The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-09-10_Planning PACKET NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2024-00050 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 113 Pine St. APPLICANT & OWNER:Rogue Development for Charlie Hamilton DESCRIPTION: A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval of four-lot, Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The proposal includes three proposed residential lots and a common area lot. The application includes a request for an exception to streetstandards to not install park row and to retain the existing frontage improvements. The application also includes a request to remove a total of seventeen trees, five of which are ‘significant’. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; MAP: 39-1E-08-AD; TAX LOT:2600 NOTE:The Ashland Historic Commission will review this Planning Action on Wednesday, September 4, 2024at 5:00 PMat 51 Winburn Way. NOTE:The Ashland Tree Commission will review this Planning ActiononThursday,September 5, 2024at 2:00 PMat 51 Winburn Way. NOTE:ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TuesdaySeptember 10, 2024at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 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 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (AMC 18.3.9.040.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, commonareas, 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. . Common open space requirements h.The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section18.4.4.070 may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section18.4.4.070if approved by the City of Ashland. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.B.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. 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 Ordinancerequirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversitywithin 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 “The purpose of this chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity, and innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage; provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes; be aesthetically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood.” That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact development to the maximum density allowed, aesthetic and environmental impact maximum density allowed the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20-feet, with a 15-foot paved driving surface adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access. the natural features, such as wetlands and large trees, are included in unbuildable areas. large trees, necessary to protect the environmen the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed. there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space. the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards. the development complies with the street standards. the proposed development meets the common open space standards. “There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site.” \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Aaron - I noticed a couple of small copy edits. I am sending a slightly updated version: Hi Aaron - Here is my statement for the Planning Commission. I will read some version of this at the Planning Commission meeting. Do I need to send you a separate statement for the Tree Commission? It will basically be a version of this just focused on the trees and with a more thorough analysis of the many discrepancies in the report concerning tree destruction. Please let me know if you need additional information. Thanks so much. Anne To the City of Ashland Planning Commission: I am writing to express my views about the proposed development at 113 Pine Street. My ideal preference is for there to be no development on this unique open space, which, for generations, has been a haven for trees, plants and the wildlife they support, a migratory route for countless animals including deer, turkeys, birds, and small mammals, as well as a rare open space in a historic district. This is a small area and its unique location, close to the wildlife corridor above Scenic Drive, makes it a space that should be protected from sub-division and development. However, since unique open space is not protected by municipal code, I hope we can limit this development to ensure it has the lowest possible impact on the environment and the community. I ask you to consider the following issues and to do what you can, within the law and within your discretion, to limit the detrimental impact of this development on the environment and to the community. I ask that you reject this current plan and suggest that the developer create two houses rather than three, which would greatly mitigate the specific concerns I detail below. ͭϼ϶°ŵđđ϶¡ŵđŹđŵƚêƂĳŗŏϾ϶There are 39 trees on the site greater than 6 inches in diameter of which 19 are "significant trees" or trees greater than 12 inches. The plan submitted by Suncrest Homes ċŗđŹϼŏŗƂ indicate specific building sites. However, the plan ċŗđŹ call for the destruction of at least 11 trees (19 trees by a more realistic count), 5 of which are "significant." "Significant Trees" are protected under Ordinance No. 2883 and Chapter 18.61 of the Municipal Code. Although certain exceptions exist, the spirit of the law protects the trees and necessitates that developers prioritize the health and well-being of the tree - even if that means moving the building site or making the building site smaller to accommodate the well-being of significant trees in the building envelope and the overall diversity and health of the ecosystem. Suncrest Homes offers a justification for killing these significant trees (and other mature trees) which can be summarized as "the tree is in the way..." This is not an appropriate justification for flouting the policies and protections put into law to sustain Ashland's mature and diverse trees. According to Municipal section 18.61.010: "A. The City recognizes that trees can provide soil stability, noise buffering, and wind protection benefits. The City of Ashland greatly values trees for their ecological importance, temperature mitigation, enhanced wildlife habitat and aesthetics. C. The City recognizes that because of the known benefits of trees, development property should be protected from unregulated removal of trees prior to the approval of development plans. Trees on such properties should be preserved so that they may be considered for incorporation into development plans." Furthermore, the regulations for proposed Tree Removals, as governed by the Municipal Code section 18.5.7.010 which governs Tree Removals, states: 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property Removal of these trees, especially the 5 trees deemed by the arborist's survey as significant, would have a significant negative impact on canopy, diversity, tree density, and the wildlife who depend on these trees for housing, food, and protection. Furthermore a careful analysis of the tree map on Page 46 of the Suncrest Homes proposal shows that several of the trees they are proposing to retain are actually on neighboring property, thus reducing the overall ratio of trees to be destroyed versus trees to be retained. For example, see Tree numbers 2421 and 2439 against the southern property border. These trees are on the property line or in neighboring properties. Listing these trees as slated to be "retained" obfuscates the true ratio of trees to be retained vs trees to be destroyed. Also, though 27 trees are listed "to be retained" (see Page 41 of the Suncrest proposal), the site map on Page 46 shows that this is impossible, as a road is proposed over the site of several trees that are listed on Page 41. See for example Tree number 2486 as an example of a false claim that a tree will be retained when the site map clearly shows that the tree will be destroyed. Also listed on Page 41 of the proposal as "retained" is tree number 2379, listed as a healthy black oak, yet, this tree is shown as "planned for removal" on the map on Page 51. In fact, the map on Page 51 has several discrepancies with the list on Page 41 and the overall numbers cited in the proposal. I counted 19 trees designated for destruction on the map on Page 51, whereas the list on Page 41 gives the number of destroyed trees as 11. I propose seeking an independent arborist review to mitigate the discrepancies rampant in this plan. We must do everything we can to protect these diverse and important trees and we must not give the developer carte blanche to destroy trees before a specific building plan is presented and approved. ͮϼ϶°İđ϶¤ŗêċϾ϶The Suncrest proposal calls for a driveway to bisect the property, both in the east/west and the north/south directions, necessitating the killing of several large trees, destroying the greenway used by multiple animals, and creating an eyesore for all the surrounding properties. The size and design of the driveway seems to be necessitated by the decision to fit three properties in this small and irregular space. If there were only two properties, the driveway could be shorter and could measure under 120 feet, thus not necessitating the hammerhead fire turnaround. The proposed design is only possible if the Performance Standards Option is granted, as a road this size (over 200 feet in just the north/south direction) is not standard and is definitely not in keeping with the ecology or aesthetics of the area. Based on conversations I've had with people familiar with the fire code, this driveway design does not make sense for fire safety infrastructure as the current hammerhead turn around is at the south side of the drive and would thus necessitate a fire truck to back down the road to the southern border of the property before turning around. I ask that you rule that the developer rethink this proposal to come up with a creative solution resulting in a smaller road footprint, less than 120 feet in length, and thus not requiring the additional firetruck turnaround. ͯϼ϶Ųđŏ϶¨Ųêąđ϶êŏċ϶¡đŵĨŗŵŎêŏąđ϶¨Ƃêŏċêŵċ϶¨ƇăċĳƚĳŹĳŗŏϾ϶ There is lots of language in the proposal that speaks of creative design and open space, however, it's important to see beyond this window dressing and understand that the so-called open space and environmental improvements are self-serving. In all cases, we should not grant the developer the right to clear trees in one part of the property just because he's leaving open space in another part of the property. For example, Suncrest Homes is asking for a Performance Standards Subdivision though this property is outside of the Hillside Overlay. As noted in the Purpose statement, (AMC 18.3.9.010), the Performance Standards option is used to жêňňŗƜϼêŏϼŗŲƂĳŗŏϼĨŗŵϼŎŗŵđϼĨňđơĳăňđϼċđŹĳĩŏϼƂİêŏϼĳŹϼ ŲđŵŎĳŹŹĳăňđϼƇŏċđŵϼƂİđϼąŗŏƚđŏƂĳŗŏêňϼƬŗŏĳŏĩϼąŗċđŹЂжϼ While granting this variance might enable more "creative" design, it is also the case that the developer is only able to fit three houses in this small lot because he will have freedom from the constraints of the stricter building codes. The Suncrest proposal implies that Lot 4 which is "privately held open space" is designed for the good of the community and environment. In fact, the developer is seeking good will for leaving this little bit of open space which he couldn't build on anyway due to the gully and angle of the slope. The open space represents only 8% of the entire property and like the trees being listed as retained that are not even on the property, the open space benefits serve only as a distraction to the larger problems with this proposal. The presence of open space in Lot 4, should not enable the developer to compensate for environmental degradation committed on other parts of the property. ¨ƇŎŎêŵƢϾ϶ I understand that development is a fact of life in Ashland, however, especially in these times of heightened environmental concerns, it's essential that we do whatever we can to reduce the footprint of a project such as this. This is a unique piece of open space that should be preserved for the generations. Reducing the number of homes on this proposed property from 3 to 2 would reduce the number of trees to be cut down in the building areas, reduce the need for a large driveway necessitating a fire turnaround, and leave extended open space for the trees, plants and animals who call this land home. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Anne Schreiber 125 Nutley Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 izzyrain@gmail.com 917-488-7331 Hello front office, This was sent to me yesterday. Please add to the file. Thank you Aaron Anderson CFM, Sr. Planner Pronouns he, him City of Ashland Community Development 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541.552.2052 | TTY 800.735.2900 aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us Online ashland.or.us; social media (Facebook @CityOfAshlandOregon | Twitter @CityofAshland) This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2052 \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] I live on a flag lot that sits between Scenic and Pine St. My comments are based on my experience with a very similar situation -- land developed for three houses -- and I would like to share some of my thoughts on the plan as presented I admit I have not read all of the environmental and planning guidelines presented. But I do not feel the plan as presented works best for all three planned lots. It does not make sense to plan driveway space that runs around the bottom two lots and makes those lots prone to unnecessary traffic. The "common space" does nothing for anyone except to make the top lot more open and desirable -- there are no neighbor driveways taking up space. I believe the driveway should be extended all the way up along the side of the development closest to Nutley St. Any easement should include maintenance requirements equally portioned to the three lots (even tho' as planned the top lot does not have as much asphalt around it). I think there should be some off street parking to accommodate visitors -- the current "common space" could provide two or three parking spaces that could be used equally by all lots. This additional space is important in addition to whatever turnaround and parking is planned for each lot. I also think the fire department access would be facilitated without the driveway extending across the property. I think the livability of the properties and the unique character of the neighborhood should take precedence over the most convenient or cheapest solution for development. Specific consideration should be given to landscaping or fencing or walls to protect the neighbors on the Nutley St. side of the project. This is a special property in a special neighborhood. I live at 180 Church St. and invite anyone interested to visit my home to see a similar development in the same neighborhood that accommodates three building lots on a shared driveway that runs below Scenic towards Pine St. (please call first). Peg Sjogren 541-482-1368. "The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking." Albert Einstein ¡ňêŏŏĳŏĩ϶9ŗŎŎĳŹŹĳŗŏ϶~đđƂĳŏĩ϶ Tuesday, September 10, 2024 RE: Subject Property,113 Pine St., and objections to development proposal Applicant and Owner: Rogue Development for Charlie Hamilton Lawrence Van Egdom and Julia Vinciguerra, property owners of 68 Scenic Dr. 1.)Distance between driveways should be 50 feet on residential streets (curb cut to curb cut). 9ŗċđϼͳͺЂͻʹЂͲͺͲϼ Current proposed plan is out of compliance with the City of Ashland land use code. 2.)Results from Geotechnical study have not been shared. Potential impacts for surrounding properties uphill and downhill of ŲŵŗŲŗŹđċ϶ċđƚđňŗŲŎđŏƂ϶А϶đŵŗŹĳŗŏϽ϶ċŵêĳŏêĩđ϶êŏċ϶ĨŗƇŏċêƂĳŗŏŹ϶ŗĨ϶đơĳŹƂĳŏĩ϶İŗŎđŹϼ϶϶ 9ŗċđϼͳͺЂ͵ЂͳͲЂͲͻͲϼ ϼ 3.)Fire prevention control plan has not been shared. Potential impacts for surrounding properties. Code ͳͺЂ͵ЂͳͲЂͳͲͲ homeowners. ͰϼКxĳĩİƂ϶ŹŲĳňňŗƚđŵ϶А϶Ͳʹ϶¨ąđŏĳą϶?ŵϽ϶ŵđŹĳċđŏƂĳêň϶ŲŵŗŲđŵƂƢϽ϶ŹĳƂŹ϶ċĳŵđctly above, and adjacent to lot 3 of the proposed Rogue Development. Given the proposed driveway and/or connecting development street to the driveway, car lights will consistently impact 68 Scenic Drive. Given the proximity of the new residences, exterior home lighting and street lighting will negatively impact 68 Scenic Drive residents. 9ŗċđϼͳͺЂͶЂͶЂͲͷͲϼ ϼ 5.)No Tree Protection Plan 9ŗċđϼͳͺЂͶЂͷЂͲ͵Ͳϼ ϼ 6.) link. Climate and Energy Action Plan Executive Summary 9ŗċđϼͻЂͶͲЂͲʹͲϼ ϼ ͳϼК¡ŵŗŲŗŹđċ϶ċđƚđňŗŲŎđŏƂ϶ĳŹ϶ƜĳƂİĳŏ϶ê϶İĳŹƂŗŵĳą϶ċđŹĳĩŏêƂĳŗŏ϶êŵđê϶êŏċ϶ċŗđŹ϶ŏŗƂ϶ŹƇŲŲŗŵƂ϶Ƃİđ϶ŲŵđŹđŵƚêƂĳŗŏ϶ŗĨ϶ŹİňêŏċЪŹ϶İĳŹƂŗŵĳą϶ŲêŹƂϼ 9ŗċđϼʹЂʹͶЂͲͶͲϼ ϼ 8.) ͵ϼК9ŗŏĨŗŵŎêŏąđ϶ƜĳƂİ϶Ųđŏ϶¨Ųêąđ϶đƂƜŗŵń϶¡ňêŏ϶А϶đƜ϶ċđƚđňŗŲŎđŏƂŹ϶must provide open space consistent with the design concepts within the Greenway and Open Space chapter of the Normal Neighborhood plan Framework in in conformance with the Normal đĳĩİăŗŵİŗŗċ϶¡ňêŏ϶Ųđŏ϶¨Ųêąđ϶đƂƜŗŵń϶~êŲϼ϶°İđ϶ŲŵŗŲŗŹđċ϶ċđƚđňŗŲŎđŏƂ϶ĳŹ϶ŏŗƂ϶ĳŏ϶ąŗŎŲňĳêŏąđ϶ƜĳƂİ϶7ϼͳϼ϶ê϶А϶ċϼ϶϶ 9ŗċđϼͳͺЂ͵ЂͶЂͲ͸Ͳϼ Additional context for Code ͳͺЂ͵ЂͶЂͲ͸ͲЃϼ7Ђ͹ЂċЂ϶А϶Ƃİđ϶ŲŵŗŲŗŹđċ϶ċđƚđňŗŲŎđŏƂ϶ŹĳƂđ϶ĳŹ϶ąŗŏŹĳċđŵđċ϶ЧĳŎŲŗŵƂêŏƂ϶Źąđŏĳą϶ƚĳđƜŹ϶Ƃŗ϶Ƃİđ϶ ąŗŎŎƇŏĳƂƢШ϶êŏċ϶İêŹ϶İêŵăŗŵđċ϶ƜĳňċňĳĨđ϶Źĳŏąđ϶ĳƂŹ϶ŗŵĳĩĳŏêň϶ŲƇŵąİêŹđϼ϶°İđ϶ŲŵŗŲŗŹđċ϶ċđƚđňŗŲŎđŏƂ϶ĩŗđŹ϶êĩêĳŏŹƂ϶Ƃİđ϶êăŗƚđ϶ąŗċđ϶Ў϶϶ the application does not protect scenic views important to the community nor does the development protect the community one currently found. ϼ ϼ ϼ ϼ ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC MIDTOWN TERRACES A PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION BY SUNCREST HOMES ELECTRONIC COPY (SUNCREST HOMES) KAS 24-074 --------- C2 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 MIDTOWN TERRACES SUBDIVISION 113 PINE STREET SUBDIVISION UTILITY PLAN MIDTOWN TERRACES SUNCREST HOMES PLANNING SUNCREST HOMES VERIFY SCALES LOT 1 MASTER UTILITY PLAN LOT 2 LOT 3 OPEN SPACE ELECTRONIC COPY (SUNCREST HOMES) KAS 24-074 --------- C1 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 MIDTOWN TERRACES SUBDIVISION GRADING PLAN 113 PINE STREET SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN MIDTOWN TERRACES SUNCREST HOMES PLANNING SUNCREST HOMES VERIFY SCALES CONTOUR LEGEND TYPICAL DRIVEWAY/ TURN-AROUND SECTION MASTER SITE PLAN TYPICAL DRIVEWAY SECTION 310 Oak Street, Suite 3 Ashland, Oregon 97520 #DATEDESCRIPTION PRELIM SUBDIVISION OPEN SPACE 2424 TERRAINARCH.COM REVISIONS SITE PLAN 541.500.4776 L1.0 PvC, EG PROJECT NO. 08.01.2024 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TEAM: 113 PINE ST ----- SUNCREST HOMES MIDTOWN TERRACES SUBDIVISION the development of the new subdivision, including one new street tree recreation. The proposed bench is located under the shade of existing decomposed granite path with timber steps, and a bench for passiveNew trees will be planted to mitigate those being removed as part of NOTE: TREES WILL REQUIRE IRRIGATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT. REVIEW IRRIGATION OF TREES WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PLANTING. QTY access from the proposed development lots to the open space lot. 2 ACE GRIACER GRISEUMPAPERBARK MAPLE2" CAL1 1 Oregon White Oak trees. A secondary path is included to provide 1-1/2" CAL1-1/2" CAL The common open space for this subdivision will include a SIZE AUTUMN BLAZE® FREEMAN MAPLE COMMON OPEN SPACE FOR PASSIVE RECREATION OREGON WHITE OAK COMMON NAME LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE CONCEPT IMAGE ACE ABZACER X FREEMANII 'JEFFERSRED' BOTANICAL NAME QUE GARQUERCUS GARRYANA on Pine Street. 0'10'20'40'60' CODE PLANT SCHEDULE SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" SYMBOL TREES PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CHANGES, SCD (1) ACE GRI PROPOSED PARCEL 1 DEVELOPMENT LOTS ALTERNATE PATH TO PROPOSED DRIVEWAY, SCD (2) ACE ABZ PROPOSED PARCEL 2 (1) QUE GAR PROPOSED PARCEL 3 NEW DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH & BENCH FOR PASSIVE RECREATION. COMMON OPEN SPACE LOT, WITH PROVIDE TIMBER STEPS AS NEEDED WITH NEW TIMBER STEPS & RETAINING BOULDERS AS NEEDED ON HILLSIDE PATH TO DEVELOPMENT LOTS, 310 Oak Street, Suite 3 Ashland, Oregon 97520 #DATEDESCRIPTION PRELIM SUBDIVISION TREE PROTECTION 2424 TERRAINARCH.COM REVISIONS 541.500.4776 L0.1 PvC, EG PLANPROJECT NO. 08.01.2024 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TEAM: 113 PINE ST ----- SUNCREST HOMES MIDTOWN TERRACES SUBDIVISION (CANOPY APPROX. PER SURVEY)(CANOPY APPROX. PER SURVEY) DETAILS / CONDITIONSREMOVE / PRESERVE (wildfire hazard)TREE PROTECTION FENCING PER CITY OF ASHLAND TREE PROTECTION PLAN LEGEND Unknown PreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreservePreserve RemovePoorRemovePoorRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemove TREE TO REMOVE TREE TO REMAIN SYMBOLDESCRIPTION STANDARDS healthy tree / building UNKNOWN LOCATION nearly specimen treenearly specimen tree SPLITx2, healthy treeSPLITx2, healthy tree healthy tree (withinhealthy tree (within fair health / visible SPLITx2 / PoorFROM SURVEY visible decayfair conditionfair conditionfair condition healthy treehealthy treehealthy treehealthy treehealthy treehealthy treehealthy treehealthy tree young tree driveway)driveway) Very PoorVery Poor fair health envelope vigorous healthyhealthyhealthyhealthyhealthyhealthyhealthy YSPLITx3 decay DeadDead TYPEDBH "SIGNIFICANT YYYYYY16YY2365Black Cottonwood18YYYYY18YY16Y 10N6N6N6NN20Y10N2371Coast Redwood10N20Y10N10N6N28Y6N10N10N10N 8N8N8N8N8N American Elm2424 15American Elm12151512141212151412 7 1.No pruning shall be performed except by been obtained from the Staff Advisor for2" Ø x 8' posts or approved 4.Approved signs shall be attached to the 3.See site plan for a diagrammatic layout chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to 6' high chain link fencing California Black OakCalifornia Black OakCalifornia Black OakCalifornia Black OakCalifornia Black OakCalifornia Black Oak be disturbed unless prior approval haswith signage; see notes 2.No equipment shall operate inside theindicated on the plans. with the tree protection Maintain existing grade 5" thick layer of mulch. D-TP-02.dwg Oregon White OakOregon White OakOregon White OakOregon White OakOregon White Oakfence unless otherwise equal at 10' o.c. max. protective fencing including during 2362Incense Cedar Norway MapleNorway MapleNorway Maple fence installation and removal. Giant Sequoia Raywood Ash American ElmAmerican ElmAmerican ElmAmerican ElmAmerican Elm TREE INVENTORY Douglas Fir Red Maple of tree protection fencing. 2348WalnutWalnut2386WalnutWalnut AppleAppleAppleApple above. Pear PlumPlum approved arborist. TREE # 2314233323342335233623372338233923402347234923592361236923702372237323742375237623792385240424052411241224212426243924432462247524862531 the project. 0'10'20'40'60' Notes: SIGN Limit of Tree Protection Zone. See Plan SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" DETAIL: TREE PROTECTION FENCE 1/4"= 1'-0" Scale: #2531 1 6'-0" 14. IF TEMPORARY HAUL OR ACCESS ROADS MUST PASS OVER THE ROOT AREA OF TREES TO BE RETAINED, DISTRIBUTE MYCOAPPLY EVENLY WITHIN THE ACTIVE ROOT ZONE OF RETAINED TREES. APPLY 30 GALS. 12. BEFORE GRADING, PAD PREPARATION, OR EXCAVATION FOR THE FOUNDATIONS, FOOTINGS, WALLS, FOOT OUTSIDE THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE BY CUTTING ALL ROOTS CLEANLY AT A 90 DEGREE ANGLEOF SOLUTION PER TREE 6" DBH AND GREATER, A MINIMUM OF 4" BELOW SOIL SURFACE IN QUANTITIES 13. ANY ROOTS DAMAGED DURING GRADING OR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE EXPOSED TO SOUND TISSUE CIRCUMSTANCES WITH WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ANY WORK AND CUT CLEANLY AT A 90 DEGREE ANGLE TO THE ROOT WITH A SAW. PLACE DAMP SOIL AROUND20.EXCEPTIONS TO THE TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS MAY ONLY BE GRANTED IN EXTRAORDINARY MATCH GRADES WITH SIDEWALKS AND CURBS, AND IN THOSE AREAS, FEATHER THE ADDED TOPSOIL ALL CUT ROOTS TO A DEPTH EQUALING THE EXISTING FINISH GRADE WITHIN 4 HOURS OF CUTS BEING 16. NO BURN PILES OR DEBRIS PILES SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE. NO ASHES, TO A DEPTH OF 24 INCHES. ROOTS SHALL BE CUT BY MANUALLY DIGGING A TRENCH AND CUTTING SOIL. THE ROAD BED MATERIAL SHALL BE REPLENISHED AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN A MIN. 6 INCH 17. MAINTAIN FIRE-SAFE AREAS AROUND FENCED AREA. ALSO, NO HEAT SOURCES, FLAMES, IGNITION OR TRENCHING, ANY TREES WITHIN THE SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION ZONE SHALL BE ROOT PRUNED 1A ROAD BED OF 6 - 8 INCHES OF WOOD MULCH OR GRAVEL SHALL BE CREATED TO PROTECT THE APPLICATION OF MYCOAPPLY ALL PURPOSE SOLUBLE PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. THIS 15. SPOIL FROM TRENCHES, BASEMENTS, OR OTHER EXCAVATIONS SHALL NOT BE PLACED WITHIN THE 18. DO NOT RAISE THE SOIL LEVEL WITHIN THE DRIP LINES TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE, EXCEPT TO 21.AS A PROTECTIVE MEASURE TO COMPENSATE FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS, TWO TO SIX WEEKS 19. REMOVE THE ROOT WAD FOR EACH TREE THAT IS INDICATED ON THE PLAN AS BEING REMOVED. ENHANCES THE ABSORPTIVE SURFACE AREA OF THE TREES' ROOT SYSTEMS. THIS PROMOTES AND EXPOSED ROOTS WITH A SAW, VIBRATING KNIFE, ROCK SAW, NARROW TRENCHER WITH SHARP IMPROVES NUTRIENT AND WATER UPTAKE CAPABILITIES OF THE REMAINING ROOT STRUCTURE. MYCORRHIZAE PRODUCT IS A SPECIALLY FORMULATED NATURAL ROOT BIOSTIMULANT WHICH MYCOAPPLY IS AVAILABLE FROM MYCORRHIZAL APPLICATION, INC., PHONE (541) 476-3985. OF 1/2 GALLON AT EACH POINT OF APPLICATION. LOCATE THE ACTIVE ROOT ZONES WITH #2314 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, ALL RETAINED TREES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN SHALL RECEIVE AN DEBRIS, OR GARBAGE MAY BE DUMPED OR BURIED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE. #2338#2337 #2336#2334#2335 #2333 #2475 TREE PROTECTION ZONE, EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY. #2486 #2462SOURCES, OR SMOKING IS ALLOWED NEAR MULCH OR TREES. BLADES, OR OTHER APPROVED ROOT-PRUNING EQUIPMENT. BACK TO EXISTING GRADE AT APPROXIMATELY 3:1 SLOPE. #2339 #2443 #2347 #2340 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRESENT. #2439 #2348 #2349 COMMENCING. MADE.DEPTH. #2365 #2359 #2421 #2426 6. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF TREE PRUNING IS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION CLEARANCE . 4. ALL PROPOSED UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND DRAIN OR IRRIGATION LINES SHALL BE ROUTED OUTSIDE PANELS AREA INTEGRATED, THESE FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT IT DOES NOT ALLOW PASSAGESPRINKLERS OR REGULAR WATERING SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPRAY ON OR WITHIN 3 FEET OF OF PEDESTRIANS AND/ OR VEHICLES THROUGH IT. FENCES DEFINE A SPECIFIC PROTECTION ZONE FOR 1. PRIOR TO DELIVERING EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT OR COMMENCING ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 5. NO MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SPOIL, OR WASTE OR WASHOUT WATER MAY BE DEPOSITED, STORED, OR OBTAIN WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT CONSTRUCTION MAY BEGINC.WATERING METHOD: HAND WATERING SYSTEMS, RECOMMENDED FOR TREES THAT ARE PART OF TUNNELED OR BORED UNDER THE TREE ROOTS. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IF PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK ON THE SITE. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED8. WATERING SCHEDULE: WATERING PROTECTED TREES SHALL FOLLOW THESE STANDARDS, HOWEVER 2. FENCES MUST BE ERECTED TO PROTECT TREES TO BE PRESERVED AS SHOWN IN DIAGRAM. FENCINGPROTECTION ZONES AT ALL TIMES. SEE DETAIL #1 "TREE PRESERVATION FENCING" FOR ADDITIONAL ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. ALL DAMAGE CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION TO EXISTING TREES SHALL BE STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE TO PREVENT A. MOST SPECIES: 1 TIME PER MONTH DURING IRRIGATION SEASON (USUALLY MARCH THROUGH BY THE CONTRACTOR 48 HRS. IN ADVANCE FOR ALL SITE VISITS REQUESTED. CONTRACTOR SHALL AFTER ALL OF THE DESCRIBED FENCING IS IN PLACE. FENCING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE THE TRUNK. THE WATER SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO POOL OR DRAIN TOWARDS THE TRUNK. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND EXCAVATION SUPERVISORSHALL BE 6' TALL TEMPORARY CHAIN LINK PANELS INSTALLED WITH METAL CONNECTIONS TO ALL COMPLETED. FENCES MAY NOT BE RELOCATED OR REMOVED WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE PERIODS OF EXTREME HEAT, WIND, RAINFALL OR DROUGHT MAY REQUIRE MORE OR LESS WATER #2361 THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE. IF LINES MUST TRANSVERSE THE PROTECTION AREA, THEY SHALL BE A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT MUST BE WATERED TO INSURE TREE SURVIVAL DURING THE 3. CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS, TRAFFIC AND STORAGE AREAS MUST REMAIN OUTSIDE FENCED TREE ON THE SITE, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR A B. QUERCUS/OAK: DEEP WATER IN MAY AND SEPTEMBER, DO NOT WATER DURING OTHER MONTHS. FOR OAKS ALREADY IN THE VICINITY OF IRRIGATED CONDITIONS, AUTOMATIC9. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS SILT FENCING, DEBRIS BASINS, AND WATER DIVERSION COMPENSATED FOR BY THE OFFENDING PARTY, BEFORE THE PROJECT WILL BE CONSIDERED 7. IF INJURY SHOULD OCCUR TO ANY TREE DURING CONSTRUCTION, NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE EACH TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. FENCES ARE TO REMAIN UNTIL ALL SITE WORK HAS BEEN #2373 #2362 #2412 COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION UNTIL AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION IS INSTALLED. #2372 #2371 #2411 SILTATION AND/ OR EROSION WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE. #2386 PARKED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE (FENCED AREA). ANY PROJECT PLANS CONFLICT WITH THIS REQUIREMENT. #2405 #2385 #2379 TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL NOTES #2404 THAN RECOMMENDED IN THESE NOTES. #2370 #2375#2376 #2374 #2369 PROJECT IS COMPLETED. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. SEPTEMBER) REQUIREMENTS. COMPLETE. O N S ELEVATIONS , OR 97540 . 1 OF 2 328 Talent S V R 1 . . LIGHT COMPOSITE WOOD OR @ BOXED REC GAR 9'-0" . LITE 9'-0" 8'-6" , @ . LIGHT HORIZONTAL WOOD OR NATURAL PORCH REC W/ .5 12 I L F O 12 V 8'-6" . .5 . W METAL CONCRETE SAND TEXTURE WIDTH PATH SAND TEXTURE EAVES METAL OR PAINTED & FLASHING FASCIA @FORMED ALUMINUM VINYL WINDOWS B PER NATURAL GUTTER FASCIA EXT 13'-7"9'-0" . STANDING .. ANDHORIZONTAL W/W/ . . BOXED DOORS ABV ABV LIGHT . REC O N S ELEVATIONS , OR 97540 . 328 Talent 2 of S V R 1 . LIGHT FUTURE @ CEILING REC WIRE. .O @ EAVES REC O V B I V L FUTURE @ CEILING DOOR & REC .O ELECTRONIC COPY (SUNCREST HOMES) KAS 24-074 --------- C2 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 MIDTOWN TERRACES SUBDIVISION 113 PINE STREET SUBDIVISION UTILITY PLAN MIDTOWN TERRACES SUNCREST HOMES PLANNING SUNCREST HOMES VERIFY SCALES LOT 1 MASTER UTILITY PLAN LOT 2 LOT 3 OPEN SPACE NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2024-00049 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2308 Ashland Street APPLICANT & OWNER:MCA Architecture / Les Schwab DESCRIPTION: Arequest for Site Design Review approval to add a “RV and Truck Service Area canopy” at the east end of the building as part of the ongoing and previously approved site modernization.The planning action includes a request to remove three sweetgum trees along the property frontage and replace with Trident Maples. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Commercial;ZONING:C-1; MAP:39-1E-14-BA; TAX LOT:1100 NOTE:The Ashland Tree Advisory Committeewill review this Planning ActiononThursday,September 5, 2024at 2:00 PMat 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday September 10, 2024at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone:The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to:building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones:The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C.Site Development and Design Standards:The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D.City Facilities:The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E.Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards:The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1.There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2.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 purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 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. 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 diversitywithin 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Acer Buergerianum * Tila Cordata ‘halka’ The addition of an “RV and Truck Service Area canopy” at the east end of the building is the current proposed addition. When the building design proposal was originally submitted for review by the Ashland Planning Commission, a concrete pad was included at this location for this purpose. The local management of the store proposed the addition of the canopy after the design was approved by the City of Ashland Design Commission, so now we are presenting the proposed addition. Responding to City of Ashland T. cordata directives regarding variation of height and massing along the Ashland Street Façade, the proposed canopy is set 4’-0” back from the adjacent portion of the building to the west and is 2’-4” taller than that portion of the building. The area was originally a fenced storage space which has been relocated to the rear (south) of the building. ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION FILE # DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT __ _______________________________________________________ Pursuing LEED® Certification? YES NO DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 39 1E Assessor’s Map No. ____ __________________________________ Tax Lot(s) __________________________________ Zoning ___ _________________________________ Comp Plan Designation ___ _______________________ APPLICANT Name Phone E-Mail Address __ ____________________________________________ City __________________ Zip PROPERTY OWNER Name Phone E-Mail Address _ ____________________________________________________ City Zip SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________ Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________ I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1)that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2)that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3)that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4)that 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 I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant’s Signature Date As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. Property Owner’s Signature ( Date required) \[To be completed by City Staff\] Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ __________ OVER ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. FINDINGS OF FACT – Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre-Application Comment document. 2 SETS OF SCALED PLANS no larger than 11”x17”. Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. (Optional – 1 additional large set of plans, 2’x3’, to use in meetings) FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) LEED® 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 LEED® Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and The LEED® checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. NOTE: Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. 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. Street Address:__________________________________________________________________________________ Description of Project: ____________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Property Owner: __________________________________________________________________________________ Valuation Estimate Prepared by: ____________________________________________________________________ Estimator Phone: _________________________ Estimator Email: ____________________________________ *Building permit valuations shall be based upon the Uniform Fee methodologies as established by OAR 918-050-0100. NORTH 6'-0" 134 5'-1 7/8" TOLMAN CREEK ROAD 16'-8"12'-8" B.O. FASCIA T.O. FASCIA BOFASCIABOFASCIABOFASCIA TOFASCIATOFASCIATOFASCIATOFASCIA12'-8"B.O. FASCIA T.O. FASCIA C2 A T 16'-0"12'-8" B.O. FASCIA 16'-8"T.O. FASCIA T.O. CMU 9'-4" 9'-4"4 -4 9' T.O. ENTRY ELEMENT 15'-4"11'-4" B.O. FASCIAB.O. FASCIA.O. FASCIA 22'-3 1/2" . CIACIA 11'-4" . SS1 BOFASO BB BB 18'-4"14'-4" B.O. FASCIA.O. FASCIA T.O. FASCIA -4 14 '" TOFASCIATOFASCIATOFASCIAT.O. FASCIA B A T.O. ENTRY ELEMENT B.O. FASCIA T.O. GRADE T.O. FASCIA 22'-3 1/2" 11'-4" 15'-4" 0'-0" B.O. FASCIA T.O. FASCIA I . FAS 17'-4"13'-4" CA TOFASCIATOFASCIATOFASCIAT.O. FASCIA O B. CCC C 13'-4" T1 T.O. FASCIAT.O. FASCIA T.O. GRADE 19'-8"15'-8" TOFASCIAT.O. FASCIA 0'-0" F 15'-8" 8 5' 15 Gregory T. Covey 12/29/92 OREGON 295 2 21 1 Status Description 2 2 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD Gregory T. Covey 12/29/92 OREGON 295 2 21 1 2 2 2 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD Gregory T. Covey 12/29/92 OREGON 295 Gregory T. Covey 12/29/92 OREGON 295 2 2 1 2 2 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD ϶