Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAlicia_210_PA-T2-2023-00046I T Y OF As"t,AND April 11, 2024 Notice of Final Decision The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA -T2-2023-00046 Subject Property: 210 Alicia Ave Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services Owner: Adderson Construction Inc. Description: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five -lot Performance Standards Subdivision (4 residential lots, I common area) for the property located at 210 Alicia Ave. The application also includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units (AMC 18.4.6.040.0.1) where dedication of a public street is typically required. The application also includes an Exception to Street Standards due to the existing unimproved street. The application also includes the request to remove a single 20" plum tree along the western side of the property as it is in conflict with the proposed driveway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 04 DB; TAX LOT: 1700 The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with section 18.5.1.060.I of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Aaron Anderson in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Adderson Construction Inc. Parties of record COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel, 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 mvw.asliland.or.us i4S F-1 LAN D SECTION 18.5.1.060.1 I. Appeal of Type H Decision. The City Council may call up a Type II decision pursuant to section 18.5.1.060.J. A Type II decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows. 1. Who MaAppeal. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following. a. The applicant. b. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. c. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. 2. Appeal Filing Procedure. a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.1.1, above, may appeal a Type 11 decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection. b. Thne fog° Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. 3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time, and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting. 4. Scope of Appeal. a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.I.4.b, below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Commission. The record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits, and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. b. Reopening the Record. The City Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.735-2900 www.ashlaFui.or.us 11TALlik CITY OF !"So H L A N together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated one or more of the following. i. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error. J. That a factual error occurred before the Commission through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. iii. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting parry, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. iv. Re -opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the Council. 5. Appeal Hearing Procedure. The decision of the City Council is the fnal decision of the City on an appeal of a Type II decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission. a. Oral Argument. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different, and three minutes for any other party who participated below. A party shall not be permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall be submitted no less than ten days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the written argument. b. Scope of Appeal Deliberations. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond. c. Council Decision. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the Council elects to COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ww w.ashland.or.us M41 H L AN mum' remand a decision to the Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.060.1. Record of the Public Hearing. For purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. The public hearing record shall include the following information. a. The notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal. b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the application that the City mailed or received. c. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials submitted with it. d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open. e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available). f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application; g. The minutes of the hearing. g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions. 7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type H applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council decisions on Type 11 applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winbun Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www,ashland,or.us I L4&--& THE CITY OF ASHLAND BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2024 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION PA -T2-2024-00046 A REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 5 LOT, 4 RESIDENTIAL UNIT PERFORMANCE STANDARD OPTION SUBDIVISION. INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION IS A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS, A VARIANCE TO PRIVATE DRIVE STANDARDS, AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT OWNER APPLICANT: RECITALS: ADDERSON CONSTRUCTION INC ROGUE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDERS. 1) The subject property is located at 210 Alicia Ave and is tax lot #1700 of Assessor's Map 39- 1E -04 -DB. It is 1.26 acres in size and is zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential) with the Performance Standards Option (PSO) Overlay. All development in the PSO Overlay is required to be processed in accordance with chapter 18.3.9 "Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay". 2) The application is a request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a five -lot Performance Standards Option subdivision, including four residential lots and one common space lot. The application also includes requests for a variance to allow a private driveway to serve four residential lots where dedication of a public street is typically required, and an exception to street standards to not install standard improvements. The application also includes a request to remove a single non -hazard tree. 3) The subject property is south of, and adjacent to, Oak Court Subdivision which was subdivided in 1965. The subject property came into existence from a partition in 1970 and took its current shape in 2015 through a property line adjustment. The 46 -feet of frontage, as well as the surrounding neighborhood, lack standard street improvements including curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 4) The property had a previous land use approval for a cottage housing development in 2020 ("The 2020 approval"). The 2020 approval noted the existence of a possible wetland which received water from an irrigation ditch. The 2020 approval required that the wetland be investigated and subject to local regulation if the Department of State Lands (DSL) found the wetland to be `jurisdictional.' The wetland was delineated by an environmental consultant which identified a 1,300 square -foot wetland. The DSL approved the delineation and determined that it was exempt from. State regulations because it was less than one acre in size (OAR 141-085-0515(6)), and because it is artificially created (OAR 141-085-0515(8)). The application indicates that the irrigation water is going to be piped to the adjacent property. PA -T2-2024-00046 April 9, 2024 Page 1 5) The applicant's proposal is detailed in plans which are on file at the Department of Community Development and by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. 6) The criteria of approval for Outline flan are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows: A. the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city. B. adequate key city facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity. C. the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. D. the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the comprehensive plan. E. there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. F. the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. G. the development complies with the street standards. H. the proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18,4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the city of Ashland. 7) The criteria of approval for Final Plan are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.8.5 as follows: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this ordinance. c. The common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the street standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space; provided, that if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the common open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. S) The criteria of approval for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B as follows B. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from the requirements of this chapter are subject to chapter 18.5. , Variances, except that deviations from section 18.4.6.04 , Street PA -T2-2024-00046 April 9, 2024 Page 2 Design Standards, are subject to subsection B.1, Exception to the Street Design Standards, below. 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the street design standards in section 18.4.6.04 if the circumstances in either subsection LIA L1.or V, below, are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site; and the exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and the exception is consistent with the purpose, intent, and background of the street design standards in subsection 18.4.6.040. ; and the exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable: 1. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safely and efficiently cross roadway; or b. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purposes, intent, and background of the street design standards in subsection 18.4.6.040. . (Ord. 3204 § 2, amended, 1212112021) 9) The criteria of approval for a Variance are described in AMC 18.5.5.050.A as follows, 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. 10) The criteria of approval for removal of a Tree that is Not a Hazard are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part RA and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. PA -T2-2024-00046 April 9, 2024 Page 3 c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 11) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on March 12, 2024. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the close of the public hearing The Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions of approval. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that AMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and encourages efficient use of land resources among other goals. When considering the decision to approve or deny an application the Planning Commission considers the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in the AMC. 2.2 The Planning Commission notes that the application was deemed complete on February 12, 2024, and further finds that the notice for the public hearing was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within 200 -feet of the subject property on the following day, February 13, 2024 (28 days prior to the March 12th Meeting). 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to render a decision based on the application itself, the March 12th Staff Report, the applicant's public hearing testimony, and the exhibits received. PA -T2-2024-00046 April 4, 2024 Page 4 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Plan approval meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9,040.A.3 and detailed below. 2.4.1 The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that: "The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City." The application materials explain that the proposal utilizes the Performance Standards Option Chapter 18.3.9 as is required in the PSO overlay. The Commission finds that with the approval of the exception to street standards, discussed below, the proposal will meet all applicable ordinance requirements, and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.2 The second approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, "Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity." The Planning Commission notes that the application materials assert that adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the development, and that based on consultations with representatives of the various City departments (i.e. water, sewer, streets and electric) the four new housing units will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. The application explains, and Public Works has confirmed, that there is a six-inch water main in Sylvia Street, a four -inch water main in Alicia Street, and a fire hydrant is in place directly across from the driveway on Alicia Street. The applicant further asserts that there is adequate water pressure available to provide water service to the proposed new units. The application explains, and Public Works has confirmed, that there is a six-inch sanitary sewer line within the right-of-way for Alicia Street and Sylvia Street. The applicant fiirther notes that in discussions with the sanitary sewer department, there are no reported capacity issues in the vicinity. The application concludes that the four units should not cause the system to operate beyond its current capacity. Public Works staff have indicated they see no issues for sanitary sewer capacity, and note that the development drains into a sewer trunk line east of Sylvia Street, and on into the Oak Street line north of Nevada Street where there are no known capacity issues. The application indicates that electrical infrastructure is available in the immediate vicinity, and that the applicant has worked with the electrical department to design the provided electrical service plan. The application notes, and Public Works has confirmed, that there is a ten -inch storm sewer line within the Sylvia Street right-of-way. The applicant explains that the subdivision is using low impact development standards as provided under the Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVSS) Standards for Storm Water Management with onsite retention. An existing fire hydrant is in place directly across Alicia Avenue from the driveway entrance. As is typical, the Fire Marshal will review the final civil drawings and building permit submittals for compliance with fire codes relative to water supply and dire apparatus access. The Planning Commission finds that with the forgoing that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.3 The third criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, "The existing and natural features PA -T2-2024-00046 April 9, 2024 Page 5 of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas." The Planning Commission notes that the wetland here is supported by an artificial water source (irrigation water) which the applicant intends to cut-off and pipe to the adjacent property. The Planning Commission finds that this wetland is not subject to regulation under AMC 18.3.11 given the uncertain, artificial water source, as supported by DSL's determination. The Planning Commission notes that there are no other qualifying natural features and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.4 The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, "The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan." The application materials provided explain that the adjacent properties are developed. Recognizing that existing development patterns and physical constraints may limit development of the adjacent properties, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed subdivision and its associated access and utility installation will not prevent the adjacent lands from being developed as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.5.5 The fifth approval criterion is that, "There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project." The application materials indicate that the applicant will provide Homeowners' Association (HOA) Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R's) and By -Laws which include provisions for the long-term operation and maintenance the common area and private drive, and a condition of approval has been included below requiring the same to be provided for review prior to the recording of the final fat. With the inclusion of this conditions, the Planning Commission finds that there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of the open space and common areas, and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.6 The sixth criterion is that, "The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter." The base density for R-1-5 development under the Performance Standards Option Chapter is 41/2 dwelling units per acre. The parent parcel here is 1.26 acres, and the base density is 5.67 dwelling units (1.26 acres x 4.5 dwelling units/acre = 5.67 dwelling units). The proposed density is four dwelling units. The Planning Commission notes that four dwellings is within the allowed density, and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.7 The seventh Outline Plan approval criterion is that, "The development complies with the Street Standards." As mentioned above the application also includes a Variance to the number of lots allowed to access a private drive (the requirement to dedicate a public road for four lots), which in turn requires an exception to the Street Standards. Therefore, this approval criterion can only be satisfied if the Variance and exception to the street standards are granted. The Planning Commission notes that the Alicia Avenue right-of-way is unimproved with no sidewalks, curbs or gutters in place on either side of the street, and right-of-way beyond the pavement is gravel. For residential neighborhood streets, city street standards envision five-foot sidewalks, seven -foot park row planting strips, a six-inch curb. With the limited street frontage to be taken up with required driveway improvements, there is no additional width for sidewalk installation. PA -T2-2024-00046 April 9, 2024 Page 6 The Planning Commission notes that the code requires the dedication of a public road for four lots, however in the present case the road would be a short dead-end cul-de-sac which would not contribute to the transportation network of the city. As such, the Public Works Department would not be inclined to accept a public roadway that does not further the public good. The property configuration prevents the extension of any public street system, and the development pattern on adjacent properties to the north and south also prevent the extension of an interconnected street system. The Planning Commission notes that the variance to allow a private driveway to serve four lots instead of three is the minimum necessary. The Planning Commission notes that the private driveway will be dedicated as fire apparatus access. The Planning Commission notes that based on the forgoing both the Variance and an Exception to the Street Standards are merited. The Planning Commission notes that the applicant shall be required to sign -in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future improvement of Alicia Avenue, and of Oak Lawn Avenue which provides a connection out to Oak Street and the broader sidewalk system, and a condition of approval to that affect has been included below. The Planning Commission further notes that while the exception is merited it is important to ensure safe pedestrian access. The Planning Commission finds that a condition of approval is required to ensure safe pedestrian access to wit: That to address `safe pedestrian access' the applicant shall provide a modified civil plan that includes an at grade change in materials (concrete) within the 20' improvement to provide pedestrian access that will support accessibility as well as fire truck apparatus. The Planning Commission fords that with the forgoing that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.8 The final approval criterion is that, "The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland." The Performance Standards Option Chapter requires that at least five percent of the total lot area be provided in common open space for developments with a base density of ten units or greater. The Planning Commission notes that the present application only has four lots so common open space is not required and that this approval criterion is satisfied. The Planning Commission concludes based on the above that all applicable approval criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval have been satisfied. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the approval criteria for Final Plan are intended to insure substantial conformance between Outline Plan approval and Final Plan approval when the two are requested as separate procedural steps. The Planning Commission finds that where the two are allowed to be filed concurrently, as is the case here, there is no procedural separation between the two and the concurrent Final Plan proposal is identical to the Outline Plan in terms of number of dwelling units, yard depths, distances between buildings, common open spaces, building sizes, building elevations and exterior materials, standards resulting in density bonuses, and street standards. The Planning Commission concludes that the final plan approval criteria are met. 2.6 The Planning Commission notes that the application includes a request to remove a `significant' plum tree which is in conflict with the proposed private drive. The Planning PA -T2-2024-00046 April 9, 2024 Page 7 Commission notes that the Tree Management Advisory Committee reviewed the application and agreed that the tree was in poor form and recommended approval of the removal. The Planning Commission finds that the criteria of approval are met and that AMC 18.5.7.040.2.e. provides that "The City shall require the applicant to mitigate far the removal of each tree granted approval. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit." A condition of approval to that effect has been included below. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of the criteria of approval for Outline and Final Plan approval have been met, as was presented in the applicant's submittal, as well as the Staff Report dated March 12th, and by each of their reference are hereby incorporated herein as if set out in full. 2.8 Following the closing of the public hearing The Planning Commission deliberated and a motion was made approving the Outline and Final Plan application subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report. 2.9 The Planning Commission finds that with the conditions of approval included in this decision below, the proposal satisfies the relevant approval criteria. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for a 5 -lot, 4 -residential unit Performance Standards subdivision Outline and Final Plan, including a variance to street standards and an exception to street standards and a tree removal is supported by evidence contained within the whole record and is approved including the conditions of approval below. The conditions of approval are below: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) That the private drive shall have a six-foot six-inch buffer with a six-inch curb from the property to the west. 3) That to address `safe pedestrian access' the applicant shall provide a modified civil plan that includes an at grade change in materials (concrete) within the 20' improvement to provide pedestrian access that will support accessibility as well as fire truck apparatus. 4) That a mitigation tree be planted consistent with AMC 18.5.7.050, such planting shall be a large stature tree at maturity. 5) That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any additional work in the public right of way. 6) That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10. l OO.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. PA -T2-2024-00046 April 9, 2024 Page 8 7) That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months of Final Plan approval and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. Prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for signature: a. All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, public pedestrian and public bicycle access, drainage, irrigation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. b. Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities, driveways, streets and common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved. c. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. d. That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved. e. The properly owner shall sign in favor of Local Improvement Districts (LIDS) for the future street improvements, including but not limited to paving, sidewalks, park row with irrigated street trees, curb, gutter, storm drainage and undergrounding of utilities, for Alicia and Oak Lawn Avenues. This LID agreement shall be signed and recorded concurrently with the final survey plat, Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. f. A copy of the proposed CC&R's to ensure the future maintenance of the private drive, compliance with the tree protection plan, and fencing regulations. S) That the building permit submittals shall include the following: a. Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public and private utility easements, mutual access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. b. Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units comply with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula [(Height —6) / (0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. c. Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the applicable coverage allowances of the R-1-5 zoning district. Lot coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping. d. That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water PA -T2-2024-00046 April 9, 2024 Page 9 collection system through the curb or gutter at a public street, a public storm pipe, an approved public drainage way, or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD -PP -0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. p Planning Commission Approval Date PA -T2-2024-00046 April 9, 2024 Page 10 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson j The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On April 11, 2024 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -T2-2024-00046, 210 Alicia Avenue. MichaeBuCCivan Signature of Employee GAcomm-da,Api9nningT1aan1ngAcgonsTAs by 5UeeMWlciaUAlicia_210WEcia_210—PA-T2-2024000464Notemg%ODWicia 210_PA-T2-2024-00046_NOp AtfidatitofMafl[ng.doex411112024 PA -T2-2024-00046 KAS & ASSOCIATES 304 N HOLLY ST MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -T2-2024-00046 391E04DB1700 ADDERSON CONSTRUCTION INC 3144 PAYNE RD MEDFORD, OR 97504 PA -T2-2024-00046 POLARIS LAND SURVEYING PO BOX 459 ASHLAND, OR 97520 210 Alicia Ave NOD o4/�.a/24 4 Kip. to avery.com/ fetnp a es Use Avery Template 5160 PA -T2-2024-00046 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1314-B CENTER DR PMB #457 MEDFORD, OR 97501 Pat: avery,com/patents ; Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel' Allen a avery.ca/gabarits E z CITY 0 I I TW NY` NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2023-00046 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 210 Alicia Ave APPLICANTIOWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services OWNER: Adderson Construction Inc. DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five -lot Performance Standards Subdivision (4 residential lots, 1 common area) for the property located at 210 Alicia Ave. The application also includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units (AMC 18.4.6.040.0.1) where dedication of a public street is typically required. The application also includes an Exception to Street Standards due to the existing unimproved street. The application also includes the request to remove a single 20" plum tree along the western side of the property as it is in conflict with the proposed driveway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 04 DB; TAX LOT: 1700 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday March 12, 2024 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East gain Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 oshland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900 E ire r" nwn ..:�..:.: 3== Alici a Avg ; v s _ 3 r � �G, I 1 M CFO, a - rJ " w Z 1 n. Cnsain `t _.. _ 3� q.`4,r I i I r Y2�j E n s i s COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 oshland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at "What's Happening in my City" at https:Ilgis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre -arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning(c-)ashland. or. us. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-552-2052 or aaron.anderson apashland.or.us In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title l). OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (AMC 18.3.9,044.A.3) Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 it approved by the City of Ashland. APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAN 18.3.9.040.B.5 Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.468.5305 Mr Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 Mal ashtond.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900 L A" N D" provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria. a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent, e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan, f, That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved, g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.8.1 Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable, i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience, ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e„ comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii, For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4,6,040.A. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1, The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.B) Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18,4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552,2050 tqr� ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900 CIdTY 0 I S w WW LAN D""' b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. C. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance, e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 98.5,7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT " 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2054 as hla nd.or.us TTY: 800.7352900 i' AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On February 13, 20241 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 -T2-2024- 00046, 210 Alicia Avenue. MichaeCSuCliyan Signature of Employee G:lcnmm-devlplanning)Planning AclionslPAs by StreeMWiciaWida_21 Mda_210_PA-T2-2024-000UNo0cingWcia_210_ PA T2-2024-001}46_NOG—MdaA of Mail %docx 2/1312024 ��Iknw PF PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CA1401 I PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04DB1700 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CA1009 ABEL ERIK TRUSTEE ET AL ADDERSON CONSTRUCTION INC i BRADY JAMES/PATRICIA 680 OAK ST 3144 PAYNE RD 2305-C ASHLAND ST # 408 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CA1007 FOSTER PETER S/KRISTAL 207 ALICIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CA1010 HENIGSON STUART F/SARAH L 1849 N KILPATRICK ST PORTLAND, OR 97217 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CA1008 KEARNS HANK J TRUSTEE JR ET A 210 OAKLAWN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 391E04DB401 MACE PAUL B/KATHLEEN KAHLE 345 CLINTON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CA1604 MOORE MATTHEW F/LIBBI L 646 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 POLARIS LAND SURVEYING PO BOX 459 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 391E04DB1600 VANDYKE DAN/CLAUDIA 732 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CA1300 GILLINGHAM CHRISTOPHER D/SIMO 694 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CA1204 JAFFE SUE A 206 ALICIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CA1205 KRAUSNICK CHARLES C TRUSTEE E 204 ALICIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CAl603 MARYANOFF STEVEN R 654 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-202400046 391 E04DBI600 O'GRADY SEAN B DE COURCEY/0'G 740 SYLVIA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CAl 101 RIBLE JAMES Y 730 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CA1201 WAND BRUCE DAVID/SANDRA M 700 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel` E i RepRez a la hachure a€in de reveler be rebord Pop-up' ;i PA -T2-202400046 391 E04CAl 202 GOLDMAN MICHAEL TRUSTEE ET AL PO BOX 1286 j ASHLAND, OR 97520 I PA -T2-2024-00046 E KAS & ASSOCIATES 304 N HOLLY ST MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04DB1400 LANG KATHERINE E TRUSTEE ET A PO BOX 7047 BROOKINGS, OR 97415 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04CA1602 MCCRACKEN SYLVIA MARIE 1467 SISKIYOU BLVD 94 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 391 E04DB1800 PATRICK-RILEY KENT/COLLEEN C 675 CAROL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00046 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1314-B CENTER DR PMB #457 MEDFORD, OR 97501 i 210 Alicia Ave NOC 02/13/24 23 Allez a ' avery.ca/gabarits Utlisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 t. ROGUE PLANNING O DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC February 9, 2024 Community Development Department Ashland Planning Division 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 This document provides additional information is in response to the incomplete application determination letter dated February 8, 2024, regarding PA -T2-2024-00046. There is not a jurisdictional wetland on the subject property that requires protection or preservation per state statue. There are no wetlands as defined by Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.6.1.030, definitions of Wetlands which define `possible wetlands' that would be subject to the statues found in Chapter 18.3.11.020.A.B., C. and 18.3.11.040.B.2., Water Resource Protection Zones, Applicability and Establishment of Water Resource Protection Zones. Thus the "wetland" is not considered a natural feature within the context of preservation of natural features from the Performance Standards Subdivision Chapter 18.3.9.040.A.3.c. The property at 210 Alicia Street had a previous approval of an Outline Plan for a 12 -unit, 13 -lot Cottage House Subdivision (PA -T2-2020-00017). At that time what was considered by the project team to be a potential wetland was identified and a protection zone proposed. As a condition of approval, delineation of the possible wetland area was required prior to final plan (Condition #I'1). Extensive discussion of the possible wetland area is found on pg. 12 of the Planning Commission, Findings and Orders of PA -T2-2020-00017. The Commission found that: Potential Wetland The Commission notes that a possible wetland which is not noted on the city's Local Wetlands inventory has been identified on the subject property, and the applicant suggests it was formed because the "Million Ditch" irrigation canal passes through the property and continues on to the property immediately to the east The potential wetland area has been preliminarily assessed by a wetland biologist with Northwest Biological Consultants who has provided a letter indicating the wetland is a small area affected by irrigation water overflow from an open ditch and disconnected pipe which has since been repaired, and notes that the presence of upland soils and weak indicators of soils, plants, and hydrology suggest the presence of a small, marginal wetland. The letter goes on to note that with the pipe repaired and the artificial water source eliminated, new data will be collected this spring to determine whether removal of the artificial water source has eliminated the source of artificial hydrology for the potential wetland. The wetland biologist indicates that they believe this will be the case and that ROGUE PLANNING 8 OEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC as such, the area will be determined not to be a jurisdictional wetland upon review by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). The Planning Commission finds that if the possible wetland is found to be iurisdictional by DSL,, an area extending 20 foot beyond its upland edge would be required to be protected within a Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) as provided in AMC 18.3.11. , ,,.,,.,.._ As noted, following the 2020 Planning Commission decision, additional data was collected and the DSL concurred with the Scott English, Wetlands Biologist have evaluated the site found evidence of a wetland on the subject property but that the wetland is non -jurisdictional because it is in an upland created by irrigation waters. According to the Oregon Department of State Lands the identified "wetland" on-site is created in an upland by irrigation and is exempt from jurisdictional protections. "One wetland and a recently piped irrigation ditch were identified. However, both the wetland and ditch are exempt and not subject to the permit requirements of the state Removal -Fill law. The recently -piped ditch, even prior to being piped, is exempt per OAR 141-085-0515(8), and the wetland is exempt per OAR 141-085-0515(6). The wetland was determined to be created in uplands by irrigation and the total l — area, including the portion extending offsite to the east, is less than an acre." Peter Ryan, SPWS: ORDSL, Aquatic Resource Specialist This "wetland" is only saturated because of poor irrigation water management. The "wetland" is not equal to or greater than one acre and it's not created in whole or in part in waters of the state thus not a wetland. The irrigation pipeline will be replaced during the construction and extended to the property line as per the agreement with the adjacent property owners (exempt activity per OAR 141-085- 0515(8)). As a result, the "wetland" source will be further eliminated on the subject property. Because it is not a wetland, and the source of the wetland will be eliminated, there are no protections provided for poorly maintained irrigation systems, nor should there be any as the source is not permanent. See additional findings addressing the criteria below. ROGUE PLANNING 9 OEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONE Chapter 18.3.11 18.3.11.020 —Applicability C. The burden is on the property owner to demonstrate that the requirements of this chapter are met or are not applicable to development activity or other proposed use or alteration of land. The StaffAdvisor may make a determination based on the Water Resources map, field check, and any other relevant maps, site plans, and information that a Water Resource or Water Resource Protection Zone is not located on a particular site or is not impacted by proposed development, activities or uses. In cases where the location of the Water Resource or Water Resource Protection Zone is unclear or disputed, the Staff Advisor may require a survey, delineation prepared by a natural resource professional, or a sworn statement from a natural resource professional that no Water Resources or Water Resource Protection Zones exist on the site. Finding: There is a non -jurisdictional, non-regulated, 'wetland' delineated on the site. It was found by a natural resource specialist and concurred by the State of Oregon Department of State Lands, Aquatic Resource Specialist that the "wetland" on site is created in an upland area by irrigation waters (WD -2021-0205) and is exempt from regulations. The irrigation waters will be further piped away from the site with the proposed development (exempt activity per ORS -141-085- 0515(8)) which will eliminate the source of the delineated but not regulated `wetland'. Ashland's Water Resource Protections Zone ordinance includes language seeking Possible Wetlands. AMC 18.3.11.040.6.2. "...the Wetland Protection Zone shall consist of all lands identified to have a wetland presence on the wetland delineation plus all lands within 20 feet of the upland -wetland edge... Possible Wetlands includes all areas designated as such on the Water Resources map and any unmapped wetlands discovered on site." Though a possible wetland could be conceived as "any unmapped wetlands discovered onsite'. The intent of the distinct definitions of Locally Significant wetlands and Possible Wetland which in both cases are areas that meet DSL wetland criteria. The 'delineated wetland' discovered on this site is exempt from protections per the applicable OAR as noted by the DSL and does not meet wetland criteria. Additionally, the source is able to be turned off and on and relocated, piped, and altered thus no wetland protections should apply. The definition of Possible Wetland finds that, "...there may be additional existing areas that meet the DSL wetland criteria but are not included on the Water Resources Map." This does not meet the municipal code definition of a Possible Wetland. The City of Ashland definitions of a wetland includes: AMC 18.6.1.030. Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are a type of water resource. ROGUE PLANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC - Wetlands, Locally Significant Those wetlands identified on the Water Resources Map and determined significant wetlands using the criteria adopted the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). Locally significant wetlands is a type of wetland protection zone. - Wetlands, Possible An area that appears to meet wetland criteria but is too small (less than a half -acre according to Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) rules) to require its inclusion in the Local Wetland Inventory, The Water Resources Map notes areas that are in the possible wetland designation, However, there may be additional existing areas that meet the DSL wetland criteria, but are not included on the Water Resources Map. Possible wetlands is a type of wetland protection zone. In conclusion, it can be found that based on the findings of the Wetland Specialist and confirmed by the Oregon Department of State Lands, the wetland area in question does not meet the definition of possible wetland from the city's own definition which states "meets DSL wetland criteria', and is explicitly exempted from regulation by the DSL through OAR 141-085- 0515(8) for the relocation and repair of the irrigation ditch, and the wetland is exempt per OAR 141-085-0515(6). This application does not include the "wetland" area on any of the plans or within the findings, because it is not a natural feature, and it is not jurisdictional. The source will be modified as exempted by Oregon Administrative Rules. For these reasons there are no 'wetlands' shown on the subdivision application documents as natural features to be preserved in an unbuildable state. ' CITY OF H LAN 'r, J; Applicant's statement of Completeness (To be completed by the Applicant and returned to the City of Ashland Planning Division) Re: PA -T2-2024-00046,210 Alicia Ave. Date Application Expires: August 3, 2024 Pursuant to an Incompleteness Determination, I, the undersigned applicant or agent for the applicant, elects one of the three options below by initialing: ( ADG 1. Submit All of the Missing Information (Initial rf elected) am submitting all of the information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter. Unless checked below, I am requesting that the City of Ashland Planning Division review this additional information within 30 days of submission to determine whether the application is complete. I understand that this 30 -day review for completeness period for the new information preserves my opportunity to submit additional materials, should it be determined that the application is still incomplete after the second review. (Note: The 120 -day period for the City of Ashland's final determination of compliance with applicable criteria does not commence until the additional review for completeness period is completed) Check if desireai I waive further review of the information submitted for completeness and direct review of the information submitted for compliance with the Community Development Code criteria, regardless of whether the application is, in fact, later determined by the staff to be incomplete. I understand that by checking the above statement the application will be evaluated based upon the material submitted and no notice of any missing information will be given. if material information is missing from the application, the application will fail to meet the burden of showing that all criteria are met, and the application will be denied. ( ^) 2. Submit some of the Requested information: (Inrtral if elected) Decline to Provide Other Information I am submitting some of the information requested and declining to submit other information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter. I understand that by declining to submit all information the City of Ashland believes necessary, the Ashland Planning Division may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommended. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 a s hlond,or,us TTY: 800.735.2900 �CITY ®IF �"HLAN LJ ( 3. Decline to Provide any of the Requested information (initial, rf elected) I decline to provide any of the information requested. I understand that the Community Development Department may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommended. Sig a and Acknowledged (Applicant or Applicant's Agent) 2.9.2024 Date Return to: City of Ashland, Planning Division Attn: Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Whburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 as htond.or.us TTY: 800.735,2900 Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-488-6006 ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Email: Planning@ashland,onus FILE #_ - ��-" , 0004 0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Performance Standards Subdivision (5 Lots), Variance to provide private street DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 210 Alicia Avenue Assessor's Map No. 391E OBD Tax Lots) Zoning R -1-5-P Camp Plan Designation Pursuing LEER@ Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO 1700 Single Family Residential APPLICANT Name Rogue Planning & Development Phone 541-951-402iE-Mail Address 1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457 PROPERTY OWNER Name Adderson Construction Inc. amygunter.planning@gmaii.com city Medford Phone 541 -601 -310'E -Mail Zip 97501 chrisadderson@gmail.com Address 3144 Payne Road City Medford Zip 97504 SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Surveyor Name Polaris Land Surveying Phone 541-482-5009 Address PO BOX 459 Title Engineering Name KAS and Associates Address 304 N Holly Street E -Mail shawn@polarissurv( city Ashland Zip 97520 Phone 541-772-5807 E -Mail kas@kasinc.com city Medford Zip 97501 I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct, t understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect the owner assumes full responsibility. t further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that 1 produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request,' 2) that the findings of fact furnishedlustifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. if l have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. .c4my— U4&4_ 2..2.2024 Applicant's g tore Date As owner of the property involved in this request, f have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. cir,t�deY�on 02/02/2024 cnr.neea�ree, rrza u,3fm Property Owner's Signature (required) Date [ro be completed by City Stafq Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee OVER 0 Gkonsm-devlplanningTotms & HandoutstiZoning Permit Application.doc ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ® APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. go PLANNING FEES FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. ® FINDINGS OF FACT — Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it, Include information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre -Application Comment document. ® TRUE SCALE PDF DRAWINGS — Standard scale and formatted to print no larger than 11x17 inches. Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. ® FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) ® LEEDO CERTIFICATION (optional) — Applicant's wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps: • Hiring and retaining a LEEDO Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project, and • The LEEDO checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. NOTE: • Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. • Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. • All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance with ORS 227.178. • The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission meeting. (Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St). • A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns. • If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions. GAcomm-devSplmmingSPorms k HnndoutAZoning Pe mit Appiinkn.d= Adderson Construction Company 210 Alicia Avenue — Ash Meadows a Performance Standards Subdivision ROGUE PLANNING 9 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC February 2, 2024 Ash Meadows A Five Lot Performance Standards Subdivision Variance for four lots to use private driveway and not a public street Property owner: Adderson Construction Inc. 3144 Payne Road Medford OR 97504 Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Amy Gunter 1314-B Center Dr. PMB ##457 Medford, OR 97501 Engineering: KAS and Associates 304 N Holly Street Medford, OR 97501 Surveying: Polaris Land Surveying PO Box 459 Ashland, OR 97520 Subiect Prooert Address: 210 Alicia Avenue Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 04 BD; Tax Lot 1700 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Zoning: R -1-5-P Adjacent Zones: R-1-5 and R -1-5-P Lot Area: 1.26 acres Overlays: Wildfire Overlay Development Page I of 28 REQUEST: The request is for approval of a five lot, Performance Standards Subdivision for the development of residential housing on a partially vacant property at 210 Alicia Avenue. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND: The subject property is on the south side of Alicia Avenue where Alicia turns into Sylvia Street. The property is to the east of Oak Street and south of the Oak Court Subdivision. The property is zoned single family residential, R-1-5. All surrounding properties are zoned Single Family Residential, and R-1-5, Performance Standards Overlay. The adjacent properties are generally improved with single family residences of various sizes and out -buildings. The property has 46.19 -feet of frontage on the south side of the Alicia Avenue and Sylvia Street intersection. The property extends approximately 221 -feet to the south, where the property widens to approximately 280 -feet of width, east to west. The property extends 211 feet to the north, and 219.5 feet back to the beginning. The property area is 1..26 acres in area. There is a 1,183 square foot, single -story, manufactured residence with a 340 square foot, attached garage. The structure is approximately 20 - feet from the north r rt I' d 50-f t f th ALICIA AVE, 1 i PS 1700 ;;;� 1 ZB Ac t�' l G512139 ss con. rs 76r,7n xvoes� F ape y ane an ee rom e west property line. There is a small shed on the site south of the residence. The storage shed will be removed from the property. There are six trees that are more than six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) on the subject property. There is a 20 -inch Plum near the west property line. On the east side of the property there is a 10 -inch walnut, and two smaller stature willows, one eight -inch and ten -inches DBH. There are two 20" DBH Willow trees south of the smaller willows. An irrigation easement for the Million Ditch, a historic irrigation system traverses the property leading to the adjacent property at 345 Clinton Street (Tax Lot 401). The property is accessed from Alicia Avenue via a gravel driveway. Alicia Avenue and Sylvia Street are classified as neighborhood streets according to the Transportation System Plan. The streets are dedicated as 47 -foot wide right of way. The streets are improved with an asphalt travel lane surface only and lacking standard street improvements like, curb, gutter, landscape Page 2 of 28 park row, street trees and sidewalks. The entire street network from Oak Street to Oaklawn, to Alicia to Sylvia is non -conforming. There is a 6 -inch water main in Sylvia Street and a 4 -inch water main in Alicia Avenue. There is a fire hydrant across Alicia Avenue from the driveway entrance into the subject property. There is a 6 -inch sanitary sewer main in Sylvia Street. There is a 1.0 -inch storm sewer line in Sylvia Street. Avista gas, and Ashland Fiber Network are also available to serve the property. Electric service is underground from primary services on Oak Street. The properties to the north and west are part of a 1960s era residential subdivision, Oak Court Subdivision that created the Alicia Avenue and Sylvia Street neighborhood. To the east of the subject property line, the hillslopes downhill towards the Bear Creek Valley. Below the hillside is the Riverwalk Subdivision, Riverwalk Park, the Mace Property, and a new City of Ashland Park that will extend the Riverwalk Park to the north are present. Page 3 of 28 PROPOSAL: The request is for approval of a five -lot, residential subdivision. The property is within the Performance Standards Overlay zone and is required to be processed as a Performance Standards Subdivision. The property is to be accessed via a shared driveway, fire apparatus access lane within Lot 5. There are four residential lots accessed via the private driveway. Only three residential lots are allowed to be accessed via a private driveway, thus a variance to the number of lots accessed via a public street is required. An exception to Street Standards is necessary to address the lack of frontage improvements upon Sylvia Street / Alicia Avenue right of way following installation of the proposed driveway and required driveway apron and transition to the non -conforming street system. As shown on the preliminary site plan, the lot dimensions, lot areas, access width for the private drives, large area lot development standards meet or can meet through the standards for residential development. Lot 1: 210 Alicia Avenue is proposed to be 13,420 square feet (.32 acres). The lot is proposed to have 42.56 feet of frontage upon the new private driveway. The lot extends 192.5 feet to the east. The lot is proposed to be reoriented as allowed through the Performance Standards with the frontage upon the private driveway. The existing residence and garage will remain on the site and comply with the setbacks in the R-1-5 zone. The future building setbacks are shown on the building envelope layout plan. The perimeter setback along the north property line is maintained. The lots north to south lot dimension complies with the solar standards and a 21 -foot tall structure can be constructed on the lot that does not exceed the lots north to south dimension. The existing private driveway serving the property and the garage of the residence will be removed and replaced with landscape and yard area features. The vehicular and pedestrian access to the lot will be shared from the new private driveway (Lot 5) which provides access to the four development lots within the subdivision. There are no significant natural features upon this property. Lot 2: Page 4 of 28 Lot 2 is proposed as a 14,112 square foot (.32 acre) lot with 74.03 feet of frontage upon the private driveway and extends 187.38 feet to the east. This lot is vacant of structures. This lot also complies with the minimum north to south dimensions for compliance with solar setbacks. The irrigation line and easement will be relocated from its present location and shifted to the south to increase the buildable area. Where the present irrigation line terminates, there are four willow trees and a walnut tree. All are not significant trees and three are less than the threshold for tree protection and preservation requirements in the residential zone. The willow trees are within the building envelopes. A tree removal permit will be obtained if necessary at the time of development. There is ample developable area outside of the easement area for the driveways and the irrigation canal for the residential development. Lot 3: Lot 3 is proposed as a 14,106 square feet (.32 acres) lot. The lot has 25 -feet of frontage upon the private driveway. The lot extends 203.30 feet to the east. The barn structure shown on the survey plan was recently removed. This lot also complies with the minimum north to south dimensions for compliance with solar setbacks. Lot 4: Proposed Lot #4 is a 7,495 square foot (.17 acre) lot. This lot is approximately 76.88 feet by 101.73 feet and has more than 31 feet of frontage upon the private driveway. This lot is vacant of structures. The northwest corner of the property is near two larger stature trees on the adjacent properties. The dripline of the trees falls outside of the building envelope and is outside of the construction impact areas. The trees themselves are fenced off from the property. Lot 5: Lot 5 is the proposed private driveway within an open space tract. Lot 5 will consist of the 20 -foot paved fire apparatus access and along the west property line, the four required parking spaces will be provided adjacent to the paved driveway and outside of the fire apparatus access. The water meters and service lines are along the west property line. The electric transformers located to the west of the existing driveway will be relocated and easement provided to extend services under the driveway. Sanitary sewer laterals are extended through the driveway. All necessary public and private utilities can be extended from Alicia Avenue and Sylvia Street within the driveway and within utility easements that provide service from the public facilities to the individual development lots. The 20 -inch DBH Plum tree is located within the area of Lot 5. The tree will be required to be removed to facilitate the construction of the driveway. Access and Circulation: Page 5 of 28 The proposed private driveway access provides limited access to four residential lots with low numbers of vehicle trips generated by the dwellings. The four lots accessed from a private driveway does not substantially impact the exiting neighborhood street pattern and driveway spacing on Alicia Avenue and Sylvia Street that a public street would. The proposed driveway includes a five-foot landscape buffer along the west side, a 15 -foot travel surface and 20 -feet of clear width. The driveway terminates into an approved fire truck apparatus access hammerhead turnaround. This type of layout is proposed due to the lack of street connectivity beyond the boundaries of the subject property. The area of dedication required for a Neighborhood Street is a substantial area of the small area of development property. The extension of the street would be dead -ended and the extension would only to serve a small residential subdivision. This lack of connectivity to adjacent properties and to other public streets is largely due to the layout of the 1960s subdivision of Alicia Avenue and Syliva Street that created the neighborhood, the topography of the hillside on the east side of the subject property and those to the north and south, prevent street extension, also the variance is necessary due to the adjacent properties prohibition on development the street would not serve any additional properties beyond the four lots within the proposed subdivision. Public right of way improvements: The proposal to provide the driveway with an asphalt connection to the existing edge of street, a five- foot wide sidewalk is proposed along the east side of the access driveway is proposed to terminate into the existing street asphalt. There are not sidewalks, parkrows, curb or gutter proposed in the public right- of-way as the existing streets have no improvements, and the frontage width of the property is 34'-4" with 30 -feet of hardscape proposed. The proposed vehicular access is responsive to the subject property and the adjacent properties physical layout, lack of public right of way frontage, position of adjacent property driveways, limited vehicular trips and the limited number of residences. On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Times New Roman font and the applicant's responses are in Calibri font. Page 6 of 28 Page 7 of 28 Findings of Fact Subdivision Findings: 18.3.9.030 Performance Standards Overlay: The subject property is within of the PSO Overlay and is required to be processed as a PSO Subdivision. The proposal is for Outline and Final Plan for a five lot subdivision. The layout of the proposed development preserves the large lot characteristics found in the adjacent developments. There are no significant natural features excepting a 20 -inch DBH Plum Tree. The property owner, Adderson Construction will be financing the project using private lending. will have necessary access easement, utility easements, and maintenance agreements provided prior to recording of the plat. The development is proposed as a tax lot layout. Blanket easement for utilities, access, maintenance over Lot 5. Other easements are identified on the preliminary subdivision plat. The property owner has tasked the project engineers to create final utility installation plans. ideally construction starts before May. Following utility installation, building permits for construction of one of the residences will be obtained within one year. The surveyor will provide the final survey plat following utility installation and within one year of the decision. 18.3.9.040. A.3. Outline Plan Approval Criteria The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. Finding: The applicant finds that all applicable ordinance requirements of the City have been met. As detailed in the written summary above, the findings on the subsequent pages and the attached site plans, exhibits and attached documents, full compliance with city standards for a Performance Standards Subdivision for the development residential dwellings accessed via a private driveway. The number of lots proposed to access the private driveway exceeds three and a variance is required. Lot 1: 210 Alicia Avenue is proposed to be 13,420 square feet (.32 acres). The lot is proposed to have 42.56 feet of frontage upon the new private driveway. The lot extends 192.5 feet to the east. The lot has a maximum coverage of 6,710 square feet +200 square feet of porous solid surface. The lot is proposed to be reoriented as allowed through the Performance Standards with the frontage upon the private driveway. The existing residence and garage will remain on the site and comply with the setbacks in the R-1-5 zone. The future building setbacks are shown on the building envelope layout plan. Page 8 of 28 The perimeter setback along the north property line is maintained. The lots north to south lot dimension complies with the solar standards and a 21 -foot tall structure can be constructed on the lot that does not exceed the lots north to south dimension. The existing private driveway serving the property and the garage of the residence will be removed and replaced with landscape and yard area features. The vehicular and pedestrian access to the lot will be shared from the new private driveway (Lot 5) which provides access to the four development lots within the subdivision. There are no significant natural features upon this property. Lot 2: Lot 2 is proposed as a 14,112 square foot (.32 acre) lot with 74.03 feet of frontage upon the private driveway and extends 187.38 feet to the east. This lot is vacant of structures. Coverage of the lot is allowed to be a maximum of 7,056 square feet +200 square feet of porous solid surface. This lot also complies with the minimum north to south dimensions for compliance with solar setbacks. The irrigation line and easement will be relocated from its present location and shifted to the south to increase the buildable area. Where the present irrigation line terminates, there are four willow trees and a walnut tree. All are not significant trees and three less than the threshold for tree protection and preservation requirements in the residential zone. The 20 -inch DBH willows are within the building envelope. If proposed for removal with home construction a tree removal permit as necessary will be obtained. There is ample developable area outside of the easement area for the driveways and the irrigation canal for the residential development. Lot 3: Lot 3 is proposed as a 14,106 square feet (.32 acres) lot. The lot has 25 -feet of frontage upon the private driveway. The lot extends 203.30 feet to the east. The barn structure shown on the survey plan was recently removed. The maximum lot coverage is 7,053 square feet +200 square feet of porous solid surface. This lot also complies with the minimum north to south dimensions for compliance with solar setbacks. Lot 4: Proposed Lot #4 is a 7,495 square foot (.17 acre) lot. This lot is approximately 76.88 feet by 101.73 feet and has more than 31 feet of frontage upon the private driveway. This lot is vacant of structures. The maximum lot coverage is 3,747.5 square feet +200 square feet of porous solid surface. The northwest corner of the property is near two larger stature trees on the adjacent properties. The dripline of the trees falls outside of the building envelope and is outside of the construction impact areas. The trees themselves are fenced off from the property. Page 9 of 28 Lot 5: Lot 5 is the proposed private driveway within an open space tract. Lot 5 will consist of the 20 -foot paved fire apparatus access and along the west property line, the four required parking spaces will be provided adjacent to the paved driveway and outside of the fire apparatus access. The water meters and service lines are along the west property line. The electric transformers located to the west of the existing driveway will be relocated and easement provided to extend services under the driveway. Sanitary sewer laterals are extended through the driveway. All necessary public and private utilities can be extended from Alicia Avenue and Sylvia Street within the driveway and within utility easements that provide service from the public facilities to the individual development lots. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. Finding: Adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the development. In consultation with representatives of the various City of Ashland Departments (i.e. Water, Sewer, Streets and Electric Division) the proposed subdivision will not cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity. The six-inch sanitary sewer line within Alicia Avenue and Sylvia Street right-of-way. In discussions with the Public Works Division, the proposed system has been designed to comply with the city standards. The proposed five lot subdivision, should not cause the system in the vicinity to operate beyond its current capacities. There is a six-inch water main within Sylvia Street and a four -inch main in Alicia Avenue. A hydrant is present across Alicia Avenue from the driveway. There is adequate water pressure to provide water service to new units. There is a 10 -inch storm drainage line within Sylvia Street. The project utilizes low impact development standards and complies with the RVSS Standards for Storm Water Managements. The low impact development and the large lot area with permeable soil allows for the site to provide for all stormwater detention and retention on-site and not flow of stormwater off-site. Electric infrastructure is available in the vicinity. At this time, discussions regarding the electrical infrastructure layout to the property owner. The property owner is the project contractor and has been in discussions with the Ashland Electric Department. An electric distribution plan has been provided. Page 10 of 28 The private driveway leading to the lots is proposed. The driveway is also the fire lane and a fire truck turnaround has been provided. The driveway will be paved to 20 -feet in paved width. The proposed fire lane is adequate infrastructure for a private driveway and to meet fire apparatus access requirements. The driveway apron and connection to Alicia Avenue right of way shifts the driveway to the south and west of the adjoining property to the northeast. These driveway aprons are less than 24 -feet in separation, but the separation is increased. The driveway apron to the west is more than 24 feet from the proposed driveway apron. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. Finding: The only natural feature on the property that meets the definition of `significant tree' is the 20 -inch DBH Plum Tree. This tree is within the driveway surface area. Also due to the type of tree —Plum, their average lifespan and it's location, the removal and mitigation of the tree is a better alternative than preservation within the subdivision. There are no other significant natural features on the site. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The properties to the north, south and west are developed with single family residences as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The property due east is privately owned and physically constrained. The next adjacent property is city of Ashland parkland. The development of the subject property will not prevent the adjacent properties from being developed as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. Finding: The proposal is for the development of tax lots with the fire lane and required parking for the Performance Standards subdivision on a common area lot. The common area will have access easement, utility and maintenance agreements and easements. These documents will be prepared by a land development attorney and provided with the final plat documents. Page 11 of 28 f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. Fines: The proposed density of the property is the maximum number of lots allowed in the zone per the density standards. The density in the R -1-5-P zone is 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The allowed density is 5.6 dwelling units. There are four residential development lots proposed. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. Finding: The proposed development is accessed via a private driveway that extends from the south corner of Sylvia Street and Alicia Street. According to AMC 18.4.6.040.65. Private Drive, a private drive is a road in private ownership, not dedicated to the public that serves three or less lots. Private drives are limited to development approved using the Performance Standards Option pursuant to chapter 18.3.9. A variance to allow four lots is requested to this standard and to not install a 47 -foot -wide public street to access only four lots when no future connectivity can be provided complies with the standards for variance. The proposal seeks an exception to street standards to not improve Alicia Avenue frontage. This is due to the existing public utility infrastructure and private driveway to adjacent residence on the west side of the 46 -foot wide lot frontage upon the public street at the curve in Alicia Avenue which eliminates any available right of way for improvements. To the east of the proposed private driveway will be the electric utility infrastructure and the water services and then the 20 -foot wide paved driveway. There is no public right of way on Alicia Avenue where park row or sidewalk could reasonably be installed. Additional findings addressing the Exception to Street Standards have been provided. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) from four residential lot four lots generates less than 50 motor vehicle trips per day which is less than the ADT for a private driveway. The driveway will have a speed of under 20 mph. The private driveway is paved to 20 feet and widens to 27 -feet for a portion of the driveway to allow for the required `publicly available' parking adjacent to the Fire Lane and outside of the dedicated 20 -foot fire apparatus access road in accordance with Oregon Fire Code, Section 503. If the future structures are greater than 24 feet in height, a Fire Work Area of 20 ft by 40 ft within 50 ft of the structures will be provided as necessary. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. Curbs, bike lanes, parkrows and sidewalks not required with Private Driveways. Page 12 of 28 The two public streets that access the property are not improved to city standards will only an asphalt travel lane and no curb, gutter, sidewalk or parkrow. Though the driveway separation is not met with the existing driveway curb cuts, the proposal increases driveway separation. The street standards also do not require interconnected streets when physical features such as topographical constraints or other natural features such as mature trees, drainage swales, wetlands, and floodplains can alter the required connection to adjacent properties (18.4.6.E.1). It can be found that the that the site's constraints, the lack of public street frontage that is not a driveway or utility area, and the adjacent properties development, the city's access management standards, and the performance standards criteria allow for a private driveway when connectivity cannot be provided beyond the proposed development. The private drive will be aesthetically pleasing and provides for more efficient land use, retains the neighborhood character and provides adequate transportation for the four development lots. h. The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland. Finding: Common open space is not required for a development with a density of less than ten. The common lot is for the driveway, utilities and the publicly available parking required per 18.8.9.060. 4. Approval of the Outline Plan. a. After the City approves an outline plan and adopts any zone change necessary for the development, the developer may then file a final plan in phases or in its entirety. Finding: The plan is filed in its entirety. b. If an outline plan is phased, 50 percent of the value of the common open space shall be provided in the first phase and all common open space shall be provided when two-thirds of the units are finished. Finding: The application is not for a phased subdivision. B. Final Plan. 5. Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications fiom one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria: Page 13 of 28 a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this ordinance. c. The common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the street standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space; provided, that if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the common open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. Finding: With the concurrent proposal, there are no intended modifications between outline and final plan. b. Any substantial amendment to an approved final plan shall follow a Type 1 procedure in section 18.5.1,040 and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria. Finding It is understood substantial amendment would require additional review. LAND DIVISIONS AND PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENTS 18.5.3.020 Applicability and General Requirements A. Applicability. The requirements for partitions and subdivisions apply, as follows. 1. Subdivisions are the creation of four or more lots from one parent lot, parcel, or tract, within one calendar year. Finding: The request is for approval of a five lot subdivision. B. Land Survey. Before any action is taken pursuant to this ordinance that would cause adjustments or realignment of property lines, required yard areas, or setbacks, the exact lot lines shall be validated by location of official survey pins or by a survey performed by a licensed surveyor. Finding: An official survey of the property has been performed by an Oregon licensed surveyor. Page 14 of 28 C. Subdivision and Partition Approval Through Two -Step Process. Applications for subdivision or partition approval shall be processed by means of a preliminary plat evaluation and a final plat evaluation. 1. The preliminary plat must be approved before the final plat can be submitted for review. 2. The final plat must demonstrate compliance with all conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. Finding: The proposal is for a preliminary plat review. D. Compliance With Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) chapter 92. All subdivision and partitions shall conform to state regulations in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions. Finding: The subdivision will conform to state regulations in ORS chapter 92. E. Future Re -Division Plan. When subdividing or partitioning tracts into large lots (i.e., greater than two times or 200 percent the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying land use district), the lots shall be of such size, shape, and orientation as to facilitate future re -division and extension of streets and utilities. The approval authority may require a development plan indicating how further division of oversized lots and extension of planned public facilities to adjacent parcels can occur in the future. If the Planning Commission determines that an area or tract of land has been or is in the process of being divided into four or more lots, the Commission can require full compliance with all subdivision regulations. Finding: The proposal is for a five lot residential subdivision. There are no areas beyond the lots that are able to be developed to a greater intensity. The topography of the properties to the east side of the subject property does not allow additional development. The property to the south of the subject property has a conversation easement that prevents future development. The properties to the west are developed with residential structures, outbuildings, accessory structures and yard area improvements. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition PIat Criteria A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. Finding: The proposed subdivision utilizes the entire property and there are no remnant portions of the tract. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. Page 15 of 28 Finding: The proposal does not prevent any adjacent parcels from developing to their densities as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent properties are developed in a manner that prevents additional residential subdivision development due to access constraints and topographical constraints. This proposal does not impact the existing developments, nor does it put constraints on the adjoining properties. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. Finding There are no neighborhood or district plans. There are no previous land use approvals that imposed conditions of approval on the subject property. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. Finding: The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). Finding: The proposed subdivision layout complies with the standards of the underlying R-1-5 zone and the flexibility provided within the Performance Standards Chapter and the minimum lot area is exceeded as allowed through this chapter. Each lot demonstrates that the perimeter setbacks of the subdivision are met with minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks. Conceptual building envelopes have provided shown that demonstrate the buildable areas, setback compliance and solar setback standards. The lots are intended to have single story construction, the entire parcel is generally level which allows for larger setbacks on the north. Driveways accessing the lots from the private driveway will be solid surfaced to prevent track out. Page 16 of 28 The lots are all subject to the maximum lot coverage standard of 50 percent, plus up to 200 square feet or permeable solid surface. The proposal complies with all applicable development standards found in 18.4. The existing street development and driveway separations on Alicia Avenue and Sylvia Street are non- conforming in that there are no curbs or gutters, no park rows or sidewalks. The proposed driveway apron is in the same location as the existing gravel driveway. The driveway is proposed to be widened toward the east and improved with a concrete apron. Solar Access (18.4.8.040): Each lot has a north south lot dimension that allows for a 21 -foot tall structure to be constructed on the site and not exceed the lots north to south lot width. This solar line is shown on the building envelop site plan. The structures are intended to be single story structures. 18.2.2.030 Allowed Uses A. Uses Allowed in Base Zones. Allowed uses include those that are permitted, permitted subject to special use standards, and allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Finding: A Subdivision to create a five -lot, single family residential subdivision is a permitted use in the zone. The proposed subdivision seeks to create three new single family residential lots in addition to the existing parcel of record, create a common space lot a private driveway and publicly available parking. Single family residences are a permitted use in the zone. 18.2.5.090 Standards for Single -Family Dwellings A. The following standards apply to new single-family dwellings constructed in the R-1, R-1-3.5, R-2, and R-3 zones; the standards do not apply to dwellings in the WR or RR zones. B. Single-family dwellings subject to this section shall utilize at least two of the following design features to provide visual relief along the front of the residence: 1. Dormers 2. Gables 3. Recessed entries 4. Covered porch entries 5. Cupolas 6. Pillars or posts 7. Bay window (min. 12" projection) 8. Eaves (min. 6" projection) 9. Off -sets in building face or roof (min. 16") Page 17 of 28 Finding: The future residences of a similar aesthetic as the adjacent property. The elevations submitted with the building permits will demonstrate that two or more of the design features listed above will be provided on the proposed residential units. Each lot exceeds the minimum lot areas in the zone. The fences and walls within the development will comply with the fence and wall standards from 18.4.4.060 specifically adjacent to the open space where a not more than four -foot fence will be proposed. The "front" lot lines abut the private driveway with Lot 1 having a side yard abutting a public street for a short segment. Fencing heights are determined in the code. Fence permits will be obtained and will be provided for on the building permit submittals. F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. Finding: The accesses to the lots will be from the new private driveway within the common area. There is not a curb proposed around the hammerhead and there is no sidewalk proposed around the perimeter of the hammerhead. The proposed private drive is designed in a manner to accommodate expected traffic on the site. AMC 18.4.3.080. Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location Finding: Per 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design, each lot will have two parking spaces within a garage accessed from the private drive from a driveway extending from the private driveway. The residential parking is not within any required yard area. a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. Finding: The driveway apron and connection to Alicia Avenue right of way shifts the driveway to the south and west of the adjoining property to the northeast. These driveway aprons are less than 24 -feet Page 18 of 28 in separation, but the separation is increased. The driveway apron to the west is more than 24 feet from the proposed driveway apron. b. Partitions and subdivisions of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. Finding: The subject property is zoned R -1-5-P and is not subject to the controlled access standards per this section. c, Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following. i. Distance between driveways. on boulevard streets: 100 feet on collector streets: 75 feet on neighborhood streets: 24 feet for 2 units or fewer per lot, 50 feet for three or more units per lot ii. Distance from intersections. on boulevard streets: 100 feet on collector streets: 50 feet on neighborhood streets: 35 feet Finding The property is zoned R -1-5-P and not subject to the standards. d. Access Requirements for Multi -family Developments. All multi -family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Finding: Not applicable. 4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. Page 19 of 28 a. Plans submitted for developments subject to a planning action shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and all necessary access easements. Where necessary from traffic safety and access management purposes, the City may require joint access and/or shared driveways in the following situations. i. For shared parking areas. ii. For adjacent developments, where access onto an arterial is limited. iii. For multifamily developments, and developments on multiple lots. Finding: The proposed access uses an existing driveway apron and improves it to improve driveway separation standards and provide adequate access to the private drive. This single, narrow driveway minimizes access points and reduces impacts to the public right of way. b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Curb cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter/furnishings strip as appropriate. Finding: The proposal is to develop a standard driveway approach where presently one does not exist. There are no additional approaches. c. if the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage. Finding: The proposal is to create a shared, private drive to reduce access points. S. Alley Access. Where a property has alley access, vehicle access shall be taken from the alley and driveway approaches and curb cuts onto adjacent streets are not permitted. Finding: There is no alley access. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future Page 20 of 28 development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. Finding: The proposed infrastructure including the driveway connection to the public street, the utilities and surface water drainage conforms to the city's design standards from AMC 18.4. The infrastructure plans have been designed by an Oregon Licensed Civil Engineer. The utility plan conforms to the requirements of AMC 18.4. Transitions to potential future development on adjacent lands is not provided. This is because of the lack of ability for development beyond the boundaries of the property. Ashland Water Division does not allow the location of public water lines upon private property. The water meters for the individual lots will be within Alicia Avenue rights-of-way adjacent to the driveway. A stormwater system to meet the requirements of 18.4.6.080 and demonstrates compliance with the Rogue Valley Stormwater Design Manual Standards will be developed with on-site dispersion of stormwater and no outflow that is greater than pre -development peak flow from the existing site development. Per 18.4.6,, the private driveway standards are to be considered when there are less than 100 vehicle trips and physical constraints prevent the development of a neighborhood street. A private driveway that terminates into a fire apparatus accessible hammerhead is proposed because the constraints of the subject property and the adjacent properties prevent the development of a gridded street system. There are steep slopes to the east of the eastern property line on the adjacent property. The topography can be found to prevent public street connectivity. The adjacent property to the south has a deed restricted, conservation easement that prevents future development. The property to the west is developed with single-family residences, accessory structures, pools, and manicured yard areas. The topography of the adjacent properties, the locations and types of adjacent development and conservation areas of adjacent properties prevent connecting vehicular access. The grade of the driveway is less than 15 percent and has a vertical clearance of more than 13.6 feet and improved paved width of 20 -feet. In all zones, except single-family zones, where a parking facility or driveway is adjacent to a residential zone, a sight -obscuring fence is required. The four parking spaces will be buffered from the adjacnet property by the existing six-foot tall, solid panel cedar fence. Page 21 of 28 EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.8.1. Finding: The proposal does not include improvements to Alicia Avenue and Sylvia Street thus an exception to Street Standards is required. 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. Finding: The code allows for the granting of exceptions when physical conditions exist that preclude development of a public street, or components of the street. Such conditions may include, limited right-of-way. With less than 47 -feet of frontage upon the street and a 20 -wide driveway, at the curve in the street where public utility infrastructure is located does not leave room for a landscape parkrow and sidewalk. This right of way width is not adequate to install required improvements. There are no sidewalk connections off-site of the subject property to the east or west. The unique situation includes the development and prevention of a sidewalk and park row system that goes nowhere. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. Finding: The proposed frontage improvements will include installation of a driveway apron which will be equal transportation facilities to the existing street system. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Finding_ The proposed exception is to not provide any sidewalk or parkrow improvements in the 26 -feet west of the proposed driveway apron. There is inadequate right-of-way to achieve park row and sidewalk improvements. Not installing sidewalk alleviates the difficulty in extensions of said sidewalks in a logical and functional manner on properties that are not associated with the proposed development and based on existing development. Page 22 of 28 d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. Finding: The Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards section speaks to connectivity and design focus on a safe environment for all users, design streets as public spaces, and enhance the livability of neighborhoods, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There are no sidewalks with park row within the impact area. The exception seeks to not install sidewalks and park row along the frontage of the property. This is due to the limited length of the sidewalk north of the driveway (26 -feet), the lack of right-of-way to install improvements and that not installing sidewalk and park row will not negatively impact the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian experience. H. Unpaved Streets. Finding: Not applicable. 1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. Finding: There is not an alley adjacent to the property, nor does the subdivision layout provide for alley connectivity. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. Finding: There are no State or Federal permits necessary for the development of the property. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. Finding: No flag lots are proposed. Page 23 of 28 VARIANCE CRITERIA 18.5.5.050 - Approval Criteria A. The approval authority through a Type I or Type II procedure, as applicable, may approve a variance upon finding that it meets all of the following criteria. 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. Finding: The variance to the number of lots accessed from a private driveway is necessary due to special and unique physical circumstances. The narrow lot connection to Alicia Avenue, and public street installation for four residential lots would require substantial infrastructure and have major impacts on adjacent properties. When considering the neighborhood development pattern, the topography, the lack of connectivity and other similar circumstances there are hardships to the public street right of way and infrastructure that is above and beyond the impact of four residences. These include the slope of the subject property near the east property line. That slope prevents extension of any public street system. The property to the east beyond the subject property is steep as it leads to the city park property. The adjacent development to the north and south of the developable area of the subject property prevents extension of a public street system. Due to the narrow lot frontage along Alicia Avenue, dedication of a public right-of-way with the smallest public right-of-way at 25 -feet of a Shared Street to 47 -feet for a Residential Street and the impacts from the creation of a new public street intersection would have substantial impacts on the on the adjacent properties to the northwest and to the east. The code provision that when more than three -lots accessed via a private driveway is overly restrictive and burdens the community with small, dead end public streets that serve smaller, limited traffic residential subdivisions. The slope of the property and the properties further east are too steep for extension of a public street system. The properties to the north and south of the developable area of the subject property are developed in a manner that prevents extension of a public street system. It should be noted that the standards from AMC 18.3.9 use lots and units interchangeably which is not a clear or objective standard and causes confusion within the code sections. Page 24 of 28 A private drive and/or flag lot provides for a narrower, often more neighborhood compatible driveway type of development instead of a public street where even the smallest street the Shared Street has a wide curb radius that allows for fire apparatus access but also changes the character of Alica Avenue and Syliva Street by adding a new public right of way and intersection. Intersections would have a greater negative impact on the adjacent properties because of separation standards than the proposed driveway and its separation standards. A private drive is proposed to allow the property owner to assume all burdens for construction, maintenance and future maintenance falls upon the users of the private drive easement. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. Finding: The requested variance to allow for four lots instead of three to be accessed from a Private Drive that is a dedicated fire apparatus access fire lane instead of dedication of a public right-of-way is the minimum necessary to address special or unique circumstances relating to this site and the impacts that the development of this site with a public street and the resulting curb radii and impacts to side yard setbacks which a public street cause are reduced with the request for a private drive. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Finding: The proposals benefits include removal of any public responsibility for a small, dead end street that provides no vehicular access to future properties within the vicinity due to topography and existing development patterns and a public street cannot be extended beyond the property boundaries. The property owner and future property owners will own the private driveway and the utilities within the driveway. The owners bear all responsibility and does not impact the public's ownership and responsibilities. The proposed driveway apron has less of an impact on the Alicia Avenue and Sylvia Street streetscape than'the dedicated public street would be due to curb radii and how intersections are built vs. how a driveway apron is constructed. The purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the Single -Family zone is to seek responsible, environmentally conscious design that complies with the city standards and Page 25 of 28 expectations. This proposal conforms and achieves both stated plan goals and most of the criteria for development from the Ashland municipal code. The proposal furthers the purpose and intent of the stated housing development goals of the city. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. Finding: The need for the variance is to allow for private ownership of a driveway that serves only four development lots as part of a single subdivision and to not dedicate a public street or to only allow three lots. The narrow lot width along Alicia Avenue, the slopes that prevent connectivity to the east, and the adjacent developments to the north and south of the subject property that prevent public street development were not created by the applicant or the property owner. These circumstances and the lack of public use of the access due to the lack of connectivity, create the need for variance. There are no previous property line adjustments or land division approvals for the property that remain valid that necessitated the variance request. TREE REMOVAL 1.8.5.7.430. B. Tree Removal Permit. Finding: There are five trees on the site. The most significant trees is a 20inch bBH Plum tree near the west property line and in the path of the future driveway. The proposal seeks approval to remove this tree. The tree is requested for removal due to location of it within the path of the proposed driveway, and the amount of root zone that will be substantially impacted by the cut to install the utilities and other improvements to allow for the construction of the new driveway. 2. Tree that is Not a Hazard. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. Finding: Page 26 of 28 The proposed development has been planned with the utmost concern and consideration of the trees on the site. The lot layout, dimensions, access, utility installation were all dependent upon the frontage upon Alicia Avenue. Though the deciduous tree is nice, its location prevents access to the future site development. The tree will be replaced. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Finding: The removal of the tree will not have any impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or protection of adjacent trees. None of the trees proposed for removal are part of a windbreak. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Finding: The removal of the deciduous tree will not have significant negative impacts on the tree densities. The adjacent neighborhood has a significant number, density, tree canopy and species diversity that the removal of a deciduous trees will not negatively impact tree species or canopy loss. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. Finding: The residential density has not been affected by the trees. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Finding: The removed trees will be mitigated for with the new tree. Page 27 of 28 18.5.7.050 Mitigation Required One or more of the following shall satisfy the mitigation requirement. A. Replanting On -Site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 1/2 -inch caliper healthy and well - branched deciduous tree or a five to six-foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. Finding: There will be a new tree planted along the east side of the driveway in the reconfigured yard area of Lot 1. The tree will mitigate for the removed tree. Additionally, trees will likely be included in landscape plans for the residences thus resulting in an increase in tree canopy. Attachments: 1) 210 Alicia Avenue Topographic Survey 2) Preliminary Subdivision Plat (Polaris Land Surveying) 3) Subdivision Civil Engineering Documents (KAS and Associates) Page 28 of 28 TAX LOT 1202 t U TAXLOT 1500' ' I I / 1 j AXLOT 1600' ' O' !O' zO' 40' HO' CONMUH IN iERVAL = ONE FOOT 4815. 75'-1 15.757711 LEGEND 1 / BVRVEY CiRWf/J6 MONFINMONUMIR4'I' © nRASSCAPMONUIIffiTT ELEYkRGV 181.1.48' N p SyR� 61YIRIJL r(`j H14'1 JTLINH WA72MLINE f RTIRBF) M 7T-WALOASLnM �17 RTp!ffil 7ELFPHONELMM ry RTIRffiILAHLH TVLH.iE +H x—x SANTIARYSRWERLINE `.471 : 0 MUZMAD POWER LINE --UGP I (xRaCE � .:• ' TAX LOT 1010 z1a AL1QA 571uIIJ'i' TAXLPT J007 QAP POWER POLE ® --x 152J SAME FEET 1 �f 1 2T16ALICL4 SIRHHT ( RLHc�RrcMMTSR HMATPUJY� I} j QWFI 1 � I r FIRFHYDRANT !!! cB.�� RIFT ARaN=IH15.>6' ElEy NJ✓(Sfr err L-81jz5� JJJ �77i I � ry •1l I � _ muHRSRax !N✓. (R) BPrC-IHiJJ5 ssFw /ln» HuA IXE✓ARON=IB}654" /� •• a • � �• � CLEANOUT TQ Y/fA !Nt! CS} 6'SO=IH12.99' ,• •4� - 1 ' GASMBTHR d9 v OASVALVB INV. (5Y) 60-IH1JH4' FlI 6-L1C=1812.94" .- m' aEanuoes - 1 GRAVEL SURFACR ® 5'URY'EYICON1R01. f2 I f I ... - Y ErFvkrroM a rexos4• A I, I C I A I T SURVEYNOTES / H 1 / N � 16.30. Id•N INA ....... G G . 4 ! 1• '.. W✓. iHW 9'7VC TAX LOT 1202 t U TAXLOT 1500' ' I I / 1 j AXLOT 1600' ' O' !O' zO' 40' HO' CONMUH IN iERVAL = ONE FOOT 4815. 75'-1 15.757711 60.)z' ( i1 I TAXLPT 1302 � o SHED '- �m � I 4 { 4 I j II \ I f LEGEND ® / MONFINMONUMIR4'I' © nRASSCAPMONUIIffiTT .STIHILLTPRQPHR7YLR� SyR� 61YIRIJL -------+ H14'1 JTLINH WA72MLINE f RTIRBF) M 7T-WALOASLnM �17 RTp!ffil 7ELFPHONELMM ry RTIRffiILAHLH TVLH.iE +H x—x SANTIARYSRWERLINE 0 MUZMAD POWER LINE --UGP I (xRaCE � RO WALL \f1864�\ L1O14TpUF LWF z1a AL1QA 571uIIJ'i' OUYANCROK QAP POWER POLE ® --x 152J SAME FEET 1 I 2T16ALICL4 SIRHHT ( RLHc�RrcMMTSR HMATPUJY� I} j QWFI EFFACE 519RY \ � WA73M VALVE tl FIRFHYDRANT NFNUFAC $j NOME ON PIER &OCX C471MRRASW i 1 I � _ muHRSRax :' � } 1 CLEANOUT TQ TGLEMMAMPMULSTAL GASMBTHR d9 v OASVALVB Q ❑maA21ONBOX m' aEanuoes CONQiH7H SURFACE GRAVEL SURFACR BTULMNO Pi]HLIL'IIllL1"l'YSASHRffi.l' TAXLOT7205 TAXLOT1204 I I V SURVEYNOTES / R674C2 MARt413HWOA 3'ER024M SKINA MONT04MT WE LLOCAMPA C'ffiqTERLTNH ANGLE POINT ONOAK STREET NHAR IMMENCB AT 764 OAF.. BENCMLARKELEVA71ON-1812.92'. RASBD ON TRBNAITONA.L OHMETIC 1 SHeo i PARC,F.. L 2 ll Lp=TND. DfiI UMULDHY U72LMWUA GUMffiW" 170NOFELELO SURVI'JYRDPAWTMARKS AND 'AS -,R UVT' REMRn l] TiWaS�SYTHRRS4P-RCTME Lr=Y I ARHAPP 09)M fAT AND 5IIOWN11BREON FOR PARTlr P -20-1207S i 1.26 ACRES , f slxvAF caN/real fzr 1 / EIEl'ON � iHIS33'® / 14'!k'DlOII0115 (� flfl 60.)z' ( i1 I TAXLPT 1302 � o SHED '- �m � I 4 { 4 I j II \ I f LEGEND ® / MONFINMONUMIR4'I' © nRASSCAPMONUIIffiTT .STIHILLTPRQPHR7YLR� -- --- --- --- -- BOUNPARY.4TNi8 CSN"l'HRLH4H -. - -------+ H14'1 JTLINH WA72MLINE i II SIIRYTY CtlNmal. {5, \ Il�EY2vAiroN = !8]5.90' \ z6o.rl' Na SVR COMROL /IJ i EYSvarroM � r61xxJ' / 1 rlrn- �kY„'1' i rua� = IHOS I i I� 4 TAX LOT 401 � 1rnR0 \ TAXLOT 1800 i' tME55 MONUMENT 675 F--:�— TOPOGRAPHIC SITE SURVEY LOCATFDAT 210 Alicia Street Ashland, Oregon LYRVG SITUATE VITMTIIV SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHM 39 SOUTH, RANGE 1 FAST, WILLAMETTE AMUDIAN CITY OFASTUAND,1ACKSONCOUNTY, OREGON FOR Vista Commerce 8160ay Street -^W-4 0—g— 97520 RMSTERED PROFESSIONAL 'Q LAND SUR Y 1' } �uREC9 e SHAWR NAMPMANN RENEWAL DATE: 6/39/2021 SURVEYED 8Y: POLARIS LAND SURVEYING LLC P.Q. BOX 459 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 LEGEND ® SVRVMYLION7-ROLPODVTASDH9CRMH MONFINMONUMIR4'I' © nRASSCAPMONUIIffiTT .STIHILLTPRQPHR7YLR� -- --- --- --- -- BOUNPARY.4TNi8 CSN"l'HRLH4H -. - -------+ H14'1 JTLINH WA72MLINE c RTIRBF) M 7T-WALOASLnM I RTp!ffil 7ELFPHONELMM ry RTIRffiILAHLH TVLH.iE +H BUAW)MRT0A710NMW SANTIARYSRWERLINE 0 MUZMAD POWER LINE --UGP BURIffi)POpmz-nM � RO WALL \f1864�\ L1O14TpUF LWF �— — OUYANCROK QAP POWER POLE ® POWER TRANSFORI.ffit ® PO%2MP1MKSFALAC"nVH.' sN� RLHc�RrcMMTSR HMATPUJY� £- ARBA LIGHT QWFI WA ?4= 1- WA73M VALVE .2'rN FIRFHYDRANT ® ce C471MRRASW ® CI CTIRR Hd.EI Q STIORMSRWRRMANBULE O SANIT4AYMMMAL4NHOLH CLEANOUT TQ TGLEMMAMPMULSTAL GASMBTHR d9 v OASVALVB Q ❑maA21ONBOX 1 CONQiH7H SURFACE GRAVEL SURFACR BTULMNO Pi]HLIL'IIllL1"l'YSASHRffi.l' L10111E 11UIHCASDSSCRI ) DB®UOU.47RHB CAS DPSCRW8 ) SURVEYNOTES T'HBMASIS OF VMRTICAL OONTROL FOR TUM SURVEY IS A CITY OFASFHAND R674C2 MARt413HWOA 3'ER024M SKINA MONT04MT WE LLOCAMPA C'ffiqTERLTNH ANGLE POINT ONOAK STREET NHAR IMMENCB AT 764 OAF.. BENCMLARKELEVA71ON-1812.92'. RASBD ON TRBNAITONA.L OHMETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929, ADIUSn OIN 1916 CNOVD 29156). M.l VSBDUT7LIi'YSIP2UL'7TIR83 SAOWNITHRHON WHlT8F1HLDLOCA=DURINO TNF PMRFURMANCH OF THU SEM VH7: RZ;RTISO UTY =LOCATIONS WI H DfiI UMULDHY U72LMWUA GUMffiW" 170NOFELELO SURVI'JYRDPAWTMARKS AND 'AS -,R UVT' REMRn l] TiWaS�SYTHRRS4P-RCTME Lr=Y COMPANYRRPP-ESI WTATIV11% ARHAPP 09)M fAT AND 5IIOWN11BREON FOR ORAPIMCPURPOBBS ONLY. F1EI.DVBIMrATSONOFALLHTIRIHDE77M ITHSMUST RRPRRPORMADPRIOR TOANYMMCAVAFIONOR C0N8TRUCTIONAC2II7TTES. RMSTERED PROFESSIONAL 'Q LAND SUR Y 1' } �uREC9 e SHAWR NAMPMANN RENEWAL DATE: 6/39/2021 SURVEYED 8Y: POLARIS LAND SURVEYING LLC P.Q. BOX 459 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 ' CB X1039 Z3, •• � �.',• ' RN ELEVATION=1815.75' INV. (SE) 8 "PVC=1813 55'' � fNV (Nj 8'PVC=1813.35' .' i�4' 5' ' 4WM lq� FF! 1 W 4:C.. a T.4. X LOT 1204 TAX LOT 1600 I SCALE: 1" = 20' ' CONTOUR INTERVAL = ONE FOOT ' i 5 5,9'.6,924' E -- 219.49' ------rsz4s' S' 804L01NG SETBACK�INE x �c 15'BBUILDING SETBACK UNE ! 210.�ICL4 STREET 1452.3 SQUARE FEET n SINGLE STORY L[T" 1 MANUFACTURED HOME II z, ON PIER BLOCK I 13,420 SQ. FT. , q \FOUNOA17ON _ f 0.31 ACRES > I yj Il w N 89'59 24" W - i64.68' 72.92' .. �..�.�C .ofl' T 1 � I �LOT2 / 14,112 SO, FT. 1 _��_-� 0.32 ACRES"' \ ro -yam--_ --- _ N 89'5936" E- 60.12" 1 ` 1 6' BUILDING SE7SACK-LINE''NE (OF � LION UITCH LOC 71ON f PER O.R. 140 / 607 q ♦ - iii ,' 5' WIDE RELOCATED MIWON DITCH 1RR1G,4T1O EASEMENT I / M N 89'5924° W - 187.38' o 6.77' 1 13.23' 1 LOT SHED I I 6NiN \ \ 7495 54. FI. n to w 0.17 AC1kE5 LOT i f 1 y� to 414,106 SQ. F1� \ z o 0.32 ACRFS l 1 G' BUILDING SETBACK UNE \ _ - - -� - - - -� - - - xr ..__ ...�--------- � I !1 4 F' arur nrNr ccraa�u rrNc � "ASH MEADOWS" PRELIMINARY MAP PERPFOR MANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION I.00AT&D AT 210 Alicia Avenue, Ashland, Oregon LYING SITUATE IMnW SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SEC2YON4 TOWNSHIP .39 SOUTH, RANGE I EAST, WILLAMETTE MFR LIN CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON FOR Adderson Construction, Inc. 3144 Payne Road Med.for4 Oregon 97504 / ru C8 CATCTMASIN / So STORM SEWER MANHOLE O SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE o' ® CERANOUT Q 779-EPHONEPEDESTAL } V © GASMBTT?R RELOCATED"IvI1GLION"IRRIGATIONDITCIIEASMIEW N l PRIVATE ACCESS & FLRE TRUCK APPARATUS EASEMENT 1 w F BUILDINGS o SURVEYNOTES p ' THSBASIS OF VERTICAL CONTROL FOR 71M SURVEYISA C:ITYOFASi1LAND p BENCHMARK BENGA 3"BRONZE DISK INA MONUALUNT WELL LOCATED IN n TEM CENTBRLNEOFOAK STRBBT. BBNGFiA4ARKBLEVATIONISI812.92FBBT BASED ON THE NATIONAL. GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929, ADJUSTED IN 1956 (NG VD 29156). EXPOSEDErll'YSTRUC7T]RESSHOWNHERUONWEREFMLDLOCA7ED DURING TYIEPERFORMANCEOF 7THS SURVEY. BURIED U47'LI'1'YLOCATIONS WIIREDE7TUZAMVFsDBYUTII.IZEVGA COMBINA7TONOF F7ELD SURVEYED PAINTMARKSAND"AS-BUbT"RECORDDRAWINGSkTMM57,CF-VBY7TIE RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANYAEPRESENT'ATIVES, AREAPPROXIMAT SAND SHOWNHF_REONFOR OR"MOPURPOSES ONLY. FIELD VBRIFICATTONOFALL BURIEDU ILITl>SMUSTREP.FRFORMEDPRIORTOANYFXCAVA710NOR CONSTRUCTIONAC77V777BS. REGISTERED \ PROPESSIONAL Y LArrn SUR4�'Y OREGON JULY 14, 199a SHAWN KAMPMANN 2883 [ S \ RENEWAL DATE: 5/30/2025 \ SURVEYED BY. POLARIS LAND SURVEYING LLC P.O. BOX 459 � _ Heol nr.rr� �ocr+�I.� n-rcnn LEGEND ® SURVEY CONTROL POINT, AS DESCRIBED LRONPNM01VE& T SUBJECT PAOPERTIt' LNE RMINDARYLRW - f=40VI'F.iRI.I1�LF.i ---x—X—X— FENCELIKE ---........-+ ---4 WATERLINB c BL EDNATURALGASLNE r BURIEDTELEPHONBLINE ry BURIED CABLE TV LNF3 ra BURIEDR IGATIONLINE so----------- STORMDRAINLR%W F-------- -�------- SAWTARYSBWBRLINE ucr BURMIDPOWERLINE CONTOUR LINE © POWER PEDESTAUC_'ADMET NEM ELFiCTRICAMTER / pWM WATER METER Z WV WATER VALVE 19 -FH FLREHYDRANT / ru C8 CATCTMASIN / So STORM SEWER MANHOLE O SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE o' ® CERANOUT Q 779-EPHONEPEDESTAL } V © GASMBTT?R RELOCATED"IvI1GLION"IRRIGATIONDITCIIEASMIEW N l PRIVATE ACCESS & FLRE TRUCK APPARATUS EASEMENT 1 w F BUILDINGS o SURVEYNOTES p ' THSBASIS OF VERTICAL CONTROL FOR 71M SURVEYISA C:ITYOFASi1LAND p BENCHMARK BENGA 3"BRONZE DISK INA MONUALUNT WELL LOCATED IN n TEM CENTBRLNEOFOAK STRBBT. BBNGFiA4ARKBLEVATIONISI812.92FBBT BASED ON THE NATIONAL. GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929, ADJUSTED IN 1956 (NG VD 29156). EXPOSEDErll'YSTRUC7T]RESSHOWNHERUONWEREFMLDLOCA7ED DURING TYIEPERFORMANCEOF 7THS SURVEY. BURIED U47'LI'1'YLOCATIONS WIIREDE7TUZAMVFsDBYUTII.IZEVGA COMBINA7TONOF F7ELD SURVEYED PAINTMARKSAND"AS-BUbT"RECORDDRAWINGSkTMM57,CF-VBY7TIE RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANYAEPRESENT'ATIVES, AREAPPROXIMAT SAND SHOWNHF_REONFOR OR"MOPURPOSES ONLY. FIELD VBRIFICATTONOFALL BURIEDU ILITl>SMUSTREP.FRFORMEDPRIORTOANYFXCAVA710NOR CONSTRUCTIONAC77V777BS. REGISTERED \ PROPESSIONAL Y LArrn SUR4�'Y OREGON JULY 14, 199a SHAWN KAMPMANN 2883 [ S \ RENEWAL DATE: 5/30/2025 \ SURVEYED BY. POLARIS LAND SURVEYING LLC P.O. BOX 459 � _ Heol nr.rr� �ocr+�I.� n-rcnn F L — — 1,SWVIA STRtET h1-11, \ N - ' TAX LOT 1600 wv ss ALICIA STREET nm CB W� -- B'UAFIE Ar M � \ \I o� P P TAXLOT 1302 TAX LOT 1205 t4" SO TAX LOT 1204 6' 8URDIMC 76SEk UNE y, 20' V IDE FlRE EASE PPPARATIIS h ACCESS o MENT BIY THIS P[A7 L ELECTRONIC COPY 1LD PROP g 1 Aid fo 15,234 a��aa W---4 E FPIRES: 12-31-2024 e- -1 N • CD 10 J Z t- o va1� V �•(~}•Z q,, C J mu= iA SCALE: = 30' � � Q a I- 4 m a ti m r . 0 r«.ti u :i Owl a 5' i�'S�" l7FZOCATEU MILLION f)l7CN^'TRIifGASld77 k1LSf� iii X5.00' — - ....,.,— n i�- 280.1T .. N 89'S639" IN "' TAXLOT 1800 ca 61 eulm LD N 89'5924, w - 194,68' - = r �,�Lzs' .Sr� f.e,,FY71 77�/-4� 7777/- `� �N"us (13 M a 5' i�'S�" l7FZOCATEU MILLION f)l7CN^'TRIifGASld77 k1LSf� iii X5.00' — - ....,.,— n i�- 280.1T .. N 89'S639" IN "' TAXLOT 1800 (ADDERSON) KAS 22-253 ca cV nn0 W �� tL 0 z AZO Z Ll_ a 0><0 LL O aZjw 0 ci) M Q v� u3UJLLJ Uri m 0 cQ 0 Se a� S a �J NO. Pi W ♦W VJ (ADDERSON) KAS 22-253 N cV nn0 0 C',Z �� ¢aa tL 0 Z Ll_ a 0><0 LL O N 0 ci) M v� u3UJLLJ Uri m 0 cQ z Se a� S a SHEEN" NO. Pi (ADDERSON) KAS 22-253 N �n M i, GALICIA STREET to hi " 1 — I SWVIA STLET lCp FH � 1 20" D am C8 a' M/ TAX LOT 1600 ELECTRONIC COPY I� w E 5 89'Sa9'" E - 219.491 i� 194.49' I y I I � � cNN` G • w y _ • • �A. - iv C�a yr - 71.26' iaa-.atf y `l5 a� _1 U Q TAXLOT 1205 TF1..X .LOT 1204 (si �rn �_} CE FIRE A,,do ACCESS EASEMENT THIS PLAT �— h �~ ` � iq *- 19' WIDE SfURM ORNN PRHYATE ACCESS LASEM BY THIS PLAT __LL IC flA 'r I�9741 SQFT, O.Z2 AES to 0 1-_, I n. Vf I X co Q Z LU —) E �9 G � � U N c•i � U +~+ V7 2— > p �8" VILLL01 d-cw � (4) 7'x22' PARKING 1 J �az z / o r4' nFC]nlf0ns 16,342 50. FT. I tvru0 Z Z SPACES z / 0.38 lazy \fo" "! w �a C� V. ' N 89'59'36" E -' 60. 12' ,\ � cNN` G • w r f` O Z Li a� _1 U Q ona (si �rn �_} IL a ro p7 IC 'r I�9741 SQFT, O.Z2 AES to 0 O I n. Vf I X co Q Z LU —) E �9 1 " = 30' 0U PRopip �S� � I N �, to rK`N rye 15,234 � ff kyr' OREGO 44, yo �C C. 7, EXPIRES: 12-31-2024 SHEET NO. -P2 - (ADDERSON) KAS 22-253 ...I � cNN` G • w r f` O Z Li a� _1 U Q ona (si �rn �_} IL a ro p7 a O > -� Lt_ to 0 O • n. Vf I X co Q Z LU —) E �9 G � � U N c•i � U +~+ V7 2— > p N '— lo Im mo 2 (6 y yZ Z Z z Z g w �a C� SHEET NO. -P2 - (ADDERSON) KAS 22-253 N N r f` O Z Li %"'``'�OWd� LCr4 Q ona (si �rn �_} =cf)Z p7 a O > -� Lt_ 0 O N n. Vf I X co Q Z LU —) U �9 © Fo NQ Lw � > p a SHEET NO. -P2 - (ADDERSON) KAS 22-253 ■4 YAM ss-ISSII'A ST4T (9) WATER SERVICES & BACKFLOW DEVICES MANIFOLD FOR (8) p SS -Tu EXISTING SSMH G,q � ' (2) 150 LF 24" SD PIPE FOR COLLECTION & DETENTION 15' WIDE STORM DRAIN & —PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT BY THIS PLAT lD- W I 3& GENTERLINE OF PREVIOUS MILLION DITCH LOCATION PER D.A. 140 / 807 4' i Rio �1�r?i cox r��rrcanarr saseMwr — zo "�mrnv �1 S I I 1 200 LF 24" SD PIPE FOR !! COLLECTION & DETENTION N 6 LOT 3 14.895 SQ. FT. 0.34 ACRES POND s aancar� uO1,iIL�aSgler�� _.,_..w. TAX LOT 1900 ELECTRONIC COPY A PROFESS tis � i N h' fa 15,234 OREGO Sf, d�0. 7, STT n. pt�G VII E EXPIRLS: 12-31-2024 04 a �r z 0 o • U •Z m c _ U SCALE: 1 " = 30' U -1 - E a �m Y UNDERGROUND STORMWATER TREATMENT CHAMBER STORMWATER DISCHARGE POINT TO EXISTING OUTFALL UNDERGROUND STORMWATER TREATMENT CHAMBER (ADDERSON) KAS 22-253 N N r iT o Q N z a¢a JD 0� o0o C�rn = Z V) cn Q o�¢0 LL. ch x ¢zN +�'''''''\ U 52m } a 0 N Q mow Lu �=a is W w Q O V < SHEET NO. p 3 (ADDERSON) KAS 22-253