HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibits Submitted at Meeting
ra Christensen - 0
Pa
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
tribune <tribune@mind.net>
Barbara christensen <barbarac@ashland.or.us>
2/14/20053:02:22 PM
Opponent's reply to City Attorney's brief on Mt. Pines
Attached is my reply to the City Attorney's brief on the Mt. Pines
planning action, objecting to the City Attorneys Office serving as an
advocate for a private developer on fact issues that are, at the least,
hotly contested, if not heavily weighted to the Opponents of this PA.
The Applicant has plenty of representatives and agents to present its
side of the case without city employees, funded by taxpayer dollars,
filing briefs attempting to persuade the Council regarding the 'facts'
to the benefit of a private developer.
Please place this email in the record. I also request that copies be
provided to the Council and Mayor prior to the hearing, or that the
they at least be advised that the opponents to the PA have filed this
response.
Randall Hopkins
The City's legal brief says that "it is true that the proposed
application will increase traffic SLIGHTLY on Prospect Street..." By
what right does the City Attorney's office attempt to determine such
facts or to characterize the facts in such a one sided way? The
citizens who spoke at the Council hearing offered much evidence that
the traffic on Prospect will expand significantly as a result of this
project.
This is not the only occasion where the City's legal brief sounds more
like the private developer's brief as it concerns 'the facts.' The
brief states that "this Council may find, that because the applicant's
tree protection plan makes the development of the site difficult, that
this is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting.." the street standards.
But the tree protection plan doesn't impact development of the area
along Prospect Street, where the. street standard exception is sought,
because there are no protected trees anywhere near Prospect Street
along lots 1 and 2. Once again, nonexistent trees are conjured as
grounds for overly aggressive development, this time in the appearance
of a legal opinion.
It would seem that nonexistent trees gets more protection in this town
than the ones that are really there.
The most egregious example of advocating for the Applicant is the
closing paragraph titled "Policy Choices." Here, the City Attorney's
brief not only cuts free from the law in an attempt to formulate
policy, but casts the policy choices in a grossly one-sided way, again
to the consistent benefit of a private developer.
The brief describes that applicant's project as "permitting the
density allowed under the zoning ordinance.." But this assumes the
conclusion that applicant's version is in compliance. Since the
Handbook says at page 4 that developments commonly dedicate 25% or more
~~.rn""'~~"_""'_'___""'_""'_"_" __"'._ _": ': '.,"'__",_C'.:C'. ...._._:..:.::. ,-..,.,'.":._.",._,.'_._',,,C__ -.C_-_'.'_'.,_..' -'-"C"','_'_.'. .'_, -N.:._" ... _'.'_'_ .--' ,',,_'.';':'..'Y
.'__. ..,-:-.:...:..,-,.._,.:..-.-......'-,.:.:~.C,'/.: .__._..:_:.._-_,.-"'.,....,.:.,...:.:.-.-.~.:~..-:=~~~:~c~~~c~...=.~,.':''''7:.~~.~.~,~:TI-~,~~:~7,..TI~,::~-~,~
rC!. ~hri~!~ns~n - 9ip.on~Qt'~,r~piii2~..[!Y~!t9Fr1~Y.~~~b'ri~L~n,.t~tC~i<q~i" ". .,.:..".,.,.,..".,."."'",.,.,....,.. "Pa
of their land to ROW (a point ignored by Applicant, the Planning Staff
and now the City Attorney) and since it is now undisputed that ROW
dedication does not count on zoning areas, it would be more accurate to
say that Applicant's project would permit a density far exceeding that
allowed by the zoning rules.
The brief then describes the opponent's alternative as limiting
density below standards when "issues of aesthetics" are involved.
Describing this as 'aesthetics' minimizes the issues involved, for the
Applicant's benefit. The residents of Prospect Street offered much
evidence that the traffic and parking situation this project, as
currently envisioned, would produce will negatively impact public
safety, property values and quality of life. By what right does the
City's legal brief try to erase such evidence out of the
record...evidence offered by citizens of this community...in the guise
of discussing the law?
With respect to the law, if the brief proves anything, it is that a
rejection of this PA would be absolutely bulletproof on an appeal to
LUBA. Indeed, even under the City Attorney's view, the law must be bend
over backwards just to avoid concluding that the Council has no
discretion to avoid a 'no' vote.
Moreover, while the brief disagrees with Planning Staffs earlier
conclusion that the Council can interpret 'flag drive' rules to exclude
counting the private drive in zoning calculations, it agrees that the
Council can achieve the same result by interpreting 'lot area' to
exclude the hairpin private drive from such calculations. That
interpretation works for this Opponent just as well. It is thus
undisputed that, by available interpretation, the Council can conclude
that Lots 4 and 5 fail to meet minimum zoning rules.
As far as the evidence the brief says is required to support this
available interpretation, consider again the testimony of Jeanne
Stallman before the PC that the private drive is designed at maximum
grade, with a sharp curve going up the hill, without curbs, gutters or
sidewalks, and with an 11 foot retaining wall at the base in an area
that ices up. If there was ever a 'private' drive that needs to be city
property, this is it. And you would still not exceed the "25% or more"
standard for public street ROW dedication.
Randall Hopkins
cc: <mac@ashland.or.us>, Maria harris <maria@ashland.or.us>,
<franellm@ashland.or.us>, Rebecca Reid <reid@sou.edu>, Kip Sigetich <sigetich@sou.edu>,
<reederm@ashland.or.us>, <Psquared444@msn.com>, <cotton@mind.net>, Rick Browne
<rbrowne@mind.net>, Andrew Stallman <AStallman@ashlandhome.net>, <justdoit@mind.net>,
<grimaldg@ashland.or.us>, <holley@opendoor.com>, Oriana Spratt <oriana.spratt@charter.net>
.
February 14, 2005
Ashland City Council
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
SUBJECT: Mountain Pines Subdivision P A #2004-105
Dear Honorable Members of the Ashland Council:
We would like to take issue with a number of points in the Memorandum from Mike
Reeder, Assistant City Attorney, to the Ashland City Council and Mayor, dated February
9, 2005. These issues concern the inadequacy of Prospect Street, the granting of an
exception to street standards, and the private drive.
On page 2, Mr. Reeder states "If the Council finds that Prospect Street width is
inadequate, then the Council must require additional ROW from the applicant." The
testimony and accompanying pictures of Mr. Phillips and Ms. Reid on February 1,2005
demonstrated that the current Prospect Street is inadequate to meet current needs. The
proposed development will only serve to increase traffic, parking, and safety problems
that already exist on Prospect Street, while at the same time "improving" it to a narrower
width than is currently used for driving and parking. The development's access on
Prospect Street and the street improvements approved by the Planning Commission make
worse an already unacceptable situation, and thus, increase rather than correct the
inadequacy of Prospect Street.
On page 4, the memorandum states that "This Council is not required to grant an
Exception to the street standards on Prospect Street, but if it chooses to, it must justify
such grant of Exception with fmdings for each [emphasis added] criterion in Section
18.88.050F." These are listed at the top of page 4. The memo contends that the tree
protection plan creates "demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of
the Handbook standards" (Criteria A). There are no trees anywhere along the eastern two-
thirds of Prospect Street (see photo), only at the western, narrowed end where the street is
proposed to be 22' in width. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting street
standards for most of the street. It is nonsensical to argue that none of the street be
improved to street standards because one-third of it presents difficulties. Criteria B, C and
D are ignored in the memo. Certainly, there is no way to argue that "the variance will
result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity" (Criteria B). We
believe that none of these four criteria can be met.
On page 5, the Assistant City Attorney quotes Section 18.88.050A the "[a] private drive
is a road ... which serves three or less units." As we stated in our February 1 testimony,
we believe it is obvious that the proposed private drive serves five units, two more than
permitted. The Memorandum does not even make an attempt to defend the ruse. The
Applicant, and seemingly the Planning Department, want the traffic impacts to shift from
the private drive to Prospect, then back again, depending on whether they are arguing for
,.
the adequacy of the private drive or of Prospect Street. In other words, they want it both
ways: 1) The development will have only a "slight" impact on Prospect Street [so no
need to improve it adequately for future needs because most development-related traffic
and parking is handled via the private drive]; and 2) Two of the five units on the private
drive have "legal access" on Prospect Street [so no need to ask for or grant street
standards exceptions for this private drive since ancillary traffic and parking will be
handled on Prospect]. Legal access means that guest, service, emergency, delivery, and
all other miscellaneous traffic associated with three of the units will impact Prospect
Street. This will not, as the Assistant City Attorney asserts, "increase traffic slightly on
Prospect Street." (P. 3). It is a significant impact for this currently inadequate street, made
worse by 25-foot width paving and two-sided parking approved by the Planning
Commission.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
IL~ ~-( I~~ tf
i<~as~
MiltKiP) Sigetich
1036 Prospect Street
...
<1>
<1>
a...
...
en
...
(.)
<1>
C.
en
o
a-
a..
0')
c
o
-
ra
+J
en
<1>
~
0')
c
-
~
o
o
...J
. .:.
I
.....,
<1>
<1>
a-
.....,
en
"t-
O
.en
M
-...
N
C)
C
o
ro
en
.....,
c
.-
ra
a...
.....,
en
c
o
U
ra
.~
en
>-
.c
a..
o
z
"C
C
ra
en
<1>
<1>
a-
t--
o
Z
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 12, 1997
IONS
AND ORDERS
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #97-077, REQUEST F
A SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR AN EXCEPTION
EXISTING STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMEN
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 S. MOUNTAIN STREET.
APPLICANT: RAD WELLES
--------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 2300 of 391E 16AA is located at 735 S. Mountain Street and
is zoned R-1-7.5; Single Family Residential.
2) The applicant is proposing a six-lot Subdivision and Variance for an
exception to existing street right-of-way improvements. Site
improvements are outlined on the site plan on file at the Community
Development Department.
3) The criteria for Subdivision approval are listed in Section
18.80.040 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and are as follows:
Preliminary plat.
A. Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of a
preliminary plat and other supplementary material as may be required to
indicate the general program and objectives of the project to the office
of th~ Director of Public Works. The pla t shall be prepared by a
registered surveyor.
B. Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen
(18) inches by twenty-four (24) inches in size at a scale'no smaller
than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet.
C. General information. The following general information shall be
shown on the preliminary plat:
1. Proposed name of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor
resemble the name of another subdivision in Jackson County and
shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a
preliminary plat.
4. Location of the subdivision sufficient to define the location
and boundaries of the proposed tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
D. Existing conditions. The following existing conditions shall be
shown on the preliminary plat:
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted
streets within or adjacent to the tract, together with easements
and other important features, such as section lines and corners,
and monuments.
2. Location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject
to flooding.
3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded
areas, and isolated preservable trees.
4. Existing uses of the property, including location of all
existing structures to remain on the property after platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval of five (5) feet.
F. Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be
included on the preliminary plat.
1. The location, width, names and approximate grades of streets,
and the relationship of the streets to any projected streets as
shown on any development plan adopted by the Planning Commission,
or if there is no development plan, as suggested by the City to
assure adequate traffic circulation.
2. The location and purpose of easements.
3. The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and
block numbers, for all lots and blocks.
4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than
single family dwellings.
G. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only
part of the tract owned or controlled by the subdivider, the Planning
Commission may require a Master Plan for the unsubdivided portion.
H. Explanatory information. The following information shall be
submitted in separate statements accompanying the preliminary plat or,
if practicable, shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and
unsubdivided land adjacent to the proposed subdivision and showing
how proposed streets may be extended to connect with the existing
streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
3. Where there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within
the area to be subdivided, a preliminary grading plan may be
required by the Planning Commission. A grading plan should show
existing and finished grades on lots and streets proposed to be
graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan shall be
approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a review and
report from the City Engineer.
I. Tentative approval.
1. Wi thin thirty (30) days from the first regular Planning
Commission meeting following submission of the plat, the Planning
Commission will review the plan and may give tentative approval of
the preliminary plat as submitted or as it may be modified or, if
disapproved, shall express its disapproval and its reasons
therefor.
2. Approval of the preliminary plat shall indicate the Planning
Commission's approval of the final plat provided there is no change
in the plan of subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat and
there is full compliance with the requirements of this Title.
3. The action of the Planning Commission shall be noted on two
(2) copies of the preliminary plat, including reference to any
attached documents, describing conditions. One (1) copy shall be
returned to the subdivider and the other retained by the Planning
Commission.
Further, the criteria for a Variance are listed in Section 18.100 of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance and are as follows:
(1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this
site which do not typically apply elsewhere.
(2) Tha t the proposal's benefi ts will be grea ter than any nega ti ve
impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the
purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
(3) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or
purposely self-imposed.
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a
Public Hearing on October 14, 1997, at which time testimony was received
and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the
application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site.
Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the Ci ty of Ashland
finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index
of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an
"M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all
information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff
Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a six-lot
subdivision meets all applicable criteria for approval under the
Subdivision's Preliminary Plat requirements listed in Section
18.80.040. Specifically, the applicant has submitted the required
plans identifying the required information.
~4~ The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Variance
~~o not complete the sidewalk right-of-way improvements in front of
~pt 2 meets the applicable Variance Criteria.
'~..-.!
~ecifiCallY, considering the physical constraints associated with
&~e subject area, the Commission finds there is a unique and
~usual circumstance with this site that does not typically exist
~lsewhere. In order to meet the sidewalk requirement, the applicant
~9uld either need to remove one or more large stature trees or
l;.ikely impact the root systems in such a way that they would
~yentually die. The impact on the trees' root system is compounded
lo;eh~ fact the grade behind the sidewalk often exceeds a 2: 1
~:;
The Commission also finds that the circumstances of the Variance
(~'quest have not been willfully or purposely self imposed.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the
Planning Commission concludes that a six-lot subdivision and Variance
for the sidewalk improvements in 'front of Lot 2 meets all of the
applicable criteria.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being
subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action
#97-077. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found
to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #97-077
is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the
approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval
unless otherwise modified here.
2) That a survey be completed within one year of this approval and
recorded prior to the issuance of building permits.
3) That
electric,
the final
layout to
driplines
all necessary public utility easements for sewer, water,
phone service, storm drainage, ~~'Efreef,!):fii etc. be indicated on
survey plat as required by th~ City of Ashland. Utility
be designed to minimize the routing of utilities through the
of trees noted for preservation.
4) That vehicle access easements be designated on the final survey
plat for all shared driveways. Lots 3 and 4 shall access from the
private drive and shall not have separate driveway accesses off of
Prospect Street or South Mountain Avenue.
5) That the curb cuts serving the driveways along Mountain Avenue be
no wider than 12' .
6) That prior to issuance of a building permit for a structure on lot
5, the property owner shall submit a building site plan to the Fire
Department in order for adequate fire protection measures to be
addressed. Such measures may include, but may not be limited to, the
installation of a fire sprinkler system.
7) That a drainage plan be submitted to the Public Works Director
prior to final plat approval. The use of dry wells shall be prohibited.
8) That all new residences comply with the provisions of the City's
Solar Access chapter 18.70.
,,/
9) That temporary fencing be installed around the drip line of all
trees greater than 6" measured at breast height and/or all trees noted
to be saved on the submitted plans prior to any site preparation (i.e.
grading), storage of materials or the use of construction vehicles on
the property. .
10) That any violation of the condition noted above caused by the
applicant or property owner, resulting in the death of a tree within two
years, requires that the dead tree be replaced by a comparable tree (2"
in caliper) that will grow to a comparable maximum height with a similar
canopy spread.
/ 11) That a certified arborist be present during the initial site
preparation in order to limit any potential conflicts with any of the
adjacent tr~es' root system. Arborist to oversee root or limb removal.
'" That prior to final plat approval, a 10' wide slope and public
utility easement shall be noted on the plat for all adjacent streets.
tilt That prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall dedicate a
'20' radius at the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect
Street.
14) That the building envelope for Lot 3 be modified such that it is no
closer than 10' to the sideyard property line abutting South Mountain
Avenue.
~~ That the sidewalk shall only be required along the Prospect and
South Mountain frontages of Lot 3 as indicated on the submitted sidewalk
plan.
7J2L, {J fla
Planning Commi sion
1/ ~A7
, 'Date
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
-All Commissioners had a site visit.
-Armitage said the stump on Lot 3 was 110 years old when it was cut down ~bout five years ago so the
other trees on the property are probably of similar age. He reviewed all the notes and tapes from the
previous meetings and will be participating in the hearing this evening.
-Hearn said he will step down because his firm represents the applicant in other unrelated matters and
there could be a possible conflict of interest.
STAFF REPORT
Mclaughlin stated the criteria is the same as the past two months and since the last meeting, the issues
have been narrowed down. Staff believes the sidewalk proposed by the applicant is a workable option.
It provides pedestrian refuge at the corner of Prospect and South Mountain- by having a curbside
sidewalk. It appears only one or possibly two trees will be removed but they are in the corner in the
vision clearance area already.
The Variance that has been requested to not provide a sidewalk in front of the existing house is the area
of steepest grade and it may be best not to have a sidewalk for that section and continue it on further
down, behind the trees that are in the right-of-way area. Resume the sidewalk again at the driveway that
enters Lot 2 and continue to the north property line.
The applicant has done a survey of the trees which has clarified which trees will be saved and removed.
There is a concern about a couple of the large trees as to whether or not they will be saved. One is
indicated as a 25 inch diameter tree on the north edge of the building envelope on Lot 1.
Also, the building envelope for Lot 3 through adjustments and redesign fJas been moved six feet from
the right-of-way line along South Mountain. The ordinance requires it be ten feet but that can be
handled through a Condition.
The sidewalk solution provides protection at the corner, is a place for pedestrians to be off the street
with a limited area to negotiate the street, and it meets the intent of the comprehensive plan for access
with the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the terrain and allow for the development. Staff
has recommended approval of the application with 14 conditions.
Jarvis said in Welles letter of October 3rd he indicated two trees on Lot 6, south of the building
envelope, were going to be changed from preserved to removed. Mclaughlin explained while those
trees are outside the building envelope and they may be preserved, they may be damaged by
~ construction in that area and may need to be removed.
<(,~J r tvis asked for Staff's comments on Welles request for a Variance from the additional five foot right-of-
~, <J~ beyond the ~xisting"ten.'fqot right:-of-way~ Mclaughlin said the only area it is necessary is where the
~, walk goes behind the trees on Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2 and that can be handled through an
\) .~, nsion of the right-of-way or granting an easement for public pedestrian access.
Briggs expressed concern that the' Lot 3 building envelope is still in the same place with possibly a blind
corner. Mclaughlin said that portion of the envelope has not changed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 1997
MINUTES
2
an approach be defined as to how drainage is going to be directed from each of the building sites,
collected and taken to the street. Remove the second sentence from Condition 7.
Add Condition 15 that a public pedestrian access easement be provided for the sidewalk on Lots 1 and
2.
Mclaughlin said the conditions on a subdivision require an arborist be present during initial site
, preparation and that temporary fencing be installed around the trees during site preparation and
construction. With those type of protection in place, there can probably be construction closer than the
15 feet.
Rebuttal
Welles noted about 70 trees are being preserved, It states specifically in th~ CC&R's that any tree
outside the building envelope has to be preserved. The building envelopes should be practical,
therefore, he believes a 40 foot house is not practical.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Gardiner believes the applicant has clarified the Commissioner's concerns. He has clearly designated
building envelopes and which trees will be removed or trees that might have to be removed.
Morris would like to see the 25 inch tree saved. He does not think a 40 foot house is impossible.
Armitage felt, as did Gardiner that Welles has made an effort to save the trees. It is a difficult situation.
The 25 inch tree is an amenity and he doubts a buyer would want to remove it.
Briggs suggested the sidewalk going around the corner of Prospect and Mountain be retained as
presented by the applicant. However, the way the sidewalk has to curve by Lot 2 and across Lot 1 does
not make a lot of sense to her. She believes it should be eliminated altogether,
Jarvis asked for clarification: Is there a need for a Variance for a lot wider than it is deep? Mclaughlin
said there is not. l''''Va.rfance' is~needed for the street right-of-V{~y.'"
Howe, Briggs, Gardiner and Armitage agreed the sidewalk in front of Lots 1 and 2 should be eliminated.
Morris and Jarvis did not agree. There are presently cars parked on the street which mean on~ has to
walk in the street and compete with parked cars. Also, there will no longer be access through this lot to
get down to the park and school. Children will not have a safe haven.
Discussion ensued regarding adjustments to the building envelopes to save the trees, specifically the
two on Lot 6 and one tree on Lot 1. Gardiner, Armitage and Briggs did not wish to change the
envelope. Jarvis, Morris and Howe did not agree. The trees will be left as the applicant has designated
on the map.
M6G'Jghlin said the Variance needed for the right-of-way is a non-issue.
t:fpwe moved to approve P A97 -077 with the Variance on lot width removed and an exception to the
~~isting street right-of-way based on existing foliage and slope. Note the changes made by Staff to the
ctr~inage plan (Condition 7). Add Condition 15: That the sidewalk shall only be required along the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 1997
MINUTES
4
. If. ".'.ospect and South Mountain frontages of Lot 3 as indicated on the submitted sidewalk plan. Briggs
.conded the motion and the action was unanimously approved.
Hearn again joined the meeting.
PLANNING ACTION 97-084
REQUEST FOR A THREE LOT MINOR LAND PARTITION AT 610 AS LAND STREET. THE
PROPOSAL INCLUDE THE EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PORTION OF FOREST STREET
EAST OF WELLER LANE.
APPLICANT: STEVE MORJIG
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Site visits were made by all. Briggs spoke to Mr. Werlich nd asked him where Forest would be located
and he gave her a map showing the street location.
STAFF REPORT
Mclaughlin distributed copies of the information a opted by the Council in 1992 with regard to the
Forest Street connection, Molnar noted the appl" able criteria. In 1992, the Planning Commission
approved a Minor Land Partition to split a very rge parcel into two. An amendment to the
Transportation Map was done in 1992.
The proposed lot is heavily wooded with a existing home served by a 200 foot unimproved driveway off
Ashland Street. If the request is granted t IS evening, the parcel could be further divided which the
applicant will ultimately wish to do, for a tal of six lots. He has shown a conceptual master plan, as
requested. The future intent is to divide parcel 1 into two lots, parcel 2 would stay as one lot, and parcel
3 would be divided intothree lots (refe to notice map).
The two lots closest to Ashland Stre will be served by the existing driveway. Parcel 3 will be served by
the extension of Forest Street. For st Street is on the Transportation Plan map as part of the Weller
Lane subdivision. There is a secti n of right-of-way stubbed out near the cul-de-sac. A paved driveway
is located in the right-of-way that erves a home presently. There was a request to locate the driveway
and an agreement filed with the ity to let the property owner know there was a potential for the street
to be ultimately improved to a ty standard which might necessitate the driveway be removed.and
access modified. Part of the p oposal will involve the extension of Forest Street which will go down the
slope, run along the southern ortion of the property and north towards Ashland Street and terminate
with a temporary turnaround. The final section of Forest Street which will connect the upper portion of
Weller Lane to the lower po on of Morton will not be developed until the property owner desires to
develop (owned presently b Wolfe). A preliminary street design has been provided, An attempt was
made to design the street s narrow as possible (20 feet wide) while still meeting the City's minimum
standards in order to pres rve as many trees as possible and because the levels of traffic will be just
inter-neighborhood travel. The applicant will improve only half the street and the remainder would be
improved upon develop ent of Wolfe's property.
About a dozen trees wil be removed for street construction. The applicant has identified building
envelopes with ample r ar and side yards, however, a number of trees will need to be removed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 1997
MINUTES
5
1 ..
I' .
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Addendum III
October 14, 1997
PLANNING ACTION: 97-077
APPLICANT: Rad Welles
LOCATION:
735 South Mountain Avenue; Assessor's Map #39 IE 16AA; Tax Lot:
#2300.
REQUEST: Application for a six-lot subdivision and variance for an exception to existing
street right -of- way/improvement requirements.
I. Additional Information
The applicant has provided revised information (dated September 24, 1997) addressing
the concerns raised by staff, commissioners, and neighbors at the last meeting. A
written summary of the changes, as well as findings addressing the variance criteria
have also been updated as part of this submittal. The plan utilized for this review is
not the notice map, but rather the attached map after the staff report, and dated
9/24/97.
1. Sidewalk
.:'%~r
A revised sidewalk plan has been submitted, including a sidewalk along the
entire frontage of the development, with the exception of Lot 2 (the existing
home). The sidewalk proposed for Prospect Street, and around the corner onto
South Mountain along Lot 3 addresses the concerns for a safe pedestrian refuge
at the intersection and also addresses some vision clearance problems at the
comer. The applicant is requesting a variance to not construct the sidewalk
along the frontage of Lot 2, due to the very large existing trees and the steep
slope from the street. The sidewalk would continue after the house, along the
frontage of Lot 1, but 10' behind the curb to protect the existing trees next to
the street.
The appears to be a workable solution to the issues raised regarding pedestrian
safety for the area, and to preserve as many trees as possible. Staff would
recommend that either scoring of the concrete, or a change in materials, be
done to provide a transition from the curbside access to the sidewalk back from
the curb.
2. . Trees
The applicant has had the trees accurately surveyed and has resulted in
..
significant changes in tree locations between last month's plan and the recent
submittal. The applicant has also clarified, on the plan, trees to be removed
and trees to be saved.
Overall, we believe the accurate tree locations to be of benefit to the review of
the application, and we have few problems with the plan. Two large trees are
indicated for removal that raise some concern -- a 17" evergreen tree on the
south edge of the building envelope for lot 5, and a 25" evergreen located at
the north edge of the building envelope on lot 1.
Of the two, the removal of the tree on Lot 5 is of lesser concern, since appears
that it is vulnerable to any development that will occur once the existing
structure is removed. However, it should be noted that a 17" tree is scheduled
for removal.
The 25" tree on Lot 1 is of greater concern. Staff discussed this issue with the
applicant, and he stated that the tree may be saved if the envelope is reduced in
width from 55' to 40'. But the 40' width restricts certain building options, in
his opinion, and he wishes to provide the greatest flexibility to a future buyer.
He also stated that a future owner is also free to protect the tree in an
individual design. Solar access may also affect development of lot 1, setting
the house further back to the south. Again, this is provided for information,
noting that a 25" tree is indicated for removal as part of this subdivision design.
3. Lot 3.
The building envelope for lot 3 has been moved closer to the South Mountain
Avenue right of way. The ordinance requires a minimum 10' sideyard setback
for building along a public street. A condition can be attached requiring that
this envelope be a minimum of 10' from the side property line abutting South
Mountain Avenue.
II. Conclusions and Recommendations
The applicant has attempted to address the concerns raised at last month's hearing with
additional information and a modified plan. F or almost all issues, the details have
been addressed to where the Commission has a very clear understanding of the
proposal.
It is Staff s opinion that the sidewalk plan, with a variance for no sidewalk on Lot 2,
is appropriate solution to the pedestrian access issues raised at previous hearings.
Further, we would recommend that the other variances for street width and right-of-
way width also be approved.
PA97-077 - Addendum III
Rad Welles
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
October 14, 1997
Page 2
..
The Commission may wish to discuss the two large trees on the outside edge of
building envelopes for Lots 1 and 5 with the applicant, and determine if viable options
are there for preservation of these trees. The ordinance gives the Commission some
discretion regarding the preservation of natural features, and we believe that 1 7" and
25" trees would qualify as preservable natural features, should the Commission wish to
pursue this.
Therefore, with the main issues addressed regarding this development, Staff
recommends approval of the application with the following conditions:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified here.
2) That a survey be completed within one year of this approval and recorded prior
to the issuance of building permits.
3) That all necessary public utility easements for sewer, water, electric, phone
service, storm drainage, streets, etc. be indicated on the final survey plat as required by
the City of Ashland. Utility layout to be designed to minimize the routing of utilities
through the driplines of trees noted for preservation.
4) That vehicle access easements be designated on the final survey plat for all
shared driveways. Lots 3 and 4 shall access from the private drive and shall not have
separate driveway accesses off of Prospect Street or South Mountain Avenue.
5) That the curb cuts serving the driveways along Mountain Avenue be no wider
than 12'.
6) That prior to issuance of a building permit for a structure on lot 5, the property
owner shall submit a building site plan to the Fire Department in order for adequate
fire protection measures to be addressed. Such measures may include, but may not be
limited to, the installation of a fire sprinkler system.
7) That a drainage plan be submitted to the Public Works Director prior to final
plat approval. Drainage plan shall minimize vertical sheet flow direction by
incorporating collection basins which horizontally drain towards South Mountain Street
or Glenwood Avenue. The use of dry wells shall be prohibited.
8) That all new residences comply with the provisions of the City's Solar Access
chapter 18.70.
9) That temporary fencing be installed around the drip line of all trees greater than
6" measured at breast height and/or all trees noted to be saved on the submitted plans
PA97-077 - Addendum III
Rad Welles
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
October 14, 1997
Page 3
prior to any site preparation (i.e. grading), storage of materials or the use of
construction vehicles on the property.
10) That any violation of the condition noted above caused by the applicant or
property owner, resulting in the death of a tree within two years, requires that the dead
tree be replaced by a comparable tree (2" in caliper) that will grow to a comparable
maximum height with a similar canopy spread.
11) That a certified arborist be present during the initial site preparation in order to
limit any potential conflicts with any of the adjacent trees' root system. Arborist to
oversee root or limb removal.
12) That prior to final plat approval, a 10' wide slope and public utility easement
shall be noted on the plat for all adjacent streets.
13) That prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall dedicate a 20' radius at the
intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street.
14) That the building envelope for Lot 3 be modified such that it is no closer than
10' to the sideyard property line abutting South Mountain Avenue.
PA97-077 - Addendum III
Rad Welles
Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report
October 14, 1997
Page 4
.
... ,
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 9, 1997
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners
present were Bass, Giordano, Briggs, Gardiner, Howe and Morris, Absent members were Hearn and
Armitage. Staff present were Mclaughlin, Molnar, Knox, Harris and Yates.
Planning Action 97-066 (Skateboard Park) has been postponed until the October Regular Meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Auaust 12. 1997. Reaular Meetina Minutes
Gardiner made a correction to the last page of the minutes: "...Gardiner did 'not' think a pedestrian
easement appropriate. Howe moved to approve as corrected, Giordano seconded and the minutes
were approved.
Auaust 12. 1997 StudY Session Minutes
Gardiner moved to approve, Giordano seconded the motion and everyone approved.
Auaust 12. 1997 Hearinas Board Minutes and Findinas
Howe moved to approve the Minutes and Findings, Giordano seconded and Howe, Giordano and Bass
approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forth to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 97-077
REQUEST FOR A SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE (735 S. MOUNTAIN) AND PROSPECT STREET.
APPLICATION INVOLVES A VARIANCE TO CREATE A LOT HAVING A WIDTH GREATER THAN ITS
DEPTH, AND A VARIANCE FOR AN EXCEPTION TO EXISTING STREET RIGHT-OF-
WAY jlMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
APPLICANT: RAD WELLES
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Mclaughlin reported this action was heard at last month's meeting and the applicant was asked at that
time to provide additional information. The applicant has submitted four additional documents this
evening: a letter from Upper Limb It, an amendment to the proposed CC&R's, proposed Findings for a
Variance for construction of sidewalk, proposed Findings for a Variance of roadway width. Mclaughlin
read the criteria for approval of a Subdivision (18.80,0401). Mclaughlin reminded the Commission this is
a one-level review process. If ~pproval is granted, the Commission makes a finding that all issues are
answered and addressed. No changes will be made except for items the Commission may condition.
~ .
The Staff Report notes several changes made between the original plan submitted by the applicant and
reviewed at last month's meeting and the information submitted by the applicant dated August 28, 1997.
There were discrepancies such as lot widths, location of building envelopes, lot dimensions, etc.
The primary issue has become whether or not a sidewalk is warranted. The applicant has requested a
complete variance in requiring construction of the sidewalk for the project. As evidence, the applicant
has provided findings which are included in the packet along with a plan provided by Thornton
Engineering showing the difficulty of providing a sidewalk. As stated in the Staff Report, the findings
'submitted by the applicant did not clearly address the criteria for approval and Staff felt that if the
.Commission agrees with the general concept of the sidewalk variance for this application, additional
~findings will be necessary regarding unique and unusual circumstances and specifically the proposal's
benefits being greater than any negative impacts. Issues were raised about pedestrian safety and refuge
from traffic and once that evidence is raised, it needs to be rebutted.
"Staff raised concerns that the applicant provide an arborist's report on the damage that will occur to the
trees should a sidewalk be constructed along the street. Very little was addressed with regard to tree
protection to the trees next to building envelopes that could allow for foundations to be constructed or
the construction of driveways. It is Staff's opinion these items should be considered in granting a
'Variance for a sidewalk based on the retention of trees, and that efforts should be made throughout the
>development plan to preserve trees, and the arborist's report should be comprehensive in that review.
';'-:.'
f:~taff believes the street right-of-way and variance for the width is directly linked to the provision of the
;sidewalk. I(it isthe Commission's decision to not require a sidewalk then there is not the need for
$dditional right-of-way for this project.
The applicant's engineer has provided some text regarding drainage for the property. He believes after
reviewing the site, the drainage concerns raised by the neighbors can be met by using standard
drainage improvements done during new construction.
Staff has not had an opportunity to review the information submitted by the applicant this evening.
Giordano asked Staff to clarify why information was brought to this evening's meeting by the applicant.
Mclaughlin explained that after last month's meeting, the applicant provided a packet of information
dated August 28, 1997 addressing those issues from the August meeting (included in the Commission's
packet) and the Staff Report was prepared. Once the Staff Report was prepared, the applicant provided
additional information. Bass wondered how much information can come in the night of the meeting and
still be admissible. Jarvis said the Commission uses its discretion. She added the Commission has
stated very clearly previously, that any information that comes in at this untimely period is not enough
time to utilize that information to the best benefit. There is no way in the next few minutes to adequately
review these documents and deal with them.
Jarvis said there are a significant number of questions raised in the Staff Addendum and she was
wondering if they had been addressed. Particularly, it appears something has to be done with Lot 2.
The building envelope goes completely to the street. If it is taken away, what happens then?
Mclaughlin said the current plan (September 2, 1997) of the applicant's still indicates the building
envelope going up to the front property line. It is Staff's recommendation in a Condition that the
envelope be removed and replaced with one that complies with standard setback requirements.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 9,1997
MINUTES
2
Mclaughlin said at the time the Staff Report was written, Staff was looking for a way to provide the
Commission some flexibility in reviewing the application, that should the Commission have their
questions answered regarding design issues, lot layout, tree locations, and arborist's concerns, that
there would be an opportunity to approve the project with an additional review as a Type I process later.
The City Attorney has stated that the Commission does not have that discretion. The Commission's
finding must be in accord with Section 18.80.0401. The preliminary plan is basically the final plat
approval. Jarvis asked, in other words, will the building envelope on Lot 2 have to be conditioned to
make it comply? Mclaughlin said that is correct.
Bass wondered about Conditions 14, 15, and 16 where reference is made to things occurring prior to
final plat approval. Does that mean there is no opportunity to review the changes once approved
tonight? Mclaughlin said Conditions referring to final plat approval are changes made and reviewed by
the Staff before Staff signs the final survey plat, approving the subdivision, which then creates the lots for
sale. The Commission is saying, in essence, certain things must be changea but responsibility is
deferred to Staff to make sure those items are changed.
Jarvis asked the Commissioners to review the criteria for a Variance to make sure the applicant has met
those.
PUBLIC HEARING
MIKE THORNTON, Thornton Engineering, 1236 Disk Drive, Suite I, Medford, OR, stated he is
representing the applicant on the issues of a sidewalk Variance and right-of-way width Variance. He
showed a transparency of the sidewalk design they had done. He is presenting a design which was
done based on the arborist's comments and input from the City. He met with Mclaughlin and presented
the drawing, the concerns and the report. Mclaughlin instructed them it would be best for the
applicant to decide whether or not to build the sidewalk and present a strong proposal for either way:
ask fora Variance or ask to build the sidewalk. The applicant's feeling was they could not make a
strong proposal to build it because of the uniqueness and difficulties with regard to the sidewalk. The
arborist prepared another report after he prepared the sidewalk design and commented on that design.
Unique and unusual circumstances: The topography of the site, would require stairs, guardrails and
retaining walls. In addition, the sidewalk would have a steep slope, and the grade is unique and does
provide difficulty in supporting a sidewalk. The arborist expressed concern about the impact of the
sidewalk construction on the mature trees. No matter what would be incorporated to mitigate those
impacts, the impacts felt would still be significant. In looking at these items, the engineer and applicant
believe the area does not lend itself to a sidewalk being attractive, easy to use, safe or convenient.
Benefits being greater than any negative impact: Some of the above items overlap with this issue. On
the street uphill from Ashland Street, there is no sidewalk with a short exception of a block above
Ashland Street. With the adjacent uses of the street and community, it would be difficult and quite an
undertaking in terms of a capital improvement project to construct a sidewalk along Mountain -- unique
topography, mature landscaping, right-of-way constraints, difficult political/environmental process. They
believe the stretch of sidewalk for a long time would be the portion they are required to install. They feel
by not building a sidewalk and avoiding the negative impacts this will not be a detriment to the adjacent
uses on the street.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 9, 1997
MINUTES
3
~ .
Circumstances or conditions that have not been willfully or purposefully self-imposed: Their intent was
to design the sidewalk and go with what seemed best; to build or not build, The applicant did not
impose the topography or the mature trees on the site. As the arborist stated, the mature trees, are an
asset to the entire community.
Jarvis said at the last meeting safety issues were discussed as well as a landing area on the corner
and/or building the sidewalk on Prospect. Thornton said the applicant has said he would be willing to
construct the portion of the sidewalk along Prospect. There is a path that is used for both uphill and
downhill traffic through that corner which cuts diagonally without regard to lanes. When the curb moves
into the available street width which is already somewhat narrow, they are balancing the potential refuge
for pedestrians versus an increased risk that a vehicle could strike the curb. He does not believe the
development poses a great impact to the pedestrians at that corner but would propose some additional
restrictions such as painting the curb and having no parking along Lot 3. They do not believe there will
be a significant amount of pedestrian traffic from the development on the street or sidewalk. He does
not believe there will a significant increase in vehicle trips either.
Howe expressed confusion with the different drawings because the tree locations did not appear to
match. She wondered if the applicant had considered in the design doing something similar to what
they have done on Lot 1 and that is, taking the sidewalk out of the typical edge of the street and going
between the trees so that the trees stay and pedestrians would have more of a buffer at the corner.
,Thornton said they looked at a different sidewalk alignment but the concern was the steepness of the
site. They felt with the construction of the stairs there would still be an impact on the area and it would
not be any better than what has been presented tonight. There is less harm to the trees with the design
presented tonight.
Morris asked about the existing curb at the corner. Thornton said the existing curb would be the back
of the proposed sidewalk. Therefore, the sidewalk would start from the existing curb and come into the
roadway five feet. The concern is that traffic cuts that corner now and downhill vehicles could lose
control and hit that curb.
Thornton noted the CC&R's have added wording requiring a certified arborist for all construction on the
site to prepare a plan to save all trees that can be saved. Also, wording has been added regarding
replacing trees after construction. The trees along the street are valuable to the community because
they ~reate a canopy. Trees will be prioritized and selected which have greater value and which can
and cannot be saved. .
Giordano noted at the last meeting the accuracy of the drawings in front of the Commissioners was
raised as a concern. He is further concerned when he sees the applicant mention saving other trees on
the site. He does not see a list of the types of trees on the site. Welles responded that there are
statements referencing that issue. There are 73 trees on the property. It is impossible to respond to the
location and accuracy of the trees on the site. He believes the trees are accurately presented, especially
those in close proximity to the building envelopes. Each of the envelopes present difficult problems with
relationship to the trees. One condition that was suggested is a penalty if any trees die. They have
presented provisions usually presented in any tree preservation plan. There is no benefit to him or
anyone building houses to have any of the trees negatively impacted. They have tried to make every
reasonable provision for the preservation of the trees.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 9,1997
MINUTES
4
Welles said the dimensions on the overhead map are correct (a map the Commissioners do not have).
Several questions arose from the Commissioners about lot dimensions, placement of the trees, the flag
lot, and building envelopes. Thornton felt the project could be approved and conditioned tonight.
Jarvis explained if the applicant had applied under the Performance Standards Option, the Commission
would have the discretion to condition the approval. The applicant decided to use the Subdivision
ordinance and she is concerned the map is inaccurate. Staff has not seen nor reviewed the new
information and this puts the Commission in an untenable position to approve. Giordano echoed Jarvis'
concerns. Without adequate time to review tonight's drawings, how can they know it is correct?
Briggs wondered about the building envelope on Lot 3 and how close it is to the corner and because
this is a dangerous corner, the envelope hides the traffic movement along Prospect and Mountain. Why
is it not set back further? She suggested a smaller envelope.
TED MULARZ, architect, resides at 793 Elkader, read a prepared statement. He supports the Variance
for no sidewalks on Mountain or Prospect. The rural setting will be destroyed with sidewalks and he
believes it will almost never be used, besides causing harm to the trees. He believes a STOP sign at the
corner would be of more benefit than a sidewalk. Mularz said with regard to the Subdivision request
that ordinances are written without regard to geology, geography, topography and vegetation. The
topography and preservation of very important vegetation in this proposed subdivision does not support
six lots. He agrees with the applicant's right to make a proposal for six lots but he disagrees with the
practicality of developing this site into six lots. Most of the problems that are occurring are a result of
forcing six lots. This could easily be remedied with five lots. There would be more flexibility with house
design because of solar, all lots could be accessible from Mountain or Prospect, and all utilities could be
easily accessed without damaging trees. The subdivision should not be approved. without meeting all
the criteria.
PHILIP PHILLIPS, lot 2301, lives on the corner. One of his children uses South Mountain daily. The
street is not safe to use as it is now, When SOU is in session, cars are parked far up Mountain. If you
walk it, you have to be in the middle of the street. There is a need for safety to be addressed. The
vacant lot across the street on Prospect and the lot on Mountain will add people. What will happen at
that corner will be fairly dramatic. Some provision has to be made for those people who live and work
there. He said he looks right through Lot 3 now when travelling on Mountain. He would like a realistic
assessment as to what is going to happen in this neighborhood. This is not a quiet street like Roca.
This demands some solution besides a Variance. A possible solution would be cutting the development
from six to five lots.
DONNA MARKLE, 681 S. Mountain, said her property is below Lot 1. She is concerned with drainage
and flooding, especially when talking about the grade, losing trees, adding asphalt on property that
already has underground springs. The corner is extremely dangerous because cars cut straight across
and something will need to be done. Traffic has increased in the last four years on Mountain.
Rebuttal
Thornton said they may need to discuss some alternatives to provide to the Commission. The
Commission does not have a drainage plan in front of them but the drainage in this area can be
improved with this development.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 9, 1997
MINUTES
5
. ,..
Howe noted the CC&R's state that all trees on the plan designated within the "X's" can be removed
during construction of a home. She suggested it might be possible not everyone will build to the full
extent of the envelope and under 2.2 c it could be stated that trees may be removed from the building
"envelope". Also, "preserve all trees on the property not 'impeding' the creation of dwellings".
Welles asked for a continuance of the hearing.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Bass asked if there was just one kind of sidewalk. Mclaughlin said "no.f and there is an exclusion from
ADA requirements because of the street's steepness.
Giordano stated he still had some of the same concerns as last month. He does not believe the present
design of the sidewalk along South Mountain is appropriate, however, he also feels the development
would be better served if done under Performance Standards because that ordinance takes into
consideration the topography of the site and the existing trees. He believes a path or some type of
pedestrian circulation through the development would serve the development best. He would like to see
a development that is much more sensitive to the site, more accurate drawings, and a finished product.
Briggs agreed with Giordano's statements. She feels six units forces a configuration that does not make
good building envelopes. It would be hard to live there and she would ask again if the applicant has
tried putting in five lots. Welles said when he drew it up with five, it did not result in any fewer trees
being involved and did not seem to work any better. Briggs said the same problems are not being
solved from last month and maybe a totally new configuration of lots would solve the problems.
Gardiner wondered if it would be possible to condition only a portion of the property to have a sidewalk
such as at the dangerous corner and also condition that if future street improvements were to be done
that the applicant would be required to participate. Mclaughlin said both items would be possible.
Morris would like to see more accurate drawings. He walked around the block again and even on
Ashland Street there is a sidewalk. The only uncomfortable portion of the property is at the corner of
Mountain and Prospect and Mountain and Ashland. He doubts he would use the sidewalk in other areas
but the corners were a concern.
Jarvis agreed with the comments that had been made. She agreed if there were five lots with 'a
common area and a pedestrian path through, and if it were more amenable to people who would be
building homes there, Welles could have bigger lots with bigger houses and the kind of amenities that
would probably increase the value of the lots. She appreciates Welles willingness to continue the
application.
Giordano moved to continue Planning action 97-077, the motion was seconded and unanimously
approved.
PLANNING ACTION 97-060
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 33,200 SQUARE FOOT
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE COMPLEX (CONSISTING OF THREE SEPARATE BUilDINGS) lOCATED ON
THE lOT WEST OF 300 HERSEY STREET.
APPUCANT: JERRY TONEY
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 9, 1997
MINUTES
6
-"'
+
(J1
0') r-
~ 0
0 ...,
v.
R>
~
R>
(J1
c l
:::0
<: "i
~
I'TI <Il
~ <Il
> I
-< ~
""tI U) "1:1 ~_
> C:::;?!>~0l
Z --I ~ ~ ~
I~ t~"'J
P
<Il
~
~
0+0 ~
~
...,.
r 1+ 1
\-:.
~I
~
Z9.~t+O
00+0
r-
o
99.~9+0 ...,
N
o
:::0
<:
I'TI
~
>
-<
""tI
r-
>
Z
~
I'TI
:E
. e. CII
~. CII ~
...,. ~
~ .....
~ ~
~ CII
-
<Il
"'l
<Il
,-c.:..~
i--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-
>
z
~
I~
~~
o .....
~ ~
0') (]I ~
0-0
OOlo
ON-
O"'-JO
-
AVENUE
~
~
t:o~
O"~~
~ ~~.
"iR....,.
~ ..........
~~~
o
<::
~
o
(j)
o
~.
.J..>
r
m
- ...,
= ()
(p l> II E
C II ~ :s --i
AJ <PT
II ~ ;I<b
"""=r-I -< -- l>-/U r - ElJ
Q1(j)~l> - Z
\J1m~o m (,h \)J in
~nG'-n J ~r\)Jn r'\. ~
"
-.,
APPLICATION FOR
UNIVERSITY TERRACE SUBDIVISION
AND APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
SUBDIVISION ROAD WIDTH AND SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS
Applicant herewith presents a plan to deal with
concerns raised by members of the Planning Commission and
neighbors about the development of the subject property.
CHANGES
Changes and corrections have been made. These changes
are reflected in the alteration of the building envelopes
for lots 1,3,4 and 6, each of which has been decreased in
size following consultation with the project arborist.
These changes are depicted on Exhibit A.
SAFETY
The safety issue has been addressed as follows:
1. A sidewalk around the corner of lot 3 has been
proposed that would provide a place for
pedestrians out of the traffic flow.
2. A no parking zone from the driveway to lots
3/4/5 is proposed to preserve the existing line of
sight for vehicles traveling up and down Mountain.
There is presently little reason for anyone to.
park on that section of the street, with the
construction of new housing that could change.
3. Removal of the two trees at the corner of
Mountain and Prospect will allow a clear line of
site for travelers going up and down Mountain
Avenue. The construction of a house on lot 3 will
not be an impediment to the view of anyone except
those traveling east on Prospect, however their
view will be enhanced by the improvement of sight
lines at the corner
The variance request addresses two issues:
1. Roadway width. South Mountain Avenue The
existing roadway is 26' wide. The City has determined that
width is adequate for existing and anticipated uses and
there are no plans to further widen the street. The
subdivision law requires that the street width be 40'
RECEIVED SE? 2 4 1997
~
,\ I
The planning staff has requested an additional 5'
of right of way beyond the existing 10' of city right of way
adjoining Mountain Ave on the ground that such additional
width is required under the subdivision law. Applicant
opposes the request. If a variance is granted the
additional 5 ' would not be needed except to the extent
sidewalks are constructed along lot 1 are outside of the
existing 10' right of way. ~
Prospect: Most of the existing right of way for
Prospect is 35' in width. The City has no plans to develop
Prospect any further. The street serves three residences.
None of the lots to be developed under this-proposal will be
accessed via Prospect.
The findings in support of this variance request are
set forth in Exhibit C.
2. Sidewalks: The City's development plans call
for the creation of sidewalks all along Mountain from
Ashland Avenue. Sufficient right of way exists along the
entire east side of Mountain for sidewalks. Currently there
is one 75' segment of sidewalk directly south of Ashland
Avenue. The remainder of Mountain above the college is
without sidewalks.
Three segments of sidewalk need to be discussed. The'l
first is that running along lot 1 which would be constructed'
behind the street trees on that lot. Although that segment'
would be steep and discontinuous on both ends it is feasible ~
to build a sidewalk from the north property line to the,
driveway that serves lot 2.
The second segment would run between the driveways '1-:-..
serving lot 2 and lots 3/4/5. The only feasible way to '
construct a sidewalk here is to excavate to street level
removing the large existing trees that are next to the -Ji
existing dwelling. Applicant asks a variance from the &..'.
construction of this segment for the reason set forth in i..-
Exhibit D. "
The third segment is from the south side of the 3/4/5
driveway around the corner of Prospect to a line which if
extended would meet the west edge of Mountain Avenue above
the intersection. This segment is shown on the map provided
by Thornton Engineering, Exhibit B.
While applicant is willing to build the first and third
segments, he feels that only the third segment, at the
corner provides any significant benefit to the public.
2
RECE\VEO SEP 2. If. 1997
TREES
In response to comments of staff concerning the effect
of any development on trees a concerted effort has been made
to relocate building envelopes so that any trees designated
to be preserved should be able to withstand the process of
construction of sidewalks, driveways and residences:
Lot 1 It was determined that the two trees along the
north edge of the building envelope could not be preserved
without leaving the building envelope impractically narrow.
The building envelope was shortened on the west side to keep
it further away from the widespread 12" walnut on the west
side of the envelope.
Lot 2 The alternate envelope, if the existing house
were demolished has been moved so that it complies with
setback requirements.
Lot 3 The envelope has been reduced in side and shifted
south to reflect the decision to clear the corner to
'increase visibility and to create more space between the
envelope and the trees north of the envelope.
Lot 4 The lot line has been shifted to recognize the
likelihood that any house on lot 4 would be a two story and
thus require a 20' setback from the rear property line.
Lot 5 The lot 5 building envelope is unchanged
Lot 6 The building envelope has been shortened on the
east side and part of the south side in consideration of
trees that would otherwise be threatened.
The applicable part of the CC&R's, Exhibit E, have been
changed to allow removal of trees from the building envelope
only as necessary to build a residence.
DRAINAGE
The areas of concern for drainage are:
Lot 1 Naturally occurring runoff will be reduced by
requiring as part of the drainage plan for any house built
on Lot 1 a storm drain along the north property line and a
curtain drain above the residence.
Lot 2 Before sale of this house a storm drain will be
installed to remove water the may accumulate on the south
side of the existing house.
3
RECEIVED SEP 2 It '991
Lot 6 The area where drainage problems were indicated
coincides with the building envelope so that drainage issues
need to be appropriately addressed at the time of
construction.
It is not possible to utilize this property as it is
zoned without changing it. The plan submitted attempts to
mitigate the deleterious effect of necessary changes and to
take action that should increase the safety of the
intersection of Mountain and Prospect.
Res~ ly ubmitted.
dc iffe Welles.
35 Kearney
Ashland, OR
541-488-1108
RECEIVED SEP 2 It \991
4
PROPOSED FINDINGS
Variance of Roadway width:
1. The subj ect property is zoned R-7. 5 allowing the
development of a subdivision.
2. The City has no plan for widening of Mountain Avenue
and has only 10' addition right of way along the east side
of Mountain Avenue between Ashland Avenue and Prospect.
3. According to the City Engineer/Public Works the
present width of Mountain Avenue is adequate to meet the
traffic demands.
4. Increasing the width of Mountain Avenue would
require the destruction of all street trees within the area
of increase.
5. There is no other property to be developed along
Mountain Avenue from Ashland Avenue to its southern terminus
6. Planning staff has expressed no opposition to the
variance in street width.
7. The city's comprehensive plan does not require the
widening of Mountain Avenue.
8 · There is no adverse effect on the use adj acent
properties by granting the variance.
9. Granting the variance will provide
preserving the nature of the street and the
mature street trees.
benefits
existance
in
of
10. There is adequate room to build a sidewalk,
the exising 10' right of way, except, if a sidewalk
required along lot 1 in which case the applicant should
require to dedicate as much additional right of way as
necessary for the sidewalk.
'.;".1
d
in 'i~
~: i
is f
11. The applicant did not create the situation.
Exhibit C
RECEIVED SEP 2 q. 1997
"
PROPOSED FINDINGS
Request for Variance From Requirement of Constructing
sidewalk.
A sidewalk can be constructed on the east edge of
Mountain Avenue and south edge of Prospect adjacent to the
subject property. That sidewalk would be unique in to City
of Ashland for its steepness and the fact it would require
steps and handrails Reasons exist however for not
constructing some or all of that sidewalk
1. Significant problems exist with the construction of
a sidewalk between Ashland Avenue and Prospect due to the
existence of sharp downgrades, mature street trees in the
right of way such that a sidewalk may never be completed.
Much of the sidewalk between Pleasant Way and Prospect will
require railing on the west side because of the steep drop
off immediately adjacent to the curb.
2. The subject property may be required to participate
in an LID or other sidewalk and street improvement plan if a
sidewalk is ever constructed between Ashland Avenue and
Prospect.
3. Any sidewalk constructed along Mountain adjacent to
the subject property will have a grade of 17.7% which is
steeper than the grade of any sidewalk in the city except
for Morton Street.
4. A sidewalk within IS' of the curb along lot 1 would
have to be built immediately adjacent or very close to the
trees in the City's right of way.
5. Construction of a sidewalk opposite the existing
house would require guard rails and ten stairs, a situation
unique in Ashland for sidewalks.
6. A sidewalk in that area would not
requirement of the Transportation element
Comprehensive Plan in that it would not be that a
"designed to be safe convenient attractive and
use. II {pg 36}
meet the
of the
sidewalk
easy to
these
a. The grade of the sidewalk makes it none of
b the use of steps meets none of these requirement
c. The use of guardrails meets none of these
requirements
EXHIBIT D
RECE\VEO SEP 2 4 1997
d. A sidewalk would be dangerous in times of heavy
rain or freezing conditions
7. A sidewalk with stairs and handrails would attract
and invite uses other than intended and would constitute an
attractive nuisance.
8. If a variance is granted as to part of the sidewalk
requirement a discontinuous sidewalk will be less likely to
attract pedestrian use.
9. A sidewalk would not invite bicycle use because of
its short duration, extreme grade, curved nature and stairs.
10. The cost of maintenance of the sidewalk will be
significantly greater than other sidewalks due to its more
complex nature and the existence of stairs and railing.
11. The construction of a sidewalk opposite the
existing house will require a retaining wall more than 5'
high and railings will be unattractive.
12. The granting of a variance from the requirement of
building a sidewalk opposite the existing house will have a
positive effect by preserving significant street trees while
the construction of a sidewalk along lots1 and 3 will allow
pedestrians and bicyclist to avoid travelling in the street
along Mountain Avenue for most of the subdivision frontage.
The segment left without a sidewalk could be brought down to
steet levelin the future and a sidewalk inbstalled but
without utilizing that alternative it is unlikely the a
sidewalk with ten steps would be utilized. There are no
negative effect on the uses of any adjacent property and no
alternatives are foreclosed by the variance proposal.
14. For any sidewalk required the applicant will grant
additional right of way as necessary to make sure all
sidewalk is within the city's right of way. The city has a
right of way of 10' presently. Some portion of the sidewalk
along lot 1 would have to be more than 10' from the curb
line.
15. No city department is in favor of constructing a
standard sidewalk along Mountain Avenue. It is not clear
that the Planning Staff has taken a position in favor of all
or part of the sidewalk.
16. Applicant did not cause the physical conditions
affecting a sidewalk.
RECE\VEO SEP 2 4- 1997
2
~ .
structures built thereon to the underground electric, T>V>
cable or telephone utility facilities provided.
1.12 COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION
The construction of any building on any lot, including
private lot drainage, painting, and all exterior finish,
shall be completed within six (6) months from the beginning
of construction so as to present a finished appearance when
viewed from any angle. In the event of undue hardship due
to weather conditions, this provision may be extended for a
reasonable length of time upon written approval from the
Declarant.
1.13 FENCES AND HEDGES
The maximum height of a boundary fence or hedge on any
lot shall be six (6) feet.
1.14 ANTENNAE AND SERVICE FACILITIES
Exterior Antennas or satellite dishes , clothes lines
and other service equipment shall be screened so as not to
be viewed from any street or neighboring residence.
1.15 EXTERIOR MATERIALS
Exterior siding material must be cedar, stone, brick,
stucco or lap siding applied in individual pieces. Roofing
materials must be non reflective and in compliance with the
requirements of the governmental authority concerning
fireproofing~ Dwellings shall be double wall construction.
II
LANDSCAPING
It is the intention of the Declarant to bind the owners
of the lots in the University Terrace subdivision to
preserving the forested nature of the property. To that end
the following conditions for the use and preservation of the
forest are established.
2.1 TREE PRESERVATION
The primary goal of any tree manangement plan will be
to preserve all trees on the property not designated for
Exhibit E
4
RECEIVED SEP 2 4 1997
\
possible removal for the creation of dwellings and to
protect all trees adjacent to dwelling or the driveways
thereto so that they will not suffer unnecessary harm from
the construction and maintenance of facilities upon the
property.
2.2 PRESERVATION AND REMOVAL OF TREES
Neither Declarant nor Owner shall undertake the
landscaping of a lot or obtain a building permit without
developing a written tree preservation plan in cooperation
~ with a certified arborist and in compliance with the CC&R's
and the Tree Management Plan. The tree preservation plan
shall require the protection of each tree during periods of
construction on the property. Such plan shall not allow the
removal of any trees except under the following
circumstances:
a.Healthy living trees may be removed as may be
necessary to preserve the health of remaining trees.
b. No dead or diseased tree of a diameter of more
than 6" at breast height may be removed without obtaining a
statement by a certified arborist that the tree cannot
survive.
c. Trees may be removed from the building envelope as
necessary for the construction of a residence. Trees
outside the building footprint shall be preserved if that is
practicable. Trees may be removed from the driveway to the
building envelope as necessary for the construction of the
driveway.
d. If any tree designated on the subdivision plan to
be preserved dies within two years of construction of a
dwelling the tree shall be replaced by another of 2"
caliper that will grow to provide a canopy of similar size
to the tree replaced. Additionally the property owner shall
donate $100 to the Ashland Tree Commission.
e. All excavation, grading and construction shall
conform to the tree management plan. A copy of the tree
preservation plan shall be made available to each owner and
the City of Ashland upon request.
2.2 NEW TREES
No trees shall be planted by the Declarant or Owner
that shall impede the view to the North from any lot. If a
tree is planted that has that effect, that tree will be
trimmed and maintained so it shall be in comformity with
this paragraph. This paragraph shall not apply to any tree
growing in the subdivision as of September 1, 1997.
2.3 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND TREE PRESERVATION
Owner shall be reponsible for the maintainance of each
lot and the preservation of every tree thereon. If the
owner fails to adequately maintain the land around his
5
RECEIVED SEP 2 4 1997
r
.
o
~&. ~~~.
-=? ~ "'71 ~ ~,,-~:... I
::-:::.. -..;j.Y--.,
.~r~- .~j:;t:[.;{
J:l-- .... ......... i/., .,.... /.'
~
i
~ 1
ifi
~ ~
z ~
~
o <
~ <
%
~
en ,
~
: I .
.~W !
1 ~
~ I
,
.:~~ I
't.,.:.:"
~
.......~...
, I
:' I
: i
l
:1 $
! I
i
1
i
1
I
\ I
I I
t-
O")
~ I! 5!:?
~
,,'
~ C'-J
~ .
.... tt!
~ 0
~ -'
CI)
(
/
I
~
u
0
z
~
VI
R
..,
~
"
,,'
i .
w
a..
~ 0
VI -'
. CI)
~ ~
I
\j
w
w
e:
w
w
e:
(I)
:::l
o
:::l
o
8
o
z
w
.W
0::
CI
0::
~
~~a
7i\:' ~