HomeMy WebLinkAboutMt.Pines Planning Action Packet
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
To: City Council
Re: Planning Action # 2004 - 105
In my statements presented to the planning commission last November, I asked the
following:
J ask the Planning Commission and the applicants to consider the effect this sub-division
will have on our residence in terms of the added noise and glare. Cars using the
hammerhead turnaround at night will be shining their lights directly into our house, and
at eye level. The addition of a residence on lot 6 will also adversely affect our privacy
and add considerable noise and glare. We ask that the applicants be required to build
the appropriate fences at the maximum allowable height where our boundaries meet to
help reduce the negative impact this project will bring to our home.
While building this fence on the property boundaries will address the problem with lot 6,
if I understand the topographic map correctly, the area where the turnaround will be is
raised high enough that the headlights would likely still shine right over the top of a 6
foot fence built on the boundary line. Should this be the case, I ask that an appropriate
barrier built closer to the turnaround be required to prevent the lights from pointing
directly into our house
The volume of testimony given by the surrounding neighbors, coupled with the
applicant's continued presentation made for a very long evening. By the time the
commission was even able to begin addressing the many issues raised, it was very late
and fatigue had obviously settled in for those on the commission. As a result, there
simply was not enough time for them to address many of the issues raised by those
testifYing, and some were not even discussed by the commission.
While I am grateful that my request to have a barrier built close to the turnaround was
granted by the commission (and I again ask that the City Council uphold their decision),
the equally important issue of the bordering fence (in paragraph one) seemed to disappear
into thin air. I ask again that the City Council carefully consider this issue, and require the
applicants to take responsibility for containing the negative elements the proposed sub-
division will have on the adjoining neighbor's properties.
{JJ: @L
(
't.! l'~
;..-" ,~,
To: City Council
Re: Planning Action # 2004 - 105
We are among the neighbors significantly impacted by this proposed sub-division, but
not appealing the decision of the Planning Commission. The purpose of this letter is
twofold: (1) to support the decisions that were made by the Planning Commission
regarding denial of several requested exceptions, and (2) support our neighbors' request
that Prospect Avenue concerns be addressed.
When this Planning Action was heard by the Planning Commission, a significant number
of neighbors attended the hearing and expressed concerns related to the subdivision as
proposed. The first hearing ran over time and the Action had to be continued to a second
meeting; the second meeting was entirely devoted to this project and ran overtime as
well. Many neighbors invested time in preparing statements and waited patiently for a
turn to voice their concerns. Planning Commissioners listened patiently, but were visibly
tired by 1O:45pm, when they attempted to come to some resolution on the Action.
While we were gratified that the Planning Commission denied an exception to street
standards on South Mountain Ave., denied a conditional use permit for an Accessory
Residential Unit, and denied a variance for off-street parking, it appeared that the
Planning Commissioners did not sufficiently take into account concerns that had been
raised about parking and traffic turnaround on Prospect Avenue. Planning
Commissioners also seemed to gloss over issues raised about minimum lot size -
specifically, the factoring of public sidewalks and park-rows into lot size - and, in an
effort to come to a conclusion, did not fully address concerns about car lights (as well as
the noise and light generated by the new homes) impacting adjacent properties.
We would like to encourage you to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny
the requested exceptions and variances, and to revisit the concerns raised by Prospect
Street m:ighbors about traffic and parking on that street. We hope your fresh perspective
will give: proper weight to these additional concerns, while reaffirming the decisions
already made.
Printed Name
Address
wH lhl~tLl~
(j IAcl Y ~ ++l e-
1t{ 9 ~ fvt60(\\1)\1 t..\ (\\1 ~
rD7 S . WLt ,A~
90'7 f. '>>'Jc>V A/79/.:v AVe.
,
~ s. tL{~ ,'It ~ t
15 C{ &, 6. H. 4 _.. r... .;/t-'"'c.
Signatun~ Printed Name Address
,~I/MildL JJ/I~' b't;rwLl/ 1011 tJ/d'1A:Jo(:/ ~
Clm.vtl/;vZJe~ /ceo tWdPrOzd l(~
JL b 13 e ~ /6 (). 6 ~: ,I kJ~jl uJf
j C ~(,. .[1:" l' t' I Q )0 tAl .'1 t~ t.J'1p.. ( /
/(CIl4~/) t?~/ZIl <1;22 ?, mt'l<<,o/ rtiTl'V
J&hJNe STA-/..LA1.1tV 1<11 S. mtn<K1-h.."
Jl~J S~~ ~ ~, }J.piJlVfr\lN
--:::t5:b.~ ~ s. ~
'R~b 73en71 )-'o~ 5. p1uun +-C({~
t6lkiT~/?AD~ /d;U"tv~
CJt\c4.~Ce\:\b~ LBo~. ~~~
t;.....\\..i.,c~ ~~ t \
('k
Dear Ashland Planning Commission
2005
Attn: Maria Harris
January 25,
Regarding Plmming Action 2004-105, Tax Lots 391E 16 AD 3400, 3500 & 3600
I am the ownE~r of the house at 1043 Prospect Street, Ashland. This house sits at the end of
Prospect on the downhill side of the street, on the west end of Prospect.
I will be out of town for the February 1, 2005 meeting, so would like my letter read as a matter
of record.
My concern remains on-street parking. I am advocating for at least a 22 foot wide street at the
end of Prospect, with parking on at least one side. I do not believe that fire truck access should
be a constraint for providing such parking, because currently a fire truck cannot easily
turnaround at the end of the street anyway. With or without parking the ability of a fire truck
to turnaround remains unchanged. In fact, if on-street parking is not provided in front of 1043
Prospect Street, it is likely that fire truck turnaround will become even more problematic. The
parking at 1043 Prospect Street currently consists of two legal spaces which are comprised by a
carport and driveway. Without on-street parking close to the house, residents of 1043 Prospect
Street are forced to jimmy their cars in, using the entire driveway up to the property line. With
the 1036 Prospect Street private gate closed and the driveway at 1043 Prospect used to full
capacity, turnaround for any vehicle becomes extremely difficult. If on-street parking is
provided, parking and emergency vehicle accessibility will actually be enhanced. I have often
watched my neighbors and guests of 1036 Prospect Street back into my driveway out of theirs
in order to exit their property. With the driveway at 1043 utilized to full capacity, this
becomes extremely difficult.
I think it needs to be noted that without legal on-street parking, residents and especially their
guests will become creative and park in ways that limit access. Let's just provide some legal
on-street parking! There is definitely a need. I believe that the developers of Mountain Pines
Subdivision are amenable to this solution. I thank them for their consideration of the needs of
Prospect Street.
Thank you,
J~~ 2, S 'lGGS
Julie Stuelpnagel
January 23, 2005
Ashland City Council
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Honorable: Members of the Ashland Council:
We would like to express our strong opposition to the Findings, Conclusions and Orders in the matter
of Planning Action #2004-105 delineating Ashland Planning Commission's decisions concerning the
Mountain Pines Subdivision. In particular, this letter addresses one specific set of decisions that affect
our personal safety and the safety of our home: the approved changes to the western end of Prospect
Street.
The Current Situation: Prospect Street is a narrow, unimproved, unpaved city street presently serving
three residences: 1036, 1043 and 1063 Prospect. Its total length is 330 feet. In the first 225 feet, the
street's effectiv(~ width (the sum of its roadbed, shoulders/parking areas) is 28 feet. The effective
roadbed and shoulders narrow to 23 feet in the remaining 85 feet of Prospect, except where an 18 foot
length of fence at 1043 Prospect encroaches into the right-of-way. The street then ends with a sharp left
hand turn into our driveway at 1036 Prospect. The only street that connects to Prospect is South
Mountain A venue. Because there is no cul-de-sac or other means of turning around at the end of
Prospect, vehicles often back out the full length of the street in order to egress. Up to eleven vehicles
often claim all available parking spaces along the north side of the street. In their April 22, 2004
meeting, the Traffic Safety Commission heard public testimony about the inadequacy of the street in
terms of traffic flow, parking, and fire safety and decided to establish "No Parking" zones along the
entire south side of the street and for the last 85 feet on the north side
The Future Prospect Street of Planning Action #2004-105: On November 9, 2004, the Planning
Commission hastily made ill-conceived changes to Prospect Street as part of their conditions of
approval of the application for the Mountain Pines Subdivision. The Commission granted an exception
to the street standards for a neighborhood street:
· The street will be paved to a curb-to-curb width 01'25 feet up to the last 85 feet ofthe street (the
western end), at which point the street will narrow to a paved width of 22 feet curb-to-curb.
· Double-.sided parking will be allowed where the street is 25 feet wide, and one-sided parking
will be allowed in the last 85 feet (the western end) where it narrows to a 22 foot width.
· The requirement for a 7 to 8 foot parkrow on both sides was waived.
· The requirement for two 5 to 6 foot sidewalks was replaced with a single five foot wide
sidewalk to be installed curbside along the south side (Note: placing a sidewalk on the south
side of the street at the western end was not advocated by anyone, including staff or the
applicant. A five foot sidewalk along the south side of the western end of the street will lead to
the removal or demise of at least three large pine trees, an outcome that all involved or affected
by the development have sought to avoid.)
· A turnawund will be installed on the south side and into Lot #3 prior to where the street
narrows. However, vehicle turnaround challenges will persist for the remaining 85 feet of west
end, and will be exacerbated by permitted on-street parking on its north side.
· Prospect Street will directly serve one additional property of the Mountain Pines Subdivision
with driveway access, but will also provide "legal access" on Prospect Street for two additional
subdivision properties that abut the street. It was reasoned that this legal access will relieve the
traffic and parking pressures on the development's private drive, thus waiving the three-
property maximum requirement and allowing the subdivision's private drive to serve five
properties. Right-of-way width standards for a neighborhood street total 50 to 57 feet, summing
pavement, curb, sidewalk and parkrow widths. The right-of-way for the future Prospect Street
total 30 feet in its wider section, and 27 feet at the west end.
The Mountain Pines Subdivision will add significantly to traffic and parking demands on Prospect
Street, a street already woefully inadequate for existing conditions. The future street improvements
serve to worsen the situation.
As the owners of the residence at the end of Prospect Street, we have many misgivings about the future
Prospect Street. Our greatest concern is the decision to allow parking on one side of the street's
narrowest section in the west end. It is our strong request that no parking be allowed in this western 85
feet of Prospect Street, due to its narrowness, both at present and as proposed, and due to the fact that
there is no cul-de-sac or other means of turning around to exit the street without making dangerous
turns onto private property. Presently, about two to four vehicles a day (including, at times, City fire
and utility vehicles) either seemingly ignore the "Dead End" sign on Prospect near South Mountain
A venue, and unintentionally continue down Prospect, perhaps looking to connect with Glenwood or
Beach Streets, or perhaps just being totally lost. In most of these cases, the vehicles are forced to back
out either to a private carport at 1063 Prospect, if unoccupied, or, more frequently, all the way to South
Mountain. As c:ommon sense suggests and the City's Planning Department acknowledged in its
Conditions of Approval #14 (cited below), parking in this narrow section creates a very dangerous
situation, not just for property, but also for the many adults and children who walk on Prospect. Note
that this condition was discarded by the Planning Commission at its November 9,2004 meeting.
Condition of Apvroval #14: That the proposed Prospect street improvement west of the turnaround
shall be improved as proposed with 22 feet of width and on-street parking on one side if the following
conditions are satisfied: 1. a vehicle turnaround easement is obtainedfrom the property owners of
1036 Prospect for use of their driveway for a turnaround area, 2. it is demonstrated that it is possible
for a vehicle parked on the north side of Prospect on the west end to turnaround in the driveway and
exit out of Prospect Street in aforward manner, and [Emphasis added] 3. the Fire Department
determines that a (sic) emergency vehicle can negotiate the turn into 1036Prospect with automobiles
parked on the north side of Prospect on the west end. If the before mentioned conditions are not
satisfied, the Prospect Street improvement shall be reduced in width and on-street parking shall not be
permitted west of the turnaround. The engineered drawings shall be revised accordingly. (P. 12,
Ashland Planning Department-Addendum, Planning Action 2004-105)
As the accompanying pictures show, people already park on the western end of Prospect, despite the
fact that "No Parking" signs are posted on both sides of the street. This illegal parking severely hinders
and sometimes forecloses access by even small passenger cars to our residence at 1036 Prospect and
the residence at 1043. Again, as the pictures show, these parked vehicles would prevent emergency
access to our residence at the western end of Prospect. This is a situation of great concern to us, one
that we have raised repeatedly with the Traffic Safety Commission, the Planning Department, and the
Fire Department.
Let us be very dear with respect to Planning Action 2004-105. The proposal to pave the western 85
feet of Prospect to a width of 22 feet would actually represent a narrowing of the effective roadbed
plus parking area by approximately one foot. Both the applicant and we measured the existing roadbed
plus parking areas at 23 feet. Paving this portion of the street would narrow the existing roadway (save
for the fence encroachment into the right of way at 1043 Prospect).
By the owner's own characterization, the house at 1043 Prospect has off-street parking for two
vehicles. As of this date and according to its owner, the house is under contract for sale (the home has
been on the market over the past year). We believe that a primary motivation of the owner is to secure
additional on-street parking in order to facilitate the home's sale, and that access and safety are not the
owner's concerns. Indeed, securing on-street parking for the new homeowners is exactly what the
current owner states to be her goal in her correspondence with us. Please do not allow short-term
monetary issues to override common sense, the input from the Planning Department, Fire Department,
and the Traffic Safety Commission and jeopardize the safety of all the future occupants of 1036 and
1043 Prospect Street.
We recognize that Ashland Street standards allow for one-sided parking on a 22-foot neighborhood
street. These standards apply adequately for through, interconnected neighborhood streets. However,
they do not effectively address a situation like the western end of Prospect, where there are no street
connections and no opportunity to egress without performing a dangerous turnaround or backing up a
substantial distance. What's more, because the terrain drops off steeply on the north side of the curb,
cars attempting to park in the "stub" will have to position themselves one to two feet into the street for
the safety of those exiting the passenger side of the vehicle.
In addition, and our greatest concern, a fire engine, or other large emergency vehicles, would be unable
to make the lefl-hand turn into our driveway if there were any cars parked on the south side of Prospect
in the western "stub." According the Ashland Street Standards Handbook (pages 5-10) twenty-three
basic principles "shall be used for the planning and designing of new streets." With respect to
emergency vehicles the handbook states:
#3. Emergency Vehicles: Streets should be designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency
fire and medical services vehicles. The effects of decisions concerning turning radii [Emphasis added]
and paths must be made with afull understanding of the implications of such decisions on other users
of the street.
At our request, Marguerite Hickman, of the Ashland Fire Department, assessed whether or not there
would be adequate access for firefighting vehicles if cars were parked in the "stub." Because of the
distance of our home from Prospect Street, she indicated that it would be necessary for a fire vehicle to
be able to access and enter our driveway (not just the street) in order to effectively fight a fire in our
home. She shared our concerns that a large fire vehicle might be unable to swing to the south side
enough to be able to make the left-handed turn into the driveway when cars were parked in the "stub."
Moreover, members of the Traffic Safety Commission, at their site visit prior to their April 22, 2004
meeting, immediately recognized the traffic dangers in this section of Prospect, and voted to prohibit
parking on both sides of the western end of Prospect. Included in the minutes of that meeting were the
following statements:
Parking on the street is usually light: however, even one vehicle parked along the westerly 80' of the
street could completely close the street to the two westerly residences...
Even with the improvement of Prospect Street [proposed by the applicant) the westerly end is still
too narrow to provide safe on-street parking [Emphasis added). Staff.recommends that parking be
prohibited on the south side of Prospect from the west end of the right of way 125 feet east
{subsequently extended to the entire length of Prospect to South Mountain) and on the north side from
the west end of the right of way approximately 85 feet.
We implore you to respect the thoughtful decisions and recommendations made by the Traffic Safety
Commission and other City entities and require the western 85 feet or more of Prospect Street to
remain a "No Parking" zone. Any decision to the contrary, we strongly believe, would endanger our
residence, potentially our lives, as well that of our young son, and the future owners of 1043 Prospect.
Please put safety first.
Thank you,
11 /Jf. G\
/ In /. .?J:,:=--y-L
Milan P. (Kip) Sigetich
lLScccc (./20
Rebecca L. Reid, owners
1036 Prospect Street
'f.... .J'
. .
\ .
, ,
,
.J-<
;~ .
:~('. 'o' '. ."/i '.
"....Mt
~l{;.L..T?".1 . :
... ',', ~ '. I
J"~ :l[ ~ f
'I
'" ~t
l'l
.7(
";~., ..
,." ,tt
...U . 'r;.
,r ,~;
/..').
J
<
~.
-
....~. '. .
'.'_,',
"
. ,
.t r..,
. ......
....'l'
APPELLANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
to
PLANNING ACTION 2004-105
'~-~-'- -'-"-'--"-~
(MOUNTAIN PINES PROJECT)
Randall Hopkins
735 S. Mountain Ave.
Ashland, OR 97520
EC ',=, ,n,n::::?)
R 1_" " ,.
!f."'-~ ~j --:. ,~#
JAN 2 4 1005
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLANNING ACTION 2004-105
This planning action (UPA") seeks, among other .things,
an Exception to .Ashland St-reet Standards -which would also
allow the project to avoid the City.' s zoning regulat~ions.
Approval would shoe-horn an overly intense developInEmt
int-o steep hillside and wildfire land with associatE~d
dangerous streets that would be beyond the carrying.
capacity of the area to handle it.
The Council is invited to review the presentation of
citizens -~pposed to the PAbefor-e the Planning Commission
.(llpe") . These begin at 1: 34 of the PC.'-sNovembermeE~ting.
There were no citizens speaking in favor of thePA.
To sumnarize, the citizens testified as follows:
1. An4Y Stallman:
His wife had asked developer to meet with area
neighbors ,but .was turned down on grounds 1t:hat
these meetings II never go well. "Concernso:E
.neighbors.wereneveraddressedand the PA .:is NOT
the result of.cooperative effort. The developer
has'never contacted many neighbors. Fewer lots
would lessens problems with the developmen"t.
2. Dr. Phil Phillips:
Prospect Street,. for which a Street Standard
Exception is sought, is a dead end road that
already presents access, exiting and parking
problems, even with only parking on one side.
Adding tremendous load to this street will
degrade safety and well being of the area.
Proposed paving will narrow the driveable
road ~urface from that which currently exists
along the eastern 2/3rds of street. The plan is a
'disastrous recipe' according to this Emergency
Room doctor at Ashland Community Hospital.
1
R~.;f", ,
J~NZ 4 LUuS
C:;ordon has seen accidents in this area already.
j~ding more load is I asking for lots of
difficulty. "
6. Ed Beutner:
I Alice in Wonderland' interpretations are being
'Used to create I incredibly dangerous I
:street. In winter, you can see lots of skidmarks
10n Mountain. Private drive will be almost blind
'r.-lhen it hits Mountain and needs city services.
7. Judy Little:
Too many proposed homes for what area can safely
support. S. Mountain is already dangerous since
it is steep, high elevation, and ices up in
winter. Has seen vehicles sliding down out of
control, backwards. Hard to get up Mountain now
when there is parking on both sides of the road.
Has seen accidents on Mountain, including
. vehicles ending up on the sidewalk at the. bottom
where Pros'pectmeetsMountain. There is now a
home at the other side .ofthis sidewalk. People
really speed down 'Mountain__ .Lots of pedestrian
.traffiq,. walkers arid'kids. on this street . . Thi.s is.
a wildfire dzone. "Need safer proposal that is more:
in . keeping~i th the neighborhood.
8. 'CbrisCotton.:'
.Family .has .lived .inarea .for 56 years and w.as
'greatly . involved.in-building . our communi ty.-sees
fire 'safety"problems. 'Shoving more . parking 'onto
-s. Mountain is unsafe., as he has seen a car
I totaled 'there .evenon a clear., sunny day. OVer
.the years., has seen :peoplegoingoverthe
'sidewalk at the base of Mountain (-near Prospect)
into land that now has a home on it. A recent
accident in area hospitalized a bicyclist. His
family developed Quail Haven right across the
street without removing a single tree and
allowing quality open space. Need to build
fewer homes in the new project, instead of
shoehorning too many into available spaceRECb~\r;:D
3 J~N 2 4 lU05
The current Prospect Street ROW varies between 43.85
feet and 28.745 feet per page 18 of Applicant's Planning
Application. Approximately 15' of the ROW on the north is,
by agreement of Staff and Applicant, unusable as it is too
steep.
The Council is empowered by anyone of several
sections of the Code to require the applicant to dedicate
added ROW from its property. The Subdivision Design
Standards (Sec. 18.80.020B5) provide that:
5. Existing streets. Whenever existing streets
adjacent to or within a tract are of inadequate width,
additional right-of-way SHALL be provided at the time
of subdivision..
Sec. 18.82.020, titled STREET DEDICATION REQUIRED,
also provides that II (l)and will be dedicated by a property
owner for the construction of a street when...(E) The City
may require additional right-of-way on streets which do
not meet the Street Standards of Chapter 18.88,
Performance Standards Options, or for necessary
realignments of intersections OJ:: street sections. These do
not have to be shown on the official map."
Under 18.82.060, such II (d)edication of the futu.re
right-of-way for a street or greenway is required prior to
final action on a partitioning, subdivision, or
development requiring a planning action.
The only exception to this dedication scheme is
provided in 18.82.040 (titled STREET DEDICATION WAIVED)
which provides that: II (t)he property owner is not rlequired
to dedicate land for the construction of a City str4eet or
greenway when it has been proven, to the satisfaction of
the Planning Commission, that the planned use will not
increase IN ANY WAY, the automobile, pedestrian or bicycle
traffic generated in the area."
Obviously, Applicant's development will increase the
traffic on Prospect since:
(a) lot 1 will directly access off the street,
5
~,'\
JAM 2 4 2Un5
This approach more fairly divides burdens among the
parties. ;!\pplicants' approach requires current homeowners
along Pro:spect not only to sacrifice part of its current
width, bu.t to acoept the substantial new parking on a
street which strains under the burden of single sided
parking. 'The approach suggested above would shift the
added parking brought to the area by the subdivision into
what is now Applicant's property.
The City's Street Handbook (p. 4) says that it is not
uncommon for 25% or more ofa proposed development's land
area to be set aside for required ROW. As presently
proposed, only 2.8% of Applicant's land (a 12.5' strip of
ROW along'S. Mountain) is called to be dedicated.
Requiring' an added dedication of 6 feet along Prospect
will only' increase this to 4.9%, or less than a fifth of
what the Handbook says is commonly dedicated.
This approach to improving Prospect has never been
considere!d, apparently from a belief that the standards
prevent you from substituting a parking bay for a planting
strip. Blllt, there is not only no such requirement in
ei ther tbe Code or Handbook. Indeed, the Handbook would be
violated by accepting such a Iplanting strip or nothing'
argument.
The use of planting strips (called a parkrow) between
street ~ld sidewalk is shown on the configuration drawings
at page 34 and elsewhere in the streets Handbook. But page
1 of the Handbook emphasizes that, with respect to these
basic stJ::-eet configurations,:
IIVariations can be made from these basic types
to fit the particular site and situation."
The Handbook also states that ueach street should be
individuc:illy designed and molded to the particular
situation at hand." p. 6.
AlsCI, while street design must follow the standards
(which w~uld be fulfilled here by requiring a fuller ROW
dedicatil~n under the Standards), they must be Ilflexible
enough b:> accommodate varying situations" and Ivery
specific to the particular street at hand."
7
tD"'~
'"\r':'
JAN 2 4 ZOilS
2. In contrast, Applicant cannot meet the critelcia for
an Exception to the Street Standards.
Applicant must meet ALL the criteria for an Exc43ption.
It cannot do so:
A. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the
street standard due to a unique or unusual aspect OF' THE
SITE.
Nothing about this site precludes an additional ROW
dedication. As shown below, the only problem for Applicant
is that the required dedication will reduce lot sizE~s
below the minimum lot area of the zoning laws. But 1::hat is
just a result of the law, not a lunique or unusual clSpeCt'
of the site.
B. The SS Exception will not result in equal or
superior transportation facilities and connectivity.,
Applicants' Exception would shove the additional on-
street parking, which the Planning Staff's October report
says is necessary along Prospect, out into the currE~ntly
traveled portion of the street (which, as noted, would
actually be paved to a narrower area that presently
exists). At the very moment when massive construction
vehicles will appear, to be followed by added vehicles of
the new neighbors, Prospect will be reduced below i t.s
present dimension and clogged with double sided parking.
Presently, there is only one sided parking, except at the
western stub, where there is no parking allowed at all.
The attached photos, testimony at the PC, and
testimony to be provided for the City Council, demonstrate
just how worse off Prospect will be from the stand~Jint of
access and public safety, if this I improvement' unf4Jlds.
The I turnaround' proposed opposite Dr. Phillips: house,
while nice, does not alter this conclusion. It will look a
parking space and invite people to park there. Both your
Planning Staff and your Fire Department's representative
have warned that Ino parking' signs will be routinely
ignored. See, 10-12-04 Staff Report, pp. 9-10, and JM.
Hickman's testimony at 2:45 of the PC's November hearing.
9
J~,N ~~ 'l 7.DiE
4. would increase, not decrease, the impact on the
natural E~nvironment and the neighborhood. The existing
neighbores (as well as though buying into the subdivision)
will pay the price in terms of diffioulty of access and an
increasingly unsafe Prospect street.
(NOTE - In effect, Applicant is proposing to reduce
Prospect to a single 11 foot Iqueuin9' lane. By the City's
Handbook makes clear that the queuing lane concept is used
to I redu(~e speeds.' But the problem on Prospect has not
been, nor will it be speed, it is access, a problem
worsened by the use of queuing. with full-up parking on
both sidE~s, it will be hard even to find a place to pull
over when two vehicles meet in the middle. The queuing
option i!~ thus singularly inappropriate for the a street
that that, narroWs as it dead ends.)
3. R~equiring compliance with the City's full ROW
standard will also allow the City's zoning rules to do
their j 0)).
A prime purpose of zoning rules is to make sure that
new development fits in with the carrying capacity of land
to be dev'eloped and the surrounding neighborhood.
The Applicant's proposed subdivision is zoned R-1-10,
which requires 10,000 SF lots.
The Subdivision Design Standards (18.80.020D1)
provides that subdivision lots SHALL meet the requirements
of the zone in which the subdivision is located. This
Standard provides only three exceptions, none of which are
applicable here.
Requiring dedication of the standard ROW from
Applicant's property (clearly within the City's power and
contemplated by the Standards), will reduce the
Applicant's Prospect side lots below the 10,000 SF
minirmnn.
For example, dedicating an added 6.15 feet, which
would increase the east portion of Prospect to a 501 ROW,
would reduce Lot 1 from its current claimed 10,074 SF to
9,275 SF (10,074 SF - 130' frontage x 6.15'). This
11
r"')".'
'..", ,;
,~.. .,. .,.,
JI\.!~ "A 2G\15
hi (,_.
There is no exception to this within the Code that is
applicable to a neighbo~hood street like Prospect. ~[or can
such an exception be imposed now ct>nsistent with the~
. Street Standards Handbook, which makes clear that there is
a trade off between ROW dedications and land available for
development. Page 4 of the handbook explains that:
IICurrently, it is not uncommon for 25 percent o.r more
of a proposed development's land area to be set aside
for required rights-of-way. Using narrower stre~ets
can reduce this percentage and free up land for open
space, OR MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT.'
Thus, there is a clear trade off contemplated in the
Handbook between ROW Dedication and development intE~nsi ty .
If Applicant's suggestion that ROW dedication is
irrelevant to lot size, there could be no tradeoff. But
there IS a tradeoff and here it favors less intensit.y.
Nor can the Applicant avoid this result by casting the
ROW dedication as an easement. Under the Subdivision
Design Standards (18.82.020C), easements are designated
for utility lines and water watercourses, or for private
ways. With respect to satisfying shortcomings of a public
street, however, the Code uses ROW dedication. See,
18.80.20B5 (Uadditional ROW SHALL be provided).
Moreover, Applicant's behavior during the course of
the planning actions on this subdivision belies its claim
that ROW dedication does not deduct from lot area
calculation. At every stage, Applicant has taken care to
avoid any required dedication along Prospect (or s.
Mountain for that matter, as its latest Application sought
to use an easement). Applicant originally argued that the
required planting strip be sited within the currently
traveled part of Prospect, which would have reduced the
unfortunate inhabitants along Prospect to an even narrower
street running down to 18 feet wide.
Even now, Applicant casts its requested Exception in
terms of innocuously dropping a planting strip instead of
what is really needed - an exception to ROW. standards.
13
JI\[:\ ~ A '1110;;
, hP~ ~ "1 LVU'J
On FE3b. 25, 2003, in response to Applicant's original
PA, the C.ity's Staff acknowledge that:
"...the Planning "Commission could make the
interpretation that the flag drive area is the
actu49.l physical location where the drive is pro-
posed and deduct this area from the lot."
Obviousl~', if the Planning Commission can make such an
interpret:ation, so can the City Council.
This interpretation available to this Council makes
sense. The flag pole exclusion seeks to exclude land used
for access. Why not use the actual dimensions of the paved
access drive for a clearer, more precise measurement?
This interpretation, applied to the lots as presently
configurE~d, would mean that, at a minimum, the current
lots 4 and 6 would be far less than the 10,000 SF minimum.
Applicant's Tentative Lot Layout filed 1-9-2004
contained Notes that showed Lot 6 is only 8,988 SF if you
exclude1:he flag portion and the paved drive. Since there
is only n tiny portion of the flag portion that is not
within the paved drive (approx. 50 sq. feet), deducting
just the paved drive alone still puts Lot 6 far below
10 , 000 Sl~. '
Applicant's Tentative Lot Layout states that Lot 4 is
only 8,8!>7 SF, again excluding the flag and the paved
drive. A9ain, the portion of the flag outside the paved
drive is small, meaning that deducting the paved drive
alone cr~3ates a lot smaller than 10, 000 SF.
The Tentative Lot Layout states that Lot 5 is 9,638 SF
without t.he flag and paved drive. Since there is more
substantial area of the flag outside the paved drive on
Lot 5, professional measurement would be required to
conclude that Lot 5 fails if only the paved drive is
excluded. But if both th~ flag pole and the paved drive
are excluded, then Lot 5 fails as well.
15
\ ~.'~ "4: ISJ~\~
,p,\. ~.
raising this area to delineate a walking surface wi t~hout
disrupting auto travel. This worthy compromise should be
reinstated.
How can you justify a street exception based on saving
trees, only to kill them with a sidewalk?
b. location of utility pole and support wire - .~ major
problem with the west end is adequate space for firE~ truck
access into the Sigetich/Reid house. Part of this problem
arises from location of a utility pole and support cable
at the NW corner of Applicant's property. Removal of this
pole would allow for greater access. Since Applicant: wants
to bury utilities in the subdivision, why can't thin pole
be removed as well? After all, why should Applicant" s
'view lots' have a primary view of a utility pole mld
transformer?
c. parking in the western stub - this is currently a
no parking zone, but people park there anyway, cre~~ing
severe access problems for homeowners there. While 1~e
Street Standards call for one-side parking on a 22' street
(the dimension to which this section is supposedly 90in9
to be paved), those standards are also contemplate i~
I network of interconnected city streets,' where I tr4~velers
can choose from many available routes.' Handbook, p. 4.
Those Standards do not contemplate dead ends as fow~d
here. (Handbook, pp. 7, 41)
The proposal presented to the PC included a SteLff
Condition that called for the Fire Department to conduct a
test for access once the road was complete, before
determining whether west end parking would be allow,ed.
This was thrown out by the PC, even though NO O~ OPPOSED
IT. At a minimum, the test should be reinstated.
7. A security bond should be required in order to
enforce this development's tree protection plans.
Applicant's Landscape Architect John Galbraith has
submitted a very worthy and tree protection plan. The
problem is that it is.so extensive and expensive that it
will encourage non-enforcement. And non-enforcement of
tree protection plans is at epidemic levels in the City of
17
JM~ Z A
in conver::;ation with Applicant's representative, Mr.
Cochrane, both in a group with Applicant's engineer and
then alonl9 with Mr. Cochrane.
2. After the end of the October hearing, one of the
PCers not only entertained, but initiated an ex parte
communication with Dr. Phillips. Immediately after
introducing himself, this PCer loudly asked what Dr.
Phillips '~ould think about doing an LID as part of the fix
on Prospect. This was said loudly enough to be heard by
other neighbors who were still there. Since an LID imposes
costs (and o~her headaches) on local citizens, the mere
suggestion of an LID can discourage public participation,
contrary to public policy. It was thus an ex parte
communication on a very sensitive subject.
3. At. the November hearing, this PCer failed, as
required by state and city law, to disclose this ex parte
cammunicaxion at the time the Chairman called for
disclosures.
4. ~Jen the undersigned objected and asked for a
recusal(as he was probably required by state law to do in
order to preserve error), it was revealed that another
PCer alscl had an undisclosed ex parte communication as
well and that the head of the City'S Planning Department
knew about it. Yet, neither the second PCer nor the
Planning Director spoke up when the PC Chairman called for
disclosure of ex parte communications.
5. Then, both the PC Chairman and the Planning
Director repeatedly tried to cut off what the undersigned
was saying. The Chairman, Mr. Chapman, even blurted Iwe're
not goin9 to lawyer this up!'
The Ithis'referred to by the Chairman is a quasi-
judicial proceeding with rules that are supposed to be
followed" Indeed, it is likely that the undersigned was
required by Oregon state law to make objections or see
them waiV'ed. Further, every citizen who watched this
unfold W.:lS at risk of concluding - see how you get slapped
down if you show up at these hearings and try to make a
differenee...why bother? This cannot help encourage public
participi:ltion.
19
:",I"0f'
Jt-,N 2 4: LUU)
CONCLUSION
This Council has a unique opportunity to help assure.
the land at issue will be developed in a. quality and
livable way, enhancing, not detracting from the
neighborhood in which it will sit. And you can do so by
simply applying the standards, criterion and rules ,~hat
are available to you. You can prove that the wonderful
residential developments like Quail Haven right acrc:>ss the
street are not just Ithings of the past.'
The Council should vote Ino' and send this project
back to the drawing board. Application of the zonin9 rules
will obviously require substantial alterations that can't
be cured by the expedient of piling on more conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
Randall Hopkins
~: '-;";; .::'~-" .,--~ -.~ ~ ",
21
J""! M'.^,C
"i\i :, I: I' "t'"
hL ?' ~2 .v_J..
Jf,..'!
. j~11 2 A
2DD5
,. li.\1 ^ .
.... rd'i 1:!}
crill ) Z 'i\il'
J.....u'J. l~ { 1
C:
U -
<:::
"- =
- c--..
- 0:.
fJ ~
( I-
V <:....)
c::>
1"
,
IL~ =>
>' ~
~:;;.. ~
~~~l t1
~~~ ~
. 1.0~ol
~ ~ /~
~ ~ l~! ~
... ...13' :
~'" ! ~<>""
L"~~
00
f;;Iil
~Z z
~o 8
z~ ~
.... t:: 0
< t::; ~
~Q ~
~~ ~
000 -<
~
]
a
3nN3/\ .-
9
..
II
NI.-iNnOH
s It
Hinos
ss S"
.%"' :;'
o
~
...J
~
~.
~
~
rI1
-
~~
'"'c
1 'J
II
-,
......-
'\
i
5
O~
!lj@i
~~!!!
~i=;'O
a~~
)... -
i3g~ Jf.l
"''''.. R J!
,,~
.8
.~
1
"IUIUII
~
..,
""'
0-c 1
= =
-Q -Q
~~ ~~
..... CIS .....,5
Q~ e Q
IooQ
~~ ~~
~
<
=a
~
~ ~
~ Z
Z
~
~ Z..
U
~ 0
> N
[I [I
~ :i:i:i:i:i:i
<( ~IIUI
L
L ~i;i;i !
~
UJ
~
I- !
() I
...J
i f.
ijq
Hi!
."zl-
.~I
jiill
J)i41
&U&
J~f3
ll..:l
..,
.......--
. -
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Appeal of Planning Action 2004-105 - A Request for Preliminary Plat
Approval of a Seven-Lot Subdivision, an Exception to the Street Standards, a
Tree Removal Permit, a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Residential
Unit and a Variance to Off-Street Parking Requirements for the Properties
Located at 759 and 769 South Mountain Avenue
Meeting Date:
Department:
February 1, 2004
Planning
Primary Staff Contact: Maria Harris, 552-2045 M....4.
harrism@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: John McLaugWin, ~
552-2043, mac@asWand.or.us ~
Statement:
The record for Planning Action 2004-105 is being distributed prior to the regular packet for the
February I, 2005 meeting to provide additional time for the Mayor and Council to review the
materials. The Planning Action was approved by the Planning Commission on November 9,
2004, and the decision was subsequently appealed. The public hearing is scheduled for the
February 1, 2005 Council meeting.
Background:
On July 15, 2004, the applicant filed the request for the above referenced planning action. On
August 19,2004, the application was deemed complete by staff. The 120-day limit expired on
December 19,2004. The applicant granted a 30-day extension to the 120-day time limit on
September 7,2004, and a 60-day extension on November 21,2004. The extension results in the
new time limit of March 19,2005. Should the hearing run long, the Council has the option of
continuing the hearing to the February 15, 2005 meeting, with adoption of findings on March 1,
2005.
Reviews ofth(~ application were held in front of the Tree Commission on October 7,2004 and on
November 4, 2004. Their comments are included in the record. The Tree Commission
recommended that specific conditions be attached to the action, should it be approved by the
Planning Commission.
A public hearing was properly noticed and held in front ofthe full Planning Commission on
October 12, 2004 at which time testimony was heard and evidence was submitted. The hearing
was continued to November 9,2004 at which time testimony was heard and evidence was
submitted. The Planning Commission voted to deny the Conditional Use Permit and Off-Street
Parking Variance for the Accessory Residential unity by a unanimous vote, and voted to approve
1
r~'
the Preliminary Plat of the Subdivision, Exception to the Street Standards and Tree Removal
Permit by a 7-1 vote.
The Planning Commission adopted the findings supporting their decision to approve the
application on December 14,2004, and the findings were mailed to the involved parties on
December 21,2004. A timely appeal was filed by Randall Hopkins on December 30,2004. The
appeal request stated thirteen issues as the grounds for the appeal:
1. The subdivision and preliminary plat fails to comply with and/or violates the approval
standards for preliminary plat approval described in Chapter 18.80.
2. The subdivision and preliminary plat fails to comply with and/or violates the minimum lot size
requirements.
3. The proposed improvements to Prospect Street failed to comply with and/or violates the
Ashland Street Standards Handbook. Specifically, the proposed improvements do not satisfy
the Connectivity Standards, the Street Design Standards, and the Hillside Streets and Natural
Area Standards
4. The subdivision and preliminary plat fails to comply with and/or violates the approval criteria
for an exception to the street standards in Chapter 18.88, and the approval criteria for a
variance in Chapter 18.100.
5. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails to comply with and/or violates the
development standards for hillside lands in Section 18.62.080.
6. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails to comply with and/or violates the
development standards for wildfire lands in Section 18.62.090.
7. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails to comply with and/or violates the
development standards severe constraints lands in Section 18.62.100.
8. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails to comply with and/or violates the site
design and use standards outline in Chapter 18.72, including the approval criteria in Section
18.72.070.
9. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails to comply with and/or violates the
approval of subdivision street standards and subdivision design standards in Chapter 18.80.
10. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails to comply with and/or violates the
standards and approval criteria for street and greenway dedication in Chapter 18.82.
11. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plant fails to comply with and/or violates the
performance standards for residential developments, street standards and parking standards
in Chapter 18.88.
12. The approval of the subdivision and preliminary plat fails to require the applicant to post
performance security ensuring satisfactory completion and maintenance of the proposed tree
protection plan as provided by 18.61.250. The Notice of Appeal states "especially given the
applicants' failure to satisfy Ashland tree ordinance requirements, including thos'9 for tree
protection, in another nearby development."
13. The public hearing proceeding before the Planning Commission violated state law as well as
the public hearings procedure outline in Section 18.108.100 due to "undisclosed ex parte
communications, undisclosed potential conflicts of interest and violation of other rules for the
conduct for the public hearing. Such violations also amount to an abuse of power and a
denial of due process of law."
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The thirteen issues raised in the appeal request are broad in nature. Staff will submit a response
for Council review upon receipt of further information from the appellant pertaining to the
specifics ofthe grounds for appeal and related approval criteria. Iftimely received, further
submissions and public comments pertaining to the proposal will be included in packet for the
February 1 meeting.
Attachments:
The record is attached.
3
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2004-105
REQUEST FOR A SEVEN LOT SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT, AND AN
EXCEPTION TO CITY OF ASHLAND STREET STANDARDS FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.75
ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE AND PROSPECT STREET. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, AS WELL AS A VARIANCE TO OFF-STREET PARKING
REQUIREME.NTS TO ALLOW TWO (2) REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FOR
THE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO BE LOCATED ON AN ADJACENT PARCEL.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-10;
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 16 AD; TAX LOTS: 3400,3500 AND 3600.
APPLICANT: R & C INVESTMENTS
12-30-04
1-11-05
1-11-05
12-21-04
12-21-04
11-21-04
11-10-04
11-10-04
11-9-04
11-9-04
11-9-04
11-9-04
11-9-04
11-9-04
11-9-04
11-9-04
10-11-04 to
11-4-04
11-4-04
10-29-04
10-29-04
10-21-04
10-12-04
10-12-04
10-12-04
10-12-04
10-12-04
10-12-04
10-12-04
10-7-04
10-7-04
10-7-04
9-23-04
Notice of Land Use Appeal of PA2004-105 submitted by Randall Hopkins,
735 S. Mountain Avenue
Notice of Public Hearing before Council on 2-1-05 and related criteria
Affidavit of Mailing and newspaper Notice of Public Hearing
Findings, Conclusions and Orders for PA2004-105 dated 11-9-04
Findings Mailing List
Request for Extension of Time (60 days) by Applicant
E-mail from Andy Stallman to Maria Harris
E-mail from Rebecca Reid to Maria Harris
Minutes of planning Commission Meeting
Planning Department Staff Report
List submitted by neighbors re: speaking order
Exhibit 1-0 submitted by Philip Phillips, 1063 Prospect
Exhibit 2-0 submitted by Jeanne Stallman, 784 S. Mountain Avenue
Exhibit 3-0 submitted by Judy Little, 807 S. Mountain Avenue
Exhibit 4-0 submitted by Rebecca Reid, 1036 Prospect
Letter from Milan (Kip) Sigetich, 1036 Prospect
1-3
4-9
1 0-14
15-26
27
28
29
30
31-35
36-48
49-63
64-68
69-79
80-81
82-84
85
Public Comments
Ashland Street Tree Commission Planning Application Review
Letter to Ashland Planning Commission from Andy, Cochrane,
Pacific Northwest Bldg. Design LLC, addressing concerns of testimony
Information from Galbraith and Associates related to Tree Protection, Site Plan,
Planting Plan, Irrigation, Fire Prevention, Street Sections & Utility Plan
Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on 11-9-04 along
with related criteria, Affidavit of Mailing
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Department Staff Report
Staff Exhibit A - building envelope modification
Exhibit P-1 submitted by L. J. Friar & Associates - evidence of slope
Exhibit P-2 Engineered drawings for Mountain Pines Subdivision
Exhibits P-4 through P-16 submitted by Andy Cochrane
Speaker Requests
Ashland Street Tree Commission Planning Application Review
E-Mail from Randall Hopkins
Letter from Jeanne Stallman
Notice of Site Visit, Public Hearing, Public Meeting for publishing in newspaper
86-99
100
101-104
105-129
130-138
139-142
143-161
162
163
164-167
168-1 81 -B
182-189
190
191
192-193
194-196
9-23-04
9-7-04
9-7-04
9-7-04
8-26-04
8-26-04
8-26-04
8-26-04
8-26-04
7-20-04
7 -20-04
7-15-04
7-15-04
1-03 to
6-03
Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on 10-12-04 along
with related criteria, Affidavit of Mailing
Continuance letter from Craig Stone & Associates on behalf of applicant
City of Ashland Tree Permit application
Amended Page 10 of Tree Protection/Removal Plan Narrative from Galbraith & Assoc.
Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on 9-14-04 along
with Affidavit of Mailing
Notice of Planning Commission Site Visit for publishing in newspaper
Notice of Tree Commission Site Visit for publishing in newspaper
Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on 9-14-04 for
publishing in newspaper
Notice of Public Hearing before the Tree Commission on 9-9-04 for
publishing in newspaper
Limited Special Power of Attorney
Letter from Westech Engineering, Inc. dated 7-15-04
City of Ashland Planning Application and receipt
Applicant's Findings prepared by Craig Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Comments Received Regarding Two Previous Applications
197-203
204-205
206
207-208
209-212
213
214
215
216
217
218-219
220-222
223-304
305-329
/'
RJUmALL . A~HOp.KINS
735 S.MountainAve
Ashland, OR 97520
541-488-0265
521-488-2823 (fax)
/[0) fE @ fH \Y] IE (ij1
UIl DEe;) 0 2004 ~I
By
=
December 30, 2004
TO: Ashland City Administrator:
TOPIC: Not:ice of Appeal
Name of pE~rson filing appeal: Randall A. Hopkins, 735
s. Mountain Ave., Ashland, 97520.
Planning Commission Decision being appealed: PA 2004-105
(Mountain Pines subdivision), a copy of Findings
attached.
Date of de~cision: Findings mailed on December 20 or 21,
2004, findings signed on December 20, 2004, Planning
Commission approval of request on November 9, 2004, and
Findings, Conclusions and Orders adopted on December 14,
2004.
Qualificat:ion for filing appeal: The person named above
qualifies as a party because he participated in the
Planning Commission hearing, both in writing and orally.
Grounds of Appeal:
1. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat
approved by the planning commission fails to satisfy
and/or violates the approval standards for preliminary
plat approval described in 18.80 of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance.
2. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat
approved by the planning commission fails to satisfy
and/or violates minimum lot size requirements under the
relevant P.~shland zoning requirements for this area
and/or would violate such zoning requirements under
proper application of other planning criteria and/pr
approval standards. : .
. --.._._.h___~ __
:,,) :
3. The proposed improvements to Prospect Street fa~,I'$i tf?;=0 : n
satisfy and/or violates the street standards conta~n~d ~l.. - ~
I I If{,-''~~':4:'
,I /
"1
,
,
j
in Ashland's Street Standards Handbook adopted Februa,ry
2, 1999, the City's connectivity approval standards, the
City's street design standards, and the City's Hillside
lands and natural area street standards o"\tlined in the
Handbook.
4. The subdivision and preliminary plat fails to satisfy
the approval standards for granting an Exception to the
City's street standards as outlined in 18.88 of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance or for granting a Variance as
outlined in 18.100 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
5. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails
to satisfy and/or violates the development standards for
hillside lands outlined in 18.62.080 of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance.
6. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails
to satisfy and/or violates the development standards for
wildfire lands outlined in 18.62.090 of the Ashland land
Use Ordinance.
7. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails
to satisfy and/or violates the development standards :for
severe constraint land outlined in 18.62.100 of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
8. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails
to satisfy and/or violates the site design and use
standards outlined in 18.72 of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance, including the criteria for..,approval outlin4~d
in 18.72.070. .
9. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails
to satisfy and/or violates the approval of subdivision
street standards and subdivision design standards
outlined in 18.80 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
10. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails
to satisfy and/or violates the standards and criteria
for street and greenway dedication outlined in 18.82 of
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
'11. The proposed subdivision and preliminary plat fails
to satisfy and/or violates the performance standards for
residential developments, street standards and parkin~J
standards outlined in 18.88 of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance.
12. The approval of the subdivision and preliminary plat
bl.
"
fails to require the applicant to post performance
security ensuring satisfactory completion and
maintenance of the proposed tree protection plan as
provided by 18.61.250 of the Ashland Land ',Use Ordinance,
especially given the applicants' failure to satisfy
Ashland tree ordinance requirements, including those for
tree protection, in another nearby development.
13. The public hearing proceeding before the Planning
Commission violated state law as well as the public
hearings procedure outlined in 18.108.100 of the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance due to undisclosed ex parte
communications, undisclosed potential conflicts of
interest and violation. of other rules of conduct for the
public hearing. Such violations also amount to an abuse
of power and a denial of due process of law.
s
'I Notice is hereby given Ithat a PUBLIC HEARING on the following
request with respect to 1the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will
be held before the ASHL.AND CITY COUNCIL on February 1, 2005
at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main
Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicabl,e to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon
law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person
or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an
opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA/ on tha,t issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the
objection is based on also predudes 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.
N
A
,!f
A copy of the app/ieation, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant
and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for
inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if
requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,
Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland,
Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and
those In attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit
the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable
criteria. Unless there is a continuance, If a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after
the hearing.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to
contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development
and Engineering Services, at 541-552-2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-
2900.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-105 is a request for a seven lot Subdivision, Preliminary Plat approval, Conditional Use Permit for
an Accessory Residential Unit, and an exception to City of Ashland Street Standards for approximately 1.75 acres of land
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street. The application includes
a Tree Removal Permit, as well as a Variance to Off-Street Parking requirements to allow two (2) required off-street parking
spaces for the AccessOl'Y Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent parcel. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single
Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 391E 16 AD; Tax Lots: 3400,3500 and 3600.
APPLICANT: R & C Investments
18.80.040
A.
SUBDIVISION' CRITERIA
B.
Preliminary plat.
Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of a
preliminary plat and other supplementary material as may be required to
indicate the general program and objectives of the project to the office of
the Director of Public Works. The plat shall be prepared by a registered
surveyor.
'Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen (18)
inches bY twenty-four (24) inches in size at a scale no smaller than one
(1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet.
General information. The following general information shall be shown
on the preliminary plat:-
1. Proposed name of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor
resemble the name of another subdivision in Jackson County 'and
shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a pr1eliminary
plat.
4. Location of the subdivision sufficient to define the location and
boundaries of the proposed tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
Existing conditions. The following existing conditions shall be shown
on the preliminary plat: .
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets
within or adjacent to the tract, together with easements and other
important features, such as section lines and corners, and
monuments.
2. Location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to
flooding.
. 3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded
areas, and isolated preservable trees.
4. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing
structures to remain on the property after platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval of five (5) feet.
Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be
included on the preliminary plat.
1. The location, width, names and approximate grades of streets,
and the relationship of the streets to any projected streets as
shown on any development plan adopted by the Planning
Commission, or if there is no development plan, as sU~Jgested by
the City to assure adequate traffic circulation.
2. The location and purpose of easements.
3. The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and
block numbers, fOr all lots and blocks.
4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family
dwellings.
c.
D.
F.
5
G. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only
part of the tract owned or controlled by the subdivider', the Planning
Commission may require a Master Plan for the unsubdivided portion.
H. Explanatory information. The following information shall be submitted
in separate statements accompanying the preliminary plat or, if
practicable, shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and
unsubdivided land adjacent' to the proposed subdivision and
showing how proposed streets may be extended to connect with
the existing streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
3. Where.there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within the
area to be subdivided, a preliminary grading plan may be required
by the Planning Commission. A grading plan should show
existing and finished grades on lots and streets proposed to be
graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan shall be
approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a
review and report from the City Engineer.
I. Tentative approval.
1. Within thirty (30) days from the first regular Planning Commission
meeting following submission of the plat, the Planning Commission
will review the plan and may give tentative approval of the
preliminary plat as submitted or as it may be modified or, if
disapproved, shall express. its disapproval and its reasons therefor.
2. Approval of the preliminary plat shall indicate the Planning
Commission's approval of the final plat provided there is no
change in the pran of subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat
and there is.full compliance with the. requirements of this Title.
3. The action of the Planning Commission shall be noted on two (2)
copies of the preliminary plat, including reference to any attached
documents, describing conditions. One (1) copy shall be returned
to the subdiVider and the other retained by the Planning
Commission. (Ord. 2052, 1979)"
k
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS .
1B.104.0S0 AJ:>prova1 Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be
granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use
iconforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the Use would be in conformance with all standards
within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be
located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan
policies that are not implemented by any City, state, or Federal
law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer,.
paved. ~ccess to and through the development, electrici~(, urban
storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
c. That the conditional Use will have no greater adverHe
material effect on the livability of the impact area whE~n
compared to the development of the subject lot with the target
Use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use
on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
i.mpact area shall be considered in relation to the targE~t use of
the zone: .
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and'coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on
surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity
9f facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact
area. .
4. Air quality, including the generation of
dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the
Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
1
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE
~
The critera for the approval of a Variance are found in 18.100.020 and are as
follows:
1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site
which do not apply elsewhere.
2) That the proposal's benefits will be grater than any negative impacts on the
devEdopment of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of
this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord. 2425 S1,
1987)
3) That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996)
18.88.0S0.F Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is
not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be
granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the
fi)llowing 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 variance will result in equal or superior transpOrtation
facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty;
and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the
Performance Standards Options Chapter.
t6
. .
SECTION 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit.
An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are
satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a
permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a haz.ard tree if the
applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is
likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that
is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or
private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the
damage alleviated. The appli9~t must demonstrate that the condition or location of
the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable dange:r of property
damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be
alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not
a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all ofthe following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g.
other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the
building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification
of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks;
and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the 1ree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shaH require that
the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In
making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement
of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impaet on trees, 'so
long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a
condition of approval ofthe permit.
(Ord 2883, Added, 06/04/2002)
CJ
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
Cou nty of jlackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97Ei20, in the Community Development Department.
2. On January 11,2005, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
sealed envolope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached public notice
and criteria for the Council appeal 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 #2004-1 ~ ~heduled for February 1, 2005.
Signature of E
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 13th day of January, 2005.
OFPICIAI. S~l
NANCY I! SLOCUM
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 371650
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 18.2007
No~ ry Pub c for State of OCig~
My Commission Expires: -f -01
10
"'-~".' ~: ,: t. _;~.. i . ~- .
{g; lk0- ty~ I PrP?,J~
391E16AD 6700 PA#2004~105
BENTS ROBERT T/DENISE D
1010 MAGIC LAMP WAY C
MONUMENT, CO 80132
39IE16AD 2500 PA #2004-105
BEUfNER EDWARD
BETSY BEYER
843 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 4800 PA #2004-105
CHRISTLIEB GARY B TRUSTEE ET AL
1065 EMMA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 4100 PA #2004-105
GORDON ROBERT S
1025 WILDWOOD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2300 P A #2004-105
HOPKINS RANDALL A TRUSTEE
735 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2200 PA #2004-105
HOUK HUGH WIDOROTHY J
710 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3904 PA #2004-105
MASLOW JENNIFER
146 MANZANITA
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2700 PA #2004-105
OLSEN RAYMOND ULORRAINE I
735 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
J91E16AD 3400 PA #2004 105
R & CREAL EST......TE ENTERPRISES
S NORTH MAIN ST
ASHLA..l\JD, OR 97520
J91E16i\D J600 P....~ #2004 105
ROBERTS HILLERY R
COCHRA..l\JE CHARLES ....~
1970 ASHL"'~l\JD ST 2
t~SHL~l\JD, OR 97520
1:"Si~::~oo~{~:::~' '.
BERGSTROM A l'
PENNY AUSTIN
760 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
-M4il~.d
391E16AD 4200 PA #2004-105
BERGEN ROBERT L
STEELE SAMANTHA
1020 WILDWOOD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
J91E16AD 2300 Pit.. #2004 105
CHRlSTLIER CARY R TRUSTEE ET
AI,.
1065 EMMit.. ST
ASHL~l\JD, OR 97520
391E16AD 6500 PA #2004-105
COTTON CHRISTOPHER TRUSTEE
780 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3100 PA #2004-105
GURWELL JULIA K
1047 WILDWOOD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391EI6....~\ 2304 P...... #2004 105
HOPKINS R"'~DALL A TRUSTEE
735 S MOUNTAIN .\ VE
t~SHL~l\JD, OR 97520
391E16AD 3200 PA #2004-105
LITTLE JOHN D/mDITH S
807 S MOUNTAIN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391El6AD 3700 PA #2004-105
MUEGGLER MARY JO TRUSTEE
800 BEACH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39IEI6AA 2301 PA #2004-105
PHILLIPS PHILIPIKATHERINE
1063 PROSPECT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2600 PA #2004-105
ROBERTS EVAN C
751 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39IE15BB 5002 P A #2004-105
SCHAFFER SUSAN LYNNE
738 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
II
391E16AD 2700 P.\ #2004 105
CHRISTLIEI: CARY B TRUSTEE ET
AI,.
1065 EMMA 8+
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3900 PA #2004-105
D'OLIVO MARK
804 BEACH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2302 P A #2004-105
HEINRICH WILLIAM/SUZANNE
6149 COUNTRY CLUB PKY
SAN JOSE, CA 95138
391EHi.~\ 23~13 P....~ #2004 105
HOPKINS RANDALL TRUSTEE
735 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHL"'~l\JD, OR 97520
391E16AD 4000 PA #2004-105
LYONS JEROME D TRUSTEE FBO
890 BEACH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3800 PA #2004 105
MUECCLER M:.....Ry JO TRUSTEE ET
AI,.
800 RK\CH s~[C
ASHLAND, OIR. 97520
39IE16AD 3301 PA #2004-105
R & C REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES
5 NORTH MAIN ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3500 PA #2004-105
ROBERTS HILLERY B
COCHRANE CHARLES A
1970 ASHLAND ST 2
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391EI6AD 3701 PA #2004-105
SIGETICH MILAN PIR L REID
1036 PROSPECT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
(j)
39IE16AD 3300 PA#2004.-105
STALLMAN ANDREW M/JEANNE M
789 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39IE16AA 2402 P A #2004.-105
STUELPNAGEL JULIE
915 OAK ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39IE16AD 2900 PA #2004..105
TRAYNOR SEAN JIKERRI L
1071 WILDWOOD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2703 PA #2004..105
WORKMAN ANGELA J
WEEDEN DERRICK LEE
775 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
J9lEl6AD 3401 P:(A #2004 10S
STALLM.\.~ :\NDREW M/JEL~NE M
789 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHL\ND, OR 97S10
391E16AD 6600 P A #2004-105
STURTEVANT CAROL TRSTEE FBO
800 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 101 PA #2004-105
WARREN JONffiEBECCA
1120 PROSPECT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3301 PA #2004-105
R & C INVESTMENTS
1970 ASHLAND ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
/2
39IE16AA 2305PA #2004-105
STANEK CHRISTOPHER J/WENDI
720 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA2401 PA#2004-105
T AYLOR JEAN
734 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 4300 PA #2004-105
WATT RANDYIEVIE
PO BOX 853
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3301 PA#2004-105
CRAIG STONE & ASSOC
708 CARD LEY AVE
MEDFORD, OR 97504
@
STEVE WARD
WESTCH ENGINEERING
3841 FAIRVIEW INDUSTRIAL
DR
SALEM OR 97302
MARGUERITTE HICKMAN
FIRE DEPARTMENT
455 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD
ASHLAND OR 97520
KIP SIGE ICH &
REBEC A REID
1036 P SPECT
ASHL ND OR 97520
ED BEUTN~
843 S MO TAIN AVENUE
ASHLAN OR 97520
JULIE ST~E NAGEL
915 OAK S EET
ASHLAN OR 97520
DENISE BENTS
806 S MOUNTAIN A VENUE
ASHLAND OR 97520
JOHN GALBRAITH
GALBRAITH & ASSOCIATES
145 SHOLLY
MEDFORD OR 97501
PHIL PHILLIP &
CATHERIN HILLIPS
1063 PRO ECT
ASHLA OR 97520
RICK BROWNE
822 S MOUNTAIN AVENUE
ASHLAND OR 97520
T AIN AVENUE
OR 97520
JIM HIBBS
U FRIAR& ASSOCIATES
816 W 8TH STREET
MEDFORD OR 97501
~
CRAIG STONJ
708 CA~Y~ A VENUE
MEDFOr OR 97504
RAND~LL ~PKINS
735 S M fTAIN AVENUE
ASHL D OR 97520 .
ANDY STALL~N
JEANNE STj~MAN
789 S ~~~TAIN AVENUE
ASHLru OR 97520
BOB~ORD ~
1025 WI \\TOOD WAY
ASHL D OR 97520
CHRIS & Nnnr~TTON
780 S M~~t:~~ VENUE
ASHLAl)lI1 OR 97520
ANDY COCHRANE
PACIFIC NW BLDG DESIGN LLC
1970 ASHLAND STREET #2
ASHLAND OR 97520
@)
ATTN: JODY-CLASSIFIED
PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE liS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland City Council on
February 1, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street,
Ashland, Oregon. At such public hearing any person is entitled to be heard, unless the
public hearing portion of the review has been closed during a previous meeting.
Request for a seven lot Subdivision, Preliminary Plat approval, Conditional Use Permit for an
Accessory Residential Unit, and an exception to City of Ashland Street Standards for
approximately 1.75 acres of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South
Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street. The application includes a Tree Removal ~ermit, as well
as a Variance to Off-Street Parking requirements to allow two (2) required off-street parking
spaces for the Accessory Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent parcel.
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
Publish: .1/19/05
P. O. No. 65451
E-mailed: 1-12-05
Iq
J.\
Decembe~, 2004
CITY OF
ASHl~AND
R & C Investments
1970 AsWand Street
AsWand, OR 97520
RE: Planning ActIon #: PA2004-105
Dear R & C Investments:
At its meeting of November 9,2004, the AsWand Planning Commission approved your request f,Jr a Subdivision,
Preliminary Plat, an Exception to City of AsWand Street Standards, and Tree Removal Permit for the property
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Streelt __ Assessor's
Map # 39 IE 16 AD, Tax Lots 3400 and 3600.
The Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, adopted at the December 14, 2004 meeting, is c~nclosed.
G)e n:::: ::~;::: :t::tered surveyor must be subntitted wiiliin one year offue dme of
preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid.
2.
A fmal plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; oth~rwise, approval
becomes invalid.
G
There is a 15-day appeal period that must elapse before a building permit may be issued.
4.
All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before an occupancy permit
may be issued.
G
Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application
would have to be submitted.
Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions.
~
cc: Property Owner, People Who Testified, People Who Submitted Letters
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
/5
~A~I
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 9,2004
IN THE MA TIER OF PLANNING ACTION #2004-105, REQUEST FOR ) FINDINGS,
PRELIMINARY :PLAT APPROVAL FOR A SEVEN-LOT SUBDIVISION, AN ) CONCLUSIONS
EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS, AND A TREE REMOVAL ) AND ORDERS
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 759 AND 769 SOUTH )
MOUNTAIN A VENUE. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO )
COVERT THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 759 SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE )
TO AN ACCESSORY RESIDNETILA UNIT, AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW )
TWO REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE FOR THE ACCESSORY )
RESSIDENTIAL UNIT TO BE LOCATED ON AN ADJACENT PARCEL. )
)
)
APPLICANT: R & C INVESTMENTS )
-------_______________u_________________________________________________________________________________
RECITALS:
1) Tax lots 3400, 3500 and 3600 of391E 16AD are located at 759 and 769 South Mountain Avenue and are
zoned R-l-lO, Single-Family Res~dential.
2) The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval, Exception to the Street Standards, Tree Removal
Permit, Conditional Use Permit and a Variance for a seven-lot subdivision and an accessory residential unit.
Site improvements are described on the preliminary plat and accompanying documents on file at the
Community Development Department.
3) The criteria for Preliminary Plat approval are described in Chapter 18.80 of Ashland's Land
Use Ordinance as follows:
A. Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of a preliminary plat and other
supph~mentary material as may be required to indicate the general program and objectives of the
project to the office of the Director of Public Works. The plat shall be prepared by a registered
surveyor.
B. Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen (18) inches by twenty-four (24)
inches in size at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet.
C. Genel'31 information. The following general information shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
I. Proposed name of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor resemble the name of
another subdivision in Jackson County and shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a preliminary plat.
4. Location ofthe subdivision sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the proposed
tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
P A 2004-105
Page 1
/b
D. Existing conditions. The following existing conditions shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets within or adjacentto the tract,
together with easements and other important features, such as section lines and corners, and
monuments.
Location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding.
Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and isolated preservable
trees.
Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures to remain on the
property after platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval offive (5) feet.
F. Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be included on the preliminary
plat.
1.
The location, width, names and approximate grades of streets, and the relationship of the
streets to any projected streets as shown on any development plan adopted by the Planning
Commission, or if there is no development plan, . as suggested by the City to assure adequate
traffic circulation.
The location and purpose of easements.
The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and block numbers, for all lots and
blocks.
4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family dwellings.
G. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only part of the tract owned or
controlled by the subdivider, the Planning Commission may require a Master Plan for the
. unsubdivided portion.
H. Explanatory information. The following information shall be submitted in separate statements
accompanying the preliminary plat or, if practicable, shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and unsubdivided land adjacent to the
proposed subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be extended to connect with the
existing streets.
Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
Where there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within the area to be subdivided, a
preliminary grading plan may be required by the Planning Commission. A grading plan should
show existing and finished grades on lots and streets proposed to be graded. Before grading can
begin, the grading plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a
review and report from the City Engineer.
I. Tentative approval.
1. Within thirty (30) days from the first regular Planning Commission meeting following
submission of the plat, the Planning Commission will review the plan and may give tentative
approval of the preliminary plat as submitted or as it may be modified or, if disapproved, shall
express its disapproval and its reasons therefore.
Approval of the preliminary plat shall indicate the Planning Commission's approval of the
final plat provided there is no change in the plan of subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat
and there is full compliance with the requirements of this Title.
2.
3.
4.
2.
3.
2.
3.
2.
PA 2004-105
Page 2
t7
.
3. The action of the Planning Commission shall be noted on two (2) copies of the
preliminary plat, including reference to any attached documents, describing conditions. One (1)
copy shall be returned to the subdivider and the other retained by the Planning Commission.
(Ord. 2052, 1979).
Further, the criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in Chapter 18.88 of
Ashland's L:md Use Ordinance as follows:
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 varialtlce will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The varialtlce is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
Further, the approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 18.62 of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance as follows:
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if
the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
I. The tree is. proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable
Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint ofthe
development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal ofthe tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow
of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species.diversity within 200 feet ofthe subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have
been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as
permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be
reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the
City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping
designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply
with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval
PA 2004-105
Page 3
11
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval
of the permit.
Further, the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter' 18.104 of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use
is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not
implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided
to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact
area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When
evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors oflivability ofthe
impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
I. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation oftraffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and
mass transituse are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
Further, the approval criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100 of the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances, which apply to this site, which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of
the City. (Ord.2425 SI, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.(Ord. 2775,
1996)
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held Public Hearings on October 12 and
November 9, 2004, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning
Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the
P A 2004-105
Page 4
/9
site.
Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
F or the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
StaffJExhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing.Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2..1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the application for Preliminary Plat approval, an Exception
to the Street Standards for Prospect Street, and a Tree Removal Permit for a seven-lot subdivision
meets all relevant approval standards described above. The Planning Commission finds that the
application for an Exception to the Street Standards for South Mountain A venue, a Conditional Use
Permit to convert the existing residence at 759 South Mountain A venue into an accessory residential
unit, and a Variance to the off-street parking requirements does not meet all relevant approval
standards described above.
2.3 Tille Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the approval standards for
Preliminary Plat approval described in 18.80 ofthe Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Paved access
associated with the project, as well as public facilities (i.e. sewer, water, electricity, etc.) have
been designed to connect with existing facilities at South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street.
Street improvements to South Mountain Avenue will consist ofa five-foot sidewalk and seven-
foot wide planting strip along the South Mountain property frontage. The Commission has
required the dedication of street right-of-way from the northeast corner of the site to the southeast
corner to accommodate the South Mountain sidewalk improvement. Street improvements to
Prospect Street consist of a 25-foot wide pavement width, curb and gutter both sides and a
sidewalk on one side in the section of street east ofthe vehicle turnaround, and a 22-foot wide
pavement width, curb and gutter on both sides and a sidewalk on one side in the section of street
west of the vehicle turnaround.
P A 2004-105
Page 5
~t.J
2.4 The Commission finds that removal of two trees over 18 inches diameter at breast height (dbh)
is consistent with the approval standards for a Tree Removal permit. Therle are numerous trees
throughout the site iJlcluding pines, cedars, oaks, big leaf maple, madrone and fruit trees. A Tree
Protection and Removal Plan has been included that identifies retaining the majority of the trees in
clusters throughout the site. The plan identifies 62 trees six inches diameter at breast height and
greater within and adjoining the project boundaries. Of the 62 trees, 19 tn~es are identified for
removal. A Tree Removal Permit is required to remove two trees because the trees are greater than
18 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and are located on the vacant parcel (3600). The two trees
include an 18 inch dbh pine on proposed Lot 3 and a 24 inch dbh pine on proposed Lot 5. The trees
are centrally located in the building envelopes of the proposed lots, and development of Lots 3 and 5
is likely not feasible without removal of the pines. Since the development willI preserve 43 ofthe
trees on site in a variety of species including pines, the removal of the pines will not have a
significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity with 200 feet
of the subject property, nor will the removal of the two trees create a significant negative impact on
erosion soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees and existing windbreaks.
The application includes a mitigation plan to replace the two trees to be removed.
2.5 The Commission finds that the application is consistent with the approval standards for an
Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk with the Prospect Street
improvements. Prospect Street is an unimproved, unpaved city street with steep slopes, trees and
structures located in the street right-of-way on the north side of the street. The natural features and
structures create physical constraints that require the street to be improved at the southern side ofthe
right-of-way. In addition, there is a large cluster of trees to be preserved on the south side of the west
end of the street. As a result, the sidewalk will be installed at the curbside rather than with a planting
strip as required by the Ashland Street Standards so that the trees on the south side of the street can
be preserved. The Commission finds that the curbside sidewalk will provide adequate pedestrian
facilities given that the street experiences low volumes of vehicular traffic because it is a dead-end
street, is 310 feet in length and will serve at total of five properties.
2.6 The Commission finds that the application is not consistent with the approval standards for an
Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk with the South Mountain Avenue
improvements. The proposal is to eliminate the planting strip and transition to a curbside sidewalk
for a length of approximately 85 feet along south ofthe proposed private drive along the frontage of
769 South Mountain Avenue. The exception is requested to preserve an existing retaining wall and
juniper bushes in the front yard area. The Commission finds that the retaining wall can be rebuilt
and replaced, and that the juniper bushes are not significant vegetation. Therefore, the Commission
finds that a wall and bushes do not constitute a unique or unusual aspect ofthe site. Additionally, the
Commission finds that pedestrians need to be buffered from relatively high vehic:le speeds due to the
steep grade of South Mountain A venue, and a curbside sidewalk without a planting strip does not
adequately buffer pedestrians.
2.7 The Commission finds that the application meets the requirements for a pnivate drive. The
Ashland Land Use Ordinance permits a maximum of three properties to be served by a private
drive. A dedicated and improved public street complying with City street standards is required
PA 2004-105
Page 6
~J
for four or more lots. Two of the five proposed lots taking access from the private drive have
legal access on Prospect Street. The Commission finds that the two lots with public street
frontage and private drive access are considered to have legal access on a public street and
functional access on the private drive. The Commission finds that lots having legal access on a
city street that use a private drive for functional access shall not be included in the total count of
lots being served by a private drive. The intent of the private requirement is to insure that
adequate fire safety vehicle access is available and to establish a threshold for when a full-public
street improvement with on-street parking, planting strips and sidewalks is required. In the case
of Lois 2 and 3, the parcels will have frontage on a public street (Prospect), which will be
improved. Prospect will provide fire apparatus access, on-street parking and pedestrian access.
The private drive will function like an alley providing rear vehicular access to the parcels. The
Commission finds that the require fire safety access and public street improvements including
on-street parking and pedestrian facilities are provided with the improvements to Prospect Street
abutting Lots 2 and 3.
2.8 The Commission finds that the application is not consistent with the approval standards for a
Conditional Use Permit to convert 759 South Mountain Avenue into an accessory residential
unit, and for a Variance to off-street parking requirements to allow two required off-street
parking spaces for the accessory residential unit to be located on an adjacent parcel. The
accessory residential unit requires two off-street parking spaces. The applicant requests a
Variance to locate the spaces on an adjacent lot because of the limited access points to the site
due to tree locations. The Commission finds the proposed lot lines have been located in such a
way that creates this situation, and does not find this to be a unique or unusual circumstance.
The Commission denies the variance, and as a result, the proposed accessory residential unit does
not meet the off-street parking requirements of Chapter 18.92. As a result, the Commission finds
the proposed accessory residential unit does not meet the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
application for Preliminary Plat approval for a seven-lot subdivision, an Exception to the Street Standards
for improvements to Prospect Street, and a Tree Removal Permit is supported by evidence contained within
the record. Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes
that the application for an Exception to the Street Standards for improvements to South Mountain Avenue,
the Variance to off-street parking requirements to allow two required off-street parking spaces for the
accessory residential unit to be located on an adjacent property and a Conditional Use Permit for an
accessory residential unit is not supported by evidence contained within the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve the Preliminary Plat, Exception to the Street Standards for Prospect Street, and Tree
Removal pemait of Planning Action #2004-105. Based on our overall conclusioris, and upon the proposal
being subject to each ofthe following conditions, we deny the Exception to the Street Standards for South
Mountain Avenue, the Conditional Use Permit and Variance of Planning Action #2004-105. Further, if any
PA 2004-105
Page 7
~-<
one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning
Action #2004-105 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2) That all easements for sewer, water, electricity, etc., as required by the City of Ashland, shall be
shown on the final survey.
3) That the necessary right-of-way for the Prospect and Mountain subdivision street improvements
shall be dedicated and shown on the final survey.
4) That the applicant shall consult with the Electric Department before submitting an Electric
Distribution System Plan. This plan shall include load calculations and the location of all primary
and secondary services including transformers, cabinets, street lights, underground installation of
existing and proposed lines, and all other necessary equipment. The electric plan shall be designed
in coordination with the Tree Protection Plan in order to minimize the routing of utilities through tree
protection zones. The Tree Protection Plan shall be revised by the project Landscape Architect
accordingly, and submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior toO the signature of the
final survey. The Electric Distribution System Plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric
Department prior to signature of the final survey.
5) That the water line in Prospect street shall be upgraded to an eight inch line with the subdivision
infrastructure improvements, and the engineered construction drawings shall be revised accordingly. .
6) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including but not limited to hydrant
placement and flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified on the construction drawings and
reviewed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department prior to signature of the final survey.
7) That a utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and
Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey. The utility plan shall include the location of
connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of
water lines and meter sizes, sewers, manholes and clean-outs, on-site treatment of storm drainage
and catch basins. The utility plan shall be designed in coordination with the Tree Protection Plan in
order to minimize the routing of utilities through tree protection zones.
8) That the sidewalk on the south side of Prospect Street shall be a minimum of five feet in width in
accordance with the Ashland Street Standards as required in 18.80.030.A.l. In addition, west of the
turnaround, the sidewalk shall be a standard curbside rather then at the same level as the driving
surface as shown in the application. The sidewalk shall be connected through the turnaround area
by providing wheelchair ramps and installation of the at grade sidewalk in the turnaround.
Engineered construction drawings for the street improvement shall include the increased sidewalk
width, standard curbside sidewalk west ofthe turnaround, and crossing area, and shall be submitted
for review and approval of the Ashland Engineering and Planning Divisions.
PA 2004-105
Page 8
~~
9) That storm drain facilities shall be included in the Prospect Street improvements. The stonn drain,
plan shall be designed in coordination with the Tree Protection Plan in order to minimize the routing
of utilities through tree protection zones. The Tree Protection Plan shall be revised by the project
Landscape Architect accordingly, and submitted for review and approval ofthe Staff Advisor prior to
the signature of the final survey. Engineered construction drawings for the street improvement shall
includ.e the storm drain facilities, and shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland
Engineering and Planning Divisions.
10) That the use of porous paving material and the construction of the improvement above existing street
grade ("raised" pavement) for Prospect Street is not approved, and the engineered construction
drawings shall be revised accordingly.
11) That the proposed Prospect street improvement east of the turnaround shall be revised to increase the
curb-to-curb width to 25 feet to accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the street. The
engint:ered drawings shall be revised accordingly.
12) That engineered construction drawings for subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but
not limited to utilities, public street improvements, private drive improvements, the street
improvements shall submitted for review and approval by Ashland Engineering Division prior to
signature ofthe final survey. Plans to include profiles and cross sections, indicating cuts and fills,
and erosion control and slope stability methodologies consistent with the standards for Hillside
Lands contained in AMC 18.62.080B, if applicable.
13) Subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utilities, public street
improvements, private drive improvements, and street lights shall be installed or a bond posted
for the full cost of construction prior to signature of the final survey.
14) That the name of the street shall be approved by the City of Ashland and consistent with the
street naming resolution.
15) Access shall be maintained to the existing public utility easement on the western boundary of the
site. The easement shall be included on building permit submittals, and no portion of a structure may
intrude into the easement.
16) The aPlProved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in
the CC&R's. The CC&R's must state that deviations from the plan shall be considered a
violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the
Ashland Municipal Code.
17) That a draft copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided prior to
signature of the final survey. CC&R's to describe responsibility for the maintenance of all
planting strips and street trees.
PA 2004-105
Page 9
~<f
18) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission, with final approval of the Staff
Advisor, shall be incorporated into the Tree Protection and Removal Plan, L~mdscaping Plan and
Irrigation Plan. The revised tree, landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final
survey.
19) Street trees, parkrow landscaping and irrigation systems shall be installed or a bond posted for
the full cost of construction prior to signature of the final survey plat.
20) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by
the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal ofthe approved trees on site and prior to site
work, storage of materials and/or the notice to proceed with construction of subdivision
improvements. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identifications of trees to be removed
and the installation of tree protection fencing. The tree protection shall be installed according to
the approved Tree Protection and Removal Plan prior to any site work or storage of materials.
21) That a system for long-term maintenance of trees identified for protection, and addressing private
drive improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to
signature of the final survey.
22) That a grading plan shall be submitted for each individual lot with the building permit submittals.
There shall be no grading outside of the approved building envelops in the approved tree protection
zones (i.e. terracing to create yard area, patios).
23) That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 40% of the lot area in accordanc,e with 18.20.040.F.
Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with the building
permits.
24) That the front yards for the purposes of setbacks for Lots 1,2 and 3 shall be the yard adjacent to
Prospect Street, and the rear yards shall be adjacent to the private drive.
~
25) That the development shall receive a 1200C permit from Oregon DEQ prior to site work. Evidence
of the permit shall be submitted with the final engineering for the project.
26) That a fence shall be installed on the east end of the private drive turnaround to prevent headlights
from shining into adjacent properties.
27) That the South Mountain A venue improvement shall be revised to include a pad:row in accordance
with Ashland Street Standards.
P A 2004-105
Page 10
~s
28) That the street trees at the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street shall be placed
to provide vision clear
(2j/e/lY'l
Date
4n
/' ,//
/0' ,'/-'
/ /
/ ..-
/ ./
?//
PA 2004-105
Page 11
~"
Planning Commission Findings R & C INVESTMENTS CRAIG STONE
List of those participating in the hearing or 1970 ASHLAND STREET 708 CARDLEY A VENUE
in writing ~
Mailed Findings I 104 PA2004-105 ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97504
STEVE WARD JOHN GALBRAITH
WESTCH ENGINEERING GALBRAITH & ASSOCIATES RANDALL HOPKINS
3841 FAIRVIEW INDUSTRIAL 145 SHOLLY 735 S MOUNTAIN AVENUE
DR MEDFORD OR 97501 ASHLAND OR 97520
SALEM OR 97302
MARGUERITTE HICKMAN PHIL PHILLIPS & ANDY STALLMAN
FIRE DEPARTMENT CATHERINE PHILLIPS JEANNE STALLMAN
455 SISKIYOU BOULEV ARD 1063 PROSPECT 789 S MOUNTAIN A VENUE
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
KIP SIGETICH & RICK BROWNE BOB GORDON
REBECCA REID 822 S MOUNTAIN AVENUE 1025 WILD\VOOD WAY
1036 PROSPECT ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
ASHLAND OR 97520
ED BEUTNER JUDY LITTLE CHRIS & NIKKI COTTON
843 S MOUNTAIN A VENUE 807 S MOUNTAIN AVENUE 780 S MOUNTAIN AVENUE
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
JULIE STUELPNAGEL JIM HIBBS ANDY COCHRANE
LJ FRIAR& AS SOCIA TES PACIFIC NW BLDG DESIGN LLC
915 OAK STREET 816 W 8TH STREET 1970 ASHLAND STREET #2
ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97501 ASHLAND OR 97520
DENISE BENTS
806 S MOUNTAIN A VENUE
ASHLAND OR 97520
~7
f'
i
-----i\
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2004-105,
PreliminarY Plat approval of a seven-lot subdivision, and an Exception to the Street
Standards for improvements to South Mountain Avenue, to Prospect Street and for
five lots to use the private drive. A Tree Removal Permit is requested for the
removal of three trees greater than 18 inches diameter at breast height. In addition,
the application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert the
existing residence at 759 S. Mountain Ave. to an accessory residential unit. A
Variance is requeskd to allow two required off-street parking spaces for the
accessory residentia.l unit to be located on an adjacent parcel.
APPLICANTS: R. & C Investments
Applicants request a
227.178(1).
) REQUEST FOR
) AN EXTENSION
) OF THE TIME
LIMIT
) ORS 227.178(1)
)
)
60
day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS
November 21. 2004
Date
Applicant
Date
[Note: ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120-day period set in (ORS 227.178(1)) may
be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total
of all ext(~nsions may not exceed 245 days."]
),8'
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Andy Stallman" <astallman@ashlandhome.net>
"Maria Harris" <maria@ashland.or.us>
11/10/20048:44:27 AM
PA 2004-105
Hi Maria,
In my statements last night, I asked the following. (attached below)
In the final decisions made by the PC, I understand that Marilyn Briggs
brought up my request for the barrier protecting us from the headlights of
the turnaround and it was approved - I am grateful.
I am unclear whether this applies to the entire fence I requested.
It seems the bulk of my request was lost in the shadow of the need for the
barrier higher up and closer to the turnaround, or perhaps the severe brain
fatigue everyone was experiencing last night.
The fence on the boundary line really needs to be built, and I need to know
if that will be the applicants responsibility or mine. Either way .......it
WILL happpen.
Do you have that information, or can you direct me to where I may get it?
The staff and commission had a really tough job before you last night, and I
admire the tenacity you all have in seeing it through to a workable
solution.
Please add this inquiry to the files on the project.
Thanks,
Andy
Towards this goal, I ask the Planning Commission and the applicants to
consider the effect this subdivision will have on our residence in terms of
the added noise & glare. Cars using the hammerhead turnaround at night will
be shining their lights directly into our house and at eye level. The
addition of a residence on lot 6 will also adversely affect our privacy and
add considerable noise and glare. We ask that the applicants be required to
build the appropriate fences at the maximum allowable height where our
boundaries meet to help reduce the negative impact this project will bring
to our home.
While building this fence on the property boundaries will address the
problem with lot 6, if I understand the topographic map correctly, the area
where the turnaround will be is raised high enough that the headlights would
likely still shine right over the top of a 6 foot fence built on the
boundary line. Should this be the case, I ask that an appropriate barrier
built closer to the turnaround be required to prevent the lights from
pointing directly into our house.
~t:t
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Rebecca Reid" <reid@sou.edu>
<maria@ashland.or.us>
11/10/2004 2:07:39 PM
The Prospect St. Bottleneck
We attended, then watched on television, the Ashland Planning
Commission's meeting last night (11/9/04). We are not sure if we are in
a state of shock or befuddlement about the actions the Commission took
regarding the Mountain Pines Development. Most unsettling is our
confusion and concern about what the Commission decided or recommended
about the ''''improvement'' of the western end of Prospect Street. We have
many questions now and would appreciate any clarifications you can offer
at this time.
The conditions listed in #14 of Staff recommendations in the 11/9/04
Staff Report Wl3re evidently dropped. How did that happen? Was no one
concerned about drivers' abilities to turnaround on this end? Was it
assumed all cars would use the turnaround across from the Phillips'
carport? How? Was the location of the turnaround moved, left in place,
or to be worked out in another venue?
It was precisely because condition #14 was in place that my husband and
I did not even address the bottleneck problem. In fact, that problem is
the most pressing issue for us of the entire Mountain Pines Development.
Is there any requirement/expectation that safety and fire access will be
evaluated at all once the street is built and parking is allowed when
the bottleneck is widened to 22'? What is the next step here? Is the
Engineering Df3partment coming up with a street plan? Where can we direct
our concerns?
A related question: What was decided about sidewalks in the bottleneck
section? None? Embedded in the 22'? Slightly raised? (One Commission
member stated that "there was no one down there who needed a sidewalk."
This comment added to our feeling of being perceived as totally
invisible to the Commission).
Also, please send us the finalized list of conditions to this
subdivision.
Thank you for all your work. I hope all present last night understood
how much thought and effort the neighbors have invested in this project
as well.
Rebecca L. Reid
1036 Prospect Street
cc:
<hickmanm@ashland.or.us>
80
4. Look for a remedy for the 120 day rule.
5. The Commission could be proactive about the 20 year supply of developable land.
6. Finalize the Downtown Plan and move forward with it.
7. Finalize the Railroad District Plan.
8. There is a tremendous opportunity to do something really creative with the Croman property.
Now might be the time to move apart from the regular duties and start looking at the larger issues.
V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION 2004-105
REQUEST FOR A SEVEN LOT SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY
RESIDENTIAL UNIT, AND AN EXCEPTION TO CITY OF ASHLAND STREET STANDARDS FOR APPROXIMATELY '1.75 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE AND PROSP'ECT STREET. THE
APPLICATION INCLUDES A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, AS WELL AS A VARIANCE TO OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO
ALLOW TWO (2) REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FOR THE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO BE LOCATED ON AN
ADJACENT PARCEL.
APPLICANT: R & C INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED FROM LAST MONTH)
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
- Morris lives across the street and feels he has too much knowledge about the neighbors and the neighborhood. He feels it would
be a conflict of interest and stepped down.
- KenCaim attended the Tree Commission meeting last week. She will be able to be unbiased in her review.
- Site visits were made by all.
RANDALL HOPKINS, 736 S. Mountain Avenue, called for a Point of Order. He asked Dotterrer to recuse himself because of an
undisclosed ex parte contact with an intimidating affect. This request is not meant to suggest any improper motive or intent.
Hopkins explained that Dr. Phil Phillips testified at the last meeting. After adjournment, Dotterrer asked Phil][ips how he would
feel about doing a LID on Prospect and described how the LID could be a consideration for solving the probkms there. Dotterrer
initiated the contact and spoke loudly enough to be heard by Hopkins and in all likelihood by other neighbors of Mountain Pines
development. The guidelines provided for the Commission by Barbara Jarvis tells the Commissioners not to entertain ex parte
contacts. To suggest a LID may result, is to send a message to the public that they should tread with care in making their views
regarding development projects.
Dotterrer confirmed Hopkins' statement as true. Maria Harris approached Dotterrer as he was speaking with Phillips and told him
to stop talking to the neighbor. Dotterrer said the purpose of asking if a LID had been suggested was to gain more information.
He was not advocating for or against the project, but just asking a question. He was not trying to intimidate anyone. He believes
he can act in a fair and unbiased manner with the action.
Fields disclosed he started a conversation with the project engineer at the end of the last meeting. McLaughlin asked him to step
away from the conversation.
If the Commission agrees with Hopkins and that Dotterrer cannot make an unbiased decision, they can vote to have Dotterrer step
down. Or, they can continue with the hearing, allowing Dotterrer to participate. No motion was made. Dotterrer will participate.
Chapman reminded the Commissioners how very careful they have to be in making ex parte contacts.
STAFF REPORT
Harris said this action came before the Commission on October 12th. The following three areas were to be addressed by the
applicant.
1. Tree Protection and Removal Plan - The applicants have addressed the issues raised at the last meeting. However, there
are three outstanding issues at this time. They are: 1) Location of the sanitary sewer connection for Lot 3, 2) the feasibility of
construction the street above the existing grade, and 3) the storm drain facilities on Prospect Street. Add a Condition: That any
underground work be c{)ordinated with the Tree Protection Plan and reviewed and approved before the engineering is approved
and everything is built. .
2. Prospect Street Design - The applicant is showing 24 feet, curb-to-curb width until the turnaround. Parking would be
allowed on one side of the street. The street is reduced to 22 feet in width west of the turnaround, curb to curb, allowing for
parking on one side of the street. The sidewalk has been changed to a curbside sidewalk or a section that is four feet in width and
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
2
.81
in another section an at-grade sidewalk (making it part of the 22 foot width). Staff is suggesting a Condition that the sidewalk is at
least five feet in width at least the length of the street.
Staff has raised several issues regarding the area west of the turnaround. Staff has suggested a Condition that this proposal move
forward if the Fire Department can make the sharp left-hand turn and if there is some kind of turnaround easement granted to allow
the cars to somehow move out of the street in a forward manner as opposed to backing out and turning around.
The proposal is to use a porous paving material for Prospect Street and also to construct the street improvement above the existing
grade. This was put forth in order to lessen the impact to the trees on either side of the street. The City's Engineering Dept.
reviewed the limited information provided and believe this design probably won't work. Staff has suggested a Condition that this
part of the proposal is not approved and a standard street improvement be constructed.
3) Size of the accessory residential unit - There is a daylight basement under part of the building. The applicant provided
photographs at the last meeting of the unfinished space and it is not habitable. Staff has suggested a Condition that would put a
deed agreement on the property if this part of the proposal is approved that would limit the size of the accessory residential unit to
900 square feet. The unfinished basement area shall not be used or converted to habitable living space.
Staff is recommending approval with the 29 Conditions. There is a change to Condition 21. The Tree Mitigation Plan was
submitted and reviewed by the Tree Commission and they recommended approval of that item. Harris read the Tree Commission
recommendations.
A letter from Julie Studpnagel, 1042 Prospect and a letter from Kip Sigetich, 1036 Prospect were received after the packet had
been prepared.
Briggs asked why the garages to the lots on Prospect are not counted if a private drive is used to access the garages on the
proposed lots. She referenced the correspondence in the packet with Stallman and Harris. Harris said when there is a private
drive, if the lots can take legal access from the street, the functional access is off the drive but it is not considered entirely served
by the private drive. Access isn't just auto access, but bike and pedestrian access too. McLaughlin said it isn't required that every
trip associated with the house (on Prospect) will occur from the private drive. The reason Staff has utilized this in the past is that
it forces the garage and access to be away from Prospect.
Harris said the overall number of vehicle trips per day would be approximately 50.
PUBLIC HEARING
CRAIG STONE, 708 Cardley Avenue, Medford, OR 97504 representing Cochrane & Roberts, said they have no additional
evidence to enter into the record. When asked, Stone said the road could just as easily be 22 feet or 25 feet to accommodate
parking on both sides. The sidewalk with the driveable surface on the narrower portion has to do with the existing improvements
in the public right-of-way. There is a fairly steep embankment and the wider road could only be done at the expense of cutting
into the embankment and that would result in harm to the tree.
Stone said he is willing to consider the suggestion from a neighbor to use the turnaround at the end ofthe street. KenCairn would
rather save the trees than promote a sidewalk that doesn't go anywhere.
Stone said they have sought to preserve an existing planter along Mountain Avenue and that's why there are not street trees after
the private drive.
Stone said they have no objections to the Conditions. He asked for a clarification of Condition 14 on page 12 of the Staff Report,
second to last sentence. If they cannot meet the three conditions, "the Prospect Street improvement shall be reduced in width,"
what is width? Harris said normally they would look at 20 feet curb to curb. The Fire Department, Engineering and Planning
could come up with an exact width required.
Chapman believes there should be a turnaround at the end of the street that satisfies the requirement to develop the last piece of
property there. They might lose a couple of trees. The street should be done right.
With regard to the accessory residential unit, Stone said this property is in Ashland's least dense residential zoning district. They
are not seeking to cram a lot of density in. This is a small project and it is not dense.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
3
.3::<
Stone said they are proposing instead of porous paving, vents to allow moisture and air for the trees along Prospect Street. It is the
same way they have proposed venting for the large pine trees located along the private drive.
ANDY STALLMAN, 789 S. Mountain Avenue, noted the recent letter from Cochrane where he states: "The best results occur when
(everyone) works together." Cochrane declined meeting with the neighborhood. Stallman does not want the Commission to get
the false impression that the plans have been as a result of meeting with the neighbors. Cochrane has only met with two neighbors.
He submitted a letter signed by the neighbors. Stallman mentioned light and glare would be a problem for th.em when the
subdivision is built. The lights from cars using the hammerhead turnaround will shine into their house at night. The addition of a
residence on Lot 6 will also adversely affect their privacy and add considerable noise and glare. He asked that the applicants be
required to build the appropriate fences at the maximum allowable height at their boundaries to reduce the negative impact to the
their home. He would ask the Commission to deny the application as it now stands.
PHIL PHILLIPS, 1063 Prospect, said he is speaking for his wife Kathy too. Phillips' testimony was entered into the record. He
addressed his concerns regarding safety, the design of Prospect, and density. He does not want Prospect nanowed and he does not
favor parking on both sides of the street. He would like to see the turnaround offset more toward the east where vehicles are away
from his carport entrance. He would suggest keeping the present width.
KIP SIGETICH, 1036 Prospect, mentioned there has been no discussion with the applicants regarding this proje:ct. Granting the
Exception to the Street Standards would impact the parking situation on Prospect significantly, negatively increasing fire danger
in the area within the wildfire interface, and increasing substantially the risks to his child and his child's playmates due the
additional traffic on Prospect and Mountain. Reducing the number of units by two, resulting in a development that fit into the
existing neighborhood more harmoniously could significantly ameliorate these four items. He suggested they look at Quail Haven
to see the type of development that would be consistent with the incredible beauty of the area and the neighbors living there. With
regard to parking, it seems everyone has concluded it would not be possible to access his lot if there is parking allowed on the
north side of Prospect in the last one-third section.
REBECCA REID, 1036 Prospect Street, stated her main concerns are:
1. Traffic and pedestrian safety on Prospect and Mountain
2. Inadequate provision of parking in and around the development
3. Access of emergency vehicles to reach homes or fight fires given the parking problems
4. Tree protection
There are too many houses being proposed and by not being able to park on the private drive, that will exacerbate the parking
problem on the streets. She would urge the Commission not to grant approval of the Exception to the Street Standards as currently
proposed.
Harris said the Exception for the street design is for the Prospect Street improvement and the Mountain Avenue sidewalk
improvement.
RICK BROWNE, 822 S. Mountain, said he has the same concerns as the rest of his neighbors.
BOB GORDON, 1025 Wildwood Way, said they have four houses and one exit on Wildwood. To exit, they have to go onto each
other's driveway. The wildfire issue bothers him greatly. They have guests in the summer that drive to their homes. Once you get
four or five cars in his area, there is no way a fire truck can get there. Visitors never use Mountain Avenue for parking because of
the incline. Everyone tries to crowd on Wildwood Street.
When it snows, it takes awhile for the snow to melt. One day he drove down Mountain very slowly and when he hit the dogleg, he
hit ice and his car went out of control, sliding sideways and hitting the curb. Ifhe had not hit it sideways and bounced, he would
have gone right off the edge and ended up in his neighbor's yard. It is an extremely dangerous corner where water can accumulate
and freeze.
ED BEUTNER, 843 S. Mountain, noted there is not enough parking to serve six dwellings on the private drive. It sets up an incredibly
dangerous situation, especially on Mountain in the winter. The private drive will be blind for cars coming down Mountain. The
private drive will not have public services in the winter. He would like to see fewer homes in this project.
JUDY LITTLE, 807 S. Mountain, objects to the number of homes being proposed. The private drive and overflow parking are major
concerns for her. It will be especially dangerous in the winter. She would like to see a safer proposal. Her comments were
entered in the record. .
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
4
33
CHRIS COTTON, 780 S. Mountain Avenue, said fIre safety is the biggest issue for him because it has the biggest potential for a
negative impact on all of them. He also sees excess parking on Mountain as a problem. His family car was totaled when hit by
another car on a clear, dry, sunny day.
His family has over 50 years in the community and during those years they have championed for the community, focusing on
quality and livability. What would be sad is not to continue the diligence. Less would be more appropriate.
JEANNE STALLMAN, 7El9 S. Mountain Avenue, talked about the Exception to Street Standards for Improvements to South Mountain.
She showed photographs. She is concerned with the safety of her children. A curbside sidewalk does not satisfy the criteria for an
Exception. She believes Lot 7 must be re-verifIed for lot size. As cars approach the comer of Mountain and Prospect coming up
the street, they glance up the street and to the left, but don't look right to see what cars are coming out off Prospect. One
photograph showed tin: marks on the curb. Pedestrians need to be safely away from the curb. She is concerned because the off-
street parking won't be met on the lot for the accessory residential unit. The house on Lot 2 does not have to be demolished. It
can be the house on that lot. She is requesting the applicant withdraw the flawed application until the problems are worked out. If
not, she would ask the Commission to deny the application. Stallman entered her comments into the record.
Staff Response
Harris noted there has been a lot of discussion about Prospect and Mountain not being able to accommodate vehicle trips. This
application is subject to the Subdivision Chapter standards and street capacity is not a criteria.
MARGUERITTE HICKMAN, Ashland Fire Department, 455 Siskiyou Boulevard, said the Fire Department would allow a 20 foot wide
minimum width on the private drive. The fIre truck would drive on the sidewalk to get to a fIre and make every effort to get
through.
The applicants are required to submit a WildfIre Hazard Plan. They are required to mitigate wildfrre hazard in the entire project
prior to construction. They are concerned about the turnaround at the far eastern end. They thought it would be more practical to
drive it once the turnaround is in to see how much parking can be allowed.
Harris said the discussion under Condition 14 refers to vehicle turnaround, not fIre truck turnaround.
Rebuttal
Stone said the principle comments went to "There is not enough parking on Prospect and it is too narrow." Their engineer said
they can do a 25 foot wide street with parking on both sides up to the location of the proposed turnaround and build a 22 foot wide
section from there west.
Stone said with regard 1to Lot 1 (S. Mountain and Prospect), Ashland has a Vision Clearance ordinance and the setbacks will be
met.
The wildfrre hazard seems to have more to do with the street standards than anything else. The Commission has heard testimony
from the Fire Departme:nt that they can make it work. The dwellings will have interior sprinkler systems. There will be a
maintenance association to cause the private drive to be graded or sanded in inclement weather. It is below the 15 percent
maximum grade for streets of this nature.
Stone mentioned the junipers planted along Mountain. The junipers are not unique or unusual. It is the concrete planter that is
unique or unusual. They will remove it if they have to.
It is Stone's understanding that when the City requires a dedication, the land to be dedicated does not reduce the size of the parcel.
With regard to the Exception to the Street Standards, Stone said they'd stand on their written proposed fmdings offact and
conclusions.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Dotterrer/Chapman m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Everyone approved. It was agreed to move the last two items on the
agenda (P A2004-129 and P A2004-135) to the study session on November 23, 2004 at 7 :00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. No
new notices will not be sent out.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
5
34-
KenCairn moved to continue P A2004-105 based on the applicant coming back with no Conditional Use Pemlit for an accessory
residential unit, no Exception to the Street Standards and full access for Lots 1,2 and 3 off Prospect Street and that Prospect Street
would get full improvements. Her motion died for lack of a second.
Fields suggested by not allowing the accessory unit, two parking spaces are picked up. A sidewalk lifted up six inches would raise
the sidewalk. If the applicants come back, he would like to see a 22 foot wide street improvement on the last 90 feet with a
mountable four or five foot wide sidewalk, probably with a retaining wall. Provide a turnaround. Provide 25 feet of street width at
the east end to Prospect with parking on both sides. McLaugWin said in Fields' proposal it will not change the basic engineering
and design. The Commission would be conditioning the street width for Prospect, denying the CUP for the aGcessory unit and
everything else would go as is.
Briggs suggested the house could be totally renovated. She would like to see one to two parking spaces on the north end of
Prospect at the narrow end. She does not think the junipers and planter should be a Variance but instead she would favor planting
trees. Keep the sidewalk going. At the corner of Mountain and Prospect, don't plant trees right at the comer for vision clearance.
Add a Condition for a solid fence to protect the property at the hammerhead from lights and glare. Don't allow any exceptions to
the sidewalk standards on Mountain.
Is there any reason for a sidewalk in the 22 foot section? KenCairn said even if it is doing concrete next to asphalt, it identifies
where pedestrians go.
Briggs/Chapman m/s to continue the meeting until 11 p.m. Everyone favored.
Dawkins felt the neighborhood concerns have been lost in the discussion. He is hoping to fmd a way for one or two lots to go
away. The one place was the road coming into the development with six houses on it. Just making an access off Prospect isn't
that much better. By taking away the accessory unit, it does eliminate one house. Chapman agreed.
Harris read back the Conditions. Eliminate Condition 14 and replace with "That the proposed Prospect Street improvement east of
the turnaround shall be revised to increase the curb to curb width to 25 feet to accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the
street. Eliminate Condition 21 (mitigation plan). Add Condition 29 "That a fence shall be installed on the east end of the private
drive turnaround. Condition 30 "That the proposed Conditional Use Permit for the accessory residential unit is not approved.
Add Condition 31 "That the Mountain Avenue street improvement shall be revised to include a parkrow in accordance with
AsWand Street Standards. Add Condition 32 "That the street trees at the intersection of Mountain and Prospect shall be placed to
provide vision clearance. Ken Cairn added "That the sidewalk be installed on one side of the 25 foot improvement section at back
of curb on the south side.
Chapman/Briggs m/s to deny the CUP for the accessory residential unit. Roll Call: Unanimous.
KenCaim/Dotterrer m/s to deny the Variance for the two parking places being put on Lot 1 instead of Lot 2. Roll Call:
Unanimous.
Chapman/Fields m/s to deny the Exception to the Street Standards for S. Mountain as the applicant proposed. Roll Call:
Unanimous.
DotterrerlKenCairn m/s to approve the Subdivision with the Conditions as outlined, Tree Removal, and the Exception to the City
Design Standards to Prospect. Briggs asked Harris to put (erosion control) in parentheses to explain the 1200C permit from DEQ.
Roll Call: Chapman, Briggs, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Douma, Fields and KenCairn voted "yes" and Black voted "no."
VI. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS
DoumalDawkins m/s to approve the Findings for P A2004-1l6, 2205 Siskiyou Boulevard, Archerd & Dresner. Voice Vote:
Unanimous
VII. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
MINUTES
6
3~
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
November 9, 2004
PLANNING ACTION: 2004-105
APPLICANT: R & C Investments
LOCATION: 759 and 769 South Mountain Avenue
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-I-I0
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE:August 19, 2004
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat approval of a seven-lot subdivision, and an Exception to the Street
Standards for improvements to South Mountain A venue, for improvements to Prospect Street
and for five lots to use the private drive. A Tree Removal Permit is requested for the removal of
three trees greater than 18 inches diameter at breast height. In addition, the application includes a
request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing residence at 759 S. Mountain Ave. to
an accessory residential unit. A Variance is requested to allow two required off-street parking
spaces for the accessory residential unit to be located on an adjacent parcel.
I. Additional Information & Relevant Facts
This application was presented to the Commission at the October 12, 2004 meeting. The
Staff Report identified several issues that warranted additional information and
consideration. This report, as well as the applicant's addendum, briefly describes each
item .md the additional information and clarification provided.
II. Proiect Imoacts
. Tree Removal and Tree Protection Plan Modifications
The original staff report raised concerns regarding building envelopes located
within drip lines of trees to be preserved, location of utility lines in relation to drip
lines, the location of cut and fill associated with street improvements in relation to
drip lines and the removal of the 20 inch diameter at breast height (dbh) madrone
on Lot 4.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
3"
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9, 2004
Page 1 of 13
A revised site plan including proposed street improvements for Prospc~ct Street, a
utility plan, street cross sections for Prospect Street and a revised Tree: Protection
and Removal Plan have been submitted.
In Staffs opinion, the new materials address the issues initially raised. The
building envelopes have been revised as suggested, the 20 inch dbh madrone is
retained, utility lines avoid the drip lines of trees to be preserved, and provisions
have been made to reduce the impact of the paving on the trees on either side of
Prospect Street. The underground installation of the existing electric lines and the
installation of a storm drain line in Prospect Street is not addressed. Therefore a
condition has been added requiring the electric and storm drain improvements to
be designed in coordination with the Tree Protection Plan to minimize: the routing
of utilities through tree protection zones.
An inspection schedule has been provided for the Tree Protection Plan to address
concerns regarding the implementation throughout the duration ofthe project.
The project Landscape Architect will inspect and report on various stages of the
project to insure that the tree protection measures are followed through
development of the project. This approach is used in Hillside Development
pennits, and Staff believes the inspections work well.
There are three outstanding issues at this point. First, the location of the sanitary
sewer connection for Lot 3. The line is shown going into the drip line of the oak
to be preserved located on the property line (tree #63). Staff believes the intent is
to bore in areas within the protective fencing under supervision by the project
Landscape Architect. The second and third issues are the feasibility of
constructing the street above the existing grade, and storm drain facilities on
Prospect Avenue. These issues are discussed below under Prospect Street
Improvements.
. Prospect Street Improvements
The October 12 public hearing included some discussion of providing on-street
parking and a vehicle turnaround area on Prospect Street. Some commissioners
suggested providing parking on both sides of Prospect Street. Staffs
understanding is that after the October 12 meeting the applicant has bel~n working
with neighbors living immediately adjacent to the street, and has based the
proposed improvement to incorporate some of their concerns. Subsequently,
comments have been received from neighbors regarding the desire to limit parking
to one side of the street, the necessity for parking west of the turnaround, the
concern that emergency vehicles will be able to negotiate the turn to access the
property at the west end of the street if on-street parking is permitted, and the
preservation of the trees on either side of the street.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
37
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9, 2004
Page 2 of 13
The revised site plan identifies a 24-foot wide driving surface which reduces to 22
feet west of the turnaround. A four-foot wide curbside sidewalk is included in the
first section ofthe street transitioning to an at-grade sidewalk at the west end of
the street. The proposed improvement would allow parking on one-side of the
street. The street standard for a Neighborhood Street such as Prospect with
parking on one side is 22 feet wide curb-to-curb, a seven-foot wide parkrow and a
five-foot wide sidewalk. Staff believes this standard has demonstrated success
throughout Ashland and questions the need to provide an additional two feet of
width on the eastern portion of the street. Additionally, the proposed sidewalk is a
foot narrower than the minimum required width. Since the buffering benefit to
pedestrians of the parkrow is eliminated in this situation, Staff recommends the
sidewalk meet the minimum width of five feet. A condition has been added
requiring the Prospect Street design to be revised to increase the sidewalk width to
five feet.
The proposed improvement west of the turnaround raises several questions. If
parking is permitted on this section of street, the Fire Department will need to
conduct a field test to determine if an emergency vehicle can navigate the turn into
the property at the end ofthe street (1036 Prospect) when cars are parked on this
section of the street. Additionally, cars parked on this section of the street will not
have a turnaround area which forces the vehicles to use the private driveway at the
end of the street, or to back out ofthe street. In Staff's opinion, the parking
situation at the residence at 1043 Prospect is an existing condition that is not
impacted by the proposed subdivision. While Staff appreciates the effort of the
applicant to address neighbor concerns, Staff believes parking permitted west of
the turnaround may create further problems in the future. A condition has been
added for the west section of street that allows the street to be improved as
proposed if the turnaround and fire emergency vehicle access issues are addressed.
The outstanding issues for the Prospect Street design involve the feasibility of
constructing the street above the existing grade, the porous paving material and
storm drain facilities. Porous paving material is problematic in that the storm
drainage runs through the street and onto the downhill adjacent properties. For
this reason, it is not an accepted alterative in Ashland. In addition, in consultation
with Ashland Engineering Division staff, the concept of building the street on top
of the existing grade does not appear to be practical or feasible. Areas of concern
involve the transition from the existing paved street surface level at the
intersection of Prospect and Mountain to the proposed street improvement, the
lack of area to build a retaining wall at the northwest end of the street, the impact
on storm drainage, the potential flow of storm drainage into adjacent properties
and the difference between finished street level and existing properties adjacent to
Prospect Street. As a result, Staff does not believe the proposed raised street
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
3~
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9,2004
Page 3 of 13
improvement will be approved, and a condition has been added requiring the final
design to be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Engineering Division Staff.
. Additionally, a storm drain will need to be included in the Prospect Street
improvement. This has also been included in the condition.
. Accessory Residential Unit Size and Parking
As discussed in the original Staff Report, the application proposes to convert the
existing home at 759 South Mountain into an accessory residential unit. The size
of the unit was in question. The applicant has submitted photos of the unfinished
basement area, and has stated that the space is not habitable because it does not
meet several building codes.
The application includes a request for a Variance to locate the two required off-
street parking spaces for the accessory residential unit on the adjacent lot. Staff
believes the situation is unique in that there are two significant stature trees at the
rear of759 South Mountain (Lot 2) that take up the available area to locate off-
street parking. The benefit of the proposal is that the spaces will be
accommodated and accessed by the private drive in the interior of the proposed
subdivision rather than using the Prospect Street frontage. Finally, the unique
character being the significant stature trees were not put in place by the applicant.
Rather, the proposal goes to significant lengths to preserve these trees, In Staff's
opinion, the Variance can be justified.
Accessory residential units were added as a conditional use in the R-1 Single-Family
Residential zoning district in 1991. The reason for allowing accessory residential
units was to provide a different housing type and to accommodate grow1h within the
community. The addition of accessory residential units is consistent with several
goals and policies of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan that follow.
"Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities
for the total cross-section of Ashland's population, consistent with
preserving the character and appearance ofthe city." Goal, Chapter
VI, Housing
"Strive to maintain a diversity of population groups in Ashland,
especially if increased growth pressure leads to more expensive
housing. Concentrate on population groups that are important to
Ashland's character, such as students, artists and actors, employees of
the city, school district and college, service personnel who work in
the tourism industry, hourly wage earners in local industries and local
residents who have not retired and live on fixed incomes." Policy V-
4, Chapter V, Population
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
31
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9, 2004
Page 4 of 13
"It is the City of Ashland's goal to maintain a compact urban form
and to include an adequate supply of vacant land in the city so as not
to hinder natural market forces within the city, and to ensure an
orderly and sequential development ofland in the city limits." Goal,
Chapter XII, Urbanization
Since 1991, a total of95 accessory residential units have received planning approval.
In general, few complaints have been received once the accessory residential units
are constructed and in use. Rather. complaints tend to focus on units that are existing
but did not go through the Conditional Use Permit process. Staff believes that this
request is not dissimilar from the many other accessory residential units approved,
and encouraged, throughout Ashland. These units provide a different housing option
for residents, while maintaining the scale and appearance of existing neighborhoods.
They have been a successful tool for housing and accommodating growth within the
community.
Adequate public facilities are in place, or will be installed to serve the proposed
accessory residential unit. The existing residence meets the setback requirements for
the zoning district, and lot coverage will be required to be a maximum of 40% with
the addition of the new primary residence and associated paving. The Conditional
Use Permit criteria require that the proposal "will have no greater adverse material
effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the
subject lot with the target use of the zone" (18.104.050.C). Seven factors are to be
considered when evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area
including: 1) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage, 2) Generation of traffic and
effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use
are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities, 3) Architectural
compatibility with the impact area, 4) Air quality, including the generation of dust,
odors, or other environmental pollutants, 5) Generation of noise, light, and glare, 6)
The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan,
and 7) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the
proposed use.
Since the exterior of the building will not be significantly altered, the general
appearance of the residence will not change. In terms of the scale, bulk, lot coverage
and architectural compatibility of the structure, Staff believes the existing home
reflects the eclectic mix contained in the surrounding neighborhood. The
surrounding streets currently experience relatively low volumes of daily vehicle trips,
and it is not anticipated that seven to ten automobile trips generated by the proposed
accessory residential unit will negatively impact the function of the streets. It is not
anticipated that the proposed use would create more dust, noise light and glare than
the wide range of occupants that can reside in a larger single-family residence. In
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
'1-1;
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9, 2004
Page 5 of 13
Staff's opinion, the proposed accessory residential unit will have no gr,eater adverse
affect on the livability of the neighborhood than the target use of the property.
III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof
The approval process for Preliminary Plat approval of a Subdivision are described in
Chapter 18.80 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as follows:
A. Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of a preliminary plat and
other supplementary material as may be required to indicate the general program and
objectives of the project to the office of the Director of Public Works. The plat shall
be prepared by a registered surveyor.
B. Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen (18) inches by twenty-
four (24) inches in size at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred
/
(100) feet.
C. General information. The following general information shall be shown on the
preliminary plat:
1. Proposed name of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor resemble the
name of another subdivision in Jackson County and shall be approved by the
Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a preliminary plat.
4. Location of the subdivision sufficient to define the location and boundaries of
the proposed tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
D. Existing conditions. The following existing conditions shall be shown on the
preliminary plat:
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets within or
adjacent to the tract, together with easements and other important features, such
as section lines and comers, and monuments.
2. Location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding.
3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and
isolated preservable trees.
4. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures to
remain on the property after platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval of five (5) feet.
F. Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be induded on the
preliminary plat.
1. The location, width, names and approximate grades of strec~ts, and the
relationship of the streets to any projected streets as shown on any development
plan adopted by the Planning Commission, or if there is no development plan, as
suggested by the City to assure adequate traffic circulation.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
~I
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9, 2004
Page 6 of 13
2. The location and purpose. of easements.
3. The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and block numbers,
for all lots and blocks.
4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family dwellings.
G. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only part of the tract
owned or controlled by the subdivider, the Planning Commission may require a
Master Plan for the unsubdivided portion.
H. Explanatory information. The following information shall be submitted in separate
statements accompanying the preliminary plat or, if practicable, shall be shown on
the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and unsubdivided land
adjacent to the proposed subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be
extended to connect with the existing streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
3. Where there are slopes in excess often (10) percent within the area to be
subdivided, a preliminary grading plan may be required by the Planning
Commission. A grading plan should show existing and finished grades on lots
and streets proposed to be graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan
shall be approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a review and
report from the City Engineer.
I. Tentative approval.
1. Within thirty (30) days from the first regular Planning Commission meeting
following submission of the plat, the Planning Commission will review the plan
and may give tentative approval of the preliminary plat as submitted or as it may
be modified or, if disapproved, shall express its disapproval and its reasons
therefore.
2. Approval of the preliminary plat shall indicate the Planning Commission's
approval of the final plat provided there is no change in the plan of subdivision as
shown on the preliminary plat and there is full compliance with the requirements
of this Title.
3. The action of the Planning Commission shall be noted on two (2) copies of
the preliminary plat, including reference to any attached documents, describing
conditions. One (1) copy shall be returned to the subdivider and the other
retained by the Planning Commission. (Ord. 2052, 1979)
Furthl~r, the approval criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in
Chapt.er 18.88 of the Ashland land Use Ordinance as follows:
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.
H. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9, 2004
Page 7 of 13
4/,;;...
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance
Standards Options Chapter.
Further, the approval criteria for a Variance are described In Chapter 18.100 of lthe Ashland
land Use Ordinance as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which
do not typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and int,ent ofthis
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 Sl, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-
imposed.(Ord. 2775, 1996)
Further, the approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 18.62 of the
Ashland land Use Ordinance as follows:
B. Tree that is No~ a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is
not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be
consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff
Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to
allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion,
soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees" or existing
windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require
that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the
zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the
impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
'+6
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9,2004
Page 8 of 13
provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall
be a condition of approval of the permit.
Furthnr, the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104 of
the A!ihland Land Use Ordinance as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in
which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal
law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability
of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the
target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect ofthe proposed use on the impact
area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in
relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of
capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive
Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review ofthe
proposed use.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Several of the issues raised at the initial public hearing on this matter have been discussed
in the applicant's addendum and this report. Staff believes the applicant has made
significant efforts to further protect trees by the modification of building envelopes and
location of utility lines around drip lines. While Staff believes the "raised" Prospect
Street improvement using porous pavement is most likely not feasible, the conditions
suggested below address those concerns. Since the alternative street construction design
was to address tree protection and issues raised by the neighbors and Tree Commission,
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
If'-/-
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9,2004
Page 9 of 13
the Planning Commission may want to get further information regarding the impact of the
standard street improvement construction on the trees surrounding the street.
Staff recommends approval of the project with the following conditions of approval.
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That all easements for sewer, water, electricity, etc., as required by the: City of
Ashland, shall be shown on the final survey.
3) That the necessary right-of-way for the Prospect and Mountain subdivision street
improvements shall be dedicated and shown on the final survey.
4) That a parking easement for Lot 2 shall be provided for the parking bay adjacent
to the private drive on Lot 1. A deed agreement shall be recorded for the lots
specifying the parking arrangement, and the subdivision CC&R's shall specify
the approved parking arrangement. In addition, both documents shall state that
any modification of the parking shall require a modification of the Conditional
Use Permit for the accessory residential unit.
5) That the accessory residential unit located at 759 South Mountain Avenue shall be
limited to 900 square feet in size as described in the application unless modified
through the Conditional Use Permit process. The unfinished basement area shall
not be used or converted to habitable living space. A deed agreement shall be
recorded for the property specifying the size limitation.
6) That exterior and interior modifications of the accessory residential unit located at
759 South Mountain Avenue shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor
prior to modifications.
7) That the applicant shall consult with the Electric Department before submitting an
Electric Distribution System Plan. This plan shall include load calculations and the
location of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets, street
lights, underground installation of existing and proposed lines, and all other
necessary equipment. The electric plan shall be designed in coordination with the
Tree Protection Plan in order to minimize the routing of utilities through tree
protection zones. The Tree Protection Plan shall be revised by the project Landscape
Architect accordingly, and submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor
prior to the signature ofthe final survey. The Electric Distribution System Plan must
be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to signature of the final
survey.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
45'
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9, 2004
Page 10 of 13
8) That the water line in Prospect street shall be upgraded to an eight inch line with the
subdivision infrastructure improvements, and the engineered construction drawings
shall be revised accordingly.
9) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including but not limited to
hydrant placement and flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified on the
construction drawings and reviewed and approved by the AsWand Fire Department
prior to signature of the final survey.
10) That a utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
Division and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey. The utility plan
shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the
development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewers,
manholes and clean-outs, on-site treatment of storm drainage and catch basins. The
utility plan shall be designed in coordination with the Tree Protection Plan in order
to minimize the routing of utilities through tree protection zones.
11) That the sidewalk on the south side of Prospect Street shall be a minimum offive feet
in width in accordance with the AsWand Street Standards as required in
18.80.030.A.1. In addition, the sidewalk shall be connected through the turnaround
area by providing wheelchair ramps and installation of the at grade sidewalk in the
turnaround. Engineered construction drawings for the street improvement shall
include the increased sidewalk width, and shall be submitted for review and approval
of the Ashland Engineering and Planning Divisions.
12) That storm drain facilities shall be included in the Prospect Street improvements.
The storm drain plan shall be designed in coordination with the Tree Protection Plan
in order to minimize the routing of utilities through tree protection zones. The Tree
Protection Plan shall be revised by the project Landscape Architect accordingly, and
submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the
final survey. Engineered construction drawings for the street improvement shall
include the storm drain facilities, and shall be submitted for review and approval of
the Ashland Engineering and Planning Divisions.
13) That the use of porous paving material and the cons!rnction of the improvement
above existing street grade (''raised'' pavement) for Prospect Street is not approved,
and the engineered construction drawings shall be revised accordingly.
14) That the proposed Prospect street improvement west of the turnaround shall be
improved as proposed with 22 feet of width and on-street parking on one side if the
following conditions are satisfied: 1. a vehicle turnaround easement is obtained
from the property owners of 1036 Prospect for use of their driveway for a turnaround
area, 2. it is demonstrated that it is possible for a vehicle parked on the north side of
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
4~
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9, 2004
, Page 11 of 13
Prospect on the west end to turnaround in the driveway and exit out of Prospect
Street in a forward manner, and 3. the Fire Department detennines that a emergency
vehicle can negotiate the turn into 1036 Prospect with automobiles parked on the
north side of Prospect on the west end. If the before mentioned conditions are not
satisfied, the Prospect Street improvement shall be reduced in width and on-street
parking shall not be permitted west of the turnaround. The engineered d.rawings shall
be revised accordingly.
15) That engineered construction drawings for subdivision infrastructure improvements,
including but not limited to utilities, public street improvements, private drive
improvements, the street improvements shall submitted for review and approval by
Ashland Engineering Di vision prior to signature of the final survey. Plans to include
profiles and cross sections, indicating cuts and fills, and erosion control and slope
stability methodologies consistent with the standards for Hillside Lands contained in
AMC 18.62.080B, if applicable.
16) Subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utilities,
public street improvements, private drive improvements, and street lights shall be
installed or a bond posted for the full cost of construction prior to signature of the
final survey.
17) That the name of the street shall be approved by the City of Ashland and
consistent with the street naming resolution.
18) Access shall be maintained to the existing public utility easement on the western
boundary of the site. The easement shall be included on building permit submittals,
and no portion of a structure may intrude into the easement.
19) The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance
shall be noted in the CC&R's. The CC&R's must state that deviations from the
plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and
therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code.
20) That a draft copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association shall be
provided prior to signature of the final survey. CC&R's to describe responsibility
for the maintenance of all planting strips and street trees.
21) That a Tree Mitigation Plan shall be submitted for review and comments to the
Ashland Tree Commission, with final approval of the Staff Advisor, pllor to
signature of the final survey.
22) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission, with final approval
of the Staff Advisor, shall be incorporated into the Tree Protection and Removal
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
'11
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9, 2004
Page 12 of 13
Plan, Landscaping Plan and Irrigation Plan. The revised tree, landscaping and
irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval by the Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey.
23) Street trees, parkrow landscaping and irrigation systems shall be installed or a
bond posted for the full cost of construction prior to signature of the final survey
plat.
24) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for
and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of the approved
trees on site and prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the notice to
proceed with construction of subdivision improvements. The Verification Permit
is to inspect the identifications of trees to be removed and the installation of tree
protection fencing. The tree protection shall be installed according to the
approved Tree Protection and Removal Plan prior to any site work or storage of
materials.
25) That a system for long-term maintenance of trees identified for protection, and
addressing private drive improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval of
the Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey.
26) That a grading plan shall be submitted for each individual lot with the building
permit submittals. There shall be no grading outside of the approved building
envelops in the approved tree protection zones (i.e. terracing to create yard area,
patios).
27) That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 40% of the lot area in accordance with
18.20.040.F. Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be
submitted with the building permits.
28) That the front yards for the purposes of setbacks for Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be the yard
adjacent to Prospect Street, and the rear yards shall be adjacent to the private drive.
29) That the development shall receive a 1200C permit from Oregon DEQ prior to site
work. Evidence of the permit shall be submitted with the final engineering for the
project.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
i.Jg1
Ashland Planning Department - Addendum
November 9,2004
Page 13 of 13
To the Planning Commission:
The neighbors of Prospect St. , South Mountain Ave., and
Wildwood Way have worked together in preparation for tonight's
hearing, and in an effort to present our material to you in the most
logical and effective manner, we ask for our testimonies to bl~
heard in the following order:
Andy StaIIm~
Phil Phillips J
Rebecca Reid
Kip Sigetich v
Rick Browni 1r
Bob Gord9n .
Ed _ ,)) t./
JudyLittle ~
Susanne Heinpch
Chris Cotton v
Jeanne Stallman t./'"
This is not meant to be an inclusive list of all who may be wanting
to speak, only those of us who have coordinated our efforts
together.
1-(1
11-9-~f
1>4
Speaker Request Form
City Council Meetings/Planning Commission Meetings
The followlne Information Is required In order for vou to.speak. Ifvou need to be contacted.
or If information on a Plannlne Action needs to be sent to vou
J
7 <<1 5ov~ jJ((JV~I~ /~()c.
Email address 0. $Thll W\tLlIt @ Ct ~ k ~kb lWl" ~
Complete Street addres;~ (No P.O. Boxes);:
Phone No. 1t2... '1 543
Please insert information on the blank lines below and check boxes that apply to you.
I wish to speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that
this subject is not on tbeprinted Agenda for tonig~t's meeting.
(please note time during Public Forum of City Council meeting is limited to 5 minutes per speaker, and to a total of 15 minutes.)
I wish to speak about Agenda Item number Jt I 2b(J~-1l>5, the subject of which is:
,
S I MI. 1. Vrev>pecc . j)OV}.JfJ(l'f.J puv\:;c;SVtjOlVt'>I()I..)
o
B
o
o
:Please complete the following for Land Use Hearings
If vau wish. to provide evidence. please indicate if vou are in favor of or opposed to the proposal.
I wish to speak in favor of the application. (If you are in favor of the proposal, your evidence
should show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing.)
I wish to speak in opposition to the application. (If you are an opponent, your testimony should
show that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or
your testimony rebuts the applicant's testimony by showing the facts relied upon are incorrect.)
I wish to speak, but I neither favor nor oppose the application. (Your testimony is to address
criteria only.)
I do not wish to speak, but have submitted comments on the back of this form.
Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been closed, members of
the public may speak about any Item on the Agenda. If such a hearing already has been held this fact will be
noted on the printed Agenda. The time allowed each speaker may be limited by the Mayor or presiding
offICer.
Please hand this fonn in to the City Recorder during Council Meetings or stilrr person at the head table during
Planning Commission Meetings before the beginning of the m~ing if possible, or before the Agenda Item is
discussed. ' 0
Speaker Request Form
City Council Meetings/Planning Commission Meetings
The followlne Information Is required In order for vou to.sotak. 'fvou need to be contactl~
or If Information on a Plannlne Actloft needs to be sent to vou
ALWA YS COMPLETE THIS TOP SECTION OF THE FORM
Printed name:~,^. \ \1~. I t.,pf
p" Cs.f @c...'1
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes),; {OG S
Phone No. 'I Eli ......1l3 y ~
Email addressr.)G.(JOV.l1rl~YY@.YJ1<:;\-1.CO.............
Please insert information on tbe blank lines below and check boxes that upply to you.
I wish to speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that
this subject is not on the printed Agenda for tonig~t's meeting.
(please note time during Public Forum of City Council meeting is limited to 5 minutes per speaker, and to a total of 15 minutes.)
I wish to speak about Agenda Item number ~'t>y ~ 105" " the subject of which is: c~ tz/ .;..,
,
~'Y1"-fS
o
~
o
o
9[41. ~.~' ^T
q c 1-r0Y1
Please complete the following for Land Use Hearings
Ifvou wish to provide evidence. please indicate ifvou are in favor of or ooposed to the proposal.
I wish to speak in favor of the application. (If you are in favor of the proposal, your evidence
should show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing.)
I wish to speak in opposition to the application. (If you are an opponent, your testimony should
show that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or
your testimony rebuts the applicant's testimony by showing the facts relied upon are incorrect.)
I wish to speak, but I neither favor nor oppose the application. (Your testimony is to address
criteria only.)
I do not wish to speak, but have submitted comments on the back of this form.
Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been clost~d, members of
the public may speak about any Item on the Agenda. If such a hearing already has been held' this fact will be
"oted on the printed Agenda. The time a/lowed each speaker may be limited by the Mayor or presiding
offICer.
Please hand this form in to the City Recorder during Council Meetings or stkff person at the head table during
Planning Commission Meetings before the beginning of the meeting if possible, or before the Agenda Item is
discussed. 5 I
Speaker Request Form
City Council MeetingslPlanning Commission Meetings
The followlnll information is reaulred in order for vou to.speak. ifvou need to be contacted.
or If information on a Planninll Action needs to be sent to vou
Complete Street addresi~ (No P.O. Boxes),:
Phone No. J{~ ~>'Svs-D
ALWAYS COMPLETE THIS TOP SECTION OF THE FORM
Printed ".me:~ (J- ~.[ 'J tI
10 3 ~ P~'f,ed ~1"
Email address.r~(.X@.OpL~..eO.f11
I
Please insert information on the blank lines below and check boxes that apply to you.
I wish to speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that
this subject is not on {b.e ,printed Agenda for tonig~t' s meeting.
(please note time during Public Forum of City Council meeting is limited to 5 minutes per speoker, and to a total of 15 minutes.)
I wish to speak about Agenda Item number VI)-, " the subject of which is: .
m ~'~ Pr'ur ~vJ7f~{,- (P!IlM/,,~/lc;nrt20(Jy-:J
:Please complete the following for Land Use Hearings
Ifvou wishta provide evidence. please indicate ifvou are in favor of or opposed to the proposal.
o I wish to speak in favor of the application. (If you are in favor of the proposal, your evidence
should show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing.)
~ I wish to speak in opposition to the application. (If you are an opponent, your testimonyshould
t;:j show that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or
your testimony rebuts the applicant's testimony by showing the facts relied upon are incorrect.)
o
o
I wish to speak, but I neither favor nOf oppose the application. (Your testimony is to address
criteria only.)
I do not wish to speak, but have submitted comments on the back of this form.
Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been closed, members of
the public may speak about any Item on the Agenda. If such a hearing already has been held this fact will be
noted on the printed Agenda. The time allowed each speaker may be limited by the Mayor or presiding
offICer.
Please hand this form in to the City Recorder during Council Meetings Of stit:ff person at the head table during
Planning Commission Meetings before the beginning of the meeting if possible, or before the, Agenda Item is
discussed. .5:J...
Speaker Request Form
City C~ouncil Meetings/Planning Commission Meetings
The follow/nil Information Is required In order for vou to.speak. Ifvou need to be contacted.
or If Information on a Plannlnf Action needs to be sent to vou
ALWAYS COMPLETE THIS TOP SECTION OF THE FORM
Printed name: \< \ P S \ j e- f \ C ~
Complete Street address (No P,O. Boxes),:_\ 0 3 ~ P r oj p ~ c-t A- J' ~ 10" #
Phone No. ~ '\ K -") O~ 0 Email addressSt.Jt..+-l~l@cJ~fAdool..co ^""'
Please insert information on tbe blank lines below and check boxes that apply to you.
I wish to speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that
this subject is not on tbeprinted Agenda for tonig~t's meeting.
(please note time during Public Forum of City Council meeting is limited to 5 minutes per speaker, and to a total of 15 minutes.)
I wish to speak about Agenda Item number
lj +. ~ fl' tJ
" the subject of which is:
~ tl-~JLJ'JlO^
]Please complete the following for Land US,e Hearings
If vou wish to vrovide evidence. vlease indicate if vou are in favor of or opposed to the proposal.
o I wish to speak in favor of the application. (If you are in favor of the proposal, your evidence
~hO ld show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing.)
I wish to speak in opposition to the application. (If you are an opponent, your testimony should
show that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or
your testimony rebuts the applicant's testimony by showing the facts relied upon are incorrect.)
o
o
I wish to speak, but I neither favor nor oppose the application. (Your testimony is to address
criteria only.)
I do not vvish to speak, but have submitted comments on the back ohhis form.
Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been closed, members of
the public may speak about any Item on the Agenda. If such a hearing already has been held this fact will be
noted on the printed Ag,enda. The time allowed each speaker may be limited by the Mayor or presiding
offICer.
. .
Please hand this form in to the City Recorder during Council Meetings or staff person at the head table during
. Planning Commission Meetings before the beginning of the me~~g if possible, or before the Agenda Item is
discussed. .53
Speaker Request Form
City Council MeetingslPlanning Commission Meetings
The followlnll InforltUltion is required in order for vou to.IDeak, Ifvou need to be contactYk..
or If Information on a Plannlnll Action needs to be lent to vou
ALWAYS COMPLETE THIS TOP SECTION OF THE FORM
Printed name: t/C-K ~f!-~I1J;1) t
/ ,
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes),: 1~ s.. 4lt? t( /!/7/fr~
Phone No. )' 5'2- () '7 C( 3> Email address
Please insert information on the blank lines below and check boxes tbat :apply to you.
" ....
I wish to speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that
this subject is not on the ,printed Agenda for tonig~t' s meeting.
~ ~A~~~)7lf_V-~~_
(please note time during Public Forum of City Council meeting is limited to 5 minutes per speaker, and to a total of IS minutes.)
I wish to speak about Agenda Item number
" the subject of which is:
Please complete the following for Land Use Hearings
Ifvou wish to provide evidence. please indicate ifvou are in favor of or oDposed to the proposal.
o
I wish to speak in favor of the application. (Jf you are in favor of the proposal, your evidence
should show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing.)
~ I wish to speak in opposition to the application. (Jfyou are an opponent, your testimony should
~ show that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or
your testimony rebuts the applicant's testimony by showing the facts relied upon are incorrect.)
o
o
I wish to speak, but I neither favor nor oppose the application. (Your testimony is to address
criteria only.)
I do not wish to speak, but have submitted comments on the back of this form.
Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been cloj'ed, members of
the public may speak about any Item on the Agenda. If such a hearing already has been held this fact will be
noted on the printed Agenda. The time allowed each speaker may be limited by the Mayor 01' presiding
offICer.
~ .
Please hand this form in to the City Recorder during Council Meetings or staff person at the head table during
Planning Commission Meetings before the beginning of the meeting if possible, or before the Agenda Item is
jiscussed. 0' tf
SPEAKER REQUEST FORM
NameP ~o.l€J.)O IV Date /1-9- &Y
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes) /Cl~~ tul/-O t..Jp4.lJ
Phone~" - LJ b f / . Email address
PUBLIC FORUM
Items that are NOT on the current Agenda
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes
THE SUBJECT IS:
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
~#~d~~W4~P
~
/ .
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence involving a Land Use Appeal, please
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the application.
IN FAVOR
X OPPOSED
r
6S-
Printed name:
Speaker Request Form
City Council Meetings/Planning Commission Meetings
The follow/nil information is required in order for vou tosoeak. Ifvou need to be contactl':4..
or If information on a Planninll Action needs to be sent to vou
ALWA YS COMPLETE THIS TOP SECTION OF THE FORM
E' d-'~ (.,......) " ,,- cQ fS e. 1.<.+ Y1~ v-
f;' LI 3.
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes),:
<;;;.. yL{O'--'vrfG'~ AvC'_
Phone No. 4 e-<6: 4~)....b
Email addresseJ2..b~..t+....e.<r(E)~~-.J{Oo<.(.e.iI '0<.
Please insert information on the blank lines below and check boxes that ::apply to you.
I wish to speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that
this subiect is not on the ,printed Agenda for tonig~t's meeting.
(please note time during Public Forum of City Council meeting is limited to 5 minutes per speaker, and to a total of 15 minutes.)
SA
I wish to speak about Agenda Item number
(P I ~
-
, the subject of which is:
--I
"5
.
Cc. '- -f1 ~ '7
.2..CO'i - (o.s-
o
Et
o
o
Please complete the following for Land Use Hearings
[(vou wish to provide evidence. please indicate i(vou are in favor o( or opposed to the lJroposal.
I wish to speak in favor of the application. (If you are in favor of the proposal, your evidence
should show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing.)
I wish to speak in opposition to the application. (If you are an opponent, your testimony should
show that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or
your testimony rebuts the applicant's testimony by showing the facts relied upon are incorrect.)
I wish to speak, but I neither favor nor oppose the application. (Your testimony is to address
criteria only.)
I do not wish to speak, but have submitted comments on the back of this form.
Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been closed, members of
the public may speak about any Item on the Agenda. If such a hearing already has been held this fact will be
noted on the printed Agenda. The time allowed each speaker may be limited by the Mayor or presiding
offICer.
. ,
Please hand this form in to the City Recorder during Council Meetings or staff person at the head table during
Planning Commission Meetings before the beginning of the meeting if possible, or before the Agenda Item is
~scussed. ~~
SPEAKER REQUEST FORM
Name~~ Ldt\-E'- Date [l f {OY-
Complete Strelet address (No P.O. Boxes) <rD 1 S au.::f:-e.. fYlD ~CU--&t\.. ~ vJL
Phone L\ ~r I C( 1 2.. Email address J \ ctt\-e. 0 r@ 40 \ \ OJ IV)
PUBLIC FORUM
Items that are NOT on the current Agenda
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes
THE SUBJECT IS:
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
THE TOPIC IS, 1>f'''~1'~ de..ve-lD~W\Q..v\.€ ~-r
~v1)S~ct
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence involving a Land Use Appeal, please
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the application.
IN FAVOR
+- OPPOSED
~7
Phone
Lfcf2- '$ 3 Cj?
SPEAKER REQUEST FORM
CaT'1()rV Date II} ~] OLI
l f'() 50 !vt oJ~ ( 11
Email address U -t ~ (QU f/Ill (lel ~ fl eJ-
Name
c ~ r\5
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes)
PUBUC FORUM
Items that are NOT on the current Agenda
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes
THE SUBJECT IS:
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
THE TOPIC IS:
p-r ()~~ cJ, f7.je{ Or fY1bI1.f (42 Wo u i'/-t-((rJ ..f-
JVo5~f
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence involving a Land Use Appeal, pl,ease
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the applicatiofi,
,_INFAVOR ~OPPOSED
s~
Speaker Request Form
City C~ouncil MeetingslPlanning Commission Meetings
The followlnll Information Is rellulred in order for vou tosoeak, Ifvou need to be contacted,
or If information on a Planninll Action needs to be sent to vou
ALWAYS COMPLETE THIS TOP SECTION OF THE FORM
,JQan n.( ~ Ii ;r)t\V}
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes),; .~ :2/ (()~
Printed name:
Phone No. Ljt;d.-. - (1543
Email address
Please insert information on the blank lines below and check boxes that apply to you.
I wish to speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that
this subject is not on the ,printed Agenda for tonig~t's meeting.
(please note time during .Public Forum oj City Council meeting is limited to 5 minutes per speaker, and to a total 0/15 minutes.)
I wish to speak about Agenda Item number ~ ~{oC; " the subject of which is:
if1J+- PtY\0S 5vvbtli V'l~n
Please complete the following for Land Use Hearings
Ifvou wish to provide evidence. please indicate ifvou are in favor of or opposed to the proposal.
o I wish to speak in favor of the application. (If you are in favor of the proposal, your evidence
should show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing.)
~ wish to speak in opposition to the application. (If you are an opponent, your testimony should
~ ;how that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or
your testimony rebuts the applicant's testimony by showing the facts relied upon are incorrect.)
o
o
I wish to speak, but I neither favor nor oppose the application. (Your testimony is to address
criteria only.)
I do not wish to speak, but have submitted comments on the back of this form.
Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been closed, members of
the public may speak about any Item on the Agenda. If such a hearing already has been held this fact will be
noted on the printed Agenda. The time allowed each speaker may be limited by the Mayor or presiding
officer.
. .
Please hand this form in to the City Recorder during Council Meetings or staff person at the head table during
t Planning Commission Meetings before the beginning of the meeting if possible, or before the Agenda Item is
discussed. Self
Speaker Request Form
City Council Meetings/Planning Commission Meetings
The followinll information is required In order for vou tosoeak. Ifvou need to be contact~'4..
or If information on a Plannlnll Action needs to be sent to vou
Printed name:
ALWAYS COMPLETE THIS TOP SECTION OF THE FORM
K-hiJ>~ ~f:/)')5
,/
7 '3j 3;
II! ttJ cJ)J p---~,t/ ~
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes),:
Phone No. /cff' -' f)7r6 S-
F
Email address
Please insert information on the blank lines below and check boxes that ~lpply to you.
I wish to speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that
this subject is not on the .printed Agenda for toni~~t's meeting.
(please note time during Public Forum of City Council meeting is limited to 5 minutes per speaker, and to a t'otal of 15 minutes.)
I wish to speak about Agenda Item number.%ocf ,- III Jr-: the subject of which is:
Mv -HNe5 {JrtPJter
u
Please complete the following for Land Use Hearings
Ifvou wish to vrovide evidence. please indicate ifvou are in favor of or opposed to the proposal.
o
I wish to speak in favor of the application. (If you are in favor of the proposal, your evidence
should show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing.)
o
o
I wish to speak in opposition to the application. (If you are an opponent, your testimony should
show that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or
your te.Sfi"i,m ny rebuts the applicant's testimony by 10Wing the facts relied upon are incorrect.)
[_f.bk~ f-P ~ 5nu-'-){/fi/
I wish to speak, but I neither favor nor oppose the a plication. (Yourtestimony is to address
criteria only.) "
I do not wish to speak, but have submitted comments on the back of this form.
Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been clos1ed, members of
the public may speak about any Item on the Agenda. If such a hearing already has been heM this fact will be
noted on the printed Agenda. The time allowed each speaker may be limited by the Mayor or presiding
offICer.
-~ ,
Please hand this form in to the City Recorder during Council Meetings Of staff person at the hea.d table during
, Planning Commission Meetings before the beginning of the meeting if possible, Of before the Agenda Item is
discussed. ~ t::J
Speaker Request Form
City Council MeetingslPlanning Commission Meetings
The foLJowine information Is required In order for vou tosoeak. "vou need to be contacted.
or If information on a Plannlne Action needs to be sent to vou
ALWA YS COMPLETE THIS TOP SECTION OF THE FORM
Printed .ame, \Cec ~In e V i vv V~ \ ~ ~s
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes),: \ c) to 3 rO'? fP cr ~t
Phone No. ~L Lf(;;ct' ~ 3 Lf L Email address p ~1 ( II') ~W (0) {( ( (/~cfh C UL/t 7 +j I ()~
Please insert information on the blank lines below and check boxes that apply to you.
I wish to speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that
this subject is not on tbe .printed Agenda for tonig~t' s meeting.
(please note time during Public Forum of City Council meeting is limited to 5 minutes per speaker, and to a total of 15 minutes.)
I wish to speak about Agenda Item number
vY\t, P\'n~S
, the subject of which is:
(
c:c p!p ) i c ~H trY\
Please complete the following for Land Use Hearings
If vou wish. to provide evidence. please indicate if vou are in favor of or opposed to the proposal.
o
JE['
I wish to speak in favor of the application. (If you are in favor of the proposal, your evidence
should show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing.)
I wish to speak in opposition to the application. (If you are an opponent, your testimonyshould
show that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or
your test.imony rebuts the applicant's testimony by showing the facts relied upon are incorrect.)
o
o
I wish to speak, but I neither favor nor oppose the application. (Your testimony is to address
criteria only.)
I do not wish to speak, but have submitted comments on the back of this form.
Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been closed, members of
the public may speak about any Item on the Agenda. If such a hearing already has been held this fact will be
noted on the printed Agenda. The time allowed each speaker may be limited by the Mayor or presiding
offICer.
, .
Please hand this form in to the City Recorder during Council Meetings or staff person at the head table during
, Planning Commission Meetings before the beginning of the meeting if possible, or before the Agenda Item is
discussed. b I
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes)
Phone /,{'6 2-7 ~ S~
PUB~J
Items that are ~ ~
3-5 mint
(Time aUotment is
Total time allowed }.--
(~A~~,--I
--1
THE SUBJECT IS:
------
--~--.._--------.----.-i
------1
I
------.-~---.~----~--~---_1
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
THE TOPIC IS: ~ ~\Jakp"^-'2,ct Q ~)J/1. ~
--P[O~ <27-
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence involving a Land Use Appeal, please
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the application.
IN FAVOR +-OPPOSED
6:2-
SPEAKER REQUEST FORM
N~IK\(' c...o-r"""j'O N Date /II ~ 10'-1
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes) --1 E"D --Sf me) ~lv1 ~ e
Email address CO fiat"! @ V'VUf'7d ( f1 ef
Phone
C-ff2-J i4?'
PUBLIC FORUM
Items that are NOT on the current Agenda
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes
THE SUBJECT IS:
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
THETOPICIS:--pYO~~ deAJddpme;d @ 1110wrhlVl "" p-c(j~~
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence involving a Land Use Appeal, please
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the application.
IN FAVOR + OPPOSED
~3
,-~.sa~yates - Fw: as promised. thanks.
..
-
--- ~~~:_.~.~=:"--
page:IJ
~~''''''''''' .....,.'-"...n~...~.<'lfr!W:'
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"philip phillips" <Psquared444@msn.com>
<sue@ashland.or.us>
11/9/2004 11 :05:40 PM
Fw: as promised. thanks.
City of Ash;s:
Planning t:xhiij,i
Exhibit #: I - 0
PA #~~.'4--.__~l~V
Delte~Jt>.f:;tatl'
----- Original Message -----
From: philip phillips<mailto:Psquared444@msn.com>
To: FLOP<mailto:Psquared444@msn.com> ; AStallman<mailto:AStallman@ashlandhome.net>; Jeanne
Stallman<mailto:STALLMAN@sou.edu>; Randall Hopkins<mailto:mencken@internetcds.com> ;
Rebecca Reid<mailto:reid@sou.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:09 PM
Philip Phillips 1063 Prospect Street on the North side directly opposite Lot 2 in the proposal.
I have not opposed development of this land parcel but have voiced repeated and consistent concern
about the attention paid to the impact of the design and density on Prospect Street and my nElighborhood.
I have also voiced the hope the the evolving neighborhood and new neighbors will add to the fun and
richness of my lite and vice versa. I do not want my life endangered or degraded because of in built
defects in the physical designs that frame our living environment. Prospect is the focus of my comments.
Prospect has its problems, many of which I have outlined before. My emphasis and concerns tonight
remain, as before, what the specific influences this development will have on safety matters and
human/vehicular use issues as my neighbors and I know them.
Some of the recommendations by the Applicant and/or by staff, it accepted as is, hold the velY real
potential for exacerbating problems that already exist and adding some new and apparently unforeseen
ones.
I will focus on the following aspects:
1) The unique characteristics of Prospect and how it is utilized.
2) Parking and traffic.
3) The width of the present vs the proposed roadway Why the 22 foot standard is not easily applied
here.
(or the standards for both side parking)
4) The proposed sidewalk widths, Applicant vs Staff.
5) The turnarounds, location and role in solving traffic problems on Prospect.
6) The Prospect /Mountain interface and traffic hazards not addressed by Staff or Applicant.
This won't take as long as it sounds.
PROSPECT NOW AND NEAR FUTURE:
?r-
]~san yates - Fw: as promised. thanks.
..
== -
Paga 2]
As it now sits, Prospect is a graveled dirt road beginning on its east end off an asphalt stub that is about
24 feet wide s1tarting from the concrete curb that edges the stub to the north. What I will refer to as the
eastern leg runs westward past my lot then abruptly narrows. I call this the bottle neck.
Directly in front of my lot the useable street surface is about 27 feet wide Applicant is proposing to pave
24 feet curb to curb on this eastern limb and put a 4 foot sidewalk on the ROW.
The road dead ends after passing between the two properties at the extreme west end. From the bottle
neck westward to the terminus I'll be referring to as the West limb for discussion. Applicant proposes to
widen this limb to 22 feet and suggested parking on the north side for two vehicles.
Two single family units and one two unit rental share between them 11 vehicles belonging to residents
living on this street. There are 6 off street parking places if one packs carefully. General public, service
and other visitors vehicles overlay this base.
The majority of the on street parking occurs in front of my dwelling and lot and extends eastward towards
Mountain. Roughly half of the Eastern limb is occupied by local vehicles, anything else is extra.
Parking and vHhicular/human movement and access are a daily adventure that requires care. The
neighbors for the most part have arrived at a sustainable but ultimately unsatisfactory access cum parking
cum egress m inuette that while graceless, is functional. To watch all that metal moving in the peak times
is impressive.
Besides the inconvenient and easily saturated parking space utilization, all vehicles must turn their vehicle
to head out. If's done where ever one is parked or utilizing my carport area. Backing out is universally
seen as unsafE3 but at times expedient. Anyone walking/playing near or on the road stops until the
vehicles finish moving about. The animals head uphill.
The problems of parking and turning on the Western limb are even worse and because of that, parking
has been banned on this narrow end and one driveway has been gated to prevent further property
damage.
Similarly, parking is allowed only on the North side of the Eastern limb (my side).
Previously, parking was allowed on both sides of the street resulting in damaged vehicles, short tempers
and blocked access on a pretty regular basis. Turning was very problematic and backing out almost
required.
This is the reality of Prospect onto which a universally expected increase in vehicle traffic and parking will
occur when th,e proposed development finally goes in.
PARKING AND TRAFFIC;
Vehicular traffic and vehicles in excess of the present load are universally expected as there is inadequate
capacity on the private drive on the Mountain Pines development beyond two cars/lot. These families I
expect will be having kids, friends and the usual human vehicular experiences.
Prospect at its present 24 to 27 foot width acommodates its present load tenuously at best in the face of
two way traffic and one outlet. There is no provision in this proposal that addresses any excess load
effectively, in fact the Staff proposal will worsen it if it tries to impose Street Standard blindly here.
I see no accommodation in the development proper that addresses this increased parking load other than
to assume Mountain and Prospect are capable of absorbing the excess.
I'm left with the impression that there are too many vehicles to be accommodated if all of the seven lots
,~
,Susan yates -Fw: as promised. thanks.
Page ~r
are fully developed. This would directly result in a degradation of the safety, livability and vallue of my
home and everyone else on Prospect and Mountain.
A decrease in the number of dwellings in the development would be useful, especially those :fronting on
Prospect as they will be the ones most likely to be utilizing Prospect for the excess traffic and vehicle
parking.
.
_Staff (page 3 of 13) of the Nov 9 addendum is appropriately concerned by access issues , l~specially for
Fire/Safety vehicles on the West limb of Prospect. An all or nothing approach has been taken there
universally banning parking as proposed on the North side by the Applicant. .
While I am in total agreement with the need to ban parking on the extreme western terminus for that and
other reason, I do not see the need to ban what appears to me to be an easily accommodated space on
the North side but towards my lot if Fire vehicle access is not impeded on the Applicant proposed 22 foot
widening. This needs to be revisited and explored.
Backing out from this space to turn, especially with the turn around on the south side is no better or worse
than what will be going on on the rest of Prospect under any configuration, even with the proposed
turnarounds.
ROAD WIDTH AND STREET STANDARDS
Again on page 3 of 13 of the Staff Addendum, Staff supports the 22 foot curb to curb street width and
seven foot planter/five foot sidewalk format and absent the plantar, it's applicability to Prospect, and
"questions the need to provide an additional two feet of width (the 24 foot width suggested by the
Applicant) on the eastern potion of the street" They point out that this has worked well elsewhere.
They further request that an additional foot be added to bring the sidewalk to the 5 foot code, not 4 as
offered by the Applicant.
I would suspect that the majority of the standard 22 foot roadways probably had
1) More than one outlet and not a dead end
2) More off street parking availability than Prospect does or the capacity to generate it.
3) Had building and development designed around the standard and not vice versa.
, 4) Did not have the officially documented problems that exist on Prospect. Recall that Traffic and Safety
recognize the present situation as undesirable and further recognize that the problems exist on a roadbed
that is already well beyond the 22 foot minimum. At the time, the City Engineer Mr. Olsen agr1eed.
My measurements would indicate that the actual used roadway with its attendant problems is even
beyond the 24 feet the Applicant is addressing. And it's still a problem!
5) I doubt the Road Standards were blindly imposed when it didn't apply, as is the obvious case here.
My point is that any narrowing of the present roadway on any basis will not improve the situation as it now
stands, let alone with predictable increase in use with the advent of any development configuration.
Imposing two sided parking on the present roadway width has already been demonstrated to be not safe.
Hence the present picket line of NO PARKING signs lining this 24+ foot road already. Been there. Done
bb
~usan. yates... Fw:as promised. thanks.
Pag~41
that.
Staff, while WEill meaning and trying impose some standards here, needs to be considering appropriate
variances to the standards to fit the reality on the ground to avoid degrading the situation.
ROAD WIDTH
That being said, the Applicant offers a 24 foot roadway with parking limited to the South side and a four
foot sidewalk.
It wasn't until very recently that the neighbors realized that we read maps very poorly and that no one had
pointed out that in reality any contemplated "improvement" would be at the expense of the functionally
marginal width of Prospect. Sidewalks, curbs, planters, whatnot.
Similar to my arguments regarding the 22 foot street standard, I do not believe the sidewalk should be
taken out of the present width of Prospect.
I would suggest the sidewalk be on the lower end of the lots that front on Prospect (Lots 1-3) if necessary
to whatever width is agreeable to the City. Applicant has already forgone the Planter strip and moved the
tree plantings onto his lots along Prospect.
If it is then unfair to ask the Applicant to sustain a paving cost in excess of standards, then I say it is
perfectly acceptable to just straighten up the edges of the street and leave it a gravel road, it would be a
more acceptable improvement.
Please leave the present width of Prospect intact or it will become more unmanageable despite the well
meaning efforts.
THE TURNAROUNDS
My carportlparlking pad is used frequently as a turn around by cars. I have the bumper dings to prove it.
have absolutely no doubt that the driveway of Lot 1 on Prospect will be similarly used with similar results
unless it too beicomes gated closed and I wouldn't blame him. Prospect will start to look like -a vehicular
prison.
The Applicant has generously offered to build a turn around on the south side of Prospect directly opposite
my carport. I welcome and admire the idea, but would prefer the turn around be offset away from my
carport area as it would concentrate all the turning into my bumpers (usually by non residents and
frequently at ni!ght).
this furthermon:l has the advantage of moving the turn around eastward towards where all the cars are to
be parking to begin with, minimizing the traffic towards the bottle neck area.
Based on my experience with this street, it would be safe to assume that many people will still K turn out
of their parking areas but it will be an improvement.
My final commont here is that these turnarounds while very welcome, are an aid in turning but does not in
any way impact the parking situation per se, which is a different beast. Only additional parking or a
decrease in vehicles will impact that.
PROSPECT MOUNTAIN INTERFACE
This traffic safety issue has to do mostly with Lot 1 .
(,7
") Susan.vates - Fw: as promised. thanks.
'"
PageSj.-
Most everyone has driven up Mountain onto the paved stub of Prospect to the right to either access
Prospect or continue up Mountain.
A few years ago the corner lot on Mountain wasd developed and the previously generous downhill visibility
became significantly blocked by the structure.
The present uphill visibility as one exits Prospect is wide open. Everything from kids to skateboards to
vehicles of all types in a variable amount of control descends into oncoming traffic on this leg of Mountain.
Both upcoming and down going traffic tends to the middle of the road on the Prospect stub, just like I often
do. It's just the flaw of the design and occasionally the traveler.
\
Any structure built on Lot 1 with substantially to totally block the uphill view from Prospect as we exit. That
part not blocked by by the structure will almost assuredly by blocked by the graceful trees proposed to line
the corner of that lot.
This com bined up and down decreased visibility will make an already exciting intersection into a frank
hazard. Superimpose on this the increase in vehicular and human traffic from the developme~nt and a
disastrous recipe is the result.
I do not believe this has been addressed in any way in this proposal or by Staff. I strongly feel this issue
should be clarified before any approval of this application.
SUMMARY:
1) Prospect Street has significant and not easily corrected design defects as it now stands with a used
width of in excess of 25 feet.
2) Strict and ill considered blind application of Road Standards to Prospect need to be avoide!d here given
the reality on the ground. If anything, well designed variances from improving Prospect need to be
explored if the situation is not to be significantly degraded. This needs to be clarified, not passed over.
Do not narrow Prospect's roadway, it is barely adequate now.
3) Do not narrow Prospect with a sidewalk on the presently used ROW, the sidewalk would best be
moved onto the development Lots that front Prospect.
4) Two sided parking was disastrous in the past on the present width of Prospect.
5) A total ban on parking on the western end of parking is not necessary, but the location of at least one
space near the eastern most end on the north side looks possible if the road is widened and Fire ISafety
equipment are not impaired. The western terminus is a different matter.
6) Offset the presently proposed turn around more eastward where the vehicles are and away from the
carport entrance.
7) Clearly define and plan for the new significant traffic safety issues at the outlet of Prospect with
regards to Lot 1 and the expected increase in traffic there.
8) Increase parking capacity in the development.
Thank you for your patience, attention and consideration on these issues.
~f
-Sl(b~rt+c:..l \oj' ~eci.k-l1-.~ ~{w.<<-
~l ndl- OpposJ.. -fa de~h1t4f b<<r ha ~
Like our neighbors here, I hIJ:I DomE concerns about the development as proposed.
City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit
Exhibit # .;1. - 0
PA#~t-l5b
Datell(q/~ {Staff
Regarding the request for an Exception to Street Standards for Improvements to So
Mountain Avenue.
~cCOrding to Staffs October report (p.3), "The applicant requests an Exception t.o the Street
Standards to eliminate the parkrow and transition to a curbside sidewalk for a length of
approximately 85 feet... The Exception is proposed to '~reserve an existing retaining wall alop.g
e frontage of 769 South Mountain and the associated plantings in the front yar-E-"
[pictures] This is a picture of my children, two of about 15 kids in the neighborhood who walk to
school, run over to their friends houses, walk the dog, etc, down this road. .Jo 5+a.~.
r-r~&
A sidewalk by the curb will reduce their safety from the cars that speed up the street~ ~ ~ea
up in order to make it up the steep hill ~ and, in the winter months,. ~lide sideways down the hill
into the curb.
Is there a good reason to grant this exception and provide less safety for the children?
An Exception requires that both of the following circumstances are found to exist:
I it There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site -
I don't know about you, but I don't think juniper bushes to be a species we need to
abandon standards in order to preserve.
~, The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilitites
There is simply no way to argue that a curbside sidewalk on a steep hill with a history of
cars slliding sideways right into this curb, could possibly be considered 'equal to or
superior' for the safety of the children involved.
Staff supports the request for an exception, noting "if the sidewalk is extended to the south in the
future it would most likely be a curbside sidewalk."
This statement may be true, but it does not satisfY the criteria for an exception. The exception to
street standards for improvements to South Mountain Avenue must be denied.
/ n',c:1v r~
Standards must be met up to the point of the driveway at 769 S Mountain, which forms an
, _ _;,fu appropriate transition point to any curbside sidewalk that might be installed in the future.
e.. \jQ,~ '.J ;> Furthennore, Lot 7 must then be verified for minimum lot size. The parkrow and sidewalk are
l.t\ S public right of way and not to be counted in lot size. Once the appropriate parkrow is included,
:: ~ ~ _ "\ will Lot 7 still meet the minimum lot size?
.\ .. .1\-, ''/
~(lI~L' Take a look at what is going on at this comer. Wicture] As cars approach the comer, th6{come up
a steep inclinc~ and negotiate a left then quick right to continue on Mountain. From this location,
as the driver I'm focused on what car is coming downhill and about to clock me as it rounds the
01
bend. I am not focused on what might be coming out of Prospect - including the neighbor kids
on bikes.
Note the tire marks on the curb here and [picture] here. This is a sidewalk next to thc~ curb!
Drivers are tIying to make the jog at this intersectio~ but do so sloppily. Every day.
Excuse the blurriness of this next photo, but it was a spur of the moment picture that captures
what I am talking about. [picture] This is how drivers round this comer, going up and down at a
rapid speed to get up the hill.
Now add on to that any bad weather, and you can see why pedestrians need to be safi~ly away
from the curb.
Secondly, the applicant requests a Variance to locate the two required off-street plUking for
the Accessory Residential Unit on an adjacent parcel.
Staff notes this parking can't be located in the rear of Lot 2 because of the two pine trees that
dominate the rear of the yard and "this condition is by no action of the applicant". But the staff
also notes concern about "potential negative impacts to the adjacent uses." (Oct staff' report p.12)
In their October report (p.12), staff raised the idea that the ARU parking could be on Prospect,
but requested more information showing "the proposed parking on Lot I is the best option
available in comparison the to potential negative impacts to the adjacent uses."
/Meanwhile, Prospect St neighbors have clearly shown that Prospect Street does not afford any
\garking for this development. Staff did not address this issue further in the November report.
Note that Lot 1 barely meets the minimum lot size. Yet this proposal would reduce tbat through
effectively giving away some of the square footage upon creation of the lot.
Not an easement after creation. This proposal creates a lot that effectively never meets the
minimum lot size. There is not 10,000 sq ft that really belongs to Lot one!
Let' s see how this plays against the criteria for a variance:
Are there unique and unusual circumstances which apply to this site, which do not typically
apply elsewhere?
No. There are trees on this site, as there are trees on just about any site around town. We've
heard how the Cottons . developed Quail Haven without cutting down a single tree! Applicant has
gerrymandered the lot line between lots 1 & 2 to try to squeeze two lots with three houses here.
Applicant has willfully self-imposed an effort to shoehorn seven lots with eight house:s where
they just won't fit.
Will the proposal's benefits outweigh any negative impacts on the development of a4iacent uses?
11)
No! This proposal effectively sidesteps the legitimate procedures for re-zoning the minimum lot
si7.e.~ There is a significant difference between a parking easement created later to address a
problem that arises later, versus approving a subdivision that contains a lot that never had a
useable minimum lot size to begin with. There is a significant difference between a utility
easement, which serves the public good and which remains reasonably useable space for the
owner, versus a parking easement that effectively removes that space from the useable lot.
Have the circumstances or conditions not been willfully self-imposed?
It is only the .!lpplicant's desire to put TWO houses on Lot ~ and build a total of 6 new houses in
this development, that create the circumstances.
The applicanlt can maintain the house that exists on Lot 2, provide the appropriate parking on lot
2, and be done with it. No need for avmance.
Regarding th<~ application for a Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing residence
located at 759 South Mountain Avenue to an Accessory Residential Unit.
First, I am curious exactly what building codes the basement of this house does not meet. As one
Commissione:r astutely observed last week, it doesn't take much imagination to convert an
unuseable basement to useable. Has the applicant specified which codes are not met?
Second, I want to be clear that this neighborhood does not object to an ARU per se. We do,
however, obj<~ct to the number of homes served on a private drive. There serious issues with
adequate capacity for paved access, which preclude the ARU request as currently submitted.
~
Let's talk about paved access.
Ashland Landl Use Ordinance 18.88 permits a maximum of three properties to be served by a
private drive. A dedicated and improved public street, complying with City development
standards for local streets, is required for four or more lots.
Staff says a variance is not required because lots 2 & 3 have physical frontage on a public street
(Prospect), and that serves as their legal access. . +s
(,V) J- .~
* However, we have established that Prospect 8t is not capable of serving Lots 2 &3" These lots
are indeed served by the proposed private drive.
When queried about other examples of private drives serving more than three houses, staff was
able to cite only one example, a private drive on Orchard Lane.
[picture] We went to look. There are no steep grades on this drive.
~I
[Picture] Note the reasonable room provided to back up onto the drive.
[Picture] Note that the houses are relatively small and lots are level.
This is not a comparable case. No other examples of prior planning approvals of private drives
has been provided, therefore you must conclude that a variance is necessary.
This project proposes to serve twice the maximum number of units with a private drive at the
TTUlXimum allowable grade - 15% - and includes a sharp curve uphill (Oct staff report p.3)
Just imagine this private drive, given what you have heard about
· Prospect's turnaround problems;
· the sliding cars on Mountain Avenue; and
· parking problems on Wildwood.
This private road includes an 11' retaining wall! Without curbs, gutters, and sidewalks~~~~
kind of mess are we creating for water runoff, pedestrian safety, and traffic management,
especially as it relates to fire safety - in a Wildfire Lands area?
The neighbors of this project - both those who directly abut it, and those who live nearby - have
come here tonight to tell you that a private drive cannot adequately serve six houses on this
hillside.
The road serving these houses must be a public street with gutters, storm drains, and sidewalks,
as required by Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.88.
Are visitors going to park on Mountain and walk this narrow, steep asphalt strip?
Or are visitor cars and extra vehicles from Lots 4, 5, and 6 going to be parked on the private
drive? Both scenarios create a dangerous situation.
The applicant must dedicate the appropriate land to public use. This is, after all, a development.
The time to develop it properly is now.
... 1'd like to sum up what you've heard from the neighbors tonight.
You've heard neighbors accept that development will happen for this parcel.
You've heard about an example of a subdivision that doesn't sacrifice trees or create safety
issues - and that subdivision is located directly across the street from this property.
You've heard about the Prospect St problems, which thankfully have been successfully resolved
when the developer did listen to neighbor concerns.
7~
You've heard about the dangers that already exist on Mountain Avenue, its steep grade capped
with a dangerous off-set intersection. You've heard concerns expressed about how this street and
intersection will be affected by adding seven new households at this comer.
You've heard serious concerns raised about the proposed private drive handling traffic from six
households.
On top of all this from the neighbors, you have a staff report that attaches twenty-nine
stipulations to this project In spite of multiple redesigns by the applicant, they still are
submitting a seriously flawed application.
We respectfully request the applicant to withdraw this fatally flawed application, until such time
as the issues raised are satisfactorily addressed. If applicant does not do so, we ask the Planning
Commission to vote no on this application.
Here are the specific reasons to vote no: ~~il15 ~ ~rUl, C:CW\~+VY\-(jltf,. .
Exception to Street Standard for Improvements to South Mountain Avenue
Denied - Does not meet the criteria
Demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements due to a unique or unusual
aspect of the site? Juniper bushes and a retaining wall are not unique or unusual
Equal or superior transportation facilitites? Curbside sidewalk on a steep hill with a history of
cars sliding sideways right into this curb is not equal to or superior for the safety of the
children involved.
Exception to Street Standard for improvements to Prospect Street
Aceptable as defined in the November 9, 2004 staff report
Exception to Street Standard for five lots to use a private drive
Denied - Does not meet the criteria
Demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements due to a unique or unusual
aspect of the site? There is no difficulty in creating a public road, other than loss of land to
public right of way. Such dedication to public r.o. w. is part of development
Equal or superior transportation facilities? The private drive offers inferior facilities, with no
curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. Prospect Street cannot handle more traffic; a private drive in this
location cannot handle this much traffic. Applicant must provide a proper road.
ConditionallUse Permit to convert the existing residence at 759 South Mountain Ave to an
Accessory R,~idential Unit
Denied - insufficient capacity of city facilities (paved access)
73
Variance to allow two required off-street parking spaces for the accessory residl~ntial unit
to be located on an adjacent parcel
Denied - does not meet the criteria
Unique or unusual circumstances - trees exist on lots throughout town. applicant is
responsible for developing appropriate parking within the site.
Benefits outweigh negative impacts on adjacent uses? Creation of a lot with less useable
lot size than the minimum adversely impacts Lot One and the rest of the neighborhood.
This is effectively re-zoning Lot One to a smaller minimum lot size without undergoing
appropriate public process for such a change.
Circumstances are willfully self-imposed by applicant's desire to place two houses on Lot
Two. Difficulty can be easily eliminated by eliminating one unit.
In summation, I'd like to thank you for your commitment of time and energy that allows the kind
of neighborhood input we've experienced tonight.
1'1
Orchard Lane 1
Orchard Lane 2
Orchard Lane 3
7~
South Mountain 1
South Mountain 2
~\t:<,"" --. ~;,c_..,
. .~~~.. ,;.' .;.l-'
H'I 'Y\7 .,.,. ...~ '", '] " "
.',.;." ,.. c ,\. .
.. ''f''4'f.- ': '.",'Or'. - "a-~-' '
;:: )r ~.... i,~~';>;'
',\~~:';~
. ~:':; ;t,.~~;'-I
7~
-II'
_:#p
South Mountain 3
South Mountain 4
77
South Mountain 5
South Mountain 6
72
Here are the specific teasons to vote no:
Exception to Street Standard for Improvements to South Mountain Avenue
Denied - Does not meet the criteria
Demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements due to a unique or unusual
aspect of the site? Juniper bushes and a retaining wall are not unique or unusual
Equal or superior transportation facilitites? Curbside sidewalk on a steep hill with a history of
cars sliding sideways right into this curb is not equal to or superior for the safety of the
children involved.
Exception to Street Standard for improvements to Prospect Street k
Aceptable as defined in the November 9,2004 staffreport W]tt, sfr~~ ~d. O;.15>-v,
f(5rtJf41J hLi'CA..krI ~
Exception to Street Standard for fIVe lots to use a private drive ()' - -" r v
Denied - Does not meet the criteria
Demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements due to a unique or unusual
aspect of the site? There is no difficulty in creating a public road, other than loss of land to
public right of way. Such dedication to public r.o. w. is part of development.
Equal or superior transportation facilities? The private drive offers inferior facilities, with no
curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. Prospect Street cannot handle more traffic; a private drive in this
location cannot handle this much traffic. Applicant must provide a proper road.
ConditionallUse Permit to convert the existing residence at 759 South Mountain Ave to an
Accessory R4~idential Unit
Denied - insufficient capacity of city facilities (paved access)
Variance to 'lnOW two required off-street parking spaces for the accessory residential unit
to be located on an adjacent parcel
Denied - does not meet the criteria
. '
Unique or unusual circumstances - trees exist on lots throughout town, applicant is
responsible for developing appropriate parking within the site.
Benefits outweigh negative impacts on adjacent uses? Creation of a lot with less useable
lot sizc~ than the minimum adversely impacts Lot One and the rest of the neighborhood.
This is effectively re-zoning Lot One to a smaller minimum lot size without undergoing
appropriate public process for such a change.
Circunlstances are willfully self-imposed by applicant's desire to place two houses on Lot
Two. Difficulty can be easily eliminated by eliminating one unit.
11
/"
I'm Judy Little and I have been living at 807 South Mountain Ave.
1999.
Tonight I would like to voice my concerns about the impact of the pro
occupancy of 7 additional homes in Mountain Pines subdivision and their
impact on my family and neighborhood. I believe there are too many
proposed houses for what this area can safely support . The proposed private
drive and overflow parking on Mountain Ave. and Prospect Street are of
major concern to me. With each home having 2 on site parking places a
family will have to find alternative parking for additional vehicles such as
their friends, teens, boats, trailers etc. When overflow parking is full on
Prospect it will spill onto Mountain which will add traffic to an already
potentially dangerous situation.
Currently residents are facing many unsafe situations on Mountain Ave. The
steep grade of the road and the elevation are of major concern in wintler
when snow and ice prevail. I have seen and heard numerous cars spinll1ing
their tires, sliding out of control down the hill sideways and backward.s and
not able to make it up the hill . Many people myself included end up parking
on prospect until the road is passable. It is also difficult to navigate down
mountain when both sides of the street are filled with cars during winter or
summer. I witnessed my neighbors car being rear ended during a
construction project when the road was congested with parked trucks and
cars on both sides of the street. I have also seen a student driver go down
mountain fail to turn right and consequently cross prospect and go over the
sidewalk. Luckily the car avoided the house on the other side of the
sidewalk. Also a car parked on Mountain failed to use its emergency brake
and the car ended up down the street. There have also been many teen
parties at different houses. The street fills up quick as many are driving one
person per car. Unsuspecting mountain bicyclist fly off the trail speeding
down Mountain Ave. often two abreast. In the past there have been accidents
including the intersection with Prospect.
Pedestrian traffic is also a major concern as many college students and
hikers use Mountain Ave. to access the trail systems. Many people from
young to old walk their dogs in this area. There are many new young
children in the neighborhood. They walk to each others home and several
along with teens walk to school. Quite ofteR traffic exceeds the speed limit
coming down the hill which creates a vulnerable situation for these children.
As a driver it is difficult to watch for traffic and pedestrians at the crossing
and curve of Prospect and Mountain Ave. With the possibility of more: cars I
believe it is too much traffic being dumped into a dangerous intersection and
making it unsafe for all concerned. This also brings up my concerns for
City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit
. exhibit # -3 - ()
sm ~ # _ (6D
Date
~D
emergency vehicles. Our homes are located in the Wildfire interface zone. If
fire does occur and fire trucks cant get through we set up a dangerous
situation for our homes as well as surrounding forest.
I also feel there needs to be some thought given to the wildlife corridor and
the impact of a development on a rich array of birds and animals that
frequent this area.
I would like to see in my opinion, a more safe, sane proposal. One in
keeping with the aesthetics of the already present neighborhood. One with
less negative impact on the environment, wildlife, current residents and
those who use this as access for recreation
If we neglect these considerations and someone does get hurt, and or a fire
rages out of control whose responsibility is it? I would like to know we have
carefully considered all aspects of this situation and we ensure a safe
environment for all concerned.
I urge you to oppose the variances being asked for by the developer.
g/
City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit
Exhibit # ~ 0
PA # 2lX) - (~
Date~II.<<1.t4Staff 111\.4.
11/09/04
Dear Planning Commission:
I would like to express my concerns about the Mountain Pines Development as not only
an affected neighbor but as an involved citizen of Ashland. I am not, incidentally, here to
"confront" the developer. In fact, I have found him approachable and seemingly willing
to brainstorm solutions. Like most of my neighbors, I have long expected this parcel to be
developed, and accept a landowner's right to do so. However, I am here tonight to offer
comment on the proposed development as part of my civic duty on a project that will
affect a lovely comer of AsWand.
I believe that the problems that I and others will discuss tonight will either be created by,
or worsened by, the number of homes being cleverly packed into the 1.75 acres of the
Mountain Pines Development. These problems could be reduced, if not eliminated, by
building fewer homes in the development. My husband and I have raised a number of
issues with the neighbors, city staff and even the developer. Most of these are, or will
become, part of the public record. Our main concerns include:
· Traffic and pedestrian safety on Prospect and Mountain Streets with more
vehicles and crowding;
· Inadequate provision for parking within and around the development;
· Access of emergency vehicles to reach homes or fight fires given the parking
problems;
· Tree protection, both on the development and on contiguous properties, including
our own.
Since I have little time and there are others who have important contributions to make, I
focus tonight only on the parking issue related to the Mountain Pines Development:
The development will create additional traffic and parking demands on existing streets
by not adequately providing parkingfor the seven new residences, including the
proposed accessory unit. This inadequacy threatens fire, traffIC and pedestrian safety
for both the new homes and all existing homes in the area.
Consider the current proposal
· Two off-street parking spaces will be created on each lot. (A variance is requested
to allow two parking spaces for Lot 2's accessory unit to be placed on Lot 1);
· The developer is asking for an exception to street standards for a private drive off
of Mountain Street to access Lots 2-6. Whereas the standard for private drives is
to serve a maximum of three lots, this one would serve five lots and six
residences.
· On-street parking will be prohibited on the private (unregulated) drive.
(Parenthetically, it is my understanding that Staffs expectation is that Prospect
Street will provide overflow parking options for the lots that front onto it [Lots 1-
<!t?..
3 with four residences]. Mountain Street will also provide parking options for
th.ese as well as for Lots 4-7).
The Prospect Street Experience: We don't have to look far for some on-the-ground
experience of a street with inadequate parking: Prospect Street.
. Cars are typically parked the entire length of the street where parking is
permitted. There is no room for more cars without squeezing out a vehicle
associated with one of the current Prospect Street residences. Do not look
to Prospect Street to solve the overflow parking problems of this
development.
. In spite of posted "No Parking" signs and a narrow street, vehicles still
block the passage for both residents' and emergency vehicles. While one
home on the street was being renovated recently, some of the many
contractors blocked vehicular passage in spite of clear instructions from
the client to keep the street clear. The fact is that, in our neck ofthe
woods, "No Parking" signs are often ignored.
. Based on my experience of living on a crowded street, my principal
concern is that not only will more parking violations occur on Prospect
Street as a result of the development, but that such violations will occur on
the development's proposed private drive, as well.
Let me be clear: I am not merely talking about the "convenience" of parking close to
one's residence, although this is an issue as well. Rather I am deeply concerned that on
both Prospect and Mountain Streets, if and when there is a vehicle parked illegally,
trafflc Ulld pedestrian safety will be threatened, access to residences will not be
assured, andfire safety to the entire area will be compromised.
Let's not repeat a mistake of the past
. Most of Prospect Street's traffic and parking problems stem from a
lack of parking regulations being in place when the existing homes
were built. Until recently, Prospect's three residences have
satisfactorily coordinated parking. It took only one change to upset an
already tenuous situation: After one home recently converted to a
rental, parking on Prospect, which previously totaled 3-4 vehicles, has
now reached its maximum, as 9-11 cars frequently span its entire
length. Prospect has become a parking and traffic mess about which
you have already heard a great deal. While I don't expect the
developer to solve all these problems, I hope that the past mistake of
inadequate planning for parking that created this mess will not be
repeated with this larger development.
~3
~
I 1 '1/9/2004
My time as a homeowner in Ashland spans three different decades, and during that time I have had a
strong and abiding interest in improving the livability of the City of Ashland and its "quality of life" for
all residents, however difficult it may be to define exactly what "quality of life" means.
Due to that strong interest, I believe it is not only my right, but my responsibility and civic duty to give
input into actions, such as the present planning action, where citizen input is, I hope" both desired and
appreciated.
In that vein, I am distressed with the use of the word "confront" in the Ashland Daily Tidings story of
November 8, 2004. Certainly my intention, and I believe that of all the neighbors to whom I have
spoken on this matter, has always been to provide useful and productive input into a planning action
that affects its neighbors intimately.
Similarly, I find the applicant's letter of October 29,2004 to the Planning Commission quite offensive
in characterizing his "opponents'" "accusations" as "spiteful and untrue." Goodness, I certainly hope
he wasn't referencing me in those statements, as that would be blatantly untrue. I also find it
disturbing that the applicant has never made any attempt to contact me or my wife r1egarding our input
into his proposed project despite sharing approximately 150 feet of boundary with the applicant's
property and being significantly affected by: Any impact on the parking situation on Prospect Street;
Any increase in the fire danger engendered by new homes; And any increased risk to my child and
his playmates due to additional traffic on Prospect and Mountain Streets. Although I recognize the
applicant is under no obligation to contact us, it is the type of action that could have made the entire
planning process smoother and more expeditious.
. All of my concerns enumerated in the previous paragraph (parking difficulties along Prospect,
increased fire danger, and especially safety issues regarding children) could, in my view, be
significantly ameliorated by reducing the number of units in the proposed project to a number that
would result in a development fitting into the existing neighborhood more harmoniously and also
preserving the neighborhood ambiance. A more thoughtful, less intrusive project is not an
impossibility. I believe it is a necessity. One need only glance across South Mountain at Quail Haven
to get an idea of what a development more consistent with the incredible beauty of the surrounding
environment and the neighbors living there might look like.
I hope my comments are part of the productive, public process that might lead to such an outcome.
Sincerely,
Milan P. (Kip) Sigetich
1036 Prospect Street
NOV 92004
9S-
Public Comments
~b
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
,.
"philip phillips" <Psquared444@msn.com>
"Maria Harris" <harrism@ashland.or.us>
10/11/20045:18:29 PM
Prospect and Mountain Pines Development Proposal
Maria -
I am not sure as of this writing whether I will be able to attend the PC meeting for tomorrow and wish to
express my three concerns with the possible widening/paving of Prospect as a consideration ;in the
evolution of the Mountain Pines development proposal.
If at all possible, Prospect should be widened to better accommodate the traffic and parking inadequacies
present on Prospect as it now stands. Your site visit again gave everyone in your group a taste of the our
daily experience here. Mr. Cochran has helpfully redesigned the drive access of two of the three lots that
front on Prospect and has thus avoided exponentially worsening the present clumsy situation. It is my
understanding that a present consideration is to alter the presented design by recommending that the
present proposal (leaving Prospect at 18 feet beginning from where it narrows from 22 feet after leaving
S. Mountain) be amended to widening that same length of Prospect to 22 feet and paving to tlhat width
until the necessary narrowing of the paving at the west end of the road.
I would like to speak strongly in support of the proposal to widen to 22 feet as suggested. The additional
width will greatly aid all indigenous and visiting traffic in making the necessary turn around required to
safely exit Prospect, and minimize the risk of contacting ambulating beings and/or the parked cars that
line the inhabited side of the street. This would be a monumental improvement of the present situation
and would greatly mitigate the impact of future traffic increases on this narrow road as Mountain Pines
gets populated with additional vehicles, people, children and pets.
Secondly, the proposal as it now stands includes a planting strip which I also strongly suppor1t as it will
provide both a feeling of grace to the evolving neighborhood as well as an almost mandatory (in my view)
visual screen between my home (which is directly across the street and below the grade of the footprint of
Lot#2 ) and the development.
On the personal level, the southern (Prospect side) aspect of my home is approximately 50% glass. While
I could install lots of curtains, they would block the sunlight and year round visibility from my home and
greatly diminish its relationship to its site and the internal ambience. A planter strip is the mom natural
and visually interesting way to confront the line of sight issues of altered privacy presented by the new
development.
On a broader scale, Prospect as it now stands has its charms as the southern side is an open hill side
meadow and wooded lot. The privacy and openness will, of necessity, be greatly altered by all the
proposed new housing. A planter strip would be a terrific way to soften and evolve the transformation in a
visually pleasing manner. It would become a welcome and welcoming asset to the neighborhood and
make it more attractive to potential buyers who are looking for a new place to live.
Net net, the neighborhood would change but in more graceftJI visual manner than without the inclusion of
the planter strip and its trees. The strip would help compensate for the proposed loss of the trees and
plants in the development proper.
I spoke with Mr. Cochran concerning the planter and the road width on the site visit today but wanted to be
clear that both the widening of Prospect and the presence of the planter strip were desirable fmm my
property's point of view.
I would not favor the sacrifice of the plantar strip to widen the road without some compensatory plan to
retain the effect of the plantar strip along the length of Prospect.
The third issue I had was discussed the the Tree Commision hearing on the project and had to do with
<67
protecting the two substantial oaks on the City ROW on my side of Prospect which will be directly
impacted by the proposed paving of the road (regardless of width).
Again, I would like to thank you and the planning staff for you consideration and the effort you are putting
into this challElnging neighborhood transformation.
Phil Phillips and Family
1063 Prospect:
~~
To: Ashland Planning Commission
lOCT 1 2 2004
Re: Proposed Mountain Pines Subdivision
Dare:~ober12,2004
We Judy and John Little are requesting that the Ashland Planning Commission Dlot grant
the variances for the proposed Mountain Pines Subdivision that the developer is asking
for. With the developers request to avoid widening Prospect Avenue and adjoining
sidewalks not only will it be unsafe for traffic, bicyclist soaring off Mountain Ave. trails
but for pedestrians walking dogs and many children in this neighborhood who play and
walk to school each day. The impact of overcrowded conditions such as what this
developer is proposing creates more houses less trees and at the same time an unsafe fire
hazard area in this designated wild fire lands of Ashland.
In the past we have seen developers finish their projects and move on leaving the:
residents to solve the problems they created. Let's solve them now. We ask the planning
commission to consider this request.
Judy and John Little
807 South Mountain Avenue
~"-'~~
"180 s. ~
<?r
Maria Harris - Pros ect Street and Mountain Pines Develo ment
Pa
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"philip phillips" <Psquared444@msn.com>
"Maria Harris" <harrism@ashland.or.us>
10/14/20042:21 :36 PM
Prospect Street and Mountain Pines Development
Maria -
This is just a heads up memo to let you know some of the issues we are encountering concerning the
configuration of Prospect Street as it evolves with the Mountain Pines development proposal.
My last email (10/11/04) to you and the PC discussed street width, parking, planters etc as listed in Mr.
Cochran's document. Street widths of 18 and 22 feet were used. In speaking with Mr. Cochran (et al)
after the meeting, proposals for "widening" the street to 25 or 28 feet were discussed as "what ifs" as well
as some (good) ideas on turnarounds. Parking on both sides of the street was proposed with the widening
to 25 or 28 feet of paving in an effort to respond to your issues.
Yesterday I took a tape measure out and measured from the front of my planter (where I'm told any paving
would start) and measured out 28 feet. I ended up about one foot to the north of the utility pole directly
opposite my home. It is my new understanding (I am open to any correction or input here) that the utility
pole is more or less the boundary of the proposed development.
That being trw9 or close to it, the implication is that any "widening" presently proposed by the developer is
indeed just paving the present roadway without any "additional" width. As a matter of fact, anything less
than 25 to 28 feet is actually narrowing the PRESENT roadway. The area of Prospect indicated on the
proposal as being narrowed to 18 feet is actually caused by a dirt berm sitting on Prospect ROW that was
graded in when the City last re-graveled Prospect. It's moveable, I would imagine.
The point here is not to argue those features but to try to establish how the width of Prospect is actually
measured and indeed, where the edges of Prospect actually are on paper in the Proposal vs. what is
actually on the ground. One of the problems are the road dimensions on which I and others can rely on to
try to visualize the actual on the ground results of the Prospect aspect of the proposal; I suspect the
present one as stated is misleading. My email of 10/11 is therefore not at all what I am comfortable with (
widen to 22 feet) as those proposed street dimensions are much LESS than the present dimensions that
everybody agrees are sub optimal.
What I need from you is some guidance in how wide Prospect actually is, how that is determined and I'll
go from there. I was under the impression that any refinements such as planter strips etc were to be on
unused City ROW, and not, as it now appears, to actually cannibalize an already borderline but useable
roadway. I may have been critically wrong in that position. If I can confirm this understanding, then my
approach to the solutions proposed will be much different.
Thanks
Phil
CJo
aria Harris - PA 2004-150
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Andy Stallman" <astallman@ashlandhome.net>
<harrism@ashland.or.us>
10/16/20049:09:54 AM
PA 2004-150
Hi Maria,
On page 5 of your 10/12 staff report, regarding the exception to street standards to exceed the maximum
number of lots served by a private drive: I wanted to ask if you would be willing to identify for me, which
locations were granted this variance, as well as any that received previous planning approvals without a
variance because of this precedent?
Please note, it is not only the neighbors on Prospect who are raising concern over the ability of Prospect to
handle the additional traffic. Jeanne & I have serious concerns about the ability of the private drive to
safely handle the parking from visitors, delivery trucks, work vehicles etc. If Prospect is not going to be
improved to the point of accomodating these lots, the dedicated public street really needs to be required.
We do not ever plan on moving, so for us, this is a very final legacy the developers will be leaving us with.
We appreciate your efforts in seeing that these issues are dealt with safely and in compliance,.
We would very much like to see a lot dropped and a parking area added to alleviate this problem. I've
stated it before, and do so again, the greediness shown by the developers to squeeze this many lots into
this proposal compromises the very things 18.104.050 are meant to protect. They proved their willingness
by stating right from the opening tuesday night "with a stroke of a pen ... we could cut down every tree on
these lots" to go to whatever means necessary to satisfy this greed.
Thanks,
Andy Stallman
Exception to the Street Standards - to Exceed the Maximum Number of Home-sites Served by a Private
Drive
Ashland's Land Use Ordinance permits a maximum of three properties to be served by a private drive. A
dedicated and improved public street, complying with City development standards for local streets, is
required for four or more lots. The project includes the construction of a private drive to provide access to
five properties. Private drives serving more than three lots have been processed under Chapller 18.100 as
a Variance in the past.
Based on past planning approvals, Staff believes a Variance is not required with the subject application.
In previous planning approvals, when a lot has physical frontage on a public street, such as the case with
Lots 2 and 3, the lots have not been counted in the private drive maximum. Lots with public street
frontage and private drive access are considered to have legal access on a public street and functional
access on the private drive. In Staffs opinion, the intent of the private drive requirement is to lestablish a
threshold for when a full-public street improvement with on-street parking, planting strips and sidewalks is
required. In the case of Lots 2 and 3, the parcels will have frontage on a public street (Prospect), which
will be improved. The private drive will function like an alley providing rear vehicular access to the
property.
Staff believes it is important to note that the applicant originally designed the subdivision so that Lots 2
and 3 derived access from Prospect, and were not served by the private drive. However, neighboring
property owners from Prospect Street raised concerns about the capacity of Prospect to accommodate
91
P
,,"
Maria Harris- PA 2004-1:50
additional traffic and driveway movements given the less than standard City street improvement. As a
result, the appllicant redesigned the subdivision so that the majority of the new vehicle trips would be
accommodated on the private drive.
re2
Pa
Dear Ashland Planning Commission
Attn: Maria
October 23, 2004
Regarding Planning Action 2004~ 105, Tax Lots 39 IE 16 AD 3400, 3500 &: 3600
I am the owner of the house at 1043 Prospect Street, Ashland. This house sits at the end of Prospect
on the downhill side of the street.
I attended the public hearing in October but cannot attend November's meeting where the above action
will be continued. I would like to state my position as a matter of record for the public hearing on
November 9, 2004.
There are some very important physical realities of my lot that do not appear on paper and which I
would like to remark on. My house sits on it's property line. Between my house and the existing street
is 7 feet of gully, which is city right~of~way. As a result, it is not feasible to pave and gutter the street for
the proposed project any closer than 7 feet from the property line, i.e. my house. A street closer than 7
feet would require a retaining wall. A retaining wall would most likely kill the large oak tree located
next to the house. I am opposed to any removal or harm to this tree. In order to prevent drainage
on to my property and possible erosion, it is absolutely necessary that the street in
front of my house be paved and guttered. Seven feet of city right-of-way CANNOT
be used for this street due to the geographic nature of that right-of-way. Therefore,
it is necessary that some portion of the developer's land be used for street.
Because of additional residences proposed above Prospect Street, I strongly believe there will be
additional demand placed on Prospect Street for on~street parking. The accessory unit and one house
accessed from Prospect will most certainly increase on~street parking demand, and I believe the other
two residences will also increase demand due to their limited parking on the access road. If the
subdivision is to be approved, additional on-street parking MUST also be created.
On~street parking is already limited and in high demand on Prospect. Two of the residences, mine
included, rely on on-street parking for primary parking.
A 22 foot wide street allows for parking on one side. I strongly believe that the narrow end of
Prospect Street (Le. that in front of my house) needs to be at least 22 feet wide in
order to allow for safe passage and the creation of additional on-stre(;~t parking in
front of my house. I believe this should be a condition for approval of the subdivision. As to trees and
the feasibility of this plan, the nearest pine tree (on the developer's property) is 36 feet from my house.
Subtracting the 7 feet that cannot be used for street, this allows for 29 feet of possible street before
impacting the trunk of the tree. I am no expert on trees, so do not know required drip~lines, but I
believe that the continued existence of this one small pine can be balanced with the need for a 22 foot
wide street. I also recommend some form of turnaround somewhere at the end of the street (a drive~in,
back~out would serve this purpose).
To summarize, I suggest that the width of Prospect Street be 22 feet for its entire length, and that
additional on~street parking should be a condition for approval of this project.
~na
J~ 0' C)
93
,~Q
~....~.~",.
C.f":'
Yly. J ~ \~~\
'U\,\ Y
0<
((,e a.re s t-
t> i Y1 e..-
l
~~C9
+-
~
1ft
C<J)
WA
1
A
(
'-
!
~
o
~
~
\Y
~
\N
rJ-
\~
VJ
<V
()
c
w.qJ
lol.f3 Prws pzc T Si.
:JltL I c S luE t-frl A (rEi
Q...
'-
"~t ~
. -1
j j
] my
~ <: J > -tfous F=
v') (JJ 0 u
I l.
1 tV
0-
. ~
<;
-
5'
@
q
Maria Harris - Comments on Mountian Pines Subdivision
Pa e
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Rebecca Reid <reid@opendoor.com>
<harrism@ashland.or.us>
10/28/2004 12:28:54 PM
Comments on Mountian Pines Subdivision
-
Dear Ms. Harris:
We have a number of significant concerns regarding topics that were
discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 2004, or that
may be under consideration at this time relative to the Mountain Pines
development at So. Mountain Ave. and Prospect St.
1. We are absolutely, unequivocally opposed to any move by the city to
vacate the last, western portion of Prospect St. It is only through City
laws and enforcement that we have any confidence that access to our property
by our personal vehicles and emergency vehicles will be protected. We did
not assess the option to vacate as mentioned at the planning meeting to be a
serious one, but we want to go on record as very strongly opposing any such
action.
2. We are waiting for more information on the utility plan. We expect that
any plan would consider impacts on all trees that will remain after
development, even those on adjoining properties. In addition, the large
black oak on the eastern boundary of our property, as we heard at the Tree
Commission hearing, would likely be killed by utility trenching in the
City's right-of-way. Naturally, we do not endorse any policy that would
endanger our that oak. The larger question arises as to why the developer
cannot service the house to our southeast (800 Beach, we believe) from
Mountain Street or wherever the developmentDs utilities are coming in. We do
not want the oak to be sacrificed for the convenience of the development.
3. We are concerned about and opposed to any configuration of Prospect St.
that would in any way narrow the western end. The street there is
approximately 12 feet wide (considering the graveled portion)--not
sufficient for either the Fire Department or us, as homeoWners, to feel
comfortable that emergency vehicles can easily access our house and 1043
Prospect. There are approximately 3 1/2 feet on the north side of that
section of Prospect between the gravel edge and the encroachments onto
Prospect that might be available for widening. We support using at least
that area for widening the street. We do not want our safety and access to
be compromised by a plan that would lessen passage through that narrow
section of Prospect.
4. Similarly, we are strongly opposed to creating any possibility of parking
on the south side of Prospect St. in the last (western) section. Our
opposition stems first from our concern for the viability of trees upslope
of the street remaining after development. Secondly, we are extremely
concerned that parking in that area will only increase congestion at the
very narrow end of Prospect and further compromise the limited vehicular
access to our house and 1043 Prospect.
5. We support the paving of the entire length of Prospect St. and prefer a
sidewalk in place along the south side of Prospect that extends to the
boundary of our property. We have a young son with many playmates, so the
sidewalk would be well used. In addition, we walk to and from work daily.
Sidewalks improve and enhance safety for pedestrians, and we strongly
95
't Maria Harris-Comments on Mountian Pines Subdivision
support one to the boundary of our property.
6. We also strongly support a turnaround situated on the south side of
Prospect St., approximately across from the carport on the property at 1063.
Such a turnaround would lessen the danger from and to the many vehicles that
venture westbound on Prospect without realizing it is a dead end. At the
present time, such vehicles have to either back dangerously into the
Phillips' property at 1063 or back all the way out to South Mountain. Both
alternatives are unsafe and put property unnecessarily at risk.
Thank you for you work on behalf of the citizens of Ashland. Please feel
free to contact us regarding any of the aforementioned issues or any other
topic that you think may be of interest to us.
Kip Sigetich
Rebecca Reid
Owners, 1036 Prospect Street
cc:
<Psquared444@msn.com>, <menken@internetcds.com>
9te,
Maria Harris - Comment on Pros ect Street Pro osals
P
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Rebecca Reid" <reid@sou.edu>
<harrism@ashland.or.us>
10/29/20044:53:46 PM
Comment on Prospect Street Proposals
October 29,2004
Dear Ms. Harris,
We just finished speaking with Andy Cochrane about his current proposal
to improve Prospect Street as part of the Mountain Pines Development.
Working with the owner of 1043, he is proposing to pave the western end
of Prospect St. to a width of 22 feet. The street would include a
sidewalk on the south side of Prospect onto which vehicles could drive.
With the street paved to a width of 22 feet, parking spaces along the
1043 residence would be created under this proposal.
We are very concerned about creating new parking spaces along the north
side of Prospect, in front of the 1043 residence. If parking is
permitted all the way to our (eastern) property line on the north side
of Prospect, it is very unlikely that emergency vehicles would be able
to negotiate the left-hand turn into our property. It seems that the
only way to preserve access to our property would be to prohibit parking
along the north side of Prospect (from our property boundary eastward)
for some distance such that an emergency fire vehicle could make that
turn. Depending on the length of fire and emergency vehicles, it appears
necessary to continue to prohibit parking along the north side of
Prospect for 35 to 40 feet or more from the western end of Prospect
eastward (from the western end of Prospect Street toward South Mountain
St.). We expect that expert opinion may be needed on this issue, and
would like the Fire Department's input.
If this safety issue is resolved to our and the Fire Department's
satisfaction, we would then support the widening proposal with parking
prohibited beyond the designated point (and only as long as the paving
would not impact the health of the stand of trees on the northwest
corner of the Mountain Pines development). We hope this makes sense to
you and request that provision of emergency access to our property be
given a very high priority.
As always, thank you for your diligent work, and please feel free to
contact us if you have any questions.
Kip Sigetich
Rebecca Reid
Owners, 1036 Prospect
cc:
<mencken@internetcds.com>, <Psquared444@msn.com>
?J
FROM UTHIAREALTY,
PHONE NO. ..: .5414882297
Nov. 1217 2123134 11a:SSPM.P2
Dear Ashland Planning Commission
Acm: Maria
NOV 8 2004
November 7, 2004
Regarding Plannt ng Action 2004,1.05, Tax Lots 39 iE 16 AD 3400, 3500 &:: 3600
I am the owner of the house at 1043 Prospect Street, Ashland. This house sits at the end of Prospect
on the downhill side of the street.
I attended the public hea.ring in October but cannot attend November's meeting where the above action
will be continuecl I would like to state my position as a matter of record for the public hearing on
November 9, 2004.
In addition to m.y letter dated October 23rd, I would like to submit an additional letter based on the
.latest staff report on the development. In my previous letter I stated the serious need for additional on-
street parking based on the demand for such parking created by the development.
The staff report states that the west end of Prospect will be 22 foot wide with additional parki np; only if
three conditions :are met: 1) a vehicle turna.round easement is obtained from 10.36 Prospect; 2) it is
demonstrated that it is possible for a vehicle parked on the North side of the west en.d to turn around.;
and 3) the Fire Department determines that a.n emergency vehicle can negotiate a turnaround.
As to point ONE, it is not the responsibility of the resident at 1036 Prospect to pro~".ide turnaround and
it is also not likely that easelIlent will be obtained. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide
the turnaround. I believe that turnar.ound should be located at the end of Prospect Street, not where it
is cUlTendy planmxl a.s midwayan Prospect. The end of the development is also the end of Prospect and
the turnaround should also be located at the end of street:, otherwise turnaround continues to be a
problem. I believe: there to be room for a hall1lIlerhead turnaround at the corner of the clcvdoper's lot.
That location would be opposite my house at 1043 Prospect.
As to point TWO, it is possible: for a vehicle parked to back into any turnaround, either as currendy
planned, or in the space I am suggesting.
As to point THREE, it is cunendy not possible for an emergency vehicle to rornaround at the end of
Prospect:, vvith or without parking on the North side, so this condition is irrelevant: to the width of the
street or to on"'street parking at the west end of the street. Placing the turnaround where I am
sUAAesting would enable an eme~ency vehicle to turnaround a.t the end of the street thereby solving the
CURR ENT probkm as well as the future problem.
Let me reitel'ate the extreme need for additional on'street parking which I believe should be. a. condition
for the applicant's approval The improvement of Prospect Street MUST include additional on-street
parking, and if this can not be accomplished by parking on both sides, then it can. only be accolIlplished
by adding parking to the west cnd of Prospect. If Prospect is to remain a public street even at its ~cst
e:nd, then the turn:lround needs to be located at Prospect's end, nor in it's middle.
~~OU'_~
Jil:.gcl .
1~
From:
To:
Date:
"Kip Sigetich" <sigetich@sou.edu>
<maria@ashland.or.us>
11/4/200411 :00:06 AM
on November 1, Maria Harris wrote:
"Kip and Rebecca, I have received your message and have entered it into
the record. I know you have also forwarded your email to Margueritte
Hickman, and I will be working with her on this issue.
If the fire access works and there doesn't appear to be an impact to the
trees, how would you feel about the on-street parking at the east end?
It appears to me that the only way a parked vehicle could turnaround to
get back out of Prospect would require turning around in your driveway."
Maria,
Rebecca put a call into you this morning, as she was unclear as to
whether you were asking us about parking on both sides of the eastern
portion of our block of Prospect or any parking at all. Since we have
not yet heard back from you yet, I will try to answer your question for
us as best I can.
If the fire access works and there doesn't appear to be an impact to the
trees, while we share your concerns, we would not oppose parking on one
side of the western porion of Prospect. Obviously, the issue is how do
people get out once they have parked there. Although we are somewhat
uncertain, the current methods of turning around in the street do not
directly impact us and seem to be acceptable to us as owners at the end.
Of course, there are still a minority of people who head down to our
end, and that presents a problem for egress. It is our hope that a
turnaround built by the developer would significantly improve that
problem. To restate succinctly, while we share your concerns, we
think/hope it is possible to avoid major impacts on our property with
parking one one side of the eastern end of Prospect and a (new)
turnaround (and perhaps improved signage.) Of course, we are not expert
in traffic safety, so we are unsure if that would be a safe parking
alternative for the people parking there as well as pedestrians and
bicyclists.
If you are asking about parking on both sides of the street, we would
not be in favor of that option, as we feel that it would simply funnel
people trying to leave (or enter) down to our congested end and
exacerbate existing problems.
I hope this answers your question. Please feel free to contact us if it
does not.
Kip Sigetich
Rebecca Reid
1036 Prospect Street
11
(
~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND STREET TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
Applicant: _ R & C Investments
Date: November 4. 2004
Address:
759 & 769 South Mountain Ave. Commercial:
Residential: X
Proposed Action:
PLANNIN<:i ACTION 2004-105 is a request for a seven lot Subdivision, Preliminary Plat
approval, Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Residential Unit, and an exception to
City of Ashlland Street Standards for approximately 1.75 acres of land located at the
southwest Gomer of the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street.
The application includes a Tree Removal Permit, as well as a Variance to Off-Street
Parking requirements to allow two (2) required off-street parking spaces for the
Accessory Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent parcel. Comprehensive Plan
Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 16
AD; Tax Lots: 3400,3500 and 3600.
APPLICANT: R & C Investments
Recommendation:
1 ). Locate tree protection fencing at drip lines where possible.
2). Have tree staking assessed by a certified arborist after one year for
appropriateness of removal.
3). To protect Oaks on North side of Prospect - further explore porous paving and use
of KeystonE~ or versa lock retaining wall. Loftus asked for any objections. No objections.
f
. I
Commission Representativ~; --A-.::~~~-=...--<;k'V:) C'"'"
Follow-up:
Date: II. ~.Q--t
Community Development
20 E. Main Streel!
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.oLlJs
Tel: 541/488-5305
Fax: 541~488-6006
TTY: 800/735-2900
rA'
lOb
October 29, 2004
'Rt=r~'\lI=D
OCT 2 9 Z004
Ashland Planning Commission
c/o Ashland Planning Director
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Mountain Pines Subdivision, PA-2004-105
Dear Commissioners:
During the public hearing of October 12,2004, the Planning Commission heard
testimony from nearby property owners, who raised several issues that I will respond to
here. Please make this letter a part of the record in the above captioned matter. This letter
will also clarify our intention to develop this property in a harmonious way that adldresses
the physical features and development constraints which exist on this site.
Background: Over the previous two year period, much effort and expense was put into
the design of this project in order to address not only the property's physical constraints,
including its numerous trees and grades, but also constraints such as the property's
configuration, emergency access, drainage, solar access, the supply of infrastructure, and
neighborhood concerns. During this period, the site plan was revised numerous times.
Moreover, additional property was purchased which permitted us to address the various
concerns we heard. With each change, other issues such as parking, access, or additional
tree loss becomes even more difficult to resolve unless some compromise and rational
understanding occurs.
It is our contention, the proposed,plan, with some minor adjustments as suggested by
staff and the Planning Commission will meet the applicable approval criteria and the
City's sensitive site development standards.
Opponent Testimony: Some opponents have made accusations which go to our
intentions and character. While these were spiteful and untrue, most also have no
relevance to the project or the relevant substantive approval criteria. Applicants have
done nothing illegal and for the last two years have gone well beyond normal planning
practices to put forward a plan that is sensitive to the site and considerate of its neighbors.
We address these matters separately below:
PACIFIC NORTHWEST BUILDING & DESIGN L.L.C.
1970 ASHLAND STREET #2
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
541-482-1696
/0/
Property Line Dispute: One of the letters received by the Commission discussed a
property line dispute between applicants and the neighbors who live at 789 South
Mountain Avenue. Yes, there was a dispute, but by no means was it ever intended to be
adversarial. We are, frankly, frustrated and confused by these accusations.
By way of background, there were two property/fence line discrepancies with this
neighboring property related to rear and side boundaries. This neighbor had a just legal
argument for the rear property line dispute and applicants had a just legal argument for
the side property line dispute - two classic adverse possession cases between the same
properties. Unlike the rear property dispute where there were only plants and trees, the
side proP(~rty line was a more serious matter as it traversed a portion of applicants' garage
at 769 South Mountain A venue. In an attempt to amicably resolve the issue, an equal
exchange of land was offered by applicants, the neighbor refused. Other suggestions were
put forth, the applicants could not agree to these. However, applicants did offer to
resolve the property line disputes by granting the rear yard and side yard areas (except for
the area near the garage). Applicant's argument was that this portion of the boundary
dispute needed to be resolved and that a "suit to claim" the property would be applied for
if it wasn"t. Fortunately, it was resolved without any claim and is now evidenced on the
plans in the property line "jog" between 769 and 789 South Mountain Avenue. The result
was a net gain of property for these neighbors. Applicants regret any ill feelings and
believe they were quite reasonable in their dealings with this property owner.
Prospect Street: Applicants are willing to help resolve the concerns regarding traffic and
parking expressed during the public hearing. The evidence before the Planning
Commissllon shows that this project was completely redesigned to remove virtually all
vehicular access from Prospect Street by accommodating access by way of the proposed
private driveway. The only issues that remain are: 1) guest parking on Prospect, and 2)
the provision of a suitable turnaround. Moreover, the proposed plan produces less site
disturbance than other designs examined by the applicants and enhances the appearance
along Prospect Street by minimizing garages and additional driveway cuts which face this
street.
During the public hearing, it became clear that applicants should attempt to provide
additional off-street parking along Prospect and provide a means for vehicles to turn
around. Applicants are willing to address these issues and have supplied a plan that seeks
to do so. In addition to dealing with issues of parking and vehicle turnaround, the plan
for Prospect Street also seeks to protect trees along that public right-of-way.
Tree Pre!;ervation: Applicants have attempted to preserve as many trees as reasonably
possible while meeting ordinance requirements and providing reasonably sized building
PACIFIC NORTHWEST BUILDING & DESIGN L.L.C.
1970 ASHLAND STREET #2
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
541-482-1656
/O~
, ~
envelopes. The mitigating efforts have and will be quite expensive, but clearly
demonstrate the applicants desire to observe community goals and sensitive site planning.
First, the applicants are enthusiastic about the root ventilation system to be placed
beneath the private drive between lots 2 and 6. We believe this type of mitigation has
never been undertaken in Ashland, although it is a common practice elsewhere.
Additionally, applicants are filling and raising the driveway grade to help lessen the
disturbance within root zones caused by utility trenching. In addition, the applicants are
proposing to "bore" in areas where deemed appropriate as evidenced by the Tree
Preservation Plan. We believe these efforts will serve as a model for future proje()ts in
Ashland.
Second, the applicants have adjusted the building envelopes (as suggested by staff) and
have proposed a post and pier foundation technique be used when recommended by the
Landscape Architect. This construction technique minimizes root disturbance by Icoring
holes for foundation posts rather that the standard foundation technique which involves
trenching for foundation walls which sever all tree roots along the trench line. This
construction technique has been employed elsewhere in Ashland to permit the
preservation of trees near planned urban development.
Lastly, the applicants assert that the tree protection measures recommended in the;: Tree
Preservation Plan are consistent with the standards in ALUa 18.61.200. Additionally,
the applicants are willing to "self-impose" on-site monitoring by having the projel~t's
Landscape Architect inspect for deviations to the plans during construction.
Variance Relief to Accessory Residential Unit: The existing home on Lot 2 is proposed
to be retained as an accessory residential unit. The home is in poor shape and will require
a significant work to make it safe and habitable. Regardless, in consultation with staff,
the applicant's are aware of the City's policies and past practices to preserve older
structures, minimize waste to our ever growing waste stream and to pass on the family
benefits of having a "mothers-in-law" or "granny flat" next door. In our attempt to
preserve the building as well as two large Pine trees, it has caused some conflicts with
parking and the need for a parking Variance.
During the last Planning Commission meeting, a neighbor suggested a Variance
shouldn't be granted. Unfortunately, the applicants are once again stuck with a quandary
of trying to balance community and site constraint issues. It is the applicant's contention
that an "acceptable solution" is being proposed. Again, this involves having the accessory
unit's parking on the adjacent lot where little impact to the trees will occur. In the
applicant's opinion, the Variance is minimal, but helps retain other important goaJls and
values our community possesses.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST BUILDING ft DESIGN L.L.C.
1970 ASHLAND STREET #2
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
541-482-1656
It) !
'- , ~
Size of AlCCesSOry Residential Unit: During the public hearing, it was noted that a
discrepancy exists with respect to the size the proposed accessory unit. Applicant's
findings reported that the dwelling has 900 square feet while the Planning Department
staff noted that Jackson County records show the dwelling to have 1,396 square feet. The
ALUO restricts the size of Accessory Residential Units to no more than 1,000 gross
habitable square feet. We believe the discrepancy relates to the existing basement which
applicant asserts is not habitable because it does not meet a number of Building Code
requiremt::nts. As such, the applicants meet the accessory unit size limitations noted in
ALUO 18.20.030(H).
Conclusion: Applicants are very much aware of the site's complexities and have gone to
great lengths to minimize disturbances to its natural features while attempting to meet all
of the City's planned densities and other requirements of the ordinance. Any Variances or
exceptions have been requested only for the purpose of minimizing construction impacts
or to preserve the existing dwelling.
Unfortunately, some of the letters written to the Planning Commission state the
applicants do not care about anything but making as much money as possible and then
leaving the neighborhood with problems the applicant has created but don't care about.
Well, anyone who knows us knows how untrue this is. For those who do not, I would
simply point to the fact that for the past two years I have lived in a house in Ashland that
I built in a. neighborhood that I (along with a partner) designed and developed. Further,
I've lived in the Rogue Valley since childhood (in Ashland since 1982) and have no
intention to leave. Mr. Roberts and his wife have lived in Ashland since 1971. Ashland is
where they have raised a family, been active members in the community and ran a
successful business for many years. Clearly, the applicants are more than willing to stand
by the commitments stated in the application and any reasonable conditions of approval
the Commission feels necessary to add.
I know and still believe the Planning process is set up as a public forum to insure that
growth occurs in such a way that minimizes negative impacts to a site while at the same
time achieves the communities land use goals and policies. The best results occur when
the applicant, the neighbors and staff can work together to this end. I believe a careful
review of the -,clearly Show:. t s has been our intention throughout the process.
~S~inCe;elY ~/
/ / .
i
Y Cochrane
R & C Inv,estments
,PACIFIC NORTHWEST BUILDING & DESIGN L.L.C.
1970 ASHLAND STREET #2
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
541-482-1656
/6,/
- g....albraith
~'J1J A NO ASS 0 C I AT E S
TRANS MITT AL
DATE: October 29, 2004
TO: Andy Cochrane
PROJECT: Mountain Pines Subdivision
We are sending you [x] Attached
[ ] Under Separate Cover Via:
14 copies Tree Protection/Removal Plan Narrative and Tree Protection Compliance Observation Schedule
14 sets 24x36" BP of L 1 to L7: Site Plan, Tree Protection Plan, Planting Plan, Irrigation Plan, Fire
Prevention Plan, Tree Protection Enlargement (Grading), Typical Street Sections, and Utilities Plan.
1 set 11 x17" originals of L 1 to L7
For [x] Your Use
[ x ] Distribution to Others
[ ] Review and Comment
[ ] Other - See Below
Remarks :
From Pauline Hoskinson
Received by
/6t::
145 S. Holly St. Medford, OR 97501 Phone 541.770.7964 Fax 541.770.5164 email: contact@galbraithla.com
"
Page I
pr::rr:n Ir:'r"
:' <~ ~'f"'\"" Jl"~
OCT 2 9 Z004
TREE PROTECTIONIREMOV AL PLAN NARRATIVE
Prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
For Mountain Pines Subdivision
October 29, 2004
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Contrary to popular belief, the root systems of trees are not deep taproots in form. Instead most tree roots grow in the top
12 - 18" from the soil surface and are horizontally oriented, extending far beyond the tree's drip line or canopy. See tree
and root section drawing below.!
ri) 'r~~; . .
A rule of thumb is that a healthy tree may tolerate removal of approximately one third of its roots, and "A healthy,
vigorous tree may withstand removal of up to 50 percent of its roots without dying.,,2 Ifroots on one side of a tree are
! Drawing used by permission of Dr. Gary Watson, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois.
2 Matheny, N. & Clark, 1. 1998. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation afTrees During Land
Development. p. 72.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision
106,
Landscape Architects & Site Planners
severed, it may become unstable and a hazard. Old and mature trees are less tolerant of construction impacts than
younger, more vigorous trees, and trees in a grove or forest stands are best retained in those groups.
Page 2
The species tolerances for trees to be retained within the Mountain Pines Subdivision are as follows:
RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF SELECTED SPECIES TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS3
RELATIVE
COMMON NAME SCIENI1FICNAME 10lERANCE COMMENfS
Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum Good Select specimens with good crown structure.
OR Tolerant of root pruning and injury, but not of fill.
Poor Declines following addition of fill.
Incense Cedar Calocedrus de currens Moderate ---
Deodar Cedar Cedrus deodara Good Tolerant of root & crown pruning. Intolerant of
excessive soil moisture; leads to Armillaria and
Pytophthora.
Common Manzanita Arctostaphyllos Not rated n_
Madrone Arbutus menziesii Poor ---
Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa Good Tolerant of fill within drip line & root pruning.
Intolerant of poor drainage, over watering & high
soluble salts.
Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Good Tolerant of root loss. Intolerant of saturated soils
or changes in soil moisture. Response often site
dependent
Austrian Black Pine Pinus ni~ra Good Tolerant of some fill and root pruning/injury.
Oregon Black Oak Quercus kelloftftii Moderate ---
Oregon White Oak Quercus ~arryana Good ---
The size of the tree protection zone, the area protective fencing is shown on the Tree Protection Plan, is calculated by
species tolerance and tree age category which selects a distance factor from the trunk of the tree.
GUIDELINES FOR OPTIMAL TREE PRESERVATION ZONES4
DISfANCE FROM lRUNK
SPE<JE51OLERANCE lREEAGE (Feet~ioch1Iulk~)
Good Young
(<20% life expectancy) .5'
Mature
(20%-80% life expectancy) 0.75'
Over mature
(>80% life expectancy) 1.0'
Moderate Young 0.75'
Mature 1.0'
Over mature 1.25'
Poor Young 1.0'
Mature 1.25'
Overmature 1.5'
Note: This document and the ideas incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of
Galbraith & Associates, Inc. and is not to be used, modified, or changed in whole or in part, for any other purpose
without the express written authorization of John Galbraith, Landscape Architect.
3 Ibid. Appendix B selections, p. 165 - 178.
4 Ibid., p. 74.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision
l-et 7
Landscape Architects & Site Planners
.'
Page 3
TREE PROTECTION SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
> GENERAL:
See Tree Preservation notes on Protection Plan (hereinafter called 'Plan') for requirements affecting all retained trees.
See Plan for tree numbers, locations, and Tree Protection Zone outlines, and Protective fencing areas for specific retention
trees.
The Landscape Architect shall be notified and shall conduct site reviews before and during any site development activity.
Site development activities include, but are not limited to:
· construction equipment arrival and set-up,
· demolition activities,
· excavation,
· root pruning,
· utilities installation,
· road construction,
· building,
· fencing,
· other construction,
· lot landscaping and construction after sales to individual owners
Buildable Areas are shown on the Plan. No excavation is permitted outside of buildable areas. Buildable areas are
distinct from acltual buildingfootprints which, in most cases, will be smaller than total buildable areas. In no case will
building footprints cover more than the 4,000 square foot maximum lot coverage.
> SITE-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDA nONS FOR PROTECTED TREES (by lot number):
Buildable Area. Considerations:
1. Standard yard requirements were used in every case:
Front yard: 15' yard, 20' for garages;
Side yards: - 6', except 10' when abutting a public road;
Rear yard: - 10' plus 10' for each story in excess of one story
2. Tree Protection considerations (general) are above. Specific adjustments to buildable areas, by lot number
follow.
# = Tree number on Plan
Lot 1:
Buildable area lines:
Front yard: along Prospect Street, standard 15' front yard with 20' standard setback for a front garage access.
Tree #.51, 4" Apple tree, due to low vigor and its small size is recommended for removal, and therefore does not
influence the buildable area.
Side yards: East side abuts South Mountain Avenue, a public street, so a 10' setback is shown, as required
West side yard is the standard 6' setback adjacent to Lot 2
Rear yard: The 20' setback shown is larger than the standard 10' setback from the subdivision driveway, due to
pullout parking required for Lot 2 along the subdivision driveway. This is the same line as the required 20'
setback for the second story.
No other trees exist on this lot, and therefore there are no retained trees.
Lot 2:
Buildable area lines:
Front yard: The garage is set back 20' from the front lot line, as required. The buildable area line is for a first
story much further inside the standard setback, so as to stay outside of the Tree Protection zone of tree #32, a 28"
Pine. The basement cut limit line (finished floor elevation 436), and fIrst story finish floor elevation of 446',
protects tree roots in the crucial top 24" of soil within the delineated tree protection zones.
Side yards: East side - buildable area is a minimum of 5' west of the existing house which is to remain on this
lot, allowing substantially more than the 6' standard setback from Lot 1.
West side adjoins Lot 3, uses the standard 6' setback, with additional space, a notch in the buildable area, so as
to avoid disturbance inside the tree protection zone for tree #25, a 14" Pine.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines SUbdiViSiOj ,,~
Landscape Architects & Site Planners
Page 4
Rear yard: maintains the standard 10' setback from Prospect Street, with the 20' required setback for a second
story.
#25 14" Pine
· Pier foundations to be used with grade beam above grade near tree. Use no spread footings or slab foundations
near tree. (See attached Pier Foundation illustration and note).
· Piers are to be oriented so as to avoid major roots.
· Hand excavate, bridging roots where possible.
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
· During construction, this tree shall be irrigated as required to maintain health. (See Tree Preservation Notes on
Plan)
#32 28" Pine
· Location of protective fencing as shown on plan deviates from City of Ashland Ordinance 18.61.200B(2).
Protective fencing on the plan is located 2' from the front offrrst story building line and 2' from the driveway
retaining wall. Both fence segments are outside the tree canopy but inside the Tree Protection Zone.
· The front of this building is above existing grade within the Tree Protection Zone, and the rear basement of the
building is outside the Tree Protection Zone to minimize root loss.
· The driveway fill area inside the Tree Protection Zone shall have root ventilation installed. (See attached Roof.
Ventilation System detail).
· Pier foundations to be used with grade beam above grade near tree. No spread footings or slab foundations near
tree. (See attached Pier Foundation illustration and note).
· Piers are to be oriented so as to avoid major roots.
· Hand excavate, bridging roots where possible.
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
· During construction, these trees shall be irrigated as required to maintain health. (See Tree Preservation Notes
on Plan.)
#52 36" Pine
· Driveway, including driveway base, are to be elevated above the existing grades.
· The base of a keystone-type retaining wall system will have a 6" maximum excavation into the existing grade
and structural soil is to be used as required for embedding the wall, allowing air to reach the roots.
· Install root ventilation in the driveway area. (See attached Root Ventilation System detail).
· The existing garage, located within the protection zone for this tree, is to be removed (since it will not be
accessible when Lot 1 is built on). In order to gain access to the garage during its demolition and removal, the
protective fencing for tree #52 will be temporarily located inside the Tree Protection Zone, 3' from the south and
west garage walls. Care will be required during the garage removal so as to impact tree roots to the least extent
possible. Following garage removal the tree protection fencing is to be moved out to the full Tree Protection
zone noted on the plan.
· During construction this tree shall be irrigated as required to maintain health. (See Tree Preservation Notes on
Plan.)
Lot 3:
Buildable area lines:
Front yard: The buildable area steps back on the west end to maintain the tree protection zones of trees to be
retained. Front access garage is standard 20' setback.
Side yards: east side is the standard 6' next to Lot 2.
West side buildable area is 10' from the property line (4' more than the required ordinary side setback) to
maintain clearance along the sanitary sewer easement.
Rear yard: on Prospect Street: Some tree removal will be required to allow for any building whatsoever on this
lot, since the lot is forested. The trees to remain are concentrated in a grove in the rear yard, with building at a
higher elevation and outside of the tree protection zone, thus with minimal effects to tree roots.
#1 - 12"; # 2 - 10"; #3 - 12"; #4 - 4"; # 5 - 10"; # 7 - 8"; # 8 - 12"; # 13 - 10"; #18 - 10" Pines
· Do not disturb, per Tree Preservation notes on Plan
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision f 0' Landscape Architects & Site Planners
Page 5
#10 - 8"; # 11 - Jl4"; # 14 - 14"; # 19 -12"; # 21 - 6" Pines and #16 - 12" Cedar .
. See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
. During construction these trees shall be irrigated as required to maintain health. (See Tree Preservation Notes on
Plan.)
#33 - 12"; # 34 - 12"; # 35 - 12"; # 36 - 18" Pines
. Do not disturb, per Tree Preservation notes on Plan.
. During construction these trees shall be irrigated as required to maintain health. (See Tree Preservation Notes on
Plan.)
#63 - 18" Oak
· This tree is offsite. Do not disturb; protect root zone per Tree Preservation notes on Plan.
. The buildable area of Lot 3 has no impact to this tree or its Tree Protection zone.
Off-site North of Prospect Street:
#67 - 14" California Black Oak
#68 - 19" California Black Oak
#69 - 20" California Black Oak
. These trees are located offsite, north of Prospect Street. The street will be paved and widened, as required by
Ashland ordinances. To preserve the roots of these trees, the new road, including roadway base rock and the
asphalt paving, will be elevated above the existing grade.
. On Prospect Street, the preferred option will be to pave using porous asphalt paving and base rock, to ensure
continued water infiltration to tree roots.
· As an alternate, (to be used if the City Public Works Dept. does not approve porous paving, above): Install root
ventilation within the Tree Protection Zones of these trees. (See attached Root Ventilation System detail).
· During construction, these trees shall be irrigated as required to maintain health. (See Tree Preservation Notes
on Plan)
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
Lot 4:
Buildable area lines:
Front yard: is on the subdivision driveway with the standard 15' setback, with a 20' front garage access
setback..
Side yards: North side buildable area is inside the standard setback to maintain tree protection zones around
existing trees
South side yard adjoins Lot 5 and the buildable area is at the standard 6' side setback line.
Rear yard: 10' setback is along the sanitary sewer easement, and the second story setback line shows an
additional 10' setback, as required.
#37 - 12"; # 38 - 12"; # 40 - 12"; # 41 - 12" Pines; #39 - 6" Mountain Mahogany
· Do not fill over tree roots, or disturb; per Tree Preservation notes on Plan
#44 - 20" Madrone
· This trt:e and its Tree Protection Zone are not impacted by construction.
· Do not disturb; per Tree Preservation notes on Plan.
· During construction this tree shall be irrigated as required to maintain health. (See Tree Preservation Notes on
Plan.)
#64 -10" Austrian Black Pine
· This tree is offsite. Do not disturb; protect root zone per Tree Preservation notes on Plan.
· The buildable area of Lot 4 has no impact to this tree or its Tree Protection zone.
#65 - 17" Deod:llr Cedar
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision 11 D Landscape Architects & Site Planners
· This tree is offsite. Do not disturb; protect root zone per Tree Preservation notes on Plan.
· The buildable area of Lot 3 has no impact to this tree or its Tree Protection zone.
Page 6
Lot 5:
Buildable area lines:
Front yard: 15' standard front yard is on the end of the subdivision driveway, and on the wc~st end of the front
yard, abutting Lot 4, the buildable area line is 16' from the property line, based on solar setback calculations for
10' high eave, =< 5/12 roof pitch and the -20% slope of this area. Ifa 20' eave height were planned, the solar
setback would be 57'.
Side yards: east side 6' standard setback adjoins Lot 6
West side buildable area is 10' from the property line (4' more than the required ordinary side setback) to
maintain clearance along the sanitary sewer easement.
Rear yard: buildable area is adjusted to inside standard setback lines to maintain the tree protection zone around
existing trees.
#48 - 16" Bigleaf Maple
· Location of protective fencing as shown on plan deviates from City of Ashland Ordinance 18.61.200 B (2).
Protective fencing shown is located 9' from the tree trunk. This area was calculated using "Guidelines for
Optimal Tree Preservation Zones", page 2 of this report.
· BigleafMaples are most sensitive to fill over roots. In this location, a cut will be necessary for construction.
Any depth of cut below the maximum rooting depth of 2 - 3' will not affect the tree, see root growth information
above. The foundation retaining wall of the Buildable Area shown does not intrude into the] 7'-4" diameter
Tree Protection Zone for this tree. No cutting is permitted outside of the Buildable Area, protecting the critical
rooting area. Upslope roots, which provide the majority of anchoring for stability for this tree, are outside of the
Buildable (disturbed) area.
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
#49 - 16" Pine
· Location of protective fencing as shown on plan deviates from City of Ashland Ordinance 18,61.200 B (2).
Protective fencing shown is located 10' from the tree trunk. This area was calculated using "Guidelines for
Optimal Tree Preservation Zones", page 2 of this report. Tree Protection Zone will not be impacted.
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
#50 - 14" BigleafMaple
· Do not disturb, per Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Tree Preservation Zone will not be impacted.
#60 - 30" Pine
· This tree is located off site; however its tree protection zone extends into both Lot 5 and Lot 6. Do not disturb,
per Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Tree Protection Zone will not be impacted.
#62 - 20" Pine
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
Lot 6:
Buildable area lines:
Front yard: on the north side of the lot along the subdivision driveway has the standard 15' setback. This
allows for retaining two trees in the front yard; see the provisions under each tree below.
Side yards: West side buildable area is the standard 6' back from the subdivision driveway, maintaining this
same setback from the driveway turn and the hammerhead end.
East side yard, adjoining Lot 7 is at the standard 6' side setback line.
Rear yard: buildable area uses the standard 10' setback, with a second story setback of an additional 10', as
required.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision / tI
Landscape Architects & Site' Planners
Page 7
#53 - 6" Deoda.r Cedar
· This species has good tolerance of disturbance, and is a young, non-native tree. The Tree Preservation Zone of
this young tree is not to be disturbed, per Tree Preservation notes on Plan.
· During construction this tree shall be irrigated as required to maintain health. (See Tree Preservation Notes on
Plan.)
#54 - 10" Scot(:h Pine
· This species has good tolerance of root loss. The Tree Protection Zone will not be impacted.
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
· During construction this tree shall be irrigated as required to maintain health. (See Tree Preservation Notes on
Plan.)
#60 - 30" Pine
· This tree is located off site; however its tree protection zone extends into both Lot 5 and Lot 6.
· The buildable area of Lot 6 has no impact to this tree or its Tree Protection zone.
#61 - 12" Pine
· Do not disturb per tree preservation notes on plan.
· The buildable area of Lot 6 has no impact to this tree or its Tree Protection zone.
Lot 7:
Buildable area is not designated, as the existing residence is to remain with no building to occur on this lot.
#58 30" Pine
· Do not disturb, per Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Tree Preservation Zone will not be impacted.
#59 30" Pine
· Location of protective fencing as shown on plan deviates from City of Ashland Ordinance 18.61.200 B (2).
Protective fencing shown is located at the south edge of the subdivision access driveway due to necessities of
roadway construction.
· Grading for the proposed subdivision driveway and base within the Tree Protection Zone is minimized to the
extent possible, while complying with Ashland driveway ordinances. A small part of the northeast section of the
Tree Protection zone is affected by a cut for roadway and roadway base construction.
· Within the area of cut, root pruning guidelines shall be followed to minimize root damage. Where roots must be
removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock saw). Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist
shall be present during root pruning. Prior to root pruning, use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such
as backhoe or trencher.
· A part of the northwest section of the Tree Protection zone will be in fill. Root ventilation will be installed, per
plan, to allow continued root access to oxygen. (See attached Root Ventilation System detail).
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision I/;:L Landscape Architects & Site Planners
TREE REMOVAL CONSIDERATIONS: (by Lots and tree # on Plan)
Page 8
We have carefully examined the potential for impacts that might result from the removal of trees as contemplated in this
project, and it is our opinion that the removal of these trees will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
We have also examined how the removal of these trees will affect other existing trees to be preserved and it is our opinion
that the removal of these trees will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes canopies, and species
diversity within 200 feet of the subject property because:
Lot 1:
Tree #51 - 4" Apple
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the buildiing, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss ofthe small (10')
canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy. This is a non-native
planting.
Lot 2:
Tree #29 - 8" Madrone
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the small (6')
canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Tree # 30 - 8" Apple
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when tkey are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the small (10')
canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Tree/shrub #31 - 10" Mountain Mahogany
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree/shrub is on the edge of the buildable area, and may be
covered by the building, and the above factors will not apply beneath the building. Small surface water flows
will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This shrub is low-growing and diminutive. It does not
protect adjacent larger trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the very small
canopy of this tree/shrub will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision t1~ Landscape Architects & Site Planners
Page 9
Lot 3:
Tree #4 - 4" Pine
o Erosion and flow of surface water will not be increased because the tree is adjacent to a grove and the
surrounding trees will help control erosion and protect the soil from the flow of surface waters
o Soil stability is not affected because the root development of the surrounding trees will help to stabilize the
soil.
o Neighboring trees are not protected by this tree, it is spindly and has been reduced in size due to competition
from other trees.
o Th:is narrow tree does not comprise a windbreak for other trees.
o The tree has stunted development and size and tree density, sizes and canopies will not be affected by its
removal.
o Species diversity will not be affected because its species is well represented in the surrounding trees.
Tree #9 - 6" Pine
o Erosion and flow of surface water will not be increased because the tree is part of a grove and the
surrounding trees will help control erosion and protect the soil from the flow of surface waters.
o Soil stability is not affected because the root development of the surrounding trees will help to stabilize the
soil.
o Neighboring trees are not protected by this tree due to its spindly growth.
o This narrow tree does not comprise a windbreak for other trees.
o The tree has stunted development and size and Tree density, sizes and canopies will not be affected by its
removal.
o Species diversity will not be affected because its species is well represented in the surrounding trees
Tree #12 - Manzanita
o Erosion and flow of surface water is not a factor because the surrounding remaining vegetation will prevent
erosion and protect from the flow of surface waters.
o Soil stability is not affected because the root development of the surrounding vegetation will help to
stabilize the soil.
o This small tree/shrub does not comprise a windbreak for other trees.
o The manzanita is small and its removal will not have a significant impact on tree density, sizes and canopies.
o Species diversity will not be affected because its species is well represented in the surrounding area.
Tree #15 - 6" Pine
o Erosion and flow of surface water will not be increased because the tree is part of a grove and the
surrounding trees will help control erosion and protect the soil from the flow of surface waters
o Soil stability is not affected because the root development of the surrounding trees will help stabilize the
soil.
o Neighboring trees are not protected by this tree; it is weak, with poor branch structure.
o This narrow and poorly developed tree does not comprise a windbreak for other trees.
o The tree has poor branch structure and small size and tree density, sizes and canopies will not be negatively
affected by its removal.
o Species diversity will not be affected because its species is well represented in the surrounding trees.
Tree #17 - 6" Mountain Mahogany
o Erosion and flow of surface water is not a factor because the surrounding remaining vegetation will prevent
erosion and protect from the flow of surface waters.
o Soil stability is not affected because the root development of the surrounding vegetation will help to
stabilize soil.
o This small tree does not comprise a windbreak for other trees.
o This tree is small, it contains several important dead branches and presents a high fire danger, and its
removal will not have a significant negative impact on tree density, sizes and canopies.
o Species diversity will not be affected because its species is well represented in the surrounding area.
Tree #20 - 6" Pine
o Erosion and flow of surface water is not a factor. It is poorly formed and competing with other trees. The
surrounding trees will provide erosion control and protect the soil from the flow of surface waters.
o Soil stability is not affected because the root development of the surrounding trees will help to stabilize soil.
o Neighboring trees are not protected by this tree.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision II If Landscape Architects & Site Planners
o This narrow tree does not comprise a windbreak for other trees.
o The tree has stunted development and its removal will not have a significant negative affect on the tree
density, sizes and canopies.
o Species diversity will not be affected because its species is well represented in the sUITOlmding trees.
Page 10
Tree #22 - 14" Pine
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these
will not be factors under the building. Surface waters will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: It is part of a group of trees that are located inside the
building envelope and removal of the tree does not provide a significant negative impact on existing windbreaks.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of the subject property:
In general, the overall tree density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to
undeveloped land. However, future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on
individual lots will improve tree density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property.
Loss of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy, sizes or species diversity.
Tree #24 - 14" Pine
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these
will not be factors under the building. Surface waters will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This tree shows some insect damage to branches. It is
part of a group of trees that are located inside the building envelope and removal of the tree does not provide a
significant negative impact on existing windbreaks.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of the subject property:
In general, the overall tree density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to
undeveloped land. However, future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on
individual lots will improve tree density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property.
Loss of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy, sizes or species diversity.
Trees #23 - 6" Pine; #26 - 18" Pine; #27 - 14" Pine; #28 - 8" Pine
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This group of trees is located within the building area. These
issues will not be factors under the building, as the surface waters will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: The removal of this group of trees, located inside the
building envelope does not provide a significant negative impact on existing windbreaks considering the tree
locations on the overall site.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of the subject property:
In general, the overall tree density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to
undeveloped land. However, future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on
individual lots will improve tree density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property.
Loss of this group of trees tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy, sizes or
species diversity.
Lot 4:
Tree/shrub #42 - 4" Mahogany
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This is a tree/shrub under 6" dbh. This tree/shrub is on the edge
of the building envelope, and may be covered by the building, and the above factors will not apply beneath the
building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This shrub is low-growing at the edge of a grove of
manzanita and Mahogany. The majority of this grove will be removed, as it is inside the building envelope. It is
not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and spedes diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the very small
canopy of this tree/shrub will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision 11 S' Landscape Architects & Site Planners
Page 11
Lot 5 and adiclcent drivewav:
Tree #45 - 10" Cherry
.
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location is in a driveway area that provides required
access to lots. Soil stability and flow of surface waters are provided for in engineering plans.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. This tree is an overrnature
specimen with a short life expectancy, as indicated by dieback of major scaffold branches. Loss of the small
(12') canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Tree # 46 - 14'" Madrone
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o' Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss ofthe small (12')
canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Tree #47 - 24" Pine
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This specimen tree is not a part of a grove, and is separated
from adjacent trees. It does not provide a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Canopy coverage of this tree
(25') is significant, and the tree protection zone required to effectively preserve this tree would preclude any
building development on this lot. Species diversity will not be negatively impacted as many specimens of this
tree species are protected elsewhere on site.
Lot 6 and adiacent drivewav:
Tree #43 - 10" Fruit
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location is on the edge of the driveway that provides
requir(~d access to lots. Soil stability and flow of surface waters are provided for in engineering plans.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on nearby property. This tree is a poor specimen with
a short life expectancy, as indicated by suckering, and a dieback of a major scaffold branch. Loss ofthe small
(10') canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Tree #55 - 8" Sycamore
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protecltion of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the small (10')
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision II ~ Landscape Architects & Site Planners
Page 12
canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy. This is a non-native
planting.
Tree #56 -10" Apple
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. This is a non-native tree with
poor structure and shape with extremely limited viability and life expectancy. Loss of its small (12') canopy
does not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Tree #57 - 8" Magnolia
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the small (10')
canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy. This is a non-native
planting.
Note: This document and the ideas incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property
of Galbraith & Associates, Inc. and is not to be used, modified, or changed in whole or in part, for any other
purpose without the express written authorization of John Galbraith, Landscape Architect.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision 111 Landscape Architects & Site Planners
M
-
(!)
~
t:l..
----
----
W
(L
(L I[)W
D I-
Z zW
W ww _11::
W ",I- 2:11:: >1-
I- -q: -q:2:
-q: \f\11:: ww w(LC)
>I
11:: DC) -q:~ (LII1::
I[) z 11
WI1:: (LW ll:I-LL
z \f\ -q:
I- W W--1 DW>-
C) -q:(L I-W WZ-q:
I- W,--I li1\f\ I-W~
-q: -q:m4:
--1 (L~ 01.) I1::D>- --1
l- ll: D ZllJ wC)
C)(L C)W--1
Z z-q: ()\f\ ~j--1 D u)
W C)11:: -q:D
> i=LL 01[) UJ-q: ~ I1::w
z -q:C) -QC (LI-D I[)lD
1-1[)
C) ~I- --1z c \f\-q: I[)QC
QC I- Z ;fW (\)~11:: z:::O
z- -l-
I- wC) (LQC I-\f\
\f\-
,II >(L \f\w -D
-q: c Q -q:(L ><z
I..l (\)2: l, W:::o
I
/
\f1
f'
~ Z
'~
", UJ
'~ , Ie
, " J
> <{
\J
\f1
Z
()
\f\
WW
I-(L
-q:-
11::(L
I[)D
ZW
C)~
i=11::
-q:C)
--1LL
-11::
~w
IU (L
>LL
zC)
C)\f\
Q;'D
I-z
l)) llJ
-q:C)
01-
1/<1
>-
-q:
~
D
-q:
C)
ll'
D
W
>
-q:
(L
I
~
W
>
Z
<(
~
lL
(/)
Oi
c
c
CO
0::
(!)
-
U5
~
(/)
'0
.8
i:
~
<(
Q)
0..
CO
<..l
(/)
"0
C
CO
-l
c
o
'w
'S;
'6
..0
:J
en
(/)
Q)
c
i:L
c
'(ij
C
:J
o
::2:
<.5
c
ul
Q)
10
'(3
o
(/)
(/)
<(
~
:S
'(ij
.c
"'(ij
CJ
""'"
-
~
~
tl..
,)-
W--1 <Il
[}I'I- Z
:J<( (() a
'" --l -'
I-w 2:: ~ w ~lli
~[}I' <( e: > -'w
[}I'll) Z W <{Z
W w --l j";n
I-\f) L \)Z
0) <L I!)D <{w Ul
a
\f)w -' ?;z Z Q;
W w f- ::J )-<l:
UJ - D > \f)Cl -')- C
I [}I' w Zill C
f-' <( <( D -ll aD <<l
D ~I!) "'w a:::
C)> [}I' Z Wz
<{ "'<il 2
II) -' a-
I-C) 11.'"
<Il Il'W U5
I-\f) I Z :oD
~ Q..w 00
[}I'--1 I- will
D ~a Ul
C)<( :s:: '" >->- '0
w g&i
[LII) w 2
\f) Il'
[Lz Z >- ",<{ :.c
:J - 11. 3",
C) a u
\f) I~ -'<Il ~
wC) Z -z
I- a Il'i=
DC) <( i= aa Q)
<{ 11. a c..
_LL D > . u <<l
>w Il' U
Z w
'" Ul
C)r :J w "0
C) Il' c
[}I'I- <L <<l
[LI- LL a -l
>- '"
)-0 [}I' w
UJ D 2: Z
w:J '" Cl
r[}l' 0 <Il <(
f-- I- -' W f- *
<{
\f) I \1 I1l \) Z
S:z I- z w II ()
I
C)C) ,) D lL C
s: w 0
I0 >- <( w I- 'u;
D <{ II I1l -{
~C) I!) D 'S;
W >- )- It '5
I- [}I' Z IU
[}I' w III <( I- ..Q
L f- f- ::J
III a :J <L W 2: 11' IS) CIJ
LLW C'5 a II Cl ~
-' \f) Ul
LLa w \) II [l nJ
W > Q)
-UJ [}I'~ w Z W IL ~ c
aUJ D Cl ::J 0::
\f)uJ D \) [l \f)
\f)z Z Z c
-a <{
2::z '" () '(ij
z<( w C
wC) w
1-- <:)[}I' Il' I- ::J
\f)\ >- 0
1-11) d:i <( :2
)-<( <(UJ <r
\f)> 'l: D
\f)<( >> -j z
<(C) lL- ~
z0 (0) Il' ()
C)x. <{
~<( -' lL
-w \)
I-
<(UJ ?58 z' It
ar ): W <.:i
.- Z I- 2::0 Z - EO
w
UJ:Ja I D-
z<( >- en
~C)z <{
-- -I L OJ
z!l-<( 2:: O_ Il; 1il
'13
0
Ul
Ul
<(
00
.c
.~
<<l
..a
CO
CJ
/If
"
Page I
TRElH: PROTECTION COMPLIANCE OBSERVATION SCHEDULE
Prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
For Mountain Pines Subdivision
October 29,2004
In comp.Jiance with recommendations shown on Tree Protection Plan the following site observations and reports will be
made based on the site construction schedule. The City of Ashland will receive a copy of each observation report until
project completion.
1. Pre-Construction Meetine:
Prior to commencing any construction activities on the site the General Contractor shall contact the
Landscape Architect for a pre-construction meeting. The meeting shall include the site superintendent,
grading equipment operators, Landscape Architect.
2. Protective Tree Fencine: Observation
Prior to demolition contractor shall obtain written approval from the owners representative that
construction may begin after all of the described fencing is in place. Fencing and signage shall comply
with Tree Preservation Plan notes.
3. Roue:h Gradine: Observation
All grading adjacent to the TPZ shall be observed during the course of rough grading. Trees must be
protected from damage due to compaction, cut or fill, drainage and trenching. Ifrequired root aeration
systems, drains, special paving shall be observed at this time. Comply with Tree Preservation Plan
notes.
4. Trenchine: Observation
All trenching for utilities and service installation adjacent to the TPZ shall be observed for compliance
with the Tree Preservation Plan notes. Root pruning and boring shall occur only under direction of
Landscape Architect.
5. Monthlv Observation
The Landscape Architect shall perform monthly observations to include the impact of construction of
roads, buildings and any site features that may impact the existing trees. Site conditions including
fencing, grading, trenching, and maintenance irrigation and their impact to existing trees will be
monitored. Any change in health or vigor shall be noted. The maintenance irrigation requirements
shall comply with Tree Preservation Plan notes.
6. Special Activitv within the Tree Protection Zone
Work within the TPZ requires the on site direction of the Landscape Architect.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
I~D
Landscape Architects & Site Planners
, ..
II g~\~r~~th
TREE PRESERVATION COMPLIANCE OBSERVATION
DATE:
10/29/04
PROJECT: Mt. Pines Subdivision
REQUESTED BY:
IN ATTENDANCE:
COMPLIANCE OBSERVATION PHASE
o Preconstruction meeting
o Protective Tree Fencing
o Rough Grading
o Trenching
o Monthly
o Special Activity within TPZ
REPORT:
Tree #
Activity/Comments
By:
Date:
145 S. Holly St. Medford, OR 97501 Phone 541.770.7964 Fax r4~!o.5164
email: contact@galbraithla.com
'\ l "'~
\ ~ ~
~~ ! 3nN3A~
"'(~~---~
,~~ ,~~
~
II
<5
25'"
aft) .Li'?<(/7
~~'" z ~
;s 0:: ~
~~~ '" (J ~~ %
00 ... .. o ~s
~ ~o: ~fs; '" a
N -' " kl
fi: - 0;; <l.
~u~ " ~ ill (,~
~fIl :2 <S- S! ":i
~:l Li'''\'l
<:>
]
=
-0
~.-
~-
'-' =
O~
;.. 0
~~
~~~
D!;c"
.~
, .
'-
(N
,
"
00
~Z z
-0 0
~- ~
Z~ ::::
_> 0
-<- ~
E--Q j
Z~ =:
;::;;::; CFl
000 ~
~
~
j
II
<1<J
iL~ Q
~
'" rt
" {'(
---
Z
<
~
~
~
E-t"
~
\JJ.
[4
a
NI~lNnaH Hinas
~:; oJ
-:; '>
--c'T5---.9---------_
';:; '>
'1 S'
-1- ~r-.--;-- -r - ~~-~--
i '
I
::;l
81 !
~i i
l!~i~
~!~i
I on
"",
m!
'"
z
I
!
~
!l
,.
~
i
,-------
t:i
~
~~l::j
"''''0>
......~
<J;~",
"ttl!:
~e/
a.:'"
'- .
h'l:g
t)~q $f,
,,=,,~~R'Q:-
~ or/!!
.8
.~
:g
<:
..=
I;;
..
0DlI
1.........
:!?
v'
rv
'~ :r_..;
$'>
"e :~..
t:;~~~
\ ~ ;~;
h'l:'"
J- t:;~?
.$/ ~i::3~
;-----
/
i
...........
'---I
I
I,
=
-0
~.-
~-
'-' =
o ~
;.. 0
~~
~
<
~
~
~
~
Z
~
U~
~
>
tI
i
. to
~ "]I
':5!"2
HU
!~.il
00 ..
o ;,~::
1iO- i
~~l"
~'1i-
f~;~
~-:'~.i
~~: !~
1_ g ~:~
~tid
~"U ts
io i2~
E-a:....~
!:l~
.~~.s; c
~.s;<llS~~
}- ~~~~~~
Ii nun
<(
L
L ..::n.n.,f~.Q () I
333333 T
:J T I
~I ~ I
IJ)
:J
I- ~
() I
-I
v
z
~
Z~
o
N
tI
I)
~~
~~
~~
~
~
o
~
~
(j
~
~
o
~
~
~
o
-<
>
~
""'d
~
>
~
Ie /- -',
i ~~~ ~~ -\ \ ~ ~ -::- ~i :/ ~ '\,~~~~ i~,,~ m
~ i "',g( I ! I ~r~_ if/ I \V?i~~ . . .: til. if \ ,_~_,~ ~~~ ~
-..--.. /./ l(i' I ! J/! ~'j'~\ /J~,f-J'.J ;; Ir~ },,~~~ (,~\ :,~ Uir~~~ ~
~i I \~t I I · :r1!II
~O~I ~~i;f~i,;' ~, .~ ,--~i;;f-/I~~
!D';J';:! ,. ~" - I j .r r-~'i /f$~~ "~-';." -;: - , _, ::.e ~: ~'r..J
'i '"' - . ~ I~~ . : f :,. 'Ii ~ ~ ~L( ',I!.. 'H: ~ -'.IT
~~, ,Ufi 1:~\~ ~~ '~L' ~ I! ' ~ f'~:~ ~l i~~Ji ii,' I ';'- :~n
, ".';tfIJj. .' ~ ~ ~Zr, r; Jr, 'A; ~"Ii,1' ~ '" J I _~
'j , '~il!~~ - - - " · ,;ll~ ~.. '1t~ '~ ~ ';;j~ ' i ~ ),
//rry)1~1\~.~/::'~~I: '.. ..':~. .:./u/::._ ~'\l~;r!jQ ~ ~ ~I 7~:r
,( 1+ \ r III. .' ....... '.' ...... .... .... ..... '. . ,"",.11 ~ !) L- 1
:Jc- Q'----H-----v.-:-=--~~ "";' ;,'.' ';'; ';';' ., ,.. . " 1:1 ~ I, ~ f
~ ~6~ 1;1' V;slf < .'" r-; _ '~: ~~ Jo/.' ,. ~C"
t\ tl ~ ill ~ ~ :,' / ,'".' :- if _ ,
~ "I~'~ :",' " / ' ", ~ ..-, , ' ~ \)
,;1 ~~ ~ 4',,- ~~: i,: ~ -J. \ i J I ~
ffi ~. 't" I 1 . /i s: t::J 1\ /
~ ~ ~s l .~ 1>-,_u_U/. 'r ~,' '1:V
0;c,' " . I / ~';\;:' ~ i.., '" ~ .
~ ~', ~ ' i:.-d: m~ {} _, I'~__' I,:' , >0.. ~ 'si!. \) I i'
~ · ~1I ~-......--tli~ ,0 '.I~ . ft '" , "',
~~~ !! II 1-$" :no"'"~O 0 ;97~~ :.t~~: ) i~~l rAil ?~~I t
mufi / /1'1/ :~~ ~1.. :,~/(;" ,~/;Ff\ n'~~ut-> ~ If ",
,~rG~/~ i I / ~ r ,J rh1
~ \ i (' \. . "
f::) 'i, I . , _~_ -"\. .,
-r: -- '\.
~ l I;~ /~F --", i: ,
G 1 I !~(~ ;!Yt.2 \:'1 I: ,', ~LJW\~W_' .A~ . h lilt
,,'[ , ~,' is' V'<", /~I. /
~ [' >".~ ~PJe" I ': ....< . . ~ ~
"- '- \ lr I' ,. /; ii
i i~ ~ --"\ ~,,:: , . ,';': ~ \( _ 1/1 ~
i , I " --:JJ ". '.... '.. ..,: ,"' ~
II "- --!:~ ,.~~' ,II
,i ':.:,.~ I ..~ ~\
"I" to / I.'-Y ,'-.' I~~r?
II! ~J i~ ;~ i;'; , ,::_:' : /,:: :::.,: ::':". .:-.~ .:,..,/:-:,:. :- ..,"
.'. ',' ". ',..... !:!:1'.'j:., ,:j:.,... ,::3:, ,.:j:,:B:..,,:;ll,:3;;J;
j I 11"<1'\ A L0I>( .. ...../ '_
'T i ~ l! Jim ~----F---o' oP'I_~'?\ -'~f;~ V
. . i r T"'c I f iff . <'l' ~ I /.,~0 !:f! '\ ~~. / ~
~--L_________.l._____L______ r--L---Lu--L--L--O- -- _ --- ., I '<~ ~. ~
"~"-- ,,'~"u', H HZU H /; ,N 'v C N U " >--~(;~ I
~:ifi'
RJ~I OJ I~i~~ . . ..
I~~! OJ ~~'if"
. tilf i :<~~~~
ii.h ~~ ~~lil
!ii. ~~ bj~ I
i~ II 311' l
Hi, II ;,iP
9.f !
~~ r-----l r-
'0 I ~';l' m
o ,-,'",,-, : ~I. : (J\
:/ ri.J~:m
. ,. J <,I 10.'8: : Z
., \. )\ : tJ
i ~t (J '1-; "
n~ ~ ~ !
i i~ I I i
.t>z
.
.
,
,
/~..
~i ~J
~ Ii
~ I~
z
eL
'"
bhbJ.tiIJfUl!l!l! fIltJi! illllt H llllll
n ~ % I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i l flj ~ ~ ~IJ g ~ i~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~ 9~ ~ ~ i'12 ~R ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~!It ~ ~~I~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~I~ ~ · illl'hlHI jl!ljllu jijit! }J111 Mil.1
i' i i ';li '~i!m"i' fl'm ';ii~ 'I 'Ul'~i rni'~' ,";' 'l! 'll"ll'~i "all~ 1 !lbl./ftJ 10M,! '!flU l.!U J"ijUH
I \) P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . JlI ~. ~ 3 !l1,liJ!h Ilj1ntH Hlh,' J1IH !,l'li fJ.
i ~ ~ ,.~~,. ~~ ~ ill III ilf.!!'" flU l(f i I'
! I'! '! I' ~ IM1111i I iMUH J:lllfIIL~! lJ1HOt
i~ l:~ ~p IH1f ~. f f III I JU III H II~ U 'l!~ ~ ~fff UI'1tl~jiJI i.r.llhllf IUt!~~
I! Hit d; .h I i;J I 1 II! oil i1fiil llh ii~ i li!1ijH I iJ!!I~1 !tijW
! i l~! I I ~ I ! ~~ !Ilt Jill f trIm 1 hil itlll tdUI
Iii Ii ~~ ! j! h!1 i ~ 1 I'l! I iij i ~i! mm
I i 11,1;- P ( HI ! I IlJI liiJ pi !!rl~ HHP. Ii d H II! Hid utIn
I ~ I I'! i Pi h! !,!j I; ! ~i I !iJfllj~ hi
If! I 1 t i . 11 r' f I I ~ t t2 r J!i - Ii!
~ I ~ Ii ilt it Ii !11111 !d~ h hi
I' I !l (II t I ! j i t Ii i jli! l! lit
~t i I f i I [ f! I till iJ it!
I ~1 f l}1 J i 11 ! 11'11 [I -iA
f !! f ~ I! I f!ft n
>>
~
";-
j
"\
)
; 'J
t-.::;;. p."
=
:::::>
-~.
~
~.t:J
[>f> ~
~
o
3i
a:
.. ~o
Cf1 ee
F ~'Z
~ ~~
o .... >-
" ~....
~ t;i 'Z
t"'l ...."':l
C'l 0....
o
2. ZZ
~
~
:;::i;;
"'w
"'"
"'0
~~b
~- ...,
2 oS!'
",'
gs
z;;l
,.
~'f'l .
')~ l:I -1>~
.loo: ill "
'l7 21" ...
: ~ I ~ ~
"P I fJ
~ ~
/ JoJ:CT .
~
~
~}~~
2
'I'
'J/
2
. J,:J:i..
~ 5 /t
& ~ I~ ~
~ ~ ~ liil
"""" oJ a: 4-
" !:i '"
<r<r i:I ~v
. Lt.~
-
=
=
~. ~}
mt<."," .,.:
3"''''(
!J. Z~
0:
\r1
~z Z
-0 8 ?
~- ~
z\r1 ~il~ N
~> 0
Q ~
E--- ~ -:;j--
z~ S ;;9 >-
~~ z.- ~>:6 <<
ell ~7 .<lXtfl'
0\r1 -< 6"~<<
~ ~~;:;~
~ Q~Q~
'"
... 25'"
~ ~~. !"
OJ .~ ~ ~~ alS1
C ":! "'....l ...."':;;
';ll: t "ll~o.. ....:5
..~ /,/ ~~~ ~~
q~..v~ ~:s -
'"
!i
1
"'
Ij II 11
11 H };
Jl ~i t... 1~
l~ ti..1 ~i
11 a" n i~
"1 n ~ "I
~~ ail ~ Ii"
).2 ~1 ~~ .
lj ]"' I~ Jj
1J ;1 ~i t
r .! ~t oJ
-I n ii ~
11 !i =" U
.ti ~ ~.. ",
!~} J h!~
HI t: r I!
I~l i! :~ Ii
ill 11 ~i I~
~fi 1 i& I}
~ ~
I .! _ t II
I ! ~~ fl1 ~j!!t
~ ~ ~ i ~ llll ~E~~
~ 12t t~.d ~n~
~ ~ lj2> 1!1~ ~n'O}
i i II; t14 ril~
t ... II&~ k~l~ i~!!
l -" 1.'0 n. l~ peE
o i ill i~~~ !!~;
i . ~ u 1 ; iitl ~~5
~tl ~t~ rd~~I~dJl
-1- Jl ~ .t 'h-l Hit
J~ "ij!:. -~ f:J
h ~ 1111 !tIJll dh-I
~ 1 i i - tlq ~ Jl H~
it t i~i Wi filHl
!i i In id~l!)~~t
V ~ {'li{ l'llll~&~~:
0-1: i:h hUL~<L
'1
11
- 8
I j JI II n ~ - t JliP !gf f
~ -"- li t o.! t Ie h.2'
t i : iU l! tt I~ I ~ ti Of~ ~
; it f 2:1 01 H .!I ~ i · Ih . ~
i ft t ~~: il in U i f n nt~! 1
- .l! '5 :fd l~ 3i1 P -- ~ ~ 11 ~ b~ ~
1 tl' ~ll '!'t' I: 1 I i. 4i1i lIt 1
, rl it it mill.! fl t I, !i !~t Hi I
H ~f 11 fH PiJ~ l~ i illJl !fU HI ~
:l I r ~ 1H ~~ s i . 1 all 1~: 2 -
, !r It ,IIi llf,> II i I It l! !Jli t~1 !
.u f~ ~ll~z t!h~ iU 1 j!' 01 >1 . tl~t tJ i
It tJ h t~U tfl~~ ~l~! 1 u H 6!~t !~t ~I
~ .!1 11 -i~~ hth Seo ~.~ t~ H tl11 ol~ r
~~ Ii H J il '01 'l! . 1} ~f! ~! 1 dt_ !rr !~
~j H' j~ I h ir ~1 "it ~r~ l - 'ij;lt~H 11
ft Ii if itn iJU di:!!1 i~ Ii i lilt HI it
g I 1~111 ~ I! IiI!
I II 11:!j I! I;! 11'1
i :! il11; i~ i II pi!.
i ~~ !~i ht ~t ~ t!l : ~~~I
~ d ~i~ g~~ ~~2 ~!~ ~ ~ ~ i~il ~
I !! hI id !i~ !~! I ~ ~ ~hi i f
~
-
~ ~
! Ii!
II III
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
il II ~ I ~
i I . I i ~
~I!ii~
Ih1il
~H!!!
~
!
~
I
'"
I
~ 1 J
~i ~~ ~fi;1 ~
~j ~ l~ !n' 13 t
lsn II ~i ~-1al II ~
;! II ~ I~ i~~ II~ ~ ~
~ I
, I
6; l,
~t ~
I
i
~lgl
zt
~ ri 'Ii .. iii ..
~----- -- -- ---------------.----
~
~
~
C-'
Z
~
~
Z9
~~
~-::
~~
[I
"
. 1'0
; ...~
!I~
Ht!
fJli
~"Jt
jfilI
iCU
I~la
~t~~
I]
~:~i~ ~
~ln ~
a ....-3
;;- o.
~i~i~ .
H!I~ C1
~Ia! >
~ v ~ ~
-ti~! ~
~3~- 0
~~ll
:;i~. ~
~. 0 a
. ~-i
H h .....
sl:r2 '\J
[,. Ii ~
"~3 >
~
)J
~
~
W
;~;
"off:! ~
'C~,
/~..'
Il~
ltn1
r-
!
~
I
I
~
~
i
I
..".~.
T.-~
~ !II@ ~I ~~
i I II II I! ,
~ i~! l ill J
~ I ~~ : ~
~ <I i~ ~ I
I <II ~ ~
~ ~~ I ~
11..;1 i
~ I! ~! ;1
~
':j
~
,
I
~
~
~
~ r~
h
Ii
. ill
>:
<;0 -
~~ ~
<z p
~?J
-<
Ujl
L_J
~
; II!I H!l
~ ~
H~~U
~ ~ ~ Ii
i! ~ f
~
I ~~
! I;
~
~
I~~~
i~~
I~I
<I
I
-.
'<l
...,
...,
-.
,.. Q
j ~
'{),
;;:~
~~f
6~~ /
~j
~
SDUTH
!P~
It!
Ii tl m 1m i fU Ui n H if H! H U Ii ! u~ ti
~! d fh tl~- fl'i} I" II f itl !~ lli U · tit t
u fl ~~i tifl ~lfr l!jlll U !t t f ~r n n~ ill If
P h p~ [ ~ { r II if Iff 11 r; 1 f -f 18
Hi !!P~11 l,nlHlII 1lI'I.i! Il,Ii Ii! d
~l~h.!Ul io"lfllfhh Jt:l~ li~~~l8
! ~i I J: !ill ~il Jft ~f ~t .f~ Ih ~i ~Il : ~~~ I
t !l HI u j ( 11 j ~ i! i i n ~ f ~ ! j ~ J ~ I f
&" ~ l so C i, iJ fl I r 11 lr ! 1 [ Ii f [
~l~ii 111& .irl!iill"] ~lhll!I' 8i I
~ ~! $p f11: l ~ h~ ~ j i ill jl i! i 1
tJ, If tIt h up ~ 1 ~t ,PI I. I
t! II N IP~i!i t lid n h i i !
I I .i! It i} l i (I!d! H {I I
,t hi ill ' .! It
~"110 z., ~
lil!i~l~
'r-ii~~~~
~j~;i~i
i;;a~~~1
~~~~~I~I
j~~~ll~ i
~~!t,~ <
-t g - t' ~
t ~~ltj ~
~ ~ ~ ~
k IS I
~ II
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
rI ;t ~
~
s::
P. 1Jl 0
~ ee
l" t:xl ~
~ t:l~
o .....>
'0 ~.....
:;tI .....~
i"l 1Jl
C'l 0 'i:l
~ ~~
t'!'j
1Jl
~ "
_ ~ t""'~ .4
~ \? ~'" ~, ".
Vo v 'J'li~,t
~::l ~~ ~~t/)~ l' ~
S< I" ~ J: (i"';0 5! ~
;,: j: ~ 0 ~ !;! ~~ Ill> #
~~ ~+b-< g; t""'t'r1> ~
-...1--.\ _OUl Z ~;:t>-~Q::l -<
~ ~ ~:;: f; ~ ~
",>1 8'= \<: ~ n ~
~ '" :l - ::0::: s;: "
Ztd ~ Vlr:rl=l ~....(
,.;., 0 ~ ...."
i1i ..;;" "">. ':J"''-
~ "'0 ...
^~..'1
0'" .
.l,.') ~ 1>,<,,>
;g~r ~
.. dl" ~ ~
';XlC' ~" !;
7/ 6.t'1j
l'eCT .
rJJ.
~z 2:
~o 8
~~ ...
Z rJJ. :::
<~ ~
Eo-; ~ 2:
z~ j
;::l;::l ~
o rJJ. ~
:E
o ~
~'" ~
~~~ ~ ~g
)(~~ ~ ~~-
iJ5 ~Z Z rfJ C
~ ~... ><6~
dg g:~ ~ j~~
~<Ul u!E" 0,><
Ut::J . @ ~ ~
~tn Z V)~
Z g::i
~:$ ;g-
<:>
. .L1;;~<l/1-
,.~ ~
~ 0 Bb
N ~O~ It
!l! ,'I"
51 ~v
. L~"\)
rJ
~
E-<
tI1
....
~
Q>
~~
02,
~~
::~
;:;;:!;
iL~
i
I'
~
~ !
<J<J
c
z
'"
2
"'
~
;:
:2
j. ~ I~ j!l
i i: 0 J ~ f: it .
Ii !UI ~ til !!~ I
II: ~UI II ui Ii! i
iU Jut IJ In Ial jl
"' :.~ h~ I; 'I I j _ I
~ t!l ld1 {!! 10 l !
:2 II J II t ~l i~ ~ l I
~t iff iij! If tn HI ~
3{ !H !i~l il ill n.r I
~J 'H J1ct }' g f!t ·
~i ill 'ill dIn 1~1 ~
1'1 U IIlI ~ fj J J
jl If ~I iPKr Ilf
~ J I ,H~ ~ ]1 Iii
IL c! cffi Ie II 0 &1
I-
~
,,/
V
!
~
3nN3/\ (;I
Nl(;lJNnDH
HJnDS
..
f
I
i
r
l
r
I
t
l
i
~/
~I:~ ;:: !j,!,!; i ,i !:!1,!Tin,!:~ """;,';' " ;~>f: i ~~o: : i : i : i : i :
I:I:I:~I! Vii I~IIIIIIIIIII,I
:: :1'::: : :: ~::: ~, ': i::I::~::::::::::::::1
~ I I I J I , I ~ I ~J I : I I ~ :i I I I I I , I ,I I I I I I :1 I
/ 1,1,'11 ~ V;I 'I' ~ II
V 11',',1 -~ III lvi', ~I
." -' I I , '....'1- I I I
I' I I I,I II" 'I 1'1" "'l'
,', ,',, 'II ~,' II'\~I'I 'I I I
': : I: ,I ~ 1[1, II~ I~I : I:':'
' ,) 1 l 'I1''1 II, ~~'I I I I I , I ,',,,
;1:01 I 1'1 I I !111',', 1'1" II I, 'I I I I i, ~ .:.. I i.W) ,1"" , I I I ~I I I I I I I I I I I I ,
'! II:III:I:'~:III:I::~:"I:':I:I:I:I:I:I) <,:, {~:I:~~IIIII I:'::::::::;::::
/,: I 1'1'11"1 11111 ~ ""'~ '" 'Y"III'I'
/ I, I I I , I I 'I I I K11 ,I" I ,I I I ~ ,~! <'~.1 1 I I I I I I I "f, I I , , , I I I I
/ :: :,II:I:I~:I: ~ ~:I ~II /. i,:::i~~' ,',',1,', ""~,I~II,I,,,I, I
>- " :\"'~" ,','/71. I :A len:~ :i')' ~~0-~~~
,~~~ ':': \ :Y; aJ"f;" n :1:1: '7:1,1(1 I J 1'1/1 ~~:I:
l..J: I ,I, ~ I I I I ", II II I I
Q: ~ I I I I I I I I I I -.--J:J. j '", I I I I l):; I I ' I I I I I I I I /
>- j" I' I I I ~ [F:,,,; fit I /, I I d' ", , I I I I I I V
V) j' I I I I (A~ I Jii I ,',, f'1 ~ ~'
8' :1', 1f.~6J111 II I ,I I >-. I~' I /
~ I./J~ j I I I I ~~ " I I II 1.1 I
II; ~ ,III II ~~I :\:1,':' I . I yjlllllll 'I'II/~~~~,-----~',,-~
I-' :r W I I I . I il' I '\, I I II I I ,If---------~''-~'' ~~
l..J I' I I ' , I I ' <<< (A ....1 I V.J. I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~~ ~ '" ..
- Q. j' I,' 1,1, $ ~31~ 1 I I ",I~~ ~ ,', ~~~~ ~
1;:== V) jl I I I I I I J ~ j (' ~ I I I I' l;~ I J:::.-. '-- ~ '" 't-. ,,' _ '"
C:l if I I I I I I I 9 ~ I : I I I : I I I I / I j'~ : I ," ~ ~ ~"'~~,J-(
~ Q: ':: : J: I): : : ! ~,'" t! ' : :1' : :/ ' , , ' , / / 1,Jj1:" , ' "K~~~i"'~
1 Q jf I I I I " 1,;( , Ill' I 1',1,' 1 1.;.;11,1 I '8:;~~
' ,~ ':1 ':1,", , l'l" 'v, ~;C"""-:-~.
~ ~ I: (I ~ I~ ~f ~ ..!>",x ',,-
/ill )1:"::1 '( ;/1,1: "i II,/~ 1 ~"h\ihil~ 1:'ldi'~l:I' ,i""~': '~"I. ,1,~ I ~\
r-. , " , ,y, , , "I " ' ,,",' l' 'L""," ',yc:" " '~~t ,y
! ......L ,llI,II,' / / ~ 1::/,: ~ ,':'1',11" I ,/1,' (11:1/;1'1/1 ~I.j .j' I I " I',I,~ II~yI'''{~AK1mI(/
U~... '.1:,1 :': ~- : ~d:~~ 111:'II:III:I:I:/,:I:I:~rt:ll~iI7' 1:.l1 .:.i'! ':': I '711' ~.1;(:jll,l,
~. ,r;r::r~ :~'I:"r~, :j'J.--l-i~/( ,rr'm' ':1 " ': / YI II:}:::}'III i~i~ :j.i!~ I' :,11 T :/:,I~I :,:1:, :C:J
c ~ ~Xl': I I I I I ~I I I ~"( ~ / ( I: I I I I I I / I I I V ( I I I I I'W:!~~' I I I I I I~ 'Ii) I I I I I I
I\. \ ) ,y'" :',':'j:,: :,,-11\' I:,',: ',' ,:,:~:,' ~ ~ ,':',', ': ':'1'1 . ~"" ,':': ~'c
r"l-u J ',," :':'!J:"',' I ,", ""J(f i ' ':", '::/ ,',I, ,'," ~IJ~
J.!~~ l~~ :~::~i::: "i I" ':~':: ::::;:::~ Ii i o~l~:: ::~;~-b',:~: i,1 ~,::",:::::: ~~:
\: ~ ~~~ I~~J~ (1~'::~: ::'\"Jl~~. ~ ~~! :I:I:I~~'~ 7:,: :1 i i~~ , : :',1:1;'1' g~~
. ~ 1"'1 , .. l:r ~\rI"[............. t'l I I I I I I I ,,, 9. I I I I if I ...."-
r;J :: ,,~I: ':II.I~ / I, 11111 / ~ ,:1',:,11,":1:, ,,, ( ill 1'1" 1'II II "'''''''
. --- I ~ I I .1u I I I I r '""'-l I I I I ~ 1 I I I I I I I , I I ,,\' I,ll II I I I
. '-i': . II'~U(T',II'I/I 11,1 .T~ ':1:': :,1':',1:111:1,',1.." i'''t~L ril ~'I~\'I\I'I "I'I:"III~\,I 11~\IIIII,I, "
' ~ 0, ~ """" " , - , ~\" , , , , , "" I' , , :1 ' II I
~~':\ I':IW~ ~.IJ:': !f(: :1:1:1/1:III:f:'~{i/I:I~NI:I{I:III: F'~:/:I;r,": I' ,/1 ,>,:~I"I' I,'
"l 0,,/ \ · 'l' , , , C ^ 0 J [ I 'I l('
~
d Jiij i i!~
if i~ Ii i ~; ~;I
hI 15.~ ~ ~ ~. II
~~ i~ I /~---, iO~ do
,L" I l~ / \
,a, I ilr: / \ +
) ,_i", ~> \ + ,
~" - II" /
. 2 ~ '.....____/
, . .
D
z
UJ
\!)
UJ
~
)
'"
'i::-:~~] t:J
~
",@5
"'l:\DcO'
:i~~
~t:~
~eJ~
Q'"
t:r:t.J
....l.lt:J
l.l>-'"
....
"''''..
-tt'?
G'0.:"
~
~
"
(i
.........
~o
~ Ji~
-:2l~
Uti:;
'i~ i5 0
p...!
~~r
Elt~
Q. -
i51~
-8.. .8~~
~;",~j
j~g~~
Ij~:!
-.!i 0'
"Of: >'1
~l~fi-
'0 :.2~
hhJ
.g E b 0).
..sls:,
~S~:-Sl
z
<
~
~
~
o
~
~
z
o
u
~
<,
Zl
o
~
~
Z
~
>
~
~
~
~
~
~
.....
~q.p
""~>-z-
f!l!f .,
?(!;~ ....
i.!~d~ ~
n!lf ~
i"gaif -
,t~, i .
-!Ool ~
li"e
ItiH; ~
~l~ ~
~~ 0 ~
~ q ~i 0
[in ......:J
at;;:' ~
so". ~ ~
.~. l-'-j
-~ > rJ
~
~
o
~
~
~CJ
>
~
~
~
~
~
~
>
g;
>
rJl
~I
~ 0
q :!
()
Z
I!I
~ ..
I ~
:- ;u
!. ..
i~
~~
" '--
<
,.
i
~
-t
~
~
/
G) r
~ rTI
I j (i\
'~~ rTI
)~~ ~'8; z
/ IJ
~ ~
.. ~
~ ~ ~
r
~ ~ <J
~
0- ~ ..
z ~
N ~
()
z :r ()
'" ,. ;j
z
~ ~'~ \\
t7 r', \\
) \ \\
;1\ '- -.l. L
- \\'~,
,
. '"
-I:>.
CJ
t
\
\ \
,
,
,
"
~"
:;u
~ I>-
~o
Z
"
I!I
Nnt
% ?<
~ -t
~ ;u
1m
If
< '--
I
"
~
~
~"
: ;u
~ I>-
q 0
z
"
I!I
Nnt
~ ?<
~ -f
~ ;u
1m
~~
,,19
< '--
,.
I
"
~
~
~
r-
r-
1
I
~ ~ ~
J~ t f
_ _ _ _1_ _ _ L _ ___
.>>
..-..J
~
Ul
..... ::<:l 1;;;......
o ~ ",,0
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~
'"
~
:> \.'-)0
~ ~~
~ ~~
~ <>
o ""'"2
g; f!J ~
8 82
z L. t.""l
rJ1
c:;,,'f'1 .
.,.')~ ~ '~
"17 2HI"" ~
;iu ~ ~
~/ ~ .~
l'eCT
:: ~ ~~
;;:::;; z "'t:l~
1:1- t: ==I'" ~
215 ,,"'S; 11
~ €I ~ ~ (ill "" ~
e-ofo! *' z)>~ ~
i;- - z'" -
gs ~ ~g ~
z;;J ~ ~::l '<,
,. ~~.f'l ......, :>~...
- ~ ...
l>!>
~!OO
~~
2
;:;
'--1
;I~I
;;,0
~
~'
"0
,];1
-,c6.,& ~_~ ~.(
'-" "",> ~ '" .
,,. ~ R....""~ ~:z;~ $$
o ~ ~S'..:~:;- S "'_
'" # () ~ r.: 1"-6
~ . ~ 0 .750..... Rr-
.. << z -s;...... t-
~ ~~ = ::i~l; ;;;
~ j ~('jtd g~ ~~
......~ :!(f)l1) Z Q?;::E U.
~~ ~,l' e3 ~ g ~
!)V ~ j ~
t. l;i~
- " Q,
9..... !:! ,'It"
"'.r 51 ~v
. L""'~
~
. ls
t.
U ~
~~ I
I~ i
i ~l~ !
buli
i ,-'
. / i-._,_
I} ~~< /',
.. .....-J\ ;
~ \.'----:J.-~~
91
;!;@
:.
it
i~
11
L
I
I
00
~
~Z z
~o 8
zt;j ~
>-001 s:: o~
<>-001 Q
E--Q ~
z~ ...:<
pp ~
000 <
~
<J<J
~
Un
;:..;
. lQ &'\
~;l F
g ~~ E
c:l ~> ""
~ ~~ Q
z
0
~
I <(
D
z
! =>
0
! lL
Ii..
ill---'
-<
lL~
'0
z'"
0'"
-~
f- _
! u~
9 tl{~
il \)
f-
ill
Ul
~
If)
'<t
N'
,2
z .
o~
~~
u~
tl{~
~
T
. i
9'"
~@
:.
'f;
t
~~
t
J
II
i !
~ i
f-
ill
ill
Ii
f-
If)
N.
1'19
I~
z ".
o~
_Gl
f- __
u~
~~
10
"
~:1':'
,
bl
"<<.0,,,
/iU\
(/'I~i~
i i III! I
II ! I
; i 'i II
! i !i \'1 '
\; l! l
II I. I,!
'<'J~!i I
''-'\,\0
I
.(
,,,,~f"
~- '
\C
~
\)0
<<
rJl
Z
o
~
~
U
~
rJl
~
~
~
~
rJl
~
<
U
~
~
~
~
[>[> ~ ~
'/'~ :> \.'-l0
"'c ;!J ~~
-"Z
6~ ...... e:;:z
r"
~ ... ;> 0...,
:.z
.5:' ->
--...J &.:l?~ 0 -<-
'::0 :>:l t;j:z
~ tr'l ""'"~
C'l 0.....
0 :z:z
z
c t.""l
\.'-l
,-.,,t
:;t;j ; I
~ ~~..;:;
=:; .~
.r"...---. ~r~
I)
~e
!:'......:J
--; I"'"""':J
~
~~
~
~
~
rJl
~
~
>
~
~ IZ
E ()
:!---j
m rTI
~ --
z
iii
~
r-
W
i
~
~
~
;Jl
~
~I!!
f~ :.~-~
-~iH
~ 2!.g ~
Iii!
g :;
o.
;;
........
It
....----
!
,I
~ ,
~ ,
, ,
, c..[-' ''-\-, \
' "....-...,~. --;---"---\ " \
" \"><'" ,-...;. ", f (- . -j ~ ~~:....., '$,~~ )0
------. I . \ 1,_0 }' .----r-----c--------~ "'------f---:-r,
... ....., \ " \ ~ -- -; "I T \
---,T--5-5----_ -J~~~----~\ ___,fE'- :r-4-'---5~-----~~'-~'''-'- /\,. ~~
" 1--- ---,----" _ -,....-;I'
I I, , ,__ __ ~
[7;---..---.........1 I \r:-c---,----_ -f' r--~, ~ r. 0,\ L"
' 1t ,', "I , . i"',,'" __ ',__, '. '~' ,__~, _~, ~
I~<~<~<~:'~'; 1\ 1 JL, '", :~ ~-?:",'~;1 ,I' J. ~ ) f,' S~,':",,~,1 "'-'-^--c""p __ ~ . ,
f~~;~~~~>'<1 \ :' / r "~.'.'.:>~~,,;~,j('/-" 1---:;~~< I<~~~~~~:jd<'-=::~/ ( . ') ,__
" ,~ "", ''\,'1, / J ','C ,{)~~',.",;:,'~,::J I, "I, tJ~, """"~1' , , ~
,""~<'---' '." / ",-,,~_~\--,-,,-t)"'--<'.-r-~' \ _,. "'_ _, _"..'<'''' / __
r"",~~';'C;.'<'\>'" 'I, ' _F>';h'C ';'~';-I;,}--' '-, '- 'i , ,rfc; ;<' ,""',;,', . I "
~ '<>"''\'';'''''', 'l'----/r -, '. ,,'.'.. i',~>~~ < (I' ,- <-'I" /r?' ''''<,'.';':,'': I . /' "
t'" "'>""'sc.~<1 '> ; ",. .,"..,' r;;' ~>,.>,q r . ~ V J,'-' , __ '.' """,.;'":,,. , ,_, ~+-.~_,~
t~<<'~~:<><;f2' I l,......,..:~.,.~~,.<<~,,<~ > '/j"'('>-I___"~:':>:;""":~~~~~~~~'~ ,__ ;' ./~ _ '.
""'><~~~:'~'<~~"~0'::"'" I K"" 0'-' ~<'~':<~~<~ I .. 1 <\ ,( " f'S<"~~~<'<~~,,~,!~~ _/ \ '..._/1
t'>?"~~S~(l ", ~;<" \__,", \ L1 . /F~~':'?:':~:,,~,<S:,~~~~~ ... .
f" """""'..J, <1<;""" L, "_ , , t;;'>"'>""~" ',\, I
. t: '::"""""'1 '''''':''''SJ''v" I _, .:.~>"",~,;j ,
':::,"(~~~~,':,.c'~ L.:.:....'..:-~L .' "" ,-.J'>"'<~:L ~~;:7-:~u
/' "2~~~~~ "'S'S'~~~~;l
/.'~' ""',.<" ":::;'\,",:~~,, ',',"
) "" """""'<'~:' "
-lc--,., .><;;~~~'~:;;
," L__ · ,I:"S~.'~'(;~<'J
' -" ~___~,;--............-:.J
I . _ ,
\ I -,;.>..;;.~~,.,."'/
\ I J
\ i ,- ,
" -j>~.,-(,
""lj:;:
'~I___'''';:'r'
.'
'~: :;~
',fT
,/
,
I
\
"
,
,
,
I
/
i
, i
_,I"
V
., f
.'<i'x<{
't~p
c~::: .I
l~ J:
,--
, ,
, ,
I ,
, ,
, ,
--'
I
r.J
,
,
,
,
,
I r
I 0
I "
/ "
------t--~____'___;_,
,
,
,
"............
-~
,
,
--~,~,,~ ..,-J.:
---~-~
'9
~ I
C)
~
':T~5----.--.___~___
_.~~--.-
Iv!
~ r
rTI
. (i\
. rTI
f" . Z
, IJ
rn~ J'..-
8~ ~~ ~~
Ulffi ~~ ~~
(J>
01-
111 ~n1 r ~
~~ :j~ ~
111_ ;;;0 -tiS (j
zz
U z 0:'(
(; ~() ~
ffi t" ;p
:;;~ z z
<\",'01
~')s ~
^t' ~o ~
l-j ~~ Cl
~, ~~ ~
~ ~ 5:
~/ ~
l'!"CT
o
~ ~F:
'" z""
~ "'t:l~
- -tn
1; t;j~
~ '"O"tl~
~z !;:~ ~
c z~~
di~~
~ ~;;j~
~ g~
~ ('>
l'
,.()
-0
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
J.:~
~~
0,"
"'0
Or
~.E;s:
....O~
i:;;"
85
z;;j
,.
~
~
Ul
"-.l
I>)
,~
c>
,--
L
.f'-""'"
Notice os hereby given that a PUBLIC HE\ .\JG on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE
will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on
November 9, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER,
1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice,
Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either ,in p.erson.or.byJetteL...or. failure to provide llufficient llpecificity lQaHQCdthe.
decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the land Use Board ()f Appeals (lUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify
which ordinance criterion the c)bjection 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 propOSlld conditions of approval with sufficient specificity
to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for
damages in circuit court,
N
A
759- 769 Mountain Ave,nue
A copy of the apPlicati(--~1I documents and evidence relied upon by the
applicant and applicable, )ria are available for inspection at no cost and will
be provided at reasonable coSt, if requested, A copy of the Staff Report will be
available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested, All materials are available at the Ashland
Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51
Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520,
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant
and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right
-to'limit -the-length~f--testi mony-and -require .that --comments--be' restricted to the.
applicable criteria, Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least
seven days after the hearing,
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to
contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-552-2041, Our
TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900,
PLANNING ACTION 2004-105 is a request for a seven lot Subdivision, Preliminary Plat approval, Conditional Use Permit
for an Accessory Residential Unit, and an exception to City of Ashland Street Standards for approximately 1.75 acres of
land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street. The application
includes a Tree Removal Permit, as well as a Variance to Off-Street Parking requirements to allow two (2) required off-street
parking spaces for the Accessory Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent parcel. Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 391E 16 AD; Tax Lots: 3400,3500 and 3600.
APPLICANT: R & C Investments
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on November 4, 2004 in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way at 7:00 p.m.
l~o
18.80.040
A.
r
i
,
SUBDIVISIO~ CRITERIA
8,
Preliminary plat.
Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of a
preliminary. plat and other supplementary material as may be required to
indicate the general program and objectives of the project to the office of
the Director of Public Works. The plat shall be prepared by a registered
surveyor.
. Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteEm (18)
inches by twenty-four (24) inches in size at a scale no smaller than one
(1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet.
General information. The following general information shall be shown
on the preliminary plat:
1. Proposed name of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor
resemble the name of another subdivision in Jackson County and
shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a preliminary
plat.
4. Location of the subdivision sufficient to define the location and
boundaries of the proposed tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
Existing conditions. The following existing conditions shall be shown
on the preliminary plat:
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets
within or adjacent to the tract, together with easements and other
important features, such as section lines and corners, and
monuments.
2. Location arid direction of all watercourses and areas subject to
flooding.
3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded
areas, and isolated preservable trees.
4. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing
structures to remain on the property after platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval of five (5) feet.
Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be
included on the preliminary plat.
1. The location, width, names and approximate grades of streets,
and the relationship of the streets to any projected streets as
shown on any development plan adopted by the Planning
Commission, or if there is no development plan, as su~mested by
the City to assure adequate traffic circulation.
2. The location and purpose of easements.
3. The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and
block numbers, for all lots and blocks. , .
4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family
dwellings.
C.
D.
F.
/31
(~
G. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only
part of the tract owned or controlled by the subdivider, the Planning
Commission may require a Master Plan for the unsubdivided portion.
H. Explanatory information. The following information shall be submitted
in separate statements accompanying the preliminary plat or, if
practicable, shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and
unsubdivided land adjacent' to the proposed subdivision and
showing how proposed streets may be extended to connect with
the existing streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
3. Where ,there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within the
area to be subdivided, a preliminary grading plan may be required
by the Planning Commission. A grading plan should show
existing and finished grades on lots and streets proposed to be
graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan shall be
approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a
review and report from the City Engineer.
I. Tentative approval.
1. Within thirty (30) days from the first regular Planning Commission
meeting following submission of the plat, the Planning Commission
will review the plan and may give tentative approval of the
preliminary plat as submitted or as it may be modified or, if
disapproved, shall express its disapproval and its reasons therefor.
2. Approval of the preliminary plat shall indicate the Planning
Commission's approval of the final plat provided there is no
change in the plan of subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat
and there is full compliance with the requirements of this Title.
3. The action of the Planning Commission shall be noted Orl two (2)
copies of the preliminary plat, including reference to any attached
documents, describing conditions. One (1) copy shall be returned
to the subdivider and the other retained by the Planning
Commission. (Ord. 2052, 1979)
l~~
,t~--
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS .
18.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permi1t shall be
granted if the approval authority finds that the propos4~d use
conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards
within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be
located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan
policies that are not implemented by any City, state, or Federal
law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer"
paved. access to and through the development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse
material effect on the livability of the impact area whE!n
compared to the development of the subject lot with the target
Use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use
on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to the targe:t use of
the zone: .
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on
surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity
9f facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility ~ith the impact
area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of
dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. other factors found to be relevant by the
Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
/3>3
r.'
I
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE
The critera for the approval of a Variance are found in 18.100,020 and are as
follows:
1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site
which do not apply elsewhere.
2) That the proposal's benefits will be grater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of
this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord. 2425 S1,
1987')
3) That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996)
18.88.050.F Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is
not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be
granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 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 variance will result in equal or superior transportation
facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty;
and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the
Performance Standards Options Chapter.
/~t(
r'--
(
(-
SECTION 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal- Staff Permit.
An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are
satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a
permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the
applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is dear that it is
likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that
is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or
private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the
damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of
the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property
damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be
alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not
a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and stlmdards. (e.g.
other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the
building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurak verification
of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks;
and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet ofthe subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that
the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In
making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement
of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, 'so
long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be. a
condition of approval of the permit.
(Ord 2883, Added, 06/04/2002)
I 3.5'
/'" -
I
,..-";',
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 97!i20, in the Community Development Department.
2. On O~tober ?1. '004, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
sealed envl310pe with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Findings 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 # :<004 - /tJ.5"'" .
CMre/'w~
Signature of Employee
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 21st day of Octoher, 2004.
OFFICIAL SEAL
NANCY E SLOCUM
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 371650
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 18. 2007
Comm-Dev\Planning\ Templates
I~"
391E16AD 6700 PA #2004-105
BENTS ROBERT T/DENISE D
1010 MAGIC LAMP WAY C
MONUMENT, CO 80132
391E16AD 2500 PA #2004-105
BEUTNER EDWARD
BETSY BEYER
843 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 4800 PA #2004-105
CHRISTLIEB GARY B TRUSTEE ET AL
1065 EMMA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 4100 PA #2004-105
GORDON ROBERT S
1025 WILDWOOD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2300 PA #2004-105
HOPKINS RANDALL A TRUSTEE
735 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2200 PA #2004-105
HOUK HUGH W/DOROTHY J
710 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3904 P A #2004-105
MASLOW JENNIFER
146 MANZANITA
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2700 PA #2004-105
OLSEN RAYMOND ULORRAINE I
735 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
a91EHJAD 3400 PA #2004 105
R & C RE,AL EST fATE ENTERPRISES
S NORTH MAIN ST
ASHLA~~D, OR 97S20
a91EltiAD 3tiOO P.A. #2004 105
ROBERTS HILLERY B
COCHR~~ECHARLESA
1970 i\.SHLA..ND ST 2
ASHLi\..~D, OR 97S20
/-
/
I
391E16AD 4200 PA #2004-105
BERGEN ROBERT L
STEELE SAMANTHA
1020 WILDWOOD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391EltiAD 2300 PA #1004 10S
CHRISTLIEB Ci\RY B TRUSTEE ET
Ab
10tiS EMM.A. ST
ASHLA..ND, OR 97S20
391E16AD 6500 PA #2004-105
COTION CHRISTOPHER TRUSTEE
780 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3100 PA #2004-105
GURWELL JULIA K
1047 WILDWOOD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391EltiA.A. 2304 Pi\. #2004 .10S
HOPKINS RA.NDALL i\. TRUSTEE
73S S MOUNTAIN f. VE
ASHLA.ND, OR 97S20
391E16AD 3200 PA #2004-105
LITILE JOHN D/JUDITH S
807 S MOUNTAIN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3700 PA #2004-105
MUEGGLER MARY JO TRUSTEE
800 BEACH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2301 PA #2004-105
PHILLIPS PHILIPIKATHERINE
1063 PROSPECT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2600 PA #2004-105
ROBERTS EVAN C
751 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E15BB 5002 P A #2004-105
SCHAFFER SUSAN LYNNE
738 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
1~1
391E16AA 2400 PA #2004-105
BERGSTROM A T
PENNY AUSTIN
760 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 2700 PA #1004 19S
CHRlSTLIEIl CARY B TRUSTEE ET
Ab
10fiS EMM:.A. l!;+
ASHLA~~D, OR 97S20
391E16AD 3900 PA #2004-105
D'OLIVO MARK
804 BEACH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2302 P A #2004-105
HEINRICH WlLLIAMlSUZANNE
6149 COUNTRY CLUB PKY
SAN JOSE, CA 95138
391Eltil\...\ 2303 P..\ #2004 10S
HOPKINS RANDALL TRUSTEE
73S S MOUNTAIN .\ VE
.A.SHLL~D, OR 97S20
391E16AD 4000 PA #2004-105
LYONS JEROME D TRUSTEE FBO
890 BEACH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391EIti_AD 38~10 PA #2004 IOS
MUECCLER M:..A..RY JO TRUSTEE ET
Ab
800 BKA..CH S'j::
ASHL..A...ND, OR 97S20
391E16AD 3301 PA #2004-105
R & C REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES
5 NORTH MAlN ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3500 PA #2004-105
ROBERTS HILLERY B
COCHRANE CHARLES A
1970 ASHLAND ST 2
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3701 PA #2004-105
SIGETICH MILAN P/R L REID
1036 PROSPECT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3300 PA #2004-105
STALLMAN ANDREW M/JEANNE M
789 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39IE16AA 2402 P A #2004-105
STUE;LPNAGEL JULIE
915 OAK ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39IE16AD 2900 PA #2004.105
TRAYNOR SEAN J/KERRl L
1071 WILDWOOD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2703 PA #2004-105
WORKMAN ANGELA J
WEEDEN DERRICK LEE
775 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
,/'-
/
J
\
~91El(;AD ~401 P:\ 1t200~ lOS
STALLl\-L"~ :'.NDREWl\iI-JEf~NE M
789 S MOUNTAIN f.VE
f"SIILAND, OR 97S20
39IE16AD 6600 P A #2004-105
STURTEVANT CAROL TRSTEE FBO
800 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39IE16AD 101 PA#2004-105
WARREN JONffiEBECCA
1120 PROSPECT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39IE16AD3301 PA#2004-105
R & C INVESTMENTS
1970 ASHLAND ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
/~1
t' --
j
\
39IE16AA 2305 P A #2004-105
STANEK CHRISTOPHER J/WENDI
720 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39IE16AA 2401 PA #2004-105
TAYLOR JEAN
734 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39IE16AD 4300 PA #2004-105
WATT RANDY!EVIE
PO BOX 853
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3301 PA #2004-105
CRAIG STONE & ASSOt
708 CARD LEY AVE
MEDFORD, OR 97504
Archerd asked that language be added to Condition 20 taking into account the improvements they are currently making, They
will have incurred significant costs to make the half-street improvement. There should be a sentence included so they don't
forget five years from now that they already contributed,
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Modify Condition 2 to read, "A final design shall be reviewed and approved prior to building permit or [mal plat." Also,
Changes to Condition 20, "improvements to include bike lane, right-hand turn lane, taking into account the half-street
improvements the applicants are building along Clay Street as part of this project."
DotterrerlDouma m/s to approve PA2004-116 with the changes made to Conditions 2 and 20,
Black continued to express her concerns regarding traffic circulation, that it is inadequate, particularly from east to west. She
does not believe transportation has not been adequately met.
Add to Condition 8 that the location of the pedestrian pathway be redesigned to go through the commercial parking area.
Molnar suggested wording for a Condition 22, that the location of the pedestrian pathway be redesigned to go through the
commercial parking area,
In response to Black's concerns, Molnar referred the Commissioners to Exhibit S-l in the last Staff Report, The access drive is
proposed to be a public street with the installation of the public sidewalk along the north side of the new strleet. Right before
the bend, cross the street and install a sidewalk all the way to the intersection of AsWand Street. They are proposing it on one
side. AsWand Street Standards are two sides, Dotterrer does not believe they need it on both sides and suggested adding in
parenthesis to Condition 9 "(parking and sidewalk on one side)."
Roll Call: Morris, Douma, Chapman, Briggs, Dawkins and Dotterrer voted "yes" and Black voted "no".
KenCaim and Fields re-joined the meeting,
PLANNING ACTION 2004-105
REQUEST FOR A SEVEN LOT SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY
RESIDENTIAL UNIT, AND AN EXCEPTION TO CITY OF ASHLAND STREET STANDARDS FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.75 ACRES OF
LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE AND PROPSPECT
STREET. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, AS WELL AS A VARIANCE TO OFF-STREET PARKING
REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW TWO (2) REQUIRED OFF-STREETE PARKING SPACES FOR THE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO
BE LOCATED ON AN ADJACENT PARCEL.
APPLICANT: R & C INVESTMENTS
Site visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. Chapman lives one block from the property but he assured the
applicant and his colleagues that he will be able to hear the application fairly and impartially, Morris lives almost across the
street from the property but will not have a problem being impartial.
STAFF REPORT
Harris reviewed the application and described the site as outlined in the Staff Report in the packet. She showed photos of the
property, In general, Staff is supportive of the direction the project has gone. It is a complex site, Prospect is relatively narrow
with steep slopes on the north side and the west end necks down to about 24 feet. The right-of-way on S. Mountain is about 53
to 54 feet wide and it has shifted. Staff would recommend continuing the hearing because more information is required before
the application meets the approval criteria, specifically for the Tree Removal Permit, Conditional Use Permit and the Variance.
Harris said usually the Commission reviews applications under the Performance Standards using Outline Plan (conceptual
phase) and Staff reviews the final engineering at Final Plan approval. The Subdivision Chapter approaches the review all in
one process. Staffs main concerns are highlighted in the boxed areas of the Staff Report, Harris reviewed coach of these items,
The Tree Commission reviewed the application at their meeting last week and they made eight recommendations that are
included in the packet.
There are letters in the packet from neighbors. An e-mail was handed out from Phil Philips received on October 11, 2004 and a
memo from Chris and Nikki Cotton.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2004 I :2.r::1
MINUTES ___I
There are still some important details in the application that need to be addressed to show the application meets the findings for
a Tree Removal Pemut, a Tree Protection Plan, the Conditional Use Permit and Variance. There are 20 suggested Conditions,
The Commissioners had several questions of Staff and the following information came from those questions,
I. Reconfigure Prospect to get 22 feet of width, curb-to-curb for the majority of the street. Probably the most obvious
solution would be to alter the sidewalk.
2, The finished grade of the driveway that turns into a hammerhead is 15 percent, the maximum under City standards,
The applicant is showing fill slopes on either side,
3. Prospect Street will have curb, gutter, sidewalk, and a planting strip except where it transitions to a curbside sidewalk.
More parking could be gained by removing the planting strip in the narrower area,
4. Tree Commission's recommendation 8 - Concerned about impact of new paving of Prospect Street on trees to the
north and south of th{~ street - can alternate method be used? The Tree Commission was looking at the cluster of trees
identified for preservation and looking for an evaluation of what the street improvements and paving would do to that cluster of
trees, There are also some large oak trees. The natural flow of storm drainage will stop with the installation of curb and gutter.
Can something be done to address this situation?
5. Tree Protection Plan - It is required to show grading within the driplines or tree protection zones of trees to be
preserved as well as utility work. Staff is looking for more information, particularly, looking for grading information that
shows how far beyond the edge of the street that work will impact. If the water line runs down the private drive, what is the
impact on the trees?
6. The Tree Protection Plan states chain link fencing has to be installed around the dripline of the tree or the tree
protection zone, whichever is greater. The tree protection zone is the area around the tree that is necessary to preserve the
health of the tree over the long term. There are irregularly shaped driplines, In no case is the tree protection zone smaller than
the drip line.
7. The existing house on Lot 2 is proposed to be converted to an accessory residential unit and then a new primary
residence built (requires CUP). They would need a total of four off-street parking spaces, There is garage shown at the
building envelope that would provide two spaces. The applicants are showing a parking bay at the rear of Lot 1 that would
provide two off-street parking spaces for the accessory residential unit (reason for Variance).
PUBLIC HEARING
CRAIG STONE, 708 Cardley Avenue, Medford, OR, said he is representing Charles Andrew Cochrane and Bruce and Pokii
Roberts. John Galbraith, landscape architect and Steve Ward, civil engineer are present tonight.
Stone said this project has undergone at least three re-designs. They sought to eliminate accesses to the extent possible on to
Prospect Street, taking access by way of the private drive in so doing, preserving the travel and parking capacities along
Prospect Street.
Twenty-five trees are slated for removal. The applicants looked at all trees over six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and
developed their Tree Preservation Plan around that. They have tried to preserve the best trees on the property, preserving even
the smaller trees.
Stone said they did a utility plan, The civil engineer will introduce it. They are willing to prepare a plan showing locations for
fire hydrants and street lights.
The topographic surv{~y covered the entire property. They choose points on site and use a computer program that connects the
dots. At the upper area, the dots ended and the computer program crams the line together. The slopes in that area are fairly
mild. Stone entered a photograph as evidence. He read a letter from Jim Hibbs, surveyor, into the record as evidence of the
slopes.
The applicants are fairly flexible on the building footprint revisions with the exception of one envelope,
The accessory residential unit is calculated at 900 square feet. He was unaware there was a basement but believes the
basement is not habitable,
STEVE WARD, WESTECH ENGINEERING, 3841 Fairview Industrial Drive, Salem, OR, showed a cross-section of Prospect Street.
They are trying to balance encroachments into the right-of-way, topographic constraints, saving trees, landscape strips,
sidewalks and parking. There is an existing carport that encroaches significantly into the right-of-way, along with existing
planter strips, stairs and fences, Currently, parking is allowed from the carport to the east, on one side of the street. They have
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 12,2004
MINUTES
/~
shown a 22 foot wide curb-to-curb improvement with a planting strip and sidewalk. The sidewalk would be required to be on
private property within an easement. They can construct the improvements in the right-of-way and not entl~r into the steep
slopes or the existing improvements the neighbors have on their properties. The roadway will have to narrow down as it
approaches the carport. They will have to get rid of the planting strip, They can build a twelve to fifteen foot wide roadway
from the carport, encroach into the landscape strip, still maintain access to the houses and from the carport to the east, maintain
parking for the 22 foot wide improvement. They are looking for guidance,
Stone said it is his understanding the functional classification of the street is a Residential Neighborhood Street, calling for a 22
foot paved section.
Questions and Concerns from Commissioners
Dawkins wondered how a car or construction truck could turn around at the end of Prospect. Backing out to Mountain isn't
safe. People will have to have some way to turn around. Briggs noted there is an existing utility easement coming up between
the trees about 16 to 18 feet which would allow backup room, The applicants agreed. Or, Stone said if they put in a
turnaround, a large cluster of trees would be lost. KenCairn questioned directing the applicants to create a 1umaround that will
potentially endanger more trees that are trying to be saved. It is a concern if we are trying to preserve the drip lines. Briggs
wondered if they could consider a teardrop shaped turnaround. Stone did not know if the City had an approved design and if
the Fire Department would allow it.
Has the applicant considered a pedestrian walkway through the property and/or on the west side ofProspec't up to the ditch
road? It is not required unless the Commission fmds there is inadequate pedestrian transportation for the project.
Ward said they are trying to achieve a five percent grade at the hammerhead.
JOHN GALBRAITH talked about the tree preservation zones. They looked at the critical root zone of the trees, the age and size
of the trees and type of trees. That is how they decide how much of an impact they can create on the root system of the trees.
The root system is what will carry the canopy of the tree. The pine trees are much larger than the canopied trees. By
determining the critical root zone of a tree, cutting into the roots will have minimal impact on the tree. He concurred with the
Tree Commission's recommendations.
Galbraith said they are willing to work with the Tree Commission on the mitigation plan. They will probably be planting about
25 trees.
ANNOUNCEMENT: Chapman said the public hearings for Minimum Density for R-2 and R-3 zones and the Heritage Tree List
will be heard at a meeting on Tuesday, October 26,2004 at 7:00 pm at the Council Chambers. FieldslBlack m/s to hold the
hearing on October 26,2004. Voice Vote: Unanimous, McLaugWin noted that the Economic Strategy study session might be
postponed.
RANDALL HOPKINS, 735 S. Mountain Avenue, voiced the concerns of many of the neighbors.
1. Trees - They do not want anyone to think the Tree Commission has granted approval for the three Tree Removal
Permits. Neither the applicant nor the representatives showed up at the Tree Commission meeting. The applicant has a track
record of not following the Tree Protection Plan, A Tree Protection Plan is only as good to the extent it is carried out and
enforced,
2. . Parking - Even if Prospect is expanded to 22 feet, it still doesn't solve the severe traffic and safety problems on
Prospect. Most of the area is taken up by the residents that park there. If you have just one construction truck parking on the
south side, the access to the residences will be blocked. The Staff Report states that the Prospect Street design will create a
situation where cars will be parked on the street regardless of whether it is posted No Parking. Did the Commissioners notice a
large SUV parked inches from a No Parking sign? It belongs to the developer, If the parking problem in that area is not on his
radar during a site visit by the Planners and Commissioners, what is going to happen when this is approved and the residents
are going to have to deal with the consequences?
FieldslBlack m/s to extend the meeting to 11 :00 pm.
MARGUERITTE HICKMAN, 455 Siskiyou Boulevard, said the Fire Department would like to see at least a 22 foot wide street with
parking on one side. The Fire Department will go along with Staffs recommendation. They were able, with the help of the
Traffic Safety Commission, to put in No Parking signs, They would like to see the street meet the minimum street standards, if
at all possible. .
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2004
MINUTES
6
If/
'-'
Harris noted that some of the neighbors have expressed an interest in asking for vacation of Prospect Street. McLaugWin said
they could ask for an c~ncroachment permit for what is currently in the right-of-way.
At this point, Briggs is not willing to grant any variances the applicants are requesting tonight.
FIELDS is hearing there are parking, access issues around Prospect and the tree plan are the major issues.
McLaughlin asked if the Commissioners are willing to remove trees (grouping at the end) in order to get the street width on
Prospect? Fields said if they opened up parking on the south side and give up the parkrow, it might work. Dotterrer agreed,
KenCairn suggested parking on both sides of Prospect (22 feet wide), stop six feet shy of the fenceline, and create a turnaround
that backs to the south side, Fields added making a mountable sidewalk for a backup on the uphill side, Don't look at the last
piece as public street, but as access to those houses. The trees would stay. Staff will work on this idea.
Briggs would like to deny the Variance for the accessory residential unit parking off-site because it sets a precedent for
drawing very large building envelopes and saying there is no room to park on their own lot.
Briggs said even though the basement of the accessory residential unit is not habitable, it doesn't take much imagination to turn
a basement into a fInished space.
PHIL PHILLIPS, neighborhood resident, said there is a problem with parking and getting out of Prospect. People either back up
or turn around in his carport. If Prospect is widened, consider leaving the parking on one side, Then there would be room to
turn around. His carport sits on a pile of dirt that is about 30 feet high. On one side is a fairly precipitous drop. There is an
oak between his proP(:rty and his neighbors and the oak is a consideration. A wider street would make it easier as long as
parking is only on om: side of the street.
The hearing will be continued on November 9,2004 at 7:00 pm at the Council Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11 :00 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 12,2004
MINUTES
7
I I./- ~
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
October 12, 2004
PLANNING ACTION: 2004-105
APPLICANT: R & C Investments
LOCATION: 759 and 769 South Mountain Avenue
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-l-lO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE:August 19,2004
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat approval of a seven-lot subdivision, and an Exception to the Street
Standards for improvements to South Mountain Avenue, to Prospect Street and for five lots to
use the private drive. A Tree Removal Permit is requested for the removal of three trees greater
than 18 inches diameter at breast height. In addition, the application includes a request for a
Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing residence at 759 S. Mountain Ave. to an
accessory residential unit. A Variance is requested to allow two required off-street parking
spaces for the accessory residential unit to be located on an adjacent parcel.
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
The applicant has submitted and withdrawn two previous versions of the
subdivision for planning approval. In February 2003, an application for a five-lot
subdivision involving two parcels (759 S. Mountain Ave. and the vacant parcel to
the west) was submitted. The application was deemed incomplete on February
25, 2003, and withdrawn in July 2003. In January 2004, an application for a
seven-lot subdivision involving three parcels (759 S. Mountain Ave., 769 S.
Mountain Ave. and the vacant parcel to the west) was submitted. A public notice
for a public hearing at the February 10, 2004 Planning Commission m(~eting was
sent to surrounding property owners. The applicant postponed the application in
response to access concerns. In April 2004, the application was withdrawn.
The current application was noticed for the September 14,2004 Planning
Commission meeting. However, the applicant postponed the review until the
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 1 of 19
/ l/-~
November meeting.
There are no planning actions of record for this site.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
The application involves a 1.7 5-acre site located at the southwest comer of the
intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street. The site has
approximately 206 feet of frontage on South Mountain Avenue and 310 feet of
frontage on Prospect Street. The proposal involves three existing parcels of which
two contain single-family homes. The site is bounded by residential development
on all sides.
The majority of the property slopes consistently from the southwest to the
northeast, with an average slope of 22 percent. The property is heavily wooded
primarily on the western portion. A Tree Protection and Removal Plan has been
included with the application, identifying approximately 62 trees greater than six
inches diameter at breast height (dbh) within and adjoining the project boundaries.
The majority of the trees are pines, but cedars, oaks, big leaf maple, madrone,
mountain mahogany and fruit trees are also present.
Pro;ect Overview
Preliminary Plat Approval of the Subdivision
The application involves a request for Preliminary Plat approval for a seven-lot
subdivision under Chapter 18.80 - Subdivisions. The parcels range in size from
10,000 square feet to 13,020 square feet. The existing residence located at 759
South Mountain Avenue is proposed for conversion to an accessory residential
unit and is located on proposed Lot 2. The residence at 769 South Mountain
Avenue is located on proposed Lot 7. The remaining five lots will be vacant.
Building envelopes ranging from 2,840 to 3,747 square feet in size are included in
the application.
Vehicular access to Lot 1 at the comer of South Mountain and Prospect would be
provided by Prospect, and the existing residence located on Lot 7 (769 South
Mountain Avenue) would continue to be accessed from South Mountain Avenue.
The remaining five lots are accessed by a private drive.
The proposed private drive intersects with South Mountain Avenue,
approximately 125 feet south of the intersection of South Mountain and Prospect.
The private drive including the turnaround would be 325 feet in length and is
shown at 20 feet in width. A fire truck turnaround is provided at the terminus of
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
'4-f
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 2 of 19
the private drive.
Ashland's Land Use Ordinance permits a maximum finished grade of 15 percent
for a private drive with the possibility of a Variance to go up to 18 percent for no
more than 200 feet in length. The application includes a grading plan for the
private drive and a letter from the project engineer summarizing the pl1vate drive
design.
The majority of the private drive is shown at the maximum 15 percent grade with
an approximately 100 foot section to the rear of Lot 2 at four and a halfpercent
finished grade. The primary cut area is on Lot 5 for the fire truck turnaround. Fill
is shown on both sides of the drive. Retaining walls are also used with a new wall
running along the north side of the private drive approximately four feet in height.
Additionally, retaining walls are used to provide driveway access to L)ts 2 and 3
with the maximum wall height shown as 11 feet on Lot 2.
The application states that the existing and planned public facilities and utilities
are shown on the grading plan submitted with the application. While some of the
existing utilities are shown, the planned public facilities do not appear to be
shown. Preliminary engineering for the streets as well as a utility plan are- not
provided with the application.
Exception to the Street Standards - for Improvements to South Mountain
Avenue
South Mountain Avenue south of Prospect Street is classified as a Neighborhood
Street, and is an improved city street without parkrows and sidewalks. The street
right-of-way is 52.5 feet wide and the existing improved portion is shined to the
west side of the right-of-way. As a result, there isn't undeveloped stmet right-of-
way for South Mountain A venue along the property frontage. The required
sidewalk improvement for a Neighborhood Street is a seven-foot wide parkrow
between the curb and sidewalk, and a five-foot wide sidewalk.
The applicant requests an Exception to the Street Standards to eliminate the
parkrow and transition to a curbside sidewalk for a length of approximately 85
feet. The proposed curbside sidewalk would be located south of the proposed
private drive and along the frontage of Lot 7 (769 South Mountain Avtmue). The
Exception is proposed to preserve an existing retaining wall along the frontage of
769 South Mountain and the associated plantings in the front yard area.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
l 'I-~
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
OGtober 12, 2004
Page 3 of 19
Exception to the Street Standards - for Improvements to Prospect Street
Prospect Street is classified as a Neighborhood Street. The section west of South
Mountain Avenue is not paved and does not meet the Street Standards. The
Prospect Street right-of-way is currently 43.85 feet wide with the westerly 50 feet
narrowing to 23.85 feet in width. Prospect Street is an unimproved street without
curb, gutter or sidewalks. The existing driving surface is crushed granite which
varies from nine to 12 feet in width. Several structures (planters, carports, and
stairs) intrude into the northern 20 feet of the Prospect Street right-of-way. The
minimum required improvement for a Neighborhood Street with parking on one
side is 22-feet of driving surface measured from curb to curb, and a seven-foot
wide parkrow and five-foot wide sidewalk on both sides of the street.
The applicant proposes to improve Prospect Street with a 22-foot wide driving
surface from the intersection with South Moqntain A venue to approximately 65
feet to the west. The proposed curb-to-curb width would then reduce to 18 feet
for the next 140 feet. Finally, the remaining 90 feet would be improved to 15 feet
from curb to curb. A standard parkrow and sidewalk for a Neighborhood Street is
proposed on the south side of the street for approximately 240 feet from the
intersection to the west. The westerly 70 feet transitions to a curbside sidewalk.
The applicant requests an Exception to the Street Standards to improve the street
driving surface to less than the required curb-to-curb width of 22 feet. The
majority of the length of the street is proposed at 18 feet with the west end
proposed at 15 feet in width. On":street parking would be prohibited on most of
the street since the width is proposed at less than the minimum of 22 feet in width.
The Exception request also involves transitioning to a curbside sidewalk at the
west end of the street for a length of 70 feet.
The main reason given for the proposed Prospect Street improvement is reducing
the impact of a full street improvement due to the topography on either side of the
existing roadway. In addition, the application asserts that a modified street
improvement is reasonable given that Prospect Street is an existing dead-end
street that will not be extended in the future. Including the proposed subdivision
Prospect Street will ultimately serve five parcels. The topography on the north
side of the undeveloped right-of-way drops off steeply. In addition, several
structures intrude in the right-of-way. The applicant argues that the dedication of
right-of-way on south side of Prospect along the property frontage would create a
jog in a relatively short section of street. Additionally, the application states that
the terrain is steep along the frontage which would require cuts and fills for the
street improvement.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
Jlf~
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12,2004
Page 4 of 19
Exception to the Street Standards - to Exceed the Maximum Number of
Home-sites Served by a Private Drive
Ashland's Land Use Ordinance pennits a maximum of three properti(~s to be
served by a private drive. A dedicated and improved public street, complying with
City development standards for local streets, is required for four or more lots. The
project includes the construction of a private drive to provide access to five
properties. Private drives serving more than three lots have been processed under
Chapter 18.100 as a Variance in the past.
Based on past planning approvals, Staff believes a Variance is not required with
the subject application. In previous planning approvals, when a lot ha.s physical
frontage on a public street, such as the case with Lots 2 and 3, the lots have not
been counted in the private drive maximum. Lots with public street fiontage and
private drive access are considered to have legal access on a public street and
functional access on the private drive. In Staff's opinion, the intent of the private
drive requirement is to establish a threshold for when a full-public stn~et
improvement with on-street parking, planting strips and sidewalks is required. In
the case of Lots 2 and 3, the parcels will have frontage on a public stn:et
(Prospect), which will be improved. The private drive will function like an alley
providing rear vehicular access to the property.
Staff believes it is important to note that the applicant originally designed the
subdivision so that Lots 2 and 3 derived access from Prospect, and were not
served by the private drive. However, neighboring property owners from Prospect
Street raised concerns about the capacity of Prospect to accommodate additional
traffic and driveway movements given the less than standard City stre(~t
improvement. As a result, the applicant redesigned the subdivision so that the
majority of the new vehicle trips would be accommodated on the private drive.
Tree Removal Permit to Remove Three Trees Greater than 18 Inches
Diameter at Breast Height and Tree Protection Plan
The application includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove three
trees greater than 18 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). The three trees
include an 18 inch dbh pine on proposed Lot 3, a 20 inch dbh madrone on
proposed Lot 4 and a 24 inch dbh pine on proposed Lot 5.
A Tree Protection and Removal Plan and associated narrative has been included
with the application, identifying 62 trees greater than six inches diameter at breast
height (dbh) within and adjoining the project boundaries. The majority of the
trees are pines, but cedars, oaks, big leaf maple, madrone, mountain mahogany
and fruit trees are also present. A total of nineteen trees over six inches dbh are
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
/'17
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Paige 5 of 19
proposed for removal including the three trees which require a Tree Removal
Permit as described above.
The Tree Protection and Removal Plan identifies a tree protection zone for trees to
be preserved, the location of protective fencing and site specific recommendations
by tree including excavation and foundation specifications. There are four
significant trees surrounding the east end of the proposed private drive. Two 30
inch dbh pines are located on the south side ofthe private drive on proposed Lot
7. An existing retaining wall and the existing driveway go well into the dripline
of one of the trees. The other two significant trees, a 28 inch dbh pine and 36 inch
dbh pine, are on the north side of the drive located on proposed Lot 2. The Tree
Protection Plan narrative calls for a root ventilation system in areas of drive fill in
the tree protection zone, and includes specifications for excavation for retaining
walls.
Conditional Use Permit - to Convert the Existing Residence Located at 759
South Mountain Avenue to an Accessory Residential Unit
Ashland's Land Use Ordinance allows a second residential unit, also know as an
accessory residential unit, in the R -1 zoning district with the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit. The accessory residential unit can be no greater in size
than half the size of the primary residence and no greater than 1,000 square feet in
size. The proposal is to convert the existing residence located at 759 South
Mountain Avenue and located on proposed Lot 2 into an accessory residential
unit. The unit is described as a 900-square foot single-family dwelling. The new
home on proposed Lot 2 would therefore become the primary residence.
Variance - to Locate the Two Required Off-street Parking for the Accessory
Residential Unit on an Adjacent Parcel
Ashland's Land Use Ordinance requires accessory residential units to meet the
off-street parking requirements for single-family residences in Chapter 18.92.
Off-street patking is required to be located on the same parcel for single-family
and two-family dwellings. The proposal is to locate the two required off-street
parking spaces in a parking bay on proposed Lot 1. Since the off-street parking
spaces for the accessory residential unit are not located on proposed Lot 2, but
rather on Lot 1, a Variance is required as a component of the application.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
lc.f<?
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004fPage 6 of 19
II. Proiect Impact
While Staff is generally supportive of the direction the project has gone, we believe that
several issues and concerns discussed at the pre-application conference, subsequent
meetings and in written correspondence remain unresolved. Consequently, Staff does not
support approving the application at this time until the items described within this report
have been addressed.
The outstanding issues to be addressed are highlighted in a text box.
Preliminary Plat Approval of the Subdivision
The City's topographic maps indicate several areas on the property as being 25% and
greater in slope. The areas are roughly 1, 000 to 1, 500 square feet in size and situated
throughout the property. The application includes a site specific survey, and staff agrees
that the majority of the property is at a slope of 22%. It does appear that a podion of the
fire truck turnaround may be in an area over 25% in slope. If this is the case, 'the primary
concern would be erosion control of the cut area. Verification in the form of a slope
analysis should be reviewed with the application for conformance to the Hillside
Development Standards. All areas which are on the Hillside Lands map and have slopes
25% and greater are considered Hillside Lands, and are subject to the Hillside
Development Standards in Chapter 18.62, Physical and Environmental Constraints.
The application involves Preliminary Plat approval. Preliminary Plat approval involves
the evaluation and tentative approval of all public improvements (i.e. street
improvements, utility design for sewer, water, electric, etc.), grading plans and lot layout.
The application notes that the existing and proposed public utility improvemtmts are
shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan by Westech Engineering, Inc. However, except
for several of the existing lines in Prospect and Mountain, this information is not shown
on the referenced plan. The applicant's stipulations include a specification that the
Prospect Street Water Main will be upgraded as required by the City. However, given the
location near the southern boundary of the city in an area with relatively older street and
public facilities, Staff believes a utility plan is needed to determine that the proposed
subdivision includes improvements that meet City standards. Additionally, location of
utility lines and easements is a required component of the Tree Protection Plan in Chapter
18.61.
Preliminary engineering for the public street improvements is not included in the
application. The applications stipulations include an agreement to install the
improvements to Prospect Street and South Mountain A venue as outlined in the
application. The property is located in the Wildfire Lands Area, and several issues have
not been addressed. The location of existing and proposed hydrants, and the number of
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
/~
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 7 of 19
new structures with residential sprinkler systems is not addressed. Finally, several
electric utility issues have not been addressed. Existing and proposed utility lines are
required to be installed underground. The location of these facilities and associated
equipment is required on the utility plan. Street lights are required with a residential
subdivision, and the location must be shown on the utility plan. Again, to insure that the
proposed street and private improvements can be constructed as described to meet City
standards, preliminary engineering for the improvements is needed. Additionally, the
Tree Protection Plan requires a delineation of the extent of the street construction and
utility line disturbance in areas within the drip lines of trees identified for preservation.
This is of particular concern in regards to the cluster of trees identified for preservation
located in the northwest corner of the property adjacent to Prospect Street, and in relation
to tress along the western site boundary along the public utility easement where electric
lines will be installed underground.
In Staffs opinion, the following information should be reviewed with the application
prior to Preliminary Plat approval: I) a slope analysis of the site, 2) a preliminary public
utility plan addressing the existing and proposed public utility (water, sewer, storm drain,
electrilc) improvements and easements including upgrades to mains and individual lot
connections and 3) preliminary engineering for public street improvements clearly
indicating locations of extent of cuts and fills and road grades.
Exception to the Street Standards - for Improvements to South Mountain Avenue
The applicant requests an Exception to the Street Standards to eliminate the parkrow and
transition to a curbside sidewalk for a length of approximately 85 feet. The proposed
curbside sidewalk would be located south of the proposed private drive and along the
frontage of Lot 7 (769 South Mountain Avenue). The Exception is proposed to preserve
an existing retaining wall along the frontage of769 South Mountain and the associated
plantings in the front yard area.
In Staffs opinion, the advantage of using a curbside sidewalk in front of the existing
residence at 769 South Mountain Avenue is a reasonable solution given that ifthe sidewalk
is ext1ended to the south in the future it would most likely be a curbside sidewalk. The
properties to the south on the east side of Mountain Avenue are built out, and will likely not
see further development outside of changes to the existing single-family homes. Since the
South Mountain Avenue street right-of-way is shifted to the opposite (west) side ofthe street,
there i.s little right-of-way for sidewalk development on the project (east) side ofthe street to
the south of this project. If addition, there are numerous existing trees as well as steep banks
in some areas in close proximity to the curb. For this reason, Staffbelieves the transition to a
curbside sidewalk is the best solution to plan for possible future extension of the sidewalk.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
/60
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 8 of 19
Exception to the Street Standards - for Improvements to Prospect Street
In Staff's opinion, Prospect Street is unusual because it is a dead-end street that will not
be extended for future development, has existing varying right-of-way widths, slopes on
either side of the street, had significant intrusions in the right-of-way and has a large
cluster of trees near the southwest end of the street. Staffs concern is that th(~ proposed
street improvement will not provide on-street parking. The minimum width for a
Neighborhood Street with parking on one side is 22 feet from curb to curb. Since the
street quickly transitions to 18 feet in width, on-street parking will not be pennitted for
most of the street section. Existing residences on the north side of Prospect rdy on the
on-street parking, and in some cases this is the only parking available. Furthermore,
guest parking for existing residences and the proposed homes on Lots 1, 2 and 3 will have
to be South Mountain Avenue. While parking 200 feet away on South Mountain Avenue
is not considered an unreasonable distance to walk, Staff believes the proposed Prospect
Street design will create a situation where cars would be parked on the street regardless if
it is signed no parking. Since Prospect is a dead-end street, this is a concern because it
could block access from either end of the street. In Staff's opinion, the street design
should be reconfigured to provide more on-street parking.
In Staffs opinion, the street design for the Prospect Street improvements should be
reconfigured to provide more on-street parking for the existing residences that depend on
on-street parking and for guest parking for existing and proposed residences.
Tree Removal Permit to Remove Three Trees Greater than 18 Inches Diameter at
Breast Height and Tree Protection Plan
In Staff's opinion, a considerable effort has been made in the subdivision layout to save
several large clusters of trees on the site. In addition, the majority of the trees identified
for removal are smaller stature trees described as being in poor health. Staff primary
concern involves demonstrating that the Tree Protection Plan insures the long..term
survival of the trees identified for preservation.
Sixty-two trees greater than six inches in diameter have been identified on the project site.
Of the 62 trees, 19 trees are identified for removal. A Tree Removal Permit is required to
remove three trees because the trees are greater than 18 inches diameter at breast height
(dbh) and are located on the vacant parcel (3600). The three trees include an 18 inch dbh
pine on proposed Lot 3, a 20 inch dbh madrone on proposed Lot 4 and a 24 ineh dbh pine
on proposed Lot 5. The project Landscape Architect states describes the following health
and hazard condition for each tree. The reason cited for removing the three twes is the
location in the building envelope.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
/5/
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 9 of 19
. 18 inch dbh pine on Lot 3 (#26) - good color, lower branches dead
. 20 inch dbh madrone on Lot 4 (#44) - good structure and health
. 24 inch dbh pine on Lot 5 (#47) - good structure, color, specimen
In terms of the Tree Removal Permit for the three significant trees, Staff believes
development of Lots 3 and 5 is likely not feasible without removal of the pines.
However, more information is needed to justify the removal of the 20 inch dbh madrone
on Lot 4. It appears that the tree could be preserved by reducing the building envelope.
The Tree Protection Plan requirements as outlined in 18.61.200.2 include the location of
proposed roads, utility lines, easements and the grade change or cut and fill during and
after c:onstruction. The grading information for the private drive is included in the Tree
Prote(;tion Plan submitted with the application. However, cut and fill areas associated
with public street improvements as well as utility line locations are not included with the
application. As described prevIously, Staff believes location of these earthwork activities
and utility lines in relation to the tree protection zones must be submitted before a finding
can be made that the trees identified for retention and protection will not be impacted.
In addition to the Tree Protection Plan requirements, a grading plan may be required with
the Preliminary Plat application because the slopes of the site exceed ten percent. As
outlined in 18.80.040.H.3, the grading plan can be required to show existing and finished
grade on lots and streets. The Tree ProtectionlRemoval Plan by Galbraith and Associates,
Inc. includes spot elevations for the finished floor levels for the structures on the
proposed new vacant lots.
In Staff's opinion, requiring a the preliminary grading plan for the proposed lots at this
time may be premature given that each lot will require a custom designed home to
accommodate the tree protection and slope constraints. However, the extent of the grade
change and proximity of earth disturbance to trees is critical in the long-term survival.
The building envelopes for Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are either adjacent or intrude into the drip
lines of many of the trees identified for preservation.
The application's Tree Protection Plan includes an evaluation of the tolerance of the
development impacts on the species to be preserved. The application states that generally
healthy trees my tolerate removal of approximately one third of its roots. The Tree
Protection Plan identifies a tree protection zone for trees to be preserved, the location of
prote(:tive fencing and site specific recommendations by tree including excavation and
foundation specifications. The Tree Protection Plan narrative calls for a root ventilation
system in areas of drive fill in the tree protection zone, and includes specifications for
excavation for retaining walls.
Whik the Tree Protection Plan is specific in its recommendations, Staff is concerned with
the viability of implementation of the plan. Based on experience with past developments
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
/5~
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 10 of 19
throughout the city, trees located adjacent to or in a notch of a building do not usually
survive. Staff's recommendation is that the building envelopes for Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
be moved away from the clusters of trees to be preserved as shown on Staff Exhibit A.
The Tree Protection Plan appears to incorporate the grading plan for the private drive.
However, it is not clear if the fill area on the south side of the drive located on proposed
Lots 6 and 7 is shown on the plan. Specifically, it appears that the fill on the south side of
the drive may intrude into the specified tree protection zones for the southernmost
significant pine, 30 inches dbh (#58) on proposed Lot 7, the six inch dbh deodar cedar
(353) on Lot 6, and the ten inch dbh scotch pine (#54) on Lot 6.
The application must demonstrate that the Tree Protection Plan insures the long-term
survival of the trees identified for preservation. In lieu of providing detailed grading
plans in areas adjacent to or within the driplines of trees identified for preservation, staff
recommends 'moving the building envelopes away from these areas as shown on Staff
Exhibit A. In Staff's opinion, the following information should be reviewed with the
application prior to the Tree Removal Permit and Tree Protection Plan approval: 1)
justification for the removal of the 20 inch dbh madrone on Lot 4,2) the location cut and
fill areas associated with public street improvements as well as utility line locations, and
3) clarification of the location of the fill area on the south side of the private drive on Lots
6 and 7 in relation to the identified tree protection zones.
Conditional Use Permit - to Convert the Existing Residence Located at 7:59 South
Mountain Avenue to an Accessory Residential Unit
The existing house is described in the application as a 900-square foot single-family
dwelling. The Jackson County Planning records describe the building as 1,396 square
feet in size. It appears that the residence contains a basement. The accessory residential
criteria require that the gross habitable floor area (GHF A) of an accessory residential unit
be no greater than 1,000 square feet in size. Staff believes that the verification of the
GHF A of the existing residence located at 759 South Mountain Avenue must be
provided.
Staff believes that clarification of the gross habitable floor area (GHFA) ofth(: existing
residence located at 759 South Mountain Avenue must be provided to verify that the
structure does not exceed the 1,000 square foot maximum for an accessory residential
unit.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
!s~
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 11 of 19
V aria~nce - to Locate the Two Required Off-street Parking for the Accessory
Residential Unit on an Adjacent Parcel
In Staffs opinion, proposed Lot 2 is unique in that roughly two thirds of the rear yard
(south side accessed by private drive) is occupied by two significant trees, and this
condition is by no action ofthe applicant. The trees preclude expansion of the drive to
accommodate additional parking space for the proposed accessory residential unit. Staff
believes more infDrmatiDn is required to demonstrate the prDposed parking Dn Lot I is the
best option available in comparisDn to the potential negative impacts to. the adjacent uses.
Ifthe: Prospect Street is redesigned for a 22-feet width as recommended by Staff, one on-
street parking credit may be available for Lot 2. Furthermore, the optiDn of installing off-
street parking on the north side of Lot 1 could be considered. In terms of function, a
pedestrian connection from the parking on Lot 1 to the accessory residential unit needs to
be provided. This is nDt addressed on the plans, and the pedestrian connection appears to
be an issue due to the slopes and a series of new retaining walls proposed.
More informatiDn is required to demonstrate the proposed parking on Lot 1 is the best
option available in comparison to the potential negative impacts Df the proposal. If the
Prospect Street is redesigned fDr a 22-feet width as recommended by Staff, one on-street
parking credit may be available fDr Lot 2. Furthermore, the optiDn Df installing Dff-street
parking on the north side of Lot 1 could be considered. Finally, a pedestrian connectiDn
from the parking on Lot 1 to the accessDry residential unit needs to prDvided This is not
addressed on the plans, and the pedestrian connection appears to. be an issue due to the
slopes and a series Df new retaining walls propDsed.
III. ProcE~dural - Reauired Burden of Proof
The al~proval process for Preliminary Plat approval of a Subdivision are described in
Chapter 18.80 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as follows:
A. Submission.. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of a preliminary plat and
other supplementary material as may be required to indicate the general program and
objectives of the project to the Dffice of the Director of Public Works. The plat shall
be prepared by a registered surveyor.
B. Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen (18) inches by twenty-
fDur (24) inches in size at a scale no. smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred
(100) feet.
C. General information. The fDllowing general infDrmation shall be shown on the
preliminary plat:
1. Proposed name Df the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor resemble the
name of another subdivisiDn in JacksDn County and shall be approved by the
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
15'(
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 12 of 19
Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a preliminary plat.
4. Location ofthe subdivision sufficient to define the location and boundaries of
the proposed tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
D. Existing conditions. The following existing conditions shall be shown on the
preliminary plat:
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets within or
adjacent to the tract, together with easements and other important features, such
as section lines and comers, and monuments.
2. Location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding.
3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and
isolated preservable trees.
4. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures to-
remain on the property after platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval of five (5) feet.
F. Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be induded on the
preliminary plat.
1. The location, width, names and approximate grades of streets, and the
relationship of the streets to any projected streets as shown on any development
plan adopted by the Planning Commission, or if there is no development plan, as
suggested by the City to assure adequate traffic circulation.
2. The location and purpose of easements.
3. The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and block numbers,
for all lots and blocks.
4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family dwellings.
G. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only part of the tract
owned or controlled by the subdivider, the Planning Commission may require a
Master Plan for the unsubdivided portion.
H. Explanatory information. The following information shall be submitted in separate
statements accompanying the preliminary plat or, if practicable, shall be shown on
the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and unsubdivided land
adjacent to U1e proposed subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be
extended to connect with the existing streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
3. Where there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within the area to be
subdivided, a preliminary grading plan may be required by the Planning
Commission. A grading plan should show existing and finished grades on lots
and streets proposed to be graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan
shall be approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a review and
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
/s~
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 13 of 19
report from the City Engineer.
I. Tentative approval.
1. Within thirty (30) days from the first regular Planning Commission meeting
following submission ofthe plat, the Planning Commission will review the plan
and may give tentative approval of the preliminary plat as submitted or as it may
be modified or, if disapproved, shall express its disapproval and its reasons
therefore.
Approval of the preliminary plat shall indicate the Planning Commission's
approval of the final plat provided there is no change in the plan of subdivision as
shown on the preliminary plat and there is full compliance with the requirements
of this Title.
The action of the Planning Commission shall be noted on two (2) copies of
the preliminary plat, including reference to any attached documents, describing
conditions. One (1) copy shall be returned to the subdivider and the other
retained by the Planning Commission. (Ord.2052, 1979)
".
.,
2.
3.
Furth4n, the approval criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in
Chapter 18.88 of the Ashland land Use Ordinance as follows:
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 variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance
Standards Options Chapter.
Furth4!r, the approval criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100 of the Ashland
land Use Ordinance as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which
do not typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 SI, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-
imposed.(Ord. 2775, 1996)
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
15'"
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 14 of 19
Further, the approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in ChaptElr 18.62 of the
Ashland land Use Ordinance as follows:
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is
not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be
consistent with other applicable AsWand Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff
Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to
allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impac:t on erosion,
soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative imp ad on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require
that the residential density be reduced below the pennitted density allowed by the
zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the
impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other
provisions of the AsWand Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
granted approval pursuant to AM C 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall
be a condition of approval of the permit.
Further, the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104 of
the Ashland land Use Ordinance as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in
which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal
law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
/57
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Odober 12, 2004
Page 15 of 19
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability
. of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the
target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact
area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in
relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of
capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive
Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review ofthe
proposed use.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Whilt:: Staff is generally supportive of the direction the project has gone, we believe that
several important details associated with the project still need to be addressed before Staff
can re:commend approval of the project to the Planning Commission.
The Staff Report raises a number of issues related to design of proposed public street and
utility systems meeting City standards, the retention of on-street parking on Prospect
Street, the impact of grade changes due to street improvements and building construction
on trees identified for preservation, the location of utility connections in relation to tree
protection zones and the maximum gross habitable floor area permitted for an accessory
residential unit.
Therefore, Staff strongly recommends that the Planning Commission not make a decision
at this time and continue the application until the issues raised in the Staff Report are
addressed.
The following conditions have been provided in advance for initial review by the
Commission and applicant.
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That all easements for sewer, water, electricity, etc., as required by the City of
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
/5~
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 16 of 19
Ashland, shall be shown on the final survey plat.
3) That the applicant consults with the Electric Department before submitting an
Electric Distribution System Plan. This plan shall include load calculations and the
location of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and
all other necessary equipment. The plan shall address the location of streetlights.
This plan must be approved by the Electric Department prior to signature of the final
survey. The electric plan shall be designed in coordination with the Tn:e Protection
Plan in order to minimize the routing of utilities through tree protection zones.
4) Existing electric lines located on Prospect Street and in the public utility easement
on the west side of the property shall be installed underground prior to signature
of the final survey. This plan must be approved by the Electric Department prior
to signature of the final survey.
5) That a utility plan for the proj ect shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
Division and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey. The utility plan
shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the
development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewers,
manholes and clean-outs, on-site treatment of storm drainage and catch basins. The
utility plan shall be designed in coordination with the Tree Protection Phm in order to
minimize the routing of utilities through tree protection zones.
6) Subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utilities,
public street improvements, private drive, street lights, street trees and irrigation,
parkrow landscaping and irrigation shall be installed or a bond posted for the full
cost of construction prior to signature of the final survey plat.
7) Access shall be maintained to the existing public utility easement on the western
boundary of the site. The easement shall be included on building permit submittals,
and no portion of a structure may intrude into the easement.
8) The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance
shall be noted in the CC&R's. The CC&R's must state that deviations from the
plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and
therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code.
9) That engineered construction drawings for the proposed street improvements to
Prospect Street and South Mountain A venue, and for the private drive shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to
signature of the final survey. Plans to include profiles and cross sections,
indicating cuts and fills, and erosion control and slope stability methodologies
consistent with the standards for Hillside Lands contained in AMC 18.62.080B, if
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
I r'1
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 17 of 19
applicable.
10) That a draft copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association shall be
provided prior to signature of the final survey. CC&R's to describe responsibility
for the maintenance of all planting strips and street trees.
11) That City of Ashland approved street trees shall be installed every 30 feet within
all planting strips, or within front yards without planting strips prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
12) That a revised site, size and species specific landscaping plan incorporating the
recommendations of the AsWand Tree Commission for planting strips, as well as
irrigation system plan be submitted for review and approval prior to signature of
the final survey.
13) That the requirements of the AsWand Fire Department, including but not limited to
hydrant placement and flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified on the
construction drawings and reviewed and approved by the AsWand Fire Department
prior to signature of the final survey.
14) That the implementation of the approved Tree Protection Plan shall include on-site
supervision by the project Landscape Architect. An inspection schedule for
implementation of the approved Tree Protection Plan shall be submitted for review
and approval prior to signature of the final survey.
15) That a system for long-term maintenance of trees identified for protection, and
addressing private drive improvements for tree protection, shall be submitted for
review and approval of the Staff Adyisor prior to signature ofthe final survey.
16) That a grading plan shall be submitted for each individual lot with the building
permit submittals. There shall be no grading outside of the approved building
envelops in the approved tree protection zones (i.e. terracing to create yard area,
patios ).
17) That the tree protection shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any
site work or storage of materials. The tree protection shall be inspected and approved
by the Ashland Planning Department prior to site work, storage of materials and/or
the notice to proceed with construction of subdivision improvements.
18) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and
approved prior to removal of the 19 trees on site.
19) That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 40% ofthe lot area in accordance with
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
/00
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12. 2004
Page 18 of 19
18.20.040.F. Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be
submitted with the building permits.
20) That the development shall receive a 1200C permit from Oregon DEQ prior to site
work. Evidence of the permit shall be submitted with the final engineering for the
project.
Planning Action 2004-150
Applicant: R & C Investments
Ib/
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
October 12, 2004
Page 19 of 19
Sn-rF tx H \~lTA-
- - - bLli IJi~ e\t\\1Glo p~ w..ccl,.(:'jCet1-i M
,)
i
tNLtr/OUTUT e<f~
/NV' 4'1
lNLfr/OUTt.CT e4' $QIl.hlISH
~ CITY OF ASHLAIM' m33
DITCH PER DOC, #
87-06618, ORJCO.
:
I
~/m>_..","'" i
~ . HI6H eAve. .( 8112 ~ ~ITGI1
...,- """""
~":~.I6I!!Ol....AA~-.ec2lJl
(lEOIt20' l!AV!:,~ ~ ee"i
Il. CITY OF ASHLA
DITCH PER FS1461~
& DOC. 87-06618, ORJCO,
&;lltEE PROTECTION /REMOVAL PLAN
~--
I b:l.
,/
"
--
I
I
,Ii
..-." ~
: I
L___________J
,.r-- /----- ---------1
, I
r-f :
l_ ,
r------- I
I ~CK _J
~
~
LEGoEND :
r~ -------~ ~ Utell
L~~~~
,-y-,
{J. ""....,
(... ')
( ~--.e,., I!I!~
~~...~...~l~
- Of'_"'~
,"14& _ ,., IIl!IoWH
:=::~~N
.
.,~ ~TIOlI_
..- ...eJt~T1'V1!.
. ~~ Pl!NC;INit
NOTe. __e&.MnY~
~ Q/nllDe --.e ~TIOlI
-. .. eoK"I..IC:Te Nfl: ~ IN
~~~T~_'l'
Thill document, ond titt 1dtOI and dnI9n' inQOfPoroted htreln. at on
=~~ ~ n-:r1:": ~~llf:a'~ In .n~.
:,: ~:h, ~~~tctwtthout \ht written ou\ftorlRllon of
TEl...El.HONE
541-772-2182
L. J. FRIAR AND ASSOCIATES. P. C.
CONSULTING !..AND SURVEYORS
81 & WEST 8TH STREET
MEDFORD, OREGON 97501
FAX
541..772-8465
JAMES E HIBBS. PLS
Ijfriar@Charter.net
October 12, 2004
City of Ashland
Planning ExhIbit
Exhibit#~
PA # '<<:ot./- L~
Date 'C;rzkJ.stB1fJ!Jt:1
TO: CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING
RE: MOONTAIN PINES SUBDIVISION
391E16AD TL'S 3500 & 3600
DEAR SIRS:
THIS LE'I'TEP, IS BEING SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE or THE SLOPES ON THE SUBJECT
PROPEETY. F.N JI.CTUlo.L GROUND SURVEY WAS COMPLETED BY MY FIRM AND I CONCLUDED
THAT THE Nlo.TUP,ll.L SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT EXCEED 22%. AT THE SOUTH END
OF THE SITE (IN PROPOSED LOT 5) IS AN AREA WHICH EXCEEDS THIS SLCiPE. IN HY
OPINION, THIS IS DUE oro MAN t1ADE FILL FROM THE CITY OF ASHLAND DITCH "LOCATED
NEAR THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. THERE P.RE SLOPES ON PROPOSED LOTS 1 JI.ND 2 WHICR
ALSO EXCEED 22%, BOT ARE DUE TO TERRACES CONSTRUCTSD BY PRIOR OWNERS.
HOWEVER, THE NATURAL SLOPE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOOI,D BE 22% OR LESS IF
THESE MJI.N MADE IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT ON THE PROPERTY.
S INCEREt Y ,
t ? d)) J}J.
AMES E. HIBBS, PLS
Copy: file 03-203
/bE
I'd
t[lt9'o~~
9H8-ZLL ~VI~j '/"l
~l~rlnq:q tnn? '7.I'~J()
AS
SNOISV.3~
NOlLdl~S30
~
.
3! va 'ON
I
to ~dV :31VO '
MVS 'O~::>
.:lIe 'N~O
or MVS 'NSO
WO:>'6U~_4:>"10l.1jIO""4;>1l1sa"" :now-3
996r-o;ss (roo;) ;XOj tl.tr?;-S8S (roo;) :"uol.ld
Zot"L6 (10 'w"'I';>S 'OO~ "'1!MS ")'S "JO jO!JllinpUI ....""J!Oj u'ar
t<lln'lX"lNn".IQ'lO;l
Si]NN~ld aNY SiJ]NI~NJ ~NUlnSNOJ ~
":JNI 'DNlaaaNlDN3 H;)3.t.S3Jl a II
NOISIAloens S3Nld NIV1Nno~
.~O 'ONV1HSV 3NV~H:JO:J AONV
03iON :HG^
O:llON :ZI~OH
3l'v':)S
II 'II ~ K
CL ~ Ltl,Il. t:]
:it3 1I1I111 .
ql iil: :j~ffill
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~Indn~;
(.'10
t)
H~
~ ~ ,w1
C) \0:]'
OCliof.:ol ~1D n*
I . U ~
~..~ ~
~H! n ~ ~l q I
~~. ~;h~~~~.~.~~~; ~
I ~ Ii ~ ~ ~H ~ Ii n & ~ ~! i ~
, Jl. + i 1
il H." t'i Ie) il 0 ~ 0 ~ () (, u {/ 9 0
3/1t' NUl Hinos
~
n
f~
g
3 ~
! ~
f--
U
W
.,
'"
::J
V,
z
0
~
lfJ
~
>
~
~
~
~ "...~ Z
lfJ ~7
~---i ~O
C)
lfJ z0
Co,
~ ~~
~~
Z ~~
~~
~ ~o
. . ~ ()
~ U
0 ~
Z ~ 00
~ ~~
~ Uz
~ ~7
if] ~---i ~j
0 ~ <~
Z Z ~~ o~
~~
~ ~ Zcn
~ 0 uO . . ~~
~ <~ ~
~ ~ ,-' 0
~ ~
133HS ~3^O:)
I ~l
~ I "
Ij
x z
~ 0
~ ~
f-- oc
W u
w U1
I W
U1 0
~I f5 ~
I- lD C
w \5~ ~
~ .-1 ~ ~
..., I'"
C'
z
:5
0..
W
'" Z
~ :5
<i' 0..
:s z ~
g :3 ~
-< 0.. =>
'" '" :0
~ !; -<
co co '"
g ~ ~
o
z
~ ..... N n ~
X
...
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ w
.. a
~:i So
~ ~~ "~
t:i~... 114l=
~ ~~ i!~
"
" "
,. "
~ ^ ~ ~ Ul
g II II < >
~ I 11 II
(:5 ~:--J ~..
~e~
"
I
--------\
_ ,_ c_=,~-\,. J
1~;.+..1..t....;,L...- x x ..'.~ ..' '? I ,
'" ; , , '. \,"~ ...... ... . : ! ."/. ; f... .. ';.,:::':,"{ ~. . ,
j~, jA~'"'' . ~~,A,.i i,:; ~" rln i \' \0 if' J
7/1, . ~ I P. ; ., ,\l< ," j ~
II .. .. Vf:li.<B .. Iii' ! i h';i\J':\ ),! ! I)
JlJl~ " t, f(fifii'F. ~ --j! -!-+-,I , if .!. U',}WI?";' ,
-. ".J: ~lt~";" ..~ ~~)k . 0~~l~~~\:,~~/f\\ijfpJ;'JI ~
"0 ~ '.~ , J / 'i '{' !j ';.7V-0 / -' i\ (''xi / ~l/' ~ l '!-
,t : j"" ': ;.:. ...If {iT! 1,/1 . . · E' /.' .:)t:Wk:!
! ) . ~ I J .,H' ,... · :~JiH"j
~ : / '~CJ"'~ '~/~~7~~J~'fj.~~', "li!J!ic.:~,
o ~ 11 " '/ //j~0 ,r[ '\Uf\.l :::' .:,;::~ ~
J ,/ f/.- , ' ~~c,.~rn,' .,.' I i '(!',~~r<t;o I]!
,:f- _ _$0'0';;; -..:..,', ' I /. :.,,-,.,,~;,~~, :~o/~
r- ":oo:,'::'w ';;, ,n}':',;r "~.~,:;:k.,,,;, 'f:'XEb/ /,~}, i ". ,i ":1;'\ ~~ tc~l;
. "i, j' '5 faYl ~ -':"'1I/~.J 1<>' I.i LL~it;,{f; ..
'. :. .(*;"ftz~ h:W:II~
C:~~I ~ 1 ..".,' "j""" I It/IV! '1""""(1 [fj~~~~
. .' ;;;t;.., ! 1\' BJ -- 'I i!!
" b'~ ~ \ . v.~ "'iT/ ~ '
.--J I ~ 1\ " .~ ,112;/" to h
", C ! . i~\?("<if ;,!~~ '~
I z ,,~c.,,' IT" r/,"7' ".' 'i<;l
:~~ \{~~~;~~ 1 ftid_ th ~~LJ["~'~'~~:/
F _ ..J" I );8! ~~ f'-t'+~ _/ rJ /1' I, ~.
~ I ~ A" < " ,....; L -qj .,,;;~ .) ),' !
!':11;:'! I.. . ,~1(,..ib'4' ,- 'rd'~' ! ,
;. :z l" - ~ .F.~I.l>...~ ,I/>'.'~i. ,:- ,1~t'l.'....~.~r'.ij /,
~ ,ci i~ i'.',J.< >< ' R r (~ J)) tJ ~<<)S t;~
-l ~~~' __;o,OaO.o;~R .,~ '. eM, .':' ..ftW7.(,;:~~~15Zv,~~ i~-H:!f=i!+/~
y : . ".': .i.. . . or< "..j" ./ . '7 .:'. t Ia:i,.j . j~I1':~SE~Y'
;1-- ' !. if' ,,' # ./ ,!o.! -', .. .. .. !':.e/!""""";;;)
, ,.! . . =_ ." Z "7 i '. , f ~ ;.; ?;" .~.!~<.'. .../-'"
o ,. 'r ,. '- ' ~
v
-
!
/
/
/ /
! /
~/
-1 r tpS/3+ 5
~ ;:; I / ~CE: 466. 7
~ / /
~ I ~<;,~
~ YI{/' 8VCE 4287
:/;4
() Eves: 2 50
~wI4l~ '"~ ",'
/ / lu >
I ! \l
I;
([/ ~
\IW
I t
I !:i
10 Bves: 1 50
//~o.rl .
'" l, BVCE: 4 7.87
l
/ IJ
r' -'~ B8v:~S 4'4:0;5
VCS 0+75
c> 'I IEeE 440 75
:1/ ~ ^
! tf) I ...
I ~ ~
/ ....L BVCS, 0+2
I I BVCE: 436.5
I .
1 "
,.""
~ 0 ~"
g ! II ~ ~
. ~ ~ II II
() . ~v.
g'~ 6
~"
,
'--
,
~
c;
!\l
z
o
!II
:>-
r.;
"D
.....-. :::0
NN 0
at ~ :::!J.
;; M
"
" 'D
g ^~~~
o II ~ ~
- ~ _ It II
< "0
() N' .po. N
~~6
;:;0
'il
?i
'"
;u
z
o
-
I'
....
+
o
o
"
" 'D
","
r-",
"'..,
<,.
< ~ II II
() .po. ~ t:;
:-""
2;10
o
-+
o
o
C' ,-...
I' <T
SOUTH
f' 'T
MOUNTAIN
~
AVCNue
~
~ -l=-
~ (,oj -l=- ~ I
) (]1 -l=- -l=- -l=- -l=- 1
0 (]1 (]1 (]1 -l=- -l=-
0 (J)
(]1 0 (J) -l=- -l=-
(]1 -...J -l=-
0 -...J OJ
(]1 0
-
T
0
-1UJ ~ ~
-<-1 o. :;
U:;::o N ~
0. :: ~
z OfTl c
)>fTl :t>
:-l 0
[j) ,-1 0 0
"---- I'l
UJ)> ~ ,- Vl ~
[j)
~ fTlO I'l
00 [j)
-1fTl ~ ::;::
~ aUJ o. :-l
zUJ
\
-
~
J.l a I ANOY COCHRANE
-..J III I'J
~ z 0 ~ MOUNTAIN PINES SUBDIVISION
:> c..., 1"1
5 ~ I~ ~
~J
ASHLAND, OR. F
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
JJE-
It'ESTECH E
CONSULTING EN~;El~SEE,RNOINpG, INC.
LANNERS
3841 F'a;rview IndU:IItrial Or. 5 E S'
Phan..: (503) 585-2~7~' "' f u,~.. laO, Salem, OR 97302
E mall: westech"'e.tech a:'q~:~~ 585-3986
'-'-~'-~ PRO/[
& \.~INE ~ SJ/q.)
i.i? 11843 ~~
SCALE
HORIZ=
VERT:
--
J'}(" 16 ,<#J""
<I<'EN A. ~~...",
~ SAW JD
DRN. MOP
CKD,
\.DA IT: JAN.. 04
1
NO. DA IT
DESCRIPllON
REVISIONS
BY
7J
to ~dV :3J.VO '
MVS 'O~~
or "jIS 'N~O
MVS 'Nsa
,
SNOlSl'Jil
NOlldl!OS30
NVld ~NIOVHS
9'il6f- wo::>'t'\,Ia_4:)a\sa
Wtto 1:10 'w:~: (~oc;:) :.0.:1 .7:"pa\uAl. ;~OU,.l-3
S eOL "l,ns "].S -J~~:!~~n~~"~ :..UQ4d
S~JNNVld ONV 1 '"'!'; ""
;}NI 'DNn:l3i~~I~~N3 :)Nll1nSNOJ
3: H::>:U.S3J.\.
~
.c;;=. ~ :1~:Ji\
,0<:=. t 'ZI~OH
31'1:)$
<( <(
W W
0::: <( n::
<( w <(
l- n::
<( I-
::> -1
U -1 <(
-1 I
l- e;:
W 0..
W I- (f)
g: W <(
W l-
V) n:: w
I- W
(f) n::
I-
(f)
;.1 ~. n N 3 /\ "
N I " i
JJ .J N n 0 hi
Hinos
.J..>
jj .>
---1
I
\
"\
L__
--I
l
w
'~O NOISIAIOSnS
'ONVlHSV S3Nld NIV1NnOVi
3NV~H:JO:J AONV
\
-!
-!
<(
:s:
'-l)
"-J)
...........
w
z
o
I-
(f)
>-
W
0(
o
z
:::>
o
0:::
(;>
<r::
I
g<r::O
+ ,I
Zir
Z 0 ~
o
F=I-W
;=:U:i
(j)W~
if)
-!
<(
Z
C3
0:::
o
(
-!
-!
<(
:s:
>-
l-
S;
<(
0:::
(:)
I
1-
--
..........
~
~
~ ~ I~
--.J UJ
o 2 ~ j;i
o :l: I ~
o CD
9 ~ ~
o
~
,::
,Q,)~
I ~ '.
/ / ~ ..~,"':),
- -;;; -. - pH __ -i
" / I ,
(, :2" I ,./ '" -ii., .f;):;
~~ . ,':, :; : ,'i,;:
'" ,~,-;, :~I ~1 Ii 1/' ..' :>'jf
/! / /l / "
/
/
/
/
/
'-.i,,:
'/
/
/
/
/
/ 10
/
:-,-JI(":')
~-~ ~~.~
~r'-I
,
co ~~ r:l
~I ~J -,.,
10/ &Z;t;
/ ~t_~-_J
ANDY COCHRANE
MOUNTAIN PINES SUBDIVISION
OVERALL UTILITY PLAN
'.
'\
\/
~ //
/
/'
- --
__---------n 1\
1
\
.---- l_J
" .... _J~~:;~C -
"fY: ,: . l' "<. J (,:,,/ ~ "~
-1> · ~,'-" ,,'~! ?ccHi~ /9 Wi _" ~:;';'t T ;: ~ ~ bi,~", ,~i, 1l~1 ~,1 , ~!
,"::'- Ii 'j l~ :Yli,' ,.,.;;~';:l f':: ~~' ~ l
!: :;", V~i t\ i!;:;<.,'- ~ ~
:;: ,'; ~ t, &~~ ,;;;&i ','0' ' ~~ {~ " ~ ! /1"1
',' ~ "",..' "oj" Y i, <I ~! ({'
/ / i. S' / Jr! I '1/, ;/;. ~ ":tj\~ 'I" .~ " ~~
//~t!j v/ !/~/~~,. ~#)"'",' "t I) ~~~
,'1 0 /~I I _ ~ f~ ! i', !,':C!/<.. if I.':~ ~ ,_ ~~ ~
~ ~;~, ";'r,i .':-" [\Z~~~ ~K '~, ~~ if: ?4, / / , /:r.,?S
/ ~~~, ..:- 9 :y X",' ~ rp~ " , ~~;i "i ;" j '::~
,/ ""Vi/ 'J '~VYn, ,*::X~LL / i .t;~f) " ::l,I'ro,
/ '/ (11/~ ;0 . c~ f.;'" /\: Li ,,~ \\~~:) 1/ i.., :"~ ~,~
/{ Iliff i / / i ~N . ..' '" ..... ~ :",.:i-t:J
r- _ _ ;".:,l:~;{j// i >71 k0'h"tx:s/ii': i,' /5 u !~: 15 b: ::!~~ .':;;;
'':7,?:-;yf!</ !,5~ :t// ~IS' . ~ ~ '~ t. ~I 1> /. i /,> ~:!:{~'
'v' '~i\Oi /,'If;/tE~.r...l>./ '. . '.. 'T~..,...I...'.......!', ~I r. ./V/';::/~::'j Ii' . / .~~~-,t
/ // ~ ~ ,/"?/ ii; >~ jJ'~r:i>" .f :~~v, ;
//i"'/;'J'i)!;,( h:: ~ ii~i;,>'< r ~ ..~I-I i!, i i ,~f~~ '~
i',' .' i: ,j.~" h ~i,r:<, ,. \ "n'~ .,[i ! ,i. · ,!I,St;, ;-Zi
, / .... r~~,ir-r{:f' ~,l~}'~' ~~l, liiil / . ).i:~~~W'~~
~. i3:1~rrl;" ..\" . ,'~ ~~! I L r- . !~~.:t~~:~t-""
r\'~~~' ..... \"" "pi' rL VI-;; i !~:!;:::.~.:~.,
} .i"'1~;~;j;r>~), Hi': 1< '/1./':5)1// !/ii //~.~(/fJ.j'~'~,~ '~
".......... ,.......... .. .' ,Jf. .~.... '.' ,. , f;> ..ll"~
;>~~';-,',\ :;.;; A _~. (1;:.: -:;:~ f/ / / ,'/iZ/"i,:' ~;
'\;"~'}.\ 1, ~ 4. rJ 'J I\Jn " , / ~ : d. .~~
'<~~4* . rl~~:', . "Ylr~~
I 8 / \'~" :i- 1/1" it! '\ ~., ::~ ; 'r'~ ~
I I ~~/~:.. ~Ifi:) f~! / '.~ ~ :i:'., j. ..;,~ . .",
F ::/ ' 1-" : . . .' · "~;~),, dJ '.' ;: 1:-: '-l ", ,-
~a '.. . I~,I>>\ ,(.' A }J.t/.: 1:<::"," ..."...if ...,f i~ ..f /:: ,1;'-:'j::-~ ~
i~ !~~';f:l"W " , I ! ~:;'7.;/ ~ .'i / " i ,"f / ,(" (0 ~
l', /.... >';~.~'0 i, \ , ~~/PR 'l'S<". >25 "..C.inJCA.....'J.PN-:-l..' .'..... ,'." ! /~... ~ ; .:.~. .......... J'-.....0
" .' . " ~. . . ., ., . )<,~.. .l..."'-, ... ~."<\
.r;--PRi[~j(Dr?!~~r!"'~': .." II. .;-JIH .-'T~~~~>e'~F:RE(i'd':1\.-.:'....(~~ ..j:{..... (Sl
.; 1..~;R~gSf1.... ';;.~S!qr:.~w.. ;.}c/"'j ..r K.~\j ~9. " ,'pfDl:d5tD'7 f':"~ ~ . ,..;;~P~(;:..~ ~ ~!~\\1
:~~.. I, ,', i :r .". i J'" 'S;i '.~ ,<~ ' '2~ '-I"--...
~. ",'. ',' . , '.' F '.' ,. . . < , , .....
~~ _ .'- ~'_ - .'-.L, ,-~ ;~\ :..:'''''0..... i-!.
s '~'fU T H M-O U N r ~r 1 N -A V c N U ~ rf -- --"\,l",,~.,.>,~~/ ...',
~ ~\I,...
~:8/>. K '
, '/"//11\ ',i,:;
i
"
r;-
I
[~1
I f>1
..--.J ~ \
I-"Ji~
~_JI
I
~
~)
(' ,','
::;
$)
Hau I"'N
A V*UC
~~~
~<3-
'.
~~
...
~ ~
:i
~
F.,
~i~
~"I
~t
ASHLAND. OR.
BY
SCALE
HORIZ. 1"=20'
II V WESTECH ENGINEERING, INC.
J'Jl.j CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
VERT: 1--5'
38-41 foirYi". Industrial Or, SoL, Suit" lOa, Salem, OR 97302
PhQl'le: (50J) 585-247-4 fax; (503) 565-3986
DSN. SAW JD
DRN. BIF
CKD. SA
,DA TE: APR 04
t
NO. DA T[
[-mail: ..e,.lecho...e,.'ech-eng.cam
DESCRIPnON
REVISIONS
OOtt.DP'........30.2004
~t.., ()- '-I
Ex,P'!'
/!6~
/6C{
c I_.~
t:-X I
EK I p.. 7
~)
/71)
/7/
Ex, P-1f
Ex;~,~q
...
17.2-
173
EXr f-lt7
e~ / Po/II
171~'
/15
Ex, P-/~~
EX, p'G
I . ! .
,
l' "
11b
117
.J::;" ? J
1-X' '",-I T
E/. P-15
171
&,p- lIt
E. ..x."., t' . ..<
_ {v"'- r~
v ' '"
/_f~
I S/
ex, I)~ B
Et I f... /6
11/~A
I<RI-'l>
NameAh 0
SPEAKER REQUEST FORM
~l/qS
Date /J-/Z-OGj
t99tJ 15LdC~ :; /: .
Email address a /~ ~ H 5' :5 tJ
, Chtt:rr.e v: n~ 7'
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes)
Phone 5~/ / - ~ 8 Z -- 5'9?t
PUBLIC FORUM
Items that are NOT on the current Agenda
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
T~l time alknve<! for Publi~Rorum i~ IS-minutes.
"......._-"" _~._:::::.,_.~- ~ c~ .i=:-~-.;';_ _~'..','_-",
THE SUBJECT IS:
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
THE TOPIC IS:
--
2-<00 'i -( cJ J
r#eu!,#
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence involving a Land Use Appeal, please
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the application.
IN FAVOR
OPPOSED
I <("!.---
.
SPEAKER REQUEST FORM
Name /Vb(!J~ ffldmdn Date /0//2/01
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes) 1/$ :{idseJ!;7t7'0t DyoS
Phone ~Z ;J77l) Email addressA./C..t /J7c:V? /?;J (?
a~~hb/d~0
PUBLIC FORUM
Items that are NOT on the current Agenda
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
To~al time all()wed fo~J~yblic Fprum is.J5 minutes
THE SUBJECT IS:
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
THE TOPIC IS: PI! ~ ZDDQ- /Z'Js- ~ fJt:JsjJc:"d /~. /}/}/24;;F;;/ZL//7
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence involving a Land Use Appeal, please
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the application.
IN FAVOR
I?~
OPPOSED
WL~~P~.........
Nam~Udt t1 ~/ Date !t/&}p4
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes) ?D 7 .:S: cnf:I1v m~ ~_
Phone J/8'( 111 ~ Email addr""" J ~ +H..l ()v (!J iUJ/, ~
PUBLIC FORUM
Items that are ~OT on the current Agenda
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes
THE SUBJECT IS: ~f~~fj) c;-Ujt::L_lJ'~vQ;fh/\~
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
THE TOPIC IS, n~ Gt:haY1 20&/ ~ I[)r:~
PUBLIC HEARING
lAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence involving a Land Use Appeal, please
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the application.
IN FAVOR / OPPOSED
IYfil
(
SPEAKER REQUEST FORM
~-t'
Name ~nne..- Jb./I fYlClVJ Date 10(12./0Y
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes) "1 ~9 S' rYJ~n
Phone
~~~-' QSZf.3
Email address o.srct/{ mAn @.c.~s/Jru...Phc;n(, fie"
PUBLIC FORUM
Items that are NOT on the current Agenda
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes
THE SUBJECT IS:
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
THE TOPIC IS:
P~3 A.n - "'" -tl d-wY , I () S-
~J 15'f t4J 1<01 M !I1~,f) OIH.AA-L-
~
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence involving a Land Use Appeal, please
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the application.
IN FAVOR I ~OPPOSED
SPEAKER REQUEST"-FORM
Name~2e &C(h (~rJ Date 10hz-Joy
{ I
/ () 3 ~ ?{7A~pc~f [1-
Email address I ru J @ 0 ~f';JX.
I
Complete S1treet address (No P.O. Boxes)
Phone j./~~ - ~u:;O
PUBLIC FORUM
Items that are NOT on the current Agenda
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion ofthe Mayor)
.._Total time allowed for PublkForumJs.15JDinutes
THE SUBJECT IS:
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
THE TOPIC IS:
}ZB /
1~1 t-I ~ cl i/! f> ~ {/,()JNJru" ~/ill'SJ
? It! f/ /} /111f>Z,'7\ :20tJ Y -10)'
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence involving a Land Use Appeal, please
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the application.
IN FAVOR
~ OPPOSED
Jt/'
SPEAKER REQUEST FORM
Name ~J..J'NUf A ~t;IJ.> Date_
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes) 73J-:S Jt!PtJJ..J!T/I /M 106
Phone itJ- ~ fJZ6r Email address III C j)ch,@}
//U~;u~A~/
PUBLIC FORUM
Items that are NOT on the current Agenda
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes
THE SUBJECT IS:
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
THE TOPIC IS: fJ J ;<tJ'{J V --- ) 0 S/
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence involving a Land Use Appeal, please
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the application,
IN FAVOR ~~PPOSED
/11
Complete Sltreet address (No P.O. Boxes)
Phone~(.Q \ - (6t 3q
PUBLIC FORUM
Items that are NOT on the current Agenda
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes
THE SUBJECT IS: ?.ro :s ~ e d 3-
. ~ t.-- -top ,-y ~.\r-
/ 5+~ .
/
I
.
(\/l 'OGLi\1;Cu.C\
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
THE TOPIC IS: ? ID'S r-<"- ct- S ~ S+k- .
/0.-j)~ \:)uv erlo ~\.--
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence in70lVin a Land Use Appeal, please
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the applica 'on.
_IN FAVOR OPPOSED
/9'tl'
Complete Street address (No P.O. Boxes)
SPEAKER REQUEST FORM
~ eI- !1J.L ~ Date / ~/; 2.-/0 Y
7ilJ S f>?OiJ n-fut 'V\
Email address CD -Hn-, ~~ Wit nd. II d
yg~:; 3CjY
Name
Phone
PUBLIC FORUM
Items that are NOT on the current Agenda
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes
THE SUBJECT IS:
CURRENT AGENDA TOPICS
Please indicate below which Agenda Topic you wish to speak on
3-5 minute limit per speaker
(Time allotment is at the discretion of the Mayor)
THE TOPIC IS:
I)(}h __
r ~ ~ :)-d tf / _/ ~.....
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE APPEALS
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to provide evidence involving a Land Use Appeal, please
indicate if you are in FAVOR or OPPOSED to the applica~.
IN FAVOR V OPPOSED
ASHLAND STREET TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
Applicant: R & C Investments
Date: October 7. 2004
Address: 759 & 769 South Mountain Avenue
Commercial: _Residential: X
Proposed Action:
PLANNING ACTION 2004-105 is a request for a seven lot Subdivision, Preliminary Plat approval,
Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Residential Unit, and an exception to City of Ashland Street
Standards for approximately 1.75 acres ofland located at the southwest comer of the intersection of South
Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street. The application includes a Tree Removal Permit, as well as a
Variance to Off-Street Parking requirements to allow two (2) required off-street parking spaces for the
Accessory Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent parcel. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single
Family Re8idential; Zoning: R-I-lO; Assessor's Map #: 39 IE 16 AD; Tax u,ts: 3400,3500 and 3600.
Recommendation:
Recommend continuance of project for following reasons:
1.. There is insufficient mitigation for the number of trees to be removed.
Provide mitigation plan.
2. Support reduction of building envelopes to further protect groves of trees that
are very close to building sites, and to provide additional buffering to canopy
and root zone.
3. Support conditions 5, 6, 7,10, 11, 12, 14 - 18 related to implementation of
Tree Protection Plan.
4. Support staff recommendation that insufficientjustificationlinformation is
provided for removal of 20" dbh madrone on Lot 4.
5. Need utility plan to determine conformance with Tree Protection Plan
requirements of 18.61.200. Address trees that may be impacted by
underground installation of utility lines, including trees on neighboring
properties such as Oak near western site boundary
6. Include tree specific watering plan for during construction, and specific
direction in CC&R's for watering of trees
7. Include Landscape Architect in all pre-construction conference meetings to
insure implementation of Tree Protection Plan.
8. Concerned about impact of new paving of Prospect Street on trees to the north
and south of the street - can alternate method be used? (i.e. alternative
paving, french draint I
Commission Representative: f/L~ _ jJ- Date: 10,8.01-
Follow-up:
190
Maria Harris :)3e: Ob'ections to PA 20 -1A..'t(Mountain J:>ineslkq
f
,.'>>>,.....'''N";','''',./,."..,,~...
..<""p,,,,",-",,,,("
P
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
R Hopkins <mencken@internetcds.com>
"Maria Harris" <maria@ashland.or.us>
10/7/20049:54:36 AM
Re: Objections to PA 2004-105 (Mountain Pines)
The following are my present objections. Please print it out and
include it in the package. I won't be delivering a printed copy before
noon unless you tell it's necessary. Thanks,
Randall
Objections to PA 2004-105
1. Applicant fails to satisfy Criteria for Issuance of a Tree Removal
Permit pursuant to AMC Sec. 18.61.080,
2. Applicant fails to satisfy the requirements for variance pursuant to
AMC 18.100 and Exception to Ashland Street Standards pursuant to AMC
Sec. 18.88.050F and AMC Sec. 18.80, and
3. Applicant's request for subdivision and preliminary plat approval
should be denied since the proposed subdivision violates minimum lot
area and other design and development standards of AMC Sec. 18.20.040
and minimum standards for R-1-10 zoning requirements.
I also incorporate by reference all other written and verbal objections
made to this application, either now or at future hearings on this
matter.
Randall Hopkins
735 S. Mountain Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
On Wednesday, October 6, 2004, at 05:00 PM, Maria Harris wrote:
> if you get in on noon by Thursday we can include it in the packet.
> Please keep in mind, I won't have had time to review it for the
> written staff report.
/9(
r
~
'.
~- ~
{ .
Rt=~r.:I\lED
OCT 07 2004
To: Ashland Planning Commission
Re: Proposed Mountain Pines Subdivision (File #2004-105)
Date: September 6,2004
I am a neighbor to the proposed Mountain Pines subdivision. This project borders my
home on two sides. I have several serious concerns with the project as proposed,
particularly regarding an Exception to Street Standards and Variance to Off-Street
Parking.
Applicant is requesting an exception to allow five dwellings plus an Accessory
Residential Unit (that is, six homes) to be served by a private drive which comes off
Mountain A venue at a 90 degree angle, travels westward, curves sharply uphill for a
short, steep distance before ending in a hammer-head shape dead end. These houses are
to be built on designated Wildfire Lands. Applicant proposes that the maximum building
height will be 35'.
Applicant seeks to avoid the difficulty of (or, loss of square footage from) widening
Prospect Road to provide access for two of the units, plus the accessory unit, from that
direction. Instead, Applicant wants to load extra units on a private drive that creates
inferior, not equal to or superior, fire safety for the existing neighborhood. The sharp
curve and steep uphill of the drive, crowded with six large dwellings (and their related
vehicles) capped with a non-standard turn around, suggest that fire trucks may encounter
difficulty navigating - much less turning around on -the proposed private drive.
Applicant could provide a standard turn around, but doing so would presumably cost the
applicant square footage that is needed to squeeze seven units plus an ARU into the
subdivision.
In addition, Applicant requests an exception to allow a smaller-than-required sidewalk
and no planter strip along Lot 7 as it fronts South Mountain Avenue. Applicant cites the
difficulty in moving back a small retaining wall, and a reluctance to remove overgrown
juniper hushes.
As a parent of small children, I have grave concerns with this proposal. We have lived in
this neighborhood for thirteen years, and each winter we watch cars slip sideways as they
come dovm the icy section of hill in front of our house. A sidewalk immediately adjacent
to the street provides little or no more protection for our children than having them walk
in the street. At the same time Applicant will be adding more car and foot traffic to the
neighborhood, providing more opportunity for mishap. As for Applicant's argument
about the 'unique or unusual' aspects that would favor the retention of juniper bushes and
a small concrete retaining wall, I am not aware that juniper bushes are recognized as a
species worth designing around. The sidewalk should be placed where required by street
standards, with an appropriate planter strip as buffer from street traffic.
Applicant also requests a Variance to allow off-street parking on Lot I for the ARU
located on Lot 2., Note that Lot I is proposed at 10,074 square feet, barely meeting the
minimul1l10t size. Locating two parking spaces on Lot I that belong to Lot 2 effectively
/9:<-
rr-
~
f
{
reduces the size of Lot I to less than the minimum lot size. Applicant acknowledges this
in section D.3 of the application. ("While the frontage of Lot 2 could be increased to
accommodate ARU parking, the same would render Lot I of insufficient size. ") Since
Applicant already threatened to sue me over a claim of adverse possession relating to our
property boundry with this subdivision, I suspect Applicant is well aware that the
proposed plan will surely, over time, result in an erosion of Lot I to less than the required
minimum size as Lot 2 comes to look at the adjacent parking as its own land. In addition,
Applicant suggests that because other Ashland lots have a smaller minimum lot size, the
matter of Lot I' s size should be overlooked. ("Most newly created single family dwelling
lots in Ashland are often half that size.") Should Applicant want to re-zone Lot 1 to a
smaller size, Applicant should pursue that request openly and in the legal manner
available rather than taking a back-door approach.
All three of the concerns I have highlighted return to the fact that Applicant seeks to
minimize the obligations of development in order to fit seven lots into this subdivision.
As a neighbor greatly impacted by this project, I ask that the Planning Commission
require Applicant to provide the required sidewalks with planter strips for our chi I! dren ' s
safety; provide an appropriate turnaround and maximum number of houses on the private
drive to ensure fire safety for the existing neighborhood; and provide parking appropriate
to each lot on that lot, rather than allowing the comer lot to effectively become smaller
than the required minimum.
We would also ask that the applicant be required to build a fence to the maximum
allowable height where bordering our property to minimize the negative visual impact,
the glare from newly generated traffic & homes, and the associated noise that this
. subdivision will adversely affect our residence with.
Finally, I wish to note that Applicant has twice stated that a particular item is being
proposed because of 'neighbor concerns', yet Applicant has never made an effort to
communicate with neighbors about this project I initiated a meeting with Mr. Cochran
before a proposal was first submitted (February, 2004) and urged him to consider meeting
with neighbors to describe the Applicant's approach to the project, and to allow
neighbors an opportunity to provide input Mr. Cochran did not take me up on that
invitation. Applicant has not expressed arty interest in addressing neighbor concerns. For
that reason I ask the Planning Commission to insist that Applicant do respond to our
concerns, eliminate the requests for variances, and accept the limitations of building 0
this hillside lot This probably entails building a six-lot subdivision instead of bending
rules to make a seven-lot subdivision. Given the minimum lot size, hillside location, and
Wildfire Lands that characterize this neighborhood, a six-lot subdivision is more suitable.
These objections are based on the following ordinance criteria: 18.104.050 Approval
Criteria, 18.100.020 Criteria for Variance, 18.88.050 Exception to Street Standards, and
80.040 ivision Criteria
/12
t'I".-
'f/
{
ATTN:
JODY - CLASSIFIED
PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING
NOTICE OF SITE VISIT
There will be a site visit by the Ashland Planning Commission on Monday, October 11, 2004 at
noon to tour the site at the southwest corner of the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and
Prospect Strc~et. The applicant is requesting a seven lot subdivision. (Applicant: R&C
Investments).. (Reference: P A2004-1 05)
By order of the Planning Director
John McLaughlin
Publish: 10/9/04
E-mailed: 9/23/04
P. O. No. 65420
/q,/
~--
/ '
(
/
.
ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (JODY)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission,
October 12, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street,
Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard.
Request for a seven lot Subdivision, Preliminary Plat approval, Conditional Use Permit for an
Accessory Residential Unit, and an exception to City of Ashland Street Standards for
approximately 1.75 acres of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South
Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street. The application includes a Tree Removal Permit, as well
as a Variance to Off-Street Parking requirements to allow two (2) required off-street parking
spaces for the Accessory Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent parcel.
Request for Outline/Final Plan and Site Review approval for an 8-lot, 16-unit (eight duplElxes)
multi-family development under the Performance Standards Option for the property locatled at
116 Lincoln Street.
Request to modify Chapter 18.24 and 18.28 of the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance
related to the establishment of minimum density requirements in R-2 (Low Density Multi-Family
Residential) and R-3 (High Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning districts.
Applicant: City of Ashland
Request to modify the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance, Chapter 18.61 of the Ashland
Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance related to the establishment of a Heritage Tree list
Applicant: City of Ashland
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this meeling, please
contact the Oty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TIY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours
prior to the meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
By order of the Planning Director
Publish: 10/2104
John McLaughlin
Date e-mailed: 9/23/04
Purchase Order: 65420
Iq~
.f'"'
(
~~
ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (JODY)
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a meeting of the Tree Commission
on October 7,2004 in the City of Ashland, Community Development and Engineering
Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way at 7:00 p.m.
Request for a seven lot Subdivision, Preliminary Plat approval, Conditional Use Permit for an
Accessory Residential Unit, and an exception to City of Ashland Street Standards for
approximately 1.75 acres of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South
Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street. The application includes a Tree Removal Permit, as well
as a Vari;ance to Off-Street Parking requirements to allow two (2) required off-street parking
spaces for the Accessory Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent parcel.
Request for Outline/Final Plan and Site Review approval for an 8- lot, 16-unit (eight duplexes)
multi-family development under the Performance Standards Option for the property located at
116 Lincoln Street.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Ad:, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please
contact the Oty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours
prior to the meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.llO4 ADA Title I).
By order of the Planning Director
John McLaughlin
Publish: 9/28/04
Date e-mailed: 9/23/04
PurchaSE! Order: 65420
/1"
"
"
Notice Is hereby glventhat a PUBUCf,. ~RING on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE
will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on
October 12, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER,
1176 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria appllceble to this applicetion are attached to this notice.
Oregon law atates that failure to relse an obJection concerning this application,
either In peraon or by letter, or failure to provide aufficlent specificity to afford the
decision maker an opportunity to raspond to the Issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBAI 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 applicent to raise constitutional or
other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficiant specificity
to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for
damages in circuit court. .
N
fA.
r---~
A copy of the appllJ . all documents end evidence relied upon by the
applicant and applicable criteria are available for Inspection at no coat and will
be provided at reasonable cost. If requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be
available for INpectlon seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, If requested. All materials are available at the Ashland
Planning Department, Community Devalopmen,t and Engineering Services, 61
Winburn Way, Ashlend, Oregon 97620.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant
and those In attendance concerning this request. The Chair ahall hava the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be. restricted to the
applicable criteria. Unless there Is a continuance, If a participant so reqllests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least
seven days after the hearing.
If you have questiON or comments concerning this request, please feel free to
contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Dellartment, at 541-552-2041. Our
TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900.
SW Corner of South Mountain Avenue & Prospect Street
NOTE: This Plamiing Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on October 7,2004 in the Community Development
and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way at 7;00 p.m.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-105 is a request for a seven lot Subdivision, PreliminaryPlat approval, Conditional Use Permit
for an Accessory Residential Unit, and an exception to City of Ashland Street Standards for approximately 1.75 acres of
land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street. The application
includes a Tree Removal Permit, as well as a Variance to Off-Street Parking requirements to allow two (~~) required off-street
parking spaces for the Accessory Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent parcel. Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 391E 16 AD; Tax lots: 3400,3500 and 3600.
APPLICANT: R & C Investments
/97
'>:Ir,
~-,
,
L
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS .
.18.104. O!iO ADDroval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall.be
granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use
conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following-approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards
within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be
located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan
policies that are not implemented by any City, state, or Federal
law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer,.
paved'a.ccess to and through the development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provtded to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse
material ,effect on the livability of the impact area when
compared 'to the development of the subject lot with the target
Use of th,e zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use
on the im]pact area, the following factors of livability of the
impact arlea shall be considered in relation to the target use of
the zone: .
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and'coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on
surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity
of faci).ities.
3. Architectural compatibility ~ith the impact
area. .
4. Air quality, including the generation of
dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the
Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
;q1
18.80.040
A.
~ j
. \. J
B.
SUBDIVISION' CR1TERIA
Preliminary plat. .
Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of 13
preliminary plat and other supplementary material as may be required to
i~dicate the. general program and objectives of the project to the office of
the Director of Public Works. The plat shall be prepared by a registered
surveyor.
. Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteeln (18)
inches by twenty-four (24) inches in size at a scale no smaller than one
(1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet.
General information. The following general information shall be shown
on the preliminary plat:
1. Proposed naine of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor
resemble the name of another subdivision in Jackson County 'and
shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a pneliminary
plat.
4. Location of the subdivision sufficient to define the location and
boundaries of the proposed tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
Existing conditions. The following existing conditions shall be shown
on the preliminary plat: .
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets
within or adjacent to the tract, together with easements and other
important features, such as section lines and corners, and
monuments.
2. Location arid direction of all watercourses and areas subject to
flooding. (I
... 3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded
areas, and isolated preservable trees.
4. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing
structures to remain on the property after platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval of five (5) feet.
Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be
included on the preliminary plat.
1. The location, width, names and approximate grades of streets,
and the relationship of the streets to any projected streets as
shown on any development plan adopted by the Planning
Commission, or if there is no development plan, as suggested by
the City to assure adequate traffic circulation.
2. The location and purpose of easements.
3. The location; approximate dimensions, and proposed .Iot and
block numbers, for all lots and blocks. . .
4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family
dwellings.
C.
D.
F.
111
\
i
\.
G. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivide9 contains only
part of the tract owned or controlled by the subdivider', the Planning
'Commission may require a Master Plan for the unsubdivided portion.
H. Explanatory Information. The following information shall be submitted
in separate statements accompanying the preliminary plat or, if
practicable, shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and
unsubdivided larid adjacent' to the proposed subdivision and
showing how proposed streets may be extended to connect with
the existing streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
3. Where .there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within the
area to be subdivided, a preliminary grading plan may be required
by the Planning Commission. A grading plan should show
existing and finished grades on lots and streets proposed to be
graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan shall be
approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a
review and report from the City Engineer.
I. Tentative approval.
1 . Within thirty (30) days from the first regular Planning Commission
meeting following submission of the plat, the Planning Commission
will review the plan and may give tentative approval of the
preliminary plat as submitted or as it may be modified or, if
disapproved, shall express its disapproval and its reasons therefor.
2. Approval of the preliminary plat shall indicate the Planning
Commission's approval of the final plat provided there is no
change in the pran of subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat
and there is full compliance with the. requirements of this Title.
3. The action of the Planning Commission shall be noted 011 two (2)
copies of the preliminary plat, including reference to any attached
documents, describing conditions. One (1) copy shall be returned
to the subdiVider and the other retained by the Planning
Commission. (Ord. 2052, 1979).
~CJb
! i
\ ,
\ )
SECTION 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance. of Tree Removal- Staff Permit.
An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are
satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the (~riteria for a
. permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the
applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is
likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that
is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or
private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the
damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of
the tree presents a clear public safety hazard. or a foreseeable danger of property
damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be
alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a twe that is not
a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all ofthe following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g.
other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the
building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification
of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks;
and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the trlee densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subj ect property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion. when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that
the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In
making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement
of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, .so
long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a
condition of approval of the permit.
(Ord 2883, Added, 06/04/2002)
~~ J
CRITERIA 'FOR VARIANCE
The critera for the approval of a Variance are found in 18.100.020 and are as
follows:
1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site
which do not apply elsewhere.
2) That the proposal's benefits will be grater than any negative impacts on the
deve.lopment of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of
this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord. 2425 S1,
1987)
3) That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996)
18.88.050.F Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is
not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be
granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the
folllowing 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 variance will result in equal or superior transpOrtation
facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty;
and
D. The variance is consistent.with the stated Purpose and Intent of the
Performance Standards Options Chapter.
~6~
r
{
4
r
{
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 S~rt~rnher ?3. ?004, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Findings 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 # 2004-105.
(1X~r~ (;v-&Q
Signature of Employee
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 2.3ui day of S~ptember, 2004.
OFFICIAL seAL
NANCY E SLOCUM
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 371650
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 18. 2007
-~~~ ~S'?ncl/HL)
No ary Publ c for State of Ol,-gon
My Commission Expires: --.J. -1f?-07
Comm-Dev\Plan n i ng\ Tempi ates
c?< 03
~ e p 0,7 04 1 2 : 43 P
Cra)-e; Stone
{
TRAN~SMITT AL
5417790114
p. 1
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
708 Card ley Avenue. Medford, Oregon 97504
Telephone 541-779-0569
Fax 541-7790114
EMail cstone@cstoneassociates.com
To:
1f\(1\u:L ~AJ)
c'! 1
Re:
LndIill:"'Q -- - ':It V~
~Y~tiaM(j
~~, _~ 2(X)4
Date:
Copy: -
No. Copies
Items Being Sent
Remarks:
Method of Transmittal:
o First Class Mail
o FAX L # pages including this page
o Messenger/Hand Delivered
o Picked-up at This Office
o Federal Express
o UPS
o Express Mail
o Other
.' 8v~
~of-
Sep p7 04 12:43p
cr~~ Stone 54[1,790114
CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, I-,TD.
Consultants in Crban Planning and Development
p.2
708 Cardley Avenue . Medford, Oregon 97504-6124
Telephone: (541) 779-0569 Fax: (541) 779-0114 E-mail: cstone@cstoneassociates.com
September 7,2004
MS. MARIA HARRIS
clo Ashland Planning Department
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
Mountain Pines Subdivision
R & C Investments: Applicant
Dear Ms. Harris:
Pursuant to my Power of Attorney in the above captioned matter, applicant Charles A
Cochrane, dba R & C Investments, herewith requests a continuance of the Planning
Commission Public Hearing scheduled for September 14,2004. Applicant requests that this
matter be scheduled for the October Planning Commission Public Hearing and accordingly
agrees to a 30-day extension of the statutory decision-making deadlines set forth in ORS
227.178.
Very truly yours,
CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
CAS/m c:\ IWSICOCHRANE'Ml PineslContinuanC<l Let 1.dol;
ce. Andy Cochrane
File
SEP 8 2004
~b5
t ~L ~
\
CITY OF ASHLAND SEP- -
7 2004
TREE PERMIT _.
- - -- _..__.
Applicant's Nanl(~ 4tJn'1 ~.a u.I ~ItNIE Home Phone --1~;L..1~7o
Address I q 10 -B-sItIAtNJ) ~-r-. Day Phone
Property Owner (If different than above):
Name 'Sff rn rr Home Phone
Address Day Phone
Location of Tree (Note address if different than above and include a sketch on back side of paper if n~cessary.):
1.--01 -#;1j .,.. R 6l! *- 4- ~ aN TR~ (l te.b'TeG-TloN I Rf5fr10\1 ftI..- PL-ft-N
Type of Tree: IV) it"b I<o~ ~ Number l.ft{
Tree DiametE~r: d-i)1I . . Height; .30'
Request to: _ Plant _ Prune ~ Remove ~ Other
. g,U I t..1>JN~ ;;: N V cJ,() fG I
Explanation of Request: TH1C; Tfa ~ W/1"'+f jt.J ,fte;
~-a~ Date '1/7 ~t
Applicant
TREE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
__ Approved _ Denied _ App~d with Conditions
Conditions:
/ Date':'>'
Tree Con:unission Member
Date
Designated ~Representative or City Administrator
.'
This permit is valid with the above two signatures for a period of days from -
All work must be completed within this time and subject to the above conditions.
,-
,r--
SEP 8 lOQ4
cAo~
f
~
- o-alhraith
N'I 0 AND ASS OC JAT ES
TRANS MITT AL
DATE: September 7, 2004
TO: City of Ashland Tree Commission and Planning Commission
PROJECT: Mountain Pines Subdivision
We are sending you [x] Attached
[ ] Under Separate Cover Via:
18 copies of amended Page 10 of the Tree Protection/Removal Plan Narrative
For [x] Your Use
[ x ] Distribution to Others
[ ] Review and Comment
[ ] Other - See Below
Remarks:
From John Galbraith by Pauline Hoskinson Received by
SEP 8 2004
145 S. Holly St. Medford, OR 97501 Phone 541.770.7964 Fax 541.770.5164 email: contact@galbraiithla.com
A61
(-,
/r
{
Page 10
Trees #23 - ti" Pine; #26 - 18" Pine; #27 - 14" Pine; #28 - 8" Pine
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This group of trees is located within the building area. These
issues will not be factors under the building, as the surface waters will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: The removal of this group of trees, located inside the
building envelope does not provide a significant negative impact on existing windbreaks considering the tree
locations on the overall site.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of the subject property:
In general, the overall tree density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to
wtldeveloped land. However, future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping
on individual lots will improve tree density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the
subject property. Loss of this group of trees tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall
tree canopy, sizes or species diversity.
Lot 4:
Tree/shrub #42 - 4" Mahogany
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This is a tree/shrub under 6" dbh. This tree/shrub is on the edge
ofthe building envelope, and may be covered by the building, and the above factors will not apply beneath the
building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This shrub is low-growing at the edge of a grove of
manzanita and Mahogany. The majority of this grove will be removed, as it is inside the building envelope. It is
not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the very small
canopy of this tree/shrub will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Tree #44 - 20" Madrone
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: The slope in this area is gentle, and the tree is not located in a
swale or drainage confluence. Erosion will not be a significant consideration in removal of this tree, since
surrounding groundcover and off-site vegetation will not be disturbed.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjact:nt trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject Loss of the 20' of
this tr,ee will not a on the overall tree
Native Madrone trees have poor tolerance to
development impacts [see page 1, Table 1 of the Tree Protection section ofthis narrative). The necessary tree
zone of20' from trunk on all sides to preserve this tree would significantly reduce building envelopes
In addition, cultural requirements of the Madrone include no summer irrigation. Property
owners are likely to disregard this requirement, resulting in the slow but certain demise of the tree.
Lot 5 and adiacent drivewav:
Tree #45 -10" Cherry
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location is in a driveway area that provides required
access to lots. Soil stability and flow of surface waters are provided for in engineering plans.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjact:nt trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. This tree is an overmature
specimen with a short life expectancy, as indicated by dieback of major scaffold branches. Loss of the small
(12') canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
SEP 8 2004
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision~ 6 f
Landscape Architects & Site Planners
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC . f..ING on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE
will be held. before the ASHLAND PLAN"NING COMMISSION on
September 14, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC
CENTER, 1176 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice.
Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter. or failure to provide sufficient apecificity to afford the
decision maker an opportunity to respond to the Issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that Issue. Failure to specify
which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of
appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constltutlona' 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.
N
fA.
A copy of the apPIiJ'.. clll documents and evidence relied upon by the
applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and wiil
be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A o:>py of the Staff Report will be
available for InsPection seven days prior to the hl3aring lInd will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials lire available at the Ashland
Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51
Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shali aliow testimony from the applicant
and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that c:omments be restricted to the
applicable criteria. Unless there Is a continuancl3, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record ,shall remain open for at least
seven days after the hearing.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to
contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-552-2041. Our
TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900.
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on September 9,2004 in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way at 7:00 p.m.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-105 is a request for a seven lot Subdivision, Preliminary Plat approval, Conditional Use Permit
for an Accessory Residential Unit, and an exception to City of Ashland Street Standards for approximately 1.75 acres of
land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street The application
includes a Tree Removal Permit, as well as a Variance to Off-Street Parking requirements to allow two (2) required off-street
parkingspaces for the Accessory Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent parcel. Comprehensive, Plan Designation:
Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 391 E 16 AD; Tax Lots: 3400, 3500 and 3600.
APPLICANT: R & C Investments
<II
,r'
i
1
1
I
i
.,
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
County oLJackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97!520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On AIIOIIst ?6. 2004, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Findings 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 # 2004-105.
Si~Q~
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 26th day of AIIO"~t, 2004.
OFFICIAL SEAL
NANCY e SLOCUM
NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 371650
IWY CDMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 18. 2007
~ A\~
ta~c for State of or~o'Y d
My Commission Expires: .-! - 7
Comm-Dev\Plann i ng\ Templates
j../b
391E16AD 6700 PA#2004-105
BENTS ROBERT T/DENISE D
1010 MAGIC LAMP WAY C
MONUMENT, CO 80132
391E16AD 2500 PA#2004-105
BEUTNER EDWARD
BETSY BEYER
843 SMOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391EI6AD 4800 PA #2004-105
CHRISTLIEB GARY B TRUSTEE ET AL
1065 EMMA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 4100 PA #2004-105
GORDON ROBERT S
1025 WILDWOOD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2300 PA #2004-105
HOPKINS RANDALL A TRUSTEE
735 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39lE16AA 2200 PA #2004-105
HOUK HUGH W/DOROTHY J
710 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3904 PA #2004-105
MASLOW JENNIFER
146 MANZANITA
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2700 PA #2004-105
OLSEN RAYMOND ULORRAINE I
735 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
J91El(jAD J~OO PA #200~ 105
R & C REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES
5 NORTH M.UN ST
.AASHLA...~I>, OR 97S20
J91El(jAD J(jOO P.AA #2004 105
ROBERTS HILLERY B
COCH~\NECHARLESA
1970 .A~SHLA. ~D ST 2
ASHLAND, OR 97520
jh-
{
391E16AD 4200PA #2004-105
BERGEN ROBERT L
STEELE SAMANTHA
1020 WILDWOOD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
J91El(jAD 2JOO P."~ #2004 105
CHRISTLIEB C.-\RY B TRUSTEE ET
AI:,
10(j5 EMMA ST
ASHLA..ND, OR 97520
391EI6AD 6500 PA #2004-105
COTTON CHRISTOPHER TRUSTEE
780 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39lEI6AD 3100 PA #2004-105
GURWELL JULIA K
1047 WILDWOOD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
J91El(jA.\ 2304 P.A~ #2004 105
HOPKINS RANDALL .\ TRUSTEE
735 S MOUNT.UN AYE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3200 PA#2004-105
LITTLE JOHN D/JUDITH S
807 S MOUNTAIN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39lEl6AD 3700 PA #2004-105
MUEGGLER MARY JO TRUSTEE
800 BEACH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39lEl6AA 2301 P A #2004-105
PHILLIPS PHILIPIKA THERINE
1063 PROSPECT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39lEl6AA 2600 PA #2004-105
ROBERTS EVAN C
751 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39lEl5BB 5002 PA #2004-105
SCHAFFER SUSAN LYNNE
738 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
;2., II
r-
I
\
391El6AA 2400 PA #2004-105
BERGSTROM A T
PENNY AUSTIN
760 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
J91El(jAl) 2700 Pf~ #2004 105
CIIRISTLlEIl: Cf.RY B TRUSTEE ET
AI:,
10(j5 EMM.\ 8+
ASHLf~~D, OR 97520
391E16AD 3900 PA #2004-105
D'OLIVO MARK
804 BEACH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391El6AA 2302 PA #2004-105
HEINRICH WILLIAM/SUZANNE
6149 COUNTRY CLUB PKY
SAN JOSE, CA 95138
J91El(j.V~ 23~13 P f~ #2004 105
HOPKINS ~\NDALL TRUSTEE
735 S MOUNTAIN fA VE
ASHL1\ND, OR 97520
39lE16AD 4000 P A #2004-105
LYONS JEROME D TRUSTEE FBO
890 BEACH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
J91El(jl\l) 3800 Pf~ #2004 105
MUECCLER MARY JO TRUSTEE ET
AI:,
800 BEf~CH S~(:
ASHLf..ND, OR 97520
391El6AD 3301 PA#2004-105
R & C REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES
5l'lORTH MAIN ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3500 PA #2004-105
ROBERTS HILLERY B
COCHRANE CHARLES A
1970 ASHLAND ST 2
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39lE16AD 3701 PA#2004-105
SIGETICH MILAN P/R L REID
1036 PROSPECT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
I oj ;L
.
391EI6AD 3300 PA#2004-I05
STALLMAN ANDREW lvI/JEANNE M
789 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA 2402 PA#2004-105
STUELPNAGEL JULIE
915 OAK ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391EI6AD 2900 PA#2004-I05
TRAYNOR SEAN JIKERlU L
1071 WILDWOOD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA2703 PA#2004-105
WORKMAN ANGELA J
WEEDEN DERRICK LEE
775 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 3491 Pt. #2994 19S
STALLM:.A..N !..NDREW M/JEt..NNE 1\1
789 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97S29
391El6AD 6600 PA #2004-105
STURTEVANT CAROL TRSTEE FBO
800 S MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391EI6AD 101 PA#2004-I05
WARREN JONffiEBECCA
1120 PROSPECT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391El6AD 3301 PA#2004-105
R & C INVESTMENTS
1970 ASHLAND ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
~/~,
391E16AA2305 PA#2004-105
STANEK CHRlSTOPHER J/WENDI
720 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AA2401 PA#2004-105
TAYLOR JEAN
734GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E16AD 4300 P A #2004-105
WAIT RANDY IEVIE
PO BOX 853
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39IEI6AD 3301 PA #2004-105
CRAIG STONE & ASSOC
708 CARDLEY AVE
MEDFORD, OR 97504
1J14" 1e:..A y2~+t'L<:' ~
~-~Io. 0 i-
~ y" Ij f'r::;r d-ofhV'i
.l~t2
;-
{
"r
J
'.
ATTN:
JODY - CLASSIFIED
PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING
NOTICE OF SITE VISIT
There will be a site visit by the Ashland Planning Commission on Monday, Septemher 13, 2004
at noon at the southwest comer of the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect
Street. The applicant, R & C Investments, are requesting a seven lot Subdivision, Preliminary
Plat approval, Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Residential Unit, and an excc~tion to
City of Ashland Street Standards for approximately 1.75 acres of land. The application includes
a Tree Removal Permit, as well as a Variance to Off-Street Parking requirements ,to allow two (2)
required off-street parking spaces for the Accessory Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent
parcel. (Reference: P A2004-1 05)
By order of the Planning Director
John McLaughlin
Publish: 9/10/04
P. O. No. 65413
~gs: 8/26/04
9~~
A/j
ATTN:
,{
~
JODY - CLASSIFIED
PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING
NOTICE OF SITE VISIT
LJe-d , . <1
There will be a site visit by the Ashland Tree Commission on 'fImrsday, September j, 2004 at
11 :30 a.m. at the southwest corner of the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect
. Street to review the landscape plans for the seven lot subdivision (applicant: R&C Investments).
(Reference: P A2004-1 05)
Publish: 9/7/04
P. O. No. 65413
E-mailed to Tidings: 8/26/04
By order of the Planning Director
~/'f
John McLaughlin
(
{ .
(
ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (JODY)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with rElspect to
the Ashland land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission,
September 14,2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street,
Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard.
Request for a seven lot Subdivision, Preliminary Plat approval, Conditional Use Permit for an
Accessory Residential Unit, and an exception to City of Ashland Street Standards for
approximately 1.75 acres of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South
Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street. The application includes a Tree Removal Permit, as well .
as a Variance to Off-Street Parking requirements to allow two (2) required off-street parking
spaces for the Accessory Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent parcel.
Request for Site Review, Outline and Final Plan approval and a Tree Removal Permit to
construct a mixed-use commercial building (ground floor retail - upper floor residential)
and eight four-plex apartment buildings located at 2205 Ashland Street (adjacent and
west of McDonald's Re,staurant).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this ITlelmng, please
contact the Oty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (T1Y phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification n hours
prior to the meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Trtle I).
By order of the Planning Director
John McLaughlin
Publish: 9/4/04
Date e-mailed: 8/26/04
Purchase Order: 65413
6L/ S-
f'
I
'-
ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (JODY)
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a meeting of the Tree Commission
on September 9, 2004 in the City of Ashland, Community Development and Engineering
Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way at 7:00 p.m.
Request for a seven lot Subdivision, Preliminary Plat approval, Conditional Use Permit for an
Accessory Residential Unit, and an exception to City of Ashland Street Standards for
approximately 1.75 acres of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South
Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street. The application includes a Tree Removal Permit, as well
as a Variance to Off-Street Parking requirements to allow two (2) required off-street parking
spaces for the Accessory Residential Unit to be located on an adjacent parcel.
Request for Site Review, Outline and Final Plan approval and a Tree Removal Permit to construct
a mixed-use commercial building (ground floor retail - upper floor residential) and eight four-plex
apartment buildings located at 2205 Ashland Street (adjacent and west of McDonald's
Restaurant).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please
contact thE! aty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours
prior to thE! meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
By order of the Planning Director
John McLaughlin
Publish: 8/30/04
Date e-mailed: 8/26/04
Purchase Order: 65413
/)./~
(~
r'"
{
Q-=~E'VED
JUl 2 0 2004
LIMITED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
AUTHORIZATION TO ACT on behalf of the owner of real property described as Tax Lots
3400,3500 and 3600 on Jackson County Assessor map 39-IE-16AD.
LET IT BE KNOWN that Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. (Stone) is the duly authorized
representative of R & C Investments, the owners of record of the above described real property,
and, by this instrument, do hereby authorize Stone to perform in our names all acts procedurally
required to obtain approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Conditional Use Permit for an
Accessory Residential Unit, Exception to Street Standards and a Variance to the Parking
Standards consistent with the City of Ashland, for the above described real property.
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY shall be used for only the limited
and special purposes above described and shall not be used to buy, sell or convey any part or any
interest whatsoever in this or any other land owned by the above property owner.
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by
the undersigned property owner and s II expire on January 1, 2005, but may be extended by the
mutual consent of the parties.
Andy Cochrane, Partner
R & C Investments
?~~/
/
A/7
r'::llL. ~.
(
JIB
WESTECH ENGINEERING, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
~~CE'VED
JUl 2 0 200~
July 15,2004
TELEFAX (541) 779-0569
Mr. Craig Stone
Craig Stone &; Associates
708 Cardley Avenue
Medford, OR 97504
RE: Mountain Pines Subdivision
J.D. 2377.0000.0
Dear Craig,
Per your request, the following is a brief summary of the major design features for the proposed
Mountain Pine Subdivision.
The driveway is proposed to access South Mountain Avenue at a 5% grade for the first 25-feet.
The driveway then transitions to the maximum grade allowed by City code of 15%. Through a
50-foot vertical curve the driveway then transitions to 4.5% to minimize the cut and fill area
surrounding th~36-inchdiameteJ;'Pinetrce.The driveway tra::lsitjons back to a 15%) grade aIld
terminates in a hammerhead turnaround approximately 325-feet from the centerline of South
Mountain Avenue. We have provided a transition grade from 15% to 5% in the turnaround. This
will provide a relatively flat area for cars and emergency vehicles to turn around.
Included in the driveway design are two retaining walls to minimize grading and protect existing
trees. The maximum wall height is II-feet located on Lot 2.
As is evident by the grading plan, the street grades in combination with the retaining walls
minimize lot grading. The maximum cut slope proposed is 3: 1, which is less than the City
standard of 1 YZ: 1. The maximum proposed fill slope is a 2: 1 slope, which meets the City
requirement for fills. Therefore, the grades proposed on our grading plan meet City standards.
Outside the street area approximately 6250 SF is filled and 3950 SF is cut. We have not included
lot grading on our plans. We believe each lot will require a site-specific home plan with site-
specific grading to meet the City's maximum slope requirements (11;2: 1 for cuts, 2: 1 for fills).
The site-specific design is likely to include features such as tri-level house designs, daylighting,
and other features to minimize impacts and provide reasonable access to each new home. It is
our belief that City standards can be achieved on an individual lot basis depending on the
footprint of the house.
C:\Data\Cochrane\Design Summary Letter 2.doe
~{ f(
3841 FailView Industrial Dr. Sf, Suite 100, Salem. Oregon 97302
Phone: (503) 585-2474 Fax (503) 585-3986
r
'"
(-
r
{
r
July 15, 2004
Mr. Craig Stone
Craig Stone & Associates
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please contact us
at (503) 585-2474.
jbd
Sincerely,
~RlNG'INC.
~ven i\.. Ward, P.E.
-ifr
) 'ITY OF ASHLAND PLA.NNU ~ APPLICATION
Type zr
Date Received
'7 ;&J-kY
File No. ~~'/- /o..s-
Filing Fee
J, ~o/tt
.
Zoning .R -I
Comp Plan Designation
Receipt # &/1."
APPLICATION IS FOR:
-
0 Minor Land Partition 0 Outline Plan (# Units ) 0 Zone Change
~ Variance 0 Pinal Plan 0 Comp Plan Change
00 Conditional Use Permit 0 Site Review aa Evcep17'o-t-J 0 Staff Permit
o Boundary Line Adjustment 0 Annexation ~ S~~(l0'~ 0 Solar Waiver
Application pertains to
chapter, section, subpart
of the Ashland Municipal Code.
APPLICANT
Name Po. C Inu~c;tlR~ntl.
Phone
'if;'.. (:J.7cJ
Address /Q7o
i~#~ Sf~ J ~d~ e>L
. ,
t:t7 >: 'Z.-i)
PROPERTY OWNEB
Name SamE> as above
Phone
Address
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (may need to use back page)
Name Agent: Craig A. stone & Associates, Ltd.
Phone 779-0569
Address 708 Cardley Avenue, Medford, OR 97504
DESCRiPTiON OF PROPERTY
Street Address 759 and 769 Mountain Avenue
Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E, fiAO
Tax Lot(s~4oo 1S00 rlnn 1nOO
,
When was the above described property acquired by owner1 In the past two years.
On a separate sheet of paper, list any covenants, conditions or restrictions concerning use of property or improvements
contemplated, as well (}s yard set-back and area or height requirements that were placed on the property by subdivision
tract developers. Give date said restrictions expire.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another sheet(s) of paper and
enclose it with this form. Keep in mind your responses must be in the form of factual statements
or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence which
supports it. ~ ~o
( \
1
(
'.\
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in 'this application, including the
enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respe~ts true and correct. I understand
that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon site inspection. In the event
the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility.
I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) th(Jt the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
Failure in this regard' will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in
any structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have
any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advicfJ and as~istan~e.
~~
7;;3/0'1
Applicants's Signature
Date
As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete
application and its consequences to me as a property owner.
~~- ----
Property Owner's Signature
7!rJ/6<Y'
--""-"'---.-- n.__.____ _ -L-.~~--_. ,"
Date
NOTICE: Section 15.04.240 of the Ashland Municipal Code prohibits the occupancy of a building or a release of
utilities prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division AND the completion of all
zoning requirements and conditions imposed by the Planning Commission UNLESS a satisfactory peiformance bond
has been posted to ensure completion. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or disconnection of utilities,
~~(
(~ City of Ashland
Permit Receipt
RECEIPT NUMBER 00006824
Account name: 02092
Applicant:
Type:
Permit Number
PL-2004-01291
ROBERTS BRUCE/POKII
ChEICk # 1130
Fee Description
Type 2
Total:
~~Pt.
f'
t
Date: 7/15/2004
Amount
3,644.00
3,644.00
('
/'-
4
\
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR )
A 7-LOT SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT,)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN )
ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT, AND AN)
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS )
FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.75 ACRES OF )
LAND ZONED R-1-10 WHICH IS LOCATED)
AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH )
MOUNTAIN AVENUE AND PROSPECT )
STREET IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND, )
OREGON )
)
R & C Investments: Applicant )
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Applicants' Exhibit 1
NATURE, SCOPE AND INTENT OF APPLICATION
Applicant, R & C Investments, a partnership involving Charles A. Cochran ~md Bruce
Roberts, seeks approval of the following consolidated land use applications as need(:d:
· A. Subdivision. Application for a Preliminary Plat pursuant to Ashland Land Use
Ordinance (ALUO) Chapter 18.80. The application seeks to create seven lots from the
1.75-acre subject property, which consists of three existing lots, two of which are
occupied by dwellings. The future seven lots will be occupied by single-family
dwellings. An existing dwelling will continue to exist but as an Accessory Residential
Unit (ARU).
· B. Conditional Use Permit. Application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit
an existing single family dwelling on Tax Lot 3500 to continue to exist and operate in the
future as an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) pursuant to ALUO 18.20.030.
· C. Exception to Street Standards. Along Prospect Street, an exception is sought to
street right-of-way and paving width standards. Along South Mountain Avenue, an
exception is sought to permit a required planter strip and sidewalk within an easement on
the subject property rather than within the right-of-way of South Mountain Avenue. An
exception regarding the number of parcels that may permissibly obtain actual ac:cess from
Private Drive pursuant to ALUO I8.88.050(F). frf,I,.f.,!.",.JD"r
I r JUL 1 5 2004
bur.l'--' i,~_., _"J , ; ,.. d
--~-~~~~--~~-~--~-~~-.~~
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page 1 of 53
~~
/"
(
Findings of f=act and Conclusions of Law
Consolldated Land Use Applications
R &C InvestmElnts: Applicant
(
· D. Varliance to Off-Street Parking. Application seeking variance relief for the purpose
of pennitting the two (2) required off-street parking spaces for the ARU to be located on
an adjaGent parceL
· E. Trel~ ProtectionlRemoval. Application for Tree Removal Permit and related Tree
Protection Plan. Two of the three existing lots are exempt from the tree removal
standards of ALUO 18.61 (Tree Preservation and Protection) pursuant to ALUO
18.61.035(B). Tree protection/removal on the other existing lot is governed by ALUO
18.61 and ALUO 18.62.090 (Development Standards for Wildfire Lands).
· F. Wildfire Lands. Authorization for subdivision under the special standards which
apply to this land which is within the area designated Wildfire Lands on Ashland's
Physical & Environmental Constraints Map
This document has been prepared to function as the findings of fact and conclusions of law
of the Ashland Planning Commission in its consideration of the above land use applications.
If the appli1cation is approved, Applicant will cause this document to be updated to include
and deal with all of the relevant evidence and testimony that is offered into evidence during
public hearing(s) during whiCh the applIcatIOns WIll be conSIdered.
II
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION
Applicant herewith submits the following evidence with its application for Outline Plan
approval:
Exhibit 1. The proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, demonstrating how the
subdivision application complies with the applicable substantive criteria
Exhibit 2. Site Plan, which includes:
Sheet 1 Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Sheet 2 Tree Protection Plan
Sheet 3
Sheet 4
Sheet 5
Sheet 6
Planting Plan
Irrigation Plan
Wildfire Prevention and Control Plan
Tentative Plat
Exhibit 3. Current City of Ashland zoning map which depicts the subject
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
~:<'-I
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
Exhibit 4. Assessor Plat Map 39-1E-16AD (which depicts the subject property)
Exhibit 5. Topographic Contour Map
Exhibit 6. Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 7. Letter from Westech Engineering, Inc. that addresses grading
Exhibit 8. Aerial manuscript map showing parcels and the footprint of structures on the
subject property and surrounding area
Exhibit 9. Tree ProtectionlRemoval Plan Narrative by Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Exhibit 10. Earlier Project Design Concept
Exhibit 11. Preliminary Grading Plan by Westech Engineering, Inc.
Exhibit 12. Completed application forms and power of attorney from Applicant (also the
record owners of the subject property)
III
RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA
The criteria under the applications enumerated in Section I must be considered, are in the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). The criteria and relevant provisions of the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan are recited verbatim below and in Section V of this documtmt, where
each of the criteria are followed by the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law,
which applicant asserts forms the basis for approval.
A. SUBDIVISION; GENERAL REGULA TlONS; DESIGN STANDARDS
18.20.040 GENERAL REGULATIONS
A. Minimum lot area: Basic minimum lot area in the R-1 zone shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, except
six thousand (6,000) square feet for corner lots, R-1 areas may be designed for seventy-five hundred
(7,500), or ten thousand (10,000) square foot minimum lot sizes where slopes or other conditions make
larger sizes necessary, Permitted lot sizes shall be indicated by a number following the R-1 nolation which
represents allowable minimum square footage in thousands of square feet, as follows:
R-1-5 5,000 square feet
R-1-7,5 7,500 square feet
R-1-10 10,000 square feet
B, Minimum lot width:
Interior lots 50 feet
Corner lots 60 feet
All R-1-7,5 lots 65 feet
[, -,. "'.- .' t.-,~, ~
f\ 'f i \'
:' ~",L~~
\ p: JUL 1 5 2DOq
i I
f" 'r'
L.'!.,.l
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
"',""'''"".,<... .
Page 3 of 53
~:<s-
{-
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investmunts: Applicant
~"
,
(
All R-1-1 0 lots 75 feet
C, Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80) feet, and a maximum depth of one hundred fifty
(150) feet unless lot configuration prevents further development of the back of the lot. Maximum lot depth
requirements shall not apply to lots created by a minor land partition. No lot shall have a width greater than
its depth, and no lot shall exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet in width, (Ord, 2052, 1979; Ord, 2425 S3,
1988)
D, Standard Yard Requirements: Front yards shall be a minimum of, 15 feet excluding garages. Unenclosed
porches shall be permitted with a minimum setback of eight feet or the width of any existing public utility
easement, whichever is greater, from the front property line. All garages accessed from the front shall have
a minimum setback of 20' from the front property line; side yards, six feet; the side yard of a corner lot
abutting a public street shall have a ten foot setback; rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story in
excess of one story, In addition, the setbacks must comply with Chapter 18.70 which provides for Solar
Access, (Ord. 2097 S5, 1980; Ord, 2121 Se, 1981, Ord, 2752,1995)
E. Maximum Building Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2 1/2) stories in
height, whichever is less.
F. Maximum Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (50%) percent in an R-1-5 District, forty-five (45%)
percent in an R-1-7.5 District, and forty (40%) percent in an R-1-1 0 District.
18.80 SUBDIVISIONS
18.80.020 Design Standards
A, Acceptability - principles: The subdivision shall conform with any development plans and shall take into
consideration any preliminary plans made in anticipation thereof. The subdivision shall conform with the
requirements of State laws and the standards established by this Chapter.
B, Streets: The Street Standards in Chapter 18,88, Performance Standards Options, shall apply to
developments under this chapter,
1. Reserve Strips, Reserve strips or street plugs shall be created to control access onto any street which
terminates upon any undeveloped land through which the street might logically extend, In such cases,
the street shall be provided to within one foot of the boundary line of the tract with the remaining one
foot being granted in fee to the City as a reserve strip. Upon approved dedication of the extension of the
affected street, the one-foot reserve strip shall be dedicated by the City to the public use as a part of
said street. This dedication will be automatic and without further action by the City. This action shall also
apply retroactively to all previously created reserve strips where the streets have been extended and
dedicated for street purposes, (Ord, 2436,1987)
2. Alignment. All streets as far as is practical shall be in alignment with the existing streets by continuation
of the center lines thereof. The staggering of street alignment resulting in "T" intersections shall
wherever practical leave a minimum distance of 125 feet between the center lines of streets.
3, Future extension of streets, Where necessary to give access to or permit a satisfactory subdivision of
adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary of the subdivision and the resulting dead-end
streets may be approved without a turnaround, Reserve strips and street plugs may be required to
preserve the objectives of street extensions,
4. Intersection angles, Streets shall be laid out to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practical,
except where topography requires a lesser angle, Property lines at intersections with arterial streets
shall have a minimum corner radius of twenty (20) feet and property lines at other street and alley
intersections shall have a minimum corner radius adequate t allow sidewalk and utility space and a
~ r ~pn
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
:;.. ~"
JUt 1 5 2004
Page 4 of 53
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
curb radius of ten (10) feet.
5. Existing streets. Whenever existing streets adjacent to or within a tract are of inadequate width,
additional right-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision.
6, Frontage and limited access roads may be required as defined in Sections 18,72.040(L) and
18.72.040(M) of this Title,
7. Access to subdivision. All major means of access to a subdivision or major partition shall be from
existing streets fully improved to City standards, and which, in judgment of the Director of Public Works,
have the capacity to carry all anticipated traffic from the development.
8. Half streets. Half streets, while generally not acceptable, may be approved when essential to the
reasonable development of the subdivision, when in conformity with the other requirements of these
regulations, and when the Planning Commission finds it will be practical to require the dedication of the
other half when the adjoining property is subdivided, Whenever a half street is adjacent to a tract to be
subdivided, the other half of the street may be platted within such tract. Reserve strips and street plugs
may be required to preserve the objectives of the half streets,
9, Cul-de-sacs, A cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall have a maximum length of five
hundred (500) feet. All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a circular turnaround unless alternate designs
for turning and reversing direction are approved by the Planning Commission.
10, Street names. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of
existing streets in Ashland and vicinity except for extensions of existing streets. Streets which are an
extension of, or are in alignment with, existing streets shall have the same name as the existing street.
Street names and numbers shall conform to the establishment pattern for the City and shall be subject
to the approval of the Planning Commission.
11. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way. Wherever the proposed subdivision contains or is adjacent to a
railroad right-of-way, provision may be required for a street approximately parallel to and on each side
of such right-of-way at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the land between the streets and
the railroad, The distance shall be great enough to provide sufficient depth to allow screen planting
along the railroad right-of-way,
C, Easements.
1. Utility lines, Easements for sewers, water mains, electric lines, or other public utilities shall be dedicated
wherever necessary. The easements shall be a minimum often (10) feet in width.
2. Watercourses. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse such as a drainage way, channel, or
stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming
substantially with the lines of the watercourse, and such further width as will be adequate for the
purpose. Streets or parkways parallel to major watercourses may be required.
D, Lots.
1. Lots shall meet the requirements of the zone in which the subdivision is located, These minimum
standards shall apply with the following exceptions:
a, In areas that will not be served by a public sewer, minimum lot size shall be increased to conform
with the requirements of the County Health Department and shall take into consideration problems
of water supply and sewer diSPOSal.rr~![r:] 11 \,1
tA~-;
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
JUL 1 5 2004
Page 5 of 53
J
(
~~
(
\
Findings of I:act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investmlmts: Applicant
b, Minimum lot standard shall not conflict with City zoning standards,
c, Where property is zoned and planned for industrial or business use, other standards may be
permitted at the discretion of the Planning Commission, Depth and width of properties reserved or
laid out for commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street
service and parking facilities required by the type of use and development contemplated.
2, Access. Each lot shall abut upon a street, other than an alley, for a width of at least forty (40) feet,
except in the case of lots located upon the curved portion of cul-de- sacs or knuckles, or in the case
where topography warrants a narrower width. In no case shall a lot abut upon a street for a width of less
than twenty-five (25) feet
3. Through lots. Through lots shall be avoided except where essential to provide separation or residential
development from major traffic arteries or adjacent nonresidential activities or to overcome specific
disadvantages of topography and orientation. A planting screen easement of at least ten (10) feet,
across which there shall be no right of access, may be required along the line of lots abutting such a
traffic artery or other disadvantageous use, Through lots with planting screens shall have a minimum
average depth of one hundred ten (110) feet
4. Lot side lines. The side lines of lots, as far as practicable, shall run at right angles to the street upon
which the lot faces,
E, Lot grading. Lot grading shall conform to the following standards unless physical conditions demonstrate the
propriety of other standards.
1, Cut slopes shall not be steeper than one and one-half (1 v,) feet horizontally to one (1) foot vertically,
2, Fill slopes shall not be steeper than two (2) feet horizontally to one (1) foot vertically,
3, Cut slopes and fill slopes along side and rear lot lines shall be planted with ground cover and shrubs or
trees, or by some other method approved by the City.
F, Large lot subdivision. In subdividing tracts into large lots which at some future time are likely to be re-
subdivided, the Planning Commission may require that the blocks shall be of a size and shape, be divided
into lots and contain building site restrictions to provide for extension and opening of streets at intervals
which will permit a subsequent division of each parcel into lots of smaller size,
G, Land for public purposes.
1, The Planning Commission may require the reservation for public acquisition, at a cost not to exceed
acreage values in the area prior to subdivision, of appropriate areas within the subdivision for a period
not to exceed one (1) year, providing the City knows of an intention on the part of the State Highway
Commission, school district or other public agency to acquire a portion of the area within the proposed
subdivision for a public purpose, including substantial assurance that positive steps will be taken in the
reasonable future for the acquisition,
2, The Planning Commission may require the dedication of suitable areas for the parks and playgrounds
that will be required for the use of the population which is intended to occupy the subdivision,
H. Landscaping, The Planning Commission shall ensure that lot coverage requirements of the zoning district
are met appropriately, If lot disturbance exceeds the percentage allowable, the subdivider shall submit as
part 01 the F;oal Plat pcoced"e, a laod'''p;09 plao to be appco,ed by the comm'~Jtrr JN~"
! n! JULPale5ot4004
~~?
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
,..-~
(
conform with the letter and intent of the zone district requirements, the slope requirements in the General
Regulations of this Title, and any other applicable section. Performance shall be assured in accordance with
Section 18.80.050 of this Chapter. .
I, Exceptions - large scale development. The Planning Commission may modify the standards and
requirements of this Chapter if the subdivision plat comprises a complete neighborhood unit, a large scale
shopping center, or a planned industrial area, The Planning Commission shall determine that such
modifications are not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and that adequate provision is
made within the development for traffic circulation, open space, and other features that may be required in
the public interest.
J, The Planning Commission may modify the standards and requirements of this Chapter where the applicant
presents innovative design concepts that will assist in providing livable housing at reasonable cost. Such
modifications of standards shall be made only in conformance with the intent of this Chapter, and in
conformance with all applicable portions of this Title.
18.80.040 PRELIMINARY PLAT
A. Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copiJs of a preliminary plat and other supplementary
material as may be required to indicate the general program and objectives of the project to the office of the
Director of Public Works. The plat shall be prepared by a registered surveyor.
8, Scale, The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen (18) inches by twenty-four (24) inches in size
at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet.
C. General information. The following general information shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. Proposed name of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor resemble the name of another
subdivision in Jackson County and shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
2, Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3, Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a preliminary plat.
4, Location of the subdivision sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the proposed tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
D, Existing conditions, The following existing conditions shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets within or adjacent to the tract, together
with easements and other important features, such as section lines and corners, and monuments.
2, Location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding,
3, Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and isolated preservable trees,
4. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures to remain on the property after
platting,
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval of five (5) feet.
F. Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be included on the preliminary plat.
1. The location, width, names and approximate grades of streets, and the relationship of the streets to any
projected streets as shown on any development plan adopted by the Planning Commission, or if there
is no development plan, as suggested by the City to assure adequate traffic circulation.
2. The location and purpose of easements.
3, The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and block numbers, for all lots and blocks.
4, Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family dwellings.
G, Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only part of the tract owned or controlled by
the subdivider, the Planning Commission may require a Master Plan for the unsubdivided portion,
H. Explanatory information. The following information shall be submitted in separate statements accompanying
the preliminary plat or, if practicable, shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
;2.;<'1
JUlPaaa Uof2B04
~} -~-.-,
f..,,"."'.' I
rm
i I
~
1
! ~
l i'
- -,"(.; j
~~ ,,,,,p
(-
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbmmts: Applicant
r
(
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and unsubdivided land adjacent to the proposed
subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be extended to connect with the existing streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
3. Where there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within the area to be subdivided, a preliminary
grading plan may be required by the Planning Commission. A grading plan should show existing and
finished grades on lots and streets proposed to be graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan
shall be approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a review and report from the City
Engineer,
I. TentativE approval.
1. Within thirty (30) days from the first regular Planning Commission meeting following submission of the
plat, the Planning Commission will review the plan and may give tentative approval of the preliminary
plat as submitted or as it may be modified or, if disapproved, shall express its disapproval and its
reasons therefor,
2. Approval of the preliminary plat shall indicate the Planning Commission's approval of the final plat
provided there is no change in the plan of subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat and there is full
compliance with the requirements of this Title.
3. The action of the Planning Commission shall be noted on two (2) copies of the preliminary plat,
including reference to any attached documents, describing conditions. One (1) copy shall be returned to
the subdivider and the other retained by the Planning Commission.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
18.20.030 CONDITIONAL USES
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with Chapter 18,104,
Conditional Use Permits,
H. AccessOlY residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional criteria:
1, The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the
underlying zone.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
3, The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed
50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA.
4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for single-family
dwellings of this Title.
18.104 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can
be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria,
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is
proposed to be ,located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not
implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program,
B, That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property,
~n
n ~-I '[\~
U ! ~_:.-
! "! L 1 5 2004
. .~"\
ij ~'
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
~60
i I
,
1
~
i
'l?~ge 8 of 53
L_/
'~'__~=Ba__~___~_.
/'~
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
(
C, That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when
compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect
of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be
considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1, Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage,
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets, Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass
transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area,
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5, Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
C. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.88.050 STREET STANDARDS
All development under this Chapter shall conform to the Street Standards as defined in 18.88.020.K.
The following standards regulate the development of streets and are in addition to the standards contained in the
Street Standards Handbook.
A. Private Drive. A private drive is a road in private ownership, not dedicated to the public, which series three or
less units. No curbs or sidewalks are required for a private drive. On-street parking is prohibiteC! on private
drives. The private drive standard is as follows:
3 Units 15 feet with 20 feet dedicated width
2 Units15 feet with 20 feet dedicated width
1 Unit12 feet with 15 feet dedicated width
B. Dedicated Public Streets Required. All roads which serve four units or greater, and which are in an R-1, RR
and WR zone, must be dedicated to the public and shall be developed to the Street Standards of this section.
C, Dead End. No dead end road shall exceed 500 feet in length, not including the turnaround. Dead end roads
must terminate in an improved turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards guidelines adopted pursuant
to Section 18.88,090,
D. Obstructed Streets, Creating an obstructed street is prohibited,
E. Street Grade, Street grades measured at the street centerline for dedicated streets and flag drives shall be as
follows:
Private drives serving structures greater than 24' in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide a Fire
Work Area of 20' by 40' within 50' of the structure, The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the
structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed.
Private drives and work areas shall be deemed Fire Lanes and subject to all requirements thereof.
Private drives greater than 250' in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance
Standards Guidelines as provided in 18.88.090.
F. Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance
requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the
following circumstances are found to exist:
1, 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.
2, The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
pLcD'
j ,: JUL 1 5 2004
')
j
Craig A. Stone & Associates. Ltd.
;2,61
~
P,ge 9 of 53
" )
l...d i..,.'
(~
Findings of I=act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbn4~nts: Applicant
r
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter,
D. VARIANCE FOR OFF-STREET PARKING FOR ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT
(ARU)
18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required
Uses and standards are as follows:
A. Residential Uses, For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are required,
1. Single family dwellings, Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following for accessory
residential units:
a, Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq, ft.--1 space/unit.
b, 1.bedroom units 500 sq, ft, or larger--1.50 spaces/unit.
c, 2..bedroom units--1 ,75 spaces/unit.
d, 3.bedroom or greater units--2.00 spaces/unit,
18.100.020 Variances
A, That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent
uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
(Ord,2425 S1, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed,(Ord. 2775, 1996)
E. TREE PRESERVA T/ON & PROTECT/ON
ALUO Chapter 18.61 Tree Preservation & Protection
ALUO 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An applicant for a Tree Removal-
Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied, The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's
report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
ALUO 18.61.080(8) Tree that is not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the
applicant demonstrates all of the following
1, The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable
Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, (e,g. other applicable Site Design and Use
Standards), The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to
allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2, Rer10val of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
~ 3e:L
~r;J~-
"I p
j'tf '..i.L...,.~
, ,
JUl 1 5 lOO~ tge100f53
Craig A. Stone, & Associates, Ltd.
r
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
, R & C Investments: Applicant
3, Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies,
and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
4, The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to
AMC 18.61.084, Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered
and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone, Nothing in this
section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In
making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate
landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with
other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance,
18.61.200 TREE PROTECTION
Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit.
A. Tree Protection Plan Required.
1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any
development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a
property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit.
2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which
clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site, The plan must be drawn to scale
and include the following:
a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site;
b. Location of the drip line of each tree;
c, Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other
utility lines/facilities and easements;
d, Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches;
e. Location of proposed and existing structures;
f, Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction;
g, Existing and proposed impervious surfaces;
h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and
i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230,
3, For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all
trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree,
8, Tree Protection Measures Required,
;2,33
"
~ .' j
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
i I
200~jage11J of 53
, !
)
-....-....-_ w.'__.. =.... ___
(,
Findings of IFact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investm,ents: Applicant
1. EXCHpt as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in
this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing,
grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction
activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation,
2, Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall
be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary
of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being
developed.
3, The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade,
4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree
protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for
the project.
5, No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping
or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles,
6, The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints,
thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris,
or m-off.
7, No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection
zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor.
C, Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion
control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection
measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City.
F. WILDFIRE LANDS
18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands
A, Requirements for Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, or Partitions,
1. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be required with the submission of any application for an outline
plan approval of a Performance Standards Development, preliminary plat of a subdivision, or application to
partition land which contained areas designated Wildfire Hazard areas,
2. The Staff Advisor shall forward the Fire Prevention and Control Plan to the Fire Chief within 3 days of the
receipt of a completed application, The Fire Chief shall review the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and
submit a written report to the Staff Advisor no less than 7 days before the scheduled hearing, The Fire
Chiefs report shall be a part of the record of the Planning Action.
3, The Fire Prevention and Control Plan, prepared at the same scale as the development plans, shall
include the following items:
a, An analysis of the fire hazards on the site from wildfire, as influenced by existing vegetation and
toponraphy,
b. A map showing the areas that are to be cleared of dead, dying, or severely diseased vegetation,
c, A map of the areas that are to be thinned to reduce the interlocking canopy of trees,
Craig A. Stone I~ Associates, Ltd.
:;~4
,
I
_.jte 12 of 53
'."" ^~,y
...... '1' ,,.."'" coO _.p "..",,"'~;-:1<'::;"- "_c~'"'''''_'''''':';''''" ,.".~
(~
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
d. A tree management plan showing the location of all trees that are to be preserved and removed on
each lot. In the case of heavily forested parcels, only trees scheduled for removal shall be shown,
e. The areas of Primary and Secondary Fuel Breaks that are required to be installed around each
structure, as required by 18.62.090 B.
f. Roads and driveways sufficient for emergency vehicle access and fire suppression activities,
including the slope of all roads and driveways within the Wildfire Lands area.
4. Criterion for Approval. The hearing authority shall approve the Fire Prevention and Control Plan when, in
addition to the findings required by this chapter, the additional finding is made that the wildfire hazards
present on the property have been reduced to a reasonable degree, balanced with the need to preserve
andlor plant a sufficient number of trees and plants for erosion prevention, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics.
5, The hearing authority may require, through the imposition of conditions attached to the approval, the
following requirements as deemed appropriate for the development of the property:
a, Delineation of areas of heavy vegetation to be thinned and a formal plan for such thinninljl.
b, Clearing of sufficient vegetation to reduce fuel load,
c. Removal of all dead and dying trees.
d, Relocation of structures and roads to reduce the risks of wildfire and improve the chances of
successful fire suppression.
6. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be implemented during the public improvements required of a
subdivision or Performance Standards Development, and shall be considered part of the subdivider's
obligations for land development. The Plan shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any building permit
for structures to be located on lots created by partitions and for subdivisions or Performance Standards
developments not requiring public improvements, The Fire Chief, or designee, shall inspect and approve the
implementation of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and the Plan shall not be considered fully
implemented until the Fire Chief has given written notice to the Staff Advisor that the Plan was completed as
approved by the hearing authority.
7. In subdivisions or Performance Standards Developments, provisions for the maintenance of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the
development, and the City of Ashland shall be named as a beneficiary of such covenants, restrictions, and
conditions,
8, On lots created by partitions, the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the property in
accord with the requirements of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the hearing authority,
B, Requirements for construction of all structures,
1, All new construction and any construction expanding the size of an existing structure, shall have a "fuel
break" as defined below,
2, 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, Where
necessary for erosion control or aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted in slow-burning species,
Establishment of a fuel break does not involve stripping the ground of all native vegetation. "Fuel Breaks"
may include structures, and shall not limit distance between structures and residences beyond that required
by other sections of this title,
3, Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shal;~. x~p~ ,a.nr:l1. iO,i~""u."n m of 30
feet, or to the property line, whichever IS less, In all directions aroun r $'; j If 'l~d_\D,giJer'~~'jOn the
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
~
0\
\ ;,;
,:< ~ S-
JUL 1 5 2004 \
Page 13 of 53
, ~: J
\.,.,~ i L'V
----~~~~=--~~----~
C
Findings of I=act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investml~nts: Applicant
o(!'
property, The goal within this area is to remove ground cover that will produce flame lengths in excess of
one foot. Such a fuel break shall be increased by ten feet for each 10% increase in slope over 10%,
Adjacent property owners are encouraged to cooperate on the development of primary fuel breaks,
4, Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum
of 100 feet beyond the primary fuel break where surrounding landscape is owned and under the control of
the property owner during construction. The goal of the secondary fuel break is to reduce fuels so that the
overall intensity of any wildfire is reduced through fuels control.
5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better non-wood roof coverings, as
determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code, All re-roofing of existing structures in the Wildfire
Lands area for which at least 50% of the roofing area requires re-roofing shall be done under approval of a
zoning permit. No structure shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-product
material or other combustible roofing material, as defined in the City's building code.
IV
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect
to this matter. Where the below facts are not supported by the evidence enumerated in
Section II above, the same are asserted as the testimony of applicant's agent, Craig Stone.
1. Descri][Jtion of Project Area. The subject property consists of three parcels, two of
which have existing single family dwellings, as described in Table 1 below.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
flU r.J (;\ n r. '; , '~\
I O,! LL\='llJil".c I
, JUL 1 5 Z0041il \
,;;.. 3G 'L5~)
~. .,~ ",,'" << ,~<)II '1l',~.,~.~,~'
Page 14 of 53
r
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
Table 1
Description, Ownership, Size, Tax Code Existing Development and Zoninu
Sources; Jackson County Assessor; Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Map and Tax lot Owner of Record I Acre~ I Tax Existing Development
Code
39-1E-16AD TL 3400 R&C Investments 0.41 5-01 Single-family dwelling R-1-10
39-1E-16AD TL 3500 R&C Investments 0.70 5-01 Single-family dwelling and R-1-10
detached garage
39-1E-16AD TL 3600 R&C Investments 0.64 5-01 Vacant R-1-10
Total 1.75
2. Property Location: The property is within the corporate limits and acknowledged urban
growth boundary of the City of Ashland. The property is located at 759 and 769 South
Mountain Avenue at the southwest corner of the intersection of South Mountain Avenue
and Prospect Street.
3. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning: The Ashland Comprehensive Plan designates the subject
property Residential. The property is zoned R-I-lO. See, Exhibit 3.
4. Surrounding Land Uses: Exhibits 2 through 6 accurately depict the pattern of existing
land partitioning and development in the surrounding area. Lands developed with single-
family detached dwellings on individual urban-size lots surround the subject property.
5. Project Description: Applicant proposes to create by subdivision, seven discrete lots to
be occupied in the future by single-family dwellings. One of the lots is presently occupied
by an existing dwelling, which the applicant proposes to retain for the purposes of
becoming an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU). According to the records of the Jackson
County Assessor, the existing dwelling has 900 square feet of gross habitable floor area.
A conditional use permit has been submitted for the purpose of using the existing dwelling
as an Accessory Residential Unit. Where feasible, trees have been retained and preserved,
although only Tax Lot 3600 is subject to the tree protection standards in ALUO 18.61
because the other two lots (Tax Lot's 3400 and 3500 are developed with dwellings).
6. Access: Access to the seven proposed lots will be directly from Prospect Street, South
Mountain A venue or from a Private Drive, as described in Table ~r(~
t,
I
I ' JUL 1 t~ 20011
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
;2.37
, c --Page15 ot,53"
C
Findings of f=act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C InvestrmlOts: Applicant
Table 2
Access to Lots
Source: Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Lot Method of Actual Access I Method of Legal Access
Numbe
1 Prospect Street Prospect Street
2 Private Drive South Mountain Avenue
3 Private Drive South Mountain Avenue
4 Private Drive South Mountain Avenue
5 Private Drive South Mountain Avenue
6 Private Drive South Mountain Avenue
7 South Mountain Avenue South Mountain Avenue
7. Topoglraphy: The subject property ranges in elevation from approximately 2,320 feet at
its southwest corner to approximately 2,250 feet at its northeast corner and has
reasonably moderate slopes. No portion of the subject property exceeds a slope of 22
percent. See, Exhibits 2, 5, and 6. Streets generally follow topographic contours. Cuts
and fills (and proposed retaining walls) are shown on Exhibit 11, along with preliminary
grading information. The topography of the subject property is indicative of topography
in nearby areas in that it is moderately steep and evenly sloped.
8. Public Facilities and Services; Utilities: The routing for and locations of the following
existing and planned public facilities and utilities are shown on Exhibit 11:
. Sanitary Sewer
. Public Water
. Storm Drainage
. Streets
. Utilities
The subject property is more particularly served by the following public facilities and
services:
8.1 Sanitary Sewer: According to City of Ashland Engineering Department, there are
existing sanitary s~er lines in both Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street that are
adequate in condition capacity to support the proposed subdivision.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
8.2 Public Water: There is an existing 4-inch water main in Prospect Street.
Repres'entatives of the Ashland Water Department hffi)rG~rtf;:~~Clr~~~ional
~ f ~ ;1
JUL 1 5 2004'
Page 16 of 53
i
I
.-.J/
~jf/
('
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
~
development will require upgrading the main to a larger size to accommodate the
proposed subdivision.
8.3 Storm Drainage: Representatives of the City of Ashland Engineering Department
have indicated to applicant's agent, that the existing storm drainage facilities ill Prospect
and Mountain are sufficient in condition and capacity to support the proposed
subdivision.
8.4 Streets and Transportation: The property fronts upon and has direct access by way
of Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street, both of which are city streets, owned and
maintained by the City of Ashland. Access to the individual lots (here proposed to
be created) is as shown in above Table 2. South Mountain Avenue is classified in
the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, as an A venue. Applicant has been advised that the
City will require the frontage of South Mountain Avenue to be improvled with a
planter strip and sidewalk and the same can be permissibly provided by way of either
a street dedication or easement. Applicant has proposed that the South Mountain
A venue improvements be within an easement rather than by expanding the public
right-of-way and has agreed to stipulate to same. See, Section VI.
The property also fronts upon Prospect Street. Prospect Street terminates at the
northwest corner of the subject property and cannot be extended due to steep terrain
and the existence development. One of the parcels is proposed to take legallmd actual
access from Prospect. Prospect Street is classified in the Ashland Comprehensive
Plan as a Neighborhood Street, however it does not meet Ashland standards; it is
presently a gravel road without curbs, gutters sidewalks or planter strips. Moreover,
existing dwellings and other structures (on the north side of Prospect Street) encroach
upon the street right-of-way. Applicant has proposed an exception to certain street.
standards along the frontage of Prospect Street. These will permit Prospect to be
improved to a width of 22 feet from its intersection with South Mountain Avenue to
the driveway apron for Lot 1, thereafter tapering to approximately 18 feet wide
further west along the frontage of the subject property. A sidewalk is proposed along
the Prospect frontage. A 7 foot wide planter is proposed along most of the Prospect
frontage of the subject property, tapering to the sidewalk approximately 70 feet from
the subject property's northwest corner.
Applicant has proposed a Private Drive that will serve five of the propose:d parcels
and allow for only one of the proposed parcels (Parcell) to access dire:ctly onto
Prospect Street. The Private Drive will require an exception because no more than
three parcels can access a Private Drive, according to the Ashland Land Development
Ordinance. Table 3 below, shows the City standards in relation to the nature and
extent of the exceptions sought by applicant:
rn)J?Ji~r[~n
t H~
I"~ /IlL 1 5 2004
n~:f":"'\
, ,I 'i)'
11
Craig A. Stone & Associates. Ltd.
, ,./~age 17 of 53
~d1"
r'
l
Findings of F:act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated L~nd Use Applications
R & C InvesbnEtnts: Applicant
Table 3
Scope of Proposed Exception for Prospect Street
Sources: Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. and City of Ashland Street Standards Handbook
Required Right-ot-Way
Proposed Right-of-Way
Required Paving Width
Proposed Paving Width
Required Planter Strip
Proposed Planter Strip
Required Sidewalk
Proposed Sidewalk
47-51
43.85-28.745
22'
22-15
7-8'
8'
5-6'
5'
The applicant is also requesting an exception to allow existing juniper and a retaining
wall to remain in front of the proposed lot seven. The exception would include the
elimination of the proposed planter strip for approximately 85 feet. Applicant is
proposilng that the juniper and sidewalk remain and that a sidewalk of five feet be
installed adjacent to the existing curb on South Mountain Avenue. No other exceptions to
South Mountain Avenue are requested. Table 4 below, shows the City standards in
relation to the nature and extent of the exceptions sought by applicant:
rnl rI"J~, ". l-J F1, ',r ",
' ,., ,~ ., ! I ",
~ ~J' , ~ ~"i ~
r Or11- tL~'
~
I': JUL 1 5 2004
Craig A. StonE! & Associates, Ltd.
,
~ IlL
...,. 0- -
J1age 18 of 53
",---
{
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
C'
Table 4
Scope of Proposed Exception for South Mountain Avenue
Sources: Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. and City of Ashland Street Standards Handbook
Ashland Street Standards I Prospect
Street
Required Right-ot-Way 70.5'
Proposed Right-of-Way 63.5'
Required Paving Width 43.5'
Proposed Paving Width 43.5'
Required Planter Strip 7'
Proposed Planter Strip 0'
Required Sidewalk 6'
Proposed Sidewalk 5'
Table Notes:
1. An 7-toot wide planter strip along South Mountain Avenue would be provided within an
easement between Prospect Street and the proposed Private Drive but not south of the Private
Drive where there is an existing planter which adjoins Lot 7.
2. A new 5-toot sidewalk would be provided within an easement on Lots 1 and 7.
**************
8.5 Police and Fire Protection: Police and fire protection are provided by the City of
Ashland.
8.6 Utilities: Electricity, natural gas, telephone, CATV and internet access are
immediately available to the subject property. Utilities will be placed underground
pursuant to requirements of the ALUO.
9. Trees; Existing Natural Features; Design Process: Portions of the subject property
(primarily the westerly portion) are heavily wooded. There are 65 trees on the: property
which have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of six inches or greater, 25 of which are
proposed to be removed. Three additional trees occur on abutting properties and will be
protected during construction and retained. The trees to be removed and those to be
preserved are inventoried and shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet LI (Tree Protection and
Removal Plan). The strategies for tree preservation are set forth in Exhibit 9 (Tree
ProtectionlRemoval Plan Narrative) prepared by applicant's expert landscape architect,
r~," .' r:J (fU I? n \\ n r~' ;"
t1r.,'u t:~ ~L~~.;.. 'I
i,
t
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. ~ 't /1 JUL 1 5 2004 Page 19 of 53
f
i
L ,
(
".-
(
Findings of J=act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbmmts: Applicant
Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Earlier project designs examined by applicant (Exhibit 10)
resulted in the required removal of substantially greater numbers of trees (and substantial
cuts and fills). Applicant acquired the parcel now intended to be Lot 7, to enable the
access mad for the subdivision to be placed where now proposed; without this parcel, the
road was required to traverse the westerly portion of the property - the portion of the
property most heavily wooded - and in doing so, necessitated the removal of
substantially greater numbers of trees. Moreover, building envelopes have been adjusted
to reduce tree removal to the greatest extent practical, while still providing reasonable
flexibility for future home design and siting.
10. Wildfilre Protection Area: The subject property is located within a Wildfire Protection
Area based upon the Physical & Environmental Constraints Map. A Wildfire Protection
Plan has been produced, by landscape architects Galbraith & Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 2,
Sheet 1A). Dry grasses, Mountain Mahogany and brushy grove of Manzanita will be
removed as the same exists as a wildfire hazard. Nearby areas are similar to the subject
property in topography and vegetation.
11. Wetlands: According to the City of Ashland Wetland Inventory, there are no wetlands
on the subject property.
v
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The following conclusions of law are based on the findings of fact contained above in
Section IV and these relate to the approval criteria for the various land use applications now
before the City of Ashland. The approval criteria are recited verbatim below and followed
by the conclusions of law of the Planning Commission:
A. SUBDIVISION
Purpose of Application: The purpose of this application is to consolidate and subdivide
three existing lots into seven lots as shown on Applicant's plans. The Planning Commission
observes that subdivisions are governed by precise design and development standards and
that no "approval criteria" per se, exist in the ALUO which are prerequisite to the approval
of a preliminary subdivision plat. The various design and development standards in ALUO
Chapter 18.80 (Subdivisions) are addressed below. The street standards for subdivisions are
those for development which proceeds under Ashland's Performance Standards Options in
Chapter 18.88.
18.20.040 G,eneral regulations
A, Minimum lot area: Basic minimum lot area in the R-1 zone shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, except
six thousand (6,000) square feet for corner lots. R-1 areas may be designed for seventy-fivehundred (7,500). or
ten thousand (10,000) square foot minimum lot sizes where slf~r~l~fiJ.~~ ma~e larger sizes
, H
Craig A. StonEl & Associates, Ltd.
JUL 1 5 2004
Page 20 of 53
~ 'f '--
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
r
I
;
necessary. Permitted lot sizes shall be indicated by a number following the R-1 notation which represents
allowable minimum square footage in thousands of square feet, as follows:
R-1-5 5,000 square feet
R-1-7.5 7,500 square feet
R-1-10 10.000 square feet
B. Minimum lot width:
Interior lots 50 feet
Corner lots 60 feet
All R-1-7.5 lots 65 feet
All R-1-10 lots 75 feet
C. Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80) feet, and a maximum depth of one hundred fifty
(150) feet unless lot configuration prevents further development of the back of the lot. Maximum lot depth
requirements shall not apply to lots created by a minor land partition. No lot shall have a width greater than its
depth, and no lot shall exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet in width. (Ord. 2052,1979; Ord. 2425 S3. '1988)
D. Standard Yard Requirements: Front yards shall be a minimum of, 15 feet excluding garages, Unenclosed
porches shall be permitted with a minimum setback of eight feet or the width of any existing public utility
easement, whichever is greater, from the front property line, All garages accessed from the front shall have a
minimum setback of 20' from the front property line; side yards, six feet; the side yard of a corner lot abutting a
public street shall have a ten foot setback: rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story in excess of one story.
In addition, the setbacks must comply with Chapter 18.70 which provides for Solar Access. (Ord. 2097 S5, 1980:
Ord. 2121 Se, 1981, Ord, 2752, 1995)
E. Maximum Building Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2 1/2) stories in
height, whichever is less,
F. Maximum Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (50%) percent in an R-1-5 District, forty-five (45%)
percent in an R-1-7.5 District. and forty (40%) percent in an R-1-10 District.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Findings of Fact and exhibits submitted, the
Planning Commission concludes as follows:
1. All lots shown on the Preliminary Plat meet the minimum lot area for the R-I-l 0 zone.
2. All lots shown on the Preliminary Plat meet the minimum width requirement for the R-I-
10 zone.
3. All lots shown on the Preliminary Plat meet the minimum lot depth requirement for the
R-I-I0 zone.
4. The building envelopes shown on the Tree Protection Plan and Preliminary Plat
demonstrate compliance with the standard yard requirements.
5. The ALUO does not require the submittal of architectural plans as part of subdivision
approval. However, applicant has agreed to stipulate that no structure will exceed the
lesser of thirty-five (35) feet in height or two and one-half (21;2 ) stories.
6. Applicant has agreed to stipulate that the maximum c9~~~~J~F~~ch lot will not exceed
forty (40) percent. : ~ULUI~Lc~u \
I, .,1'i
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
JUL 1 5 200~
:< ~J
rage 21 of 53
(
(
Findings of f:act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C InvesbnEtnts: Applicant
**************
18.80.020 Design Standards
A. Acceptability - principles: The subdivision shall conform with any development plans and shall take into
consideration any preliminary plans made in anticipation thereof, The subdivision shall conform with the
requirements of State laws and the standards established by this Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions of law herein that the application as submitted conforms to
the requirements of State laws and the standards established by this Chapter.
**************
B, Streets: The Street Standards in Chapter 18,88, Performance Standards Options, shall apply to developments
under this chapter.
1, Reserve Strips, Reserve strips or street plugs shall be created to control access onto any street which
terminates upDn any undeveloped land through which the street might logically extend. In such cases, the street
shall be provided to within one foot of the boundary line of the tract with the remaining one foot being granted in
fee to the City as a reserve strip, Upon approved dedication of the extension of the affected street, the one-foot
reserve strip shall be dedicated by the City to the public use as a part of said street. This dedication will be
automatic and without further action by the City. This action shall also apply retroactively to all previously created
reserve strips where the streets have been extended and dedicated for street purposes, (Ord, 2436, 1987)
2, Alignment. All streets as far as is practical shall be in alignment with the existing streets by continuation of the
center lines thereof. The staggering of street alignment resulting in 'T' intersections shall wherever practical
leave a minimum distance of 125 feet between the center lines of streets,
3, Future ext'~nsion of streets. Where necessary to give access to or permit a satisfactory subdivision of
adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary of the subdivision and the resulting dead-end streets
may be approved without a turnaround, Reserve strips and street plugs may be required to preserve the
objectives of street extensions.
4. Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practical,
except where topography requires a lesser angle. Property lines at intersections with arterial streets shall have a
minimum corner radius of twenty (20) feet and property lines at other street and alley intersections shall have a
minimum corner radius adequate to allow sidewalk and utility space and a curb radius of ten (10) feet.
5, Existing streets, Whenever existing streets adjacent to or within a tract are of inadequate width, additional
right-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision.
6, Frontage and limited access roads may be required as defined in Sections 18,72,040(L) and 18,72.040(M) of
this Title,
7, Access to subdivision. All major means of access to a subdivision or major partition shall be from existing
streets fully improved to City standards, and which, in judgment of the Director of Public Works, have the
capacity to carryall anticipated traffic from the development.
8, Half streets, Half streets, while generally not acceptable, may be approved when essential to the reasonable
development of the subdivision, when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when
the Planning Commission finds it will be practical to require the dedication of the other half when the adjoining
property is subdivided. Whenever a half street is adjacent to a tract to be subdivided, the otller half of the street
may be platted within such tract. Reserve strips and street plug~", ';]ltJ:'l'\.' I iQi]1~f<ll\fQ, ",.prElseivElthe objectives of
"'I I i H..Il I"" .
t ;:; .,:,,: ,~'~_Lt~:. ,=--<...-~J_..iL,L,i "_ ,:
Craig A. Stone 8, Associates, Ltd.
;.( L/ f
u
JUL 1 5 2004
Page 22 of 53
(
/
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
the half streets.
9, Cul-de-sacs, A cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall have a maximum length of five hundred
(500) feet. All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a circular turnaround unless alternate designs for turning and
reversing direction are approved by the Planning Commission,
10, Street names, No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing
streets in Ashland and vicinity except for extensions of existing streets. Streets which are an extension of, or are
in alignment with, existing streets shall have the same name as the existing street. Street names and numbers
shall conform to the establishment pattern for the City and shall be subject to the approval of the Planning
Commission,
11. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way, Wherever the proposed subdivision contains or is adjacent to a
railroad right-of-way, provision may be required for a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such
right-of-way at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the land between the streets and the railroad. The
distance shall be great enough to provide sufficient depth to allow screen planting along the railroad right-of-way
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Findings of Fact in Section rv and the
evidence submitted herein, the Planning Commission concludes as follows:
1. No reserve strips or street plugs are necessary or required for this subdivision.
2. The only new street proposed here, is a Private Drive that intersects Mountain Avenue at
a 90-degree angle ("T" intersection). This intersection is separated by more than 125 feet
from the nearest existing intersection - Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street.
3. The only "street" to be created as part of this application, is a Private Drive that
terminates in an approved turn-around. No public streets are proposed as part of this
application.
4. The proposed Private Drive intersects Mountain Avenue at a right angle.
5. Applicant has agreed to dedicate an easement 12.5 feet wide to accommodate: a planter
strip and sidewalk along Mountain Avenue along the subject property frontage from
Prospect Street to the Private Drive. There is an existing retaining wall and juniper trees
that exist along the frontage of the proposed Lot 7 which applicant seeks to retain
through the methods herein proposed. An exception is sought from the right-of-way
dedication standards for Prospect Street; the approval criteria for street exceptions are
addressed hereinbelow.
6. No frontage or minimum access roads are required or proposed.
7. Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, all major means of access to this
subdivision will be from existing streets which will be fully improved to City standards
(or based upon the exceptions sought and approved), and which, in the judgment of the
Director of Public Works, have the capacity to carry all anticipated traffic from the
development. f~\-~ ~
~I: t' , \' ~
~ . c '
I ni JUL 1 5 200~d \
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. ..., II ~ .\'.', I, ','; ".'___' ,__lU IIPage 23 of 53
'" Te;) ; i: fL5GISTI 0 L:JL'/
~~.."-:~- - - ...-....- --~.. - - -- .--..
('
Findings of IFact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
(
8. Half streets are not proposed. Applicant proposes to improve Prospect Street, albeit to
standards which are less than typical City requirements. The reduced standards, as below
addressed, are needed to accommodate structures that now encroach onto the existing right-
of-way and which applicant does not wish to adversely affect.
9. The cul-de-sac proposed is as short as possible to serve the proposed lots which comply
with City standards, has a length of substantially less than 500 feet and terminates in a
turnaround which is of an alternative "hammerhead" design approved by the Planning
Commission. The turnaround design accommodates turning and reversing direction
movements and will permit access and turnaround for emergency vehicles.
10. Applicant agrees to stipulate that no street name shall be used which will duplicate or be
confus.ed with the names of existing streets in Ashland.
11. There are no streets adjacent to a railroad right-of-way.
**************
C, Easements,
1. Utility lines. Easements for sewers, water mains, electric lines, or other public utilities shall be dedicated
wherever necessary, The easements shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width,
2, Watercourses. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse such as a drainage way, channel, or
stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with
the lines of the watercourse, and such further width as will be adequate for the purpose, Streets or parkways
parallel to major watercourses may be required.
Discussioll; Conclusions of Law: With respect to easements, the Planning Commission
concludes as follows:
1. Applicant has agreed to stipulate to the dedication of easements for public utilities
whenever necessary and the same will be shown on and dedicated by the Final
Subdivision Plat. All existing easements are shown on the preliminary plat (Exhibit 2,
Sheet Jl).
2. Based on the Findings of Fact, the Planning Commission finds that there are no
watercourses that traverse the subdivision.
**************
0, Lots,
1, Lots shall meet the requirements of the zone in which the subdivision is located, These minimum standards
shall apply with the following exceptions:
a. In areas that will not be served by a public sewer, minimm::r;1rfG~j\.tfrrrrm'io conform with
<>a~ A. Stone & ""cdates, Lid. :< if Ei J U L 1 5 2004 Ii i I Page 24 of 53
t "', .~;TC'7l'-:::'lr(\ . '!.'C;;s'U )
, -....1'-..,.. <, ",.1 U ,. ,. c~~J L./
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
the requirements of the County Health Department and shall take into consideration problElms of water
supply and sewer disposal.
b. Minimum lot standard shall not conflict with City zoning standards.
c. Where property is zoned and planned for industrial or business use, other standards may be permitted
at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Depth and width of properties reserved or laid out for
commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street service and parking
facilities required by the type of use and development contemplated.
2. Access. Each lot shall abut upon a street, other than an alley, for a width of at least forty (40) feet, except in
the case of lots located upon the curved portion of cul-de- sacs or knuckles, or in the case where
topography warrants a narrower width, In no case shall a lot abut upon a street for a width of less than
twenty-five (25) feet.
3. Through lots. Through lots shall be avoided except where essential to provide separation of residential
development from major traffic arteries or adjacent nonresidential activities or to overcome specific
disadvantages of topography and orientation. A planting screen easement of at least ten (10) feet, across
which there shall be no right of access, may be required along the line of lots abutting such a traffic artery or
other disadvantageous use, Through lots with planting screens shall have a minimum average depth of one
hundred ten (110) feet.
4. Lot side lines. The side lines of lots, as far as practicable, shall run at right angles to the street upon which
the lot faces,
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Findings of Fact and evidence submitted,
the Planning Commission concludes as follows:
1. Based upon the Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 2, Sheet 6) all proposed lots meet the minimum
standards for the R-l-l 0 zone.
2. Lots 1,2,3, and 7 abut upon either (or both) Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street for a
width of at least forty feet. Lots 4, 5 and 6 abut the new Private Drive for a width of at
least forty feet.
3. No through lots are being created as part of this subdivision. A through lot is not created
by virtue of frontage upon a City street and the proposed Private Drive.
4. All lots have side lot lines which run at right angles to the streets (and Private Drive)
upon which the lots front. While Lots 1, 2 and 6 have jogs that are necessitated by an
existing structure and the general size and configuration of the subject property, the side
lot lines, as far as practicable, run at right angles to the various streets (and Private Drive)
upon which the lots face.
**************
E, Lot grading. Lot grading shall conform to the following standards unless physical conditions demonstrate the
propriety of other standards,
1. Cut Slopes shall not be steeper than one and one-half (1 'h) feet horizontally to one (1) foot vertically,
2, Fill slopes shall not be steeper than two (2) feet horizontally to one H}{~ ~~iCallY, 'IF,
I rJLr1r~I[.rrDLlLI~[fi)
I ')i f I !
I . ~ l " ~
~ m JUl 1 5 2004 IH I
, ':; F'aq~ ~5 of 53
.j f '~'i r~\::;r~~;::71"~:'~{ _ '.....~,~" -.. ~ Ii'
. Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
;;. '1-7
(
Findings of F:act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C InveslmEtnts: Applicant
(
3. Cut slopes and fill slopes along side and rear lot lines shall be planted with ground cover and shrubs or
trees, or by some other method approved by the City.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the preliminary
grading phm (Exhibit 11)' and letter from applicant's civil engineer (Exhibit 7) establish
compliance: with Ashland's lot grading standards.
**************
F. Large lot subdivision. In subdividing tracts into large lots which at some future time are likely to be re-
subdivided, the Planning Commission may require that the blocks shall be of a size and shape, be divided into
lots and contain building site restrictions to provide for extension and opening of streets at intervals which will
permit a subsequent division of each parcel into lots of smaller size.
G. Land for public purposes.
1. The Planning Commission may require the reservation for public acquisition, at a cost not to exceed acreage
values in the area prior to subdivision, of appropriate areas within the subdivision for a period not to exceed one
(1) year, providing the City knows of an intention on the part of the State Highway Commission, school district or
other public agency to acquire a portion of the area within the proposed subdivision for a pUblic purpose,
including substantial assurance that positive steps will be taken in the reasonable future for the acquisition.
2. The Planning Commission may require the dedication of suitable areas for the parks and playgrounds that will
be required for the use of the population which is intended to occupy the subdivision.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed
subdivision is not a large lot subdivision under this standard because, based upon zoning, the
resulting lots cannot be further divided. The Planning Commission also concludes that the
Ashland Comprehensive Plan has no provision for the acquisition of land within the
boundaries of the subject property. The Planning Commission finds that the existing R-l-l 0
zone requires the largest urban size lots in Ashland and these will have ample yard space for
the use and enjoyment of the future residents of the subdivision and, therefore, does not
require land for parks, playgrounds or other common open space.
**************
H. Landscaping. The Planning Commission shall ensure that lot coverage requirements of the zoning district
are met appropriately. If lot disturbance exceeds the percentage allowable, the subdivider shall submit as
part of the Final Plat procedure, a landscaping plan to be approved by the Commission, and which will
conform with the letter and intent of the zone district requirements, the slope requirements in the General
Regulations of this Title, and any other applicable section. Performance shall be assured in accordance with
Section '18.80.050 of this Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission finds that the building
envelopes shown on the Tree Protection Plan and Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 2, Sheets Ll and
1) may cover more than 40 percent of each lot. However, the Planning Commission
concludes that building envelopes do not determine lot coverage; coverage is determined by
actual building plans. Applicant is aware of the 40 percent maximum and has agreed to
stipulate to observing the same when dwellings are Prot~.sf~ [1Q,b~;f:l\sJFY1e~i on the
i !T,!.,.._'~_,--_.,--LLLLiiU.[ 'I
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. : JUL 1 5 2004 p;8~e 26 of 53
~ t,L? :.:9
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnents: Applicant
individual lots. The City will ensure that the lot coverage standard is observed when it
reviews the applications for building permits, needed to construct dwellings on the lots. The
Planning Commission finds and concludes that the lot coverage requirements of the R-I-I0
zoning district can and will be met appropriately.
**************
I. Exceptions - large scale development. The Planning Commission may modify the standards and fl3quirements
of this Chapter if the subdivision plat comprises a complete neighborhood unit, a large scale shopping center, or
a planned industrial area. The Planning Commission shall determine that such modifications are not detrimental
to the public health, safety, and welfare and that adequate provision is made within the development for traffic
circulation, open space, and other features that may be required in the public interest.
J. The Planning Commission may modify the standards and requirements of this Chapter where the applicant
presents innovative design concepts that will assist in providing livable housing at reasonable cost. Such
modifications of standards shall be made only in conformance with the intent of this Chapter, and in conformance
with all applicable portions of this Title.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based upon the size of the subject property, the: Planning
Commission concludes that this is not a large-scale development and no modification of
standards are proposed under this section of the ALVa. While this application does not
contemplate new affordable housing per se, it does preserve an existing dwelling that is
intended by applicant to be converted to an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU).
**************
18.80.040 Preliminary plat
A. Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of a preliminary plat and other supplementary
material as may be required to indicate the general program and objectives of the project to the office of the
Director of Public Works. The plat shall be prepared by a registered surveyor.
B. Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen (18) inches by twenty-four (24) inches in size
at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet.
C. General information.. The following general information shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. Proposed name of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor resemble the name of another
subdivision in Jackson County and shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a preliminary plat.
4. Location of the subdivision sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the proposed tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
D. Existing conditions. The following existing conditions shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets within or adjacent to the tract, together
with easements and other important features, such as section lines and corners, and monuments.
2. Location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding.
3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and isolated preservable trees.
4. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures to remain on the property after
platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval of five (5) feet.
ff0: r;:~ f~:\ r-~~_--.J r't :;1, ; ~_-;
. " ,,' [, I'" I" "!, 1 , I' C '1'1
i :: Y'-L i -, j i 1, \, fLL.; ~
.1
~'1-1
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
JUL 1 5 2004
Page 27 of 53
(--
J:/
\
Findings of I=act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C InvestmElnts: Applicant
E. Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be included on the preliminary plat.
1. The location, width', names and approximate grades of streets, and the relationship of the streets to any
projected streets as shown on any development plan adopted by the Planning Commission, or if there is no
development plan, as suggested by the City to assure adequate traffic circulation.
2. The location and purpose of easements.
3. The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and block numbers, for all lots and blocks.
4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family dwellings.
F. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only part of the tract owned or controlled by the
subdivider, the Planning Commission may require a Master Plan for the unsubdivided portion.
G. Explanatory information. The following information shall be submitted in separate statements accompanying
the preliminalY plat or, if practicable, shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and unsubdivided land adjacent to the proposed
subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be extended to connect with the existing streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
3. Where there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within the area to be subdivided, a preliminary
grading plan may be required by the Planning Commission. A grading plan should show existing and
finished !~rades on lots and streets proposed to be graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan shall
be approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a review and report from the City Engineer.
Discussion.; Con.clusion.s of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the application
package, as submitted, demonstrates compliance with all of the filing requirements of the
City. As to deed restrictions, there are none per se, although there will be Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's) which will govern the use, enjoyment, upkeep and
maintenance of the individual lots, the Private Drive and maintenance of the Fire Prevention
and Control Plan. The City of Ashland will be named as a beneficiary of such covenants,
restrictions, and conditions as the same applies to the Fire Prevention and Control Plan.
Applicant has agreed to stipulate to providing a copy of the CCR's if the City so requests
and, Applieant may supply the same during these proceedings.
**************
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Purpose of Application.: The purpose of this conditional use permit is to enable conversion
of the existing single family dwelling to an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) as these are
conditionall uses in the R-l-l 0 zoning district.
Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria
Criterion. 1
18.20.030 CONDITIONAL USES
The followin9 uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with Chapter 18.104,
Conditional Use Permits.
H. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional criteria:
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
rr;\.rf'i(r..jfTJ\~l\~I, riJ-l-.\ 7l,.,"'}
"r:;,.,.\;.__' -, - ",,-_.J__,;... "--- ':' 1 t
:.' j ! ~
~5b" JUL 1 5 200/. !i!!
Page 28 of 53
,r
\
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnents: Applicant
~
{
1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the
underlying zone.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed
50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA.
4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for single-family
dwellings of this Title.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
1. Based upon Exhibit 2, Sheets 1 and 2, the setback standards of the R-l-lO zone have
been observed. As to lot coverage, the Planning Commission concludes that building
envelopes do not determine lot coverage; coverage is determined by actual[ building
plans. Applicant is aware of the 40 percent maximum and has agreed to stipulate to
observing the same when dwellings are proposed to be constructed on the individual lots.
The 'City will ensure that the lot coverage standard is observed when it reviews the
applications for building permits, needed to construct dwellings on the lots. The
Planning Commission concludes that the maximum lot coverage and. setback
requirements can and will be observed and the same will be ensured at the time applicant
seeks building permits from the City.
2. There will be no more than 2 dwelling units proposed for Lot 2 (the existing dwelling to
be converted to a Accessory Residential Unit) and the new principle dwelling to occupy
the lot and applicant has agreed to so stipulate.
3. According to the Jackson County Assessor, the existing home has 900 square feet of
gross habitable floor area. Applicant has agreed to stipulate that the size of the future
dwelling (on Lot 2) will observe the requirement that it will be greater than 50 percent of
the gross habitable floor area of the existing dwelling (here proposed to blecome an
Accessory Residential Unit).
4. Parking for the Accessory Residential Unit (on Lot 2) is to be provided from the Private
Drive on Lot I, and the same requires variance relief. Compliance with Ashland's
variance approval criteria is addressed hereinbelow. Approval of the sought variance
establishes compliance with this approval criterion.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1.
**************
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
r:fs/
['~' I" ,.. /~'. r-',n-c, '" ; '.
,~ '1 : ,-;---'.;, n. I ~ · . ; : ( , ' ,~ t
I P:.~tU2-_i_l_LU..' ,
i'; ~
JUL 1 5 2004 Page 29 of 53
(~i
Findings of f:act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C InvestmEmts: Applicant
Criterion 2
18.104 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can
be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria..
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is
proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not
implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Findings of Fact in Section IV, and the
evidence enumerated in Section II, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed
Accessory Residential Unit is consistent with all standards applicable to land in the R-l-10
zoning district. The fact that Criterion 2 requires conditional use permits to demonstrate.
consistency with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, does not make all plan
goals and policies decisional criteria. See, Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 Or LUBA 450, atrd
96 Or App 645 (1989). In that case the court held that approval criteria requiring compliance
with a comprehensive plan do not automatically transform all comprehensive plan goals and
policies into decisional criteria. A determination of whether particular plan goals and
policies arC;l approval criteria must be based on the language used in the goals and policies
and the context in which they appear. The Planning Commission has examined the goals and
policies in comprehensive plan and finds that none were intended to function as approval
standards for Accessory Residential Units. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent
with the requirements of Criterion 2.
**************
Criterion 3
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property.
Discussiolll; Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and
applicant's stipulations in Section VI, the Planning Commission concludes that there is
adequate capacity for City facilities, including water sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage
and paved/adequate access/transportation to and through the subject property (which consists
only of the proposed Accessory Residential Unit. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent
with the requirements of Criterion 3.
**************
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
7nD
'. d' ~l
JI L ii
~5~'. ::1....'..: U 1 5 2004
--Hi Page 30 of 53
:1 (.IT~~l-r~;':}~-:~:~~~-'[f~l'~T~_.-( ~ -.-.
,..u___~~_~~,~=~~_~~
(
/~
l
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
Criterion 4
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when
compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect
of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be
considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass
transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the target use
for the subject R-I-I0 zone, pursuant to ALUO 18.104.020(B) are residential uses (which
comply with the requirements of the ALUO and which are developed at the density permitted
by ALUO 18.88.040). The Planning Commission also concludes that the impact area is the
area entitled to public notice of the conditional use permit proceeding, pursuant to ALUO
18.104.030(A). With respect to the seven factors of liveability set forth in Criterion 4, the
Planning Commission prefaces its below conclusions of law, with the observation and
finding that this conditional use permit involves the conversion of an existing single family
dwelling to an Accessory Residential Unit:
1. Exhibit 8 shows the location and footprint size of dwellings and other structures on the
subject property and in the surrounding area. It also shows that the existing dwelling on
Lot 2, with only 900 square feet, is smaller than most structures in the area. The
Planning Commission concludes that provisions of the ALUO limit the size of Accessory
Residential Units to be no greater than 1,000 square feet. Based upon the ordinance size
limitations and fact that this dwelling already exists, the Planning Commission concludes
that this use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact
area. The Planning Commission further concludes that impacts upon liveability will be
no greater than the target use for the R-I-10 zone, because the target use is the use
proposed -residential uses (which is consistent with the ALUO). The Planning
Commission concludes that this Accessory Residential Unit is consistent with the ALUO
except where variance relief for ARU parking has been approved. Therefore, the
Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with #1 above with
respect to similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. The Accessory Residential Unit is an existing home that will generate the same amount
of traffic as the target residential use.
3. No change in air quality, generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants will
occur by reason of retaining the existing home as an as an ARD.
r~fT1 U~U~}~.., .".rJJ
-""
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
/A'53 ,:1 JUL 1 5 2004 ,:R'~ge 31 of 53
.! 1ft a
Jl::t \'~~;r~~=IT~Tl~:7 ~- ~.::~:]:~~~/Y
#_--~.~~_z_=_=_~,~~_
(
Findings of I:act and Conclusions of Law
Consolldated Land Use Applications
R & C InveslrrnlOts: Applicant
r~
t
4. There will be no additional generation of noise, light and glare by allowing the existing
home to remain as an Accessory Residential Unit.
5. Conversion of the existing dwelling to an ARU will not affect development of any
adjacent properties because the dwelling now exists.
6. The Planning Commission concludes that there are no other relevant factors in this
instance.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4.
**************
C. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
Purpose of Application: The purpose of this application is to except certain street standards
on Prospect Street and to except certain street standards for access from the Private Drive.
The standards sought to be varied are set forth in Table 3 in the findings of fact (Section IV
herein). The standards to be varied relate to: 1) required right-of-way, 2) required paving
width, 3) rc~quired planter strip, and 4) number of lots accessing a Private Drive.
By way of explanation, Prospect Street terminates at the northwest comer of the subject
property and cannot be extended due to steep terrain and the existence of a development.
City staff has advised applicant that the City has no plans which contemplate nor any desire
to extend the Prospect. From its intersection with South Mountain Avenue, Prospect serves
only four existing dwellings or parcels. The approval of this subdivision will add one
additional home to be served by Prospect Street (Lot 1 of the proposed development).
There are encroachments in the Prospect Street right-of-way by structures that prevent a full
utilization of the right-of-way that now exists (without removing the encroaching structures).
If additional right-of-way were to be taken from the subject property to accommodate greater
paving width and a planter strip (on its west end), the result would be the removal of
additional trees near the property's northwest comer in order to provide paving width which
applicant asserts is unnecessary based upon the number of dwellings to be served, or would
result in a street that does not comply with the required planning strip or required sidewalk.
Additionally, there is steep terrain along the Prospect Street frontage of the subject property.
If the street is required to be widened, it will require cuts and fills that applicant asserts will
produce an unnecessary environmental impact. See, Exhibit 2, Sheet Ll.
Applicant has also designed the subdivision to take primary access from South Mountain
Avenue instead of Prospect Street. The design was warranted from concerns from neighbors
on Prospect Street who believe that Prospect Street lack[."".a...<t-. e,. ~,~~~~iffl~Ci~J-:,.,,?,~~~.~..use the
I nlUJl~lLuljnLcJn 1
" ,.., ,. . "', ~.
;. r C ~ ~
!:' ~
Craig A. Stone l~ Associates, Ltd. ). 5f rji JUl 1 5 200~ ~te 32 of 53
. ""~f--'-""'r..'~,'::J'... '.'-.. -.".------. '-.~..'''; I). j
j '''i \,~~) L_'~: ,. ~ j ~jf ~ '~'-:l :~ J
(
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
narrowness of the street. Applicant seeks to do a development that is functional and
aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. Eliminating actual access along Prospect Street
for lots 2 and 3 allows for the garages to be moved behind the future dwellings and to access
these from the Private Drive. In redesigning the subdivision in this way, five parcels now
take access from the Private Drive. Only three parcels are allowed under the Private Drive
standard in the ALDO, unless a street exception is approved.
Additionally, Applicant requests that the required dedication of 13 feet be reduc(~d for the
section of South Mountain Avenue that fronts the proposed Lot 7. Applicant is willing to
install a five-foot sidewalk adjacent to the curb along this portion of South Mountain
Avenue, but requests an exception to reduce the size of the sidewalk by one foot and to keep
the existing juniper and retaining wall that currently exist, while installing a 7-foot planter
strip along South Mountain Avenue between of the Private Drive and Prospect Street.
Exception Approval Criteria
ALUO 18.88.050(F). Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the
Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if
all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
With respect to street standards for subdivisions, ALUOI8.80.020(B) states that, "the Street
Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options, shall apply to dev(~lopments
under this chapter." Therefore, the street standards for subdivisions (and provisions under
which streets may differ from the typical standards) are those set forth for in ALUO
18.88.050 (Street Standards).
Criterion 1
1. 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.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
A. For the exception to street right-of-way and paving width for Prospect Strelet.
1. Based on the Preliminary Plat and detail of Prospect Street (Exhibit 2, Sheet 6 and
Exhibit 11) it is clear that existing development to the north prevents Prospect from
being widened to the north, or obtaining additional right-of-way.
2. The area to the north also has a steep topographic drop off that prohibits widening of
the street on its north side.
3. Requiring applicant to provide additional right-of-way on the subject propeliy (to the
south) will create a street that jogs to the south and serves a total of only five
dwellings (four existing dwellings and one WhiC~~~r this
e"", A. SlDn. & Associate.. lid. ~ 55" .i JU L 1 5 2004 ~133 of 53
./
(;
Findings of IFact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Inveslll\4ants: Applicant
(
application). There is no expectation that Prospect Street will ever serve more than
five:: dwellings.
4. Thc::re is steep terrain along the Prospect Street frontage ofthe subject property. If the
street is required to be widened, it will require cuts and fills that applicant asserts will
produce an unnecessary environmental impact.
5. If the paving width is required to meet the standard for a neighborhood street an
exception would still be required to reduce or eliminate the required parking strip or
sid(~walk because of the inability to widen the street because of encroachments in the
right-of-way to the properties to the North.
6. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the combination of existing development within the right-
of-way and steep topography to the north of Prospect Street, represent unique and
unusual aspects of the site and its utilization, consistent with Criterion 1.
7. There has been a concern from the neighbors on Prospect Street that the road is
inadequate in size and design to be able to handle any additional traffic that may have
direct access onto it. In order to alleviate those concerns a Private Drive was
designed with direct access onto South Mountain A venue and the only access to
Prospect Street will be for Lot 1 the driveway for which will be located upon the
portion of Prospect which has a paving width of 22 feet.
B. For the exception to street right-of-way for South Mountain Avenue adjacent to
propm,ed Lot 7 which would permit a sidewalk against the curb on land that would
be dedicated and without a planter strip (other than the existing junipers which are
behind the sidewalk, and, Along Lot 1 north of the Private Drive, to locate the 7-foot
planter strip and S-foot sidewalk within an easement conveyed to the City for public
use:
1. Based on the Tree Protection and Removal Plan as pertains to Lot 7 along South
Mountain Avenue (Exhibit 2, Sheet Ll) there are existing mature juniper plantings
and a retaining wall located approximately 5 feet from the back of the curb of South
Mountain Avenue.
2. Requiring applicant to provide additional right-of-way (for the purpose of installing a
planter strip) on Lot 7 will result in elimination of the existing junipers and retaining
wall.
3. Applicant will install the 5-foot sidewalk between the existing curb and retaining wall
to :lccOlnmodate pedestrian facilities along Lot 7 and along Lot 1 will provide a 5-
foot sidewalk and 7-foot planter strip.
1f0. D Gj f:J fl 'i"l r 7 f~:! r~.
[ ~ ;fJ},-*_~~lJJJJ ILl LLLq'
tj f~;
.. 'ill JUL 1 5 2004
page 34 of 53
Craig A. Stone, & Associates, Ltd.
~~b
, - . -. -- .. ~.,. ,-.' .
~ ':J \,,"'
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolldated Land Use Applications
R & C Investments: Applicant
4. South Mountain Avenue has adequate overall right-of-way width. The dedication of
additional right-of-way along Lot I to accommodate a planter strip and sidewalk
within the right-of-way has no connection with the impacts produced and the same
facilities will be provided on the subject property within an easement dedicated for
public use.
5. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements
to described above due to existing vegetation and retaining wall along South Mountain
Avenue fronting Lot 7 and the existing wall and junipers represent unique and unusual
aspects of the site and its utilization which presents a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the
specific right-of-way and improvement requirements of the ALVa, consistent with Criterion
I. As to the regulations which suggest that sidewalks and planter strips should be within the
public right-of-way, South Mountain A venue presently has right-of-way sufficient to meet
City standards. Moreover, the proposed sidewalk and planter strip improvements will be
identical to those which would otherwise be within the right-of-way. For these reasons, the
Planning Commission concludes that there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific
requirements of the ALVa due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of
the site.
C. For the exception to allow more than three parcels (five are proposed) to access a
Private Drive.
I. Based on the Preliminary Plat and detail of Prospect Street (Exhibit 2, She:ets I and
Exhibit II) it is clear that existing development to the north prevents Prospect from
being widened to the north and within the existing right-of-way.
2. Prospect street will not be extended and little or no vehicle travel associated with this
project will traverse portions of Prospect Street west of the driveway access to Lot 1.
3. When fully improved, Prospect Street will still have a pavement width of 15 to 22
feet. Twenty-two (22) feet required for city streets of this type. The section of
Prospect which provides access to Lot I will be 22 feet wide. The only portions of
Prospect Street which will have less than 22 feet of paving surface, will not provide
access to any lot in this subdivision.
4. There are existing mature trees near the northwest corner of the subject property
which, to be preserved, also requires that there be no additional improvements along
the westerly portion of Prospect Street.
5. Neighbors on Prospect Street have expressed a concern that the road is inadequate in
size and design to accommodate any addition~!~~~~,~) r)fI \~r~fi~; alleviate
f .. ~(;~'__L':::<LL1LLlLl.j L ii, ,
. :;1 i
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
:<~7
JUL 1 5 2004
;",
ilp.ge 35 of 53
I;t -
;.,
I"~, '
<iT';;;;~q:;,<\r~(':"-
t
,
Findings of I=act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnl~nts: Applicant
nei!~borhood concerns, a Private Drive was designed to provide most lots with
indirect access to South Mountain Avenue rather than Prospect Street. Only Lot 1 is
now proposed to have access from Prospect Street.
6. The: dedication of additional right-of-way on the south side of Prospect Street will
produce an undesirable jog in the street
7. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the combination of the existing right-of-way
encroachments on the north side of Prospect Street (which are unique and unusual)
and expressed neighborhood concerns, presents a demonstrable difficulty in taking
driveway access for Lots 2 and 3 from Prospect Street and therefore supports serving
additional lots from the Private Drive as proposed in these applications.
**************
Criterion 2
2. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
Discussiolll; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
A. For thle exception to street right-of-way and paving width for Prospect Street.
The Planning Commission concludes that Prospect Street is presently a gravel surface
without paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks or underground storm drains. Approval of this
application will permit applicant to upgrade Prospect Street with paving, of a width of 15
to 22 feet, the installation of concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalk, and planter strip (along
most of the frontage) and underground storm drainage. The Planning Commission
concludes that these contemplated street improvements, while in some ways less than full
City standards, will result in superior transportation facilities. Connectivity will be
neither enhanced nor reduced as a result of this application. Based upon the foregoing
findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the
application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 2.
B. For tbe exception to street right-of-way for South Mountain Avenue adjacent to
proposed Lot 7 which would permit a sidewalk against the curb on land tbat would
be dedicated and without a planter strip (other than the existing junipers which are
behind the sidewalk, and, Along Lot 1 nortb of the Private Drive, to locate the 7-foot
planter strip and 5-foot sidewalk witbin an easement conveyed to the City for public
use:
JUL 1 5 2001}
Craig A. Stonel & Associates, Ltd.
j.5Y
.. -~~CruLf'
Page 36 of 53
- ~-. ,~ '"" .= ,.,.; ,~, ,'" "" "'~ - ~'" ... -
(
f"-
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnents: Applicant
The Planning Commission concludes that the exception to eliminate the planter strip fronting
Lot 7 will result in an equal transportation facilities and connectivity even though the planter
strip and sidewalk will exist in reverse locations. Applicant has agreed to stipulate to
construct a five feet sidewalk adjacent to the existing curb in order to preserve the existing
juniper and retaining wall. Placing the planter strip and sidewalk within an easement in Lot 1
will produce equal transportation facilities and connectivity. In fact, the Planning
Commission concludes that provision of the planned park strip and sidewalk improvements
overall, will produce equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity because
(other than the junipers) these facilities do not presently exist along any portion of the subject
property. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 2.
C. For the exception to allow more-than three parcels (five are proposed) to access
a Private Drive.
The Planning Commission concludes that the contemplated Private Drive improvements,
will result in superior transportation facilities by reducing the number of access and
vehicle trips onto Prospect Street, which cannot be improved to its fully capacity because
of existing buildings in the right-of-way and because of steep slope. Connectivity will be
neither enhanced nor reduced as a result of this application. Based upon the foregoing
findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the
application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 2.
**************
Criterion 3
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Prom Applicant's plans, the Planning Commission
concludes that applicant has sought the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the
difficulties. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent
with Criterion 3.
**************
Criterion 4
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The purpose and intent of the Perfonnance Standards
Options Chapter is set forth in ALVa 18.88.010 which provides:
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
nu ~~\"fl n n r-., ."...'....
./".",1,.1 r Ii1 I:".' rJ' i' l t f rOc' ~ ,'~ ~
f' ~i ~ Id.1 j I! \ i.1 t,. ,.' i
; ':'::'}~~'--' ". .LLLl_LJ.L.LLL..,:__,; i :1
~: i1
JUL 1 5 2004 ,Ii,:
Page 37 of 53
;t C$1
('
Findings of I:act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbn~mts: Applicant
"Th<<l purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is
permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency,
architectural creativity and iIUlovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest
adv2lntage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under
the ~ltandard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce
the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood."
The Planning Commission concludes that this variance relief sought is consistent with the
stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the following
reasons:
1. The intent of "this chapter" is to allow for more flexible design than is permissible under
the conventional zoning codes. Applicant here is requesting a more flexible street design
that still provides adequate pedestrian and vehicular transportation. The greater
flexibility will result in the paving and other improvements to a street that now exists as a
gravel road and will result in not removing trees near the property's northwest corner
(which would otherwise have to be removed to accommodate a street constructed to full
City standards). Lastly, the flexibility will result in a design that eliminates two
otherwise-required access driveways from Prospect Street and resulting in an improved
street that will benefit the neighborhood, while still providing for adequate public
transportation.
2. The variance with respect to energy efficiency, will produce no consequence, positive or
negative.
3. With respect to architectural creativity, the variance does not involve buildings and,
therefore, does not affect architectural creativity either positively or negatively.
4. With r<<~spect to the use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage,
this variance will result in an ability to preserve existing trees located near the property's
northwest corner and in front of the proposed Lot 7.
5. Regarding the provision of a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in
developments built under the standard zoning codes, this variance, by enabling the
preservation of existing trees (located near the property's northwest corner) and the
existing junipers, will in turn, utilize and preserve existing natural features to their
greatest advantage. The same would not be possible if this project were built using the
typical standards of the municipal zoning code.
6. By preserving existing trees (located near the property's northwest comer and in front of
the proposed lot seven) the project will be aesthetically pleasing. Lots:2 and 3, by taking
access off the Private Drive rather than Prospect Street, will produce a more aesthetically
pleasing streetscape along Prospect by eliminating driveways and allowing landscaping
in their place. ~ ,...-.".,
~I'. ;f?(!ljf?ni.\ ., \
~ [, ~,jLJ_=LL_~LL_~-'-J.,j~,,~. ~
jj ". I
I
JUL 1 5 20011 ii II
.lIJ Page 38 of 53
II
-'?lSU 1TT5L!
Craig A. StonEI & Associates, Ltd.
:;""6
....~ ""'_ 1>. ___ac_ ,...- --
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnents: Applicant
7. As to the provision of more efficient land use, the Commission concludes that lefficiency,
in this instance, is a measure of how cost effectively buildable parcels and housing can be
provided. The proposed variance will permit the delivery of parcels and housing in a
way that is more cost effective while still being adequate to provide safe and efficient
access to the subject property and lots proposed to be created.
8. This variance will reduce the impact of development on the natural environment by
preserving existing trees (located near the property's northwest corner) and existing
junipers along Lot 7. The variance will also reduce the impact of this development on
the neighborhood by permitting a substantial upgrading of Prospect Street from its
present condition to one which will include paving, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalkb
underground storm drainage1tlld planter strips (along a portion of the Prospect frontage).
9. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 4.
**************
D. VARIANCE TO OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS
Purpose of Application: Applicant seeks to preserve the existing 900 square fi:>ot single
family dwelling (on Lot 2) as an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU). The ARU is required to
have two parking spaces. The provision of off-street parking in accordance with the ALUO
is problematic in that:
1. The two required parking spaces cannot be provided along within the back yard area of
Lot 1 without consuming greater than 25 percent of the yard area with parking in
violation of AlVa 18.92.060(F).
2. The two required parking spaces cannot be provided within the existing garage because
the garage is not large enough to accommodate two vehicles.
3. On-street parking cannot supply the required two spaces because there is sufficient paved
width in front of the proposed Lot 2. While the frontage of Lot 2 could be increased to
accommodate ARU parking, the same would render Lot 1 of insufficient size. Applicant
is likely to remove the existing dwelling! ARU if the accommodation of its required
parking results in the loss of either Lot 1 or 3.
Therefore, to preserve the existing dwelling as an Accessory Residential Unit" requires
variance relief. Applicant seeks relief from the requirements of ALUO 18.92.060(A) which
permits - except for single and two-family dwellings - ~~~i5~~~~\tF1pe,f~ated on
~ n , ~ I F-': , Lilli. ",
: :: );I_Z,L.u-.LL.u . ",..,"_L~ I,LL -, :' il. ;
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
~(
JUL 1 5 2004 Id i
~'.ge 39 of 53
-:.,.~ "-I~-"U'~"'-r'~; J
\:.J t,:] d. ..:J L::'-
t'
\.
Findings of F:act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C InvesbnElnts: Applicant
another parcel of land. \ In this instance, applicant proposes that the required two spaces for
the Accessory Residential Unit be provided on adjacent Lot 1 and off of the Private Drive, as
shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet Ll (Site Plan).
Variance Approval Criteria
Criterion 1
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the
unique/unusual circumstanc~~_ applicable to this site is the existence of dwellings on the
property. Both existing dwellings are worthy of preservation and their locations, along with
moderately steep terrain and the configuration of property boundaries in relation to the
existing dwellings, dictate to a large extent, the configuration of lots and design of the
subdivision. While these circumstances can be overcome by either demolishing the existing
dwelling (on Lot 2) or by eliminating one of Lots 1 through 3, doing so would serve to
produce all inefficient utilization of the land. Ashland has sought to maximize the utility of
its urbanizable land base by making the most efficient use of land already within city limits
and its urban growth boundary. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that there
are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere, consistent w/Criterion 1.
**************
Criterion 2
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent
uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
(Ord.24~'5 S1, 1987).
Discussiolll; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the benefits of
this proposal is the preservation of existing housing stock and the maximum utility of the
urbanizabk~ land base, consistent with the property's R-l-lO zoning. The Commission also
concludes that this proposal (which simply results in an ability to park vehicles on an
adjacent parcel), produces as its singular impact (on the development of adjacent uses), a
reduction in usable open space on the adjacent parcel to be used for parking. However, the
Planning Commission concludes that, with 10,074 square feet, Lot 1 has sufficient land area
to accommodate reasonable open space, especially in consideration that most newly created
single family dwelling lots in Ashland are often half that size. Finally, the Commission
I Similarly, variance relief is sought from the provisions of ALUa 18.20.030(H)( 4) which requires parking for
Accessory Residential Units to conform with the requirements of single family dwellings.
.......... ,....,,,.-.. r--1 rl f<'. n r'o-' r'.,
I r '! ,,"! fl I! ,.J' I' ; ! . ., ,..- f P. ,
! [NL..lt:::LL.LLllU U..1T! !
~ ., \ ~.: ;
0,". A. Slon. & Ass"".tes, Lid, :;;.. c.;z : nl ..J U. L.. . .1. . 5..... 2.... 0... 0\...... ... Ii i I Page 40 of 63
{Ij \:7b[rlT'!'5i~
f
\
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnents: Applicant
..
concludes that this variance will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan by maximizing the utility and efficiency of Ashland's residcmtial land
base, which will forestall (albeit slightly) the time at which Ashland will be mquired to
expand its Urban Growth Boundary. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent
with the requirements of Criterion 2.
**************
Criterion 3
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.(Ord. 2775.1996)
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: As described in Criterion 1, the circumstances/conditions
which have given rise to the need for variance relief, relate to the existence of dwellings on
the property, both of which are worthy of preservation, the dwelling locations, moderately
steep terrain and configuration of the subject property, which together largely dictate the
configuration of lots and design of the subdivision. The Planning Commission concludes
that these circumstances and conditions, have not been willfully or purposely self~imposed.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3.
E. TREE PRESERVA TlON, PROTECTION AND REMOVAL
Purpose of Application: Portions ofthe subject property (primarily the westerly portion) are
heavily wooded. Any development of this property will require the removal of trees. There
are 62 trees on the property which have a diameter (dbh) of six inches or greater, 25 of which
are proposed to be: removed. As established in the findings of fact and Exhibit 10, earlier
project designs required the removal of substantially greater numbers of trees. Trees to be
removed, will be removed at the time of excavation and improvement for the private road,
prior to final plat approval.
Tree Removal Permit Approval Criteria
ALUO 18.61.080(B) Tree that is not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
Criterion 1
1 . The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable
Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Desi~ln and Use
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
r::".Il.. \. .GJ (;;'1 r.~ rl [1\ ,'H-:J r;; t-.
In 'i t l t'-'I if \ f i I in
i L< .. '; . . ". "II
! l~ ,I\'
~c;.3 ! II! JUL 1 5 2004 1!~tge41 of 53
JtJT-:'J-\\.:TiC:T :U)
ff
(
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C InvesbnElnts: Applicant
Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for
accurate verification of the permit application: and
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The evidence shows that portions of this property are
wooded. There are 62 trees on the property which have a diameter (dbh) of six inches or
greater and 25 of these are proposed to be removed. The trees to be removed and those to be
preserved ;are inventoried and shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet L1. Only tn~es located upon
existing Tax Lot 3600 (the westerly most existing tax lot) is subject to the provisions of
ALVa Chapter 18.61 because ALVa 18.61.035(B) exempts the following activities from
the requirement for tree removal permits:
"B. Removal of trees in single family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single family detached
dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as otherwise regulated by the Physical and
Enviromnental Constraints ordinance (18.62).
Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 are both in a single family residential zone (R-I-I0) and are
occupied by single family detached dwellings (both of which are to be preserved). The
Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (ALVa 18.62) regulates the subject
property only with respect to the development standards for Wildfire Lands pursuant to
ALVa 18.62.090 which does not restrict the removal of trees when for the purpose of fIre
safety.
The strate:gies for tree preservation are set forth in Exhibit 2, Sheet Ll (Tree
Protection/Removal Plan) and Exhibit 9 (Tree ProtectionlRemoval Plan Narrative) both
prepared by applicant's expert landscape architect, Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Earlier
project designs examined by applicant (Exhibit 10) necessitated the removal of substantially
greater numbers of trees (and substantial cuts and fills). Applicant acquired the parcel now
intended to be Lot 7, to enable the access road for the subdivision to be placed where now
proposed; without this parcel, the road was required to traverse the westerly portion of the
property -- the portion of the property most heavily wooded - and in doing so, necessitated
the removal of a substantially greater number of trees than is in the proposal now before the
Planning Commission. Moreover, building envelopes have been adjusted to reduce tree
removal to the greatest extent practical, while still providing reasonable flexibility for future
home design and siting. Three of the trees to be preserved, 32, 52 and 59, have driplines or
tree protection zones that extend into the Private Drive. For these, special construction
requirements and root vents are specified in Exhibit 9 to help ensure tree health and survival.
The root vents will be installed in the private roadway to help maintain a healthy root system.
Applicant has agreed to stipulate to carrying out the tree protection measures in Exhibit 2,
Sheet Ll and Exhibit 9, provided there is some flexibility in carrying out these requirements.
The Planning Commission is aware that adjustments in design often are required once fInal
engineering is completed and sometimes after construction has commenced. The stipulation
offered by Applicant seeks to bind it to the Galbraith tree protection plans while according a
degree of flexibility that the Planning Commission finds is reasonable.
.,-...". . \. .n r", IT~,.','"' n n r-,..' "~"._' ". .~
I fl' ,~.( I~' c'" I" i.. '0" ::\
[ [frL L l~~LLl jJLti_Llf~ I
j.. G i f lil JUL 1 5 2004 . iil~age 42 of 53
,:1 j
"./
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
. - . .,.. ._ ." c..;)...; (~, '.'.
(-
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnents: Applicant
(
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1 because:
1. Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 are exempt from the requirement to obtain a special permit to
remove trees.
2. Even if Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 were not exempt from this criterion, the ALVO contains
many design and development standards which govern matters such as lot size, lot
configuration, lot frontage, lot coverage, building setbacks, off-street parking
requirements and requirements for streets and access. These regulations dictate in large
part the design of any development. The preservation of regulated trees relates to and is
balanced by the need to provide reasonable buildable areas to supply housing
commensurate with the subject R-I-I0 zone. While adjustments to these plans are
possible to preserve a particular tree, the adjustment will often require the n~moval of
another. Based upon the evidence in Exhibits 2 and 9, the Planning Commission
concludes that the trees proposed for removal on existing Tax Lot 3600 are r1equired in
order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable ALVa requirements
and standards.
3. The removal of trees on Tax Lot 3600 is required: 1) to be consistent with other
applicable ALVa requirements and standards, and 2) to comply with substantive
provisions of ALVa 18.62.090.
**************
Criterion 2
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability. flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: As under Criterion 1, the Planning Commission concludes
that Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 are exempt from this criterion by virtue of these being existing
lots occupied by single family dwellings. For Tax Lot 3600 (and Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 if
this criterion is applicable), based upon Exhibit 9 and the professional opinion of applicant's
expert landscape architect, the Planning Commission concludes that removal of the trees as
proposed in this subdivision, will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 2.
**************
Criterion 3
~ r-"l r.'I '~'C, r.: ,'~. "~' .,_,
I ~111 r", r' . ( i,I,., f!. ..... I ..... ~
fi~l'~' I' (,J, 'L.\ ".I,~
t [: cl~ LL~~_ _,_U_~:',_,t :...,',',' ~
I P, ",
: '';,1 ,':
Craig A. Stone & Associal.es, Ltd.
:z '- S- 'i JUL 1 5 2004
f~age 43 of 53
. --;-"--71";'
r'
\ )
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ConsolIdated I.and Use Applications
R & C Invesbnents: Applicant
f'
,
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and
species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
Discussioll; Conclusions of Law: As under Criterion 1 and 2, the Planning Commission
concludes that Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 are exempt from this criterion by virtue of these
being existing lots occupied by single family dwellings. For Tax Lot 3600 (and Tax Lots
3400 and 3500 if this criterion is applicable), based upon Exhibit 9 and the professional
opinion of applicant's expert landscape architect, the Planning Commission concludes that
removal of the trees as proposed in this subdivision, will not have a significant negative
impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property. Therefore, the Commission concludes that this application is consistent
with Criterion 3.
**************
Criterion 4
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to
AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density
allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement
of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the
alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
Discussiolll; Conclusions of Law: As under Criterion 1, the Planning Commission concludes
that Tax LDts 3400 and 3500 are exempt from this criterion by virtue of these being existing
lots occupied by single family dwellings. For Tax Lot 3600 (and Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 if
this criterion is applicable), Applicant has agreed to stipulate to the mitigation of trees in any
of the ways provided in AMC 18.61.084. The Planning Commission concludes that suitable
mitigation can and will be provided based upon Applicant's stipulate which has been made a
condition of approval. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is
consistent with Criterion 4.
**************
Tree Protection Plan Approval Criteria
ALUO 18.61.200 TREE PROTECTION
Criterion 5
Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit.
A. Tree Protection Plan Required.
nttu~[f'J f?fJ \\ n':" r~~
i i."
,i
\ Il'age 44 of 53
'.')'
~ .
"".,.,"
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
;p..c,~
JUL 1 5 2004
c-;
Findings. of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnents: Applicant
(
1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any
development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a
property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit.
2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which
clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale
and include the following:
a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site;
b. Location of the drip line of each tree;
c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other
utility lines/facilities and easements;
d. Location of dry wells, drain linesand.soakage-trenches;
e. Location of proposed and existing structures;
f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction;
g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces;
h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and
L Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230.
3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all
trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree.
S. Tree Protection Measures Required.
1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in
this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing,
grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction
activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation.
2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall
be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary
of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being
developed.
3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade.
4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree
protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for
the project.
5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping
or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles.
6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints,
thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris,
or m-off.
7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other actrw1~p~J1;~bccur within the tree\ protection
~ qJL~,.! l. 1''''' 1 L._,. :
i :_~ l :
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
~~7
~ "
i, ,'It
I;'
l
JUL 1 5 2004
Ptge 45 of 53
-:-::;1-c:T1,T I c. J
. \......J lJ U L-;. ~.....,_/
..-~~~_c________~
(
Findings of IFact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbn,ants: Applicant
(
zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor.
C. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion
control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection
measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that Exhibit 2, Sheet
Ll and Exhibit 9, demonstrate compliance with Ashland's tree protection requirements as set
forth in ALVa 18.61.200 - Criterion 5.
**************
F. WILDFlRE LANDS
Purpose of Application: The subject property is covered by Wildfire Lands on Ashland's
Physical and Environmental Constraints map. Therefore, subdivision of the property is
subject to the requirements of ALVa 18.62.090 (Development Standards for Wildfire
Lands). The Wildfire Lands development standards in ALVa 18.62.090 are addressed as
follows:
Wildfire Lands Approval Criteria
18.62.090 De!velopment Standards for Wildfire lands
Criterion 1
A. Requirements for Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, or Partitions.
1. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be required with the submission of any application for an outline
plan approval of a Performance Standards Development, preliminary plat of a subdivision, or application to
partition land which contained areas designated Wildfire Hazard areas.
2. The Staff Advisor shall forward the Fire Prevention and Control Plan to the Fire Chief within 3 days of the
receipt of a completed application. The Fire Chief shall review the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and
submit a written report to the Staff Advisor no less than 7 days before the scheduled hearing. The Fire
Chiefs report shall be a part of the record of the Planning Action.
3. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan, prepared at the same scale as the development plans, shall
include the following items:
a. An analysis of the fire hazards on the site from wildfire, as influenced by existing vegetation and
topography.
b. A map showing the areas that are to be cleared of dead, dying, or severely diseased vegetation.
c. A map of the areas that are to be thinned to reduce the interlocking canopy of trees.
d. A tree management plan showing the location of all trees that are to be preserved and removed on
each lot. In the case of heavily forested parcels, only trees scheduled for removal shall be shown.
e. The areas of Primary and Secondary Fuel Breaks that are required to be installed around each
structure, as required by 18.62.090 B,
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
~,n.~r,nn nr-->[nl
'il":'-'(r-' ['It IUI!!I".
[ft t" Uj! \ 11 ! l:'1
i . !<,.",,--:. - ~ .--L..~,\ _.L.. ._t:::
. )i;!
:2. (., 0 JUL 1 5 2004 In I
If !: P~ge 46 of 53
T "~TT"~rT~=~i'i~.~;)
("
c"-
I
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnents: Applicant
f. Roads and driveways sufficient for emergency vehicle access and fire suppression activities,
including the slope of all roads and driveways within the Wildfire Lands area.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows with respect to the
various subparts of Criterion I:
1. Applicant has supplied a Fire Prevention and Control Plan with the submission of these
applications, one of which is for a preliminary plat of a subdivision, within a Wildfire
Hazard area pursuant to the Wildfire Lands designation on Ashland's Physical and
Environmental Constraints map.
2. The provisions of subpart 2 of Criterion 1 are procedural matters which imply no burden
upon any applicant seeking approval under this Section.
3. Applicant's Fire Prevention and Control Plan (Exhibit 2, Sheet L4), Tree Protection and
Removal Plan and Narrative (Exhibit 2, Sheet Ll and Exhibit 9) properly and in detail
cover the requilrements of subpart 3 of Criterion 1.
4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the matters covered in Criterion 1 are procedural and have
been observed by Applicant in these applications.
**************
Criterion 2
4. Criterion for Approval. The hearing authority shall approve the Fire Prevention and Control Plan when, in
addition to the findings required by this chapter, the additional finding is made that the wildfire hazards
present on the property have been reduced to a reasonable degree, balanced with the need to preserve
and/or plant a sufficient number of trees and plants for erosion prevention, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics.
Conclusions of Law: The approval criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Pemlit (in this
instance, for a subdivision on Wildfire Lands) are set forth in ALUO 18.62.040(I) and the
same are addressed as follows:
L Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the
Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the
property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon Applicant's Fire Prevention and Control Plan (Exhibit 2,
Sheet L4), Tree Protection and Removal Plan and Narrative (Exhibit 2, Sheet Ll and Exhibit
9) and the evidence therein, the Planning Commission concludes that the development
standards applicable to wildfires in ALVa 18.62.090 hmtrl.E!fPrt~\TI~~nled. This
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Ab9 'I; J~L~~O~,
U L _ I....; c.., ;,...1 b....,
Page 47 of 53
- ,"'_.-'"..,,""...,..-----_...
(
Findings of I=act and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnunts: Applicant
(
evidence allso demonstrates that the potential impacts to this property and nearby areas have
been considered. The Planning Commission observes, that while certain improvements to
fire-related elements which exists off-site would improve fire safety for this property and
nearby areas, Applicant is without power to make physical improvements to property owned
by others. The Planning Commission also concludes that no improvements to any elements
which exist offsite are required to comply with this Criterion. Therefore, upon the foregoing
findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that this
application is consistent with 18.62.040(1)(1).
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and
implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
conclusiollls of Law: The findings of fact in Section N and the measures outlined in
Applicant's Fire Prevention and Control Plan (Exhibit 2, Sheet L4), Tree Protection and
Removal Plan and Narrative (Exhibit 2, Sheet Ll and Exhibit 9) show that the topography
and vegetation in the surrounding area are similar to that found on the subject property and
that applicant has considered the potential hazards and addressed the same. The Planning
Commission observes again here, that while certain improvements to fire:-related elements
which exists off-site would improve fire safety for this property and nearby areas, Applicant
is without power to make physical improvements to property owned by others. The Planning
Commission also concludes that no improvements to any elements which exist off site are
required to comply with this Criterion. Therefore, upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent
with 18.62.040(1)(2).
3. Tha'l the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment.
Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or
Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the
maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 S1, 1998)
conclusiolllS of Law: The findings of fact in Section N and the measures outlined in
Applicant's Fire Prevention and Control Plan (Exhibit 2, Sheet L4), Tree Protection and
Removal Plan and Narrative (Exhibit 2, Sheet Ll and Exhibit 9) show that Applicant has
taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impacts on the environment with respect to
reducing the fire hazard in accordance with ALVa 18.62.090. and that applicant has
considered the potential hazards and addressed the same. In reaching this conclusion the
Planning Commission has considered the existing development of the surrounding area as the
same is evidenced in Exhibits 2 through 6. The Planning Commission observes again here,
that while certain improvements to fire-related elements which exists off-site would improve
fire safety for this property and nearby areas, Applicant is without power to make physical
improvem(mts to property owned by others. The Planning Commission also concludes that
no improvements to any elements which exist offsite are required to comply with this
Criterion. Therefore, upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with 18.62.040(1)(3).
t?if? ~,r;Jnn qr'"!S\
i. . '@-1lJJ,.UL._i ~. . .1 \
JUL 1 5 2004
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
:4.70
Page 48 of 53
(-
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolldated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnents: Applicant
[--
4.
In addition to the three approval criteria in 18.62.040(1), Wildfire Criterion 2 requires the
Planning Commission to approve a Fire Prevention and Control Plan when it can be
concluded that, "the wildfire hazards present on the property have been reduced to a
reasonable degree, balanced with the need to preserve and/or plant a sufficient number of
trees and plants for erosion prevention, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics." Based upon the
evidence in Applicant's Fire Prevention and Control Plan (Exhibit 2, Sheet U), Tree
Protection and Removal Plan and Narrative (Exhibit 2, Sheet Ll and Exhibit 9), the Planning
Commission concludes that the wildfire hazards present on the property have been reduced
to a reasonable degree; based upon the same evidence, the Planning Commission also
concludes that the: wildfire hazards on the property have been balanced with the need to
preserve existing trees and replace those which must be removed in accord with ALVa
18.61.084 to help prevent erosion, provide wildlife habitat and preserve aesthetics.
Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with
Criterion 2.
**************
Criterion 3
5. The hearing authority may require, through the imposition of conditions attached to the approval, the
following requirements as deemed appropriate for the development of the property:
a. Delineation of areas of heavy vegetation to be thinned and a formal plan for such thinning.
b. Clearing of sufficient vegetation to reduce fuel load.
c. Removal of all dead and dying trees.
d. Relocation of structures and roads to reduce the risks of wildfire and improve the chances of
successful fire suppression.
6. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be implemented during the public improvements required of a
subdivision or Performance Standards Development, and shall be considered part of the subdivider's
obligations for land development. The Plan shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any building permit
for structures to be located on lots created by partitions and for subdivisions or Performance Standards
developments not requiring public improvements. The Fire Chief, or designee, shall inspect and approve the
implementation of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and the Plan shall not be cons.idered fully
implemented until the Fire Chief has given written notice to the Staff Advisor that the Plan was completed as
approved by the hearing authority.
7. In subdivisions or Performance Standards Developments, provisions for the maintenance of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the
development, and the City of Ashland shall be named as a beneficiary of such covenants, restrictions, and
conditions.
8. On lots created by partitions, the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the property in
accord with the requirements of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the hearing authority.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
R' r? rnJ 17 ~ '" :.o~. ! ..r~
I -. -'-- I U...Llo_-L_' ,
~7/r
f
JUL 1 5 2004
Page 49 of 53
C
Findings of IFact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnl~nts: Applicant
(
1. Regarding subpart 5 of Criterion 3, the Planning Commission concludes that special
conditions are not required beyond the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, agreed to
stipulations of Applicant (which are conditions of approval) and the provisions for
maintenance of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan as contained in the Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's).
2. Regarding subparts 6 and 7 of Criterion 3, the Planning Commission concludes that
Appliccmt has agreed to stipulate to the various matters contained therein. Applicant's
stipulations are in Section VI hereinbelow.
3. Regarding subpart 8 of Criterion 3, the Planning Commission concludes that the
propos(~d lots are created by ~bdivisi~n not by partitions, therefore, subpart 8 is
inapplicable.
4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 3.
**************
Criterion 4
B. Requirements for construction of all structures.
1. All new construction and any construction expanding the size of an existing structure, shall have a "fuel
break" as defined below.
2. 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. Where
necessary for erosion control or aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted in slow-burning species.
Establishment of a fuel break does not involve stripping the ground of all native vegetation. "Fuel Breaks"
may include structures, and shall not limit distance between structures and residenCes beyond that required
by other sections of this title.
3. Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of 30
feet, or to the property line, whichever is less, in all directions around structures, excluding fences, on the
property. The goal within this area is to remove ground cover that will produce flame lengths in excess of
one foot Such a fuel break shall be increased by ten feet for each 10% increase in slope over 10%.
Adjacent property owners are encouraged to cooperate on the development of primary fuel breaks.
4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum
of 100 feet beyond the primary fuel break where surrounding landscape is owned and under the control of
the property owner during construction. The goal of the secondary fuel break is to reduce fuels so that the
overall intensity of any wildfire is reduced through fuels control.
5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better non-wood roof coverings, as
determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. All re-roofing of existing structures in the Wildfire
Lands area for which at least 50% of the roofing area requires re-roofing shall be done under approval of a
zoning permit No structure shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-product
material or other combustible roofing material, as defined In the Ci~S tlliUding code.
r; ! rJ~',;J:-;n f1r:u,
r ~ '1 f ~"~";, \"\ I' I 'n I
I ,~~ - -,- - ,-, - ':--' - .1 .Lj!: !
-'> 7~ ',,; JUL" 5 2001. 'Ii I
Craig A, Stone c~ Associates, Ltd. t:"'(';)1 HI. . '1 1/1' ~age 50 of 53
,; lH3GT:::]IT-TJT~J~:)
".". _.,-~_....~... _~"",.,O
('
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnents: Applicant
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the above provisions of
Criterion 4 have been incorporated into Exhibit 2, Sheet L4, and can and will be incorporated
into the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's) as the same will be fumished for
review and approval as part of the final plat for this subdivision. Based thereupon, the
Planning Commission concludes that the application is or can and will be consistent will all
of the requirements of Criterion 4.
VI
APPLICANT'S STIPULATIONS
Applicant herewith offers the below agreed to stipulations which the Planning Commission
attaches as conditions to the approval:
1. Prospect Stred Water Main. Applicant will upgrade the size of the existing 4-inch
water main in Prospect Street to a larger size, consistent with standard engineering
practices and the requirements of the Ashland Water Department.
2. Dwelling Heigbt: No structure will be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2
1/2) stories in height, whichever is less.
3. Lot Coverage: Notwithstanding the size of building envelopes shown Exhibit 2, Sheet
Ll, the maximum coverage for each lot will not exceed forty (40) percent.
4. Dedication of Easement and Improvements on South Mountain Avenue: Applicant
will dedicate a 12.5 feet wide easement along the South Mountain Avenue: frontage
between Prospect Street and the Private Drive to accommodate a 7-0 foot phmter strip
and 5-0 sidewalk which Applicant will install. Applicant will dedicate in fee simple to
the City, a strip of land approximately 5-feet wide to accommodate a sidewalk also
approximately 5-feet in width.
5. Street Name: The name of the proposed private driveway will not duplicate or be one
which might be confused with the names of existing streets in Ashland.
6. Easements: Applicant will dedicate easements for public utilities whenever necessary
and the same will be shown on and dedicated by the Final Subdivision Plat.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
7. Number of Dwellings on Lot 2; Size of Principle Dwelling on Lot 2: There will be no
more than two (2) dwellings on Lot 2 and the size of the new dwelling to occupy Lot 2
will comply with Ashland standards which require: "The maximum gross habitable floor
area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of
the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHF A"
~[[Jf)[tnD : ~l
,p., 73 I rl JUl 1 5 ZOlll
.. j Jirp.-;-(\:;-yp;ri- i . . .
'.. ;,._1,," ',",. ,.i .,."
Fraga 51 of 53
~ .,-.,.. .- .. "" =- _ ~Y; "'"
{
\
Findings of IFact and Conclusions of Law
ConsoUdated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnlants: Applicant
8. Off-Street Parking for Accessory Residential Unit: Applicant will ensure that an
easement is lawfully established to provide a right of use for two off-street parking
spaces IOn Lot 1 for use by residents of the accessory residential unit on Lot 2.
9. Covemmts, Conditions and Restrictions (CcR's): If the City so requests, Applicant
will provide copies of the intended Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's) for
municipal review and approval as part of the Final Subdivision Plat. The City of Ashland
shall be: named as a beneficiary of such CCR's on all matters related to implementation
of the approved Fire Prevention and Control Plan.
10. Lot Landscaping: Portions of all subdivision lots not covered by stmctures and hard-
surfaced areas for vehicles and pedestrians, will be ornamentally landscaped with living
landscape materials and mulch and served by underground automatic sprinkler systems.
In particular, cut and fill slopes along side and rear lot lines, will be planted with ground
cover and shrubs or trees.
11. Protection for Trees Required by ALUO 18.61 to be Preserved: Tree:s on the property
will be preserved in accordance with the Tree Protection and Removal Plan (Exhibit 2,
Sheet 1,1 and Exhibit 9) prepared by Galbraith & Associates, In<:., provided that
Applicant may seek (and the Staff Advisor may approve) such minor adjustments as may
be needed to accommodate proper engineering and construction.
12. Mitigation for Trees to be Removed: Applicant will mitigate the removal 25 trees in
any of the ways provided in AMC 18.61.084. Applicant's preference is to mitigate for
tree removal by replacing trees on the subject property as each of the individual lots are
developed with dwellings.
13. Fire Prevention and Control Plan: The Fire Prevention and Control Plan will be
implemented during construction/installation of the public improvements required of this
subdivi!;ion and prior to the issuance of any building permit for structures to be located
on the subdivision lots. The Fire Chief will be asked to inspe:ct and approve
implementation of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan and verify that the said plan was
completed as approved by the Planning Commission.
14. Design of Prospect Street Improvements: While Applicant has proposed a plan for the
improve:ment of the Prospect Street frontage of the subject property, Applicant is willing
to makc~ reasonable changes as the same may be necessary to satisfy engineering
requirements and other considerations deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission
and the same can be made conditions of any approval.
Craig A. Stone 8. Associates. Ltd.
~71
/
[IDrrrnJ~nll"1 ,~
ro,.,r,."'. ,'I,; d",11
q ~: j : H,J:' t :) If; ;" I
'["".,_.,',;',Ll."JJ-i d J I
r 0;
.1
'ill JUL 1 5 2004
"1
,
(""
j
I '
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Consolidated Land Use Applications
R & C Invesbnents: Applicant
f"
\,
VII
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS; DECISION; CONDITIONS
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission
ultimately concludes that all of the relevant substantive criteria, prerequisite to approving the
Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Conditional Vse Permit, Exception to Street Standards,
Variance (relief from off-street parking standards for the ARU) and Physical and
Environmental Constraints Permit have been satisfied in full or can and will be satisfied
based upon Applicant's approved plans and the stipulations agreed to and which have been
made conditions to these permit approvals.. Therefore, the Planning Commission orders that
the application be, and the same hereby is, approved and made subject to the conditions set
~forth in the Staff Report for this matter which, in addition to the stipulations in Section Vi,'"
are herewith incoq)orated by reference and adopted.
Dated July 14, 2004
Respectfully submitted on behalf of applicant,
CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~,Dr>,.i~rn r-;"r,,~,
, n ;';;' ~I ~ n J:: ~ - 1 ii 1 t : l ,---~ !"c \
lit,!': ,_t!. _" LiJJ\.JLLJ J}i I
lj
JUL 1 t) /.""n04 :i!
v U ,'1
'~ 'r~;-.-,".-,,^:P~;._-t! {,F~age 53 of 53
- ;, , f :'~._J L:,/
;<7~
Craig A, Stone & Associates, Ltd.
. '.... _-4 __........,
"""'''''''' =.... "'-.....
-
- "--~r-,- -~~.-'-,-I--r--- ~.
I ? 11 , f ,. ~i:
~ .',., ,
..:'<~~ If
~ '1ft
x.j;.. '"( , "I
, .
; i!
1""''' ,...
/' / 'rv-v,
IrFj ~ -....~ ~ ~
\ .J; '\.
.<r ,e ~ l!!
I. ~/_GL ~~i
a. I \.. ~ 1,.'e
1 ~ lfi, ~ l VI .-
~ ~I ~
~~I "
~ If ~ ~
~ ~I t
~~ ~ ~
~ I rt;,. t/ ~
'~~ ~r~
"i:~ ,!~~ ";':\'~.f.,~1 ~I f <:1
.. '''f ~ ".--, . / ~
,J. h; !~" t.l-~':t.." .,(. _ I " )
,. .. ~.CJ&L, T;;:i~fl;fi/ Jr' · ..j-j7J,
;: V y. i ~ (,; / '9, /
f.IA f ~ / ~~~Jf;j / ;f~
'!~ t. . ... 1~~ ;~i~F' ~ / ~w-t;~~
~ .;. ~.'\ 'ji ' rt! 1m
r" ~-I- f- ~ r- 1-1,- - - - -
t- I II..... t- --+---, 1-\ ~ \ I \ \ I
r'~ I~J ~ .1 I \j I I I L ) I ) i ~ \ j I \
\. -,Q. < 'J ~ I /~r~~\
~~ \ \ " Ig'
~J~"
:9 I' 't
~ I~ ~
I1l ~ ""
"'13.Q.
" "l"
~~ ~C>
< ..~<;)
I--I>~~'
~~.j
../
~ ~~
1'\ 0- it ~ ij~i
u ~.. i~\j},~-
a
3flN3/\ If
55'9
II
,,-
RIO. .....
./.
~ "
,..........
,y,:
~ ~"
, .
v.
]
: f/
,. V '
,UN. ~ ',:~"
~ '" ,; .,6;') ,'0(:'
~ ._'~ ;; ~i~:~i~~~~r
........... ... ".: ~.~.' J.:.:>~f-~t;.
~~ " , . .', 'J.",
~rt ~ ~
~ '~!.
..., II--- ~ ~~
. ~~~ I <~r
\I,~"~; ,~
I ~ ~.::: ::: ~~1::
f::!:!..L ..., 'ol
_ ..... '~'5
-, .'
" -
,~
...
",
/ ~~,
~ I'lL "-
r8:)
~ ~~
j!' ~
~~ \~
fu-;
<i>
..--.:l :
\
~
) /
L: ~
/
..
.: )
. Ii ~(:,
V1 ~ .
., G . tr----
. frv
~
~l:l
8i
~ .,- - .-
~ r-- y~~ -.. r-
'~ 1\ ~
~~~\~ . \' I
'~iV V
~
=
-Q
~:::
-=- ~
a..Q
=--..;l
00
~z z
~o 8
~ t;.l i:l
..... 0
> ~
~S ~
~~ =
O~ III
00-<
~
IL~
d
!(!
::l <I<J
;;
u~~"1 ~
l1~~ !;;
"";1 "
Q;c g
~^':~~:~,..<
Fl...;
L:~'l ..::l-
t:::::.- ~
c.::1 ("'oo"J
c=::' U':>
f2::! or-i
@=5
[1.-,\ .....,
~i:,
~ """".'~''''-<f'''''''''''''''"
~
~
q
~
~
~
~
E-4
1-1
rLJ.
[I
O~
C\il!l
\i!qi
~~i
I
I!i~~
"-
...::t:1o!
t;~i.'lI ~~
""i:l..~~
.iI:
.8
.~
I
.
..
tin
; "'1
fjQ
Hl"~li
~Ii
'" e!
Ida
"Ii-
11;11
1,,; j
';1il
it: i~
ilitJ!f
J--u
,,)ti
"'5"~'l
a
NllfiNflOH
55 'I
Hinos
S& S'
s-g g
&& 9
o
.,-ww
~ ~D
.=ll ===T - - -/-
-~ I
...tlI fCJl~ro:)(I Iii
~~ .s'el O:JSOcald ~
ee
~~
~w
~I
II
I
1,-'\
~~I
, II
I! I '\
\;~;:- s
~ '"
I 'ul--
~. I
l
0,
=
-Q
~:::
.-.=
QtJ
a..Q
~..;l
~
~
~
E-4
1-1
Z
1-1
U
1-1
>
[I
~
Z
1-1
Z
o
N
tI
~ :i:ih:i:i
Q! nun
<(
L
L .:.;oli.f ,U l?
~ ~~~~~~ j
lU
\J)
::;)
l- !
() I
-1
I]
~
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
~
~
~
o
z
~
~
o
~
~
~
~
L--LJ
~~...
~~~
~:1l'<~ ~
!l>~!i;J!:: !::
~bl> ~ ~
~B~ S ~
~~:bo ~ ~
~~ ~.
S~ ~
--,
I
I
~!
I~,
" I
1 ...,
\
~ I
~ \
I
\ j
I
I
I
: r--
I I
I t
L________J :
I
t
I
I
I
:
L_
~."i'l
,.., ;r
- J i I .... r-----.r
e.. !lllill!. .. ! ~ I m
!p 1 lG.r;.. .. ,...~ I ~ ! m
1;!!11Iq {- ( VI~I~
'!m II'U; .if; If
Hi, 1.1 I I ~ ilt I Ii
9., ,
l
0--
f' 1'f
f'~ f'~ I'"
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AvrNur
-
~
(
).> ~ ~~~~ [>[> i:l a::
-.....J ~ ~;~p iii > \'-l 0
i .." ~~ 'o'~i~
'-l !'!'> 'aI..t!I == =z
~ "' ~ ~~
;: ~!.. -;;
~ k1' I ~ :;>
~ ~$1 ~~ ;;:
I;') "'"'~ ~/ I
o O~ "/:c ..
Z Z
\'-l
i
t I-"
e
: CJ"(
I '"
I c;:::l
\ c;:::l
I ,-- ..;:-'
[
\ ~~:::~.
...
.-.."
.'
-
l
.
I
\
,
I
I
i
\
I
I
!
,
t
\
I
~
\
1
!
t
. -'1 ~
~~
L~:t"
~~
~kn
rL~{ .-;
\'-::>=.4.
@! .-J
c-, =>
'-I --,
e::"
C,','"
"-2
r-l
~~ 8
r:lot~ =
~E ~
E-c~ ~
8~ ~
~
. ~'" ~
~ '& -i l'; 0(
,~ ~ d... ';x
~ QUI ~ h ~:;;
. ~~ :l! .i~~ ~~~
old'" m j[i!:;; 5i5:
~~~ g!il~ ~!~
..;.;p~ ~r I ~'1 ..
_ -I J.r.:J:t.e
~...~
g. It ~
lD f iii
.. 1 i "-
~.,.. fQc.'"
- ...~
I!l~ N ~
~ ~ C'6
f9 ~~i ~
~ ~;~s ;
'" ~It
I i nl!~; I i II
~*h ~~ I!~ hili
I~, ~!H~ i~ iil I d~=
I @~ if d Ii ~t! ~ ~I'(B
~ Ii III ~~i ~I~ ~ it I ~ ~ I!II ~ '
i !! h; III in d! I : Ilhi I I
~
.
!i "'1
1 t ~
. Ii .1 ~ .! ~ t~) 11 JI II )il~ I . f ~. ~if i
Ij u tj ~ ! J ~l! It it t t 1 in Ii j: i 1 U ~l! l
11 i~. 'i f I 1. iI: t li t11 'il - If - . JI .
t! it !I Ii ! i b! ltll 1~1 I l! ~ i~ ih!J II I J P I~l d t
!t Ii l!!! 14 t~1 11;'1 {11; I tl ~ !11 !]~I! ill I d il}. h, i
:d J~ il}! t! ea! l~I,~ t1;1 I ! !jt I, I~~ 1i1ttJ k t I it ~bllslf ~
)! 1 I . l.. 1 .. .1, h lr J ~ I 1 Isl ~I ~ E IfJi I. ~
il H Ii n itUn m~~~ l! il >>!JIH~ id I !t H im in I
~ !t 11 '" .afl III ~~flh~11 I u -Is lJ II till! I ~. It 1m t~. .
~ltU ~ l! I1IH! nfi!~i~ U" II tin k~ iH -I U d ~f!U h
Iii JI(~.. =e '"' J 1'1 ~s j~ H. t t '1 . 1 1 1 ~ lIt} !rr "'Ii
~UI !~ P lh ~i! i41Iti!l!b g}r 111111 !f~ ell ill ~ It 'ilt~ii i1
II l'l} I :! '.11 I ,', II! ;u'.. f .lif : if >1- 1!1I1t h
iH II 1&11 h j fit itlhRUt if ~f f! It; Jut fti~ 8J h It lil~~U ~~
I !
~~ II~
il III
ill fits
i~~lii
_ ~Iiill
I ~ ~.II-I
il.e I
. Ili~ I
~11~1~
. ~ ri "......
!
!
.
I
.
~
~ i
I
I
I
! ~
! I
, I
i I
I
I
~I~I
~b
l
3nN3~V NIViNnow Hinos
r-'---~I
i r .
: l ~
\ '.
l ~
"'1
LJI
:~
I
1
L
r
~
C-=1 tj
~
'"
C\jt::J
'<.[\0 cO
~~\O
"t:l...~
b~~
0..'"
t:r?3
tH::~~
bl~<>0!5
J
.
Ii .,.
I;
li
ml-
,. I
J
t~ll
it II
~CU
I"I~
,1..:1
~
""l:~rj
:e<.jU
v,t::J'
.;r:~~
t:J~03
o..~
'- '"
...~'"
~,-,,,,
'-'...,
....."
"""''''
I IIIUP~ I
! ! ~,~ ,
I i~lli I
~ ! II il I
~ I ill I ~
I b i I
~ i! I! ;; III! ! I~I
~ I tR A Ii
~ ~.,
~ t
LJ
II~
ant
r-
iI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
~
.
!
I
~
~
.,..
J i ,----
, '
_-.I l_
....
....
....
....
~~
~ II~ t ~ 'I
~ tJ.1!1 I III
ii, tj
i//li I
~fi .
~IIPI'"
i lil!hl! .
fie I ~ IIII '
ii'll III ~ ! i ~!,
I i j I; J !
SDUTH
~ IIII · z ., ~
iil1lt1t
; 'ii~ld
Ih!U!I
;..~~~itl
II~~;~ !
l !ijli ~
ij. ~ G
I' I
~
ili
Ii ii Ui l(fU I !U UIU1il H H! i~ Ij I( i UI II
!! it fh Ill! lil illf(! i 11111 !! h b tIll h
u I! J~i ~il ,il ~1I I. u lllh ~I II P. i !l! 1I
!Hi Ill! l~ m ~nu II h lit' Ii ll,h Iii 1 ~i
{ ! h l'H ll~" If(11 i If II ft l- It & lS .'
III If: f~ll tit i~1 ~lltl ZIL !t1 'i I( 1 r ~l~
t d tit IU{ Ui lll!ltl' J! ~i~ !J ~J ~l' f
I"{l~- Ii Hllll"t I" !1.r1:J']3'lt t ·
tIlL llll l~l . ~- IiI 'i I l Ut f ~I · I I
Ii! II ,It dhjlf! Hllt,JI It ·
I! II i!I IP!ill j HU nll il !
I I ,n l! Ip i '!!11! 11 i i I
J I ill 'I 1 ' .1 it
I]
l~"IJ ~
dJ ~
ua: ~
II~~ >
iti' ~
'Iii 0
t~l ~
HII ~
lti: t-'4
~
~
~ , ~
i\ :r ~
I .
~ ~~!~
~ ~~~~
.. ....1\1
~ ~ ~
~~ k1t
I~ ~ rnS
i! ; ~~
.~ ~~
g -'"d
~ ~~
rn
~'w
<)'1;
'"
"1 I:'
; II ." ~
~ '
~~
!F~'-=::~~'-;':::,,'"
~ r~.. "':~;::::j
I u.,'-"'-
: (~;) c:l...... ti'l-l
~ ~ ;{ """,~~
~ ~ji r- ""=."
ff'-" C ")
; w'.f i-A. ,c,_,;_~'
; r-; . .~,- j
-i _ I. 1~.1
-4 <:.J ~ .:=-"':::J
i ~.' "-.)~ ..m-J
:,' ~ s:~
. I-.,~l
, @:',........'"""'
~~-~, ~':':'"-: ' , - '.-, "
'::,,::,~,~:,~_~iJ
"-"
~~~
""::;it\
,~It /
~
,
v..l
~ i ~f% ~~ 8 9
ill HI !~ ~- = iL:~
~ Ii - Rr: ! ... It ~ ~~ ~
~~ ~ ~g~ ~~ '" I '" ~Q ~
.. Q, '"
I~~ I ~g ~~ ~ct -\1 fQc."'V ~~ i I t!~" ~
. L"~ o v..l -< ~~~! ~
~ 12i!\" g
<:>
~ 3nN3/1t1 NltliNnDH HinDS
, ,~ ,-
V' "---::~::>I/':l:' ,I, , , , I ,.(",A-"'", ,r, ,','
, , , , , , , , , , , , , " '."
! "~'{':~"~ ,','~',' III ,,, lilli,' ',',',Vi
'I " , ,',', I ,: I:, , I , , , , v.,
'I,,',',:~F... ".("",:,:,
I , " '"} iii 1.1 ",
, " , I,ll ~~ . .' ~:': I,ll
, , " ,'\ ~ ,
Iv':. ' , " I' '""_..,) II , III
" , , , , ~ ' , 'II
" , i'),",' - < ~', 'II
, ,n:", !lID II, II'
i LJ"""
" :~'" lilli,'
. ,;: III ,
\ :' I, III' : ':',
1, ,:), , '%' ,,,,,,
i " '~~,' ,,[, ,Y1, , ,.,1" , , , , , I
I :'::":::::J':"':;:i~,I':':I:':':i:':"
v; """"'1"""',','",',',',',
! " , , " , , , , , , ,'-' , ,
! "":~""""'~7 :' "
1:, h :--." ,',' ) I :t, Ci1
r-.. :---.. ~-:-..:: I'll Ii; ~"
I.J ~ ""....::;: " I /' " ,
I. I.J -" S ::.:.' X ,",' "
'" I "" """. , ,
\ ! h ," 'II ',' ...:..~~, ,',r, ,,/,' I:)
11 Co "Ill I,',',' (fh~ r: III/I:',
v~..\ ~ , : ,,::. 'c.......,;1 G I fJ [1-1),;,:, ,
I, / Xi, ,. ";, ',", . ~ ~ h: "',' ,
-'. ~, '" . ~;\', , ,
.-l I.J ," ,,, " "i1i !.r:h-. '1', J...
- Q "',' II' I Ii t
::::==': Co '" III II' ~ r ,.~r ,.I.,,'
/1 ill::::. :', III II' f. ,Tj "
./ \ t:J ""', \....,., _ Ii. ~ I,ll'
'" '" lilli"~ hi~, (+ ',' y, ;(' '.
~ Q'" ':'j':", ",,,
" "f' ,'j, , ,:an.:: 'v:l\ ,
~ 0 ' VI/ ' ,I , I},/' ,
~ j :', ~::": I ~--rtr-"ri"-A .~:':I: N " 'I' ,',~,'~:::~,;,' ~.\
0--': ~: ~:'::: /' + ; (~ :::1:: ~~' ,:::,::"-:,,,:-,:,: :':' ,~, , ":<: id;:~~:~%'~-,'!
-~ \. ': III, lJ /~ ~"""~ ',',',,,',,,,,,, "I"~ ' III"~ , , , , ~ A:~", , r-.
. jlt' ~f :/': .~- - ~ , , , , '" , , I /"" L. " , '-'
1 :i: I I :1":', ~ ~ ~f/ I"ff~'ir ~'I" ,I, y.1 YJ ' ':1 "~III I,' , '" r<' %1, ,I :1:':1
! ! r~', "II,~, '~L.J.J 1:1(,' I,' I ,",' //1 ~ j.1 III, 'il,i,,} . 't,,' "IJ
; n I , 0'" ...., ,_, I' I'" V, II il 1m" "
J.; '~,'t-,'31 I I- ,I 'I ~'~I~ i 'I " ,I '~ .' 1,1 III, I
J J /1! ~K ~~:~ I I ~':: ,-i lA.'-~ ,:j::: ' ;~ l' : I ~ ~ ~ Ii I YI r1 :: ''"-I''~./ i '{ l,yl'I' :',
l.; i "-('~ :,~', >H) , : ' : I ': I ,:,' a i i~ ( ,'Il: : ' ! l 1 i~1 <;;;: : : ' :
f* : ;~ "'I \.t' ~ :\:.~ ~: I' ~~ >.0...-.. I: ,l11, "'~' J:'- ., ( 9~\ III 11"'1,',1
l i Y ~ ''-2 III I I I"" v ~h "I" ~ , ~ >l, < II I ~) ~ ,
I / I ~ :--,. :::. ~'~ I,',)'j \ , ' "IlJ.rf': ,I:::: : I ~, : ' , ' : I I' : ~: I , I ~ N ' ,~~ ~;:"': I : ,~,~ I : I : ' : ' : I : ' :' ':'::::::: :'
: ~, , I I , ~ I I ',I ......', 1 , , , , , , , , , 'l' I ',',I, V,,,
j 2'~ '\{, ",J:;..}~I~'I',I :If; ":f"/'" ,1111~,'7"I{~NI:II,,1 I, II, J'I 'I' "I I
_ ~ ~'() ~' ":",,,,~ \L___--\ ' II
-
'4l.
...
J
..
\D
q)
+>
(,)
~!
Lj::
"t::.
(,)~
~I
~.
~I
"t:~
q)...
~!
~l
iCi
t i l~ it
hIt f !il Ii
If nil ~ ~~ ~J
/! 1"21.3. bH ;11
il. ~!e) II fll -0 !
~d iu~ II * t!l l
Mh, r; IiI !U!
"Ut!~ II Jl~ ill I
6~ j!lt t~ lU Ill!
iu Ilt.3 ~i 11: kh J
..l ~Il !5 i~l.. i~i s;
lu !!i~ i! - i~ iji t
ni Inl ~; l-n i~! ~
ll1~1 ~fl hit
If p~ .i ~~. Iii I
II Jd'l~ )! III
I .31~! : 1 I Ii
em e as t b&
Q
z
w
\!)
W
-I
j
.1
I:
II
!~ ~i I Iii ~ ill
~I @t! II I~ ~ 5i ~51
~i ~ J" ~@!
~! ~ I fi I ~! ~~,
I~ I "./"t~', 0111
{..-> <
I-:J ~ '
~ ~, .J
n I -^-'
-r-
r-1-T-
I:;
, IJ
C~.j
)", , , , , , , , ,
, , , I , I I I , ,
'/ ~ :: :::::;::::::::::::::::::::
I I " I I I ' , ' , ' , I , ' I ' I ~ r ,
'I;l , 1'1 , , , , , ',I I
" ,~~ ,',' I ' , ' , ' , ' , 'I , ,
'-l" ~', I' , , , , ',',';\ ,
if") I'
,~( '> IT"'I'
1";-1"\'1 ~ I ' I ' , '
:: "~:':I .J; I:': I:
1,1\','jl~ :':':'
,~~ 'I
\'~';m~:I"I"IIII"""'1
""""~" 'I' I , I , I I
II, : '"/''jl''''' ,I:': ~: I : I : I : ' : '
I, , I , , , ~ ' , , , I
'I' I,'" ,r; , , " ' I ' , ' , ' , ' ,
,',',11', I' '1',',',',',',1,
~ ,'--. ,,,-~
'::: : :: 7/;" ~ + ! II!. II ~i /
, ' ," l..r ,
: ~ ~ft UY:I
': '"' ~ . .-: Y1' i : : I , (,
,_ .I ,',','
I ,I '. ~ ~"
,'iI Ii' I
, , ,
':', I"
, "
I I' , 1,Iji "I ,
, '" - , "
l=J tj
'i
'"
CIj'"
.q:;:QtO'
~~\O
-q:~~
~~K
Q'"
~=t~
l3~~
b1~<<l
~~~
::--,0.....:::::
~~~~
~ ~~~
~~
~ ~s~.
~
.q~tj
:iwL:l
v,""
"''''@;
~~Q)
}...Q.~
f--:J:'l)
....c,C>
C,f--I
~~~
E."".. ~
"'-.. ....._-::=
ti-....::';. :;',:::-~~~~
r::-~
c::.j
--;
r:3
r:='
[~:1
@
~.'.
c'
Cit
~
0#"
c::;:)
c::;:)
("o.J
Uj
....-4
.....J
~
~
"<\
i 1'6
~
rit!
t~lj
il~h
~en
1'613
~l.~l
~
..J
~
..J
o
~
~
Z
o
U
~
~
Z
o
~
~
Z
~
>
~
~
~I
S~
[I
'"'9 31, 2004 - 1D:04arn
R:\Dw,\Cochran.\Mtn Pin.. 2J77.0000.0\Clvn\Pl.OTS\Stlt_2 <11119 (L01OUt1 tob)
t;::~~:.:::::t.:. ~....~ ...
..... !O".. ..':. ~
o b': .:: .' ..::'::n
~:
0:'
....~:.
.::.~ "':~
~
+
o
o
.~
...:~
\)
v
. . .. :: .:' f: .
..f. ..
.. ::.:r.:
.. .... ..... ... ..... :':.:~: .j}: ....
'. :: ... ... Ill'" :1 / ... .:.
\~I
2~ V~: J+ 5
~: : . : . !t0~ Wc;E: 466. 7
..;: I!)/l
Ig. I
.. ;.~~/LS:85 .... ...
... fuG. 'if";""".;"; ..
.... ...'S1l ....
....~' ::r.vCS,:2 50:::::
. .. 0 ~ EVCE:: 45 :82' . .
.... : 'j;>. : ~..v.;..:" : ..
.. ...... '.. " .
:: ::..:: ..~: '-.0: ::. "IS .....
.........;~~ .... .../~/lIJ!.. ... ...... · ...
.. ~ .. ........::...:... o. x,..~.;<. ..~~'..
. . .. .... .....: '" ... /</ :. '.:.. ........~ 0 _. . . . .. ..
.... ....... ::. C 'Y':'.! ><~ ~~~i .. .....
.. .. \ . .. .. .. .. ::: ~::.. .. .
.. " \1 . ......... .... ..:::
i :11~k:' ... ::. ... ...
..~ .~. .........
.. ":::::'::::5:.::: 1:/::':': :8'i'CS:: J :5D: ........ ..
.. ...... <~ r /. 8l1CE; :4 7.87: : : : : : : : : . .... . .
I I .: :.:..:: ;~~~ ..
. : .. ..:. .; '::.;.:. ::. / ~~:. . ../::/;: I/A >: ...m "(
7 rt .:'.. ~.~~.~...
.t/.'.
":..:::: :.:.:..:.. ...U : ..:8VCS: 1-1.00::.' .......
': J i': ..' :8VCEC "43.75:'
..:.:: {y. ..~.
f:: ::: ~ 1. vcS: 0+75 ... . . : : . .
::;1:::' ';: E~El~75 ':. ...
'" JIll...
b
~
~
.. '" ... ..
'.
:. '.
:: ~~i:
lI~~
::8~g
. .........
-
I Uti ! I U j I I LC t I
~ ~ \\ \ \\ 0~. r'-r-- ~/-.'i~) III (I ~JHEP rnr 8 P. 2191':
P) ) U)jiPJ~ I~ ~ ( ((~~ ,: lr~~u5!
~.'" j" 1 I In... ] I" .
~ 1 ~ &" ~ ~ t ~ (~~
'1R II / 7WiJJIJ/;""~ UN - '{ (/.'~ ';/:~~' !
:j ~ ~ 7cP~ f . ~ . '111: yi "
... If ~/j '\ j -
~0 H 7 /J-Y'/" J 1 'N II~I\~ "rJ,!~
tf~" ;0 '/ / If 17/1}'I.. I I II ~ ~ II ~&~ .~-d ..
1 J ~ / .~~ .- ~~~ [/,k".;\,N .' ,I ,I; fi · "1 / "'.. r-
~ ~~ ~ j r;J'f~ i /nA:-.r Vj ~i ~( I .~~
g \~ I~ (1/1A ~li 'II') @~~
gf- "_ ",41 .1. rJ1 o,~ 1 J.. ,e /
- .r./ &> ~ I'll I'- f:. f'""'-- ~
I ~ 1 ;"'a ~/ II ~ I .0> r'~"~
t -., "'I)//1,~~~llff4J~ ~./Ib':::'~
. 'I ~/, /1;e~rr+"f-! f' 'I J!d
; S\ h /'J II I ( "~kt: gl IJ 1"1
_ ~I. ') All,+. '(~! \.. - to j
I; .~ ~ \. 7~ \\~"" tr'T~ . I)..... ~
o 'Iz \ ~~~~\ .w~~:: c qz_ '/
I~ '1~~i~ /;::....
I~ \ ~....~~~ ~ .)11
I~ rr=- 'f\\ }D\lI~ j 'II! ~ !
~L - -1"; I 8 L ,. .l' '-J, 'I (
~ p2 I ~ II ~j \ !t/ c ( ~ )Jt,& ~
~~ ~ I. ~~ ~ ~ h ;'$'&))) /
~ ~ ., J;:ta ~ ~ ~AV~/~ 4' UIB '~Th
.- .17"'" ~~l-;=i 1h0 rp.;:,....m:~.:d.;~"-'.~l ,,;.'
7'\fo4 DR ~ .... i~.' ::.... ~ . ~ . . ~... ../. ".~~~:;;'<;' . ~dI .1~ .
~IB' I 1111 1 L 1 1 t i ~ f l t'''"t1 1 1 fl to t.L ~ to 1: tlD"D4'36"E
f 'teJ~'r?t.zrl''l' "',?".#? "''''Fit II
'. - l-.J -l..- L. 1-1- -..J. -L .L.. -'--' -L.. '--'--
JPIT1""'1"w X-)f
I
~
c..a
6 ~.t~. .t
0"
h
-0)
.. ......... ... '"
:~
":p
..~
.. .0
..:. ..
" ....
. . . . . . . .
:.
I
<I
I
I
'l
:::.::. r
.....
YJV..
... 0/ 81:~4:t
r" .........
: : . ;.0 : : ... . . ..
. ti,: ~ ~ ~ ~:'.:' ...
: I~:':' ~;!::.
"':-oJ'I"..'.. .. ...
~~~ ~f:' ...
... ~O. ..
Ul'"
.:..:' .....
..... .:....
i
ill
......:: :::::
..... ..:::.
... ::.'::" ..
:.. ..
..::.::" ".::::.' ~
..::.. :.:::... .......:: 0
.. .... ..... 0
Q
.I.....
f. r"'
f. -
,. GF
c".
A VENUE
!::
'"
SOUTH
MOUNTAIN
~
:. ... ... '" .. " .
~ ~
o (]I
~
o
.. ......:. .:. .....:.
~ ('ft (n
(]I 0 (]I
; ;
o (]I
~ ~
o 01
it
o
0
l> ~
01;
~ III
~
e
-I(f) o. N
-<-I o.
-0;0 ...
)> 0
zOfTl 0
-i)>1'l 0 0 ,
IT1
0r-l ~ (/)
(/)
:t=a (f))> W IT1
t c: fTlO (/)
en ~ 3:
00 ~ ~ ;-l
~ CoO -I1'l \
-(f)
...,. O(f)
~ Z
C) ,
C)
l..,p..
\
~ &11~
:-Jzo~
o C.... III
Oi:l -1
o al
P!ti~
o
ANDY COCHRANE ASHLAND, OR.
MOUNTAIN PINES SUBDIVISION
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
JIB ~\.~~
~
1IESTI:CH BNllINllI!RINIl. INC. "... ~
CONSlJI.TlHC EllllNEERS AND PlAN<ERS
~
384' "..,.. ~ ~. SoL. s.,lt. 100, ~, Oft 97302 U'
""..., (503) .....241. .- (!lD3) ......311.. ?("I'tN A. '1~~
[-mo" ...lecifot-....tildl-...o.com caT. ~ ...
SCALI:
HORIZ: -
ItmT: -
USN. ~/'J[)
ORN.
CKO.
","-uA lE: ,II'\rf.. U4
1
NQ. OA l[
DESCRIPTION
RE'IISIONS
BY
-
~( I
l I I I 1/1-J I
.
- .
r- I
=
~
rF
l-
......
~
c
fg
C
:J !
~
~
I rJ :r.) J
R-I-7.5
I
,~
-
-
-
. .~
R-1-7 .51~ I \ a5
~/\ \ ~-----C5
~- I \ ~
~~p
IL /
I! (1)7 1 //
I L ~ J
f~~ /5/-1
! fcof
I i:iJ/
!I
7 /
I
I t
. I
r~J
I ~=1L/!
I
I
r---
;'
.:::)
, f
U
-7
r '. 7l; ''''''''II~
J 3500 I ~- . r r-C /
3600f 0.7 ' '\ I
0.64 r-------- Q)~ _ V
J 34OO::J ,-
I 0.41 C "---- I
Q)I ~ ~ \
L_ ~ "\ U \
- f ~~__' R-1.10 .1 _I \
) ~r---,,! H I
I Ujtt~j I It-={ L//
L Emm;:t ~eet I l
! I I 1 I' 1- I I ill
~~---~
\ ~----1
\ \ I
I , \ \ I
L~ L
r
RR-.5 ~ "-/r
..__L-------' ------....~ [~>----- (
~____ ~~J
/
/
D Tax Lots
o City Zoning
Exhibit 3
Zoning Map
N
~E
S
Mt. Pines Subdivision
Applicant: R & C Investments
January 5, 2003
100 0
~IT[5~U~j_:__~' -roJ
' LJ _J \.:> L"_~ u LJ
Craig A. stone & Associates, Ltd.
Medford, Oregon
~ r-2-
:J
SEt/4 NEi/4 SEr: 16 T.39S. R1E W.M.
JACI(g)N COUNTY
j"= 100
1ZI' WI'
5900
0.1& ~.
12'.'0'
~ C$I&24
; J1Q'
- U..tIl' 4100
5601 4400 I~LOI'
16 == , G.30 AC.
O.lt AC, oj G.IS All."'.... \
- Ita,'" I' ll,'"
Ii 04500 .1/.300
'Ii 0.17 ~!,OO' w
0.22 At, 1S,'
- 4800 4200
G.24 1&. - 0.24 All.
Ii - CSl.
'u.w uo'
WI/I 12."'
UD.." 51I",S, 171.". 2U.oo' 4800
167,02' G.38 AC.
1
1&. ~
!: ;
4J4lI 5- 1
112,17' 040'
151.10' IU'
4900
t.ot I.e.
II
~
1I0.U'
CS !Olll
lLA n~l!lIf'1
4901
0.27 N.J.
l\1no
Is]
~
20'1
I 101 217,1' (lll.WI 10 IfW
! I f.B AC.
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
[;:
<
I
I
I
I
I
J
)
I
~ I
-.JI
- I
I
EMMA $. 2115'
'" 71' II' Z 123'
.~ II' ,"'
2100 2000 1900 200 300 400
0.2& At, US M. UAC, :;, G.32 AC. Utl AC. tl.2Q At.
! -
=0 600 SOD -
~~ O.1lll AC. 0.05 ~
IU' II' 10'
1701 <J5' TO '/1 5S 700 jW-
1800 :: a.2& AC.
0.24 AC. 0.27 AC. I ::
~ CS 174G5 / 105' ~ 10' 10'
-
I il IVY Sf. "
r~ N1
I -
SEE MAP 3Il 1E 16M
&l "
115'
US' ~
2500----
0.21 A1!.
%JDO
0.41 At.
---
\ 7'
IW
2400
G.Z2 }t,
IU'
!l
70'
I
j~
1-
.1
~/
1700
UAC,
~
Assessor's Plat Map
39-1E-16AD
Source: Jackson County Department of Planning Services
No Scale
R & C Investments: Applicant
Mt.Pines Subdivision Application
.
January 9, 2004
STREE.T-
:,
- '-II
~I
I
I
CS 15317
CStl7lZ
12I.ff'
I
------- I~
----
I :
SEE MAP I
I
39 1E 16AD I I
I I
DET AIL MAP NO.1 I r
I I
I I
I I
I I
NORTH
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Medford, Oregon
CJ City Zoning Boundaries
D Tax Lots
City of Ashland Zoning
Residential - 10K lot
Residential- 7.!5K lot
Rural Residential - 1/2 acre
University District
11III Woodland Residential
_ Woodland Residential - 20 acre
Exhibit 3
Zoning Map
Mt. Pines Subdivision
Applicant: R & C Investments
N
W~E
5
June 29, 2004
100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet
~
Source Ja~!{~~~fP911
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Medford, Oregon
~<j'f
JUL 1 5 2004
Exhibit 5
N 5 Foot Contours
D Tax Lots
To~ographic Contour Map
Mt. Pines Subdivision
Applicant: R & C Investments
January 5, 2003
W~E
S
Craig A Slo & '
Medf d' ne AssOciates, Ltd,
or , Oregon
40
,
o 45~' r"i:!cf" V""~"
,'. ... _~ ['J: ~J".Qr."illfm~., e, .
, i ",. _.--~-,-I~l..L.U' 1 \
Source: Jackson q:;dtinty GIS S' '.. .....
'; , ervlCes
__ I;
~~S-
5 Foolt Contours
Exhibit # 6
Aerial Photograph
37 -1W-16AD-3400, 3500 & 3600
Applicant: R & C Investments
Date: JUly 14, 2004
.
W~E
S
Jackson County
D Subje1:;t Property
Tax Lc)ts
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd,
Medford, Oregon
Source: Jackson County GIS S9lVices
"-'(;tJpnn fir 1)
'~LLW..\L, ,i
i ~
-''1~LI
:.' ~;...~t,2 't- - l
~.'.i; I
.1J
~grb
. .41~2~_=~___~~____
01/09/2004 12:41 FAX 503 585 3988
(
WESTECH ENGINEERING
~OOl/002
i~
I
II If WES1'ECH I!N6INEERING, INC.
~ CONSULTINC ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
January 9, 2004
Mr. Craig Stone
Craig Stone & Associates
708 Cardley A venue
Medford, OR 97:504
RE: Mountain Pines Subdivision
J.0.2377.0000.0
Dear Craig,
Per your request, the following is a brief summary of the major design featw'es for the proposed
Mountain Pine Subdivision.
The driveway is proposed to access South Mo\Wtain Avenue at a 2.5% grade for the rust 40:"feet.
The driveway then transitions to a 6% grade for approximately 40-feet. Through a 180-foot
vertical curve the driveway then transitions to the maximum grade allowed by City code of 15%.
The driveway tenninates in a hammerhead turnaround approximately 320-feet from thc~
centerline of South Mountain Avenue. We have provided a transition grade from 15% 1to 5% in
the turnaround. Ibis provided a relatively flat area for cars and emergency vehicles to turn
around.
Included in the driveway design are two retaining walls to minimize grading and protect existing
trees. The maximum wall height is 3.5-feet on the north wall and 4-feet on the south wnll.
As is evident by the grading plan, the street grades in combination with the retaining walls
minimize lot grading. The maximum cut slope proposed is 3: 1, which is less than the City
standard of 2: 1. The maximwn proposed fiU slope is a 2: 1 slope. The City requirement for fill
slopes is 1 'h; 1. Th.erefore, the grades proposed on our grading plan meet City standards.
Outside the street area approximately 6500 SF is filled and 4500 SF is cut. We have not included
lot grading on our plans. We believe each lot wlll require a site-specific home plan with site-
specific grading to meet the City's maximum slope requirements (1 K 1 for cuts, 2: 1 for fills).
The site-specific design is likely to include features SlWh as tri-Ievel house design, daylighting,
and other features to minimize impacts and provide reasonable access to each new homl:. It is
our belief that City standards can be achieved on an individual lot basis depending on the
footprint of the house.
~rt?
(EXHIBIT 1-
P f:J0)fc{lD nrcp
3641 FHlrvlvw Inollslrlill I)r. ) E . Sui". 100. !\,ol"n,. dl\'Y,'I,.~L -",.
Phone: (503) 585.Z474 F~~: ($01) 585 :\f1RH I'
. JUL 1 5 2004 I!
!
i.i , "\-Tfb,T-
C:\Data\Coeht8lle\Desilln SummlllY Letter.doc
01/09/2004 12:42 FAX 503 585 3986
(
WE STECH ENGINEERING
January 91,2004
Mr. Craig Stone
Craig Stone & Associates
Page 2
III 002/002
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please contact us
at (503) 585-2474.
Sincerely,
jbd
rn'.I.i.,..n.1.! \.v
~. \ t,1 ; ,~
;' ~';i';
~~
JUL
~." ....-.
] 0 [)
o
o
I 0 0 -=-1
LJ
o
CD
t::J
oU
I I
IjCbIDI
lit
[J r
I I 1 ~
I I 011
/0\'0 C:b [I
ft0 0 1
t- <\)'
10 0 I ~
[L0 (ill I~
set L
, I I I II
iCJ /D 101
too II
I\~ I~Q IL
1\ ~
w~o
s
Exhibit 8
Aerial Manuscript Map
D Building Outlines
D Tax Lots
Mt. Pines Subdivision
Applicant: R & C Investments
January 5, 2003
~ f'1
100 0 S1~~'''~"in ~"f.~. t.
' . ~~. . "
~ r . <. . . " , , ' ,I", -,; ':
i ~U;-,I.\~tt_ ' ~~,Ll-.J.~";__'~. ; / -L,~;,. J,,' i
Source: JacksonlG;ounty GIS Services . . -! i I
I, "
iI !
iil
'/ :
,
,
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Medford, Oregon
EXHIBIT 1 J
{"-
I
,
( ,-1IBIHX3re I
TREE PROTECTION/REMOV AL PLAN NARRA TIVf,"\ST~
Prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc. ~ , .
For Mountain Pines Subdivision ·
June 30, 2004
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
. Eo-
~ John L. albraith ~
~~ OREGON f::
-~ 04/07/89 ~
ClPE A~C
Contrary to popular belief, the root systems of trees are not deep taproots in form. Instead most tree roots grow in the top
12 - 18" from the soil surface and are horizontally oriented, extending far beyond the tree's dripline or canopy. See tree
and root section drawing below. t
Ii):"'~~~~ .
A rule of thumb is that a healthy tree may tolerate removal of approximately one third of its roots, and "A healthy,
vigorous tree may withstand removal of up to 50 percent of its roots without dying.,,2 Ifroots IOn one side of a tree are ..
f. '''',,-1-. '"..~ . . '.-.... ~ r." ."'; ,"
n.. .'...'..r-r".t.. '-'7 ':',', .
n bl~l- H " ;
I Drawing used by permission of Dr. Gary Watson, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois. I i/'Uh . . ; ~
2 Matheny, N. & Clark, 1. 1998. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation G1r.... ~.;1es ~tJl'n. g fa~ 20 04 l~' l
Development. p. 72. I . ii ;;Jj
, i'
~ 1(') L! 1~5\:~:~?[~:TrlJ u.-j
Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Mountain Pines Subdivision Landscape Architeds&.SiteP-~annen.___nn'"
(
(
severed, it may become unstable and a hazard. Old and mature trees are less tolerant of construction impacts than
younger, more vigorous trees, and trees in a grove or forest stands are best retained in those groups.
Page 2
The species tolerances tor trees to be retained within the Mountain Pines Subdivision are as follows:
RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF SELECTED SPECIES TO DEVELOPMENT IMP ACTS3
RELATIVE
OOMMONNAME SCIENI1FICNAME TOLERANCE OOMMENfS
BigleafMaple Alcer macrophyllum Good Select specimens with good crown structure.
OR Tolerant of root pruning and injury, but not offill.
Poor Declines following addition of filL
Incense C~dar Calocedrus decurrens Moderate ---
Deodar Cedar Cedrus deodara Good Tolerant of root & crown pruning. Intolerant of
excessive soil moisture; leads to Armillaria and
Pytophthora.
Common Manzanita Arctostaphyllos Not rated ---
Madrone Arbutus menziesii Poor ---
Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa Good Tolerant of fill within drip line & root pruning.
Intolerant of poor drainage, over watering & high
soluble salts.
Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Good Tolerant of root loss. Intolerant of saturated soils
or changes in soil moisture. Response often site
dependent
Austrian Black Pine Pinus nigra Good Tolerant of some fill and root pruning/injury.
Oregon White Oak Quercus f(arryana Good ---
The size of the tree protection zone, the area protective fencing is shown on the Tree Protection Plan, is calculated by
species tolerance and tree age category which selects a distance factor from the trunk of the tree.
GUIDELINES FOR OPTIMAL TREE PRESERVATION ZONES4
DISfANCEFROMlRUNK
SPECIES lOLERANCE lREEAGE (Feetp:r itxh 1runk cIDr:nettY)
Good Young
(<20% life expectancy) .5'
Mature
(20%-80% life expectancy) 0.75'
Over mature
(>80% life expectancy) 1.0'
Moderate Young 0.75'
Mature 1.0'
Over mature 1.25'
Poor Young 1.0'
Mature 1.25'
Overmature 1.5'
Note: This document and the ideas incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional
service, is the property of Galbraith & Associates, Inc. and is not to be used, moctified~ or ..
changed in ~h.,ole or in part, for.any other pnrpose without the express written afiYlll.......... fltfiPJWn
John GalbraIth, Landscape ArchItect. ! U,D ~.,_,___"_,_.
I .
3 Ibid. Appendix B selections, p. 165 - 178.
4 Ibid., p. 74.
~
i.
JUL 1 5 2004
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mount~in Pines Subdivision j 1/ Landscape A;C~i~:~t~ -~ Site Planners
,c'-
t
TREE PROTJECTION SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 3
~ GENERAL:
See Tree Preservation notes on Protection Plan (hereinafter called 'Plan') for requirements affecting all retained trees.
See Plan for tree: numbers, locations, and Tree Protection Zone outlines, and Protective fencing areas for specific retention
trees.
The Landscape Architect shall be notified and shall conduct site reviews before and during any site development activity.
Site development activities include, but are not limited to:
· construction equipment arrival and set-up,
· demolition activities,
· excavation,
· root pruning,
· utilities installation,
· road construction,
· building,
· fencing,
· other construction,
· lot landscaping and construction after sales to individual owners
Buildable Areas are shown on the Plan. No excavation is permitted outside of buildable areas., Buildable areas are
distinct from actual building footprints which, in most cases, will be smaller than total buildable areas. In no case will
building footprints cover more than the 4,000 square foot maximum lot coverage.
~ SITE-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDA nONS FOR PROTECTED TREES (by lot number):
Buildable Area Considerations:
I. Standard yard requirements were used in every case:
Front yard: IS' yard, 20' for garages;
Side yards: - 6', except 10' when abutting a public road;
Rear yard: - la' plus la' for each story in excess of one story
2. Tree Protection considerations (general) are above. Specific adjustments to buildable areas, by lot number
follow.
# = Tree number on Plan
Lot 1:
Buildable area lines:
Front yard: along Prospect Street, standard 15' front yard with 20' standard setback for a front garage access.
Tree #51, 4" Apple tree, due to low vigor and its small size is recommended for removal, and therefore does not
influence the buildable area.
Side yards: East side abuts South Mountain A venue, a public street, so a la' setback is shown, as required
West side yard is the standard 6' setback adjacent to Lot 2
Rear yard: The 20' setback shown is larger than the standard 10' setback from the subdivision driveway, due to
pullout parking required for Lot 2 along the subdivision driveway. This is the same line as the required 20'
setback for the second story.
No other trees exist on this lot, and therefore there are no retained trees.
Lot 2:
Buildable area lines:
Front yard: The garage is set back 20' from the front lot line, as required. The buildable area line is for a first
story much further inside the standard setback, so as to stay outside of the Tree Protection zone of tree #32, a 28"
Pine. The basement cut limit line (finished floor elevation 436), and first story finish floor elevation of 446',
protects tree roots in the crucial top 24" of soil within the delineated tree protection zones.
Side yard~: East sid~ - buildable area is a minimum of5' west of the existing hOUS~. >r .1~tB~.fr\ f.~.~1.mf '\
lot, allowmg substantIally more than the 6' standard setback from Lot l. [ !',--,-,":'::',LLLcULLu
West side adjoins Lot 3, uses the standard 6' setback, with additional space, a notch!ihthe buildable area, so as
to avoid disturbance inside the tree protection zone for tree #25, a 14" Pine. ' JUl 1 5 2004
Mountain Pines Subdivision ~ 9 ~Landscape A~chi;J~r~:-~4~~~"
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
(-.
,
Page 4
Rear yard: maintains the standard 10' setback from Prospect Street, with the 20' required setback for a second
story.
#25 14" Pine
· Pier foundations to be used with grade beam above grade near tree. Use no spread footings or slab foundations
near tree. (See attached Pier Foundation illustration and note).
· Piers are to be oriented so as to avoid major roots.
· Hand excavate, bridging roots where possible.
· See root prunirlg note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no e:quipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
#32 28" Pine
· Location of protective fencing as shown on plan deviates from City of Ashland Ordinance 18.61.200B(2).
Protective fencing on the plan is located 2' from the front of first story building line and 2' from the driveway
retaining wall. Both fence segments are outside the tree canopy but inside the Tree Protection Zone.
· The front of this building is above existing grade within the Tree Protection Zone, and the rear basement of the
building is outside the Tree Protection Zone to minimize root loss.
· The driveway fill area inside the Tree Protection Zone shall have root ventilation installed. (See attached Root
Ventilation System detail).
· Pier foundations to be used with grade beam above grade near tree. No spread footings or slab foundations near
tree. (See attached Pier Foundation illustration and note).
· Piers are to be oriented so as to avoid major roots.
· Hand excavate, bridging roots where possible.
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
#52 36" Pine
· Driveway, including driveway base, are to be elevated above the existing grades. The base of a keystone-type
retaining wall system will have a 6" maximum excavation into the existing grade and structural soil is to be used
as required for embedding the wall, allowing air to reach the roots. Install root ventilation in the driveway area.
(See attached Root Ventilation System detail). .
The existing garage, located within the protection zone for this tree, is to be removed (since it will not be
accessible when Lot 1 is built on). In order to gain access to the garage during its demolition and removal, the
protective fencing for tree #52 will be temporarily located inside the Tree Protection Zone, 3" from the south and
west garage walls. Care will be required during the garage removal so as to impact tree roots to the least extent
possible. Following garage removal the tree protection fencing is to be moved out to the full Tree Protection
zone noted on the plan.
Lot 3:
Buildable area lines:
Front yard: The buildable area steps back on the west end to maintain the tree protection zones of trees to be
retained. Front access garage is standard 20' setback.
Side yards: east side is the standard 6' next to Lot 2.
West side buildable area is 10' from the property line (4' more than the required ordinary side setback) to
maintain clearance along the sanitary sewer easement.
Rear yard: on Prospect Street: Some tree removal will be required to allow for any building whatsoever on this
lot, since the lot is forested. The trees to remain are concentrated in a grove in the rear yard, with building at a
higher elevation and outside of the tree protection zone, thus with minimal effects to tree roots.
#1 - 12"; # 2 - 10"; #3 - 12"; #4 - 4"; # 5 - 10"; # 7 - 8"; # 8 - 12"; # 13 - 10"; #18 - 10" Pines
· Do not disturb, per Tree Preservation notes on Plan
#10 - 8'" # 11 - 14'" # 14 - 14'" # 19 - 12'" # 21 - 6" Pines and #16 - 12" Cedar , ",
. · 'Pier found~tions to be ~sed with g:ade beam above grade near tree. No spread foot~[;f1k~~!fl:a-lipH~]a~"~\:
tree. (See attached Pier Foundation illustration and note). t ; Ii --.",.1..-'-_ _. - L.... .
· Piers are to be oriented so as to avoid major roots where possible. f ~;; JU11_ 1 5 200"
· Hand excavate, bridging roots where possible. ~ i U i
t Lq
U UI3T,,::7L5U-'crt:5 "
Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Mountain Pines Subdivision e:2.'1.3 Landscape Arcliilects1rSite1'1~i'i/'l'~~--u--
c~
Page 5
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
#33 - 12"; # 34 .. 12"; # 35 - 12"; # 36 - 18" Pines
· Do not disturb, per Tree Preservation notes on Plan.
#63 - 18" Oak
· This tre'e is offsite. Do not disturb; protect root zone per Tree Preservation notes on Plan.
· The buildable area of Lot 3 has no impact to this tree or its Tree Protection zone.
Lot 4:
Buildaillle area lines:
Front yard: is on the subdivision driveway with the standard 15' setback, with a 20' front garage access
setback.
Side yards: North side buildable area is inside the standard setback to maintain tree protection zones around
existing trees
South side yard adjoins Lot 5 and the buildable area is at the standard 6' side setback line.
Rear yard: 10' setback is along the sanitary sewer easement, and the second story setback line shows an
additional 10' setback; as required.
#37 - 12"; # 38 .. 12"; # 40 - 12"; # 41 - 12" Pines; #39 - 6" Mountain Mahogany
· Do not fill over tree roots, or disturb; per Tree Preservation notes on Plan
#64 -10" Austrian Black Pine
· This tree is offsite. Do not disturb; protect root zone per Tree Preservation notes on Plan.
· The buildable area of Lot 4 has no impact to this tree or its Tree Protection zone.
#65 - 17" Deodar Cedar
· This tree is offsite. Do not disturb; protect root zone per Tree Preservation notes on Plan.
· The buildable area of Lot 3 has no impact to this tree or its Tree Protection zone.
Lot 5:
Buildaillle area lines:
Front yard: 15' standard front yard is on the end of the subdivision driveway, and on the west end of the front
yard, abutting Lot 4, the buildable area line is 16' from the property line, based on solar setback calculations for
10' high eave, =< 5/12 roof pitch and the -20% slope of this area. Ifa 20' eave height were planned, the solar
setback would be 51' .
Side yards: east side 6' standard setback adjoins Lot 6
West side buildable area is 10' from the property line (4' more than the required ordinary side setback) to
maintain clearance along the sanitary sewer easement.
Rear yard: buildable area is adjusted to inside standard setback lines to maintain the tree protection zone around
existing trees.
#48 - 16" Bigle~lf Maple
· Location of protective fencing as shown on plan deviates from City of Ashland Ordinance 18.61.200 B (2).
Protective fencing shown is located 9' from the tree trunk. This area was calculated using "Guidelines for
Optimal Tree Preservation Zones", page 2 of this report. .
· BigleafMaples are most sensitive toli!! over roots. In this location, a cut will be necessary for construction.
Any depth of cut below the maximum rooting depth of 2 - 3' will not affect the tree, see root growth information
above. The foundation retaining wall of the Buildable Area shown does not intrude into the 11'-4" diameter
Tree Protection Zone for this tree. No cutting is permitted outside of the Buildable Area, protecting the critical
rooting area. Upslope roots, which provide the majority of anchoring for stability for this tree, are outside of the
Buildable (disturbed) area.
· P~er foundations ~o be used with gr~de b~am above grade instead of slab foundatif~]n~1{tfr)rf]illrl '\ n rr:
· Piers are to be onented so as to aVOid major roots. i ) (,"";-"."-""'__ . .,}1-!..L .
· Hand excavate, bridging roots where possible. ' 'i
JUL 1 5 2004
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision j9'f LandscapeArchit~~'~~d~'~JA:~~~:_
(~-
Page 6
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
#49 - 16" Pine
· Location of protective fencing as shown on plan deviates from City of Ashland Ordinance U:.61.200 B (2).
Protective fenciing shown is located 10' from the tree trunk. This area was calculated using "Guidelines for
Optimal Tree Preservation Zones", page 2 of this report. Tree Protection Zone will not be impacted.
· Pier foundations to be used with grade beam above grade instead of slab foundations near tree.
· Piers are to be oriented so as to avoid major roots.
· Hand excavate, bridging roots where possible.
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
#50 -14" BigleafMaple
· Do not disturb, per Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Tree Preservation Zone will not be impacted.
#60 - 30" Pine
· This tree is located off site; however its tree protection zone extends into both Lot 5 and Lot 6. Do not disturb,
per Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Tree Protection Zone will not be impacted.
#62 - 20" Pine
· Pier foundations to be used with grade beam above grade instead of slab foundations near tree.
· Piers are to be oriented so as to avoid major roots.
· Hand excavate, bridging roots where possible.
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
Lot 6:
Buildable area lines:
Front yard: on the north side of the lot along the subdivision driveway has the standard 15' setback. This
I allows for retaining two trees in the front yard; see the provisions under each tree below.
Side yards: We:st side buildable area is the standard 6' back from the subdivision driveway, maintaining this
same setback from the driveway turn and the hammerhead end.
East side yard, adjoining Lot 7 is at the standard 6' side setback line.
Rear yard: buildable area uses the standard 10' setback, with a second story setback of an additional 10', as
required.
#53 - 6" Deodar Cedar
· This species has good tolerance of disturbance, and is a young, non-native tree. The Tree Preservation Zone of
this young tree :is not to be disturbed, per Tree Preservation notes on Plan.
#54 - 10" Scotch Pine
· This species has good tolerance of root loss. The Tree Protection Zone will not be impacted.
· Pier foundations to be used with grade beam above grade near tree. No spread footings or slab foundations near
tree. (See attached Pier Foundation illustration and note).
· Piers are to be oriented so as to avoid major roots.
· Hand excavate, bridging roots where possible.
· See root pruning note in Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist shall be
present during root pruning. Where roots must be removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock
saw). Use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such as backhoe or trencher.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
!JC5\31::'~jo-1TI::~ ,
Mountain Pines Subdivision :2.9.6:' Landscape Archit;ct;&'s~;Pi;;;;r;------f
#60 - 30" Pine
· This tree is located off site; however its tree protection zone extends into both Lot 5
· The buildable area of Lot 6 has no impact to this tree or its Tree Protection zone.
ie,
( .
Page 7
#61 - 12" Pine
. Do not disturb per tree preservation notes on plan.
· The buildable area of Lot 6 has no impact to this tree or its Tree Protection zone.
Lot 7:
Buildable area is not designated, as the existing residence is to remain with no building to occur on this lot.
#58 30" Pine
· Do not disturb, per Tree Preservation notes on Plan. Tree Preservation Zone will not be impacted.
#59 30" Pine
· Location of protective fencing as shown on plan deviates from City of Ashland Ordinance 18.61.200 B (2).
Protective fencing shown is located at the south edge of the subdivision access driveway due to necessities of
roadway construction.
· Grading for the proposed subdivision driveway and base within the Tree Protection Zone is minimized to the
extent possible, while complying with Ashland driveway ordinances. A small part of the northeast section of the
Tree Protection zone is affected by a cut for roadway and roadway base construction.
· Within the area of cut, root pruning guidelines shall be followed to minimize root damage. Where roots must be
removed, cut cleanly with appropriate equipment (e.g., rock saw). Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist
shall b(~ present during root pruning. Prior to root pruning, use no equipment that pulls and shatters roots, such
as backhoe or trencher.
· A part of the northwest section of the Tree Protection zone will be in fill. Root ventillation will be installed, per
plan, to allow continued root access to oxygen. (See attached Root Ventilation System detail).
TREE REMOVAL CONSIDERATIONS: (by Lots and tree # on Plan)
We have carefully examined the potential for impacts that might result from the removal of trees as contemplated in this
project, and it is our opinion that the removal of these trees will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
We have also examined how the removal of these trees will affect other existing trees to be preserved and it is our opinion
that the removal of these trees will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes canopies, and species
diversity within 200 feet of the subject property because:
Lot 1:
Tree #51 - 4" Apple
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the small (10')
canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy. This is a non-native
planting.
Lot 2:
Tree #29 - 8" Madrone
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undevelo?eclla~,~cp'!J~ fW'''''',
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will iWpfb\td tlre~ .
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the small (6;) .,-' ..-..'
canopy ofthis tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy. . ,! JUl 1 5 2004
, I'll
r .1IT::~r\.~.1 c,iT-'C'T'-~1.-L.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Mountain Pines Subdivision cAlf(, Landscape Architects'& Site Planners'"" CJ ~ .
.~.~~~~~=~-~=~~~~~~~--~-
{~"
,
{
Page 8
Tree # 30 - 8" Apple
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undevelope~d land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the small (IO')
canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Tree/shrub #31 - 10" Mountain Mahogany
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree/shrub is on the edge of the buildable area, and may be
covered by the building, and the above factors will not apply beneath the building. Small surface water flows
will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This shrub is low-growing and diminutive. It does not
protect adjacent larger trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall treE'
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the very small
canopy of this tree/shrub will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Lot 3:
Tree #4 - 4" Pine
o Erosion and flow of surface water will not be increased because the tree is adjacent to a grove and the
surrounding trees will help control erosion and protect the soil from the flow of surface waters
o Soil stability is not affected because the root development of the surrounding trees will help to stabilize the
soil.
o Neighboring trees are not protected by this tree, it is spindly and has been reduced in size due to competition
from other trees.
o This narrow tree does not comprise a windbreak for other trees.
o The tree has stunted development and size and tree density, sizes and canopies will not be affected by its
removal.
o Species diversity will not be affected because its species is well represented in the surrounding trees.
Tree #9 - 6" Pine
o Erosion and flow of surface water will not be increased because the tree is part of a grove and the
surrounding trees will help control erosion and protect the soil from the flow of surface wat'ers.
o Soil stability is not affected because the root development of the surrounding trees will help to stabilize the
soil.
o Neighboring trees are not protected by this tree due to its spindly growth.
o This narrow tree does not comprise a windbreak for other trees.
o The tree has stunted development and size and Tree density, sizes and canopies will not be affected by its
removal.
o Species dive:rsity will not be affected because its species is well represented in the surrounding trees
Tree #12 - Manzanita
o Erosion and flow of surface water is not a factor because the surrounding remaining vegetation will prevent
erosion and protect from the flow of surface waters.
Soil stability is not affected because the root development of the surrounding vegetation will help to
stabilize the soil.
This small tree/shrub does not comprise a windbreak for other trees.
The manzanita is small and its removal will not have a significant impact o~",e", F~, ~" 'ry,Y,'~, j,ize,S, ,a" n, d canop,\es.
Species diversity will not be affected because its species is well represente9 "J~[~~l'Ah~~ area. : \ I
I ~I JUL 1 5 2004\ I
[,'I, 1",1, ',,-T-~r'---'~U J
L" J1..-.:1V"i -,I "'!j
Mountain Pines Subdivision ';;'11 Landscape Architects & "Site Planners - ~
o
o
o
o
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
(-
Page 9
Tree #15 - 6" Pine
o Erosion and flow of surface water will not be increased because the tree is part of a grove and the
surrounding trees will help control erosion and protect the soil from the flow of surface waters
o Soil stability is not affected because the root development of the surrounding trees will help stabilize the
soil.
o Ne:ighboring trees are not protected by this tree; it is weak, with poor branch structure.
o This narrow and poorly developed tree does not comprise a windbreak for other trees.
o The tree has poor branch structure and small size and tree density, sizes and canopies will not be negatively
affected by its removal.
o Species diversity will not be affected because its species is well represented in the surrounding trees.
Tree #17 - 6" Mountain Mahogany
o Erosion and flow of surface water is not a factor because the surrounding remaining vegetation will prevent
erosion and protect from the flow of surface waters.
o Soil stability is not affected because the root development of the surrounding vegetation will help to
stabilize soil.
o This small tree does not comprise a windbreak for other trees.
o This tree is small, it contains several important dead branches and presents a high fIre danger, and its
removal will not have a signifIcant negative impact on tree density, sizes and canopies.
o Species diversity will not be affected because its species is well represented in the surrounding area.
Tree #20 - 6" Pine
o Erosion and flow of surface water is not a factor. It is poorly formed and competing with other trees. The
surrounding trees will provide erosion control and protect the soil from the flow of surface waters.
o Soil stability is not affected because the root development of the surrounding trees will help to stabilize soil.
o Neighboring trees are not protected by this tree.
o This narrow tree does not comprise a windbreak for other trees. .
o The tree has stunted development and its removal will not have a signifIcant negative affect on the tree
density, sizes and canopies.
o Species diversity will not be affected because its species is well represented in the surrounding trees.
Tree #22 - 14" Pine
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these
will not be factors under the building. Surface waters will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: It is part of a group of trees that are located inside the
building envelope and removal of the tree does not provide a signifIcant negative impact on existing
windbreaks.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of the subject property:
In general, the overall tree density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to
undeveloped land. However, future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on
individual lots will improve tree density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject
property. Loss of this tree will not present a signifIcant negative impact on the overall tree canopy, sizes or
species diversity.
Tree #24 - 14" Pine
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these
will not be factors under the building. Surface waters will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This tree shows some insect damage to branches. It is
part of a group of trees that are located inside the building envelope and removal of the tree does not provide a
significant negative impact on existing windbreaks.
o Tn~e densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of the subject property:
In general, the overall tree density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to
undeveloped land. However, future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on
individual lots will improve tree density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject
propelty. Loss of this tree will not present a signifIcant negative impact on the overall tree canopy, sizes or
species diversity.. r,;. r!.:0f?... .'(il). f? nn.'. pM
,I r:.II. .~ U:.J=lIJ \f f '
n~U..l 1 .r.;;'}P.I".fi I"
.", ',,, ..ok, ..\ow -t, ~~:t
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
j-t i' -- .--~ .
Mountain Pines Subdivision ~1? Landscape Alcll~~~i~i~j~~~~?~:rs
(
{-
I
Trees #23 - 6" Pine; #26 - 18" Pine; #27 - 14" Pine; #28 - 8" Pine
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This group of trees is located within the building area. These
issues will not be factors under the building, as the surface waters will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: The removal of this group of trees, located inside the
building envelope does not provide a significant negative impact on existing windbreaks considering the tree
locations on the overall site.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of the subject property:
In general, th,e overall tree density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to
undeveloped land. However, future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on
individual lots will improve tree density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject
property. Loss of this group of trees tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree
canopy, sizes or species diversity.
Page 10
Lot 4:
Tree/shrub #42 - 4" M:ahogany
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This is a tree/shrub under 6" dbh. This tree/shrub is on the edge
of the building envelope, and may be covered by the building, and the above factors will not apply beneath the
building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This shrub is low-growing at the edge of a grove of
manzanita and Mahogany. The majority of this grove will be removed, as it is inside the building envelope. It is
not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undevelope:d land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the very small
canopy of this tree/shrub will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Tree #44 - 20" Madrone
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: The slope in this area is gentle, and the tree is not located in a
swale or drainage confluence. Erosion will not be a significant consideration in removal of this tree, since
surrounding groundcover and off-site vegetation wiII not be disturbed.
o Protection of acUacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the 20' canopy of
this tree wiII not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy. This tree is located near the
property line between Lots 4 and 5. Although the tree's drip line does not fall within the building envelopes of
these two lots, native Madrone trees have a poor tolerance to development impacts [see page I, Table I of the
Tree Protection section of this narrative]. The necessary tree protection zone of20' from trunk on all sides to
preserve this tree would significantly reduce building envelopes on the two lots. In addition, cultural
requirements of the Madrone include no summer irrigation. Property owners are likely to disregard this
requirement, resulting in the slow but certain demise of the tree.
Lot 5 and ad;acent driveway:
Tree #45 - 10" Cherry
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location is in a driveway area that provides required
acces!? to lots. Soil stability and flow of surface waters are provided for in engineering plans.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. This tree is an overmature
specimen with a short life expectancy, as indicated by dieback of major scaffold branch~ p~~~hlJlllll
(12') canopy of this tree wiII not present a significant negative impact on the overall treecarl.<fp1.nJI r! f'
. ",..I
r"1 'I c:; '".
'. .'~ J. v
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision ~ 9'1 Landscape Architects & Site pianners
.(
\
;.<-
t
Page 11
Tree # 46 - 14" Madrone
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree dtmsities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the small (12')
canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Tree #47 - 24" Pine
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This specimen tree is not a part of a grove, and is separated
from adjacent trees. It does not provide a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Canopy coverage of this tree
(25') is significant, and the tree protection zone required to effectively preserve this tree would preclude any
building development on this lot. Species diversity will not be negatively impacted as many specimens of this
tree species are protected elsewhere on site.
Lot 6 and adiacent drivewav:
Tree #43 - 10" Fruit
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location is on the edge of the driveway that provides
required access to lots. Soil stability and flow of surface waters are provided for in engineering plans.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on nearby property. This tree is a poor specimen with
a short life expectancy, as indicated by suckering, and a dieback of a major scaffold branch. Loss of the small
(10') canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Tree #55 - 8" Sycamore
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss ofthe small (l0')
canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy. This is a non-native
planting.
Tree #56 - 10" Apple
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undeveloped land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on indivi~ fir ~IWmPIQve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. This is a tfdnen1it~e tree witb.rl\ij,
JUL 1 5 2004 :1/1
Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Mountain Pines Subdivision ~ Landscape Architects & Site Planners II '
C~~7!"'
c
Page 12
poor structure lmd shape with extremely limited viability and life expectancy. Loss of its small (12') canopy
does not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy.
Tree #57 - 8" Magnolia
o Erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters: This tree location will be covered by the building, and these will
not be factors under the building. Small surface water flows will be directed around the building.
o Protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks: This is a solitary tree and does not provide protection for
adjacent trees. It is not part of a windbreak.
o Tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200' of subject property: In general, the overall tree
density is somewhat diminished by a residential development, when compared to undevelopt:d land. However,
future additional trees when they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree
density and species diversity in more appropriate locations on the subject property. Loss of the small (10')
canopy of this tree will not present a significant negative impact on the overall tree canopy. This is a non-native
planting.
Note: This document and the ideas incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional
service, is the property of Galbraith & Associates, Inc. and is not to be used, modified, or
changed in whole or in part, for any other purpose without the express written authorization
of John Galbraith, Landscape Architect.
, ,'," crJr'illll" H -
; .; L" "icJ", il' f,
~ ',-,:.i:...-_. _ j.il.. _ II . _"..
U~
JUL 1 5 200!1
",V-'j k;lU-uL
_~. J l-l
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
Mountain Pines Subdivision -3~ (
.~~.~---------~---.
Landscape Xrchitects & Site Planners
M
-
CI)
~
0...
------
Z
\f)
WW
I-IL
<{-
OCIL
\!lD
z~
Cl<{
I=oc
<{Cl
--1LL
-OC
'z ILl
WIL
>LL
zCl
Cl\f)
r.>'D
1-7
\f)W
<{Cl
\)1-
~
<{
.s::'
D
<{
Cl
OC
D
W
>
<{
Q~
~.-L
s::
lU
>
.~
WW
\!lWOC
ZOCIL
I=I-W
\f)WllJ
X:Z;O
WILl-
z
<(
~
D-
W
IL
IL \!ltlj
D f- :Z;oc
z
W WLlJ >1-
W '" I- IOC <{I W
I- <{ ww wILO IL
<{ \f)oc >:r:
OC DO <{.s:: IL:r:OC Q~
-I-LL
\.<) ZLL ILw IL<{ .s::
Woc \f) DW). 0
z I-W W--1
0 <(IL I-W wz<{ --1
w\f) I-w.s:: lU
f~~ w--1 OC\) <{llJ<{ llJ
<( II ::t: OCD).-
--1 \)w "-D
f~ iLD zIL OW--1 \)w
z<{ o ,n lL --1--1 OllJ
Z \) , OC--1<{ OCo
W OOC
> \)\!l w<{- \f)[1J
I=~ IL f-- D
-oc ~ \f).q =>:T
z .q I- \.<)
0 ~I- --1z m:Z;oi ~=S
OC I-Z 'fw II
z - Q. lY c X
I- wO ::J:<{
\f) > Q \f)w
.q . 9 <(IL mI
\) mI L I
,0
l-
s:: z
III
>
Z
()
3o~
@=__=::~:-d'_,!
[-LJ
,
""''''''''''\
C::,
CIl
'-
Q)
(::
c
ro
0::
2
i:i5
~
CIl
t5
2
E
l::?
<(
Q)
e..
ro
()
CIl
"0
C
ro
--.J
(::
o
'en
'S;
'6
.0
::l
(f)
CIl
Q)
c
0:::
c
'(ii
C
:J
o
~
<.5
(::
CIl
Q)
rn
'0
o
CIl
1Il
<(
oI:S
~
'(ii
'-
.0
"'Cii
<.9
'<t
-
Q)
~
,:!..
., )-
W...J
It I-
F<(
0w
~It
It\!)
I-
\S)\S)
w~
IIt
1-<[
()>
I-()
~, \S)
1t...J
()<(
&\!)
~z
\S)i=
llJ ()
D()
_LL
> U~
()I
It I-
ll. 1_
)-0
W~
I[)"
1-1-
\S)
~z
()()
I0
:.z:()
D:'I-
wD
IJ, W
~.:: D
Olli
\S)Z
2:z
W()
1--
\S)I-
)-<(
\S)>
\S)<(
z0
()X
-w
~.
<[w
O~
WZ
I-~O
()()z
zLL<[
2:
<(
W
[]J
W
o
<(
It
\!)
I
I-
~
\S)
Z
()
I-
<(
o
Z
~
()
IJ.
[)"
UJ
ll.
I
I-
~
o
W
D:'
~
(J
W
D:'on
\S) .
_W
zO
()<(
_D:'
I-I!)
<(
>W
<(>
0()
X[]J
W<(
2:0
~w
2:0
z<(
----1
2:ll.
m
on
11
f-
7
UJ
l:
11
o
-'
UJ
>
UJ
D
D
7
<{
-'
"'
7
~
D
'"
UJ
UJ
It
f-
"-
o
7
o
i=
~
It
UJ
'"
UJ
It
11
o
f-
UJ
D
~
-'
<{
o
Z
I
o
UJ
f-
<{
f-
7
UJ
I
11
o
--'
UJ
>
UJ
D
D
7
<{
'"
UJ
UJ
It
f-
'"
"
<l:
-j
li'
It
<{
--'
o
7
'-
7
UJ
I
,-
of
I
on
{--
(
..J
W
>
W
.J
I!)D
:;:Z
\-- ::J
0) C)
Xlt
wI!)
L
<(
w
ill
w
D
<(
It
I!)
llJ
I-
W
It
\.)
z
C)
\.)
z
C)
f=
\.)
It
LL
W
ill
> II
<( w
" \---
.L (I'.
If) C)
It IL
w lL
- ::J
lL If)
B" 3
"'
7
D
.J
5
IDIt
~~
,,-
f-",
07
ofUJ
Z
"of
-',-
iSID
",D
UJUJ
",7
0'"
11'"
ItUJ
"Cl
11
UJ
UJID
~2
4:
ItUJ
f-It
g-;1:
-''''
::;~ \!)
It"
Of-
"-8
. "-
*
Z
()
f-
<f
Ii
I-
\f)
~
..J
..J
z
()
I-
<(
D
z
~
()
lL
(}f'
I1J
0..
C-'^
- J
;~ :"-).
_. ___~ I
I
I
I
I
i
I J
I
I
1
I
J
J
'J
I
,
I
.......
-J
=>
--,
~~"'4""~:~; ~
,
~
<D
C
C
CO
0::
.$
U5
~
U
.$
:.c
u
~
<D
e..
CO
U
fJ)
'0
C
CO
...J
c
o
'en
.:;
'6
.0
::J
(j)
fJ)
<D
C
u:
C
~
C
::J
o
:2
ti
c
u)
<D
1il
'0
o
fJ)
fJ)
<t:
~
:5
'm
L..
.0
rn
(9
(...'
'1
LIMITED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
AUTHORIZATION TO ACT on behalf of the owner of real property described as Tax Lots
3400,3500 and 3600 on Jackson County Assessor map 39-1E-16AD.
LET IT BE KNOWN that Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. (Stone) is the duly authorized
representative of R & C Investments, the owners of record of the above described real property,
and, by this instrument, do hereby authorize Stone to perform in our names aU acts procedurally
required to obtain approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Conditional Use Permit for an
Accessory Residential Unit, Exception to Street Standards and a Variance to the Parking
Standards consistent with the City of Ashland, for the above described real property.
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY shall be used ~or only the limited
and special purposes above described and shall not be used to buy, sell or convey any part or any
interest whatsoever in this or any other land owned by the above property owner.
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by
the undersigned property owner and shall expire on January 9, 2004, but may be extended by the
mutual consent of the parties.
Done and dated this 13th day of July, 2004 .
~~
-
Bruce Roberts, Partner
R & C Investments
jo'f
G\
I!!'
I r
I
I
JUl 1 5 2004
i
i
j'
.u4"-V
11'-----"" r'"-',,~
,,- "'-L-_~_.....>-.iO"-'''~'_~.~___''''''_
(/
Comments Received
Regarding Two Previous Applications
d#5"
[M~~fJ~fl~rris. - [FYld:S,~'y~)he:pr.Q~p~.q[fiii~~I,
." ..... .. .... . . . "(
".- _..'''''''''.'''',^...:...~,.,,,,:,, . n,'N,".
'",',';".'/,"~"
/'
..
,.....'.1
"-'_'..~;",,'J ;-,'
',...,:',..
I. "::,..,'J)~9~TI
From: Bryan and Nancy Holley <holley@opendoor.com>
To: Robbin Pearce <robbin@ashland.or.us>, Bryan Nelson <bnelson@jeffnet.org>, Rich
Whitall <whitall@mind.net>, January Jennings <omgarden@aol.com>, Laurie Sager
<Itsager@earthlink.net>, Kate Jackson <katejackson@opendoor.com>, Jonathan Uto
<utoj8974@students.sou.edu>, Ted Loftus <Iofland@mind.net>
Date: 2/24/03 3:52PM
Subject: [Fwd: Save the Prospect Trees]
Dear Tree Commissioners:
I am forwarding the below e-mail from Randall Hopins to you at his request and because an
earlier e-mail "from him prompted me to make a site visit. If you do, you will find that it is
difficult to see the whole property without trespassing onto it. FYI. Robbin, is this PA in the
pre-app stage? Are copies available now?
Best,
Bryan Holley
mailto: holley@opendoor.com
mencken wrote:
> hello friend
>
> well, the chainsaw developers seem to be gearing up again.
>
> If you recall, I recently sent you some pics of a large stand of
> evergreens Ilocated near the corner of S. Mountain Ave and Prospect St.
> The area is now the subject of a proposed five lot (six houses)
> development, residing before the Planning Commission as file no.
> 2003-019. It was scheduled for hearing on March 11, but I was told
> today that the hearing has been postponed because the application was
> not completE~.
>
> As feared, this development will take out essentially all the trees (51
> trees are identified on the applicant's plan).
>
> To add insult to injury, they are proposing to name the subdivision
> MOUNTAIN PINES! Looks to me like Mountain Pinestumps would be more
> appropriate.
>
> I note that the lot where most of the trees are located in a 27,000 sq
> foot lot with a 10000 sq ft minimum lot size. Since most of the trees
> are located in the northwest corner of this lot, these trees could be
> saved and still allow for two lots meeting the minimum lot size. The
> applicant wants to shoe horn three lots onto this lot, thus the need to
> mow down the trees.
>
> Will keep you advised. Please pass this info onto the rest of the Tree
> Commission.
>
> Randall Hopkins
36'
..pe;~sev:rson_.:~Planriiii.s~~tiorl. 200'1E~__. -
1 I
~ "- -~-~~~-------_..._-_._--===~"_.=... '''1]
-~- lr.'. .~-. -~
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
mencken <mencken@internetcds.com>
<yeatss@ashland.or.us>, <seversod@ashland.or.us>
2/16/04 2:04:25 PM
Planning Action 2004-015
Hello,
I have sent the attached email to the Planning Commission and City
Council. I'd appreciate it if you would print it out and place it in
the public file on this matter.
Also, I did not have email addresses for Planning Commissioners Marilyn
Briggs, Mike Morris and Colin Swales. I'd also appreciate it if you
would forward this on to them, or let me know how I can forward it
myself.
Thank you very much"
Randall Hopkins
From: mencken <mencken@internetcds.com>
Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1 :18:55 PM US/Pacific
To: rkc@ashlandhome.net
Cc: TheDotts@mind.net, golden-fields@charter.net,
coverageguy@hotmaiil.com, kerrykai@mind.net, ray@ogdenkistfer.com
Subject: Re: PA 2004-.015
To the Ashland Planning Commission:
I am writing you in connection with Planning Action 2004-105, a
proposed 7 lot hillside subdivision at the corner of S. Mountain Ave
and Prospect St. The Application on this matter was filed on January 9,
2004 by Consulting Urban Planner Craig Stone on behalf of an entity
called Rand C Investments.
I believe that the Application contains false information and fails to
state material facts in order to obtain Application approval, including
a variance to city street standards. Because the variance would impact
publiC safety, as well as the property value and rights of neighboring
homeowners, this misleading and deceptive effort is especially
egregious.
The Application seeks approval of three lots (Lots 1,2 and 3) facing
Prospect St., a narrow" dead end street. Exhibit 2, sheet 5 of the
Application reveals the footage of these lots are 10,074, 10,000 and
10,000 square feet respectively. The zoning for this area requires a
minimum of 10,000 sq.. ft. per lot. Thus, if Applicant is required to
dedicate any substantial extra footage along Prospect or Mountain,
zoning requirements may cost the developer an additional lot. Given
these are hillside view Ilots, Applicant and his representative have a
powerful financial incentive to avoid zoning limits and gain the added
lot.
The street width standards for this area requires a width of 22 feet.
The measurements contained in Applicant's Exhibit 2, sheet 1, which
B"7
RECf:IVED
FEB 1 7 2004
~.", t severso.~=~ pianD.~g Actian 200411?
~ '
. I . I
I
--_Jr.
-
-r"::'~'-~_''== :-----~~:~:- =,~,:-: pagf.?]
shaws Applicant's plan far paving Prospect St., shaws that Prospect is
anly 18 feet ar less alang appraximately 80% af its run fram S.
Mauntain to. its terminus. This is what Applicant desires to. pave. Thus,
the true scapi:! af the street variance Applicant seeks will maintain an
insufficiently wide street alang all af Lats 2 and 3 and mast af Lat 1 .
The Application carefully canceals this fact, hawever, in its Findings
af Facts and Canclusians af Law.
In its Findings af Fact, Applicant repeatedly states (pages 26-29) that
saving trees alang Praspect justifies the street variance. Hawever, the
Praspect trees in questian are anly lacated alang the western half af
Lat 3. There are no. trees within paving range af Lats 1 ar 2. Since
Planning Criterian 3 states that a variance shall be the minimum
necessary to. alleviate the difficulty, the Praspect trees justify a
street variancle anly alang Lat 3. Thus, Applicant's justificatian af
saving the treles is inadequate to. avaid additional property dedicatian
far a widened Praspect adjacent to Lats 1 and 2.
The Application deals with this problem by including a false Finding af
Fact. Page 27 af the Findings states that "(a)pproval of this
application, wiill permit applicant to. upgrade Praspect with paving a
width that mel~ts city standards (EXCEPT FOR THAT PORTION ALONG THE
FRONTAGE OF LOT 3).." This statement is false, misleading and fails to.
state the true 'facts. A reading af the measurements an the drawing
Exhibit 2 shaws that city standards will nat be met alang Lats 1, 2 AND
3. Yet, anyane that read the Findings af Fact, then loa ked at the
Prospect trees, wauld canclude that Applicant had affered a sufficient
reasan for the variance AND that the variance satisfied the Planning
Criterian requiring minimal variances.
Mareaver, Applicant, acting through its Cansulting Urban Planner, has
signed a false certificatian. The fallawing certification, located on
the City's Planning Application farm, appears abave the Planner's
signature:
"I herElby certify that the statements and information cantained in
this application, including the enclased drawings AND the required
findings offacll, are IN ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT."
Thus, Applicant has nat anly filed false and misleading Findings af
Fact, but has campounded that by falsely certifying the Application.
Immediately abave this signature, Applicant is warned that it has the
burden af furnishing Findings af Fact that justify the granting af the
request and that are adequate. Applicant is also warned that failure to.
fulfill these burdens will mast likely result in the request being set
aside.
These certificatians and burdens are sa impartant that the City
requires an Applicant to. sign the signature sheet a secand time,
acknowledgin~1 that "(a)s awner af the property involved in this
request, I havEi read and understaod the complete applicatian and its
consequences to me as property awner. Applicant, again acting through
its professianal urban planner, has also. signed this acknawledgment.
~o?
RECEIVED
fEa 1 7 2004
t Derek severs<2fl - Planning Action 2004-015
. (..,~
~ -, I '
-
I submit that this is a very serious matter. Other materials in the PA
file demonstrate that Applicant's utilization of Prospect will create
serious public safety hazards and will effectively block access by
adjoining homeowners to their own property. Maintaining a too narrow,
dead end road, as Applicant proposes, will only increase these hazards
and difficulties. Thus, Applicant's false and misleading Finding of
Fact, accompanied by a false certification signed by a professional
urban planner, is no mere technical detail. I believe it is an attempt
to avoid inquiry under the city zoning regulations and to maximize the
developer's profits at the expense of public safety and adjoining
property rights. Of course, the safety hazards of a too narrow street
will impact the very pl~ople to whom the Applicant will be selling lots.
I ask that when the Application comes before you that it be denied on
the basis of anyone or more of the following: (a) filing false
Findings of Fact, (b) filing a false, signed Certification of Facts
contained in the Findings of Facts, (c) filing Findings of Fact that do
not justify granting of the request, or (d) fling inadequate Findings
of Fact. Such a deniall would serve as a powerful incentive for future
applicants to play by the rules, especially where public safety and
property rights are concerned. And, after all, it is precisely the
outcome that the Appllicant is warned about on the page where not one,
but two signatures are required.
Until a final decision is made on this Application, I respectfully ask
that you pay particular attention to this project. This project will
involve a major earth moving and tree removal operation of a steep
hillside slope. There are many other concerns at issue here and the
Application filed here has already shown that it is very important to
study the fine print.
Randall Hopkins
PS. This communication is submitted to you as a public official in the
exercise of your public: duties. I am forwarding a copy of this to
Planning Dept. and asking that it be placed in the file on this
Planning Action.
3e1
(7."
--
-
=,~-=-:::
pagiiJ
RECEJ\lFr'
FE8 1 7 Z004
[f~E!Tr....~. m- ':"-"-"~~'-".'-'-"?!l""""'>--'"'""";"'-=~..__"".",,,,,-,o,,,,, .,-,
.,.' ~?rla"b..~fn~. ,-.,~IJ..!?m!~~.!.9.n.2.!J"ef.L~.QQ"4r",~w,,,,
;,...,.:.,.,.,~-",';' ';"'''.''l<,',..~",
">'U"""....,...'J;',,..~....,,.-..'^. .';;,".T"',<<~"-P'.~;<':. :u;:. ... ..,.",..,. ...- ''''J<""'' ",L " ,-, ..".- -"',- _ .,., """'. ".."...",,,' "-';!>>,&>>l'+'"
W.""W'~,M"<",~. roO, ,..,,: ......"":",.-.::,,.,:.,
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
mencken <mencken@internetcds.com>
<knoxm@ashland.or.us>
02/03/2004 10:40:00 AM
Submission on PA2004-015
Attached is an email submission I made to the Tree Commission last
night. I'm sorry I didn't include you, but you aren't listed on the
city website yet. I'll make sure to include you on any future
subm issions.
Randall Hopkins
From: mencken <mencken@internetcds.com>
Date: Mon Fet> 2,2004 9:15:18 PM US/Pacific
To: "Ted Loftus" <Iofland@mind.net>
Cc: cate@mind.net, holley@opendoor.com, omgarden@aol.com,
bnelson@jeffnet.org, pearcer@ashland.or.us, ltsager@earthlink.net,
farmhouse@ashlandhome.net, utoj8974.students.sou.edu
Subject: Re: Planning Action 2004-015 ("Mountain Pines" at Prospect St
and S. Mountain Ave.
Please accept this as an initial response to the above Planning Action
and related request for Tree Removal Permit. I ask that it be filed in
the Planning Action file.
I understand the above action was postponed from its schedule on the
docket for this week's Tree Commission hearing. I also understand that
a site review is planned for this week, which is not open to the
public. So, I wanted to get this in now.
BACKGROUND - An entity known as R & C Investments desires to put in a
subdivision at the corner of Prospect St. and S. Mountain Avenue. The
area is home to 59 trees, by Applicant's count, many of which are very
large and healthy pines.
The original application for this development (Version 1) was filed in
February 2003. Version 1 called for removal of a large number of the
trees. As for the trees that would have remained, the Applicant failed
to submit a full and complete protection plan as required by the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance. The Planning Staff promptly advised
Applicant of this and other areas in which the application was
incomplete, along with other problems (including the possibility that
the a hairpin drive that the Applicant wanted to construct would cause
the subdivision to fail to comply with zoning requirements). Version 1
was later withdrawn.
The latest Application (Version 2) was filed on January 9, 2004. At the
urging of Planning Staff, building footprints were refigured to
somewhat reduce the number of trees Applicant wants to cut. Even with
that, Applicant proposes the removal of 25 of the 59 trees. In
accordance with the earlier Planning Staff review, Applicant has now
included a tree protection plan.
Version 2 has drawn vigorous public protest. These objections include
concerns that use of Prospect St to access Applicant's development
(Applicant does not want to widen Prospect to meet city street
Eto
. ..."",.."","h,;o,:;,_;,,"""
" :'>'~~~"'''~I]
,...,.e~Q~1j
1:i1~~~~~~:LlXL~:~,::":='::::::::"::::":=::=::::":(-=:":::::==:::::.:"::~
standards) will lead to safety and other hazards. Possibly as a result
of these objections, Applicant has now filed a request for continuance
of the planning action, stating that 'any redesign we might do will
affect the number and locations of trees.' It is not clear whether
Applicant intends to increase or reduce the number of trees it wants
cut.
TREES APPLICANT WANTS CUT - TIMING CONSIDERATIONS - While it is
premature to discuss particular trees that are targeted by the
Applicant, I hope that the Commission can begin to give consideration
now the timing of tree removal, assuming the project goes forward and
tree removal permits are given. This is a subdivision development
consisting, at present, of 7 lots. I understand that Applicant's
Version 1 contemplated cutting 'trees to be removed' as soon as
permission was given, The current Version seems to be silent on this
point. I believe that trees due to be removed for house construction
should, in most cases, not be removed until the time for construction
begins. For any number of reasons, some of these lots may not be built
on for quite some time. Someone may buy a lot for investment purposes,
some may buy intended to built when they retire at some future point,
and some may even buy more than one lot in order to protect their view
scape.
Thus, permitting that requires quick execution may have the unintended
consequence of cutting trees that would not otherwise fall, or at least
not fall for many years.
TREES THAT ARE TO BE PROTECTED - I hope that the Commission can also
give special attention to the new tree protection plan. Speaking only
as a layperson in assessing protection plans, this one appears quite '
extensive. In fact, the real problem I see is that it is so exacting
that the eventual build4~r or builders will have an incentive to save
money and speed thin!gs up by cutting corners with the Plan. Moreover,
the Applicant has failed to provide any mechanism I can see to assure
that the Plan will be enforced. It is not proposed that the Plan be
made a condition for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The
Applicant, after workin9 on this for 18 months, has not even submitted
CC&R's for the development, which could incorporate the Protection
Plan, thereby serving to notify prospective homeowners what they are
getting into, and granting the City the right to enforce same. After
all this time, there remains in my view, a slapdash nature to the whole
project. The fact that much of this development will be on land not
readily visible from public areas means that what goes on will be
difficult for the public to monitor. The further fact that it will
involve a massive earthmoving project across hillside slopes only
heightens the risks to 'protected' trees.
You, of course, know even better than I that the best tree protection
policy is not worth much unless it is followed, and, to be frank, I do
not have faith in this developer that it will be followed. In this
regard, I hope that the Commissioners will take time to review public
comment on this project contained in the file and I think you will see
what I mean. I will have more to say on this issue later.
When you drive up S. Mountain for a site review, please take a moment
to look at a medium size pine located at the corner lot on the right
311
~[r-"" ! ":~ ~ ~~[2-:6"-'-~---~ ." '_"~""~'~"",.cm.,." ....~. ,'=..""~-,-,..,, ,,,.W'^'_~""~''''''4^'''.,'.~~,~"~..=,_~",.,,,. .,..,...,"""""'"'''"'',.,,'',.:...,''''' '''."''''.''~"..~"'=~..=~:=E~.9
'~I[]
· Ma!i~,!i~~!~., -.~~h!:!l!~tst<:>!l2Df~.,,~<l<21r.,.','M'"''"','''',..,''''''' """"'"...,oy"',.,'~.,""".,""""~,.,'(., "",".".,',."q"""",'-'w.""""""""."w '..." P:a .~,~'
hand side of Mountain, right before you turn onto Prospect Several
years ago, it was subjected to much construction abuse. Today, it is
dying. I do not want to look up from Prospect St several years from
now (after the developer has moved on to other lands and planning
actions) and see the browning out of trees that we all thought were to
be preserved. We need your help in the coming days and months to make
sure this doesn't happen.
Thanks for your time
Randall Hopkins
~/:J-
r:~~ ~!B'r"~"'-'""""!~E~-'~:"'~r~",.m.'_."..., ,,-.,,'"
~~a!!a ha.!r!~, :J3~:,.e,~~gQ1:9J9",."c'f""
,
H""'"e-C-.;,;r,."',7K,M""- ,'.""
;>,',',','''',",'''''
,'. _~',: ',',r.".'. ..~""...."'''.,.,.,.''....,."..,"..." c. .">".,-",,^,~,' .~~,..~...-
"0'.""1 """
,
.".""".'.:'.,",:'''f5'~9~:1]
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
mencken <mencken@internetcds.com>
"Maria harris" <maria@ashland.or.us>
02/02/2004 1: 15:01 PM
Re: PA 2004-015
This is a further, formal response to the above Planning Action.
As previously noted for the record, the Applicant's Proposed Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law contain a serious misstatement of fact.
Applicant desires to pave Prospect St. while leaving it insufficiently
wide under city standards. According to measurements contained on
Applicant's Exhibit 2, this inadequacy would extend along approximately
80% of Prospect, including all of Lots 2 and 3 and over half of Lot 1 's
frontage on Prospect. Applicant repeatedly states (pages 26-29) that
saving trees along Prospect justifies the street variance. However,
the Prospect trees are! centered along the western most half of Lot 3.
There are no trees within paving range on Lot 1 and the only tree/shrub
near Prospect on Lot :2 has been dead for a long time. Since Planning
Criterion 3 provides that a variance shall be the minimum necessary to
alleviate the difficulty, the Prospect trees justify a street standard
variances only along part of Lot 3.
This discrepancy beMl'een what Applicant wants to do (pave a
nonconforming street adjacent to all three lots) and the location of
the trees is blurred by a false finding of fact contained in
Applicant's proposal. Page 27 of the Findings of Fact states that
"(a)pproval of this appllication, will permit applicant to upgrade
Prospect with paving of a width that meets city standards (except for
that portion along the frontage of Lot 3).." This is false. It is also
misleading as any reading these Findings, combined with a viewing of
the Prospect trees, would lead one to believe that only a justified
deviation from city standards was involved.
Moreover, Applicant, acting through his Consulting Urban Planner, has
signed a false certification. The following certification, located on
the City of Ashland Planning Application form, appears above the
Planner's signature:
"I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in
this application, including the enclosed drawings AND the required
findings of fact, are in all respects true and correct."
Applicant has also filed findings of fact that do not justify the
granting of the application and that are inadequate. As Applicant is
warned on the signature sheet, failures in this regard will most likely
result in the application being set aside and any structures built in
reliance on the request being required to be removed at Applicant's
expense.
These certifications and burdens are so important that the City
requires an Applicant to sign the signature sheet a second time,
acknowledging that "(a)s owner of the property involved in this
request, I have read and understood the complete application and its
consequences to me as a property owner. Applicant, again acting through
his Consulting Urban Planner, has also signed this acknowledgment.
2/~
lMail~ harr~i:~~:'~P6 20q1~(j15~""~~~~"~~".::"""w,---~=,<,~~__~'_'""'~W__~'~'_'~'~~M""'~,,,~-,"~'m'.,,,,"_,~"_",""'~""''''''''M~=''~'''''~:'':''':'':~"~"]~~'?]
~ ", l!.€!!,!. -",.,.."..,"", ~},"Q.~ .~,..'''_''~.''''''M....,W''( ,"''''''''''''<''''''~'''',,,.'.,.''''_'''''''''',,,, ....'.""....,"',"""'"...~7~''.''~."...,,''' '... . ,,,"'"
The undersigned therefore asks that Applicant's application be denied
on the basis of anyone or more of the following: (a) filing a false
finding of of facts, (b) filing a false, signed certification of facts
contained in the findings of facts and conclusions of law, (c) filing
findings of fact that do not justify the granting of request, or (d)
filing inadequate finding of fact. If Applicant desires to go forward,
it should be required to dedicate additional land along Prospect to
fulfill ALL applicable Ashland Street Standards, save and except for
variances necessary to protect the Prospect trees located in the
proposed Lot ~~.
I also believe that inquiry should be undertaken into the extent, if
any, that Applicant's pursuit of street standard variances was
triggered by dElsire to circumvent city zoning restrictions. According
to Applicant's Exhibit 2, sheet 2, Lots 2 and 3 only have the minimum
10,000 square foot lot size, and Lot 1 only has 74 feet to spare. Would
not potential loss of a lot for resale provide Applicant with a
powerful, if improper, financial incentive to file a false findings of
fact and a false certification? This would be even aggregious, since
considerations of human safety have been raised regarding street
standards variations along Prospect.
Randall Hopkins
3/tj
L~.E:~1I':J:~Y!BHts")!.i:i:r~~rilie~!2f~-===:::::;::==":=::=:lii:11
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
mencken <mencken@internetcds.com>
Maria harris <maria@ashland.or.us>
1/29/043:29PM
PS :2004-015 - Two pre existing curb cuts on S. Mountain near Prospect
For the permanent file on this PA. Thanks
cc:
<molnarb@ashland.or.us>
316"'
-'..,
......"..
'.-,.,..
---.......
.........
..........
-........
-"'-
...:,.,.... .""""....,~
.-....-.-.."
'.
'"-",
.......
'-~
"",-:'l
'-~~
3/t
mil~'ji2mC€~~::-(:=::=:=: --::=::::::::.::::r.=:::::::::=:::=:~:::::~l
.,
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
--'f
"Andrew Stallman" <astallman@ashlandhome.net>
<maria@ashland.or.us>, <molnarb@ashland.or.us>
1/28/048:10AM
Mountain Pines project
Dear Ms. Harris & Mr. Molnar,
I writing to express my concerns regarding the impact that the current plans for the Mountain Pines project
(2004-015) will have on our surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Hopkins has, I believe, voiced very specific cases, and examples for his concerns as weill. I have little
additional information to add, as he has indeed been quite thorough. I did feel, however, that you needed
to know that there is another household that shares those concerns and is speaking up, and I hope you
will address the points he raised.
May I also add that thl3 existing house on the corner has added ZERO noise, light, glare, or other parking
issues as it has been vacant in the 12 plus years we have lived here. The arguments the applicants make
regarding this residence are just plain false!
The applicants have already tried once before to shove more development into this area than is proper.
- With the acquisition on 769 South Mountain quite recently, they now have all that much more room to
create a development that fits in with the existing neighborhood without asking for variances ~3very step of
the way and encroachiing upon the established resident's property rights just to squeeze evry dollar out of
their deal. In fact, without ever contacting us personally, the buyers told the seller that they would rather
sue us for adverse possession of a very small strip of land if we didn't give it to them, than lose the deal. It
is obvious they will stoop to whatever means necessary for every square foot! This is just another example
of greedy developers ~,etting away with whatever they can, and then moving on, leaving a nightmare for
the rest of the neighborhood to deal with forever - the phrase "hostile takeover" certainly comes to mind
here.
It would appear that thl3ir knowledge of "adverse possession" suggests that they know better than to
locate parking for one Ilot on another. With the passage of time, lot 1 will effectively be less than 1 OK feet.
Perhaps the developers are really attempting a zoning change without going through the process?
I suppose if the buyers/developers had come to the neighbors and talked to us about their plans and how
they could make it work in the context of the existing surroundings, instead of threatening us, I might feel
just a bit differently! I malize this concept is probably utopian and realistically expect nothing philanthropic
from them whatsoever.
I will not waste your time by reiterating any more of the issues raised by Mr. Hopkins, but after looking
over the application, I am very much reminded that these people have some skill with untruths and
bending interpretation beyond the limits of silly putty. I ask you, as a vital part of the planning staff, to be
2/7
~!~~~.li~~~~ful!'~I-'--'~W'~-'-"'"""--"--~""'~"'~"~""-"..,,,,,.,_.",,~-~~~,,.,,'<',._,,"_~"""'''''''^'''~''~^~''W'~'''''' '..'
Maria h13,rris, - M.o.'::l,I'!~a!!l,!:~)!:!.EE91~.EL..",.r- ""'W"''''_'''''~''''_'''''_''~_"_,,,",,,, """_~.,"",. .",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~..._,,_....,.,,,_.,,/- ....~."'"'M',""""",.,.,,,..
'
( , I
our protection against these kinds of practices and keep the approval of these plans well within the proper
criteria
Thanks very much for your attention to this project!
Sincerely,
Andy Stallman
~/~
~ har~~R~1~I6J~1~~i'Traffic'iSSues-'"''''.'.''~_T.~'-''''~''".''-_''~......,~...",.,,_.~..(......,---~,"-"'~'~'="T"""":"".==~:':~:""'''"'''"',':''''=~~9~,]]
.~.., . "''"'"~'. ,.~, ,',~-'~""""'''''''''''''''''_'h'',.".,,,~,,,~,,,,,.,.,,_..,,,,~.~""""""'-~.......'~' i.~""."m".'''_-mw"".,.,,,..,,,,.,, ,. ..,' '.,,".,".....,,0,''',',..,,'''._
'....N
. \ '
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"philip phillips" <Psquared444@msn.com>
"Maria Harris" <harrism@ashland.or.us>
1/2'7/0412:51PM
Mountain Pines and Traffic Issues
Ms Harris -
As you know I live at '1063 Prospect directly across the street from the proposed Mountain Pines
Development (MPD). I have deepening concerns about traffic and more specifically safety on Prospect.
There are significant issues already along this quietly charming but narrow dead end road that even
presently requires cooperation and heightened vigilance to navigate under what passes for normal traffic
and parking conditions here. Bear with me as I try to paint a realistic picture of what traffic life is now so
the parking and access issues and variances can be viewed in context rather than just inside, the
development envelop1e.
These conditions wen:l spotlighted last summer by a home improvement project that resulted in a marked
increase in traffic, parked workers vehicles and people etc that markedly reduced the access to the street,
my home and made pedestrian traffic difficult and less safe. Many times there was completely obstructed
traffic flow despite the best and well meaning efforts of the construction management. It was aggravating
to put it mildly.
The result, after construction was completed, was an increase in vehicles needing parking on street,
which one might assume would not be a problem but it is because of the geometry of Prospect.
By my count, there am nine (resident) vehicles that presently use this road daily, not countingl any other
traffic which is significant.
All the residents here must get their mail by walking the length of Prospect and across Mountain to
access their mail - dailly. There is presently one young child expanding his world and life along this road
and he has friends. I frequently have seen his parents with him teaching him to ride a bike and playing
with him. During the construction last summer, his circle contracted as the grown ups made a mess of the
place. He scared all of us when he took his bike down an unguarded construction access over the hillside
and crashed it. Joggers, bikers and pet walkers are a frequent.
The number of dogs and cats seem to vary, but there are many animal visitors, both domestic and feral.
And of course there are the ubiquitous deer and occasional black bear with two cubs at last sighting.
Two of the three vehicles that have adopted me are of necessity parked on the street in front of my house
and the street presently accommodates at least three other vehicles of Prospect origin with on street
parking, almost exclusively on the north edge of the road. Delivery vehicles, City trucks, service vehicles,
lost and confused drivl:lrs are a daily presence.
In the recent past this street has been used for prolonged intermittent boat storage, recreational vehicle
parking, construction E~quipment parking/storage and trailer parking (various types), none of which had
anything to do with residents who live along Prospect. These "outside" uses of Prospect have gone on for
weeks at a time and generated from houses or construction sites that were at time several blocks from
here. The Mountain end of Prospect is frequently used for day parking by various entities with a marked
increase during construction season.
To enter Prospect and park, one must decide whether to head in or back in. If one does the former, you
must K turn the vehiclE! to return to Mountain or that failing, one must back out the length of Prospect.
Places to execute that K turn are few given the width of the street and the placement of street parkers, so
many people back out. Almost all the delivery trucks do so; all City vehicles have been absented to do so;
the Post Office NEVEH does so when they come to deliver larger materials.
Today I asked my postal worker why. She replied that the USPS does not allow backing out of narrow
alCJ
~~!i!i":]n~~16E!"'*-'._~ ."--- A=_9'~"__~_~","_"_'_=_"~~~'~_'_'_""_"~_",=:..,=,:-=::":.:'''~~:--=:.~: ~'~IJ
Maria harris - MSluntain PiD!~!U~!!2.!.L~M,~L~...~__"""."~.~~.~,."..~_"""__,,__,,.,,( ','."'.""'._m.v~"~- ...'" ,'",., ",,'",,". ", ,.' .J~aE:t" 2 I
streets or lon~, driveways because they found that it leads to too many accidents. IT IS NOT SAFE she
said. She, IikH myself and many people who find my carport area empty turn around there before
returning to Mountain headlights first. It's intuitively safer that way, never mind rules.
Yesterday I watched you and Bill Mulnar in a City vehicle go through similar calculus when you came to
inspect the proposed site. You backed into Prospect off of Mountain. Think back as to why you chose to
do it that way and you will begin to appreciate just one of the issues of access and movement here - and
today was a day of relatively low traffic volume. You also met a few of the local animals. They have the
same exuberance on the roadway when they unpredictably explode onto it. Hard to notice when your
backing around. Kids are like that too.
Vehicles themselves are more visible and less agile, but two of mine have been damaged while parked in
front of my house on this "quiet" road.
Now imagine Hight more cars in random motion, more kids, a pack of new pets, tricycles; their friends a
fistful of teena.gers and the City garbage truck backing in.
What is it that you do or do not see in the proposed design for Mountain Pines that will better this
situation?
I can see nothing. I have no objection to paving and sidewalks or to new neighbors. This is a great
opportunity to make a neighborhood work and work well for all concerned, especially my potential new
neighbors. The present design needs to allow for the realities on the ground here ho\~ever, not just the
need to wedge parking places into the plan to fulfill parking requirements. It should biB obvious that the
present proposal will exacerbate an already growing safety problem by several orders of magnitude. It
doesn't stop with where the cars can be parked; it should include what the impact of tlhat configuration has
on the the lives and safety of those that live beside and use the street.
If allowing on street parking to occur on the north side of Prospect as it is now configured as a given, the
placement of 4:light off street sites on the opposite side of the road would be an example of the worst
planning
option for this narrow street unless the road is significantly widened by almost one complete lane which I
agree does no:t seem realistic or feasible. The fact remains that one cannot easily and safely turn a car in
the street to redirect it as is necessary on this street. That failing, many vehicles would have to back down
or out of Prospect, through all those vehicles and all those living moving things that are hard to predict on
a good day. This applies both to those living there and those visiting on a temporary basis.
I therefore disalgree with the conclusion the Criterion 3 and Criterion 4 under Conditional Use Permits
regarding adverse affects on livability. But more specifically if Prospect is not able to be widened and the
design must bEl allowed to be flexible, I strongly disagree that the solution is to allow off street parking for
eight vehicles and have three lots (1,2 &3) to access Prospect. That it makes the lots less attractive to a
buyer is beside, the point; that design (and the other variance it generates re Lot 2's parking places) makes
permanent inbuilt
clumsy parking and traffic patterns that on their face are not safe because of the realities of the movement
on present day Prospect. They do nothing to improve an already past marginal situation.
I expect better planning and thoughtfulness than this proposal; I've seen better developments of this
magnitude elsewhere in this town (one being not two blocks away); I want no less for the place I call my
home and neighborhood. I want people to want to live here because it is a safe and well designed
neighborhood. I do not want to have to compromise safety and accessibility simply because a seriously
flawed proposal is acceptable on the surface.
An obvious solution that does not require taking a pair of pliers to the present traffic patterns: use the
already propOSI:ld central access road in the proposal, access lots 1, 2, and 3 from it as well from the back
3,:(0
L ,,:!i~JY~2~~~~ ~_. -- ----- --~-'--~-"_"M~~"'_'~"W'~.~___
~aria h~ri~ ,;,,~gl}f)tain Pine.~IJ~ TraT~ue~, _ _,_._,_"'__~_.'<_" _~~ ...._.",_,w_{'" ,'_'_.~"'_""'''''M'~~_', '.
, ,
. . v,
Pa
of the proposed dwellings. It will be safer for the occupants, their families, their pets and their vehicles; it
will be safer for their neighbors and their circles. It's a better design. It would be more attra1ctive to a
buyer. And it will be a graceful and visually pleasing asset to this City. None of these obtain with the
present clumsy proposal.
Thanks for your time and consideration today.
Phil Phillips
1063 Prospect
.6:2-1
~lii~~~lli?6=?9]i~~E~I.~~~~lli~~~~r!)lC~~~:=:,~:=::::-:~:.,'::.,==::~=::,
.,. (
".P.~ e'
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
mencken <mencken@internetcds.com>
Maria harris <maria@ashland.or.us>
1/27/04 11 :34AM
Action 2004-015 = Proposed Conditional Use permit
Please accept these comments regarding the proposed conditional use
permit for the existing white house on the subject property.
As noted in my earlier email, Applicant fails to state that the house
has been vacant for at least five years. Moreover, it positively
misstates that the house has been served by Prospect (page 26). The
unit is served by a drive running from an existing curb cut on S.
Mountain.
I myself have no aesthetic problem with keeping the house and avoiding
demolition would be nice. However, if the choice is between turning
Prospect into a nightmare and taking out the house, I feel that proper
compliance with city standards requires denial of the conditional use
permit.
For all the reasons noted in my earlier em ails to you, Applicant cannot
provide adequate transportation to the subject property through
Prospect. They thus fail to fulfill Criterion 3 (see page 24 of the
proposed findings).
They also fail to fulfill Criterion 4, since retention and access via
Prospect will have negative livability consequences, specifically:
1. generation of excess traffic on surrrounding streets.
2. adversely changing air quality, generation of dust, odors and other
environmental pollutants (The house has been vacant for a long time.
Neither it nor occupation of it has been generating any pollution.
That will chan!~e once it is remodeled and occupied).
3. generating additional noise, light and glare (There hasn't been any
noise, light of !~Iare from the vacant house for at least five years.
Contrary to Applicant's assertion at page 25, these concerns will
have to increase).
Finally, whethm the house is retained or removed, it should be checked
for asbestos before anything happens.
Thanks
Randall Hopkins
cc:
<molnarb@ashland.or.us>
3.;< 2-
~~~~~tf~~:==:=:=--===::~!l
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
mencken <mencken@internetcds.com>
Maria harris <maria@ashland.or.us>
1/27/0411 :18AM '
Action 2004-015 - Review of proposed findings of fact re: street variance
Please accept these :added comments regarding Applicant's proposed
findings of fact re: Prospect St. variance.
1 . Page 26 - Applicant says that Prospect Street already serves five
existing dwellings and they are going to add three. The so-called five
existing houses included the white house that is subject to conditional
use permit application. Applicant neglects to point out that this house
has been vacant for at least 5 years. Moreover, as you saw yesterday,
that house is not served by Prospect. It is accessed vis S. Mountain
Ave. There is a fence between the vacant house and Prospect. Thus,
Prospect has only been serving four units and they are adding four to
the mix. Thus, at the outset, they understate the actual impact of the
project on Prospect. This is without considering that 3 of the new
units will be large and expensive and likely bringing with them a lot
of vehicles. The devellopment will greatly increase the demands on
Prospect.
2. Page 27 - They claim requiring them to provide additional right of
way will create a streElt that jogs excessively to the south. They offer
no evidence that it is 'excessive' whatever that means. None. The law
requires them to proviide a straight run of right of way all along the
south side of Propect. They would just be giving more elbow room, not
creating a turn. Albeit not enough elbow room even at a full 22 feet.
3. Page 27 - They clalim the street only serves a total of 7 units and
will never serve any more. First, this is false, since the will be 8
units. Second, whethler it's 7 or 8, it is still a huge load for a
narrow street. Regarding the assertion that there will never be anymore
units, what about the ability of the existing homeowners to seek
expansion of their houses? Are they to see rights to develop their
property forever prejudiced to make room for this deviating project?
What about their property rights.? Are they to be effectively 'taxed'
away to subsizethese developers?
4. Page 27 - They claim widening the street will require cuts and
fills that, according to applicant's unevidenced assertion will
'produce unnecessary environmental impact. They have a point here, but
that just argues for putting access to their new units internal to the
project off S. Mountain. The proposed Prospect access, with or without
widening, will already be an environmental nightmare.
5. Page 14 - They claim that a City Public Works official has opined
the the existing street "will have the capacity to carry all
anticipated traffic from the development." But can it carry all that
traffic AND traffic from the existing houses? The developer treats this
thing like their project 'exists in total isolation from the
pre-existing dwellings and traffic around it. Surely, that cannot be
the proper standard.
Randall Hopkins
3:<3
[f~rJ~Ti~rr<'~:':"'~-'""='r~""'F'~~-r~~~ili?E!!~i':n!-='<" :'...:'"=''' ,,, ,.""~'"'~w"':=.=.~~'<=:",w:.""'"'==. ,.":',."'~,w,.~' .'.,.<M"'.' ',..":""".'cnw,"':.' "':'.'M:,:.""',..,',..
""'"'''' 'i"""<~"f]
· Maria"h.arr!~,::, M,,2,~.!2t~tr:!P1De,,~ ~!!~xeI2 '!),~nt.".""",.",.~ '".~. ,'.".". ", "'" '" "'''''''''''''''~'''''<'''' """',/"",""..",, ""'M""~ """"",,,,,, "_,,,,,# ea,9,~ ,JJ
( , ( ,
From: "Julie Stuelpnagel" <julies@mind.net>
To: '''philip phillips'" <Psquared444@msn.com>, "'Maria Harris'" <harrism@ashland.or.us>,
'''Kip Sigetich'" <sigetich@sou.edu>, "'Rebecca Reid'" <reid@sou.edu>, .'Randall Hopkins'"
<mencken@internetcds.com>
Date: 1/26/049:26AM
Subject: Mountain Pines development
Hello Ms Harris,
I own the house at 1043 Prospect Street, the last house on the right as
you drive the gravel portion and opposite the proposed Mountain Pines
development. I am extremely concerned on a few points concerning this
development. I understand that tree preservation has been addressed,
but there is still a very real issue of parking and drainage that needs
to be attended to and which I do not believe the current plans
adequately address.
First, if three houses are to be built on the uphill side, Prospect
Street should be paved, curbed and guttered in order to insure that
drainage does not undermine the foundation of my house as well as Dr.
Phillips' house, Our houses sit on the downhill side of the slope. In
addition, I do not believe the current plans reflect the reality of the
street on the ground but rather only take into consideration property
lines. My house sits right on my property line and is about six to
eight feet from the actual street, however there is significant drop-off
between the house and street. In other words, it is not possible to
pave right up to my house as the plans suggest. That particular portion
of Prospect is even more narrow than the rest and will not accommodate
reasonable egress and ingress without the development using a portion of
their property for street.
It is my understanding that they are requesting variances for street
width and parking. With the addition of three new homes to be accessed
off Prospect, it is not reasonable for to not have on-street parking.
Because of thE~ narrowness of our street and the existing houses having
restricted off-street parking, is it imperative that we have adequate
on-street parking for guests and residents' additional vehicles. With
the traffic doubling, our narrow street will become a significant
problem compromising safety and visability.
My third concern is the lack of CC&R's for the development. I feel that
these should be in place before plan approval. We enjoy a peaceful
neighborhood on Prospect Street and I would like to insure that our
residence is maintained in the manner that our property values reflect.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration on this matter. I
understand that Dr. Phillips has requested the meeting be rescheduled so
that he can attend. I support his request and hope it will be granted
so that the concerns of the residents most impacted by the development
can be heard.
Respectfully,
Julie Stuelpnagel
Julie Stuelpna~lel
Lithia Realty
(541) 261-793H
3~ 'f'
fEa~:~[n:~:::~l!~ ~l~-~E~r:fl----~-_""'r'_'~',o'-""__'_A""~'~,._-~~,-~,._,-,.. _..._~..,~_._~"-~...~'~._."""~.::':':=::"'::=.:~~::' TI
:Mari;:.ha!);is., Moun~Tn_Pi'\"i:PA~L______w~~_~_~~___d '___~.____ .:. ~.' =_ _~1..
.If , i '
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
mencken <mencken@internetcds.com>
<harrism@ashland.or.us>
1/20/045:49PM
Mountain Pines - PA 2004-015
I'd like to express concerns about the street variance request for the
Mountain Pines project (2004-015). The request violates all relevant
Criterion.
First, Applicant's Findings of Facts (page 27) states that approval of
the variance will result in a Prospect St. that meets the city street
width standards "except of that portion along Lot 3." This is false, as
their own Exhibit 10 shows. The width standard violation would exist
not just on Lot 3, where the trees are, but all the way out to the
midpoint of Lot 1, about 60% of the length of Prospect. Applicant's
slight of hand is consistent with the way it repeatedly argues that
tree protection justifies a width variance. In effect, Applicant tries
to hold the trees hostage for relief that has nothing to do with the
trees. There are no tre~es along the added section of Prospect on which
Applicant seeks a variance (Lots 1 and 2).
Tree protection justifies only a much small variance beginning at the
halfway point of Lot 3, consistent with Criterion 3 (variances are the
minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty).
Moreover, granting the limited tree variance would itself argue
strongly against any added street width variance. The existing street
adjacent Lot 3 creates a choke point for three houses at the end of
Prospect. If that choke point is to be preserved in order to protect
the trees (something everybody appears to agree on), then the rest of
the street needs to be widen, not narrowed. Applicant's proposal would
make this choke point worse by adding a huge amount of added traffic,
parking and congestion with their new development. The requested
variance all along Prospect would create a grossly inferior
transportation faCility and connectivity (Criterion 2).
The variance, indeed tlhe whole issue of access via Prospect, also
violates Criterion 3 by 4~roding quality of life, by creating an
unattractive development, by being grossly inefficient and by
increasing the development's impact on the environment and the
neighborhood.
Please take a moment to visualize Prospect and the surrounding
properties during and after development. The north side of Prospect is
already substantially occupied by parked vehicles and adding third
vehicles from the new Iresidents, their guests, and construction and
maintenance vehicles will mean the north side parking will be
consistently and totally occupied. It will be like trying to find
parking in Portland. (Note- this area is already used for parking large
earth moving equipment that is used on construction projects as far as
a quarter of mile away). So, you will be left with a one lane street.
On the south side, you will have 8 off street parking places. These
vehicles will be forced to back up into a narrow street, trying to
avoid hitting the cars parked to the south, while avoiding traffic
moving in and out of Pl'OspecLmany of which will be trucks having to
back up Prospect since~ there is no turn around. This will be a
3;25'
~Ji!.J~~i-~f2~i !JCE!.i-~~"~""'-' _''"'"_'~,_M''''~''''''_''''''''>~''''''^',_",,_...~'",~."_,,"~,~=.~~_,,"="__,,W..,,".,,,,",.~,","..___<_,.,,,,....=U ," ,
'Maria har~is ,.- Mo!:!ril~jlJ .PilJ.Ell~,,:,f~.~.QQ1:9..1~..'m'...~..,...._..._~..,.~...'.^'.,."..,.,_.~"_,,~w,,"~,~,,_..,,~'''~: ,- -, '.,_"_""..,.....,,".,,
~ , 1 . \ '
Pa e
permanent safety hazard and source of neighborhood disputes. And it's
not just the current residents that will suffer, but also all those
buying these Elxpensive view lots.
Moreover, the presence of a single construction or delivery vehicle
(and there will be thousands) will totally block the street. Every
single day of construction will find a neighbor having to crawl through
a hazardous construction site to find the delivery driver or
construction worker who has parked in the only accessible lane of
Prospect. This will destroy the property right of existing residents to
the enjoyment and use of their property. In essence, there is no way to
build the new houses using Prospect as the primary access source
without requiring the existing residents to move out of theirs.
There is far more efficient way to develop this property - access Lots
1 , 2 and 3 from the rear, internally to the project. There is already a
roadway from Mountain to the garage on Lot 2 and the building envelopes
are sited to accept garages on the rear or side. This fact shows there
are no unique circumstances requiring street variances where Lots 1 and
2 face ProspeGt (Criterion 1).
Consider the advantages of this approach to the developer - who, I
assume, is interested in maximizing the value of their lots. How does
it maximize the selling price of Lot 1 by selling a lot that will have
its view to the west blocked by the out of context house that is to be
retained (and it is not offered as affordable housing in the
application)? And that the owners of Lot 1 are going to have to pay
taxes on property on the north side (also part of their viewscape) that
will be used for parking for Lot 2? How does it maximize value of Lot 2
when potential buyers see that a huge part of their lot is occupied by
the old vacant house? Buyers here will have to spend a lot of money and
might be interested in developing the area in accord with their needs.
At a minimum, it will reduce the pool of buyers for Lot 2. If you are
going to spend this kind of money, most buyers will want fJexiblity
with their purchase.
Lots 1, 2 and ~I are 'view' lots. Shouldn't the homes have windows
facing their view? How does it maximize value when potential buyers
learn their view side will be consumed by garage doors? The garages
should be to the rear for the benefit of everybody.
How does it maximize the value of the lots to require homeowners there
to navigate the increasingly hazardous Prospect just to get in and out?
And that access to their garages will be threatened by traffic moving
up and down Prospect. A private drive, with garages placed at the rear
and front yards used to appreciate the 'view' will be better for all
the new residents. Wouldn't this make the lots more attractive (and
valuable) to potential buyers?
Access internally to the project would also allow construction efforts
to be centralized within the project, where it belongs. As it is, this
Applicant is effectively asking existing residents to subsidize its
project by sacrificing their property rights and values.
Please take a look at the older housing development halfway up Elkader
between Prospect and Emma. Houses there are serviced by a similar
3~~
[tvf.~r-i~ hard!"7~~1~i~'~"E~::fl' 2004:-r5^,,""--"-"~""'""_M''''~'~''-=''' '".._.~"'_.,~..~'''.~''w.':_:.,_''_'_.._._..'_~'.r,~.,,_," '==:::'-""":":"":"""'~-==faiiI!
,~" f.~~, ' ,-", ""..., , , '..,-. ' ~~g..1,:;.9-1.~'M.'..n'"'''''''_'~''m''''' ".'."_,.....,,''','.,'',''',''.''..N''~>._',....,'"'','.,'''''''. ' '" .,','........."..'.._""",,,...,,,,,,,
'"". y."".""." '"'.".." '."" ", "" ..,
.., · ----r ' 1 .
"
private drive to what should be used here. It is unobtrusive and the
whole development is a credit to the town.
In contrast, Applicant's current proposal will create a safety hazard
forever. Neighbors will be at each others throats long after the
developers have moved on to the next planning action. It will be like
taking a busy downtown street (and a poorly designed one at that) and
plunking it down on the hillside. A hillside where we should be coming
up with a design that will be efficient, attractive and safe. Not a
permanent mess.
Randall Hopkins
cc:
<molnarb@ashland.or.us>
5~7
~ ~~ !a~~~>'-'----~~'~--_._--'_#_~'~W" ,_.,~---- _._m_~__~':::'=~=:'~::::'''':"'~'=::=~='''~F.9~I]
~~d~J)arris ;~~ii[~ a9ti!?D.g2,Q<:tQ.1..~,{", ~'M'".""W"_"'='~___'""'""'__"'_'"''''~''"''"'''''~~'''''"'_~'''''"f'" _,"""""""_'"_''' ,,' ,_ " '<"""', .""".."".,,, ,'" ,,,~pa..~,1..,,
, ' , '
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
mencken <mencken@internetcds.com>
<harrism@ashland.or.us>
6/25/03 1 :39PM
Planning action 2003-019
Hello,
I have previously talked to you about the above planning action. It is
my understanding that the Applicant has now purchased an additional lot
adjacent to the lots that were the subject of the original action. This
lot is 769 S. Mountain, but I'm afraid I don't have the tax lot number.
The original application called for construction of a convoluted,
hairpin, access road off Prospect St heading up the hill (south). Among
other problems, this road would require removal of many trees, create
drainage problems and surround houses constructed above with yards
consisting of little more than asphalt. Anybody who lost control coming
down the road would quickly run into an existing house at the end of
Prospect.
The new lot at 769 S. Mountain has two existing curb cuts. The upper
or south cut services the garage for the existing house there. The
lower, northern curb cut simply accesses a grass driveway that
stretches all the way back to the heart of the two lots that were
subject of the original application. This driveway is almost completely
flat.
Is there any chance the development could use this existing curb cut
and drive to access the lots? Instead of forcing a firetruck, for
example, to try to negotiate 5 near 90 degree turns up and down a steep
drive, access off Mountain would allow the truck to make one turn, then
set up on flat ground to reach all the houses. Wouldn't this be a much
more efficient use of space and reduce the amount of asphalt that needs
to be laid, since the central drive could service all the houses?
Wouldn't it benefit the houses to be constructed (and thus both the
developer and new occupants) by simplifying construction access and
getting the ashpalt areas back where they belong (at the rear of the
houses, instead of on all four sides)? If these are going to be 'view'
houses, why not give them a view of landscaping, rather than just a
moat-like driveway that will only create hazards and maintainance
problems for years to come?
Even better, by eliminating the hairpin drive off Prospect, couldn't
you save trees? Indeed, by virtue of the space saved by a central
access road (and/or from using footage from the newly purchased house),
couldn't the developer back one of the proposed building envelopes away
from the northwest corner of the lots, which is where most of the large
trees are located. This would, among other things, enhance the value of
the lots and allow the name of the division (Mountain Pines) to
actually mean something. In fact, the developer could even take credit
for being environmentally conscious and get some good publicity vs.
what will happen if they continue to propose clear cutting the hillside.
Just some thoughts. Thanks
Randall Hopkins
3:<f"