters. A Grading
Plan prepared by Thornton Engineering, Inc. has been provided by the applicants to demonstrate how the
grading necessary to accommodate the proposed driveway is to be accomplished, to specifically delineate the
disturbed area within the Riparian Preservations Lands and to illustrate the relationship of the disturbance to
the creek, top of bank, and the existing improvements already in place.
The applicants have proposed to utilize permeable asphalt for the driveway surface to control drainage and
filter possible pollutants through the driveway's sand and gravel base, and they have also proposed to plant
riparian-appropriate ground cover and shrubs in the area to curb erosion and assist in screening the creek.
In addition, the applicants propose to utilize a combination of silt fencing, hay bales, HV" ditches and
underground drainage pipes to convey drainage. Drainage and Erosion Control Plans prepared by the project
civil engineers, Thornton Engineering, Inc. have been provided.
A Tree Protection Plan and arborist's reports have been provided to address protection of the trees to be
retained on and adjacent to the site. These materials note that Tree #1, a 28-inch Ponderosa Pine within the
Grandview Drive right-of~way and the Riparian Protection Zone, merits special attention given the proximity
of the driveway access to the tree's trunk. The project arborist, Tom Myers of Upper Limb-It, notes that
Grandview Drive and associated gravel driveways are already within the tree's protection zone. He indicates
that tree protection fencing around the protection zone will need to be adjusted to the edge of the existing
road improvement rather than the typical fencing to the fuJl extent of the 28-footradius of the tree protection
zone. Myers also indicates that an arbonst will need to be on-site when paving begins to ensure that all
necessary precautions are taken to protect the tree. Myers recommends that paving of the driveway be done
with minimal grading to minimize root damage, noting that it would be preferable to raise the grade of the
road surface within the tree's protection zone rather than cutting and filling to achieve the desired road
surface. Myers also recommends that equipment be kept away from the trees trunk in order to avoid
PA #2009~00726
720 Grandview Drive/DS
Page 3
structural damage, and he indicates that if these precautions are taken the tree should survive the proposed
construction without damaging its health. The application materials note that the engineered design
proposed was developed based on these recommendations. The Tree Commission reviewed Myers'
recommendations at their meeting of October 8; they were in general concurrence, emphasizing that a
permeable material should be used within the tree protection zone and that the driveway be installed at
surface grade within the tree protection zone. The Commission also recommended that the tree be pruned to
13-feet 6-inches above the finished driving surface prior to site work to provide adequate vehicular and fire
apparatus clearance. In their discussion, Tree Commissioners noted that Ponderosa Pines are generally better
able to handle construction and compaction when traffic is concentrated closer to the trunk where stabilizing
roots are located, and that this could be preferable to having traffic and compaction concentrated more to the
outer, smaller feeder roots. The Tree Commission had additional recommendations with regard to the
project's Tree Protection, specifically that tree protection fencing be provided along the west property line to
protect trees on the property to the west, at 507 Grandview Drive, from impacts relating to driveway
construction and that tree preservation and protection measures listed in the arborists recommendations be
followed during driveway construction adjacent to this property. A condition has been included below
requiring that a revised Tree Protection and Preservation Plan be provided incorporating the
recommendations of the Tree Commission.
The Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands require that trees over six inches be retained to
the greatest extent feasible and limit fill to streets, access and utilities, noting that any crossings shall occur
at right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill is to be kept to a minimum and the
general topography of the Riparian Preservation lands is to be retained. As proposedt the applicants have
provided a plan for retaining and protecting Tree #1, the Ponderosa Pine located on the Riparian
Preservation Lands affected here. The work proposed is limited to that necessary to provide access and
utilities to a single family home on a single family residentially-zoned lot and is to be installed within the
existing Grandview Drive street right-of-way. While no new crossing of the Wright's Creek is being
proposed, the angle of the transition from the existing street to the new driveway improvements minimizes
the disturbance within the Riparian Preservation Lands while responding to applicable driveway standards,
avoiding the neighboring property to the eastt and retaining and protecting the Ponderosa Pine. The
application notes that imported fill materials for driveway construction are to be placed at the original
ground elevationt generally retaining the existing topography to the extent possible and avoiding additional
fill that would impede floodwaters. In considering these impacts, staff noted that the existing topography is
located within existing street right-of-way and already accommodates established driveways in the
immediate vicinity. The applicable Development Standards for Flood Plain Conidor Lands set limits for fill,
expressly allowing outside fill material associated with public and private street and driveway construction,
as proposed herein.
The applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented
measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. Specifically, the applicant has
proposed grading, drainage and erosion control measures as well as the placement of improvements, use of
permeable paving materials, minimization of fill and revegetation to minimize the impacts of the proposal.
While these impacts have increased over the original approval, the applicants response to changes in
available vehicular access is the minimum necessary to provide vehicular access to the site while avoiding
impacts to the adjacent Tax Lot #411 or the large Ponderosa Pine and appropriate mitigation measures have
been proposed.
P A #2009-00726
720 Grandview Drive/DS
Page 4
The section of Grand view Drive from the intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. to the subject parcel is located
within 20 feet from the top of bank of a fork of Wrights Creekt and therefore is located in Floodplain
Corridor Lands. Grandview Drive is a public street right-of-way and the section of Grandview Drive from
the intersection with Wrights Creek Drive to the southeast comer of the subject parcel was dedicated as
street right-of-way in 1971. The portion of the Grandview Drive right-of-way adjacent to the southern
boundary of the subject parcel was dedicated as part of the land partition process that created the parcel in
1979. Chapter 18.62, Physical and Environmental Constraints including development standards for riparian
corridor lands was adopted in 1986.
The floodplain was obviously altered at some time in the past in the construction of Grand view Drive and
the adjacent driveways. The section ofthe driveway that serves the subject property is an existing driveway
that is improved with a gravel surface. In review of the Land Partition file that created the subject parcel,
Grandview Drive was in place and was required to be re-graded as a condition of the planning approval.
This indicates that the gravel driving surface that constitutes Grandview Drive was in place at least as far
back as 1979. The applicants cannot control the location of Grand view Drive, nor can they change the fact
that it was platted adjacent to and in a riparian corridor. Furthermore, the applicants did not have any
influence over the location of Grandview Drive. The previously established location of the street right-of-
way dictates the location of the driveway access and utility connections to serve the subject parcel. Given
the location of the Grandview Drive right-of-way, there are no alternative locations available for the
driveway or private storm drain Hne located outside of the Wrights Creek floodplain.
An alternative access to the subject parcel is not available because the subject property is not adjacent to any
other street right-of-ways, nor does it have any other available access easements. In staffs opinion, the
impact to the Wrights Creek floodplain occurred prior to the current proposal when Grandview Drive and the
existing shared driveway were located and constructed. Furthermore, regardless of the development of the
subject parcelt the driveway will continue to serve the home on the adjacent parcel to the west at 507
Grandview Drive.
In staffs view, the applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the
environment. Their proposal preserves and protects the large Ponderosa Pine, and the improvements
proposed are limited to those necessary to provide access and utilities to a single family home on a single
family residentially-zoned lot from the only adjacent) existing street right-of-way available to provide
utilities and vehicular access. The driveway is proposed at the minimum widths and clearances allowed by
city standard, is to be installed in permeable materials, and grading and erosion control plans have been
provided demonstrating the efforts to be made to minimize fill and control erosion.
Concerns Raised by Bonnie Brodersen
During the comment period, neighbor Bonnie Brodersen met with staff on-site and submitted comments identifYing ten
issues of concern as detailed in her letter of October 8t 2009. These concerns were carefully considered in reviewing
the proposed modifications. The concerns and staff responses thereto are briefly summarized below:
1) That there are not code proviSions for amending a previously approved application, and the current application
must be processed as a new action.
As noted in the narrati ve above) the Land Use Ordinance provides for amendments or modifications
to the conditions of approval of previously approved Type I planning actions as a miscellaneous
action subject to Type I review (i.e. administrative approval) under AMC 18.108.040.A.2.a.
PA #2009-00726
720 Grandview DrivelDS
Page 5
2) That the appllcants' proposed driveway will negallvely effect entry onto the public street from TL #411 because
the proposal places the driveway in part in the right-of-way.
Imported materials for driveway construction are to be placed at original ground elevation, as noted
and illustrated on the grading plan provided. With these improvements installed at the original
ground level, and within public right-of-way, it does not appear that physical access to the parcel
would be negatively impacted. While the driveway improvements proposed are to be installed to
provide access to the applicants' parcel, they are located within public street right-of-way and no
easement would be required for the owners of tax lot #411 to cross them in gaining access to their
property.
Landscape improvements within the right-of-way just south of the frontage of tax lot 41 1 outlined in
the applicants landscape plan submittal could present a barrier to future vehicular access to that site,
and as such, a condition of approval has been added to require that these plant materials be removed
from a revised landscape plan to be provided before building permit approval.
3) That the applicants proposal changes the topography and natural state of the Riparian Preservation area within
the City-owned right-or-way.
The City-owned right-of-way predates current regulations and provides the only available access to
the subject property. As indicated on the: applicants' grading plan, the proposal generally maintains
the existing grade and topography. As noted in the Council findings for the previous approval,
absolute in situ preservation of Riparian Preservation Lands is ~ot required the Code and alteration is
permitted under many specific elements within the Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor
Lands and to require otherwise would render these standards moot.
4) That the 28.inch Ponderosa Pine may not survive the proposed development In the riparian area;
A Tree Protection Plan prepared by a local certified arborist has been provided. This plan includes
specific recommendations intended to preserve and protect the Ponderosa Pine given the
development proposed, and notes that the tree should survive the construction process without
damage to its health. This plan was reviewed by the City's Tree Commission, and they made
recommendations in support of the plan.
5) That the applicants' utility plan shows storm water being piped directly into Wrights Creek which flows into Bear
Creek, protected as a water quality limited creek, and may be a violation or Ashland's DEQ-approved TMDL plan.
In the original application, the Planning Commission determined that direct discharge into Wrights
Creek may not be appropriate given its Riparian Preservation designation. A condition (#5) was
added to the original approval requiring pre-treatment measures; this condition was reviewed and
accepted as appropriate by the Council on appeal and was agreed to by the applicants. The condition
remains in effect, and the applicants will need to address the requirements of the condition prior to
permit issuance.
6) That there is no estimate or the amount of fill required or whether the project can be feasibly completed using
only on-site fill.
The Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands expressly provide for the use of off-site
fill within the limitations of AMC 18.62.070.A.3. Off-site fill in the form of aggregate base, paving
P A #2009-00726
720 Grandview DriveIDS
Page 6
materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction are
expressly permitted. All fill proposed within the Riparian Preservation and Flood Plain Corridor
Lands in the application is limited to these purposes.
7) That the AMC requires applications for all permits required of the development to be submitted simultaneously,
and that the city should requIre findings that the applicant can meet all requirements of the zoning district and for
issuance of an encroachment permit simultaneously.
The requirement that other applications be filed simultaneously and reviews conducted
simultaneously within AMC 18.62.040.E and G refers to Site Review, Performance Standards
Development, Conditional Use Permits, Subdivisions, Partitions, master site plans or other planning
actions and does not apply to other permits such as encroachments which have other reviewing
authorities and/or may require that land use approval be in place prior to review. In this instance, the
applicants have submitted for the applicable planning action approvals, and a building permit
application has also been made.
8) That there Is no documentation in the Planning Department file that the MacDonald's property was legally
created and is a legal/ot of record.
This argument was considered and rejected by the Council during the last appeal of the original
approval, and that rejection was upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals. The lot status is not an
applicable approval criterion, however in the Council findings for the original approval the City
Council previously found that the lot was legally created pursuant to a 1981 partition plat, and that
the plat was valid.
9) That the proposal places a driveway in the middle of a riparian area where Wrights Creek daylights within the
city right -of -way, that the riparian area is elevated from approximately one to four feet, and that there is no infonnation on
how the topography of the riparian preservation area will be retained while placing a driveway through the daylighted
area.
The applicants have provided a grading plan from a licensed professional engineering firm
illustrating the proposed driveway installation. Plan details and notes illustrate installation of the
driveway at original ground elevation and identify both existing and finish grades.
10) That there are no studies of how run-off from a driveway in excess of 250 feet, a required turnaround, and large
homesite will affect the floodplain corridor with flooded In 1997.
The scope of review for the Physical Constraints Review Permit, both in the original application and
the modifications proposed here, is limited to only that portion of the driveway and utility trenches
located in the floodplain. The single-family home and most of the driveway are not located in the
Wrights Creek Floodplain, and as a result are not subject to the Physical Constraints Review Permit.
The property is located in the R-l-1 0 Single-Family Residential zoning district, and a single-family
home is an outright permitted use. As an outright permitted use, the construction ofa single-family
home requires only a building pennit, and does not require a planning action in and of itself.
Tree Removal Permit
The application includes a request to remove two poplars (populus nigra) identified as Tree #4 and Tree #5
on the tree inventory provided. These trees are located on the southern portion of the subject property,
P A #2009-00126
720 Grandview DrivelDS
Page 7
roughly near the centerline of the lot. Both trees are located more than twenty feet from the top of the creek
bank identified in the application in an area with a slope ofless than 25 percent according to city GIS data,
and as such their removal is not subject to review under the Physical & Environmental Constraints Review
Ordinance. Tree #4 is described as being nine-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.h.h.) and is identified as
dead; Tree #5 is described as being six-inches d.b.h. and is also identified as being dead.
Tree removal on vacant, residentially-zoned property is subject to pennitting only for the removal of
significant trees (i.e. those having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height) as noted in
AMC 18.61.042.D.l.c. In addition, the removal of dead trees is specifically exempted from regulation in
AMC 18.61.035.0. As such, given both their sizes and the fact that they are dead, staff find that no tree
removal pennit is required for the applicants to remove these two poplars.
Site Review
The application submittal includes a request for Site Review approval as the question of whether Site
Review approval was required for the proposed home was raised during an appeal of the original application.
On appeal, the Site Review requirement and was ultimately rejected by the City Council, and that rejection
upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals. Ordinance modifications made subsequent to the original
approval also specifically address this issuein AMC 18.72.030 in listing exemptions:
B. Exemptions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review application and
procedure requirements provided that the development complies with applicable standards
as set forlh by this Chapter.
1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessory structures and uses.
The proposal is not subject to requirements for Site Review approval.
The criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit are described in AMC
Chapter 18.62.040 as foUows:
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be Issued by the Staff
Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential
Impacts to the properly and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse
impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may
create and implemented measures to mlf/gate the potential hazards caused by the
development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on
the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than
reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the
existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted
development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
(Ord 2834 S1, 1998)
(ORD 2951, Bl1I8nded, 0710112008; Ord. 2834, Amended, 1110311998, SscIJon 18.62.040 J 'd8/eloo'; Ord 2808, Added, 12/()2/1997)
P A #2009-00726
720 Grandview DrivelDS
Page 8
The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.61.080 as follows:
An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff
Advisor may require an arborlst's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the
applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it
Is likely to faM and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree
that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or
private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the
damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of
the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property
damage to a,., existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be
alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shaff Issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards,
Including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical
and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint
of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit
application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soli
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that
the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone.
In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the
impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions
of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permlf.
The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances. Planning Action
#2009-00726 is approved with the following conditions. Furthert if anyone or more of the following
conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2009-00726 is denied.
The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
P A #2009-00726 .
720 Grandview Drive/DS
Page 9
1) That all conditions of Planning Action #2006-01784 shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified herein.
2) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
3) That a revised landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted with the building permit. Plant
materials which would impede vehicular access to Tax Lot 411 shall be removed from this plan. The
landscaping shall be installed and irrigated prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
4) That the recommendations of the Tree Commission's October 8"\ 2009 meeting shall be
incorporated in a revised Tree Protection Plan to be submitted for the review and approval of the
Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit. These recommendations are: 1) that the
applicants install tree protection fencing along the west property line where proposed driveway is
adjacent to the trees on the neighboring property directly west; 2) that the measures outlined in
narrative of the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan shall be implemented during excavation and
construction of the driveway near west property line at location of neighbor's shed to where
driveway turns back east; 3) that the Ponderosa Pine tree within public right-of-way shall be pruned
prior to sitework to provide adequate vehicular clearance (13-feet 6-inches above driving surface);
4) that a paver system, cold~mix asphalt/concrete mix, gravel or similar material shall be used under
the dripline of the Ponderosa Pine where the driveway encroaches into the dripline area; and 5) that
the driveway shall be installed at surface grade within the dripline of the Ponderosa Pine. In
addition, unless the applicants can provide evidence of agreement from the neighbors to the north
and east allowing the installation of the proposed tree protection fencing for Trees #7 and #8 on their
respective properties, the Tree Protection Plan shall be modified to reflect placement ofthe fencing
necessary to protect these two trees solely on the applicants' property.
5) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy~ the requirements of the Fire Department
shall be satisfactorily addressed including: approved addressing; fire apparatus access including
angle of approach, shared access agreements, turn-around, and approval of any gates or fences;
firefighter access pathway; fire flow; fire hydrant distance to structures; and fire department work
area. Temporary addressing must be in place prior to any sitework, and an approved Hfuel break"
must be in place prior to bringing combustible materials onto the site.
6) That a Tree Verification inspection shall be applied for and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to
site work~ storage of materials or building pennit issuance. This Verification Pennit is to inspect the
correct identification of the two dead poplar trees to be removed and the installation of tree
protection fencing for the trees to remain on and adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall consist
of chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. Property lines shall
be clearly identified within and adjacent to the tree protection zones at the time of inspection.
~an~ger - ~~~ember6".2009
Department of Community Development
PA #2009-00726
720 Grandview Drive/DS
Page 10
To: Planning Department
From: Bonnie Brodersen
635 Wrights Creek Dr.
482-0180
Re: McDonald Property; P.A. 2009-00726
Date: October 8, 2009
RECEIVED
OCT 0 8 2009
City of AShland
Comments Submitted by Bonnie Brodersen: Measurement Correction for #9.
1. There are no code provisions for "amending" a previously approved Physical &
Envrionmental Constraints Permit. The Department appears to be treating the application
as a new application for a new permit, but this should be clearly stated.
2. Applicant's proposed driveway will negatively affect entry onto the public street from
TL 411 (culTently undeveloped but which area for ingress/egress is platted), because
Applicant's proposal places it's driveway in part in the ROW that TL 411 would use to
access Grandview Drive.
3. Applicants have proposed un-natural man-made additions to the riparian preservation
area which change the topography and the natural state of the area. People have chosen
to live in this area (on the citylcounty line) because of its natural beauty and semi-rural
feeling. Applicant's proposals not only denigrate the protected riparian area, but will
forever alter the natural state or the riparian area that the neighborhood has cherished.
Note that the area which will be denigrated is not owned by Applicants but is a city-
owned ROW.
4. There is a significant 28" ponderosa pine tree. This tree is in the city~owned ROW
(riparian area where the stream daylights). The tree protection zone radius is 28'. The
grading plan shows the driveway placed within the protection zone and drip-line. It is
noted that the tree may not survive the proposed development in the riparian area. This
would be a significant loss to the riparian area; the tree provides shade for the area; it's
provides wildlife habitat (e.g., a family of quail has been present in the area for over 15
years) and it is the tallest tree in the area where the water daylights. Its root system helps
to stem erosion and further degradation ofthe riparian area.
5. Applicant's utility plan shows storm water being piped directly into Wrights Creek
which flows into Bear Creek, protected as a "water quality limited" creek. Is direct
piping of storm water into Wrights Creek a violation of Ashland's TMDL plan, as
approved by DEQ.
6. There is no estimate ofthe amount offill required to develop the area as required by
AMC or whether the project can feasibly be completed using only on-site :fill.
~~'i';~:.(~' ~::.;..~" ;.:;:)
To: Planning Department
From: Bonnie Brodersen
635 Wrights Creek Dr.
482-0180
Re: McDonald Property; P.A. 2009-00726
Date: October 7,2009
OCT 7 2009
... .;p i . ~ ., ;. ~ ,. ~
C;,,:!.~~r(~!~"I:'i) j,.', ,".~.I.:.'r,;::i:(-:.~L
Comments Submitted by Bonnie Brodersen:
1. There are no code provisions for "amending" a previously approved Physical &
Envrionmental Constraints Permit. The Depattment appears to be treating the application
as a new application for a new permit, but this should be clearly stated.
2. Applicant's proposed driveway will negatively affect entry onto the public street from
TL 411 (currently undeveloped but which area for ingress/egress is platted), because
Applicant's proposal places it's driveway in part in the ROW that TL 411 would use to
access Grandview Drive.
3. Applicants have proposed un-natural man-made additions to the riparian preservation
area which change the topography and the natural state of the area. People have chosen
to live in this area (on the city/county line) because of its natural beauty and semi-rural
feeling. Applicant's proposals not only denigrate the protected riparian area, but will
forever alter the natural state or the riparian area that the neighborhood has cherished.
Note that the area which will be denigrated is not owned by Applicants but is a city-
owned ROW.
4. There is a significant 28" ponderosa pine tree. This tree is in the city-owned ROW
(riparian area where the stream daylights). The tree protection zone radius is 28'. The
grading plan shows the driveway placed within the protection zone and drip-line. It is
noted that the tree may not survive the proposed development in the riparian area. This
would be a significant loss to the riparian area; the tree provides shade for the area; it's
provides wildlife habitat (e.g., a family of quail has been present in the area for over 15
years) and it is the tallest tree in the area where the water daylights. Its root system helps
to stem erosion and further degradation ofthe riparian area.
5. Applicant's utility plan shows storm water being piped directly into Wrights Creek
which flows into Bear Creek, protected as a "water quality limited" creek. Is direct
piping of storm water into Wrights Creek a violation of Ashland's TMDL plan, as
approved by DEQ.
6. There is no estimate of the amount offill required to develop the area as required by
AMC or whether the project can feasibly be completed using only on-site fill.
7. The AMC requires that applications for all permits required for this development be
submitted simultaneously. The city should make findings that Applicant can meet lot
coverage requirements, turnaround requirements, setback requirements, etc. before it
extends a permit to degrade the City-owned riparian area and place a 20' wide driveway
next to/under a 28" significant pine tree, possibly irreversibly harming or destroying the
tree. Also, the city should determine if Applicant can meet the requirements for an
encroachment pennit (to encroach on City-owned ROW) simultaneously. Exactions, for
which the city did not provide remuneration, are for public purposes and not for private
use by individuals, which use would exclude the public or diminish the public)s
enjoyment of the area.
8. There is no documentation in the Planning Department file that the McDonald
property was legally created and is a legal lot as required by the AMC. To merely state
that it is a legal lot begs the question.
9. The proposed development plan places a 20' wide driveway in the middle ofthe
riparian area where a Wrights Creek watelway daylights in the city ROW. The
applicant's grading plan shows the driveway on part of an unpaved city street, Grandview.
Drive. Note that the riparian area is elevated above the street from approximately 1 '~4'.
There is no information on how the topography of the riparian preservation area shall be
retained when placing a paved driveway through the "daylight" area,
10. There are no studies of how runofffi'om a driveway in excess of250), a required
turnaround and a large homesite will affect the floodplain corridor (where the stream
daylights) which flooded in 1997 (FEMA representative visited the site).
!.
e <
To: Planning Department
From: Bonnie Brodersen
635 Wrights Creek Dr.
482-0180
Re: McDonald Property; P,A, 2009-00726
Date: October 7,2009
OCT 7 2009
C')"':~~"':~"J:i-j ~>.'; ;,'r[{\~";
Comments Submitted by Bonnie Brodersen:
1, There are no code provisions for "amending" a previously approved Physical &
Envrionmental Constraints Permit. The Department appears to be treating the application
as a new application for a new permit, but this should be clearly stated.
2. ApplicanCs proposed driveway will negatively affect entry onto the public street fi:om
TL 411 (currently undeveloped but which area for ingress/egress is platted), because
Applicant's proposal places it's driveway in part in the ROW that TL 411 would use to
access Grandview Drive.
3. Applicants have proposed un-natural man-made additions to the riparian preservation
area which change the topography and the natural state ofthe area. People have chosen
to live in this area (on the city/county line) because of its natural beauty and semi-rural
feeling. Applicant's proposals not only denigrate the protected riparian area, but will
forever alter the natural state or the riparian area that the neighborhood has cherished.
Note that the area which will be denigrated is not owned by Applicants but is a city-
owned ROW,
4. There is a significant 28" ponderosa pine tree. This tree is in the city-owned ROW
(riparian area where the stream daylights). The tree protection zone radius is 28'. The
grading plan shows the driveway placed within the protection zone and drip-line. It is
noted that the tree may not survive the proposed development in the riparian area. This
would be a significant loss to the riparian area; the tree provides shade for the area; iCs
provides wildlife habitat (e,g., a family of quail has been present in the area for over 15
years) and it is the tallest tree in the area where the water daylights. Its root system helps
to stem erosion and further degradation of the riparian area.
5. Applicant's utility plan shows storm water being piped directly into Wrights Creek
which flows into Bear Creek, protected as a "water quality limited" creek. Is direct
piping of storm water into Wrights Creek a violation of Ashland's TMDL plan, as
approved by DEQ.
6. There is no estimate of the amount offill required to develop the area as required by
AMC or whether the project can feasibly be completed using only on-site fill.
7. The AMC requu'es that applications for all permits required for this development be
su,bmttN,d si4\vljaneously. The city should make findings that Applicant can meet lot
coverage requu"ements, tlU'naround requu'ements, setback requu'ements, etc. before it
extends a permit to degrade the City-owned riparian area and place a 20' wide driveway
next to/under a 281' significant pine tree, possibly irreversibly harming 01' destroying the
tree. Also, the city should determine if Applicant can meet the requu"ements for an
encroachment permit (to encroach on City-owned ROW) simultaneously. Exactions, for
which the city did not provide remuneration, are for public purposes and not for private
use by individuals) which use would exclude the public 01' diminish the public's
eluoyment of the area.
8. There is no documentation in the Planning Department file that the McDonald
propelty was legally created and is a legal lot as required by the AMC, To merely state
that it is a legal lot begs the question.
9. The proposed development plan places a 20) wide driveway in the middle of the
riparian area where a Wrights Creek waterway daylights in the city ROW. The
applicant's grading plan shows the driveway on part of an unpaved city street, Grandview
Drive. Note that the riparian area is elevated above the street fl.-om 6" - 12". There is no
information on how the topo graphy of the riparian preservation area shall be retained
when placing a paved driveway through the "daylight" area,
10. There are no studies of how runofffi'om a driveway in excess of250), a required
turnaround and a large homesite will affect the floodplain corridor (where the stream
daylights) which flooded in 1997 (FEMA representative visited the site).
rj.'
Planning Department, 51 Winb. Nay, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541.552.2050 www.ashland.or.us m: 1-800-735.2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00726
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 720 Grandview Drive
APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
DESCRIPTJON: A request for a modification of a previously approved Physical and EnvirRnmental Constraints Review Permit
(PA #2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. The original approval 'was for development in the Wrights
Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the
transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new
single-family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval to accommodate changes in vehicular
access. A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 05 CD;
TAX LOT: 500
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on October 8, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: September 23, 2009
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: October 7, 2009
"
i
i
'1
\
\
\
(
r~~~ATil
~~~----"'~
"" ~-
\.
\
"
"'-
-~--""'\.'''-
""
N
A
\
\
)
\
I3XJ
~ _~ "".lPrqp_."""-_...~r
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 61 Winburn Way,
Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine If a Land Use application Is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of
completeness, a notice Is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the proporty 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 6 days of decision. An
appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staffs decision must be made In writing to the Ashland PlannIng DivIsion within
12 deys from the date ofthe malllng affinal decision. (AMC 18.108.040)
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 lipeclflclty to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the
Issue, precludes your right of appeel 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. Fallure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other
Issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specifiCity to allow this Department to respond to the Issue preCludes an
action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria Ire available for Inspection at no
cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, If requested. All materiels are available at the Ashlend Planning Division, Community
Development & Engineering Services Building, 61 Winburn Way, Ashlend, Oregon 97620.
If you have questions or comments concernIng this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 641-488-5305.
O:\eomm-dc~lanning'NollCCS MaiJed>2009I2009.00'26.doc
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT~
1 8.62.040.1 Criteria for Approval I
A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be Issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential Impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and
adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potenllal hazards that the development may create and Implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards
caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the
maximum permitted development permitted by the land Use Ordinance.
CORD 2608, 1997;ORD 2834,1998; ORD 2951,2008)
TREE REMOVAL
18,6t ,080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal- Staff Permit
O:'LOmm-dev''I'lluming\NOlires MAikdI2009\2009-OO126.dot
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
October 8, 2009
PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00726
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 720 Grandview Drive
APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
DESCRIPTION: A request for a modification of a previously approved Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Permit (PA #2006-01784) for the property locatedat
720 Grandview Drive. The original approval was for development in the Wrights Creek
Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an
existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the
installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-
family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval to
accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request for a Tree Removal Permit to
remove two dead poplar trees is also included.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-I-lO; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500
Recommendation:
1) Install Tree Protection fencing along west property line where proposed driveway is
adjacent to the trees on the neighboring property directly west.
2) Measures outlined in narrative of Tree Protection and Preservation Plan shall be
implemented during excavation and construction of the driveway near west property
line at location ofneighbor's shed to where driveway turns back east.
3) That the Ponderosa pine tree within public right-of-way shall be pruned prior to site
work to provide adequate vehicular clearance (13' 6~' above drive surface)
4) That a paver system, cold mix asphalt I concrete mix, gravel or similar material shall
be used under the dripline of the Ponderosa pine where the driveway encroaches into
dripline area.
5) That the driveway shall be installed at surface grade within the dripline of the
Ponderosa pine.
Departmenl oJ Communlly Development
51 WlI'Ibum Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashJand.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5350
Fax: 641-552.2050
ffi: 800.735.2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
MCDONALD
PROJECT NARRATIVEIFINDINGS
AUGUST 3, 2009
PROJECT NAME: McDonald Residence
TYPE OF PLANNING ACTION: A request for a Site Review (Chapter 18.72), Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Penuit (Chapter 18.62) and a Tree Removal Review Penuit (Chapter
18.61) for a proposed residence in the single family zone district (Chapter 18.20).
PROJECT INFORMATION:
--". OWNER/APPLICANT:
Lynn and Bill McDonald
8621 Oak Branch Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Tel: 661-665-2111
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT I PLANNER:
KellCaim Landscape Architecture
545 A Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-3194
BUILDING DESIGNER:
Ken Snelling
1625 Cady Road
Jacksonville, OR 97520
541-899-2925
SURVEYOR:
Terra Survey, Inc.
274 Fourth Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541-482-6474
ARBORIST:
Upper Limb-It
Tom Meyers
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-482-3667
CIVIL ENGINEER:
Thornton Engineering
1236 Disk Drive
Medford, OR 97504
541-857-0864
PROJECT ADDRESS:
720 Grandview
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
39-lE-5CD Tax Lot 500
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential, (10,000 S.F. Lots)
E ...._,~
ZONING DESIGNATION:
R-l-1O
AUG
3 2009
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Area of Property, Lot 500 - .54 acres (23,522 S.F.)
,..,.
,. .
',,:.";"":t
BACKGROUND:
In 1979, Tax Lot 500 was divided into tluee parcels (PA-79-11O), see Minor Land Partition Map.
Lot 501 remained outside the city limits but within the city's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
This parcel has a county zone designation ofRR-5, which allows for one residential unit per five
acres. Lots 500 and 502 are within the city limits and zoned R-1-1O, which allows 10,000 S.F.
Lots.
The owner of Tax Lot 500 submitted an application for a new residence on February 18, 2004.
A Building Pennit was issued on October 2Q, 2004. In November 2004, Bonnie Brodersen, a .
_._ neighbor,_appealed the issuance.ofthebuilding permit to.the city~s Planning_Commission . - - --
without success. The neighbor then appealed the application tot the State Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA). LUBA remanded the appeal back to the city to address and resolve each of
the assignments of error.
Both the Ashland City Attomey, Mike Franell, and the applicant's attorney, Mark Bm1holomew,
have determined that the 1979 application for a minor Land Partition and Variance for lot depth
was created legally, see attached memo and letter. Except for lot depth, the current application
for a Residential Building Permit, in regard to the general regulations for the zone designation
(Chapter 18.20.040) will be reviewed by the City for current compliance. Further, a Physical
and Environmental Permit (Chapter 18.62) will be reviewed for the area adjacent to the creek in
the southwest comer of the lot as well as a Tree Removal Permit (Chapter 18.61) that addresses
the treatment of the three existing on~site trees. Although the Land Use Ordinance is unclear to
whether a single family home building permit requires a Site Review (Chapter 18.72), the
applicant is also providing Site Review Findings.
The applicant and prior owners of Tax Lot 500 have gained access across the comer of the parcel
to the east, see Site Plan. A fonnal easement agreement does not exist; therefore, the applicant
had requested an easement from his neighbor.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:
This project has been previously approved through the City of Ashland planning process. It is
being resubmitted with a revised access road and driveway. This re-submittal is required
because a neighbor, Bonnie Brodersen, purchased an adjacent lot (TL 411). The prior owner of
the adjacent lot (Tax Lot 411) agreed to grant an access easement over the property, this
easement would have pennitted the applicant to minimize access encroachment into the riparian
area. After Ms. Brodersen purchased tax lot 411, the applicant requested that Ms. Brodersen
provide the easement that had been agreed to by the previous owner, and Ms. Brodersen never
responded. If Ms. Brodersen would have honored the previous owner's promise to grant the
easement, this application would not be necessary. Ms. Brodersen has appealed the application
numerous times, the tluust of her argument is that the proposal would require changes in
vehicular access that would encroach too much into the riparian area. In fact, it is the refusal to
allow access across the comer of Tax Lot 411, coupled with the legal right of the applicants to
build a home on their propeliy, that have pushed the design of the access closer to the riparian
." , '-,.JI
zone. This submittal relocates the driveway access point off of Grandvie,wto avciid'the
AUG 3 2009
neighbors' property corner, while provided evidence that the relocation will have minimal to no
affect on the riparian area and its vegetation.
SITE DESCRIPTION:
Land Use -
Originally the development pattern of the property and neighboring properties was large
undeveloped plots ofland with some agriculture uses. Over the years this land has been
partitioned and subdivided into residential tracts. The present lot sizes in the neighborhood
(within city limits) average about 10,000 S.F.I.25 acres per lot, see Parcel Map. Most ofthese
existing lots have residences, see aerial photograph.
Land Use and zoning immediately adjacent to the subject property is as follows:
North - Vacant (TL 502), zoned R-I-lO
South - Grandview Street, creek drainage and single family residence, zoned R-I-lO
East - Vacant and single family residence, zoned R -1-10
West - Single family residence, zoned RR-5 (County)
The subject property is zoned R-lO which allows single family homes at 1O,000,S.F. per lot. The
allowable density for this property under the Performance Standards Option (Chapter 18.88) is
one dwelling unit (2.4 x .54 = 1.29), or two dwelling units under Chapter 18.20.
Physical Characteristics -
The subject property slopes down (to the west) approximately 12.5%, see Survey, Topographic
Map. There are no structures on the property; however, there is one structure on Lot 501. There
are three trees on the propelty. These trees are two dead poplars (to be removed) and one small
multi tnmked plum tree that will be preserved. Off the property, but adjacent to the project are
13 more trees that are addressed by the tree protection and removal plan submitted with this
document. A branch of Wright's' Creek Channel and riplllian vegetation is located off the
property to the south, this project requires work to be done in this area (see Site Plan and Survey
Topographic Map).
Utility and access to property -
Lot 500 is accessed by Grandview Drive (83.82 feet of frontage) on the south. In this location,
Grandview is an unimproved gravel road. A 10 foot wide public utility easement is located on
the west boundary ofthe existing parcel. City utilities are located within the Grandview ROW,
see Survey Map. An access easement to Lot 501 is located along the south propelty line, see Site
Plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This application is an amendment to the original, approved P and E. The primary alteration is
the vehicular access alignment due to changes in land ownership and easements that have
OCCUlTed since its original approval. This proposal places the access drive in closer proximity to
the creek by approximately 13 feet. Previous approved improvements prescribed 324 square feet
of disturbance within the riparian zone, and excluded any disturbance between the top of bank
and the creek center line. The current proposal prescribes 743 square feet of disturbance, 275 of
that total amount is between the top of bank and the center line ofthe creek. The propqsal places,"
road base in this area. The proposal requires a road base at the top of the creek ba,nk. Other:'" - 'L)
than this alteration, the project d~scription findings below are still accurate.
~. ~
AUG
3 2009
: :}
C." \'~ .:,.>~.-:~~;t
Request
The applicant desires to construct a 3,273 S.F. (Two Story) single family home and 648 S.F.
garage. The City Attorney has detennined that the original pm1ition is legal, see Background
section above; therefore, the applicant is requesting review of the Physical/Environmental
Constraints Permit (Chapter 18.62) and the Tree Preservation, Protection and Removal Permit
(Chapter 18.61). Information regarding this review is discussed in the Findings of this document
and shown on the Site, Survey and Civil Plans. In addition, the applicant will show compliance
with the Zoning Chapter 18.20, the Solar Standards (Chapter 18.70) and Site Review (Chapter
18.72) for the proposed home. The lot has direct frontage on Grandview Drive.
Street Improvements/Access-
The subject propel1y is accessed from Grandview Drive. This street has an existing a 47
serpentine Right of Way see Site Plan and SUlveyor's Map. All new paving will be less than
15% grade and comply, in general, with the Flag Lot Partition Standards of Chapter 18.76.060
and the City's Fire Code requirements. The length and thickness of each driveway will vary.
There is sufficient area on TL's 500 and 50 I to allow easy turning without having to back out on
a city street, see Civil Site Plan.
FINDINGS:
COMPLIANCE with CHPATER 18.20
Residential District
The permitted use for the R-I-I0 Zone District is a single family residence at 10,000 S.F. per
dwelling unit. The lot size is .54 acres which would allow one dwelling unit (2.4 X .54 = 1.29)
under the Perfonnance Standards Option (Chapter 18.88) or two dwelling units under the
minimum lot size (23,522 S.F. divided by 10,000 = 2) allowed by Chapter 18.20.040. The
applicant is proposing one single family residence.
The minimum lot width for the R-I-1O Zone Disttict is 75 feet. The existing lot is 84.35 feet, see
Site Plan. The maximum lot depth is 150 feet. The existing lot is 275 feet; however, a variance
was approved along with the minor land partition which allowed the lot depth to exceed the 150
foot length.
"
As shown on the applicant's Site Plan (sheet 1), the front and rear setbacks (15 foot and 10 foot
per story, respectively) meet or exceed the requirements of this residential zone. The side yard
setback is six feet. The Site Plan shows a trellis on the north side yard boundary within the six
food setback. This trellis will be removed from the drawings. The side yard setback on the
south boundary exceeds the six foot setback. The maximum building height allowed is 35 feet or
two and one-half stories in height, whichever is less. The applicant's west and south Exterior
Elevations did not show the building height; however, when these elevations are measured, the
height is approximately 28 feet which is far less than the maximum requirement of 35 feet. The
height is measured from finish grade to the midpoint of a sloping roof. Further, the proposda
hoine is two stories and therefore less than the 2 12 story maximum requireni.ent.
AUG
3 2009
c.
COMPLIANCE with CHAPTER 15
Fire Safety
It is the applicant's belief that the access driveway is not required to meet the standards of a Flag
Partition (Chapter 18.76.060) because the pmiition and variance was approved in 1979, see City
Attorney Letter; however, the applicant will comply with these standards and certain
requirements of the City of Ashland's Fire Department and Fire Code (Chapter 15). These
requirements are:
1) A fire fuel break
- .2) -Driveways sufficient.foremergency vehicle access, and. ., - - .'
3) Amount of water and pressure of other fire suppression system to control fires.
Fuel Bl'Cak
As mentioned in the Site Description, the site contains three trees, two dead poplars and a plum.
The two poplar trees will be removed, see Tree Removal Permit and recommended plant list.
These trees will be replaced with city recommended ornamental and native trees and shmbs in
the Grandview ROW. The existing grasses and ground cover will be either replaced by suitable
plantings or mowed to reduce flame lengths to less than one foot high. The proposed roof for the
new home is a metal standing seam which is approved for high fire areas.
Driveways
The Civil Site Plan includes notes and dimensions that specify that the driveway will have a 15
foot wide clear area, except for ground cover, with a 12 foot wide all weather surface (capable of
supporting a 44,000 pound vehicle). Further, where the driveway enters the property and shares
the driveway to TL 500, the combined driveways (all less than a 15% grade) will have a 20 foot
wide 'clear area' and a 15 foot wide all weather surface. Two address signs will be located at the
entrance to the lot.
The 12 foot wide driveway connects to a fire turn-around which is approximately 110 feet from
the entrance of the property. The fire tum~around is located in front of the retaining wall, see
Civil Site Plan. The turn-around will have a surface capable of supporting 44,000 pounds. The
turn-around is within 150 feet of the farthest comer ofthe house/garage, see Civil Site Plan. The
applicant will also provide a residential automatic fire sprinkler system instead of providing a
"fire work area" and because the height of the house may exceed 24 feet in some locations.
Also, no gate is proposed, therefore, a "knox box" will not be necessary.
Access to a Fire Hydrant
The nearest fire hydrant is located at the north west comer of Grandview and Wrights Creek
Streets. It is approximately 500 feet from this intersection to the beginning of the 12 foot, on-site
driveway, see Civil Drawings. This distance is less than the 600 foot maximum allowed by the
Fire Department. ., .. ..:.'::":lj)
AUG
3 2009
,-.
._ . ..--_r<.....,~
COMPLIANCE with CHAPTER 18.70
Solar Access -
As shown on the applicant's West Exterior Elevation (sheet 5) and calculations, the proposed
house is in compliance with the Solar Access Ordinance.
COMPLIANCE with CHAPTER 18.62
Physical and Environmental Constraints
There are two sections in this Chapter that apply to the proposed project. These sections are
Development-S tandards.fm: Ripat'ian.Presetvation Lands- (Chapter-18. 62..015) and-Development.-
Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands (Chapter 18.62.070). A Physical and Environmental
Constraints Pennit can be issued when the following criteria have been addressed by the
applicant:
..- -.;
1) That the development will not cause damage or haZaJ'd to persons O1'prOpeJ'ty upon
or adjacent to the area of development.
2) That the applicant has considered the potential hazm'ds that the development may
create and implemented reasonable measure to mitigate the potential hazards caused
by the development.
3) That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to J'evel'se the adverse impact on
the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than
J'eversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the
existing development of the sUl'J'ounding area, and the maximum peJ'mitted by the
Land Use Ordinance.
4) That the development is in compliance with the requirements of the Chapter and all
other applicable City Ordinances and Codes.
The Surveyor's Map shows the location of the top of Creek Bank (TOCB). The TOCB is located
on a small portion of the subject property, in the south west corner. The TOCB is also located
along the ROW of Grandview Drive, The nonnal City setback requirement from the TOCB is
20 feet. This proposal will put the road closer to the top of bank than the standard 20 foot
setback.. The standard 20 foot wide setback would be impossible due to current location of the
existing public roadway and access easement to Tax Lot 501, see Surveyor's Map. The Civil
Engineer's drawing shows the location ofthe proposed driveway (to both TL 500 and 501).
There is an existing access easement agreement between TL 500 and 501; much of the proposed
driveway is in the 20 foot setback from the top of the creek bank. It is the intent of the Civil
Engineer, to minimize adverse impacts of the Creek Channel); therefore, the following measures
are shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan:
1) Drainage will be directed underground along the west boundary of the subject pr?''pertx;~ncl)
empty into the creek channel. Large rocks (energy dissipater) will be located at the end of the
drainage pipe to slow the water and prevent erosion, see Drainage and Gradi~lg Plan.
AUG 3 2009
., ~.-"_.~
2) As shown on the grading and Drainage Plan) the 12 foot wide paved portion of the driveway
is located as far away from the TOCB as possible, while also crossing the TOCB to gain access
from the property to Grandview. Where possible, this area will be planted in riparian ground
cover and shrubs which will assist in screening possible pollutants from entering the creek.
3) Further, the applicant will utilize permeable asphalt for the driveway surface to both control
drainage as well as filter possible pollutants through the driveway base (sand and gravel).
Chapter 18.62.050 (A) classify flood plain lands as all areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance)
of-any cI:eek-designated for riparian preservation.and depicted.on such maps-adopted by the.city--
council. As mentioned above) the TOCB was located by the Smveyor along the ROW of
Grandview Drive and within the subject property. Portions of both the existing gravel paved
Grandview Drive and proposed asphalt paved private driveway are within the 20 foot setback.
To minimize adverse impacts caused by fill material, the applicant will confonn to the standards
listed in Section 18.62.070 (A) as well as the development standards for riparian preselvation
lands) see Civil Drawings.
It is the applicant's betiefthat the above measures will not cause either damage or hazard to
persons or propelty and mitigate the potential hazards and possible adverse impacts to the creek
environment. As stated above, in compliance with the residential district findings and the
Background section ofthis narrative, the proposed single farnily residence is in compliance with
the requirements of this chapter and all other applicable City Ordinances and Codes. In addition,
the following grading/drainage and erosion control measures are recommended: Drainage and
Erosion Control- Where new vegetation is incorporated as part of the erosion control strategy,
a temporary and/or pennanent irrigation system will be provided to guarantee the establishment
of vegetation.
General Erosion and Sediment Control
Gmding of the dJ'iveway and the revegetation will take place prim' to fall rains ami will comply with the
J'equirements of the ordinance listed below:
a. Only grade where necessm'y
b. Preserve and protect existing vegetation wheJ'everpossible
c. InstalVapply bank stabilization measure well ill advance fOJ' fall mins.
All slopes created as a result of grading to be planted with ground coveJ'S and grasses.
a. Fill slopes not to exceed 3:1
b. Cut slopes that exceed 2:1 to be hydro seeded aud intel'planted with
ground covel'
Where it is necessary to create slopes a/ollg road cOllstruction exceeding 2 tol, storm flows above the
slope will be directed away from the top of the slope to a point where more gmdual slopes allow fot'
contl'olled travel'sing into drainage systems. L.
...,: ._ ~.: 1,~}
AUG 3 2009
a. Cut slopes exceeding 1.5 to 1, use pinned mats aJ1(1 hydro seeding as stabifizatiou
measure.
b. Stabilize existiug aud proposed drainage ways
Existing drainage ways must be protected during constlUction. Silt fences can be used to keep
sediments out ofthe system along with hay bales. A combination of a "V" ditch and
underground drainage pipes will convey the runoff down the proposed private drive. A Detail
Drainage Plan is provided by the Civil Engineer. Further, energy dissipaters in the fonn ofIarge
rocks will be placed at the discharge point of the drainage channels/pipes prior to the water
entering Wrights Creek.
COMPLIANCE with (CHAPTER 18.61.080)
Tree Removal Permit
An applicant for a Tree Removal Pennit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are
satisfied.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree l'emoval permitfor a hazard tree if the
applicant demonstrates that (l tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
Not Applicable
B. Tree that is Not a Hazm"d: The City shall issue (I tree removal permitfor a tree that is not
a hazard if the applicant demonstmtes all of the following:
1. The tree is proposedfOJ" removal in order to peJ'lnit the application to be consistent with
other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. {e.g. other
applicable Site Design and Use Standm"d!oJ~. The Staff Advisor may require the building
footprint of the development to be stclked to allow for accurate ve1'ification of the permit
application; and
2. Removal of the tl'ee will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability,j1ow of smface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks;
and
3. Removal of the tree will not /ulve a significant negative impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and !oJpecies diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shull grant an exception to these critel'ia when ultematives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alte1'1lative exists to allow the
propeJ'ty to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require
that the residential density be J'educed below the permitted density allowed by the
zone. In making this determination, the City may consider altemative site plans or
placement of structm'es OJ' alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact
on trees, so long as the alte1'Jlatives continue to comply with othel' provf.~i(}n~ '!fitt'Y
Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
AUG
3 2009
;......
. '. -_".~_-c~-~~
4. The City shullJ'equil'e the upplicant to mitigate for the J'emoval of each tJ'ee
gmnted approval pUl'suant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation J'equil'ements shall be
a condition of uppl'oval of the permit.
The Site Plan and Survey Map show the location of the two dead poplar trees # 4 and #5 (to be
removed) and plum tree #6 which will be protected. These are the only trees on-site. There are,
however, trees that would potentially be impacted that are adjacent to the site, on neighboring
property or within the city right of way. These trees would be potentially impacted when the
required width and alignment improvements are made to the driveway while providing access to
Grandview. We have reviewed our proposed street alignment with the project arborist to
. . determine the best way. to incorporate. the new driveway with the existing trees. .Ihe arborisCs
comments and recommendations are as follows:
Tree Protection Plan for 720 Grandview with specific recommendations for tree # 1 (A
Ponderosa Pine in the riparian zone)
The 28 inch diameter Ponderosa pine tree designated as tree number I will require special attention
because ofthe proximity ofthe access road to the tree's hunk. There is already a dirt road within the
tree protection zone of tree # I. It will be necessary to adjust the protective fencing around the tree to
the edge of the existing road rather than the 28 foot radius described by the h'ee protection zone. A
celtified arborist should be on the construction site when the road paving begins to insure that all
precautions are taken to insure the trees survival. The paving ofthe new road should be done with a
minimum of grading in order to keep root damage to a minimum. It would be preferable to raise the
grade of the road surface rather than cutting and filling to achieve the desired road surface. All
equipment must be kept away from the hunk ofthe h'ee in order to insure that there is no structural
damage to the tree trunk. If these precautions are taken, the ponderosa should survive the construction
process without damage to its health.
We have designed the new road alignment to comply with these recommendations.
TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL
#4
#5
9" DBH
6" DBH
5' Dia.
4' Dia,
Populus, Cottonwood
Populus, Cottonwood
The two trees listed above are considered by the City of Ashland to be hazard trees and
prohibited from use as a street tree. Roots of this type of tree may be damaged by construction,
which causes entry for bacteria and disease. Further, these trees can drop limbs periodically
through out their life span. Most irnpOltantly, however, these two trees are dead, and we are
requesting to remove them.
Protection of Existing and Proposed Trees
A. Landscape adjacent to the project area shall be protected from damage. No storage of
equipment or materials shall occur within drip lines of trees to be preserved which ar~those
identified on this plan. All damage caused by constmction to existing trees shall be :: .'
Compensated for, before the project will be considered completed.
."
':J
I\UG 3 2009
B. Trees that are shown on the plans to remain shall be protected with fencing as shown on
plans. Fencing shall be 6' tall temporary orange fencing panels installed with metal connections
so that all panels area integrated, these fences shall be installed so that it does not allow passage
of pedestrians and/or vehicles through it.
C. Exceptions to the tree protection specifications may only be granted in extraordinary
circumstances with written approval from owner's representative.
D. Pieces of work that will require disturbance of tree protection fences include the following:
1) When tree roots over 2" are cut due to required site work, cut cleanly at a 90~degree angle to
the root.
2) Place damp soil around all cut roots to a depth equaling the exiting finish grade within 4 hours
u -of cuts being made. -- ~." - . ~ . ---. - - -..- .. -
F. Do not raise the soil level within the drip lines of existing trees to achieve possible drainage,
except to match grades with sidewalks and curbs, and in those area, feather the added topsoil
back to existing grade at an approximately 3: 1 slope.
G. Inspection schedule:
1) Fencing locations and installation technique shall be approved by owner's representative
before demolition or rough grading begins.
2) Routine inspections of fencing and site conditions will occur on a weekly basis, work shall
cease if fencing is damaged or moved without written prior approval for specific palis of work.
3) At completion of project to determine ultimate condition of trees.
4) To detennine further measure to ensure tree survival or replacement at end of project.
5) Ifneeded, an Arborist, will be retained by the applicant to insure compliance with the above
measures. The Arborist can also be available to recommend additional protection measures,
such as root pruning and fertilization, during the constmction ofthe driveway and homes.
The applicant is also recommending the following plant list to be considered in ~he replanting of
the site:
Fire Resistant and Retardant Plant List -
The plant list below consists of the plants used in the proposed planting plan.
Trees
Acer macrophlyllum
Betula nigra 'Duraheat'
Shrubs and Ground Cover
Acer circinatum
Arctostaphylos densiflora 'Howard McMinn'
Arctostaphylos 'Emerald Carpet'
Mahonia aquifolium
Mahonia repens
PelUlisetum a. 'Hameln'
f; ..
, ' . ~ .,!
.'. ..~Y
AUG
3 2009
......,.
, .
;. :(~{~~~
COMPLIANCE with (CHAPTER 18.72)
Site Review
The Planning Staff/Planning Commission can approve a Site Review when the following criteria
have been addressed:
A. All applicable City OJ'dinances have been met 01' will be met by the proposed development.
The above Narrative and Findings address the applicable city ordinances regarding the proposed
-- - .house. The..applicant,-however,-believesthe Site Design-and Use Standards were-n0tintended
for a single family home on a single lot but were for a multi-family perfonnancestandard,
employment, commercial and industrial type developments. In fact, page 13 to 16 of the Site
Design and Use Standards only address design guidelines for multi-family residential
development and there are no single family guildelines. However, Chapter 18.72.040 (B) does
mention that a Type 1 procedure approval is necessary for all new structures or additions greater
than 2,500 S.F. except for developments included in section 18.72.040 (A); therefore, the
applicant will provide the findings. Also see above findings regarding compliance with all other
applicable city ordinances and codes.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met 01' will be met.
See Project Description in nan"ative and the information below.
The applicant is providing a written Nan-alive and Findings as well as a Site Plan, Civil
Engineering Plans, Topographic Survey, Aerial Photograph, Parcel Map, photographs of the site
and Building Elevations drawings. This information is provided in the Application Package and
addresses the submittal requirements of Chapter 18.72.060.
The Landscape Standards of Chapter 18.72.110 requires a minimum of 45% of the total
developed lot to be landscaped. The applicant is providing a minimum of 55%.
The applicant will locate a trash/recycle area within the garage and/or parking areas. This area will be
screened from view. Covered bicycle parking areas are provided in the garage. All site and
building lighting will be directed away from adjacent properties. Also, see the approval
standards below.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Councilfor
the implementation of this Chapter.
b. Multi-Family Development.
As mentioned above, the approval standards are for multi-family residential development;
however, the applicant will respond to these standards where applicable. " .
AUG
3 2009
Approval Standards: Multi-family residential development shall conform to the following
design standards
II-B-l) Orientation
Il-B-l a) Residential buildings shall have their prim my orientation toward the street when they
are within 20 to 30 feet of the street.
lI-B-lb) Buildings shall be set backJrom the stree~ according to ordinance requirements, which
is usually 20 feet.
lI-B-lc) Buildings shall be accessed from the street and the sidewalk. Parking areas shall not be
located between buildings and the street.
The proposed house is oriented toward Grandview Drive. The proposed setback is 175 feet
which is greater than the 15 foot minimum (or 20 feet for garages). The guest parking area (one
space required) is located behind the house at the end of the driveway, see Site and Civil Plans.
II-Bw2) Stl'eetscape
Il-B-2a) One street tree for each 30 feet of frontage, chosen fi'om the street tree list, shall be
placed on that portion of development paralleling the street. Where the size of the project
dictates an interior circulation street pattern, a similar streetscape with street trees is required.
II-B-2b) Front yard landscaping shall be similar to thosefollnd in residential neighborhoods,
with appropriate changes to decrease water lIse.
There is approximately 84 feet of frontage on Grandview Drive. The applicant will provide three
trees (one per 30 feet) along this frontage. These trees will be native liparian types since this
location is adjacent to the drainage channel. See Planting Plan.
II-B-3) Landscaping
Il-B-3a) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs within one year of
installation and 90% landscaping coverage occurs within 5 years.
1I-B-3b) Landscaping design shall include a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs
andjloweringplant species well adapted to the local climate.
1I-B-3c) As many existing healthy trees on the site shall be saved as is reasonably feasible.
Il-B-3d) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas of at least 10 fiet in
width.
'-. :
;-
II-B-3e) Parking areas shall be shaded by large canopied deciduous trees and shall be
adequately screened and bufferedfrom adjacent uses.
AUG 3 2009
r".
.,":
. .,,-:~.~
II-B-3j) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. Refer to parking lot
landscaping and screening standards for more detail.
Upon approval of the land use action, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant
will submit a Landscape Plan al)d Irrigation Plan for the home site. Landscape and Inigation
submitted with this proposal are for the land use action only, revegetating the roadway and
providing the required street trees.. The Landscape/Irrigation Plan will confonn to the above
findings. The above Tree Removal/Protection Plan addresses the existing trees. Also, the
suggested plant list, above, can be used. The applicant intends to utilize as many native plants as
possible and locate these plants in appropriate locations to ~ncourage healthy plant development,
to. utilize.. natural climate control~and. t.o enhance suitable plantcommunities~ ., - ., .- -- . n' - - .
II-B-4) Open Space
II-B-4a) An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to open spacefor
recreation for llse by the tenants of the development.
1I-B-4b) Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch and other ground covers which do not provide a
suitable sll1facefor human use may not be counted toward this requirement.
II-B-4c) Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space criteria. Play areas for
children are requiredforprojects ofgreater than 20 units that are designed to includefamities.
The applicant is providing most of the site for private recreation open space. The private
recreation/open space areas include the front porches, patios, and second story decks. The
common open space requirement for tenants is not applicable.
II-B-5) Natural climate control
II-B-5a) Utilize deciduous trees with early leaf drop and low bare branch densities on the south
sides of buildings which are occupied and have glazing for summer shade and winter warmth.
See Finding II-B-3, above
II-B-6) Building materials:
II-B-6a) Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the surrounding area.
VelY bright primm)' or neo-type paint colors which attract attention to the building or use are
unacceptable.
The materials used for the proposed home are shown on the Exterior Elevations. These materials are
indicative of a craftsman style. The colors selected by the applicant (body, trim and windows) will be
earth tones. Sample materials aud colors will be presented to the city planning staff for review and
approval prior to receiving a Building Pennit.
E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
IIUG 3 2009
_ ", c.~.
APPROVAL STANDARD: All developmentfronting on public orp,.;vate streets shall be
required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen fJ'011I the
recommended list of street trees found in this section.
II-E-)
Location for StJ'eet Trees
Street frees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated
planting strip in the right-o.fway, or the sidewalk is greater shall include irrigation, root
barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of commun Uy
Development.
II-E-2)
Spacing, Placement, aud Pruning of Street TJ'ees
1) All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such as
safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff
Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as
follows:
a) Street trees shall be placed the rate of one tree for eveJ)l30 feet of street frontage.
Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variation to the spacing permitted for specific site
limitations, sllch as driveway approaches.
b) Trees shall be planted close than 25 feet Fom the curb line of intersections of streets
or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet fi'om private driveways (measured at the back
edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles.
c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Exceptfor
public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to
any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant.
d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2 % feet Fom the face of the curb except at
intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area.
e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that wil/not
intelfere with those lines.
f) Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard slllface paving or
walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 square feet, however,
larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root
system and add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and such hard slllface
may be covered by permeable non-permanent hard swfaces such as grates, bricks on
sand, or paver blocks.
:.J
AUG 3 2009
", "'~,
g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above
sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway sUlfaces.
h) Existing trees may be llsed as street trees if there will be no damage from the
development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and
elevation may be utilized to save existing trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor.
II-E-3 )
Replacement of Street Trees
1) Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replace by the developer with
. those from the approved street tree list. "Tile replaGement-treesshall.be-ofsize and speoies - --
similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor.
II-E-4)
Recommended Street Trees
1) Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission.
The above approval standards (II-B-l to II-B-6) also address these standards.
, D. The adequate capacity of City facilities for wate,', sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electl'icity, urban storm dl'ainage, adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
The Civil Engineering Drawings show the existing and proposed utility lines that connect the
proposed home to the city services in the ROW of Grandview Drive. This ROW is 47 foot wide.
Paved access on Grandview Drive is neither necessary nor desirable because: 1. the existing
gravel road has a 10% or less slope and therefore for public works standards does not need to be
surfaced with asphalt, 2. a gravel surface will minimize mnoffinto the creek environment, 3. the
gravel road is capable of suppOliing emergency vehicles (44,000 pounds) and 4. paving of the
road would necessitate land acquisition of neighboring properties along Grandview Drive to
accommodate the serpentine ROW, see Survey Map. Also see Physical Constraints Findings
above.
The proposed home would only generate ten more vehicle trips per day which is insignificant
even when the five possible and existing homes using Gnmdview are added (60 vehicle trips per
day total)
AlJC 3 2009
~:! .: :..~-"'~D
Upper Limb-it
Tree Service
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: 541-482-3667
JUN 5 2009
......-'__.H.. .1- .:...,-~-.~Cl:~'
Keny KenCaim
545 A Street
Ashland, OR 97520
1/30/09
Tree Protection Plan for 720 Grandview
The Tree Protection Plan for 720 Grandview is designed to address the needs of all existing trees
within the project. The trees should be identified by number on the plan as well as by numbered tag
attached to the tree in the field. The specified tree protection zones (as stipulated in the enclosed tree
inventory) will be drawn on the plans as well as delineated on the site by approved fencing. Trees with
protection zones that extend within the foundation lines of the building, as well as trees that are within
the area of the foundation will need to be removed. All other trees within the building project boarders
will need protection. The enclosed specifications detail exactly how the trees are to be protected. The
building contractor and subcontractors will meet with a certified arborist before and during construction
to insure that the correct measures are in place. A certified arborlst must supervise any work done
within the specified tree protection zone. A certified arborist will conduct an inspection of the trees
during and after construction. If you have any questions regarding this tree protection plan please call
me at 482-3667.
Tom Myers, Certified Arborist
DBA Upper Limb-it
I.
~ . . : . .
.. "
. J.'
Upper Limb-it
Tree Service
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: 541-482-3667
,fUN
S 2009
. "~/' t",?
Kerry KenCairn
545 A Street
Ashland, OR 97520
1/30/09
Tree Protection Plan for 720 Grandview specific recommendations for tree # 1
The 28 inch diameter Ponderosa pine tree designated as tree number 1 will require special
attention because of the proximity of the access road to the trees trunk. There is already a dirt road
within the tree protection zone of tree # 1. It will be necessary to adjust the protective fencing around
the tree to the edge of the existing road rather than the 28 foot radius described by the tree protection
zone. A certified arborist should be on the construction site when the road paving begins to insure that
all precautions are taken to insure the trees survival. The paving of the new road should be done with a
minimum of grading in order to keep root damage to a minimum. It would be preferable to raise the
grade of the road surface rather than cutting and filling to achieve the desired road surface. All
equipment must be kept away from the trunk of the tree in order to insure that there is no structural
damage to the tree trunk. If these precautions are taken. the ponderosa should survive the
construction process with out damage to its health.
Tom Myers, Certified Arborist
DBA Upper Limb-it
I.
I - . ~ . I
.... T~ORNTON
. _ENGINEERING INC.
July 20, 2009
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of AsWand, Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street
AsWand OR 97520P.O. Box 828
Subject:
720 Grandview - McDonald P&E Application - Flood Analysis
Dear Derek:
This letter presents my analysis and findings with regards to thesubject application and
the City~s land use ordinances regulating flood damage prevention. The proposed
improvements comply with both sections 15.10 (Flood Damage Prevention Regulations),
- and 18.62.070 (Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands). The proposed
improvements are more than 20 feet beyond the flood plain boundary and are not located
within a flood hazard area or within a floodway (See Sheet C3, 1 OO-year Flood Boundary
enclosed).
In addition, the improvements have been designed to not impede floodwaters regardless
of the frequency ofthe event required to inundate project site.
Please contact me if you have any questions or any further needs~
By.pJA~~
Michael P. Thornton, President
---
Sincerely,
Thornton Engineering~ Inc.
',1 ."
,.
S/! ~,
. ~ .
~~j >'''''r,''":';'/ ~'
:,
. " I \;1 f' .,
JAN 29 2010
~' "f " nr f\St"11 '1 ~-, d
..J ~ ~ \ - , _ Co l I ,. .
· "cl('"l' D-- '-~F'_ LJ' \
"hJ U _ vldC~,~' ~. L
Office (541) 899-1489 Fax (541) 899-3419 P.O. Box 476,260 N. 3rd Street, Jacksonvllle, OR 97530
CITY OF
ASHLAND
August 20, 2008
William J. and Lynn J. McDonald
8621 Oak Branch Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93311
RE: Ministerial Action #2008-0]250
Notice of Ministerial Decision
On August 20,2008, the Ashland Planning Depattment granted ministerial approval of YOUI' request for an
extension of the Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit approved under Planning Action
#2006-01784 for the propelty located at 720 Grandview Drive -- Assessor's Map #39 IE 05CD Tax Lot
#500. This approval is based upon the fact that delays related to the appeal of the approval prevented
completion of the development within the original time limitation.
This extension is valid for a period of I8-months from the date of the original approval's expiration
(August 7, 2008). The conditions of the original approval remain in effect, and shall be met prior to
project completion. As required under Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.112.030.3, the building
permit application or any modifications to the land use approval will be subject to review under the
revisions to our Land Use Ordinance adopted as Ordinance #2951.
If YOll have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Community Development
Dep81tment between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Hornecker, Cowling, Hassen & HeyseH, LLP
Attn: Mark S. Battholomew FILE #26116
717 Murphy Rd.
Medford, OR 97504
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Slresl
Ashland. OregOll 97520
WVNi.ashlalld.or,us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fa~; 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
rj.'
07/30/2008 09:35 5417732~~o HCHH
I I
HORNECK~R, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSt;t.L, L.L. P.
PAGE 01/04
Attorneys at Law
Gregory T. HQTnacl!;at
Robert L, Cowling
John ft, HlI-5sen
R. Ray He~1!1I
H. Scott P!OU&9
P. David 'ngall!.
Adalll T. Stamper'"
Joseph E. Kellannan
James A. W~II&n
Benjamin M, Bloom
Charles E. Bolen
Ryan J. Vanderhoof
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 779-8900
Fax: (541) 773-2.635
http:www.roQuelaw.eom
'Stehml~ L Burke
Rlchard L. Billin
Mark S. Bartholl;II'T1BW
Eric B. Mitton
*"Erik C. Larsen, LLM.
Stephen L. Brown
B. Kent Blackhul'$t 1922.2007
Ervin B. Hogan 1927-2000
"Also admitted in California
**A1so admitted in Id;1I10
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
DATE:
TO:
FAX NO:
FROM:
RE:
FILE #:
July 30, 2008
Adam Hanks
541 r488~6006
Mark So Bartholomew
William and laynn McDonald
PA 2006-01 784
PAGES:
4 (Includes cover sheet. If you do not receive all pages, please
contact the above as soon as possible.)
MEMO:
Please see attached. Original With check to be mailed today.
[xl An origInal is being mailed,
[ ] An original Is being delivered.
[ l An original is available upon request.
[ ] Facsimile transmlttal only.
If you do not receive all otthe described material, please telephone 779-aSOO immediately.
CONFIDENTIALnY NOTICE
This telecopier transmission (and/or documenl5 aocomp$(lylng it) may contain confidential information oolonglng to the
sender which Is protected by the attorney-client privilege_ The Information i$ intended only for the USE! of the individual or
entity named above. If you are not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notifil;ld mat any disclosure, copying, t1islnbOtion
or the taking of any sclion in relle.nce on the content9. of thIs information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission In error, please immediately notify I,IS by telephone to arrange for return of the documonts.
fA- - ~()D~" OJ;;\!V
07/30/2008 09:35
5417732F-':!1j
I
HCHH
PAGE 02/04
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & BEYSELL, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
Gregory T. HOTdt(ll.~r
goberl 1.. Cowling
John ll. Hauen
R. RAY Hey.ell
H. Sooct Plol,Isl
... David IlIg&l1s
AdAm T. S.ta.ltlper*
Joseph E. Kellerman
J.llJilt$ A. WallAD
Benjamin M.lllQoro
Charles J,;. >>(l1en
Ryan J. Vand~(hOOf
717 Murphy Ro~d .
l\JetlfQrd., OR 97504
(54') 779-3~OO
Fax: (541)773-2635
bttp:www.roguelaw.c(lm
"'Slefallie L. 8\,1rke
RichArd L. Dillin
MArk.S.8:artholomew
Eric B. Mitron
..Erlk C. Lanen, LL.M.
Stcphen L.lIrown
B. Kent Blackburst 1922.2007
trvin B. Hogan 19l7-2000
"Also, Admitted in C.Ufornlll
....Alsoadmilttd in .dallo
July 30, 2008
Adam Hanks I
City of Ashland
20 E. Main
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: William and Lynn McDonald
Our File No. 26116
Dear Mr. Hanks:
We are requesting an extension of 12 months on the above-captioned matter, by way
of a staff permit procedure, pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code 18.108.030(A)(5). Events
beyond the control of the applicants make this extension necessary. The application was
approved on August 7,2007. Bonnie Brodersen a.ppealed the approval--Decem~er 26, 2007.
Therefore, nothing could be done in furtherance of the approval while it was on appeal,
leaving the. applicants with substantia.lly five months less time than most applicants to act on
the approval. We are unaware of any changes to the requirements since approval, other than
the fact that this application (extension) is now nUnisterial. Please accept this letter as
fIndings of compliance with the extension requirements.
We are mailing a hard coPy ofthis today~ along with the required payment. However,
in the interest of time, we are faxing it as well.
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
Gregory T.lIornecker
Robert L. Cowling
John R. Hassen
R. Ray Ileysell
H. Seolt Plousc
P. David Ingalls
Adam T. Stamper*
Joseph E. Kellerman
James A. Wallan
Benjamin M. Bloom
Charles E. Bolen
Ryan J. Vanderhoof
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 779.8900
Fax: (541)779-2982
hltp:www.roguelaw.com
*Stefanie L. Burke
Riehard L. BUlin
Mark S. Bartholomew
Eric B. Milton
**Erik C. Larsen, LL.M.
Stephen L. Brown
June 27,2008
B. Kent Blackhurst - 1922.2007
Ervin B. Hogan 1927.2000
*Also admilted in California
**Also admilted in Idaho
Adam Hanks
City of Ashland
20 E. Main
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: William and Lynn McDonald
Our File No. 26116
Dear Mr. Hanks:
We are requesting an extension of 12 months on the above-captioned maUer, by way
of a staff permit procedure, pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code 18.108.030(A)(5). Events
beyond the control of the applicants make this extension necessary. The application was
approved on August 7,2007. Bonnie Brodersen appealed the approval--December 26,2007.
Therefore, nothing could be done in furtherance of the approval while it was on appeal,
leaving the applicants with substantially five months less time than most applicants to act on
the approval. We are unaware of any changes to the requirements since approval.
It doe$ not :lppear that there is a fee ::I~sociated with this extension. However, in the
event there is such a fee, please contact me immediately, and we will remit payment.
:gmr
cc: Richard AppicclIo
Bill MolnflT
L~ !le~(
t'/iU/Ol
7//J/Of.
~
J".?....~
~,P I
P1c.> IJ..::
l\
",
./: //c-"'- '?
.-:'::
-----------
---.
/
.....
J
/
~
~
i
!
h
! ..,
~~
i is
:!I,,,,~
t; ~e~
~ ~~
a:L~
~ $
~ ~ ~~
g ~ g ~
, ~~i ~Sb:~
I .~ :i~ ~~.~~ ~~
>~';;'~ l'P ~ ~~~~g n
~~~~ ~n ~,,1il!n~:;i ~ ~~
o ~~~L~I~~- ~5i~~~~ ~ ~,~
~15~i:l~"'" ~~'~".t,,~ II
3 k~,,:dn !~&~~~~~d~ ~ ~~
'-'
wI III 1.1 >, ~
- · ill jo 58~l~ g ~G}
-----------
>-
w
> 0
cc ~~
""1 >-~
.,...J ~J)
(f] Oz
u ~3
_ _C,l
I >t
00
Q, z: .
....,., ",,0-
"'-'-1 'z
,v cc'
I-J., -~-<
V t
U 0;:
O NU1
1'-<
0.,
o
c...
l
-
(!)
(!)
1'\ J.l Gl
J J ~
<(z_
z ~ z
O"CC
Cl -< 0
l>":' l:.
~ ~ U J
5 ,Z <\
l.. j <( iJ
rr
~ ~ ci
- .J
c.j -< J.J
ZOi:'
Z -
r ~ ~
j ~ W
:::::
-<
rD
f-
a
...J (\J
X. :;
;:
~
.
c
~
H ~. ~ ~
I t I ~ ~
~ n ,- ~ ~
~ ~ :s : i; ;
U~~~ ~
:I: ~ ~ ",... Q,
~ in! ~ tll
i'l.
~
~
~
~
1
in ~N:J/lf1S'r'J""l .f Alnilll -'J19IJtI
~..,,- -_.~~
'-,..,. ------- ------........----------.---....-
;_ ,---,"-2IS2- 2\5Q V
I me ~----;;"
f,~,-___,,,, \ _-' rr{2\'~'
. '- '\ -- ~/
~')':2'_-'! ~ i ~ ~ I:: /o.,v to /J
~______ __-;__~~--- __ .",-___.__",--1-"' _ /
_____.__--.-- " ~ 8 8 ! Il: I
-~, i! i/- ~ ~I ~ //: I""'" i/~ "-J
P"'(~ ~A f/ I?) 1'1
c_" . -..----+___. / " "
"', I'"" ..
'.
'"
".....,,, ___~..---7'-.....,.,. / / '
.in,,,) ""'" 01"''''' lC'" ..' --____ _____ ,.-; / I /~.,./'.~ '-
_..___ ( / / "r<,!:
___--------',/- ,--' '" / I
~ ~ ~
, , ~
~
~
*
U
Z12
-P
.~ ~
>--&:~~
r,1:::> ,-,,'"
... CI) 0:
......C:l...l:
,...- <: '" 0
er::.5~8
,...'"
~-JS:o
--<:..., q'
(InS e l:
<( ~;:: ~
a::~C\Jt;
0:; 6 -<:
:.rJ&:
f-.
~
~
~
~
,~,.
;.~
(;~ ~
~.
~
'_'r'
tAlJI~b(
~r~ ~ .
~d!o' ~ ~
~~~~ " ~
I.~~~ ~ ..
"',<<I", ~
~."'~ ~ ~
...~~~
~)~ ~ ~
~";i:l ~ ~
:;o~i; ~
!~~~~ ~ *
!!:rB~1i e~ ~
gl'~:t~ ~~
il;)<"'~ &0 ~,
~~~& e:; -!o'
h>~ ~o ~~
~~!g: !~ I~
~~~~a ~~ ",I
s"$,,,.. " !o
~~~~~ n ~~
-
'"
~
.... 01
~ ..
~ ~
~
~ I
ii ,
0
~
,
:.;
:>
"
0
'"
i ~
~
'0
. .~
.;,,~
'^
"
:.:
ii
.
'"
-, III
?
1'/ ,"
-
r-....\ :;, I.....
,-,' ^/ ~.
," z
-
;:,. -.:
',,! ,...
'-
..........:
;:,.
" ,~
1"', .... -
- / "
./ ~ -
, ~~, "I
v
(V' - /
.
,'<
~l
~~
<
'n
<
'!'
.:
,
}
"
;,
.
y; I~
~;;.
~; ;
~~I t..,.
~
&J
g f~
lu ? '$ ~
~ @ ~
i:S r.s h ~ 2
i~'~~~%
Il. \,J I.oi. w'..'
...."., ..-,;
- ;" ~
-:
Z
(I
,... / "/
;:: <
,~
..:... .J...,
/. -oJ. ......I
(,.. /
.-::
It
- ^
.,.. ,!. .....;
". ('
I.
! - t
r-,
'.,/
-:
'/
<
""
V
~
~
~
~
I,
,~
".,~:,
~ ~ I,~i
[~
~ ~
,) I~~
~": ~
~ ~
~ ~
lr
~ ~.; ~~
"
8 ~
~,
~
j~ cl
6 ~ "",
~ ~ ~
~ ~
r~
~ ~
i'; '\
~ JI
5' ~ ,~.; ~
-J- ;)j ,<t
<
"'
>
~ .... ~~
\I{ ~ ~
'S' ~
~ ~ ~ ;i.
F : S ~
1. Q ~,
~ ~ S ,i.
.~ ... ... II:;
..
~
~i
b: '1
8 ~
~ ~
i;s Q
R
~ ~
~
'I
Q: '';
'Ii
" r( ~,- E
\." ~.! ~,.;"
I,~~~ ~
~u ~~::
;; ~ ~
* ~
l1-: -:;
",
~
, "
"
::
II
~ ~
II
D~~ ~q,.
o ,.., \J Q /.{I ".,.,
1..1 0 ~ 0 'j
'':' ":l '.01 ~
'"' '~ ~ Co ~
~
'.'
'"
~1
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
,.
"
.;-
~
,
"~
'" .
'" .~
Zi,' ~
~~~
~ $'~'"
~ 2l~' Q
~; 8~
o ~ ~ ~ I
~ ,. ~ 10
""
It:
;::,
~
$~
",
c
,~ ;,
.", W
f;:. .....
'~ :;.
. (\ ~
~ '"
! tl;
~ '" ,,~
'I> tJ.""\
I Cj -'~I"-o~"'''''' ..".('':'
~ It.: I ,""'
i......"'__ .~~
""b~
"~~r~ "
~,--,..,,-
I"~ .
\vF;"'>JHr.~ CREE'r-: ~~Ji)~.
------
~--------
..
:;
-.......---
~
-;
.--------..........---.......
~;:
, '
,
-1!-"~~
! :}
~ t?
~,~.~~.=~~:
,~ J. .. =t ~ :~
1,~aH
~ 2'~~:
~ '"
J-<U~:,";\.'I
"
..........___........~___2'~~----
---
.~' t'
"
i::: %1
.~ 5
;..~ i~
S ~
/
/
I
""'-
'"
,
c
~
~
~
"
~~'
"
1)'1
-c;
~:
\.
.,
~I
:t
"'
~ ~
\,~ '.J
~ it
~~ot
~~~~
~t""~:;.1
~I~.:/~
~h:
~~6@'
..... ...,W
~~~r;
~~~8
~;jIj(S'::li
.~~
~s
.."
"
~)
:~,
~,
',-,
Z. {:
- .,.
>- ~~. ,
1\-"
...;..,; '(.,
...., 'L. ~j
;- ;:'''
...... .... :::: ,~~
:;:;;! ?:" :~:
U)~. :~:-,":
~ ~j:':
'i..
~,..
.~...
:-
:-
.~, '
',.;
~
'--
0~
~~~~ ~ ~
~ I", DI~
~~~.~~ ~
~~i~~ '. "
~~~~ '0;-'
.,
0~}t
~~A~;~ '.,
~
~~~~~ "
:'~,:~r~ -~ -,
~:{~IJ;;.\ " "
~'~ "
::t~~~~ "
II!l! 2~
'... ,~
~~
;~~
{c..
witl; (/l ~:t!
m~~ ;r:~
;~~
'"'~
.",1-,
'" ~.
,- i ',',
"
[\
,
:~
Woo'adBospueIUJ!eOUa~ @AlJa~ 6SS~' f09' ~ ~g :lIao
OZSL6ll0 'puel~s~ m6'cgg'~~p:e~
la.JIS ~ 51>9 pm'sgnpg :101
"
"
>.
"'
~
~
c
N083CJO 'ON'flHS'f
M3IAON\itl80U
ar1VNOa~W 3NNA 1
~mmw)Jv ~dgaspUe1
UJ!B8UQ)J
...l
<I::
>
o
CI) :2
z ...lZW
~z:a:oo::
c..<!~j:C1
>-c:C1~z
Z!- c!)<I::
<l: ::i...l...l(2z
...l -000::0
c.. !-n:::cr:-_ ...l
wZ::JI-I-C11- -
1-<l:>-ZZz{) ~
u;...J~OO~~ UJ
~...lc..<!uuelO Cl
z<(!)~zzzo::>->-
wo::~~QQi=Cl..wUJ
I-WCl:JU')CI)ZW>>
zZ<CWOo<(wO::C::::
ow O:::O::O::O::-lO::::l::l
UClCla.wwo..l-U')iI)
't';'~~~~~'7
CI){)()UC,)..J!-
UJUJ
, ,
,",\
~~ \
._I\,~_..\"'-
.'., \
.. "'~"~l-l-;'; \
'to . r;J~~ </r,.~~'" e l ! '-',
.} I ,. ,....~p. . -f. ,I --..;:
"'-, ""\c' .~.,~ RT " /\.0 1__...;, ; i
I ". 0", / ....-..,\ 2~"CUl~:0-' / ...-.-;:- ... :',^,~ -". _~_
:,.' -.....$1": ..........,. V'ovo--. "\, CRE,E~....,..--_..-.t:::: :...~...-. /~/... ,_,!-/:------,,~,^ltJ ';~ -~--.-~~--M-..
'( . .. -"---SANY', , .... ~f' ___~ (' . cr-. ~ '\1 '_,
i . 1 .,..~. ........ i:R'E~.' _/ '" \..' ,~ ,,~.._ , \)
; _._~:, ---'"'IT' ......... \..DVJE.\:( u .' .,.~/J ./J"::// -;. ...: ~ '.1 I ....., \" ," '....- _........ \ 1
. r .. \", .. -,..... '--. ROAD SLoPE ......-: \ " ?'"...<f-'" ,,' ',.r:,. . ". ...,Iff.,.. '
I I X \ ,. " ( OF ." , ~....... I ~ \.!
--..----..-,' . ..... ~'_ TO w""......'~A ,,/.....-::, ..,''',
J ! \ ,~'- ~ .-..... ..~,.,.., .~~k"'t.i-''''t'cl "\0, \,. /' I u ";,
:;: \\\"~ '.:" ". .~~--~--_.-- t~.'..:1Jo, ';'. ~~,../ ~r"-:: "'~t
. , /~;~~"~~~~~t~}:~~~{~:k~?f~5~~~:-:;-
1 l~---" ~-~-~~-::::'-'--==':':'::':_-'--'-;'~=':':-:=.:':':~'-=-~-~=-______~~ s;t;;:~ c /~.......~1""9~
! if 6 /.- '. ~',.., --~-7.-'-:-'::~~~" ","
I 1.1/ " ''>1} , ,. ......... ""'. I u "'"
, I I ' '. ..... ,"'.,...' .-,.... 1 I \\ .
i ' "" "_. .._ / I
'I : ............. ", ' ..--..,,- """" 1
i l [ -.--..-r-.----r-..,... ,... ,... I '", II
~.__._+ :1- L--- I I I;
I" I --- . I.',
~ : I ! i \
~ w I I ~,!
~ ~ : I ii '
~ C ! I I ::.
~ i I I
: . I
!;; ~ I :
! ~ 9 I I
i ~ ~: Iii
.. I I .,i
i i ,I
: Ii
I i I:
I
- .. ~ ~ . ~
"
f
p'
'I
"
.... I'
':'
~" I
!t......\
.\1 '.....
:;Jn~
.
, '
I~
..;
...
'"
::>
"
'"
-0:
~
I
(J)
z
ct:
...l
a...
w
I-
en
~
o
wc:)'ad~spJeIU~eJU.~ @iilla~ 6SSn09" ~ 1'5 :llaO <lJnp~1!~OJ\f ~dgOS1JUg'I , g
029i6 \-10 'PUBI~SV <>s6',snVS :X\'~ UJ!B~Ug)l ~ ~ .. N083~O 'ONVlHSV'
.'
l~ai\S \;I gl'S l>6,S'aamg :jal ~ '"
c ;:. " I .. ",-
" <lI , M31^ON\fCl8' OU >-
.2 ~ ~ II> .
.~ " :> !-
~ ~ alVNOa~W 3NNA 1 C>
,::: Q '" ~
1
c
o
U
::;::l
~
+-'
CIJ
C
o
()
c
'C
::;::l
o
c
o
+::
C'U
2:.
<D
(/J
<D
~
CL
CD
<D
l...
f-
l...
.E
(/J
c
o
:;::;
ctI
()
\.;:
u
CD
(j)
~ 0
~.Q
~ "<:-
, H
5 .
~ .~ ~~ c
~ >- ~ i! " c 2
.8 . ]~ ~
'ii\ ~ito .
"0 "Oil ~
ii % ..<: I
fc~ ~ e .~
! . .0 ~i "8 . c ~ ~
. ~
.l-5 . ";0.
. . ~ .. g c
-: ~~.~ ~ ~2 " ~ 0
~ o. ' :5 8 :'2
. 0 .\ilJU "' ~., .. .Q>
1:~ 0 "0 .ll~ ,; .~ g
~ . ~1!q ~ '. '0
,\10 H . - ~ .sit, "0 p. ~
,<'> ID'~ e
~o 2~ ~] k~ 3 .1:" . Nt .;
% ~ 0- c -
~h~ Q~ 0- 8
H ~.~ ~ .E ~~ 3
.;U~ ~.8 g
~ . ~8 .g:: ':; . -... e~ 00
.0 0 .0. 1: ~ e ~.~ "
'g~ .~ 11 ~'g~~ .. "
~ (; .q .<:
:~ S ... 5 c 21 . ~ .~ 0
~~ ~ &&~ ~ ~E 0
*~ c .. . g
'0 ''8 '"
.,,~ d ~]~~ ,Q ~ " ~ .~ 6 <t
'0
1:e .,,_..~ ~25~ .s 0" ~ n .;
~5 ~ .;
,go. ig ~ ~ ,$ ~ 'E ~ a~ .
d .. 0; . ~
~"5 ~ ~i 't:-e J:: -t.E
", .;~ :; "5 55
"& . S ..
~~ ';i:; :; ~ 0 ~'5 ~ 03 :; >. .8,.. i.<:
~~ 8~~"g- 'i5 ~-g ,~ - " 1'~
05 . c ~. ~ ~ .. I;
-S" '" 5.g5 :? 0- ~ . ~ E
P ~ t; ~ J:"-e ' " " "
]~ ~8 il. 2o!l & 'E 3 ~ E E Jl&' :~
H ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Jl . h .~~
.~~ .e: ~- .~ ~ ~~
-g 8 ""g 1 . 'ill . 0 .p
H .g~ ~R~p ~fi H H ~~
:gi 011- 0 ! ~1i~ ~~
2~ .. 8" 8: .0 ;>. ~8. ~-s ~,i::2
82 1l -01 ~~* H ~~
" ;;," ""5 ' J:1 0..
~ ,~ ":11 ~~ ~a~ e ~H g~ ,~ ~
.e- U 'E E
w. >- .0 .
~'" ~:g \lfs!1 ~ ;r~ o " ~~
H CD ....~o ~ on . <:4-
.; '" ~ ... ~ ~ ::
-
/,
~~ ~~ ~ ~
~* ~~ ~i h ~ ~
~ 0" ;;~ o. .~ ~ <"
~. L.l~~~a: f~ ~ G E~
h~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ @~
. o~~ ~~~ ~B ~>~~
) ~u ~q ~~~e~~
~g ~~~>~"~~~.5
~6 [5~~~b~~3~
-~ e~i~g~~.~~.
"I~ ~~ ~~l;~~iIt~o.
,," ~~8~s~~~
~~e..~o't:J~~~.-
-tlIli! 00 W /!J:~;; Vi:::
~~~R,~~~;:tt~ 25
"~~~d. ~~S~~ -
O~~~"8~o~~< G
~:lw..~o~~~,H w
~~~~<O~t;SH~5 ~
~og ~"~8w'~! 0:
t;~~ ~~56~~~o UJ
\'!~~~~~~~1It&~:2 ~
~~~*h~h9~5 ,..
:~~~~~~~~~5~
~g~~"~~:~~~i!
0
z Ol
w c
" 'w
0 " c
;- "
w 0 lL
....J E c
& ,.. .2
Z c. -6
III g 0
0 .c "0
S III Ii:
1= ()
" " "
() III ~ ~
w ~
5
n:::
11. 0
UJ X
w
rr::
f-
o ~
- "
" 5
~~
" "
5 E
~$
ij ~
H-
o
8 g
o~
~~
~ .;
H
E'
"
o '"
- .
-go
.-
'i~
H
~~
L
" ~
~]
L.
:?-o
H
'~IC
.1; ;
. .
~ ';
';2
'"
,.;
~ ~
~-n~
o " "
Hs
U~
Ul
iH
~1 ~
"0 " u
~~~
~ ~ 0
U,:':t=
~5g
~.~ ~
. E >
0""0
~~.
Jl2 g
2 ~ 2
~ " ..
g~-2:
d~
~p
so8
ii g-E
~e>-
;; ~E
.0 w
~U
.,,~
!~"
~ .
.~
....
N
~
,; i5
.' ]
,5 ~. ~
~ i~ ~
@ 3l~ 1
~ ~ ~ ~
s ~g ~
~ ~~ ''5
- .~ 8 0
~ 2~ !
~ 1l] f
.~ ~ ~ E
~ E ~ 0
~1i ..
g -S~ :=
~ m~ ~
~ :.€ ~ i
~ '*-;;.
~:. ~ ~
~ .:?e !'O
.9 .'= ~ ; ~
i H ~~
,g h d
~ -g~ it'
..... en ~ ....L g
1l w ~ = jj
" ,q ~.
~ s~ .~E
~ ~g g~
g ~~ ig
1l M .1;
.~ H ~~
8 i~ ~s
c-'5 '<f II?
~
o
..
5
.2
~
"ii
~ "0
tT '"
i ~ ~
j ~~ ~
~ ~~ ~
! ~~ ~
i n
E ~ ~
C j g
~ .2 i;
S 2 ~
~ ~~
01 1l g
'g ~ g
"0 Eo
e.j ~8
~~ ~~
~ REO
~ g ,~~
~:e ~ E
S 2 ki.~
ijf~ -g 0
'" 8 ::! Q
hn
Q; g ~ ~
$~ QJ;g
~. :g '"
~f ~ ~
.~~ .<: '"
~. ~<e
~
'5
~
" .~
~ ~
~ {:
3 "-
" 0
~ 'u
i -g ~
~~ ~
~ .
gll
~ c
8~
WO
~~
:;.1:
" .
~l
s ~
,0.
~i
.,=
g@
ii;1l
.ts.~
..
~.
.- .i!l
~~
~g
m"
:; 0;
n
'ti;~
, 0
E-
-"
. "
~l
o.
..;;:
H
H
,..
"
,g
'C
c
8
,;
"
.,;
x ,~ ,:: '2l= .= ,= g g l= .=.= 8.=
~.....~"O"O~tSc ~tJ/,l~i3~I';: bI)e
'"
g <:
~ .9
~~
~~
~ 8
- "
~-
~ ~~~ ~~~~~
... ~~IJ) Q~a.lO~
)'!.:.<"" """".,, 'il "8'il ""0"0"" "
o 0 g g 8 ~ 2 9 0 0 0 ~ ~ 9 9 S
~ E ;.0 ';J) c.J) c c: c: ~ e.o Q..O::: ::; t: :: :::
>-
0::
o
I-
Z
UJ
>
Z
W
w
~I
.~ ~
<s..,
~ '"
~~
" ~
~ '"
l-' "
2
OOViI/jOO~r--O~~:~~~::::!~
Nt-..',...) -..q-NI""lrr,o\ ......;
'"
~
'"
~Qj
S;~
D :::
\3 '-
l()I.flO'\\t'i~oo\OCQQOooooeO"':1'~OO
....._ .........- N--
E:~
,2)~
~."
Ol.(')OOOIFl~V1WltiV)QO\O'rJ<w::"'Oli"')
o-..'"'1"N'o:'f"~Nrr'lf'!jI""j~tf"I"':]'':l'oo::rl('jN
"
'"
J:~
:0 '-
Q ...
000 1""'(;) nNN........-o:r
N....r-OI'-Cl\O.....Nt""'-I'-----r---
~::::; ~ ~ ::::;: :~ ~ .::: ."'. ,"'. ,"'. ."'.
~~CIl :Eg;~ ~-----
...2 E'~ ~ i;;~.2" ~ ",;:;,22.2<8
~ "ii <t .Ql.Ql ~ 13"0 Si,.=.o C '':; '., '~ .~ '':;
<; '" 0> <; l:"; '" -'<: -'<: .= Z ;b!!.s..:: ..:: .s
ag ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{r) e ~ -5 "5 ~ ~ 2'-:: .; ~ ,;; ,;; ,5 ,~ .~
~ng.g.en~~~~@@cg
QCCQQ(LocQ.ll.cn.r..Ll..;!. Ll..Ll..
III
'"
'(J
"
~
,.
III
~
't--(\{<""i~J.!)I.Cf'-..eoO'\:='::::!::!~~
-'"I
~ \
I ---\
;--
/' '\
/" .
/~e~~~ I
cfltt~ I
~
/ '~o
, J ~ \
:1\ \
"'v.,;;;,;
---
"
~ ;2
"
~
_ ~ N
~
.,;
\
'1r-..
--~
\
;;
II
~
l
I i
I
I I
'" :;:
"
"- "
.
~ II
l:\.
~II
;\
>--~
~
;:: I I
"
I I
U ~!
~:I J
t' I
I; I
J
,
I
I! i ,.
I
".
. ,
,.'
.
, "'
\ i..... ...
t '- '-
'-
,
II ...
, ....
'-
II +' -"""-
" '-
'.;.
I I,
\
\
\
\
\ "
"-
... 1.
,
\
"' .
03HS
z
<(
...J
0-
Z
o
-
l-
t)
W
I-
o
~
0-
W
W
0::
I-
~
"'-.
S~D
o
3sno~
aNUSIX3
~ l;:
::::.: ~
~ ( ~
~ ( _./" "
&l
~ ~~-
tii lcJ
~
G 0) tJ
""l <-
~ ~ ~
~ t ~
I Y)
~ J r:J a r.tJ
u c.,,) ~
~ II) li)",
LtJ ~ w;: ~
'" >......]
.~
0) Q) I,e 2\
'1 ") I~
C) 1<
~
~
~
I "
'"
:<;
/ ~ ~
~ ~
/ ~-~ ~
-~
,/ ....
~
--- ~
Lu Cj
<: '"
..: Q c,J "
'" 0, ~
x 0
'" _I ,~
\ 111 h.
\ IL i1! ~ f
"
Cl. C;;
C) .'
~ ,.. ~
'"
~
" M
V)
"
0)
:;
'"
$.
et
,j
"
'"
~
.--
/' I
/' /pj'll I
I C)
U
II)
O.j
i.JJ
N .J
ctJk
t~')
Ci
.,
o
no
w
"-
g
,0.
"-
o
w
o.
5
V1
e
n,
g;2
'~
€I
o
o
~
o
"1
"-
r.f)
l,d
I'~
<(
C)
Ww
[..J>z
Zc;::c
Welt.::
:3 w.
ill ;:; 0:
~::2C
c>c
..J8z
<Z-1
Z""
o is;
0'-'''
!d~-1
.i',t--
I
~
w
z
w
cr
'5
o
'"
u
~
<:
d.
c
!.llW
~:::7
,:; coC
OQi.::
-,u.
r:J~ ~o::
~;;:C
>c
50z
-< Z<r
7.. ~:I
0<.:)(/
Oo<r
s,!('oj
~ t-
"
"
"
...j
"
'"
"
"
~,
<c
9
<n ""
L. <l.
'-' ~
O. "'
Q Ie
f- 0
~ ..
::'
,.J
~
&
o
0,
~ ,
"
~l{;;/R
\
"
[
~
~ 1
'41
~
~
~
li
~
~
~
~
....
i1
.'
--
-~
:::J
u
'f)
(j
l.tJli)
~
~~
~
~
~
~
~
'~
a
s
~
....
I ~
~
J
Cl..; ~
:::....
t-....
""""'
~
.; S
~
",- ::..,
tJ: ~
1:5~ 'ct'"
~~ ~,
~~ ~
~8 ~
'" Q" .......,
~ "" ~
~' ~
~
01
v)
"
o
f:'
b
g
a
u
Ii)..
D
14.1""
fC
O"J
"1
3~
010
,,~
"-1/1
a
()
'n"
"-I'
-~
O"J"
")
())
~)
,'"
"
l
n
'-'
I>J
0::
~
>::)...
60::
ad
-<:
)...::J
-.lCJ
esco
~a
c::CJ
eJCJ
<:~
R
0::
0':
;S;
:5~
Q.
~
l..w
~
()
<:
j:::
CI)
~
lJ.l
~ w
~ Vi ~
'" i
g
w ~ ':E ~
.. 8
g
"' "
~ '"'
.. I!I
"
g w
..
Q
q
tl
Q LrJ
<.> I.u
Lr)(\l
I.u::;:
0 .....oJ Ol
'"' i"')
<( 0)
0 i"')
a:::
..J
w
~
a:::
<.;)
r-:
if)
x
w
w
o~
:>:w
"""
~m
"'0<
Q
()
LrJ".
I.u~
.....
...
0)'"
I'rj
..
i.!
"'.
.
:l!S
~i
..",
se
..
* 01 'Q-
.Ii! "-!! 'l::
" ... ;J
,!l (;" ~
S "'\I
-e~
"tl ~~
i
.. ~
e .2
~
!i
'b
~
.&
.~
~
~
f
~
.8
~ ~
II '"
.g ...
... ~
~
!, <::l
~
.
il:
..
q
(j
ll)
I.u~
-oJ
"
Ol
"'1
w
~~
mg
_<I>
l$::!
1
l{
~ ~
" "
.., r 8
'" ~
;... C;
.. 2
,~ !'l
~ S Q
c:. ~
,- Il: Zt!
to * ~
'" .
~ ~ I
" ~
.
~ ;~ ~ ~
og ~
~
"'
is "' ij
'" ~ ;;;;
"' Cl 3
g ~ ~ c::
"'
@ " Vi
~ ~ 0\
t5 :5
i: ~ iB tJ "
~ LJ, ~ if
,It ~ "
~ "' i";j
r:: '" if
:.l C) Cj
e
El
~
....
"...,
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
II 'il
!l }"
.1 lei
~!l w s
'" I "
'ih g
I~ ~! ~i"irI.:i'''I'l~1
s
,"
fil
tf
n
F.
~~
.~~ j
," "
'f
111
,;.;1\
~
I ~
~,;i~
!'"
t~n
~H
~
@
~
!
1 ~
:.
r',~
~~~
~Jl~
II ~
I ~
"1
1;:
'I" ~
i~. 1 Q.
,
~~
"'
11.
o
_I
"'
k
(]
W
0-
S
'"
"-
o
"-
8
-----
~-
--
--
---
a
\.J
to
~
"
Lu "II
,-
a
()
Lf)"
Lw:;:
0,
I')
-'
0)"
')
e
C:
C
lC; N ~J
OJ L~ 5'5
OJ
~.;:~
a
\.J
'0 _
I.L)~
0) 1-
")
8
~
t'
<
~
~
~
~
a
tj
~
~
a
~
,
Ii
wo~'adB3spWluJ!E30"~@,\)Ja~ 6999' W9', P9 :1160
OZSL6 80 'PUEI4S\l Z ~96'Z99' ~ 1'9 :xe:l
laaJIS V 91'S t6~8B8nps :101
~Jnl~~l!qjJV jdejSpUB1
UJIB8Ug)J
'N083tlO 'ONVlHS'v'
M3IAON\itl8 OZL
OTl'VNoa::>w 3NNA 1
g
N
'"
...
'"
:>
'"
:::>
..:
.2 9
w
a >. "
'" ~
c "
~ ~
~
" '"
(""./
1---
\
~
/"
'" / \'Iv(
(vi/ ",/ \Z 6~
Grr. '" '" ./ C?-tJ'-
/ /'O~~t. l<-
II
-"-"'''''."1
.C->;U LylB1-~ I
2~ ~ _-..-1
--1,~ I
i
/
~d
--
-
~
-g .;:: [5
'E ~;
.!l1 IDOl
0. 2'~
.- ...
~ QJ E '0;
Cli.eID.c
a-'u;,:
:;;: '0 ~ 0
~tID=
-ro.c:rn
e 0.- .
'c (!) -0 rn
(l)C'OC:::;:
QJ-oro'E
.l:l2a.o
~ ~r; ~
ro 'E QJ "C
.c ._ e c
co QJ C Cli
.s::8c:
~~'O:2
QJ _10
'-Olea
~.5'0 '6..
c"Co.o.
~.!l1Q)ro
00..c::::ci.
... (])....... E'~
OU; ....'0
(!)Q)E&ro
e.cQJ .c
.Q - U) OJ =
t:: . >. e .-
o"Ou;'i5~
0.2 e'5 III
ID~g.og'
.c 't: ro ID ~
--.~O).c.c
o I.. 'E ~ ~
00'-00.
c-02t::>-
~.i!l'iii ro .:\1
cCQ)o.~
Q)~Eu;-
..co.oroo
z~ ..eLl";:"
QQ)-g2~:?
1---1:::0,1((
<I: roCli Cli'-
(!) e .g.~ ~ 1!
C2QJ.::o.D-:
Q;i:':og-1l2
;.
/ \
.' \
/ 1 -.J C .
/ \ c
/ 3"
/'
/
I
131
I
o
-<-'
Q)
co
]]
NN
rn-'-,-'-,-,
Q)tilCCroCliCli
l.OOlC'.101OlCl
......l.O......(')............
J::
<.)
L-
c:l
I)) '-
- Q)
Q.,>
I1l .-
~o::
--ro
I1l Q)
al.c
..J I'il
Ol:,
llio
CIl.:.:.
:=: 0
c 'c CD
~ ~ 0. (J)
C13 l':!u;
C'J .- C) r:!
:::::::2 cO
c_ Ole
.S ~ Q) g."itj
~L-O''--
Q) a r~ ~ 0 5
0.:2.....(9010
C'J'O:!2 c elJ...
~ ro [;: 0'0. 15
CD~IIlOlQ)E
.S 0 E e e ro
>:r:wOO:I:
~
- III
C.c
:; III
= L-
>-0
:::0
c.-
o ro
'- L..
~ .~
""
I::: ro
...-
ill.2
t.l Q)
<1:m
'c
.5:
~
U
~
"'0
L-
ro..
:> IJ.)
o e-
J: ro
- U
~"'O
0- 'c
!E~ OJ
CIJ IlJ E
g E 5 ro
"'0 W .:: u;:t
E CIJ OJ..E e'.
~ 0 0'::; (J) ro
m>->-c-a3'E
c .c..c (1) L- 0
'0 Q., 0. ro ro -
.: .m 2 'c 'c ~
~ ~ ~ 0 O'c
822~~~
<<(<(~~o..
l-
I ~ II
U)
~ II
)>. "
I-
~
>--
1-
-I
i=:: /
::J )
J
(J,
~I
:::J l
Q.
~o
aJ_
U Ij)
<{co
u~
ow::r: 10 I..::r:
O(lu.l:.l:c
o L.. L.. ro C'IJ Q)
<(<(<I:22o..
~
.
-I
..-,,-r"'\
\.
---\
\
z
o
.-
<(
(!)
C2
~
06
w
0-
<(
U
(j)
, 0-
Z
<X:
...J
-----
.-
\
\
\~
0"-.1
!n
!~
!
I
CJV'ldOd ./6f O'r/3
I
r:o
'>1'
.....
,\;
I
I I
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
April 13, 2010
In the Matter of Planning Action 2009-00817 regarding
Amendments to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan
to update the for Southern Oregon University 2010-2020
Campus Master Plan
)
) FINDINGS OF FACT AND
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
)
)
PBLlC HEARINGS:
On July 14 2009, a public hearing was held regarding a request for adoption of the
Southern Oregon University Campus Master Plan 2010-2020 as a sub-area plan within
the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The public hearing was continued with the Planning
Commission taking further testimony and concluding deliberations on March 9,2010.
Properties impacted by the proposed adoption of the Southern Oregon University
Campus Master Plan 2010-2020, or in the vicinity of the SOU campus, were provided
legal notice in accordance with ORS 227.186. Additional public information efforts
included a project web page included the proposed SOU Master Plan so that recipients
of the notice could obtain detailed information. The web page has been updated
throughout the public hearing process with meeting materials as well as the record. On
October 5th, 2009, Southern Oregon University facilitated a public discussion with
campus neighbors and the surrounding community regarding the Master Plan update.
EVALUATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS:
The recommendation of the Planning Commission was based on consideration of the
following factors:
A. Consistency with Oregon land use laws and regulations including specifically
OAR Chapter 197 regarding Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination
B. Applicable policies of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commission finds that the inclusion of conditions as outlined below is
necessary to provide additional clarification and to improve coordination, review and
approval of future university projects. With these conditions the Commission finds that
the proposed update of the SOU Campus Master Plan 2010-2020 is consistent with and
adequate to carry out the goals and policies in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 1
RECCOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Housing and Student Life
Mixed Use Construction
. In addition to the mandatory Design Guidelines described in the Master
Plan update, the following areas designated for development shall be
subject to Ashland's approval standards for development within the Detail
Site Review Zone (II-C-2), including those additional standards for Large
Scale Projects (II-C-3).
"Y along Ashland Street between W alker Ave and Wightman St,
within I 50-feet of the near edge of the Ashland Street right of way,
and
"Y along W alker Avenue between Ashland Street and south of
Webster Street, within I 50-feet of the near edge of the Walker
Ave. right of way.
"Y Developments within these designated Detail Site Review overlay
zones shall be exempt from the maximum floor area requirement
(FAR) standards as stet forth in sections II-C-2a(l) of the Site
Design and Use Standards
Faculty Housing
. The following Design Guidelines shall be apply to faculty housing
located along Ashland Street and Henry Street west of Mountain Avenue,
and along W alker Avenue:
1. Buildingfootprints shall be limited to 6,000 square feet total for a
multi-family building. Example: six attached 1000 square foot
townhouses.
2. Buildings shall be no more than 120 feet long. For buildings longer
than 60 feet, a significant offiet- 5' or more-in the plane of the
fac;ade shall be created so that no major fac;ade plane is more than 60
feet in length. Projecting elements and/or recesses-such as decks,
bay windows and recessed entries-shall be applied to facades to
avoid long planar walls facing the street.
3. Buildings shall be limited to 3 stories above grade generally and 2
stories west of Mountain Ave.
4. Building facades shall face the primary street or a shared open
courtyard space which in turn fronts on the street.
5. Building entries shall include porches, stoops and similar elements
to create a transition zone between the public street and the private
home.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 2
6. Individual entries to each dwelling unit are preferred In no case
shall more than four dwelling units shall share a common entry from
the street or common open space. Example: traditional four-square
style building, with two units above and two at groundfloor sharing
an entry.
7. Buildings shall be designed with appropriate placement of interior
spaces and exterior windows to provide views from active areas to the
public street and/or common open spaces [sometimes referred to as
"eyes on the street"}.
8. Shared parking shall not be located between the street and the
primary fac;ade of dwelling units. To the greatest extent feasible,
parking shall be located at the rear of units. Where parking is located
at the front of units, it shall be only in the form of personal driveways
serving individual units. In this configuration, garage entries shall be
set behind the primary fac;ade of dwelling units by a minimum of five
feet.
9. Exterior building finishes shall be similar to existing buildings in
the surrounding neighborhood Vinyl siding is not an allowed finish
material; metal siding is discouraged, except as an architectural
accent. Allowed materials include:
a. Wood siding or shingle;
b. Cementitious wood products;
c. Brick, stone and artificial stone.
10. Design elements that are representative of the surrounding
residential neighborhood context are encouraged, although literal
repetition of historic styles is not required or expected
11. Landscape materials shall consistent with palette of the Ashland
bioregion. Native plants and drought-tolerant, non-invasive plantings
are strongly encouraged
. Conditional Use Permit Approval
Faculty Village Housing proposed along Ashland Street and Henry Street
west of Mountain Avenue, and along W alker Avenue, is approximately
50-feet from privately-owned property. Consequently, future development
at these locations shall be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit
in order to address neighborhood context.
Demolition and Relocation of Existing Campus Buildings
. In addition to the requirements set forth in the Campus Master Plan for
construction waste reduction and on-site recycling collection facilities,
proposals involving the demolition or relocation of existing campus
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 3
structures shall be subj ect to the procedures and provisions of Ashland
Municipal Code 15.04 - Demolition or relocation of structures.
Transportation and Circulation
Student Housing -Pedestrian Safety Plan
. Prior to submission of a planning application for the development of new
student housing north of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard, the
University will work with the City, Oregon Department of Transportation
and other stakeholders in developing a specific plan for implementation
that addresses actions targeted at improving pedestrian safety. The Plan
shall include but not be limited to improved crossings with enhanced
pavement design and access controls with an on-going monitoring of
pedestrian flow and safety issues. Design strategies shall be coordinated
and prepared based upon the expertise of both a traffic engineer and urban
design professional.
Eastern Gateway - Pedestrian Safety Plan
. Concurrently with the transportation impact analysis and access
management strategy, the University will work with the City, Oregon
Department of Transportation and other stakeholders in developing a
specific plan for implementation that addresses pedestrian safety issues.
Design strategies shall be prepared based upon input from both a traffic
engineer and urban design professional.
Student Housing - Transportation Impact Analysis and Access Management
. All future housing projects proposed shall be subject to a transportation
impact analysis (TIA) and access management standards described in the
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). The final scope of this
requirement will be evaluated at the pre-application meeting preceding the
land use application for Site Design Review approval.
Eastern Gateway - Transportation Impact Analysis and Access Management
. Modifications to the University's Eastern Gateway area shall be subject to
a transportation impact analysis and access management standards as
described in the City of Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). The
final scope of specifications for preparation of a transportation impact
analysis shall be coordinated through Ashland Public Works Department.
Emergency Vehicle Access - Campus Circulation System
. Prior to any changes to the campus circulation system including vehicular
and pedestrian access ways, a site plan shall provided to and approved by
Ashland Fire & Rescue which demonstrates that that the proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 4
modifications are in compliance with the emergency access provisions of
the Oregon Fire Code.
Parking and Transportation Demand Management
Parking Requirements for On-Campus Student Housing
. Prior to submission of a planning application for campus housing, the
University shall development, through collaboration with city staff,
specific parking standards for on-campus housing. The standard is
intended to reduce an over provision of off-street parking and stress the
use of alternate modes of transportation, by maximizing the efficiency of
established and future campus parking facilities through consideration of
the following strategies:
~ The University's development and implementation of
Transportation Demand Management strategies listed in the
Master Plan;
~ Review of contemporary research, professional publications and
other factors effecting parking demand;
~ Analysis of shared parking scenarios; and
~ Review of potential impacts to neighborhood on-street parking
supply
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies
. That a list of potential Transportation Demand Management strategies
accompanied by a time line for implementation be developed and
submitted in conjunction with campus housing applications.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the evidence in the whole record, the Planning Commission hereby
recommends the Council approve the adoption of the update of the SOU Campus Master
Plan 2010-2020 as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, with the inclusion of the
recommended conditions.
Pam Marsh, Planning Commission Chair
Date
Signature authorized and approved by
the full Planning Commission this 13th
day of April, 2010
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 5