The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutExhibits 33-40 Reasons to deny PA 2003 -118 DeBoer Development [' Cit~; :,f~~'hbnd 1 Planning EXl,1ilJ"it." I EX"'BIT Cc..-_~ D~~4. () ST;~-' 1. The '1''1 ( i'" 1]1 a) over 35 ft. b) 3 story building 2. The decision by staff to approve was based Oll 11lCHITt'U 1'\ Id\'n,,[ \uhmillnl 1)\ :II cild\tj about the slope (% versus degrees) The proposed building envelope is on unbuildable' land. 3.'" Ii j'. " 1 ' ! i p' i ; i h and cannot be relied upon. lh.uded '. "I,u .iI! ;I,~: used is provided. 4. Key required i. ,,,n,'Ii). ( topo map and Gantt chart) were ,j . Hi before application was "deemed complete" and Staff decision given. 5. Stone's i liP lW>; 'i! . 1;; I regarding Hillside Ordinance and Wildfire to the benefit of the applicant and. Ii! , 'llllt!l UI "'1' It', \..1' as supported by the Record (, I mdlii;!\ and City attorney opinion I ii! . ! Hh Ho_ l~H~.>~ 1_ ~\ i L~i ~\ \\ t\if 7. Application's states Rear Yard l! (19 ft. from Glenview) is L..\ ii1:" hI' ,,~ '.'j, for 2 ~ story building (however, this is 3-story) 8. Grading for I' to 18.62.080 8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.(Ord 2834,S2 1998) q I r~'t' Idt t'f\ ;~~il ~~ In ..~t'" "H ;;1 li ki!l ':.1 !d I,!! id!<l\k' I 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. a. Streets, , utilities, , and other site disturbances shall be located such that the , while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire [.ands. b. l~( , on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and 10. L);,-"~,1:~11 i.Ji ., l~" i! I" )~:"> ,; '1in \\ 1 ""; (I l H'\i " L! 3. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of29~'o, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. Slope site average of 28% needs The project states there will be 49.9% lot coverage by buildings and impermeable paving etc. Permeable driveways are not hillside "natural state" ( Note this "lot line adjustment" does come under the Partition section of ALU018.76.140 contrary to appellant's previous wTitten testimony. 11. PP!i< nt i ',; oil.; k for illegal tree removal. ALUO 8.62.080 e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss l Ii ,'jt. ; ii, I ,; i i \ i " r {' h (' \ cd H f r i,' '" t H .H t j \ ~ l:l i :, with the provisions of this chapter. ! :~ "i I J ! l rhe nrOPH',.li l ;,j ~ . i \',IH~,'~{' ;-n~! i\\ t' \! The application's architect's drawings clearly shows 2 kitchens ALUO 18.08.230 Dwelling, or dwelling unit One (1) or more rooms designed for occupancy by one (1) family and ha iTif)re tl7(} A !} n Enforcement a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. b. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be tined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. I ~UI2, 130 Penahi{'~ The following sections are in addition to the enforcement actions that may be taken and penalties which may be imposed in chapter 18. 112 for a violation of this chapter: A. Whenever any work is being done contrary to the provisions of this chapter or whenever erosion control measures, tree protection measures, wildfire control measures, or Flood plain corridor development measures are not being properly maintained or are not functioning properly due to faulty installation or neglect, the director of community development or the director's designee, may order the work stopped by notice in writing served on any persons engaged in the doing or causing of such work to be done, and any such persons shall immediately stop work until authorized by the director or designee to proceed with the work. B. All development under this chapter and all work or construction for which a permit is required under this chapter shall be subject to inspection by the director of community development or the director's designee When an inspection is made under this section or when it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce this code, or when the director or designee has reasonable cause to believe that there exists upon Hillside Lands a condition which is contrary to or in violation of this chapter which makes the premises unsafe, dangerous or hazardous, the director or designee may enter the premises at reasonable times to inspect or to perform the duties imposed by this chapter. The director or designee shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge of the premises and request entry . C. The City may refuse to accept any development permit application, may revoke or suspend any development or building permit, or may deny occupancy on the property until erosion control measures, tree protection measures, wildfire control measures, or Flood plain corridor development measures have been installed properly and are maintained in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. D. The owner of the property from which erosion occurs due to failure or neglect of erosion control measures, together with any person or parties who cause such erosion shall be responsible to mitigate the impacts of the erosion and prevent future erosion. (Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) ~ ~ C'-- "0",. .t'. ~~ I.. ~ "j :::; Q ,,' '-~ .' ~,'::--5.t()N~ ~ .; r~1 ~ rI:J. ~ . ,;:>:- .. ~ ~_, ,', m 't . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ -= CD .. ~ -"~~ I:.. .... ... 0 - .=r= =0 o <CCI CD .I I " f t f ~ p. ~:.-~-:" -'("l""'l'I",,"u,,~ ~_ = . .... ~ o o ..... QJ ~ .. .. = o ~ ...,. ;.. ~ = = ~ ,...... Q... (3 . QJ . ~ . . .... ~ = 0 V 0 ~ I::! 3i :E = = :::.:: = r& a:I :E"I:I = _=2 ~ftI:::::i >- - 101.I c:.:I =- .... a:: a:: CC CC :z: c.:>> :>. CCI , .. ~ ~-~ --1 U (I) 0 c:u 0 (I).~ 0 (I) (I) rn-q::_ "'" "'" (I) (I) ....._ (I) (I)-C:U"'t) ~""'..c~ ... .....- .... ~ .- - rn ..., "'" ~ ~ ~.- 0 OC:8..~t; ~.!(I)OQ) ;.::......c:g..c .... Q) ~ .... ..., "'" Q) en .sOeg]~ en ~""'~ ~oenOQ) ..........c:...,; ~ """ 0 Q) ..c:Q):E<2"", ;:~~~~ 8 - ._ c= . ~l]"O~~ 's.. "'0 - e .... ~ o c:: (I) 0 (I) :::s ";} ~ ~ e -5 .~ ~co":"'O~~ "'" 0 8 c:u 0 ~ -8""'q::~....~ c: Q) (I) ,.Q 5 . ::S-5..c:~(.)-5 (I) ""':> "'" ~ (.) ~ (I) ~ (I) (I) ~ >C:U~c::l ~C:O(l)O(l) eno..c:"l:t..c < '';:; c:u ~... I I I I I I I J .. ~ Ig I,.Q I~ k= 18 I:E I~ I~ _"J It. n .'IlI 'j( ,lII !Ii~ .0 ~ >r ~ ~ 1 ... ~ .,""' ~ , . ~ ~ ~ ~ r . ~ 1>. r'J 'J ). .. .- _I"'~ ., '- '" . J ("""'" - &>-~ - ."_.,"'" --' "I" -4' .t - .~ '",J of""'"' - ........... - ~...; ,.._F -- ~ -~ ,-' '-' .~~ "~~ . ...-. ~lJ F""" - it: ~.~t r~' ~ >_. - 'f~ - ff'__J ~"I> _f ..- ; ~' '" i "''''"'' .N )$ .~ ,-.. ~ glIIl1Ill ~ .fii'l '". J ~J - '., ..,J i' , ~':RI - - - ,-I r- ,. ;~,fi ~~ '-.... , - ,,~ 't--' ,l; ''',.,.:~'''' ~- ,-- -- :; ~~ r= ~ " ~ ....... ~ ~ ,.. ~ -- - . - 4;l,~ .......- ......J ~ - - ., ,,,j ~ CJ ~ OJ - ,.,- ......'"u,.; If' .. ,.-., --- .-.. ---- r-- ~ ? ,........ ~~ ;-'l CJ F l!lIIIil!IiMIIi ~ - .~ ....;, ,~, '.~i j'~ ~ ~' ~, ..... ~, ~ ~ '-~ ~~ ,- ... "", '..;J OJ ~ r- - ,~" :J ~ " .. ~ ~ .~ ~ .. ~ ""~ ~ !IlIIiIIIIIIIII ... '~&. ,,;' -"'",) ,r-- t'L) ;.;.. ,- ....j........ ........ ,/ i' , '~ I""'" '....... ~ ~ ....- ...\.1 '1) r- - ,..- - ........... .- - - -...-I r-- . """""- ,.-." ~ .:- ~~#;W', ........ ,~ r- r- - I""'" \....,,1 ,..-, ......,., . - w """-" ~\ .....",,; ....... '1) r- --- .........., , , '''''!'-'l ".-.., .-, ~ r- - -- ,.. ........ ~1 ,""-,,,' 7 - -~\,~J ':) . -- ,-.; .~ ...; ........ 'fj - '.~y '1J ;< ........ ..-.. , -- ..",.....,. w "" 'k oioJ M ___ 'f; f"""" 'J'IIt~ ,- ","" ',...,j. r~' ~~ .i1l ---- :f: ~ if <f" 1) U ,..... - ....... ~ ~". \.) ('J r- - ;....... ~J..) r~ ............. v ....0 ?'\ - ........., u .... 1) . - ..- "U ? 'f) ":J . - ,,-., . "'"-" ....... rf;; I'l,) r- ....;..... ~ ~, ~ ..- ..--/ :.; U J"""". "..,./ :f , ~ ~ '-......,I 'I" df' .d ,... LJ "..... ;'",'''oj ~J . --.. - . ......... - ~'J " '-'" v ,.-. --- ",-, - ~ --+- 8 " Q\' \C ~ r... :::: ~ ~ ~ ~ 0'. \~ \1) li1 ~ JYIIIfI - ~J) $- ~ >- tJ. (j ~ \fI ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ () Ifi ~ <( I- :; ill 'f\ ~ tJ II :: (. ..J -~ ~ _ ~ I ~ ~ ~ hl. <( i \j\ tJ 1L - ~ ~ =4: -1 - 11.. ~ :z u. () ~ - ~ t- <( ill ~ <{ W 'J () ..J lL 0J 0\ \C; e =' 01} 0- ~ ......... .: eJ) .~ QJ 0: = ~ ... .... ~ ~ ~ . .c .. ~ o ,.... = . . . ... 1'J ~t , 'i; \ \ \ " Q) p-" E .-...,. ~ . ........ ...... ~ ~ ~ ... . ~ E ~ ... ~ ~ II' ....... '" I . ... (4'J ~ ~ 0 .......... . ... ~ ,...... 'Ii - :t: ~ ~ ili \ '':} , "\>, ''\ \ \ \. \ 1:" \ \ , --~----- \ ~. \ \ ~, _;'\ p Iv ~u DO , :-~ ,~:: I, I! 11II 1n II .' ,"''' " ' ",..,,,, '<'t" I \1"1 u & ~',,< ~Jill: 1i'~ ,j ~ ~ ," ;;< ',$' i~ i1, ~ I , , ~ ..,..h&. .. ... t . U h..~ < " . . ~(l.I~ :\ill .~ , _~!ll)' ~ ~~ f" g, ~-d!rl {~.-" ~~Wj;: ~~~~~ ,'~ .3~"", "'.t~r:i- !l\! iiriI, ~ ",' ~ ,j . ~ If) x o ~ ~ ~ (2J '..,..... ..".,.,....,..,'. r.J'1 V ;> cd V OJ) ~ ...0 ~ V ;> o :X5,,'i. :~~Ni~~: t"g),~M;~\ .....q;.r:~:~..y. .,' ~1{~. :J;1Ql'~;q ,l!_, . . r.I'J. = ~ ~ ~ "';:';;". "'<"'i" ~, ,,-.. rf') \0 - v Of) ~ 0- "-' '3: G ~ ... ~. 'W ..",~ .~;..,,~ ,~.' rI'l .. i.e...... -- ,.... ~'''' "'"" .\...~ ~ r".' r:; ~, ~ ~ ~ '-'" .c [:IJ. ! I t! ~ ~ OJ, ~. ~ ,..." ~. - , .. ~ ~ il;, c ;, ---~-........ ~ z o ~ ~ u ~ U) ~ _."'-l-' ~--~ I I i 1 I ~i,____,_______ . /_ .. i t)_ . L ,,0 ~..;-.,.. I I I I I 0\: ....-- I I I l.n! (<") I I , i I i I i I .._~ ---,..,.,---+-- i ~. Ashland land Use Ordinance 18.62.090 B.2. "". '.--.----., l:t.v uf A"h;~c:nd 1 Planning' Exhibit EX>MI1 CL- 3 ~ PA# -~-- DATEZfltL~7F=) A "fuel break" is defined as an area which is free of dead or dying vegetation, and has native, fast burning species sufficiently thinned so that there is no interlocking canopy of this type of vegetation. p.38 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law and Final Order, written by Craig Stone, Attorney for Sidney and Karen DeBoer and adopted by the Hearings Board of the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland, Oregon: "As earlier cited, ALUO 18.62.090 requires all new construction to have a "fuel break". That ordinance goes on to describe what a fuel break and it and requires native trees to be sufficiently thinned to prevent an interlocking canopy. As shown in Record p. 197, trees that were mistakenly removed had an interlocking canopy and would under any circumstances, be required to be removed or severely thinned... the trees removed by mistake would likely have had to be removed (or severely pruned) to satisfy the requirements of ALUO 18.62.090." (Exact quotation, typographical errors and punctuation as approved by Hearings Board) p.41 .. .the Hearings Board concludes that this development has been designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on the subject property.. ..this land is designated as Wildfire Lands and made subject to ALUO 18.62.090, which requires the establishment and maintenance of a fuel break and the same requires tree removal or thinning to prevent an interlocking canopy of native trees. .. ..In Record p.13, applicants agent acknowledged the testimony of applicants landscape architect, but argued that this is irrelevant. As to this opponents contention that the city staff indicated the application would have to be denied if the trees had not been removed, applicants agents contend in Record p.13 that this is untrue and exists as unsupported heresy. (Exact quotation, typographical errors, spelling and punctuation as approved by Hearings Board) p.44 ALUO 18.08.230 Dwelling, or Dwelling Unit One (1) or more rooms designed for occupancy by one (1) family and not having more than one (1) kitchen or cooking facility ALUO 18.08.210 Dwelling, two family or duplex A detached building containing two (2) dwelling units. The DeBoer house application shows 2 kitchens with cooking facilities. This makes it a 2-family dwelling which is not allowed in an R- 1 zone. Back to Front...which is which? From Application for P A# 2003-118... prepared by Craig Stone (Page 10) Standard Yard Requirements: rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story in excess of one story. 1. The proposed dwelling will be 19 feet from the rear property line, 44 feet from the front property line... (2-1/2 stories needs 25ft.) 2. The garage on the subject property (adjusted Tax Lot 7200) will take access from the rear of the property off Glenview Drive. 3. The front yard of the subject property is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts upon Vista Street. The rear yard is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts upon Glenview Drive. From Staff Findings and Orders ....The Staff Advisor includes by reference all of the applicant's submittals in the decision and based on the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, Planning Action 2003-118 is approved. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval. Further, if anyone or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 2003-118 is denied: 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. BUT, note the changes in the Findings: From the 'adopted' Findings prepared by Craig Stone (Page 11) [1] The proposed dwelling will be 19 feet from the front property line on Glenview Street. [2] The garage on the subject property (adjusted Tax Lot 7200) will take access from the rear of the property off Glenview Drive. [3] The front yard of the subject property is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts upon Glenview Drive. The rear yard is the portion of Tax Lot 7200 which fronts on Vista Drive. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In addition to conditions recommended by the Planning Department in Record p. 2-3 which the Hearings Board herewith incorporates and adopts, the Hearings Board also incorporates and adopts as conditions attached to this approval, the following stipulations agreed to by applicants: Stipulation 1. Applicants will construct the proposed dwelling and other site improvements in accordance with the approved plans, as amended by reasonable conditions imposed by the Hearings Board. "",'~"~-.--'--""~'._~~'-'''''' ( t:ty of A"hhmd \ ['I3..nning Exhibit LiL8'T lL-. ~~ To whom it may concern regarding the Architectural plans for~~~# ST"FF DeBoer residence, Ashland OR. PLEASE READ THIS INTO THE RECORD This discussion is in reference to page 1 63 of the architects drawings. Each of the four crossections show the "existing average slopes" in percent grade, when in fact there are in degrees. Application of a simple protractor to the angles given on the drawings bear this out. Converting the degree of slope to percent grade, which is what the architect should have done, shows that all of the "existing average slopes" exceed the allowable of 35 percent as set by the building code. In fact they should be shown as 36.4% for Section 1, 42.45% for Section 2, 48.77% for Section 3. and 46.63% for Section 4. One does not need to be an Engineer to make these findings. It's common knowledge that percent grade is simply the ratio, expressed in percent, of the vertical to horizontal dimensions. To make the conversions from degree slope to percent grade, one simply looks up the value for the Tangents of the angles measured, which can be found in any handbook of Trigonometric functions. Reference: "Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, " Eighth Edition, page 1 - 15, Trigonometric Functions. See the attached figures from page 163 of the architects drawings. As a matter of further reference, the figure of SECTION 3 is included with a protractor overlay. Thank you, Larry G. Kellogg 41 5 Merrill Circle Ashland, OR 8 ~ '0 j '-1 4 ! .- ! ~2 ~ J 1 f 1 r i >>...-t' ~ I I i ! ~ . ;:- I I , ~Ji ) III \ I~ 11! N t:j ~ I i · I I I r ~! i ~ ~ . "'lo.l I r i \ ; I ~ I . ~ I I I ~ I ii, 1;1 i . , ~ I w ~ , --l.::.. ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii I ~~ ~:- ~~ ~ ~~I? ~ ~ ~ )0-... ~ '"\ \) ~ -r"-. ~ ---l-... .J ,t-.... Q"- ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ t\ N ~ :---\ It- '1) ~ ~~ ..~ ~ ~~ ~ ~-~ '- -:J ~ ~ ....~ .... e "lJ '\ '- 40(' '"b, ~ ~ h ~~""G ~ \n, II K '\ ~\..", .-{: ~......~~~ ~ .......r- ~ ~ , ~~'-"'" ~ ~<J\ (1 "~ CJ'\ \f'l ~ f\ L ---.~~ ~~ ~.~~ ..... ~ ~ · ':;.l ~ ~ ...... -3 \.lr-.t , LNI ...--- --...- \ , i : i ~! I I ! 11 1 II \ i i I . . I . . ] . · l I. .~. : i ! ~ ~ Ii;: . I 1 i I ~ i ~ ' , I I , e l<P ~() .-1 ;0 .. ef .,~~""'" t..~ _.---~ .. ~ ~ ""\} 'l;. ~ ~ i N ! ~ t i ~i ~ ~ i! 11,11 . . 9- ~ J~ ~ . i ! I III , ~ I . . n ~ I! · i : · . '1 , , I. ~ I :' I ~ I : I , ~ ~ . . .. I . '-'I I I i L ~ . ~ , I . . I ~ !f i I t It I ~ , ~ Cl... ~ ~ 1 I i : ! : Ii! ~ I i lli ! ! It; i I I e= l~ i L . I . I · I I II!" ! . i: Ill! i .. ~ : ! " ~ ,,' I · ' I t' . I II . .... ' . ,~ ! i'! 4- .~ . ! i ~ ~~!~II Je t ~ -.....- @ ~(p ~() .-1 ;Q ~Z r..A -- t:. , ~ ~ ~ 1..1) ~ '-.t;; ..... '\ "t. ....... Il 9~ . ~,!?!_..p(1 T 1." ................. ~ , i I ! I !, It ~ ~ ~ j ,,~ ~ N ~ R.. .q, ~ ~ '.... ~. ~l I '\..-;-' . i . ~. { '". ,.. :r :; I' '~I h", &1 i z o .c.. f """', I .0. " 1',)0,. i I . . From: To: Date: Subject: "Elizabeth Udall" <umiat@mind.net> <berteauf@ashland,or.us> 04/08/20044:23:21 PM Remarks for meeting concerning DeBoer property (" '~(:. :;~~.~\. -'~'~~d""l ' . ., . ~'., \ : L; I, ,ro-' "~l,,'nc"",' "'[,', "'Ult ! t t....~j J .1"t-, L .~. ,. \. [,,,,">, ~-_2J,_'-- PA fir] ---- I \, DlE Jtr'AliiST;";> u___) "-. ._.,~_..!J;;~L~-,- Attn Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator. These remarks are best read at the conclusion of the City Council meeting in re DeBoer application this evening, 4-8-04, ------------------ ------------------ It will not be possible for me to be present at the Council hearing this evening. I regret this, because I have a recommendation I expected to voice at the conclusion of Tuesday's meeting, assuming that both Pros and Cons would have been heard. Ashland is a progressive city and an enlightened one, A resolution of this deeply divisive dispute could serve as a guide to our community for years to come. Ashland is gifted with talented, effective individuals who, using their mediation skills. have guided contentious, bitterly antagonistic disputants to peaceful conclusions previously unimaginable. There would be much to be gained if the opposers of the DeBoer petition were to select two representatives to work with Karen and Sid DeBoer through a skilled mediator to the end that a resolution be found that is unimaginable at this stage, but truly possible through the incredible power of the mediation process. I therefore urge the parties to explore the possibilities of employing the mediation process. Sincerely yours, Elizabeth Udall I believe that the most significant issue with regard to the DeBoer Super Center is the fact that this is not a single-family dwelling. This is a building of a much different type designed for entertainment with multiple kitchens and banquet halls. This proposal is comparable to placing another Elk's Lodge into a residential neighborhood. In a building that can facilitate a banquet for several hundred people, the question of where these people intend to park their Lithia SUV's must be raised. What the DeBoer's need is a compound outside of the City Limits where there is plenty of room for parking and their clan can have banquets and rally without disturbing the neighbors of our community. What we are seeing is the result of the Mayor heavily stacking commissions to promote his anti.regulation, anti-government agenda. Projects that are not congruent with the character and site specific zoning of our community are not being challenged at the mayoral appointed commission level and citizens are forced to appeal projects to our democratically elected Council. It is time for these anti. regulation zealots to enter the twenty-first century, do we really want to live in a world where banquet halls are allowed in residential neighborhoods, where our water is full of feces and our air is impossible to breathe? Maybe these conflicts would be better addressed with a couple of six.shooters outside of the saloon but in reality citizen appeals are much less messy. The City of Medford is a classic example of poor planning that has resulted from limited regulation. The Downtown has become a chain of car dealerships surrounded with display lots and tasteless helium balloons. The building's designs mitigate their inanity with impressively scaled corporate logos and eccentric eye catching marques. It is unfortunate the citizens of Medford didn't have any more respect for the character of their city than to allow such flagrant examples of poor design and planning. Mr. DeBoer needs to realize that the are those among us who give much more respect to an individual for their intelligence, wit, education, and respect for civic responsibility than their ability to sell cars. This project is clearly and edifice to one's ego and a gross display of gluttony and an embarrassment to our entire community. Eric Navickas 711 Faith Ave Ashland Or 97520 (. ';;,~.r:~:~11/E';;\~:;:~t 1 l"..... ~ ~o i ,~..'\.:.u" - ~6 ~ - - -I Pi:.. II , o^'~ 1~~,,;;n~~) ~:r~f-~'" ~--~-,,- Page 1 of2 JBStreet From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Stephen and Carol Jensen" <scjensen@mind.net> "Bill and Jane" <jbstreet@ashlandhome.net> "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> Tuesday. April 06, 20046:18 PM Mas Madrone rr(.::;~;~{;;...~~.: ~;rd \ r; \ ,-> . ..~; ~ r~ ~-, _ l -, . [',{;,~'t~'-_r-.~~1~ I [-,(\~''r I ~~_ ',_. _s",,:~::.) -_.~..""..- The below information is provided by Stephen Jensen and Richard Brock who are members of the Ashland Forest Lands Commission, 1) The Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii ... .pronounced: R- bew-tis men-zee-see- eye)) is noted for being among the slowest and coolest burning trees in the west This is documented in several US Forest Service Publications. 2) The University of California lists the Madrone as a tree with "a favorable fire- performance rating" and one that they recommend for urban/forest interface planting. 3) The Las Pilitas Nursery, Santa Margarita, CA, rates the Madrone as a "7" on a scale of 1-10, with "1" being a "fire-bomb" and 10 "very safe". 4) The "mistakenly removed" mature Madrone trees on the applicant's property would not fall into the category of "fast burning" trees. The possibility of a canopy fire in this grove of mature Madrone trees is extremely remote. Canopy fires are much more a function of uncontrolled ladder fuels which is generally not a problem with mature Madrone groves located on well-cared for property. That is precisely why they are a desirable interface species. 5) It is important to note that a wonderful feature of Madrone trees is their ability to root deeply. The tree is wind-firm, drought-enduring, and somewhat tolerant of wet and freezing conditions. It is an ideal tree for this hillside site. 6) There is a specific procedure for dealing with significant trees in Wildfire Lands and on the hillsides of Ashland contained in "Development Standards for Wildfire Lands" ... .and it certainly does not include a capricious preemptive removal on the part of the applicant prior to approval of the project. 7) It is critical that the City Council uphold the definitions and intentions of Wildfire Lands and Hillside Ordinances and that they be used for their good and intended purpose and not be used to veil unrelated actions. Respectfully submitted 4-6-04 to the Ashland City Council 4/6/04 /' " .~,':'.:~,nd Regina A yrs 199 hillcrest \ ,cc:_~:',ing' L:h;Lit I \ ..'c,,~-~,(L. I I ;:l t'\ ,~i .. ~ I [ ,: ~" II rif"ti:;:~- 1\ '>,,'.___ ~.~7LJ!:-1.!!:~~~~~;.j I am opposed to the construction of this 11,250 sq ft structure in my neighborhood. There was a lot of discussion Tuesday night about the letter of the law. That the applicants followed all the regulations as outlined in city ordinances at the time. The attorney for the applicant stated that the concerns of neighbors and the community at large are irrelevant as far as the council in concerned when they make their decision to approve or reject this application. I disagree, My quality of life and my neighbors quality of life are important, I would like to read the email I sent to the Mayor and council on March 22 that addresses these important concerns. Letter In closing I would also like to say that the Deboers may believe that they are acting within the letter of the law ( with a 44.9% lot coverage with the max being at 45%) but they must know that if they proceed with this project they will not be acting within the spirit of the law and the will of a majority of the community and the city council as demonstrated by the passage of the maximum size house ordinance, They support this community in many ways but this will not be one of them. I have no issue with design of the home. Even thought it is in the historical district it does not need to be a traditional design. My home is not historical. It was built in the 50s. I do have an issue with its size and lot coverage. This structure needs to be built on a parcel of land that can accommodate its massive size. That would be outside the Hargadine Historical district and outside the city limits. Thank you "---+_..~-+._..,--_."- regina '- ~ ,J~a5\n v~ . Af~1p From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "regina" <reginariley@jeffnet.org> <awdb@aol.com>; <council@ashland.or.us> "regina" <reginariley@jeffnet.org>; <berteauf@ashland.or.us> Monday, March 22, 200410:11 AM OPPOSED DeBoer House To Mayor DeBoer and City Council members, I understand that the Sid and Karen DeBoer project in on hold - again. I am pleased to hear this news. I am very much opposed to the construction of this planned 11,250 sq ft structure. Its construction will be very disruptive to the neighborhood and to me personally. I live at 199 Hillcrest and walk down Glenview past the house that will be removed and/or past the DeBoer "complex" on Vista at least once aday. I purchased a home in this neighborhood so that I could walk downtown and have taken advantage of this benefit almost daily since moving to Ashland over 2 years ago. When I do drive, my route home is up Pioneer, down Vista and up Hillcrest. I love living in Ashland and in the f-Iargadine Historical District. ~ " As a homeowner and a neighbor, I understand the need for tolerance regarding home remodels and construction. I have completed two remodel projects which were disruptive to my neighbors for short periods of time. Someone always seems to be upgrading their home. That is good news for our community. But the construction of this 11,250 sq ft structure and I emphasis structure not home is asking for more than just tolerating hammering and trucks on our narrow streets for several months. A project of this magnitude and controversy will take years to complete preventing me and others from enjoying the serenity and pleasure of leisurely walks in our neighborhood. I followed of the passage of the Maximum House Size ordinance that was passed last year with great interest attending Historical Commission and City Council meetings. I was pleased it was passed but disappointed that the DeBoer's project would still move ahead. Now the Council has the opportunity to reverse the Planning Commission sub-committee's decision to allow the project to proceed. I strongly encourage you to support the appeal presented by concerned citizens and prevent this inappropriate structure from being built in my neighborhood. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Regina Ayars 199 Hillcrest 3/22/2004 Reasons to deny PA 2003 -118 DeBoer Development City of Ashland Planning Exhibit EXHIBIT Cc..- 3 3 PA .It DATE"fj 0 STAFF 1. The project is too large a) over 35 ft. b) 3 story building 2. The decision by staff to approve was based on incorrect evidence submitted by architect about the slope (% versus degrees) The proposed building envelope is on unbuildable' land. 3. Sun:eyor's topo is based upon f.:Ul'.\.\H'ork and cannot be relied upon. No detailed evidence of methodology used is provided. 4. Key required documents ( topo map and Gantt chart) were not provided before application was "deemed complete" and Staff decision given. 5. Stone's Findings re-interperet city ordinances regarding Hillside Ordinance and Wildfire to the benefit of the applicant and contrary to Council interpretation as supported by the Record 6. Findings and City attorney opinion on "FairlTse" of copy.'ighted documents is plainly wrong. 7. Application's states Rear Yard setback (19 ft. from Glenview) is less than the 25 ft needed for 2 ~ story building (however, this is 3-story) 8. Grading for Driveway contrar~' to 18.62.080 8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: b, Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site,(Ord 2834,S2 1998) 9. Tree conservation in design ignored 18.62080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands 3, Tree Conservation in Project Design, a. Streets, driveways. buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the ma.\.imlll11 number of e.\.isting trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. b. Building em elopes shall be located and sized to presene the ma.\.imul11 number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. 10. Design does not comply' with Natural State requirements 18.62080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands 3. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. Slope site average of28% needs at least 5300 to be retained in Natural state The project states there will be 49.9% lot coverage by buildings and impermeable paving etc. Permeable driveways are not hillside "natural state" ( Note this "lot line adjustment" does come under the Partition section of ALU018.76.140 contrary to appellant's previous written testimony. 11. Applicant is responsible for illegal tree removal. ALUO 8.62.080 e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. IT nder no circumstances shall the denloper be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter. 186.2.080 Development Standards fix Hillside Lands II. The proposal is not a single family dwelling The application's architect's drawings clearly shows 2 kitchens ALUO 18.08.230 Dwelling, or dwelling unit One (1) or more rooms designed for occupancy by one (1) family and not having more than one (1) kitchen or cooking facility Enforcement a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. b. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. 18.62.130 Penalties The following sections are in addition to the enforcement actions that may be taken