HomeMy WebLinkAboutScenic_34_PA-APPEAL-2022-00014May 11, 2022
Applicant:
Rogue Planning & Development Services LLC
1314-B Center Drive, PMB #457
Medford, OR 97501
Owner;
Larry Gobelman and Joyce Stahmann
35 Scenic Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Planning Action #PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
Notice of Decision
Appellant:
Rod and Susan Reid
155 Granite Street
Ashland, OR 97520
CITY of
-SILAND
At its meeting on April 12, 2022, the Ashland Planning Commission denied the appeal, and
upheld the administrative decision approving Planning Action PA -T1-2021-00168, which was a
request for a minor land partition to divide a 1.32 -acre parcel into three parcels. The Ashland
Planning Commission adopted and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document on
May 10, 2022.
The Planning Commission's decision on appeal becomes final with this mailing of the Notice of
Final Decision (AMC 18.5.1.050.6.4). The 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.
Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated
documents and evidence submitted, and applicable criteria and standards 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 Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in accordance
with Oregon State Law. Please contact LUBA for specific appeal information,
http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/Pages/FAQ.aspx or 503-373-1265. They are located at 550
Capitol Street N.E., Suite 235, Salem, Oregon 97301-2552.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Aaron Anderson in the
Community Development Department at (541) 552-2052.
Enclosure
cc: Larry Gobelman and Joyce Stahmann
Parties of record
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY; 800-735-2900
F1 wwashland.or.us I U
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA -APPEAL -2022-00014,
AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF PLANNING
ACTION 4PA-T1-2022-00168, A THREE -LOT PARTITION OF A 1.32 -
ACRE LOT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 34 SCENIC ST. THE
TENTATIVE PARTITION PLAT CREATES THREE PARCELS THAT
ARE 0, 18, 0.23, AND 0.90 ACRES IN SIZE. STAFF INITIALLY
APPROVED THE APPLICATION. SUBSEQUENT TO THE MAILING OF A
NOTICE OF DECISION AN APPEAL REQUEST WAS TIMELY FILED.
OWNER: JOYCE STAHMANN AND LARRY GOBELMAN
APPLICANT: ROGUE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
APPELLANT: ROD AND SUSAN REID
RECITALS:
FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS,
AND ORDERS.
1) Tax lot #7300 of Assessor's Map 39 -IE -08 -AD is located at 34 Scenic Street is in the R-1-
7.5 zoning district and is 1.32 acres in size.
2) The application proposed a three -lot partition and included a tentative partition plat showing
three parcels that are proposed to be 0. 18, 0.23 and 090 acres in size.
3) On December 23, 2021 the application was deemed complete, and in accordance with AMC
18.5.1.050.B.4 a Notice of Complete (NOC) application was posted at the subject property
in clear view from the public right-of-way and mailed to all property owners of record
within 200 feet of the parcel.
4) The Staff Advisor approved the application on February 4, 2022, subject to several
conditions of approval and a Notice of Decision (NOD) was mailed on the same date. The
NOD listed the deadline to appeal as February 14, 2022, which was a scrivener's error. The
correct deadline to appeal was in fact February 16, 2022
5) On February 16, 2022, a Notice of Land Use Appeal was timely filed by Rod and Susan Reid
who reside at 153 Granite Street. The Reid's have standing to appeal as they were both:
entitled to written notice, and by having submitted written comments on the application
during the initial comment period.
6) Due to scheduling the applicant was unable to commit to being able to attend the March
Planning Commission meeting, this required an extension to the 120 -day time limit set forth
in ORS 227.178(1). On February 21, 2022, the applicant submitted a request for a 45 -day
extension to the time limit.
7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on April 12,
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
May 10, 2022
Page 1
2022. The meeting was conducted electronically by Zoom due to the ongoing emergency
order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Public testimony was received, and exhibits
were presented.
8) After the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission deliberated and determined
that staff had not erred in approving the three -lot partition. A motion was made to deny the
appeal and approve the application subject to conditions listed in the staff report, and the
additional condition that the easement shown on the preliminaiy partition plat for the benefit
of Parcel 2, along the southern edge of Parcel 3, be limited to a utility easement.
9) The criteria of approval for a Land Partition are described in Ashland Municipal Code
(AMC) 18.5.3.050 which state that the approval authority shall approve an application for
preliminary partition plat approval only where all the following criteria are net;
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be
impeded.
C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if
any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area.
D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any
applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development
standards, per pari 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and
orientation).
F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area
Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria.
G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the
street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to
existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall
identify all proposed public improvements and dedications.
H. Unpaved Streets.
Minimum Street Improvement. When there exists a 20 -foot wide access along the
entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial
street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved
with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street.
The minimum width of the street shall be 20 -feet with all work done under permit of
the Public Works Department.
2. Unj2aved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access
for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist.
a. The unpaved street is at least 20 -feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector
or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to
its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to
the signature of the final partition plat by the City.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten
percent.
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
May 10, 2022
Page 2
c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public
Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a
substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the
lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation.
d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the
applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the
owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners
agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such
improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall
be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to
so agree, then the application shall be denied.
1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided
from the alley and prohibited from the street.
J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can
reasonably be obtained prior to development.
K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in
section 18.5.3.060.
10) The criteria of approval for an exception to the street standards are described in Ashland
Municipal Code (AMC) 18.4.6.020.8.1 which state that the approval authority may approve
exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 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.
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
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
May 10, 2022
Page 3
testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, Iettered 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 it has received all information necessary to render a
decision based on the application, Staff Report, public hearing testimony, and the exhibits
received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a three -lot partition meets all
applicable criteria described in section 18,5.3.050, for preliminary partition plat approval. The
Planning Commission notes that the preliminary partition plat details the three proposed parcels
to be 0. 18, 0.23 and 0.90 acres in size.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application was deemed complete on December
23, 2021, and notice was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all
property owners within 200 -feet of the subject property. The Planning Commission further finds
that the application was approved by the Staff Advisor on February 4, 2022, and a Notice of
Decision (NOD) was mailed on the same date. The Planning Commission notes that the NOD
contained a scrivener's error with regard to the deadline to appeal. The correct deadline to appeal
was in fact February 16, 2022.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that on February 16, 2022(the end of the appeal period),
Sue and Rod Reid timely filed a notice of land use appeal_ Mr. & Mrs. Reid own an adjacent
parcel to the east and also submitted written comments during the public comment period and
thus had standing to appeal. The Planning Commission finds that the appellant has standing to
appeal.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is located within the R-1-7.5
zoning district and that land divisions are governed by AMC 18.5.3.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that AMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the division of
land to carry out the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to
encourage efficient use of land resources among other goals. When considering the decision to
approve or deny an application for land partition, the Staff Advisor considers the application
materials against the relevant approval criteria in the AMC. The approval criteria for a
preliminary partition plat are in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.3.050. The PIanning
Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of
the criteria have been met, as follows:
2.7.1 The Planning Commission notes the first approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is "The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract
will not be impeded. " The application includes a discussion regarding the future development
plan to demonstrate that the proposed partition will not impede future development of the
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
May 10, 2022
Page 4
parcels. The future development plan indicates that the proposed new parcel would be able to
be subdivided to create as many as three lots for the development of single-family homes
with access provided by a future driveway fi°om Scenic. The Planning Commission finds that
the future urban purposes of the oversized parcel 3 can be met with the development a single
home as there is no minimum density requirements in the R-1 zones.
The Planning Commission notes that the applicant has provided a driveway design to serve
Parcel 3 that would meet the standards for vehicle access upon obtaining a Physical and
Environmental Constraints review and approval for the driveway at the time of future
development. The Planning Commission finds that the applicants proposal demonstrates that
primary vehicular access from Scenic Drive is possible. The Planning Commission finds that
with a condition of approval that requires that any future development of Parcel 3 shall
demonstrate compliance with the vehicle access standards of AMC 18.4, that the approval
criterion is met.
The existing access easement provided across the adjacent property at 153 Granite Street
would remain available as secondary access to Parcel 3, as well as for the extension of
utilities to serve the property.
2.7.2 The Planning Commission notes the second approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is "The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access
thereto will not he impeded. " The Planning Commission notes that no adjacent parcel would
be impeded from future development due to this partition. Specifically, an adjacent property
with additional development potential can obtain direct access for future development by
virtue of its frontage along Granite Street without requiring access through the subject
property. The Planning Commission finds that this criterion of approval is met.
2.7.3 The Planning Commission notes the third approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is "The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adapted
neighborhood or district plans, if any, and nay previous land use approvals fort the subject
area. " The Planning Commission notes that the only relevant district plan would be the
Historic district which has a requirement for Maximum Pennitted Floor Area (MPFA). The
Planning Commission finds that the size of proposed parcel 1 allows for a house that is 2,718
sq. ft. which is greater than the existing house which the county assessor indicates is 2,485
meeting this standard. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is satisfied.
2.7.4 The Planning Commission notes the fourth approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is "The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months." The
Planning Commission notes that the land has not been partitioned for more than 12 months.
The Planning Commission finds that this criterion is satisfied.
2.7.5 The Planning Commission notes the fifth approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is the "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). " The Planning Commission notes that each of the three parcels
comply with lot width and depth requirements, coverage, MPFA standards, solar access
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
May 10, 2022
Page 5
standards," and the application provides calculations showing compliance with the applicable
standards can be achieved. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Iots do
conform to the requirements of the base zone. The Planning Commission concludes that this
criterion is satisfied.
2.7.6 The Planning Commission notes the sixth approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is that "Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section
18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. " The Planning Commission finds that all three proposed
parcels have frontage of greater than seventy feet Scenic Drive, which is a fully paved public
street. Additionally, with the condition that future development of Parcel 3 would require
primary vehicle access from Scenic Drive, as discussed in 2.7.1 above, the Planning
Commission finds that this can be accomplished through approval of a Physical and
Environmental Constraints review for the driveway installation as demonstrated by the
applicant's supplemental materials. The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion is
satisfied.
2.7.7 The Planning Commission notes the seventh approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is "The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage
facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and
allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The
preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications."The
PIanning Commission finds that the subject property, and each of the proposed parcels, have
frontage on Scenic Drive which is a paved and has curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The
application materials make clear that all city facilities are available within the adjacent rights-
of-way, including sanitary sewer, water, and franchise utilities. There are no newly proposed
streets, or public facilities proposed to be installed to serve the new vacant parcels. The
Planning Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied.
2.7.8 The Planning Commission notes the eighth approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval addresses minimum improvements to the roadway where there are
unpaved streets. The Planning Commission notes that Scenic Drive is improved with a curb -
to -curb width is approximately twenty-two feet paved meeting the standard for a local street.
The Planning Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied based in the
existing improvements.
2.7.9 The Planning Commission notes the ninth approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is that "Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be
required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. " The Planning
Commission finds that this criterion does not apply as there is no alley adjacent to the subject
property.
2.7.10 The Planning Commission notes the tenth approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is that "Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been
obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. " The Planning Commission
finds that at this time that the future development of the property would not require such
permits as there are no identified wetlands or waterways on the property. The Planning
Commission concludes that this criterion is met.
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
May 10, 2022
Page 6
2.7.11 The Planning Commission notes the final approval criterion for preliminary
partition plat approval is that "A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall
additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. " The Planning Commission finds that
this criterion does not apply as there is no proposed flag lot] as all three parcels as proposed
have frontage on Scenic Drive meeting or exceeding the minimum lot width requirement.
2.7.12 The Planning Commission notes that the application includes an exception from
the street standards to leave the non -conforming frontage along scenic in its current state
(curb tight sidewalk). The Planning Commission notes that the standard for a local street
requires a park -row. The Planning Commission finds that this is a reasonable accommodation
considering the existence of a curbside sidewalk along the full property frontage, the slope of
the property adjacent to Scenic Dr., and the extant retaining wall. Furthermore, the Planning
Commission notes that the required improvements would not be proportional to the proposal
considering the request is a simple partition with no other proposed development.
2.8 The Planning Commission notes the notice of appeal included the standard Land Use
Appeal form which has spaces for up to three specific grounds for appeal and a citation for the
relevant applicable criteria that it relates to. The items listed were as follows:
"The future use for urban purposes for proposed Parcel 3 will be impeded."
[citing 18.5.3.050.A]
• "Existing easement access from Granite Street as proposed to serve parcel 3 and
also to be extended to parcel 2 does not conform the the [sic] standards in section
18.4.3.080." [citing 18.5.3.050.F]
• "Proposed partition plan does not conform to the applicable development
standards for connectivity and block lengths." [citing 18.5.3.060].
The form continues and says, "on attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the
above" (emphasis added). The appeal included four other pages that included a one-page letter
from the appellants, and a three-page memo from CSA Planning Ltd to the appellants. The one-
page letter asserts that the proposed partition "Limits any practical access to Scenic Dr." Based
on the predicate that no access from Scenic is possible, the remainder of the letter focus on issues
relating to an easement across the appellants property. The memo from CSA states that it was
prepared "to outline the bases for your to appeal" to the partition. The memo outlines the
required contents of appeal provided at AMC 18.5.1.050.G.2.c which provides for the following
four items
i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision.
ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to
appeal.
AMC 18.6 Definitions provides: "Flag Lot'- A Iot with two distinct parts. [figure omitted] 1) The flag, which is
the building site; and is located behind another lot. 2) The pole, which connects the flag to the street; provides the
only street frontage for the lot with less than 40 feet of frontage on a street; and unless an alley provides access,
includes a driveway providing access.
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
May 10, 2022
Page 7
iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal.
iv. A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public
comment period.
The memo provides specific responses to the first, second, and fourth items, but does not provide
anything below the third item (specific issues being raised on appeal). Staff understands that the
intent of the memo was to bolster the four items that were listed in the public comment submitted
by Mrs. Reid during the initial application period taking issue with 1) Lack of a Future
Development Plan, 2) Concerns about vehicle access, 3) Concerns about Block Length /
Connectivity standards, 4) Exception to street standards
2.8.1 The Planning Commission notes that the first appeal issue was that "The future use
for urban purposes for proposed Parcel 3 will be impeded." [citing 18.5.3.050.A]. The
Planning Commission finds that there is no barrier to the future urban use of the proposed
Parcel 3. As stated above, there is significant frontage along Scenic to provide future access.
The Planning Commission notes the applicants' supplemental materials prepared by a
professional engineer demonstrate that a driveway access could be developed in conjunction
with the approval of a Physical & Environmental constraints review. Such a driveway could
serve as many as three lots consistent with the standards for a private drive. Finally, because
there is no minimurn density for the R-1-7.5 zone if the oversized parcel only developed with
a single-family home it would be consistent the urban standards for the zone. The Planning
Commission concludes that the first appeal issue regarding the future use of the parcel is not
valid.
2.8.2 The Planning Commission notes that the second appeal issue was that "Existing
easement access from Granite Street as proposed to serve parcel 3 and also to be extended to
parcel 2 does not conform the the [sic] standards in section 18.4.3.080." [citing 18.5.3.050.F]
The standard cited at AMC 18.5.3.050.F provides, "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." The standards provided at AMC 18.4.3.080
only addresses easements in a limited fashion. The relevant part the code requires that
driveway curb cuts be minimized through the use of shard driveways as is proposed for
Parcels 1 and 2 on this proposal. The Planning Commission finds that this appeal issue is not
valid.
2.8.3 The PIanning Commission notes that the third appeal issue was that "Proposed
partition plan does not conform to the applicable development standards for connectivity and
block lengths." [citing 18.5.3.060]. The approval criteria at AMC 18.5.3.060 contain a total
of 16 items numbered A through P, so it is unclear exactly which standard is being
referenced. That said, AMC 18.5.3.060 is titled `Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition.
Plat Criteria.' The Planning commission understands that these approval criteria would only
apply when there is a proposed Flag Lot. The Planning Commission finds that based on the
definitions at AMC 18.6 no `flag lot' is being proposed, as such none of the approval criteria
at AMC 18.53.060 are relevant to the application.
In the alternative, the Planning Commission presumed that the section cited was in error and
will address the concerns about connectivity and block length. Section AMC 18.4.6.040
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
May 10, 2022
Page 8
address Street Design Standards and their applicability. Under the applicability section it
states: "The following standards apply to all street improvements, including new streets,
alleys and pathways, and the extension or widening of existing streets." The present
application does not propose a new road, nor is one required as a new public street must only
be dedicated when it is serving four units or greater. The Planning Commission concludes
that the third appeal issue is not valid.
2.8.4 The Planning Commission notes above that the CSA Planning Ltd. memo mainly
argues the four points that were raised in the initial public comment by the appellant which
included
• Lack of a Future Development Plan
• Concerns about vehicle access
• Concerns about Block Length / Connectivity standards
• Exception to street standards
Each are addressed in turn:
There is no requirement for a future development plan nor is there a required base density of
development for the R-1-7.5 zone. The Planning Commission notes the applicant's
supplemental materials and finds that the applicant has demonstrated sufficiently with an
engineered plan for a new driveway accessing Scenic Drive that with a Physical and
Environmental constraints review a driveway could be developed from Scenic Drive to
support future development of a single family home, and possibly even further subdivision of
proposed Parcel 3. A condition of approval has been added that any proposed future
development of Parcel 3 will require a primary vehicular access be provided that is in
compliance with the Ashland Land Use Ordinance standards.
The Planning Commission notes that with regard to both the concerns about block length /
connectivity standards and exceptions to the street design standards, the CSA Planning Ltd.
memo does not further develop these appeal issues. That said, the Planning Commission
refers to appellant's January 5th 2022 letter, submitted with the original planning application.
As mentioned previously under the third appeal issue the standards for both block length and
connectivity are not relevant as the partition does not propose a new road nor is one required.
With regard to the exceptions to street standards the January 5th letter raises them only
briefly and then turns to discussion to connectivity which, as was just pointed out, are not
relevant here.
The Planning Commission further notes that the appellant argues that change in grade
presents difficulties to improve the Right -of -Way with a park row then it would logically also
preclude the development of a driveway. The Planning Commission notes that there is
presently a curbside sidewalk along the entire frontage of Scenic Dr., and removal of the
retaining wall, dedication of additional Right -of -Way, potential relocation of the sidewalk,
and installation of a park row would not be proportional to the impacts of the proposed
partition, and that when considering the present condition of the Right -of -Way the Planning
Commission finds that the exception to the street standards for installation of a park row is
valid and was administratively approved. The Planning commission further finds that the
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
May 10, 2022
Page 9
applicant, with their supplemental materials, have satisfactorily demonstrated that with a
Physical and Environmental Constraints permit a driveway could successfully be developed
from Scenic to serve proposed Parcel 3.
2.9 The Planning Commission finds that with the conditions below attached, the proposal
satisfies the applicable approval criteria and that none of the appeal issues provide a basis to
reverse the initial approval decision of the Staff Advisor.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission
concludes that the request for the partition approval to divide the property is supported by
evidence contained within the whole record.
3.2 The Planning Commission denies the appeal and re -affirms the Staff Advisor's original
approval of the partition. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be
invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then the Planning Action is denied. The following are the
conditions, and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
2) That any future developments of Parcel 3 shall demonstrate compliance with the vehicle
access standards of AMC 18.4. The applicant's proposal to satisfy this requirement by
providing primary vehicular access from Scenic Drive will require a separate approval of a
Physical and Environmental constraints review.
3) That the proposed easement shown to the benefit of parcel 2 over parcel 3 be limited to
utilities only.
4) That a final survey plat shall be submitted, reviewed and approved within 18 months of the
final decision date of the preliminary partition plat approval by the City of Ashland.
5) That prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for the review, approval and signature of
the Ashland Planning Division, all easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus
access, and reciprocal utility, maintenance, and access shall be indicated on the final survey
plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division.
4AWO-08 �U t�26 May 10, 2022
Plannin Cominission Approval Date
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
May 10, 2022
Page 10
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On May 11, 2022 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice
to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on
this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA-APPEALW2022-00014,
34 Scenic Dr.
MchaeCSuCCiyan
Signature of Employee
G:lcamm-devlplann1ngT1anning AaidansWs 6y Streei4Sl&enlc4Scen[c_341Scen c_34_PA 77-2021-001681Scenfc_34_PA-APPEAL-2022-00014WoticingW0I)18cenic_34_PA-APPEAL-2022-00014_AtTdavil of
Mal€ng.docx 5/1112022
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391 E08AD5500
GOBELMAN LARRY ET AL
35 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391E08AD6000
REID RODNEY J TRUSTEE ET AL
155 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391E08AD7400
TERRA SURVEY INC
274 FOURTH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
i, do-dod paogai aI IaJanaJ ap ui1e aJ«yoey �21 e zai[da8
130d Ase] assaipe.p sallanbil3
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391E08AD5700
JOAN NISSENBERG
153 GRANITE ST #4
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391E08AD6102
ROGUE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
1314-B CENTER DR, PMB #457
MEDFORD, OR 97501
34 Scenic Appeal NOD
05/11/22
7
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391 E08AD6700
RAUL G WOERNER
4497 BROWNRIDGE, SUITE 101
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391E08AD5200
STAHMANN JOYCE ET AL
35 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
I 09tS AleAV auegeq
al zasip}n
� s��aeq���e�•��ane
� zall�/
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391 E08AD5500
GOBELMAN LARRY ET AL
35 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391E08AD6000
REID RODNEY J TRUSTEE ET AL
155 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391E08AD7400
TERRA SURVEY INC
274 FOURTH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
i, do-dod paogai aI IaJanaJ ap ui1e aJ«yoey �21 e zai[da8
130d Ase] assaipe.p sallanbil3
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391E08AD5700
JOAN NISSENBERG
153 GRANITE ST #4
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391E08AD6102
ROGUE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
1314-B CENTER DR, PMB #457
MEDFORD, OR 97501
34 Scenic Appeal NOD
05/11/22
7
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391 E08AD6700
RAUL G WOERNER
4497 BROWNRIDGE, SUITE 101
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391E08AD5200
STAHMANN JOYCE ET AL
35 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
Prrlia1541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY; 1-800-735-2900
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 34 Scenic Dr,
APPLICANTIOWNER: Rogue Development for Gobelman & Stahmann
DESCRIPTION: The planning commission to near an appeal of staffs decision approving PA -T1-2021-
00168 which was a request for a minor land partition to divide a 1.32 -acre parcel into three parcels. Proposed Parcel 1 is
proposed as a 10,076 square foot (SF) parcel, to the south is proposed Parcel 2 is proposed to have 8,000 SF, and parcel 3
is proposed to be 39,534 square foot parcel. The large parcel is not proposed for any development at this time.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; MAP: 39 1E 08 AD, TAX LOT:
7300
ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: April 92, 2022
+'
`3
l
Subject Property
34 Scenic � �
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 ,
a
t
U
1
GAccmm-devlplanning\Pianning ActionsTAs by Street\S1Scenic\Scenic_341Scenic_34_PA-T1-2021-001685Scenic 34 PA-APPEAL-2022-000141NolicinglSecnic 34 PA-APPEAL-2022-00014_NOC.doex
Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning ( . mission will hold an electronic public hearing on tf )ve described planning action on the meeting
date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications ujannels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting
via the internet by going to rvtv,sou.edu and selecting `RVTV Prime.'
The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an abjection concerning this
application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers 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.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements for
reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning Oashland. or.us.
A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available
on-line at www.ashIand.or.us/PCpackets seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested.
Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering
Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre -arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning(a.ashland.or.us.
Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony(a.ashand.or.us with the subject line "April 12 PC Hearing
Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 11, 2022. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to
PC-public-testimony(a)ash land. or. us with the subject line "April 12 PC Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 12, 2022. Written testimony
received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes.
Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC-
public-testimon r(a.ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on April 11, 2022. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information:
1) make the subject line of the email "April 12 Speaker Request", 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you
will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating
by telephone.
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 1).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-552-2052 / aaron.anderson(rl}ashland .or.us.
PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT
18.5.3.050
The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met.
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area.
D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable
development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation).
F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18,43.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition
Plat Criteria.
G, The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow
for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and
dedications.
H. Unpaved Streets.
1. Minimum Street Improvement When there exists a 20 -foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved
collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed
for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20 -feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
2. Unpaved Streets, The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist.
a. The unpaved street is at least 20 -feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded
(cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18A.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent
c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation
would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street
elevation.
d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights
of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements
and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements
GAcomm-devlpIanningiPianning ActionAPAs by Stre M\SceniclScenic_341Scenic 34 PA-T]-2021-001661Scenic_34_PA-APPEAL-2022-000I4NNoiicing\Scenic-34—PA-APPEAL-2022-00014 NOC.docx
shall include paving, curb, gutter, siG (,s, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requ' -)nt shall be precedont to the signing of the final
survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
I. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street.
J. Required State and f=ederal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development.
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.
GAcommdevlpiannin&1anning AciionsXPAS by Street151Scenic\Scenic_34\Scenic 34 PA -T 1-2021-00IMSeenic 34_PA-APPEAL-2022-000141NoficinglSeenic_34_ PA -APPEAL -2022 -WO 14_Noc.doc
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On April 1, 2022 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice
to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on
this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -APPEAL -2022-00014,
34 Scenic Drive.
NichaeCSuClrvan
Signature of Employee
G:lcomnn-dayVianningVP arming kdonsTAs by Sbeetl%BceniclScenic_34iScenlz_34_PA-i1-2421-001661$cenie_34 PA-APPEAL-2022-OOU141NodcinglScenic_34_PA-APPE.N--2022-00014_NCC Affidavit of
Mailing.doex 4M12022
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD5500 PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD5700 PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD6700
ALLEN PATRICIA A REV TRUST ET ARCHIBALD SANDRA WRAY TRUSTEE BROWN SUSAN E TRUSTEE ET AL
546 OLD FARM CT 1023 LINDA AVE 139 GRANITE ST
DANVILLE, CA 94526 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391 E08AD6000
COOPER PHILIP G TRUSTEE ET AL
144 NUTLEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 39IE08AD7400
FRASHESKI MEGAN ELIZABETH ET
147 STRAWBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD5600
HAMILTON SARAH FAITH
180 NUTLEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
JOAN NISSENBERG
153 GRANITE ST #4
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD6800
MATSINGER MARJORIE TRUSTEE ET
2920 25TH ST
SACRAMENTO, CA 95818
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
RAUL G WOERNER
4497 BROWNRIDGE, SUITE 101
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD7100
SCHAFFER ANDREA
112112 NUTLEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD6300
SMITH LINDA FOX
80 NUTLEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 EOBAD6102
CROCKER KEN
134 NUTLEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD7900
GAMBLE WILLIAM L TRUSTEE ETA
145 TOWN CTR 683
CORTE MADERA, CA 94925
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391E08AD5402
ING DANA CICRAWFORD BRETT
5 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD6200
LEDBETTER ROGER B TRUSTEE ET
112 NUTLEY ST
1 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391E08AD7401
MCPHEE LARRY MICHAEL
22 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD7200
REID RODNEY J TRUSTEE ET AL
155 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391 E08AD7800
SCHEUNER FAMILY REV TRUST ET
PO BOX 1851
SONOMA, CA 95476
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391E08AD7300
STAHMANN JOYCE ET AL
35 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD5200
FARMER FAMILY LIVING TRUST
FARMER RODNEY L ET AL
196 NUTLEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-APPEAL_2022-00014 391 E08AD5401
GOBELMAN LARRY ET AL
35 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391E08AD6101
JACQUOT RICHARD A TRUSTEE ET
124 NUTLEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391E08AD6900
LONSETH ARVID T
1916 NE CLACKAMAS ST
PORTLAND, OR 97232
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD5303
PERLMAN ROBIN L TRUSTEE ET AL
20820 PACIFIC COAST HWY
MALIBU, CA 90265
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
ROGUE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
1314-B CENTER DR, PMB #457
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391 E08AD7500
SIGUENZA MARIO E
2252 ALLEGHENY WAY
SAN MATEO, CA 94402
PA -APPEAL 2022-00014 391 EO8AD5701
STANLEY RICHARD JOSEPH TRUSTE
44 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD5400 PA -APPEAL _2022-00014 PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 391 E08AD7600
STOTT BENJAMIN W TRUSTEE ET A TERRA SURVEY INC WOOD CHRISTOPHER L TRUSTEE ET
155 STRAWBERRY LN 274 FOURTH ST 121 STRAWBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 j ASHLAND, OR 97520
i
� 09LS wand �isege� a� zasq€;� do -dad paoyaa a� aa�ana� ap i�i�i aaFty�ei� e� e zai�ciad
s�iaegeC��ea•�C.ianc� � za�l�y � iaa� �Cse� assaipe,p sad;anbi��
" PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 i:AD11 34 Scenic Appeal NOC
MICHAELWRIGHT <
04/01/22
111 MONTVIEW ST 31
ASHLAND, O. 97520
z z
r°a ,y�
y
A
t
�Y
a
r
�
�� Pa
r
s
�
v�
L
z z
r°a ,y�
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Minutes
April 12, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, via Zoom
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p,m.
Commissioners Present:
Michael Dawkins
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Lisa Verner
Kerry KenCairn
Doug Knauer
Absent Members:
None
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager
Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Aaron Anderson, Associate Planner
Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Council Liaison:
Paula Hyatt (absent)
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcements:
• The Social Equity and Racial Justice (SERJ) Commission requested that a member of the Planning
Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission attend their meeting on May 5, 2022.
Commissioner Knauer volunteered to attend.
• The City Council will hold a hybrid Council meeting on April 19, 2022. The City Council members will be in
attendance, as well as key members of staff. Members of the public will still participate virtually. City
Commissions could potentially use this template for future meetings.
• Mr. Molnar expressed gratitude to Commissioner Roger Pearce for his years of service on the Planning
Commission. This will be Commissioner Pearce's final Commission meeting before his move to Seattle.
Commissioner Pearce said that it had been a privilege to work with the Commission and Planning staff.
III. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
1. March 8, 2022 Regular Meeting
2. March 22, 2022 Study Session
Commissioners KenCairnNerner m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 7-0.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM - None
V. TYPE I PUBLIC HEARINGS —Appeal
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 34 Scenic Dr.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Development for Gobelman & Stahmann
Ashland Planning Commission
April 92, 2022
Page 7 of &
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission to hear an appeal of staffs decision approving PA -T1-2021-00168
which was a request for a minor land partition to divide a 1.32 -acre parcel into three parcels, Proposed Parcel 1 is
proposed as a 10,076 square foot (SF) parcel, to the south is proposed Parcel 2 is proposed to have 8,000 SF, and
parcel 3 is proposed to be 39,534 square foot parcel. The large parcel is not proposed for any development at this
time. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; MAP: 391E 08 AD,
TAX LOT: 7300
Chair Norton read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported, All Commissioners except for Commissioner Thompson visited the site.
Staff Presentation
Associate Planner Aaron Anderson detailed the staffs report on the appeal for the partition of the property at 34
Scenic Dr. The lot would be divided into three parcels, with parcel #3 remaining currently undeveloped. Mr.
Anderson directed attention to the relevant criteria that were the main subjects of the appeal, and stated that staff
found the criteria had been met by the applicants original submittal. Therefore it was staffs recommendation that the
appeal be denied and the original staff approval be upheld with the conditions recommended in the staff report (see
attachment #1).
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Thompson asked for clarification from staff regarding the use of an easement across the appellant's
property to access parcel #3, Mr, Anderson related how the current easement would not be sufficient for any future
single family homes per the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), but that staff did not weigh in on this issue because it
was a civil matter between the two parties. Any future development would be required to show how the easement
would allow for any necessary driveway standards before moving forward.
Applicant Presentation
Amy Gunter gave a brief presentation to the Commission detailing how the minimum standards for a lot partition
were met in the original proposal. She stated that several parcel layouts were discussed before deciding on the
current proposal, which would have sufficient lot depth, width and street access, and would comply with chapter
18.5.3 of the AMC. Ms. Gunter addressed one concern made by the appellants over the lack of a development plan
for parcel #3. She explained that the applicants had several potential plans for the parcel, but that it was their
intention to leave it undeveloped at this time. The development plan recently submitted by the applicants was made
to convey the development potential to the appellants and alleviate any concerns that they held. Ms. Gunter then
noted that the applicants had sought the expertise of an engineer to demonstrate that a driveway could be
developed for parcel #3 and conform to existing AMC standards, She also drew attention to the recorded easement,
which stipulated that the property owners would be permitted to drive, walk, and place utilities within that 15ft wide
easement, and would be a legal access point to the property.
Ms. Gunter addressed the connectivity issue raised by the appellants due to block length, pointing out that the
Granite Street easement could grant access to Lithia Park in the event of increased foot traffic through the property.
She stated that this is not the current intention of the applicants, but that this could be employed to alleviate the
concerns of the appellants, Speaking on behalf of the applicants, Ms. Gunter summarized the contentious and
protracted legal suit that settled the current easement over the property. The applicants also wanted the
Commission to be aware of the increasing urbanization of the Scenic Drive area, and that this partition conforms to
all development standards and criteria required by the AMC,
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner Verner inquired if the applicants would be averse to removing the easement from the bottom of lot #3
in order to disconnect it from lot #2. Ms. Gunter replied that she would be hesitant to do this because of the potential
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2022
Page 2 of 8
for utilities through that easement. The original intention of the partition was to provide driveway access from the
bottom of the lot and remove any need for parcels #1 and #2 to share a driveway. She stated that the site naturally
lends itself to preserving the driveway of parcel #1 for access to parcel #2, and that the easement at the bottom of
the lot could be amended to only allow for utilities along that easement and no longer support an ingress/egress
point.
Appellant Testimony
Raul Woerner spoke on behalf the appellants, Susan and Rod Reid, and stated that the intent of the appeal was not
to deny the partition, but to address concerns primarily regarding access to the parcel. The concern was that the
nearby retaining wall would necessitate any future development to use the 15ft wide easement as a principal access
point, a concept that the appellants believed would be untenable with increased traffic through the parcel. Therefore
the appellants requested that the Commission impose a condition for approval stating that any issuance of
development permits for parcel #3 be restricted until an access point that meets AMC standards is provided. Mr.
Woerner contested page 2 of staffs report that a single family could use the easement as a access point without
further review. He stated that this was incorrect because the AMC required that driveways over 50ft in length would
need to be wider than the 15ft easement would allow. He also pointed out that the engineering plan was not
provided in the initial application and was instead supplied afterwards, but was encouraged that such a development
would be possible.
Mr. Woerner concluded by informing the Commission that the Reids supported amending the terms of the easement
at the bottom of parcel #2 to include utility use only.
Public Testimony
Richard and Joyce StanleylMr. and Mrs. Stanley conveyed their misgivings over access and lack of a development
plan for parcel #3. They were concerned that the integrity of the nearby retaining wall would be compromised if
forced to support a relatively steep driveway. They inquired if building a driveway in a swale would be problematic,
and how the development could impact the parcel as a natural wildlife corridor. Mr. and Mrs. Stanley concluded by
inquiring if a development pian could be requested, particularly with regards to the potential for up to twelve cottages
being developed on the site and what that could mean for the narrow access point
Applicant Rebuttal
Ms. Gunter responded that many of the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Stanley were code criteria and directed
those inquiries to staff, She pointed out that no development plan was originally required in the application, but that
one was provided in response to the appeal and that the plan for twelve cottages was one of many options for
development and not a current proposal, Ms. Gunter clarified that the design for the driveway was done by one of
the engineers responsible for the original retaining wall, which was the reason the applicant's team sought him out.
She conceded that such a development would be difficult, but that the only lots left available in City were the ones
with restrictive access points. She detailed how cottage housing would not require off-street parking as opposed to a
subdivision, which would have different standards for development.
Ms. Gunter then informed the Commission that she had contacted the appellants and agreed to change the
easement for parcel #2 to be for utility use only.
Chair Norton closed the Public Hearing and Record at 7.55 p.m.
Discussion and Deliberation
Commissioner Verner stated that the Commission should deny the appeal because she believed that the requisite
criteria had been met, but with the condition of approval regarding the use of language for parcel #3. There was
general discussion over the Commission's jurisdiction over the language of the easement, but it was determined that
because the applicants had consented to the change it could be listed as a condition of approval.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 92, 2022
Page 3 of 8
Commissioners Verner/Dawkins mis to uphold the original approval including the four conditions
recommended by staff, with the addition of a fifth condition consistent with the applicant's proposal that the
final survey plat identify the easement at the bottom of lot #3 as an easement for utility access to lot #2. Roll
Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, KenCairn, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, Knauer, and Norton, all AYES.
Motion passed. 7.0.
B. PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2022.00037 — CONTINUED
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Water Street, 960 Helman Street and 95 Van Ness (cornerof Van Ness & Wafer
Streets)
APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC, agent for
DESCRIPTION: A request for a six -lot commercial subdivision to accommodate a phased mixed-use development
for the three properties at 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Helman Street. The applicant's Phase I
requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use commercial buildings with ground floor commercial spaces
and two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking, utility infrastructure and
street improvements. The three remaining lots would have initial site work completed with Phase I, but building
construction would occur only after Site Design Review approvals in a future Phase 11. The application also includes
a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit because the proposal includes development on
severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on floodplain corridor lands; a request for an
Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees
on the three properties and within the adjacent rights-of-way; and a request for an Exception to Street Standards to
allow parking bays with street trees in bump -outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park -row planting
strips, [Since the March Planning Commission hearing, the number of lots proposed has been reduced from eight
to six. The application no longer includes a Solar Access Exception or an Exception to the plaza space requirement]
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP, 39 1E 04CC; TAX
LOTS #: 2000, 2100 & 7100
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioner KenCairn wanted it noted that she resides in the neighborhood,
but believes that she treats all projects that go before the Commission impartially.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson first outlined the changes made to the commercial subdivision proposal since the
March 8, 2022 Commission meeting (see attachment #2). The significant changes included:
• The number of lots was reduced from eight to six. Eight buildings are stili proposed but they would be
constructed as condominiums.
• The resultant lot configuration would alter the property lines and a Solar Access Exception would no longer
be requested.
• The resultant lot configuration would eliminate a previously identified street frontage issue for the previously
proposed lot #5.
• Each building would now be configured to provide 65% of the ground floor area for commercial use.
• Plaza space had been clearly detailed, and identified plaza space totaling 8,774 square feet, over the initial
proposal of 5,589 square feet. An exception for reduced plaza space would no longer be requested.
• A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was provided, and concluded that development would not significantly
impact traffic in the area.
• A geotechnical report had been provided by the Galli Group Geotechnical Consulting firm. This report
concluded that, with their recommendations, the site would be suitable for development without adversely
affecting the stability of the slope.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 92, 2022
Page 4 of 8
Mr. Severson pointed out that the ceiling and building heights had not changed since the March 8, 2020 Planning
Commission meeting. He directed the Commission's attention to the recommendation made by the Historic
Commission at its April 6, 2022 meeting, which had determined that the three buildings along Heiman Street did not
fit with the surrounding historic district and should be reduced in height, scale, and mass. The Historic Commission
stated that the designs would benefit from a greater variety of materials, height, and number of stories to alleviate
the monotony that the buildings would present along the Heiman streetscape. The Historic Commission thanked the
applicants for the changes that had been made to the design of the buildings, but concluded that too few of their
significant issues with the project had been addressed since their meeting on March 2, 2022. The Historic
Commission unanimously recommended that the application be denied.
Mr. Severson outlined how the key consideration for staff when examining the project was how to apply the Historic
District Development Standards addressed in AMC 18.4.2.050.8.1. Regarding Transitional Areas, these standards
stated that "appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and
material treatment may be considered to address compatibility with the transitional area while not losing sight of the
underlying standards or requirements applicable to the subject property."
Mr. Severson stated that in staffs opinion the massing of the buildings along Heiman Street remained an issue. He
suggested that greater third -floor step backs or plaza space in front of the buildings be considered to make the
Heiman Street frontage more compatible with the surrounding area. He cited a project on First Street that employed
third -story step backs in order to meet transitional building standards. Mr. Severson also drew attention to design
standards in the Transit Triangle Overlay and the Croman MITI site and their use of transitional zones to incorporate
future developments.
In staffs opinion the application did not meet appropriate design and massing adjustments to meet the compatibility
standards of the Historic District. Mr. Severson recommended that the Commission consider whether a more
substantial third -floor step back might better address the buildings' massing, and whether some additional park -row
and sidewalk width, or front plaza space, would work to provide some additional buffer space and better
accommodate street tree growth which would ultimately support greater tree canopy as a further buffer.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Verner requested clarification on the decision to deny the application by the Historic Commission. Mr.
Severson responded that on March 2nd the Historic Commission had given the applicants recommendations on how
to better incorporate the project into the Historic District. At the subsequent April 8« meeting the Historic
Commission determined that the applicants had not made significant enough changes to the project design and
therefore recommended that the application be denied.
Commissioner Pearce asked for clarification from staff on their interpretation of the transitional zones, and whether
this referred to the transition between zones or the transition between individual projects. Mr. Severson stated that
when the Historic Commission looks at projects they focus on the impact area, which is typically within 200 feet of
the proposed site, and look at the existing development within that area. He pointed out that larger buildings have
historically existed in the area, as well as some currently, but not within the 200ft impact area of the development
site.
Applicant Presentation
Ms. Gunter gave a brief overview of the zoning and historical overlays of the development site and the surrounding
area. She summarized the site history and showed several examples of large scale buildings that had formerly
existed in the Historic District. Ms. Gunter also noted that streets previously named "Mechanic" and "Factory" could
be found in the area, which in her opinion alluded to industrial, employment, and commercial zoning being the
predominant zoning types and uses of the area. She stated that the proposed buildings met Historic District design
standards for massing, design, scale, mass, and materials used are within compliance for a mixed-use residential
and commercial development in this zone. Ms. Gunter added that the development would be consistent with the
Ashland Planning Commission
April 92, 2022
Page 5 of 8
surrounding area and was under the maximum allowed building height. She noted that the lot numbers may change
due to ORS 92 requirements, but that the layout would not change.
Piper von Chamier spoke to the plaza space throughout the project, and detailed how the applicant team was able
to fully develop the plazas throughout the sites. She remarked that the design team had also considered naming the
central promenade either "Factory" or "Mechanic" Way as a nod to the formerly named streets. Ms. Chamier
emphasized her firm's desire to include stormwater as a part of the landscape, as well as for fountains and irrigation.
The largest plaza space would be Helman Plaza, which would have raised stormwater planters, fountains, trees,
and raised steps out to the parking area.
Ms. Gunter mentioned that she found the Historic District design standards text largely addressed residential
dwellings and the immediately adjacent properties, but seemed to primarily focus on the compatibility between two
homes. She stated that the Transitional Zone between the districts would therefore need to be the most heavily
considered criteria, which the proposed development would conform to. Ms. Gunter detailed how the designs also
reflected the Historic District design standards, in the form of numerous traditional design elements and materials,
despite the scale and massing appearing more modern in relation to the nearby houses.
Ms. Gunter directed the Commission's attention back to the Historic Design standards and its lack of guidelines for a
commercial development in relation to the existing residences. She stated that her team's interpretation of the
transition zone indicates that the Historic District standards are superseded when considering the underlying zoning
standards, and expressed the opinion that the design standards should be more objectively written.
Mr. Gunter briefly presented side-by-side comparisons between the earlier building designs and those currently
proposed. She showed further comparisons between her team's proposal and previously approved projects.
Included was one that was accepted by the Commission but never developed, and would have included similar
buildings in mass and scale to those proposed by the applicants. Ms. Gunter expressed concern that staff had cited
the Transit Triangle and Croman Mill development standards in their report, despite those standards not being
applicable to this proposal.
Gil Livni, the property owner voiced his frustration over what he believed were shifting design standards from
previously approved projects. He said that his team could make further design adjustments, but that denials
seemingly based on subjective reasoning were disheartening. Mr. Livni expressed concern that the code of conduct
regarding ex parte contact for Public Hearings had been breached.
Public Comments
Mark Brouillard/Mr. Brouillard rejected the concern that any improper contact had taken place, He drew the
Commission's attention to two commercial buildings at 92 Van Ness Avenue and 152 Helman Street as a
comparison to the proposed development. Mr. Brouillard also contended that the applicant's TIA report contained
inaccurate information. He cited section 18.3.13.010.a of the AMC which states that the Residential Overlay is
intended to encourage a concentration and mix of businesses that provide a variety of housing types, a standard
that he believes this project fell short of. Mr. Brouillard concluded by suggesting that the Commission follow the
recommendation of the Historic Commission and deny the application.
Eric Bonetti/Mr. Bonetti informed the Commission that he is Mr. Livni's neighbor and has worked with him on
numerous projects. Mr. Bonetti contended that this district has not yet been fully utilized as an E-1 zone. He showed
examples of several commercial buildings already in the Historic District and expressed the opinion that the
applicant's project could help revitalize the area. Mr. Bonetti acknowledged the difficulties of developing a parcel that
encompasses and abuts the R-3, E-1, and M-1 zones, but that the applicants had put forth a convincing and
appropriate proposal for development. He went on to say that if the application was rejected then this would remain
an undeveloped and underutilized area, and warned that unsightly commercial developments could one day occupy
the lot. Mr. Bonetti presented examples of undeveloped lots near the proposal site, and voiced frustration a project
Ashland Planning Commission
April 92, 2022
Page 6 of 8
with the potential to revive the area was not being readily approved. He cited the four-story Plaza Inn and Suites
hotel on Water Street and three-story development on First Street as examples of similarly sized developments, and
expressed the opinion that it could be seen as hypocritical if the Commission denied the applicant's proposal.
Planning Manager Brandon Goldman wanted it noted that, while Mr. Brouillard does serve on the Transportation
Commission, his comments were made as a resident of the neighborhood and not made on behalf of the
Transportation Commission,
Applicant's Rebuttal
Ms. Gunter pointed out that the buildings in the proposal were similar in mass and scale, but they would not be
identical. She stated that the development, when the base lot area relative to building size is taken into account,
would be similar in massing and scale to the commercial building on 92 Van Ness Avenue cited by Mr. Brouillard.
Ms. Gunter concluded by stating that citing existing sing[e-story or underdeveloped Employment zone properties
doesn't provide an Historic District comparison because those properties could be redeveloped to the Employment
District site design review standards. Therefore they cannot be taken as direct comparisons to the applicant's
proposal.
Chair Norton closed the Public Hearing and Record at 9,96 p.m.
Discussion and Deliberation
Mr. Severson stated that it was not staffs intention to suggest that the proposal would be subject to the design
standards of the Croman Mill Site or Transit Triangle, merely to provide concrete examples of where the
Commission determined those types of treatments were appropriate of ways to mitigate mass.
Commissioner KenCairn suggested that the enclosed plaza spaces within the development be placed in front and
provide set -backs for the development, alleviating the scale and mass of the development in relation to nearby
single -story houses. She noted that the four-story development on Water Street had been approved because the
site was at a lower elevation than Heiman Street, and wasn't in a residential neighborhood which made it more
compatible with the area. Therefore the applicant's submittal could not be judged in relation to previously approved
projects.
Commissioner Pearce praised the plaza designs, adding that they met all the design standards necessary for
approval. He voiced the opinion that the Transition Zone had been misinterpreted by the Historic Commission, which
he stressed speaks to the transitions between zones, not individual buildings. He stated that the only source of
contention is the transition between the development site in the Employment District and the R-3 Zone across
Heiman Street, and stated that the proposal was compatible with the neighboring R-3 Zone.
Commission Verner disagreed with Commissioner Pearce's interpretation of the transition zones and stated that
existing buildings should be taken into account when considering a new development. She suggested that the
applicants consider placing four-story buildings along Water Street and two-story buildings along Heiman Street,
thereby remove the issue of mass and scale in relation to the neighboring houses. Commissioner Verner remarked
that she saw no significant change in the plazas since the applicant's first brought their proposal to the Commission,
and voiced disappointment that the parking lots and entrance ways were being included as plaza spaces.
Commissioner Thompson agreed with Commission Verner, adding that the code refers to the transition being
between zones, and stated that the examples used in that section compared new developments to the existing
historic buildings in the immediate vicinity. She stated that any transition between the Employment and R-3 zones
would therefore need to take the Historic District code into account when considering any new development.
Commissioner Thompson would support the Heiman Street buildings being reduced to two -stories in favor of
increasing the Water Street developments to four -stories, and remarked that the mass and scale of the buildings
Ashland Planning Commission
April 92, 2022
Page 7 of 8
along Heiman Street is compounded by the number of buildings proposed along that streetscape. Commissioner
Thompson expressed her disappointment with the plaza spaces in the application.
Commissioners Dawkins/KenCairn mis to extend the meeting until 10:00. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 7.0.
The Commission discussed the interpretation of the transition zone and massing along the Heiman streetscape, and there was
general agreement that the applicants should submit a proposal dealing with this issue. Chair Norton remarked that the Planning
Commission and Historic Commission had recommended to the applicants that they adjust their proposal to reduce scale and
mass along Heiman Street. Commissioner Pearce agreed that the building mass remained an issue, but that the Commission
should encourage such development projects.
Commissioner Dawkins asked staff what would happen to the project if the Commission denied it. Mr. Severson replied that the
Commission could deny the application without prejudice, which would allow the applicants to submit a new proposal for the site
without delay. If it was denied outright then the only recourse for the applicants would be an appeal of the decision before the City
Council or to wait one year before resubmitting.
Chair Norton voiced frustration that the Commission had been put in the position to deny the application after the applicants had
been given instructions for approval. Commissioner Pearce agreed that it should be denied without prejudice to allow the
applicants to resubmit their development plans without delay.
Commissioners DawkinslKenCairn m/s to deny the application without prejudice. Rall Call Vote. Commissioners
Dawkins, KenCairn, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, Knauer, and Norton, all AYES. Motion passed. 7-0.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
April 12, 2022
Page 8 of 8
Development Plans Scenic
EasementGranite155
March 28, 2022
To: Aaron Anderson
Ashland Planning Department
Ca: Driveway easement @ 153-155 Granite St. connecting to 34 Scenic Dr.
The owner of 34 Scenic Dr. is proposing to subdivide his property. He has a
nonexclusive easement 15 ft. wide with 12 ft. of paving permitted from his East
property line to Granite St. (approx. 250 ft.).
This easement along our South property line is now in use as a driveway serving
10 housing units.
5 Apartments @ 153 Granite (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
4 Cottages @ 153 Granite (A, B, C, D) Cottage A is on Tax Lot 7000.
(Tax Lot 7000 is accessed thru Tax Lot 7200)
1 Single family home @ 155 Granite.
There are 12 people living in these units with 13 cars/trucks using the driveway
to access parking at the top or West end of the property.
Other Uses:
Trash and recycling trucks use the driveway weekly. The recycling trucks need
to back up the driveway because there is limited area to turn around.
There are various delivery vehicles, service trucks and City equipment that
services a sewer line and storm drain on the property that use this driveway.
The present condition of the 250 ft. driveway is gravel 9 feet wide with
pavement for 90 ft. We are concerned about congestion and fire truck access to
any new home development at 34 Scenic not accessed from Scenic Dr. in
addition to our narrow driveway.
Thank you for your attention,
Rod & Susan Reid
155 Granite St.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS
ELECTRONIC PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
On April 12, 2022 the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the
following mixed-use lot division:
PLANNING ACTION: PA -APPEAL -2022-00014
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 34 Scenic Dr.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Development for Gobelman & Stahmann
DESCRIPTION: An appeal of staff's decision approving PA -T1-2021-00168 which was a
request for a minor land partition to divide a 1.32 acre parcel into three parcels. Proposed Parcel 1 is
proposed as a 10,076 square foot (SF) parcel, Parcel 2 is proposed to have 8,000 SF, and parcel 3 is
proposed to be 39,534 square foot parcel. The large parcel is not proposed for any development at this
time. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5;
MAP: 39 IE 08 AD, TAX LOT: 7300
The electronic public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. on April 12, 2022. The meeting will be televised on
local channel 9 or channels 180 and 181 for Charter Communications customers or will also be available
live stream by going to rvtv.sou.edu and selecting RVTV Prime.
Written testimony will be accepted via email to PC-public-testiinony@ashiand,or.us with the subject line
"04/12 Planning Commission Meeting Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 11, 2022. Written
testimony received by the deadline, and written testimony previously submitted on this action, will be
available to the Planning Commission before the meeting and will be included in the meeting minutes.
Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic meeting for public forum and the public hearing. If you
wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC -public
testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m, on Tuesday, April 12, 2022. In order to provide testimony at
the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email "04/12
Speaker Request", 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item you want to speak on, 4) specify if you will
be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or
the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone.
By the order of Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting, please contact the City Manager's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
Publish: Friday, April l
E-mailed: 03/29/22
Purchase Order: 120143
Notice of Land Use Appeal — Type I
Ashland Muni ci al Code § 18.5.1.050.G.
A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal:
B. Address(es):
Aod and Susan Reid
155 Granite Street, Ashland, OR
2.
Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal.
C. Decision Being Appealed
Date of Decision:
Planning Action #:
Title of planning action:
214/2022
PA-T1-2021-00168
Minor Land Partiti®n
D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party
For each person listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below.
The person named in
C)l am the applicant.
Box A.1. above
01 received notice of the planning action.
qualifies as a party
ill was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
because:
notice due to error.
The person named in
()I am the applicant.
Box A.2. above
01 received notice of the planning action.
qualifies as a party
01 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
because:
notice due to error.
Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as
a paqy.
E. Specific Grounds for Appeal
1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary):
h'e future toe f€t o€binrurposes fpr proposed Parcel 3:iuill. be impeded:
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
§ 18.5.3.050(A) or other law in § requires that
attach additional pages if necessary): see attached
2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary) Existrnq easpment;access from Granite street as'»ropa56d to serve
Parcel 3 and also to be extended to Parcel 2 does not conform the the standard& iO section 18 4
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
§ 18.5.3,050(F) or other law in § requires that
attach additional pages if necessary): see attached
3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary):
Proposed partition plan does not conform to applicable devetopr ent standards for corinec#iviry and block tengti :
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
§ 18.5.3.060 or other law in § requires that
(attach additional pages if necessary): see attached
4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that exist. For
each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other
law that were violated.
Appeal Fee
With this notice of appeal I(we) submit the sum of $150.00 which is the appeal fee required
by § 18.5.1.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Date: February 16, 2022
ofp son(s)i i appeal (attach additional pages if necessary):
Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed
with the Community Development Department, Attn: Planning Commission Secretary, 20 E
Main St, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-5305, prior to the effective date of the
decision sought to be reviewed Effective dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Municipal
Code Section 18.5.1.050.
February 16, 2022
Ashland Planning Commission
Re: Planning Action PA -T1-2021-00168 @ 34 Scenic Dr.
We have engaged CSA Planning Ltd. to represent us and speak on our
behalf.
The first day we met our new neighbor Mr. Gobelman he told us he
had purchased the property at 34 Scenic Dr., across the street from his
home, in order to limit the development of the property and car traffic in
front of his house. To accomplish this his proposed land partition`=imits an,
pra tical aecess to Scenic Dr. for a 40,000 sq. ft. parcel and forces access
down a narrow (15 ft. X 250 Ft.) easement to Granite St.
This driveway/easement will not provide adequate fire or emergency
vehicle access and is currently being used by 10 residential units (Historic
Marsh House with 5 apartments, 4 Cottages and our residence at 155
Granite St.). Please review the two letters on file with Mr. Anderson
explaining the current use of the driveway. The proposed action will limit our
ability to develop tax lots 7000 & 7200 in the future.
Please consider our appeal of this planning action. We question the
planning staff's granting Mr. Gobelman exceptions to City street standards.
We do not think his proposed land partition is in the best interests of our
neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Rod & Susan Reid
��N w
155 Granites St.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Memorandum
CSA Planning, Ltd
4497 Brownridge, Suite 101
To: Rad and Susan Reid
Medford, OR 97504
Telephone 541.779.0569
Owners - 155 Granite Sleet
Fox 541.779.0114
Rau1@CSAplanning. net
Ashland, OR 97520
Date: February 16, 2022
Subject: City of Ashland Planning Action PA -TI -2021-00168
Minor Partition Application for 24 Scenic Drive, Ashland
Bases for Appeal
Mr. and Mrs. Reid:
As per your request, this memo is provided to outline bases for you to appeal the above
referenced Planning Action to the City of Ashland's Planning Commission. It is prepared for
inclusion with your filing of your Notice of Appeal.
The project is described in the notice of final decision as:
"A request for a minor land partition to divide the large area parcel into three parcels. Proposed
Parcel 1 is proposed as a 10,075.1 square foot (SF) parcel. To the south is proposed Parcel 2.
This parcel is proposed to have 8,000 SF. Parcel 3 is proposed to be a large area, 39,534.7
square foot parcel. The large parcel is not proposed for any development at this time and a
number of conceptual development options from one one single family residentce, duplex, flag
lot(s), cottage house development are possible in the R-1-1.7.5 zone. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family ,Residential: ZONING: R-1.7.5; MAP: 39 1E 08 AD, TAX LOT:
7300."
AMC 18.5.1.050(G)(2)(b) provides that an appeal must be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12
days of the date the notice of decision was mailed. Therefore, an appeal must be file by February
16, 2022,
AMC 18.5.1.050(G)(2)(c) requires that a notice of appeal be accompanied by the required filing
fee and shall contain:
.i) An identification of the decision being appealed;
RESPONSE: The decision being appealed is identified here above and also on the Notice of Land
Use Appel Form.
1m
ii) A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal;
RESPONSE: The notice of decision was mailed on February 4, 2022, As an owner of adjacent
property, you are entitled to and have been provided with a notice of decision. Pursuant to AMC
Section 18.5.1.060(G)(1), you have standing to appeal the decision.
iii) A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal, and,
iv) A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public comment
period;
RESPONSE: During the comment period, you submitted a letter dated January 5, 2022 outlining
issues of concern. The issues were summarized on page 3 of Ashland Planning Division
report/decision concerns about:
• Lack of a Future Development Plan
• Concerns about vehicle access
• Concerns about Block Length / Connectivity standards
• Exception to street standards
(.J :177.
I'JiISSA
Your letter in particular stated on page 1 that the entirety of the Scenic Road frontage for
proposed Parcel 3 is along the bottom of a 15 -foot high nearly vertical retaining wall - and
included photos of that retaining wall. You raised the issue that the application provided no
evidence that a driveway access could be provided from the sidewalk at the top of the retaining
wall to proposed Parcel 3 below, such that the proposed parcel configuration will limit future
development of Parcel 3 to use of sole access over a narrow 15 -foot wide easement east to
Granite Street along the south side of your property.
Your letter included as an enclosure a copy of a fetter dated May 12, 2021 to the Ashland
Planning Department (during the pre -application process for this matter) that identified the length
of the easement over your property (approximately 250 feet) and the number of dwelling units (5
apartments, 4 cottages and a single family home) currently served by the existing driveway
within the easement on your property (153-155 Granit Street, being a tract of two parcels
identified as Tax Lots 7000 and 7200 on Map 391 E08 AD). The existing driveway within the
easement along your south property line is described as being paved with a 9 -foot wide surface
for a distance 90 -feet in from Granite Street - and graveled beyond. The letter of May 12, 2021
concluded that you are concerned about congestion and fire truck access to any new home
development not accessed off Scenic Drive in addition to your narrow driveway.
The Planning Division findings (at page 4) in response to concerns raised by Public Input (yours
was the only public input received) cited to the applicant's statement in supplemental materials
saying in part that:
"There are numerous potential development patterns for Proposed Parcel 3. These include a
single-family home, a single-family with ARU, a duplex, an additional partition that creates two
flag lots accessed from a shared driveway, or even a 12 unit cottage house development."
The Planning Division findings also summarize application statements that a landscape architect
and civil engineer have verified that a meandering drive from scenic could achieve the required
grades to install a new driveway (although it would require a future planning action for a Physical
and Environmental Constraints Review and consistency with hillside/severe constraint
standards). The Planning Division findings also state that Parcel 3 has an existing access
easement that would support at a minimum the development of a single-family home. The
finding state that staff reviewed all the concerns raised including road connectivity and future
development but found that in considering the present application and the relevant approval
criteria that the proposed partition is in accordance with the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
However, neither the application nor the Planning Division findings establish specifically how a
narrow 15 -foot wide easement approximately 250 feet in length over the existing driveway along
the south line of your tract of two parcels now serving ten existing dwelling units with comply
with city standards to allow development of even a single family dwelling on the proposed
oversized Parcel 3. In point of fact, the partition plan proposes that the easement be extended
over proposed Parcel 3 to the rear line of proposed Parcel 2.
The applicable Vehicle Area Design standards under AMC 18.4.3.080 should have been
specifically reviewed in response to the issues of concern related to use of a narrow easement
access to serve the proposed partition. Subsection (D)(1) for "Driveways and Turn -Around
Design" states:
"A driveway for a single-family dwelling or a duplex shall be a minimum of nine feet in width
except that driveways over 50 feet in length or serving a flag lot shall meet the width and design
requirements of section 18.5.3.060. Accessory residential units are exempt from the
requirements of this subsection."
The partition application proposes to extend the existing driveway on your property within the
existing 15 -foot wide easement to the applicant's proposed Parcel 3 (a distance of approximately
250 feet from Granite Street) and to further extend that another 110 feet over proposed Parcel 3
to proposed Parcel 2. However, AMC 18.4.3.080(D)(1) requires that driveways over 50 feet in
length or serving a flag lot shall meet the width and design requirements of section 18.6.3-060
"Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria".
AMC 18.5.3.060 (D) states as follows:
"Except as provided in subsection 18,5,3.060,H, below, the flag drive serving a single flag lot
shall have a minimum width of 15 feet and contain a 12 foot wide paved driving surface. For
Page 2 of 3
drives serving two flag lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with a 15 foot wide driving
surface to the back of the first lot, and a 12 foot wide driving surface to the rear lot. Drives
shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface.
Width shall be increased on turns where necessary to ensure fire apparatus remain on a paved
surface during travel. "
The driveway over your property which is proposed to serve the applicant's partition Parcels 2
and 3 is currently shared now to serve the 10 dwellings currently developed the two adjoining
parcels that you own. The standard established at AMC 18.5.3.060(0) requires drives shared by
adjacent properties to have a width of 20 feet with a 15 foot wide paved driving surface, and that
width shall be increased on turns where necessary to ensure fire apparatus remain on a paved
surface during travel.
The proposed driveway does not meet the access standard to support even a single -family
dwelling on the proposed partition parcels relying on the easement access. Conclusory
statements in the application asserting that the property can be further developed even more
intensively than that are not supported by evidence in the record and in review of the specific
development standards.
The issues raised in your letter were submitted during the comment period and provide the bases
for appeal of the Planning Division's decision to approve the application.
Also, note that AMC 18.5.1.050(G)(3) "Scope of Appeal" states: "Appeal hearings on Type
decisions made by the Staff Advisor shall be de novo hearings before the Planning Commission.
The appeal shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation,
and specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other
relevant evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony. or
argument concerning any relevant ordinance provision."
Very truly yours,
CSA Planning, Ltd,
Raul G. Woerner
Principal
RGWIm
cc. File
Page 3 of 3