The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMt. Pines - Exhibits Dear Ashland Planning Commission 2005 Attn: Maria Harris January 25, Regarding Planning Action 2004-105, Tax Lots 391E 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, on the west end of Prospect. I will be out of town for the Febf1.lary 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 parkjng, because currently a fire truck cannot easily turnaround at the end of the street anyway. With or without parking the ability of a fir.e 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~" t 5 'LUUS Julie Stuelpnagel January 31, 2005 Dear City Council Members and Mr. Mayor, Regarding the proposed project on the Mountain St./Prospect St. block, my wife and I were out of town and not able to sign the neighborhood letter outlining the concerns about the proposed project. However, we do stand in strong support of the contents of the letter and thank you for your consideration of it. We wish to express to you all our belief that the proposed number of houses is excessive and does not fairly take into account the safety and livability of the neighborhood as a whole. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, :i!~~ Sean and Kerri Traynor (and Jessica--8 months old) 1071 Wildwood Way City of Ashland Planning Exhibit Exhibit # tX)/ PA#~/~I!>- Date I Staff -- CITY OF 'AS H I-JAN D February 25, 2003 Andy Cochrane Rand C Investement 1970 Ashland Street Suite 2 Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mr. Cochrane, City of Ashland Planning Exhibit Exhibit # I I PA# _I'~ Da ~DCStaft_ RE: Status of Planning Application 2003-019 On the afternoon of February 19, 2003, the Planning Staff reviewed your application for Subdivision approval for the property located at 759 South Mountain Avenue. After examining the materials presented, the application was determined to be incomplete. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178. · Tree Protection Plan - As outlined in 18.61.200.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), a tree protection plan is required as part of the application. The tree protection is required to address all trees six caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height. 18.61.200.2. 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 (emphasis added). 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 lineslfacilities 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 18.61.2'30. 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. B. 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 Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland. Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488.5305 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735.2900 ~A' 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-ojJ. 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. · Flag Drive - Flag drives are required to have a maximum grade of 15% (18.76.060.8). According to the preliminary plat submitted with the application, the natural grade is approximately 22% in several sections of the proposed drive. In order to demonstrate that the maximum grade requirement is satisfied, preliminary engineering for the drive must be submitted including cross sections and profiles, clearly indicating the location of final cuts and fills, and the drive grade. The erosion control methods for stabilizing cut and fill slopes must be included in the driveway plan. · Street Improvement Plan - Preliminary engineering is required for the improvements on Prospect Street and South Mountain Avenue to demonstrate compliance with the Ashland Street Standards (18.80.030). The preliminary engineering for the street improvements must include including cross sections and profiles, clearly indicating the location of final cuts and fills, and street grade. The erosion control methods for stabilizing cut and fill slopes must be included in the street plan. · Public Utilities - Preliminary engineering is required for public utilities (water, sanitary sewer, stoml drain and electric). City records indicate that the water line in Prospect Street is 4" rather than 6" as shown on the plan. Preliminary review has indicated that the 4""line does not have adequate capacity to serve additional units and the fire Ihydrants/sprinkler systems required, and will have to be replaced by a larger line. · Grading Plan - A preliminary grading plan is required for the subdivision (18.80.040.G). Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5J05 In reviewing the application for completeness, Staff noticed several aspects of the proposal that will be raised at the Planning Commission. · Lot 4 - Flag lots are required to provide a lot area that meets the minimum lot area requirement less the flag drive area (18.76.060.1). Lot 4 does not appear to meet this requirement. Furthermore, the Planning Commission could make the interpretation that the flag drive area is the actual physical location where the drive is proposed and deduct this area from the lot. Clearly if this were the case, the wrap around flag drive on Lot 4 deducted from the total lot area leaves approximately 4,320 square feet in the center for buildable and yard area - far less than the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. · Lot 5 - The minimum lot width in the R-1.1 0 zone is 75 feet. It appears that Lot 5 may not meet this requirement. · Accessory Residential Unit - The accessory residential unit on Lot 2 requires two off-street parkin!l spaces (18.92.020Ab). · Adjacent Structures - Staff strongly suggests including the adjacent parcels and structures on the site plan. There appears to be a residence located in close proximity to the west property line, located at 890 Beach Street. Of specific concem is the impact of the driveway construction will have to the properties to the west as the drive is shown within two and a half feet from the property line.' · Exception to the Street Standards - Staff does not believe the application demonstrates that the proposed Prospect Street improvement meets the criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards. Specifically, It is nojt clear why the right- of-way dedication can not occur on the south side of the street to provide the required minimum improvement (18.80.020.5). This letter is intended to identify information needed in order to deem the application complete. Informati:on addressing the application requirements described above must be submitted in complete form by March 10, 2003 in ordl3r to have the application reviewed at the April 8, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Please contact me by March 6,2003 to let me know if and when you will be submitting the missing information. If you need further information or have questions, I can be reached at 552.2045 or harrism@ashland.or.us. ALiA - I ~~HarriS Associate Planner copies Tom Giordano, Giordano and Associates file Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541488-5305 Fax: 541488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 ~~, - Go) t: Go) CJ U) ... Go) e ... U) ... CJ Go) Q. U) e D.. - as CJ .- Q. ~ u - CD Ii CD U :.c ~ c o :e:; u ~ .. - U) c o u i ~ ,g Ii > a:: .. .2 = c :;: .. ca Co - ca i! >- ca ~ > 'C "C .s c .- = ..! c .. .a .s - .c = 'C = c '! - o c c ca u en ..! u :.c CD > CD ~ CG ..J ~ ~ -a c :::I o ~ <C C) c .- c .. :::I I- ~ o C) c :ii2 .. ftS Q. .. .E E o o ~ o Z -a c w ~ en CD 3: CD "0 (i) .c - ::s o tn c o en CD ! .... CD in CD "0 (i) .c 1:: o z c o ~ a. e c :r - Q) Q) Ie. - en - CJ Q) Q, tn o Ie. a.. ~"y,\ ; t ., , ~'~~' 1i!;~:1; . 'V~~v:., 01 "'''~~':r . ~fff:1'7\ '~,i;'r ..:... ;t"~ ;,t/,.l) ..; > ,.:t~~,n~ 'l!,';," ~-....ar--..;.' fl~1 : J!! s::: I G) I E G) ,:> ! > I 2 1 c. :E ... ~ ~. II .. -- J!! s::: G) E G) > o ... c. :E G) ... .E G) co ~ i eiffi ~ . r'+ i :z;s ~ ~~~ ~ ~- fJ ..~~ 0;; n f-< : J~~ gii: rn ri ... &: ~~ ~ I ,,:>v'" Ut: :l ~ "'", ,. ~ o ~ L"~~ j ~ 1l~~ ~ j!1 co.c: ~ :2 J1 S) ~"~~~ og,Q~OJ ~l!! ~ ~ "ai () ll. W a.: 0 00 fiIil ~z 8 ~e ~ z~ 0 <~~ g = j ~;:l 000 < ~ I f gl ~ ::! <l<l IL~ '" ~~il~ ~ ~~;j ~ Qr!I~ ~ = ~ ] a 3nN3A '" a NI"'lNnOH II' J Hlnos ss , $S, ", 0 -, ai - I I I I r--------., I WI I ~ ~: __J .,,: "', ~! : '\ ~, ~" " , " LJ, iU I I L_ z -< ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ r:I1 [I i 5 O~ ~l!i ~~ ~~Fi <tLo:, l!J~~ ... . ~~ij $f l toIO:i.. R"t \..~ .8 I "-'- ~........ ~ ~. ..... 0'1. \ = = -Q -Q y... y... ~- ~- .....= .....= QY QY "" Q ""Q ~...;! ~...;! ~ . , I ~ ~ - , ----'-"1 .-~: _:'J ~ '=; ''-:". ~ ~ ~ Z Z ~y ~ ~ Z U ~ 0 > ~ [I [I ~ ~~~h~ <( lUlU }: }: .:r;.i... g ~~~~~~ .!. J . \J) lU \J) J .- ! () I -J Ii f" : ~! ~5H 11:5 !,,~; f?:li ~!E! i.li i5~:5 "J"- !f~U :I'8~ . ljiU i ti g3 t"jli Uiti ii:~1 ... ~~ .",.c "~'" 11~ >;. ~~~ g ~"~~~ ~o g <Olll:~ ~~ f E~~ i:l Q j' ;:;~'" ~ Ff'O 9'",,,,,, ~ :s " . ~:J.'i.( ~ 1.11- Q: v ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ..... .Jo3 ~ " !:! '" ;';>,y Sl ~(, . L"~~ 00 . ~Z ~ I ~O 0 ~~ '" ~ f ZOO =: ILIt ~ ~~ 0 <;;, ~ I ~ E-;~ Z~ :s ;;J~ = l i;; '" 000 < <0 ~ ;z ~ '" ~ Q " !II I I I · ~ , .f- if t{H ; ,} ~ f 't I ~ [i t ill 11 lIlt I Ii II ! I!! I!ll Iii II !~l i Ii I il f f i I It! II IIi ;i ilfi [II ~ il ! Iff Hi i~ I, If II tf II ll:! Ii f ! ~ I~ {t]J U I It .1 !I I r I lilt I~ II f l!!ti~ lilt t II! if i t II ill ~1 i ilftl~ f'{~ I { { I hi: I -1J} j ~ lilll a.1 ld! f Illll f i Itl; Ii I ,I ~lli't p~t. II Iii I li.llll r~l HI: S I,ill, jl'ft: i[1 f ffll."J I Ld h: ;11. ~ ~ If~ E ~, '1 lull Ji'l II ~ , lllrfl! d!b fll! J Hi'frUit J 11ill ,hI .;~ i ~lil II :lrH ti.1lf III ill I h' r!U llfllllilli !:li11t- {Iibi. i!I!lll,ll {1!itjlfl" ~ i. I h 'IPlf iJrllJ II '.11 l, , lil'llllltllt'! f II:I illff}'!! thJ,!1t11 .f r,: I a ~ 1 I 1 J H II r '1IIIU'11uf !ti~l f!I~ll!(Jl.t!rd'lfl Iun !lu Hid I.UiJrnf . I i J I I . I I I I I I I . Ii \~~ li~ J. . .<< ...---: ~~ .~ I/'!l ~~ I .~ V .J ~ ~~~ ~rY .-- ___ ,Ao,. , :!"E:: :: )~ "ff.' ~,' V'(_r v : ~ 3nN3/11t N I It 1 N n 0.,1-1 H 1 n D S ~ II '.. ii t ~ % J - ~-- --, ----r--r -T--r-~~ --'---~ Ifl "r 'i T ./ .,...,. ~ .'" : ::~: . . "i,i ." : ': .' .:~:;:e:::E::1:I ::: ::: ::1::: :;:e:::E': ~ ",,', i \, ~ ~ " ,~ I 51 I ~ I " .' ;; n ~ \ i :J I II Ie e Ie ~ .,' ,. .' ~ -, . ',' ,--------, ~! e JII II II I ...." lE""-, II I ~~.....I! .... %\ _: i I tlt~, ., I \ \----. '<l.~ __J i .L- , '-~'-t'"-\ 1= ~i Jf ::::: ?~ .i ' ' ~ 'i'::' 'f'j1j ~' J <\. l. \ i III(-~) ~O... .... -- . ,. ~ 1'1'. ~:~ I : ~ w I ~ I ~ · ./' i, .'j; -~ .'.... ,;, ~ ~ I 9 .:~. '_, -! L___J .. / __ _ r '-i-j - , ~~ "" ~ .. ,~r i , V ___I I ~ ~ \ ~ ~ W:i "ii":' ~ ....-.::/ ill Ujl "-: -+- I~ \ 'It oj, . "i" "\.. --h~. '-- L- \,--1 ~ ~ . --- --- - i (~'I~' ;; i :: """ ~. I I ~ ~ . jJ ] J ~ ~~ 1" ",' , I I -J '> ~ (~ :~i ~ ~Lf.iJ~/-=~ ~'T ! t.l ~::: ~i ~;;~;' 1: . }ljl I! I! I ~~~ ~ /~JI ~~ ~::.I/~~ . ~ 'r.~ ,~!~ ~ ~if. ~ if ,. ,0<" A ~i i: ~~::/ ~ jj ~i ~~I ! - 'pi "," "'1'': i - ., /, "'i!rCl:~ " Ii l! ""~ / ~ , 0 , ~ ,,' ,'"" f-n- ~ ...- ~ ~ ! . i{~_~, - .' ,~.P' .::::" "~':;;: ;~:~ ':;"~". ":':. \~:.{~ ~l ~ x :'. '~'. ~} \ -: .i J<", , (1'1 11 ~ ll~ r~1 ~ 18' I~ ~ I'~i 1.:~~t1 " .,~~~~ ~:, -:..... .' Ii ~ jr ~ ~~~ E: ~"" /.... ' " 10 : ~1I r. ~, (\, .' ~ il ~ <t "'@jO t!> ... .,.... J1ji \ '. ~ . 0-.'-" , ~' J'.'," ~ :,; ~ '--<Ie ~..t"lt~ .c ~!.!). I .:d "~:'Q~ r ~.'. ~ ,"'!Ii ~ ~~~~ ~ "'.f~' /'J --. 1-. ~1 i i!~ ~ __ :ij '~~ ~ ~. ,_ ! : ~,~? ~ J./ : 1 1...,;- .\~ --. _u ,td 1I f _ _~~ ="'~ '"- ~~ ~~-~~ H ~'P' - I t-a.......,~ \. m, I I; ~ ~ '.. "\: & ",,~ .~. ~.r1 I I ~I -'" III ~ ~ . t> i~~ c . W'.h .;-~- 1l'6~~ .1" , ~ '.. ..!.. n n If~rj I ~ \L-- I / ;r~~ I .. n_.._ ~ W ~~ >-1;) \ : u..... ~ l(' [I Ifl "i3~ ~ ..: ~ w e;~ " ',,' ll~ : ~ Ei~ : ;0 '__ .,/ I \ I ~ .. Ii i. t I ;I~I ~! ~tiit lJ ~I . 11~~ f 1=1 t -g. .! i dfi! II nu l dll~ e f~~t I i!l~~ ~I !HU fll~~ f h;H iI!.li~ III v!t:.~ - .dO( litili! I: i-.!i 1~11ll ~H!~ H..~~ . 'I .-:' .:.:. , .:.: :: -~ \ HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P. Gregory T. Hornecker Robert L. Cowling John R. Hassen R. Ray Heysell H. Scott Plouse P. David Ingalls Adam T. Stamper* Joseph E. Kellerman James A. Wallan Benjamin M. Bloom Attorneys at Law 717 Murphy Road Medford, OR 97504 (541) 779-8900 Fax: (541) 773-2635 http://www.roguelaw.com * Also admitted in California **Also admitted in Washington Charles E. Bolen Alan D.B. Harper Ryan J. Vanderhoof Richard L. Billin **Shane J. Antholz, LLM *Stefanie L. Burke Mark S. Bartholomew Of Counsel- Fred M. Aebi Retired - B. Kent Blackhurst Ervin B. Hogan 1927 - 2000 February 1,2005 Mayor John Morrison City Council Members 20 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Re: Appeal of Planning Action 2004-105 (Mountain Pine Subdivision) Dear Honorable Mayor Morrison and City Council Members: This firm represents the applicant, R & C Investments, in the above-referenced matter, and provides the following written statements on behalf of the applicant. Please include this letter in the record of this proceeding. This letter is intended to supplement the oral testimony provided at the appeal hearing and to address the issues raised by appellant. 1. The application of various street standards. Appellant argues, based on various specific references to the code but without reference to context, that the City Council should require a larger dedication of the applicant's property along Prospect Street. It is clear that the provisions of Section 18.82.020 primarily focus on new streets, as these are mapped by the City's Transportation Plan. The Planning Commission imposed conditions for offsite improvements which do address some of the issues related to Prospect Street. However, there is no code provision that operates as an approval criterion for this application and which requires the dedication and construction of a full city street as an offsite improvement. This would be particularly problematic in light of the very minimal impacts from this development on to Prospect Street, in comparison to the taking of property which the appellant urges. Ashland's street standards are designed to provide flexibility to address certain situations where physical features of a project create severe constraints. It provides for exceptions and flexibility to maintain important natural features and deal with constraints which prevent existing streets from being improved to full city standards. While the provisions for street design provides several potential options, it should be noted that it is specifically referenced under Section 5 of the Ashland Street Standards Handbook, that shared street space on neighborhood streets is perfectly acceptable for streets, such as Prospect Street which have very low traffic volumes. Further, limited paving area and narrower streets will preserve the hillside and existing trees as outlined by applicant, which HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P. Mayor John Morrison City Council Members February 1,2005 Page 2 are specific goals of Ashland's street design standards. Just as the Planning Commission has done in the proceedings below, the street standards are designed to be flexible enough to accommodate the varying practical situations of our community. The street standards specifically provide for exceptions, specifically in situations where physical features of land and existing neighborhoods create constraints. The existing features on the subject tract, include several mature trees and challenging topography. This is combined with the existing physical constraints of Prospect Street, including its limited right-of-way, steep topography on either side of the right-of-way, important trees and the inability and undesirability of connecting Prospect Street to other streets in the municipal street system. Applicant has worked with the Planning Commission and staff to reach an approval with conditions that calls for substantial offsite improvement to the public transportation system to alleviate the problems that now exist on Prospect Street, several of which will continue to exist, regardless of this project. However, the approval conditions imposed by the Planning Commission does require substantial improvements to Prospect which, in fact, are not proportionate to the impacts on Prospect Street which will be produced by this project. While applicant is willing to accept the approval conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, should the approval be modified or the conditions changed, specifically as advocated by appellant, applicant reserves the right to appeal any such condition. While appellant argues for greater livability of the street, it is applicant who will provide a solution to several of the pre-existing problems on Prospect Street. The current approval is a good balance, taking into account the natural terrain, the realities of developing Prospect Street, the low volumes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on Prospect Street and the appropriate density for this tract. It should be noted that although appellant asserts that there is some unique or intense development of this property, the current zoning and density proposed under this application is, in fact, the lowest residential density permitted by the City of Ashland. 2. The appellant asserts that an exception to any street standards should not be granted. Applicant concurs with the Planning Commission's determination and the various staff reports that the street exception criteria and street standards in ALVa 18.88 have been met for the exceptions approved by the Planning Commission. The natural features of the site have been taken into account in the design of this project. An exception to the street standards is justified and conforms with the expressed purposes of the code and guidance provided in the Ashland Street Standards Handbook as to how the standards are to be applied. Applicant seeks to improve the current substandard condition of Prospect Street beyond the proportionate impacts which will be produced by the proposed development. The design, as conditionally approved by the Planning Commission (the applicant herewith submits revised plans that depict the project as approved by the Planning Commission) is the HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P. Mayor John Morrison City Council Members February 1,2005 Page 3 minimum exception necessary when taking into account the need to balance density, tree preservation, access and the remediation of existing problems on Prospect Street. Finally, the approved street exceptions comply with the approval criteria of the performance standard ALUa 18.88 and the goals of Ashland Street Standards Handbook. The solutions reached by the Planning Commission address existing problems on Prospect, including: · Improved access for pedestrians and vehicles, including access for existing homeowners. · The preservation of existing trees and slopes on either side of Prospect. · The provision of additional off-street parking which will serve property owners on both sides of the right-of-way. 3. The appellant argues that the minimum lot size cannot be met because of the arguments previously made require a dedication of land for right-of-way. As outlined above, there is nothing in Ashland's code which requires the dedication of land in this case. However, should the Council finds these street facilities to be inadequate (as approved by the Planning Commission) applicant may be required to provide right-of-way. There is nothing in code which prevents the dedication of an easement along either Prospect Street or South Mountain Avenue. Applicant concurs with the various staff reports that lot size will not be impacted by dedication in the form of fee title or easement granted by the applicant to the City for the street frontages in which public improvements are intended. The lot size requirements are met even in the case of conditional dedications ofland because of how the City has interpreted the minimum lot size requirements - that lot size is not accordingly reduced by land dedicated for street improvements for the purpose of ascertaining minimum lot area. Applicant requests that City Council find that it is interpreting its own ordinance, that minimum lot size is calculated prior to any dedications of land as part of the approval process. Alternatively, applicant urges the Council require simply the dedication of an easement for the required street improvements. The appellant cites no code provision to support this argument of a contrary interpretation and applicant contends that its interpretation is consistent with historical municipal practice. Appellant actually makes inconsistent arguments in that he asserts there can be no other calculation of lot size other than as the lots are finally configured after an in fee dedication on the final plat, and yet later in his material, appellant argues that lot size is actually calculated, in some circumstances, subtracting a flag portion of a flag lot as created under the partition portion of Ashland's code. While appellant does not fully reconcile these two positions, it is clear that he recognizes that there are situations where the City, either HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P. Mayor John Morrison City Council Members February 1,2005 Page 4 expressly or through interpretation, calculates lot sizes for determining minimum lot size compliance in various fashions and formulas. .An.e (\~-* Applieant's argument that dedicated easements cannot be used because such action is somehow restricted by ALva 18.80.020(C) is not well taken. There is nothing in this section that constrains the City to only accept water and public utility easements. The Council should not add restrictions which do not exist to its code outside of its legislative process, and an interpretation that the City may not accept any other type of easement other than what is specified in the above quoted section, is both impractical and incorrect. 4. Appellant argues that Lot 7 is undersized and does not meet the minimum 10,000 square foot lot size for the creation of lots in an R-I-I0 zone. Applicant again concurs with the staff report and accepts the Planning Commission's decisions with conditions for this subdivision as outlined above. 5. Appellant argues for a recalculation of Lot 5 under the flag lot criteria for partitions. The calculation oflot area is provided in ALVa 18.76 (Partitions), but this application is not being processed as a partition because it is, in fact, a subdivision. There is no basis to apply the flag lot calculation provisions of 18.76 in reaching the square footage calculations for the proposed lots. The lot configurations provide frontage to public streets as required. While it is debatable whether or not the "pole portion" of a subdivision flag lot should be calculated into the minimum lot size, the staff and Planning Commission has determined that even iflot size were calculated pursuant to ALVa 18.76, these lots meet the minimum lot size. It is clear that appellant can find no authority for his position that driveways must also be excluded from the lot size calculations. Appellant's argument here does not appear to be really directed at the flag lot concerns addressed by ALVa 18.76 but is actually an effort to lower the density to a level lower than is permitted anywhere in Ashland. Appellant ignores the extensive lot design, tree preservation and home site location which has been done by applicant in this matter, but instead has contrived additional criteria to attempt to limit the density. 6. Prospect Street Build Out. Again, applicant concurs with the Planning Commission's decision and staff report recommendations for the proposed offsite improvements to Prospect Street. To the extent that there are now above ground utilities, applicant's intent is to place these underground and the same is a condition imposed by the Planning Commission. 7. Bonding for Completion of Tree Preservation. Applicant has commissioned an extensive tree preservation plan that was designed by applicant's expert landscape architect. Lot design, building location and street improvements have all been designed to work together and balance the land division and city standards with the maximum preservation of trees. The tree preservation plan was reviewed by the Ashland HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P. Mayor John Morrison City Council Members February 1,2005 Page 5 Tree Commission and it found that no bond should be required. Moreover, applicant's Tree Protection Plan provides that its landscape architect be frequently present during construction to ensure that the plan is properly carried out. 8. Appellant's: concerns with exparte contact do not really indicate an error or bias in the findings and decision reached by the Planning Commission, but appear to be repeated procedural concerns and alarms based on the appellant's observations of the land use process. The City Council, in its role as providing a de novo appeal hearing, has the opportunity to weigh all facts and testimony in evidence and make an entirely independent decision on this application. Applicant accepts the denial of the variance request (to provide off site parking for one of the existing dwellings originally intended to function as an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU). Therefore, applicant herewith withdraws this CUP request. Applicant understands that the existing house (which was the subject of the CUP application) may no longer be a dwelling at the time this project is built, and will take steps necessary to ensure that that building does not qualify as a dwelling, as that term is interpreted by the City of Ashland, when a new home is constructed on its resulting lot. At such time, this structure can continue to be used for beneficial purposes such as an artist's studio. In conclusion, we believe that appellant is not advocating for improvement of the existing transportation facilities, as much as he is arguing against permitting the density allowed by zoning. Applicant has sought no change of zoning. This very low residential density is being met by the proposed subdivision, and while applicant believes it has met all of the applicable criteria for these applications, it accepts the decision of the Planning Commission and agrees to conditions it imposed. Applicant respectfully requests that the City Council deny the appeal and conditionally approve the applications consistent with the earlier decision of the Planning Commission. Should the Council elect to approve the applications, applicant herewith offers its assistance in the preparation of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support thereof. Very truly yours, HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L. .P. ~ / ADBH:jat reo. I. LUU:J: ~:I~~M c;L.J. rKIAK IIL-tlH:J 5417790114NO.tJLI~ 10/22/20~4 FRI 15:20 FA! 5415522050 Ci ty of Ashland Planning --=- .-.--. --- I <U~ i ~Vol.!?~!JJ~e_ 41:2 ORDIl'll\.NCl!; NO. I~-L '1 , loA ard.iuan<:e ~cAt1ng a po~t10ft o( Prospact ~treet. 10 1;:he C1tl' o.f' AshlauB., Jaclcsod C~t..,., oregon, and r9qws1nc "tba City" Rllcora.er t.o certtt:y a copy o.f th.ts ordlcane~ to Ute County. Clerk. .County }';l1!!:lneer and CO"UDty A.s5E!.9S0r - ' . ' ~EAS, by ~et1t~Clu si~n~d by all or tb~ adiol~g propertf o\tTIe:t's. it has be~n req\1e:s~ 'tha:t toG cs.~y or. A.s~d vacate tb:ot por1:'l.oo=\. ot' ~O:'Jloet ~e:~et. n~.,,-...:rt= G.~s~~~",;,~ ~.' . ..... ~MS~i~~orbIf~.ilis ii~~~~~':~$~~~m ~:5 0- 1'"n19ClU fO~ ~1d vaeat~~: (a) the hll~idG 1$ SO ~tee~ as to rQqU1r9 ~cesslve c~tg ~nQ rill~ ir s'treetsare kept W1de- (b) thIs cxte~10n o~ P~D~pect >>Q~a. not bG a wide $treet, since 11; 1(Ul. l1rov1de access 'to ~ l.~ted I1'IDber o-r b'ldldinC s1 WS,; tb.e-re i ~ 11 't1:~e l.ikeltb.ood that tM :I't::-"et would cV-lI't c:&l1n e>l:loush Cl'OSlI-towD, t:rarflc to wa~$~t ?~~~j~ np ~i~h t~~ ditr1cul~1~s &~3oa~at~d ~1tb a ~~~ ~trcet. (c) Ihe. prese-Dt ria:bt. ot way el@~at.1on &lves C::Ood access to ~onert1Qs adjacent .to the ~oath s~4e of the ri~ht o.f Wal~ Cutting the ro&~ .1eveL t.o llt'oyiaQ eq1281 ci\t and t1l1 ",oul.o place the r'oad level .about 3t feet l:l.elgw t.be south property l:2ines. (d). ~ p'1'o,,?osad 2S rov~ :r1.~t of ....." vouJ.d .a it pos$1ble to':J:'!:t.a1n se-vera.l la:rll:EI t.rees on. ~ne ROr~h s1de or the stt-eet Vb1ch are 12 to 1.1+ Teet. 'oD.tb1n the prElsent 't'lgnt ~ Y3.y. and ~. t.be CO_OIl Counc:U does boreD" Und tha..t s.a1d. argmnents are ~1.1a.. and ~S, clue Zlo1:1ce at ",aid 'V1ile3t.ion b<!'" been ~1v~n :in tl1e /Il3nne-:t ~. ~ 'i and torm r~~l'e<1 by l.a.". =.nu thll Pl.a!m1ng CQdlllills10n l\a.~:ng :recollll1l4mdEl .;.t .~; 8~1~'~tl.~:\'.t:o!i; and, t.'hI!1 Common Co~e1J. ba"rlrtr.:: coonducted a hee.:r1Dg l;MrlK L;+ . ana :1t; a.~~ 'to the Comr,aoa. Ca~cll .~~ t.Qa pq.bl1e eon:uD.ltm.C(;. and 1 . c ' .. .. ~.- ~~;... "." ._~~;':~~_'~S ~~~811 ~ber~\)y ~ ~~.~OIl1.S iSl1:be publ.1c ! .,.~_.......~""'tb'lf"t5S~.. "'.......1i'V'I'nllP .. :. ...:-......., ,;Jf:~. '''--0..... ,.~ .~."'l'~'~" '-,'., ...... '~--'-'1.~.~.,~.. i~. ~ FEOt'LB rtF 'tHE ctfi o~ .~~ ~J'~~]t AS -FOUO\';s: -:. , - ~ .'" ::.:-:rr;" . ;.:,- ~'~:~1~ ....... -J.- , le;'-'. . ~, u p.2 ~ 002/003 " J 3 " S ! .i ) f j j. ' /1' ~!- ......,.y."'. ~-"- I eo, I, L U ~ iJJ ~ ~'.I} t' M 10/22/2004 FRI 15:20 ./ 4689GQ II'; 11\1'; IIL- ~IIDiJ CL'J~~ .o>""'ne FA! ~4;5522a50 City of Ashland Planning I~ 0 ' D L III 5417790114 SSCt;:!OI1 1. V'.... , ,-//Vrif.~~Page~~ \ L ,;; p.: '""' 01, ., '''' POr".. or Pr..,... ".oe, d""'''''d o. r.". .... ""~ 15 c_, Or "0"'" s<t.e, "'no "'" We" ... ot "c" or .... " tho ~.., 110. or Sou,. "'...."'....0.. e;l!;tendM Atu3 IQOl-e ~rt1l!ltlar.ly desCJ:'.1bed as :('ol.totr~: "-""'D, .. t"" "'"...,t ....... at: ... Wos. I10lr or th. 80....... <l>oa..... or 'ho ""....... ......... or s.cu"" ". ,....,h1p 39 -. _. 1 east or tho "1>_,.. "or..,.. '" 'ho C,.,. .r tu....... J.t"- _,t~. <>-......; th_. lfor't 1 "0' to <h. po",. or ""O'.....; .....00 w.., ""_. '"'' -. -... 15 tOet t.. .."'. .. _._... "Do. ~:t':..~.=:.;.~~::;~..~_. "'",:~ oOld,.:""' ",....f"... ~~.Dde<l; tbl'l.I'Jcc South J.5 t'e:t;'~~~~.O'~, ", . to the 'p'l1J:rt or beg.1JJn1nt. be, ana tho!! -SalDe19 be:r-eby-, vae.3 WCI.. SeC1:.1Ol) <_ ...., 'M C"~ ""Not " _.., <U....... to d".iv.. . ....t1f1~ ""> 0.( .... """"'""0 '" 'be """'tr Clo.". o"UO'y ....""'" ... .oun. AS!llll.flOOr of .Tac4;son C01U1,1;~, OJ;"e~Ob. . ... ......."'. "",-" -. Oo1y ""as.... -... . '.....01.. '" ... tol..... · ........ mo."",. of' 'ho C_ ""'me" ho'. "" ... ~ day or June,. 1959; the vote bQ1.Qg "s .('ollQw:n .&YU_ # JI /fa,.':! ",. / ",. .. ~ ,":~',~' ~::',.' ;~~:~"" . " : . ;,- .. ,:,,'j: I ~o '.~, .or, ~~.,~~ lle!"eby ~ert1.t'y-: ~-k}ji.:f~~-8. A:J)lY.rQVed: ~~/~j/ , 1'Or ".:,,\~jt.,\b~,_ ~'~,_:..~ - '(~:.\~,~;,'~ 'i.; :'~1~~,~ . S ",' :'}..L:i,;:.:l,J,, ;:Y1fv:jj?f ;",C.:S~'~il~DN f1r:c~~, , , ~~-"'-f'_ . -:'~.' . ",-, .~ ~o;.~....... . .....".. .1r~~.. ,'~ ,~. ='~":'-": :~: .: . :.~:.. '~". '~" tm..uN i i '* ro 53 [''',M. CLEllK A$. ", ',,' B~':",~"" .. ',- . ....-:, '. . ," _,.Jf:~~.. .~:~':.'. ~',,: . . .... '. ~'.' . .. . . '. P. . . >\',~'i,,/',>:.. ,,'l~ '" ; ~.-J ......_<~;:.~...~~ ~-. ~. u '_,_ _~---:----.. i:~ .. 4' . 1.",' :~..:.:. .~.... ': ..... - -- -, .-.-.....,... .~. . ..... t'. D p.3 @003/003 Page 1 TREE PROTECTION/REMOV AL PLAN NARRATIVE Prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc. For Mountain Pines Subdivision February 1,2005 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.l 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."z Ifroots on one side ofa tree are 1 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 of Trees During Land Development. p. 72. Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Mountain Pines Subdivision Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 2 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. The species tolerances for trees to be retained within the Mountain Pines Subdivision are as follows: RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF SELECTED SPECIES TO DEVELOPMENT IMP ACTS3 RELATIVE mMMONNAME SCIENTIFlCNAME TOLERANCE mMMENTS Bigleaf Maple Acer 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 Cedar Calocedrus decurrens Moderate --- Deodar Cedar Cedrus deodara Good Tolerant of root & crown pruning. Intolerant of excessive soil moisture; leads to Armillaria and PytofJhthora. Common Manzanita Arctostaphyllos Not rated --- Madrone Arbutus menziesii Poor --- Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa Good Tolerant offill 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 niRra Good Tolerant of some fill and root pruning;Iniury. Oregon Black Oak Quercus kello$!$!ii Moderate --- Oregon White Oak Quercus garryana Good n_ 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 SPEClFSTOLERANCE lREEAGE (Feetperioch tnmk cIiatmer) 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 Y Clung 1.0' Mature 1.25' Overmature 1.5' Note: This docum~mt 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 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 tht: 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 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTECTED TREES (by lot number): Buildable Area Considerations:: I. 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 A venue, 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: has a 20' setback from Prospect Street, 5' more than required. 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 J, 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. Rear yard: The garage is set back 20' from the rear lot line, more than the required 10'. The buildable area line is for a first and second story is 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 Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Mountain Pines Subdivision Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 4 finish floor elevation of 446', protects tree roots in the crucial top 24" of soil within the delineated tree protection zones. #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 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. · 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-1type 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 I 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: 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 front yard, with building at a higher elevation and outside of the tree protection zone, thus with minimal effects to tree roots. The west side of the Buildable Area shown (the forested section) far exceeds the required 15' setback. On the east end, the buildable area shown is 20' back of the property line,S' more than the 15' required setback. Rear yard: The buildable area steps back on the west end to maintain the tree protection zones of trees to be retained. The rear garage access is set back 20', exceeding the required 10' 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. Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Mountain Pines Subdivision Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 5 #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 · 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 tree and its Tree Protection Zone are not impacted by construction. · Do not disturb; per Tret: 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 Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Mountain Pines Subdivision Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 6 · 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: Buildable 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 roofpitch 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 ftmcing 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. · Bigleaf Maples 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 17'-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) ar'ea. · 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 fi~ncing 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" Bigleaf Maple · 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. Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Mountain Pines Subdivision Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 7 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 Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 8 #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. . During construction this tree shall be irrigated as required to maintain health. (See 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. . 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 fi~ncing 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 Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 9 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 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 they are added to the urban forest as landscaping on individual lots will improve tree density and species divt:rsity 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 Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 10 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 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 Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 11 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 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 divl~rsity. 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 adj acent trees or existing windbreaks: The removal of this group of trees, located inside the building envelope cloes 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 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. Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Mountain Pines Subdivision Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 12 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 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 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 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 dive:rsity 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 div(~rsity 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 of the small (10') Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Mountain Pines Subdivision Landscape Architects & Site Planners Page 13 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 trl~es 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 Landscape Architects & Site Planners "'" Q) OJ) c<l ~ --------- ; <( 11 ./ \1) ~J til <( Ii l~ [) ~ III ./f- (j <( I 11" <( CJ ~~ ~ U-J III 11 >11 ./ \.J 011) lYD Z 1- l!\ II) <( c) \) 1- W f- <( lY \') z o i= <( -1 f- Z W )- Z o lY I- II) <( \) -- --------- --,---- w IL Ii D w '" ~ 11\ [}I DO Z L w[}I I w <(11 W .-1 o <( ILD Z<( o [}I ~ lL <(0 J I f-Z i30 "IL D mL f- Z ww :Lffi ~I <(<::: IL ~i lU ----1 \- IIJ {d In [}I\) \) UJ LIl \) 0) \) . \)\') i=[}I -1~ ~w illY II)W <(Il \') ltJ ZlY >1 <(2: wO-O IL IlY o ~ lL DW>- IlJ Z;:!:. 1-llJ -... <fill<( liD>- OW-1 lL ----1 1 lY-1<( w<(- Ilf-D lf1<( N) ;or lY -~-----_1_ j W\) [) ID <(D [}I III \1) ill \')~ Z 1-_ 1= u) ID D /Z ILl -=:J ! III o o <:: o J W ill 1(', \)w o ill IY ID 0> :.;~ 2:~ / ct<( ~) 2: t- <( <::: Cl <f () IY [) w )- <( o '-,. CIl Q; c c ell CL 2 U5 o/S CIl U 2 :E ~ <( Q) 0- ell () CIl "C C ell -.I en I Z c o '00 'S; '6 ..c ::J (f) CIl Q) c a:: c '(ii C ::J o ::2: CJ I '-,. J en 1- () C CIl Q) 1ii '0 o CIl CIl <( o/S :S .~ ..c (ij (') If) ...... Q) 01) o::l i:l.. uJ >, (}I. I' u, <t "' f-- {)\ ,,) UJ :> -, (}! <t , Ii 0 z UI IU e- Ll \I) \11 [[l {) UJ Si LL I U I lLll l}/ '> I Cj 1U, 1 <t <t DI \.) '> (}' ~I I- () ",I) \f), I- \f) I z' ii: (}I J ,- 61 C) <t. z ~I lL ~ \I) '" II If! I -' / I, \11 1 C) 0 \.) , Z IU C) 0' D <t f=' l: II ~I '> w L \.) T ~ ,nl lLJ' [)I I- C) Ii, 1L, lL l- LL 21 >- ,,) [}I IU' UJ W lU Di T II ~ I I- -' \n 4:: 7" \); -::.... " 7' (, \.) \, ,j Z \)1 T ",) ~li L_ \.) II <(: f UJ \-' lY (}' II IlJ D ::J IL lU () IL D W [J III lY "' Wi W D \n 7 If) IlJ DI 7' ) 1"1 "f! L \111 U! \.) Z <f ttJl I \.) Ir' Ii' \Il I .J) I " <f , d) \1) '> <f ~ '> w \f) <f <t '> \,j \.) '1 z \) Ii () [[l -1: UJ <{ J f- lU \) <f LU L C\ D r 7 " 1- -) W ) I" 7 ::>:: \) Z " IU \ -, II - <f .L Cl Z " C'J / --1 " II L .7 <f ) \) In ..J llJ " LI ..J \1) [) z Z I- ::J \ll C) / [)I IU \1) \~ 7 D \ i3 If W --1111 -fz ~) ~ IlZ -1:W Z }'<'C J)- 6~ 10 U.l Wz If),!) ~J) ",W ::!D lL1iJ ~ In ~ ~J iY\J1 , it :!_~ 4' -,," -'~ -Z ~~ lLg . U ~ <I> C C <<l a::: 2 US o/l rn t5 .~ ..c ~ <( <I> a. <<l () rn "0 C <<l ...J ::>- z <{ C) lei III I \) LJ tY D <{ II tY Iii I() [[l llJ )- D I- <( W I ~J 2: [)I [)I \) If) C) z [)I lL C) w II ::-) \) Q 0) Iii I 1-1 II I f I -=:c - = =, =-= -::; ~:..:: = = =- c o '00 'S: '6 .0 ~ (j) rn <I> C 0: c .itS C ~ o ::2: ~=~==~ =-====~~=~= It llJ I () C ui <I> 1il '0 o rn rn <( o/l -= .~ .0 ""iti CJ Page 1 TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE OBSERVATION SCHEDULE Prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc. For Mountain Pines Subdivision October 29, 2004 In compliance 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 Meetinl!: Prior to comm~mcing 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 Fencinl!: 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. Roul!:h Gradinl!: 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. Trenchinl!: Observation All trenching ~or 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 Obs€:rvation The Landscap~: 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. Landscape Architects & Site Planners II g~\Q~~~tb 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 541.770.5164 email: contact@galbraithla.com 1.----------- -----.----.-.-------- /1' I;~' /~() I /h~ J,dl}.,.... /Y' M'dll/lvll --;;:;----- /,-,4 ,Ii - ~-k J,' "j" '''''vS ~ "!- --- . / ~I'~~~~~ i ~ -~ "-~ " ~ ~ t; ( 0 ~ '" ~ ~ G i 50 t~ 1il~!J ~ ~ ~~lti v i~~ ~ "l~ ; ~ ~II ~ ~ : ., ~L ~;2 ~!i! ~ ~ n \i iI~~ ~ ~ ~~ \i ~~i J, ~ ; ~ i{ ~ ; i ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ i ~Iillillillil 81il1il1il 81il1il1il 81il W~~~~ W~~~ ~~~~ ~~ "" ~"~'"l~ ~,,~-: ~ll,,!ili ~~ ~~~~~ ~~-- ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ 1,11' I ~ I I t ~ I I I ~ I ..---- + - ~---,.__._---~--- _.--_.__._---_._-~ .._~~~-- ~ <( +~~.-..- ~ ~~ o I JnN.711 v Nwrn I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~2~~~~21~~~~~~~I~~I~~~~~~b~~~~~~~~~~ '-1 ~ tllllllllllllllli!lllllllllllll!lllllll!llllllllllllll,11111 '" -J !Xl ~ n._______~ ----1 ~'" ~~ ___r- -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ " :oj " >l !iLl< C1 iF J n N 3 11 V N I V 1 N n 0 IV II 1 nos --._._-_..._---~-~- - ~-~-_._~ F~91 ss .9------€> Al ;;;9------- to"89 IJQ ... OO'Ol o~'c;a ;;; ri! " ~ :;l I 1,- :::J ~ I ? ~ i~ I , ~~I C ~-~ i \ ~~ ~~ ,,> U\ ?q. II > .L' " ~ -.- ..~'....... ''<.;t- . Cl ~ 5?J '" "" "J~ q O~~kf~ tl) ~ <S <t;:- q:: ~ ~.s :-? r-\ l-; ~ - n:::! () :"l \0 \j tJ.... V) q ~ .~ Xl t .... (j M ~~ I... ..,,'ti" ~ 0 q ~ ~~ ~ij ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~i3 ::::> .~ ~ ~ 1l~ ~ ~.~ 8 '4 ~ .. ~ b ~ ~ \) ! ~ ~I l · ~ ~,~ I I. 5 ~ ~ ltHl!~ ~ 0 0 '" .., f,;', '" ~ I.:; tjo " li 0 (J lLJt'l , ~ ~ ~ L.I~~ I o'~c 0 \? ~.:_~gj~ ~,,~ S 1'<, ..(.~ h . ~~d {):z: I I ,- ~ 8~~~ '3 1-- ..; >-0 ... :J .~ ~ l~ ~~~~ ~ i~ ~ g~ ~~ i a:- 0 8~~ a:Qn:: ~~~ Be.. woo "''''z Q.:s , N f-w - en .......... ::r: -)(- w . ~ j <!J ~ ~ RANDALL A. HOPKINS 735 S. Mountain Ave Ashland, OR 97520 541 -488-0265 521-488-2823 (fax) 2-1-2005 Attached are added record submissions on PA 2004-105 (Mt. Pines): 1. Opponent's brie!f in Opposition 2. Opponent's Reply to Staff Report of 2-1-05 3. Staff Report of :2-25-2003 4. SigetichlReid letter dated 2-25-2005 5. Petition signed by citizens opposed to P A 6. Opponent's Supplemental Objections dated 1-2-2005 7. April 22, 2004 Traffic Safety Commission minutes banning parking on south side of Prospect The~e are tendered durin~~ the public hearing on the P A, prior to the close of the public heanng. Randall Hopkins II II II II II II II II II II . . . . . . APPELLANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION to PLANNING ACTION 2004-105 (MOUNTAIN PINES PROJECT) Randall Hopkins 735 S. Mountain Ave. Ashland, OR 97520 REPLY TO STAFF REPORT OF FEB. 1, 2005 Opponent to PA 2004-105 files this Reply to Staff R1eport dated February 1, 2005. 1. Street and Greenway Dedications The SR claims that Sec. 18.82, Street and Greenway Dedications, does not apply to II improving undeveloped existing public streets." That claim is disproved by Sec. 18.82.020E, which says the City may IIrequire additional right-of-way on streets which do not meet the Street Standards of Chapter 18.88." Undeveloped, existing public streets are thus a dirlect target of the Street Dedication section of the City Code. 2. The Performance Standards Option The SF says that subdivisions performed under t:he Performance Standards Option are not required to deduct street improvements from project density. But this is not a subdivision performed under t:he Performance Standards Option. Those have a whole different set of procedures (18.88.030) and issues, such as density calculations, that have never once been put on the .table for review and consideration. Moreover, the present project could not satisfy the purpose of the Performance Standards Option, which allow a 'more flexible design' where it would provide: 'a quality of life equal to greater than that provided in developments built under standard zoning codes.' For all the reasons given in Opponent's brief in opposition, developing Mt. pines under standard zoning requirements would provide a much better, safer and higher quality of life (for development residents and neighbors alike) than the current I shoehorn' proposal. 3. Sec. 18.76.190 The SR says that the PC can waive minimum lot size requirements for dedication of property for public use as street ROW for land partitions performed under 18.76. Even ignoring the fact that this is not a land partition under 18.76 (with its own procedures and issues), 18.76.190 says nothing about minimum lot sizes or waivers thereof. It merely provides that the requir1ement for fulfilling minor partitioning procedures may be waived in instances of partitioning for ROW dedications. This makes it proceedurally easier to dedicate ROW. And ,the issue of minor land partition is irrelevant here anyway since a minor partition is defined as one that does not necessitate the creation of a road. 18.08.560. Here, the applicant wants to create a road. 4. Providing an incentive to provide sidewalks The SR states that not deducting ROW dedications from lot area is needed lito provide an incentive to install sidewalks with development proposals." The is no need for such an incentive. We already have plenty of lawful standards REQUIRING the developer to provide sidewalks with his development proposal. Ev,en the SR says that the standard for a Neighborhood Steet...requires a five foot sidewalk." Why subsidize the developer at the great expense of the existing and future residents for doing that which the developer could be required to do anyway? 5. Earlier Staff Report dated 2-25-2003 The latest SR notes that its earlier SR dated 2-25-03 (which acknowledged that the Planning Commission 1I...could make the interpretation that the flag drive area is the actual physical location where the drive is proposed and deduct this area from the lot") is not in the record. Opponent asks that the earlier SR be included in this record and tenders same for inclusion. Otherwise, Opponent simply redirects attention to the issues, criterion, standards and laws discussed in the Opposition Brief, most of which are unaddressed in the latest SR. CITY OF 'ASH)~AND February 25, 2003 Andy Cochrane Rand C Investement 1970 Ashland Street Suite 2 Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mr. Cochrane, RE: Status of Planning Application 2003-019 On the afternoon of February 19, 2003, the Planning Staff reviewed your application for Subdivision approval for the property located at 759 South Mountain Avenue. After examining the matenals presented, the application was determined to be incomplete. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178. · Tree Protection Plan - As outlined in 18.61.200.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), a tree protection plan is required as part of the application. The tree protection is required to address all trees six calipE~r inches or larger in diameter at breast height. 18.61.200.2. 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 (emphasis added). 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 lineslfacilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f Grade change or cut andfill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious suifaces; 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. B. 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 Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 r~' 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-ojJ. 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. · Flag Drive - Flag drives are required to have a maximum grade of 15% (18.76.060.8). According to the preliminary plat submitted with the application, the natural grade is approximately 22% in several sections of the proposed drive. In order to demonstrate that the maximum grade requirement is satisfied, preliminary engineering for the drive must be submitted including cross sections and profiles, clearly indicating the location of final cuts and fills, and the drive grade. The erosion control methods for stabilizing cut and fill slopes must be included in the driveway plan. · Street Improvement Plan - Preliminary engineering is required for the improvements on Prospect Street and South Mountain Avenue to demonstrate compliance with the Ashland Street Standards (18.80.030). The preliminary engineering for the street improvements must include including cross sections and profiles, clearly indicating the location of final cuts and fills, and street grade. The erosion control methods for stabilizing cut and fill slopes must be included in the street plan. · Public Utilities - Preliminary engineering is required for public utilities (water, sanitary sewer, stomll drain and electric). City records indicate that the water line in Prospect Street is 4" rather than 6" as shown on the plan. Preliminary review has indicated that the 4 ""line does not have adequate capacity to serve additional units and the fire hydrants/sprinkler systems required, and will have to be replaced by a larger line. · Grading Plan - A preliminary grading plan is required for the subdivision (18.80.040.G). Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541488-5305 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 ~.l' In reviewing the application for completeness, Staff noticed several aspects of the proposal that will be raised at the Planning Commission. · Lot 4 - Flag lots are required to provide a lot area that meets the minimum lot area requirement less the flag drive area (18.76.060.1). Lot 4 does not appear to meet this requirement. Furthermore, the Planning Commissiion could make the interpretation that the flag drive area is the actual physical location where the drive is proposed and deduct this area from the lot. Clearty if this were the ease, the wrap around flag drive on Lot 4 deducted from the total lot area leaves approximately 4,320 square feet in the center for buildable and yard area - far less than the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. · Lot 5 - The minimum lot width in the R-1-1 0 zone is 75 feet. It appears that Lot 5 may not meet this requirement. · Accessory Residential Unit - The accessory residential un~ on Lot 2 requires two off-street parkin!~ spaces (18.92.020Ab ). · Adjacent Structures - Staff strongly suggests including the adjacent parcels and structures on the site plan. There appears to be a residence located in close proximity to the west property line, located at 890 Beach Street. Of specific concem is the impact of the driveway construction will have to the properties to the west as the driVEl is shown within two and a half feet from the property line. . · Exception to the Street Standards - Staff does not believe the application demonstrates that the proposed Prospect Street improvement meets the criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards. Specifically, It is not clear why the right- of-way dedication can not occur on the south side of the street to provide the required minimum improvement (18.80.020.5). This letter is intended to identify infonnation needed in order to deem the application complete. Infonnation addressing the application requirements described above must be submitted in complete fonn by March 10, 2003 in order to have the application reviewed at the April 8, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Please contact me by March 6, 2003 to let me know if and when you will be submitting the missing infonnation. If you need further infonnation or have questions, I can be reached at 552.2045 or harrism@ashland.or.us. )f~_ I ~~Harris Associate Planner copies Tom Giordano, Giordano and Associates file Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 ~~. r4_~ 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 effective 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 offence 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 iis South Mountain Avenue. 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 Itestimony 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 of 25 feet up to the last 85 feet of the 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 turnaround 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 thle 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 Avenue, and unintentionally continue down Prospect, perhaps looking to connect with Glenwood or Beach Streets, or perhaps just beingrtotally 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 common 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 Approval # 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 1 036 Prospect for use of their driveway foor 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 a forward manner, and [Emphasis added} 3. the Fire Department determines that a (sic) 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 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 clear 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 addfl~Ss a situation like the western end of Prospect, where there are no street connections and no opportunity to egress without p{:rfonning a dangerous turnaround or backing up a substantial distance. What's more, because the terrain drops off ste(~ply 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 left- 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 mec~ting, 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 ' q{ 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 o/Prospect to South Mountain} and on the north side from the west end of the right 0/ 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, Milan P. (Kip) Sigetich Rebecca L. Reid, owners 1036 Prospect Street We, the undersigned are- in support of the appeal of. Pfarming Action- 2004-105 Il~rding.the Proposed Mountain Pines subdiviSion on at least the folfowing key ~ asoutliRed in the appeUanfs brief filed with the City of Ashland Planning, ~nt: · Right of way requ;remell~ as set forth in AshIarufStreet Standards should be enforcedand excluded framthe calcufation oHot sizes. · Ashland City Standards regarding the flag portion of.Jots should be enforoed as indicated in appellant's brief and fuUy deducted from lot sizes. · Planning. Action 2004-105 witt increase traffic and parking congestion on Prospect S~eet and significantly increase the danger to both- people and property on tbatstreet. · Planning Action 2004-105, by squeezing too many houses into too small an area,. win signifrcantly degrade the beauty and ambiance of the surroundif1g-neighbolrhood- andwifl result in a marked reduction in the quality of life for its neighbors. fJ21,~ 12 SA l/(' c- /0 \ L Y Ivl\J"~ ~jIr / ( .- ~/Y~4"~ eJJl ~ ~y~ A1J f1 J-", P. (K ;pJ J j f~ fit 4 R~ bR. ( ~L to t<{t I r/ 7\ ., J hcc+h e.r\'~L W. \ t\l \ ',5 f~~ I,,, fiull'ps, --r IOJ~ P/~.tjO,cj.. . 'J \f- I Os.' I rrJSp1l.cl ,do _ I \ 0 (0) "(V' () '7 fl2.L +- S+- I o,,~ f\('{o}'>(f '@~1'- > 1-: 5 Ll \ c<" f\ ill.. 7 \ -e ~(M S; .s" . telA ti~ n! hick 5~ C(/[JL,iiU Pv/ A /t10 LVI) V7 ) H~<Z0 c 4 C; r;. f, r: I1cr k 0 '0 h Vb 8 olf l3C?~ (h JI- -r 6I-A J3 ftJ /D<f/7IAfr~~roJ rif~ !?".{:IZ/k 1 &Ja~ Oil /./ I (J 7.1-- W, /.J>r,f ()OJ::> We, the undersigned are in 8Upport of the appeal of Planning Action 2004-105 regarding the proPosed Mountain Pines subdivision on at least the following key points; as ouUined in the appellant's brief filed witttthe- City of Ashland Planning Department · Right of way requirements as set forth in Ashland Street Standards should be enforcect and excluded from the calculation of lot sizes. · Ashland City Standards regarding the tIag /lOIlion of lots should be enforcect as inalCated in appellant's brief and fuRy deducted from tot sizes. · Planning Action 2004-105 will increase traffic and parking COlIgestion on Prospect street and Significantly increase the danger to both people and property on that street. · Planning Action 2004-105, by squeezing too many houses into too smatI an area, will sigrrificanUy degrade the beauty and ambianCl> oflhe SUrrounding neighborhood and will result in a marked reduction in- the quality of life for its neighbors. ~~v~ cJu/ii (;UAJdJ ~V~CfY'j S~{W- YOtV\~ ~R~Ue b--CEr fr\<AV'\de ID'-I7 t..2f1uJml4 7)Y s. ;t{-l-. k. WI SO l!I1-, ~.. {QSl ';t .~. ftte ~~~T '0 t><\: ~ /V\.v \e... Z. '7 '7 ~ ("Q~<>t, SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO PA 2004-105 1. If this PA is denied, it should be denied with prejudice as to refiling. Attached hereto is the statement of Planning Director MacLaughin in connection with a prior PA (2002-106) stating that to Ideny without prejudice' is limi ted to procedural errors. If the PA does not melet the standards, however, it is a denial with prejudice. Since Opponent submits substantive failure to fulfill the standards, denial here should be with prejudice. 2. If the PA is granted, Opponent objects to approving the private drive on the project on the basis of the Planning Department's IIthis is how we normally do things" standard of legal vs. actual access. The private drive is designed to serve more than the maximum limit of three lots. If this is approved, it should be done so on the basis of the Street Standard Exceptions set out in Sec. 18.88.050. This section provides clear planning criterion. The approach of approving the private drive on the basis of Ithis is how we do things' is tantamount to an unclear and subjective standard, especially as the sole example under this I standard' bear little resemblance to the conditions found at the Mt. Pines property. Randall Hopkins Findings of November 12,2002 meeting for denial of PA2002-106 (Deluca, 916 East Main Street). Swales noted this action was not denied without prejudice. Mclaughlin said to "deny without prejudice" usually means there is a procedural error. If the Commissioners do not believe the application meets the standard, they are "denying with prejudice". It was clear the Commission did not agree with the request, so it was denied with prejudice. The applicant can re-apply within a year's time if he/she can show that certain facts were not considered or the plan is modified. 1"/'/.I/~~'/'/,I/'/'/'4'/'/'/~~1/'/'/'/'/1/'/1'/.I/.I/'/'/'/'/.1T/.I/I/I/I'/J/171/I/I/J/171/J/171/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/.'I71/.1T/J/1714/T/I/la!I'/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/.IT/IW/.I/la!I'/I/141'/I/I/I41'/I/I/I/I/I/I'/I 14/1')#?I/I/1/1/14/1'/1 I Ashland Traffic Safety Commission I ~ ~ I Minutes I ~ ~ ~ April 22,2004 ~ I,/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I,.wyl/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/.I/.I/.I/.I/.I/.I/.I/.I/.I/.l/IAtlWIAtIW.I/.I/.I/.I/.I/.I/.l/I/.l/I/.I/.I/.l/I/I46V.l/I/.l/I/I/.I/.I/,I(.W.l/I/.l/1 14IfI!/14IfI!/.l/14IfI!/.I/.I/.I/.l/I/J Members Present: Doris Mannion, Terry Doyle, David Chapman, Patti Busse, Noal Preslar, Pam Hammond Staff Present: Jim Olson, Dawn Lamb, Officer Tom Cook Members Absent: Keith Massie, Don Laws, Jim Green I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 2sn Minutes approved as written. III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: A. PUBUC FORUM ITEMS: None B. Introduced our newest member Neal Preslar C. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC REQUESTS / PROJECTS PENDING/ACTION REQUIRED 1. Sidewalk Construction Schedule The final master list for proposed sidewalk construction for the next ten years has been compiled. This list is the culmination of efforts by the Commission and especially by Keith Massie who prepared the database and arranged the list in its present form. The Commission may wish to adopt this list in its present state with the understanding that it should be reviewed each year and modified as required. Under the Miscellaneous Concrete Project scheduled for this summer the following willi be constructed: 1. B Street - Oak Street to Water Street 2. First Street - A Street to B Street With various street improvement projects or in combination with other works the following sidewalks will also be installed: 1. Granite Street - missing sections between Strawberry Lane and Winburn Way 2. Hersey Street - north and south sides from Ann Street to Mountain Avenue 3. Garfield Street - fill in missing sections on the west side 4. California Street - fill in missing sections on the east side Discussion: Mannion asked if Oregon Street from Frances to Walker could be added to this year's list. The SOLAR (Southern Oregon Learning and Retirement) group heavily utilize this area for their meetings and classes. There is a large memliership and they all have to walk in the street to reach the building. Olson will try to include it into the Miscellaneous Concrete Project this summer. Olson advised the Commission to look over the list and if they wanted additions or priority changes to contact him. 2. Request for Parking Prohibition on Prospect Street Marguerite Hickman, AFD Fire Prevention Officer, acting upon complaints by several neighbors in the area, requested that parking be prohibited on certain sections of Prospect Street west of S. Mountain Ave. The prohibition is intended to provide improved emergency access to homes on the street. The section of Prospect Street west of S. Mountain Ave. is only 330 feet long. The street is unpaved and currently serves only three homes. Street widths are as follows with measurement beginning at the curb line on Mountain Ave.: 1) 0' to 225' = 25' wide; 2) 225' to 330' = 14' wide Macintosh HD:Desktop FoIder:Mountain Pines:Traffic Comm April04.doc Page 1 of 5 r/I/.I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/,l/IYI/I/I'I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I'I/I/I/I/J/171/I/I/I/I/I/I/.IT/IYI/I/I/I/J/17I/I/I/I/I/I/I/,I/,l/I/.IT/I/~I/,I/.IX#/I/I/I/I/.IT/~I/I/I/I/I/I/I/.tIT/.tIT/IW/.tIT/I/.IT/.tIT/I/I/I/I/ /.tIT/I/#'/..tIT/~I'''' The street is fairly level with a uniform cross slope. The surface is gravel in good repair. The street narrows drastically over the westerly 80 feet where it becomes a private driveway serving 1043 and 1036 Prospect Street. The two homes on the north side of Prospect (1063 and 745 S. Mountain have street level driveways or carports while the first floor of both homes is at least ten feet below the street grade. The off-street parking for 1063 can accommodate 4-6 vehides off the street. Parking on the street is usually light, however, even one vehide parked along the westerly 80' of the street could completely dose the street to the two westerly residences. There is a current application in the planning office for a five-lot subdivision on the south side of this section of Prospect, however, it is not known if or when this might happen. The preliminary subdivision plan calls for widening and partial improvement of Prospect. Even with the improvememt of Prospect Street the westerly end is still too narrow to provide safe on-street parking. Staff recommends that parking be prohibited on the south side of Prospect from the west end of the right of way 125 feet east and on the north side from the west end of the right of wav approximately 85 feet. Discussion: Olson commented that the street has little to no right of way to widen the street. There will be improvements to the street including sidewalk, curb gutter and paving. Each residence has one off street parking and use the street to park additional vehicles. Neighbors were notified of this change, but there are only three residents on this section of Prospect. Phil Phillips, 1063 Prospect Street, asked the commission if the recommended parkin9 restriction on the south side could be extended. He would leave the length up to the discretion of staff. There are no easy ways to maneuver on the street. People perform three point turns or use driveways to turn around in. Most delivery trucks would need to back down the road into the intersection and some drivers also use this tactic. This is not a safe practice. Most residents don't mind people using their driveways because they know how difficult the street is. Philips passed around pictures of the street at different times of congestion. There is development scheduled to increase the number of residences by adding 6 or 7 new homes. Phillips is in favor of staff recommendation and the extension if it is possible. Busse asked if the development happens will the improvements be a Local Improvement District. Olson said that the application had been revised numerous times and was still in draft. The residences that are proposed will not access onto Prospect Street but onto Mountain Avenue instead. The paving will create a 22 foot wide street and Olson suspects the addition of paving and curbs will make parking more uniform. The curbs will give a more definable edge to the street. This should help keep the cars closer to the edge of the street where now they are avoiding the edge of a cliff or a lJank. The new street standard allows parking on both sides for a street from 22-28 feet wide but the new dead end streets are also required to have a turn around built at the end which this doesn't ao:ommodate. Chapman supported increasing the parking prohibition on the south side all the way to Mountain Avenue. Rebecca Reed, 1036 Prospect Street, supported recommendation by staff and any extension that could happen. She agrees that the emergency vehides could not negotiate this street properly. She also worries that most drivers can not negotiate a three point turn or a backing out situation. Her property is at the end of the street and she has had several occasions where she had to help drivers turn around, her landscaping has been run over or impaired drivers have gotten stuck in their yard. Macintosh HD:Desktop FoIder.Mountain Pines:Traffic Conun April04.doc Page 2 of 5 "/.#/1/1#/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/#1411'/1/1/#/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/#1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1-#/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/'1/1/'#/1/11#/1/I/""/I/I/I/I/I/I/I##/I/I/,JI"/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/A Commission discussed the placement of the Dead End sign and how to make it more visible. The sections of Prospect are split over several streets and it confuses drivers. Marguerite Hickman, Ashland Fire Department, supported staffs recommendation. It will make it adequate for the fire apparatus to maneuver. The fire apparatus needs to be within 120 of the residence to be effective. They would have to pull all the way to the back of the stree!t to help with the last house on Prospect and then back out of the street, carefully. Olson said there was one remaining resident that we have not heard from that the parking restriction will influence the most. The neighbors commented that they park double long in their driveway and encroach on the street with the back of their vehicle sometimes two feet or so. Decision: Chapman moved to accept staff recommendation of 85 feet on the north side and no parking along the south side of the street from Mountain Avenue to the end of Prospect. This can be re:visited when the planning department approves the new development. Seconded by Doyle, vote paSSE!:CI unaimously. 3. Request for Mid-Block Crosswalk on Tolman Creek Road Charlotte Doty, 438 Taylor St., requested that a mid-block crosswalk be established on Tolman Creek Road from the YMCA parking lot to the Albertsons parking lot. Ms. Doty explained that many residents of the Donald E. Lewis Retirement Center, located just west of the YMCA, use this ama to access the Albertson Shopping Center. The crosswalk is also heavily used during soccer season and during special events at the YMCA. Ms. Daty feels there is a definite need for a crosswalk at this location. Tolman Creek Road from Ashland Street north approximately 650 feet is 46 feet wide, includes two parking lanes, two bike lanes and two travel lanes. The section between East Main Street and Ashland Street is nearly 4,000 feet long. The only public street intersection between East Main and Ashland Street is Abbott Avenue located 1800 feet north of Ashland Street. The only marked crosswalks on this section are at Ashland Street and at Abbott Avenue. There is a continuous sidewalk on the west side of the street along the entire length. Sidewalks on the east side are limited to the Albertson's frontage only. There are a great number of pedestrian and vehicle destinations and attractions throughout the area including: 1. Albertsons Shopping Center 2. YMCA 3. Donald C. Lewis Retirement Center 4. Tolman Park Condominiums 5. YMCA Commercial PUD 6. Chautaqua Trace Subdivision 7. Tolman Creek Apartments 8. Ashland soccer fields Most of these developments are very dense and offer a very high degree of pedestrian traffic generation. There is currently a pedestrian way located just south of the YMCA buildi;ngs which directs pedestrian traffic onto the sidewalk on Tolman. This was previously a driveway, but has since been closed to vehicular traffic. It now serves to channel pedestrians to an unmarked cros~swalk at the north entrance to Albertsons. The design for widening Tolman Creek to E. Main Street has just begun. This improvement will create additional parking on both sides of the street for approximately 300 feet north of AlbE!rtsons and will then narrow to provide for two six foot wide bike lanes and two eleven foot travellam~s. Work is expected to begin early this summer. Macintosh HD:Desktop Folder:Mountain Pines:Traffic Comm April<>>.doc Page 3 of 5 '1'/1/1/1/1/1/#/1/#/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/171/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/"/"/"/"/"/I/.tr'''/I/~'YI/I/''/I/''/I/''/#I/I/I/I/JIf'/I/I/''W/ ' Mid-block crosswalks are generally discouraged, but in some instances can be warranjted. In this situation there are a number of mitigating conditions that combine to make this request reasonable including: 1. There are very few intersections on the street that provide crosswalk opportunities. 2. There is an unusual number of pedestrian traffic generators in the vicinity of the Albertsons Shopping Center. 3. The street at the location of the predominant crossing is very wide. 4. Many seniors use this area to cross to Albertsons and with the volume of traffic and the width of the street this can be a difficult crossing. 5. The traffic volume on Tolman Creek Road is high at 5100 vpd. 6. There are a number of special activities, events and games at the YMCA and at the soccer fields that generate higher than usual pedestrian traffic. 7. The area is currently being used as a crossing and access ramps are already in place. 8. The area is a logical crossing as pedestrian traffic is channeled within the lots on the west side. Staff recommends that the following actions be considered: 1. Mark a standard (parallel line type) crosswalk across Tolman Creek from the north curb return on the north Albertsons entrance to the pedestrian way on the west side. 2. Install two pedestrian crossing advance warning signs. Discussion: The width and speed of this street make it intimidating for pedestrians, especially elderly pedestrians. Massie had suggested via email that we consider this location for the lighted crosswalk and also removal of parking spaces to make the crosswalk more visible. Olson informed the a>mmission that the cost of the lighted crosswalks has increased significantly to around $50,000. ODOT did not approve the crosswalk lights because they felt they would decrease the pedestrians awareness and it would be something that would be activated frequently by pranksters. The lighted crosswalk is visible for about a _ mile away and the lights dim at night so as not to distract drivers by their brightness. Mannion was concerned with the distraction of drivers in this busy area. Hammond (lelt this was a lot of money to spend for an untried device. It would definitely require a learning curve" It will be a surprise to drivers at first. Olson also considered moving the bus stop to make it easier for drivers to see pedestrians when the bus is parked picking up passengers. Commission discussed whether moving the bus would really help. Ninety percent of the time it is not there but when it is it is a detriment. The bus moving would need to be discussed with RVTD. The other problem is vehicles encroaching on driveways when they are parked along the street. There is one driveway that is no longer used that the drivers block all the time. This summer's project will widen Tolman Creek Drive down to E. Main Street and that will add additional parking that will make up for the one or two spots we lose with this recommendation. There will be about 300 feet of street that will be widened. Mannion would like the drivers leaving the driveways to have more visibility. Olson felt that when the widening takes place the existence of bikelanes will give drivers more room to nose out into the street to see. Doyle asked if advance warning rumble strips like the ones used in Central Point on Pine Street could be considered. Some of the commissioners were not familiar with these tactile devices. It was explained that they were similar to the strips along the side of the freeway that warn people when they have gone off the road. Olson thinks those are reserved for major streets with school zones in the vicinity. Macintosh HD:Desktop Folder-Mountain Pines:Traffic Conun Aprill>>.doc Page 4 of 5 '~X"'/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/#/I/#/I/IW/"'/I/I/I/I/I/I'/#/I/"""'/I/I/I/I/"/1/1/#/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/I/I/I/I/#/I4r'I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/A'/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/II/LW/I/I#/1/-11I Chapman supported the recommendations and agreed on the considering moving the bus stop and helping the driveways stay clear. He also had concern with the drivers leaving the Albertsons parking lot looking the wrong direction and not looking up the road toward the crosswalk but looking down the road to see when it was safe to pull out. Decision: Chapman motioned to accept staff recommendation of a standard crosswalk from the north curb to the pedestrian walkway and installation of two pedestrian warning signs. The removal of one or two parking place and the moving of the bus stop is left to the discretion of staff. Seconded by Hammond and passed unanimously. 4. Request for Stop Signs at Wimer/ Thornton/ Wrights Creek Drive Don Johnson, 635 Thornton Way, suggested stop signs may be needed at the following locations on Wimer Street: 1) Thornton Way; and 2) Wrights Creek Drive. Wimer Street, Wrights Creek Drive and Thornton Way are all dassified as local streets. The intersection is unusual in that Wrights Creek Drive and Thornton Way, while both running north and south, are offset at the intersection by 110 feet. The approach grades are steep but not enough to cause stopping/starting problems. Both streets intersect Wimer at a near gO-degree angle. Following is a summarv of the ohysical characteristics of the streets within the intersection: CHARACTERI5nC WIMER ST WRIGHTS THORNTON CREEK WAY Street Width 28' 28' 36' Parkinc Prohibitions North side None None Sidewalks None None None Traffic Control Sians None None None Street Grade 3% 12% 15% Offset Throuch Intersection 110' 110' Observed Defects None None None Street Surface Condition Good Good Good Street lightinc At Thornton / Wimer only Vision Rance Okay Impaired to east OkaY 10 year Crash History None None None Traffic Volumes 667 538 143 The intersection has two legs with moderate traffic volumes. Both Wimer Street and Wrights Creek Drive have the potential of a significant increase in traffic as the Strawberry Lane and Skycrest areas continue to develop. The predominant traffic is the Wimer / Wrights Creek legs of the intersection. A turn movement study shows that the predominant turn movement is a right turn from Wrights Creek Drive onto Wimer Street. The second most common movement is a left turn from Wimer Street onto Wrights Creek Drive. These two turn movements so far overshadow any other movement through the intersection that other movements tend to be forgotten or not anticipated. Sight from the southeast quadrant of the Wimer / Wrights Creek intersection is very limited being partially blocked by vegetation and the natural contour of Wimer Street. Staff recommends that a stop sign be installed on Wrights Creek Drive at Wimer Street. The Thornton Way intersection does not meet warrants for any signage nor does it appear to be needed. Discussion: Macintosh HD:Desktop FoIder:Mountain Pines:Traffic Comm April04.doc Page 5 of 5 ~/I/I/I/I'/I'/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/IXI'/I/I/I/I/"""/,#/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/'4II'/1/1/1/1/I/I/,I;/1/14I'/1/#/1/1/1/1/1/14II'/I/I#/I/'''''#/I/I/I/I/I~'4I/f:/1/I/I?I/I/I/I/I~t;/I/I/#/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I{I/I'/I/II/ "" With the 21% grade up Wimer, drivers tend to accelerate to accommodate the steepness. The street has no sidewalk so there is the pedestrian element to consider. Thornton Way did not meet warrants for new signage but Wrights Creek Drive and Wimer do. Wimer does have a vision clearance problem with vegetation and the landscape. Chapman didn't have much of a problem but it is hard for cars but it is hard for pedestrians to cross when cars are traveling on Wimer so fast and then cut the comer at Wrights Creek Drive. Decision: Busse moved to accept staff recommendation installing stop signs on Wrights Creek Drive at Wimer Street and no changes be made to Thornton Way. Seconded by Doyle and passed unanimously. D. Follow-Up On Previous Actions: None. E. Traffic Safety Education: Could we ask for our venue to be added to some of these events? 1. Applied Round About Design, May 3rd - 5th OSU 2. Safety Analysis & Evaluation, May 25-26th, OSU F. Development Review 1. Bike & Ped Commission Agenda 2. Planning Commission Agendas 3. Hearings Board Agenda G. Capital Projects Update - H. Other 1. OooT Construction Report 2. City Source Message 3. Pedestrian Safety Operations By APD - there were 19 stops and 9 citations. Mannion asked for the new crosswalk laws to be put in the utility billing insert next month. Chapman is helping volunteer and Preslar said he would be willing to help. 4. Miscellaneous Communications 5. Other- A. Painting - Painting will begin in May by the Street Department. B. Stencil for Sidewalks - Staff will try and find the stencil, Doyle volunteered to redo the painting. IV. Adjourned 8:25 PM Macintosh HD:Desktop Folder:Mountain Pines:Traffic Comm April04.doc Page 6 of 5 f'/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/IWW/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/IZ'I?I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/I/1/1#/1/1/1/1/1/1/11#'/1/1;:;'''#/'#/1/1/1/1#/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/11/IWI/.I/lW"I/I/l1Ifj'/I/I/I/l/I/I/"'''W##/#IIW4I'YI/A e ~ '- 0... ~