The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-1018 Council Mtg Packet Barbara Christensen City Recorder Council Meeting Packet CIT'Y OF ASHl..AN D ImD.ortant: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing. which has been closed. The Public ForlJm is the _time-,to spea.c on any subject not on the printed agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Regli.st fom, located near the entrancetotheCo....nc1IChambe.rs. The chair will recognize you and inform youali to the amount of time allotted to yo~. The time granted will be d~pen~entto so~eext~gtonthen~tun~ of the item under .scussion, tile numbef-'Ofi~te whO" Wish fo belleard:'-and the length of'theaoefida.' . . - - , - - AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL October 18,.2005 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 6:30 p.m. Executive Session: Potential Litigation pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(11) 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES [5 minutes] 1. Executive Session Minutes of October 4. 2005 2. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of October 4. 2005 V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Mayor's Proclamation of October 24 as United Nations Day [5 minutes] VI. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees 2. Mayor's appointment of Steve Siewert to theTree::Commission' 3. Mayor's appointment of Selene Aitken to the Bike and Pedestrian Commission 4. Mayor's appointment of Nathan Meyerson as the Youth Liaison to the Bike and Pedestrian Commission 5. Request to Waive Permit Fees at 2001 Siskiyou 6. Liquor License Application for Creekside Pizza Bistro 7. Liquor License Application for Yuan-Yuan Restaurant 8. Liquor License Application for Lela's Cafe VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is th'e subject of a Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting; 'or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC 92.04.040}) Appeal of Planning Action 2005-01050 - regarding Liberty Street [2.5 hours] COUNCIL \11J', IINCiS :\RE BROADC!\SI Ll\T ON ('lI:\NNI':L 9 VISIT II IF, CITY OF i\SHLAND'S WEB SIT! sr WWW.ASIII ,:\ND,OIU 'S -----. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 4, ]005 PAGE I 0/6 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL October 4, 2005 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO. ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order in the Civic Center Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of September 20, 2005 were approved as presented. >:':~~Ail;j/'. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS .."\,Mayor's Proclamation of October 9~ I5.as National Fire Prevention Week and Proclamati(i)n~fectobel' 2:~.as Mental Illness Awareness Week were read aloud. Forest Lands Commission Presentation Fire Chief Keith Woodley introduced Forest Lands Commissioners Frank Betlejewski, Dan Maymar and Joseph Vaile. The Commissioners covered the three-year goals of the Commission as the following: . To develop and implement a more comprehensive monitoring plan on city-owned fon:stlands. . To review and update the existing Memorandum of Understanding with the USFS for approval by the City Council. . To update the 1992 Ashland Forest Plan and make it consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan. . To complete a silvicultural prescription for the 160-acre Winburn Parcel. Projected implementation is 2006-2007. . To design a riparian management strategy for city-owned lands. . To develop a community outreach plan to increase awareness of our watershed and promote greater community involvement within city-owned forestlands and beyond. Involvement c;ould include monitoring of the AFR. This may require City funding. . To create an active non-native species control effort on city lands (includes inventory, eradication plan and monitoring). . To create a fire management plan to address potential wildland fire occurrences. Defines a program to manage wild land and prescribed fires. Accomplishments by the Commission were noted as the following: . Drafted a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), held public forum, and obtained Council approval on this first in the nation CWPP under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. . Hosted a public hike to the Winburn Parcel; redefined Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative (AFRCA) tasks to respond to the Forest Service's request for clarification on AFRCA; appointed Marty Main and Darren Borgias as liaisons to the Forest Service. . Hosted public hike to lower watershed. . Renewed effort to develop a management plan for the Winburn Parcel. . Retreat by Commission to identify goals, roles of participants and future collaboration processes with various stakeholders. . Various national fire plan grants received; fire prone domestic vegetation removal and general thinning on private lands programs implemented within the Ashland interface area. . AFRCA team began biweekly meetings to respond to the Forest Service DEIS 'I -------,---- ASHLAND CITY COUNCiL MEETiNG OCTOBER 4, 2005 PAGE 20(6 · City Staff met with Forest Service and agreed to a two month window in which to darify City's response to the OBIS. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. Councilor Chapman/JackSon rills to'approve ConsentAgenda;V''Ciice Vote:' all AYES. M(nmn'passed~ PUBLIC HEARINGS (None) PUBLIC FORUM Ann Marie Huston/SSO Oak KnoWSubmitted statement into the record where she voiced her frustration that the City Council imposed an unfair, unjust and immoral surcharge against all citizens of Ashland, regardless of whether they are Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) subscribers. She shared her personal experience with bureaucrats and submitted a petition of 300+ signatures of citizens who oppose the $7.50 AFN surcharge. .. Eric Navickas/71I Faith- Avenue/Spoke regarding watershed managemtmtrand wamed the Council about an ,.. aggressive project being put forward by the Bush administration. He stated that the Forest Service has yet to complete the watershed management project previously agreed to and stressed that fuels reduction should be completed through non-commercial means. Mr. Navickas noted the Ski Ashland expansion proposal and stated that if these projects go forward simultaneously, there would be severe problems in the watershed. He added that the City should be skeptical about what the Forest Service is doing in the watershed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Ordinance re Community Oriented Policing. John Stromberg/2S2 Ridge Road and Ralph Temple/ISO Meyer Creek Road! Mr. Stromberg explained that they were representing the Ashland Committee on Policing and Safety and noted that this group was assembled in July and consists of 11 members. A report titled 'Community Policing: A New Paradigm for the Ashland Police Department' was submitted into the public record. Mr. Temple explained the difference between "professional policing" and "community policing" and stated that the City made the decision to embrace the community policing method when they hired Police Chief Bianca. Mr. Temple gave a brief history of the selection process and stated that many recognized that there would be officers who would not support Chief Bianca. Mr. Temple noted the request 1by the Police Association to have Chief Bianca removed and commented on various sections of the Association's statement, which is included in their report. Mr. Temple stated that their proposed ordinance was about the City backing up the Police Chief on community policing. He voiced his confidence that the Council, City Administrator and Legal Department would make the right decision and submitted a legal opinion from Attorney William Mansfield into the record, which addresses whether this was an appropriate subject for an ordinance. Mr. Temple clarified that they met with the Mayor, City Administrator and various members of the Ashland /.. Police Association when putting the ordinance together. Mr. Stromberg added that Police Chief Bianca and Police Chief McGuire of West Jordan, Utah also provided input. He noted that the City's Legal Department has not had the opportunity to review the report and acknowledged that it is up to the Council on how this proceeds. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL AtEE7JNCi OCTOBER 4, 2005 PAGE 3 of6 Council discussed the proposed ordinance and support was voiced for moving forward with discussions. Comment was made voicing disappointment that the presentation took an "us vs. them" tone. Suggestion was made for the Council to take a step back, invite the public into the discussions, and explain what community policing is all about. Comment was made noting the need for the Legal Department; City Administrator, Police Chief and Police Department to join in on the discussions. ' It was noted that the City was irithe process offotming a Public Safety Commission, which could have a role in the community policing policy implementation. Statement was made that the Council should not wait until the Public Safety Commission is formed before taking action on this issue. Comment was made that, they need to make sure they are putting this policy statement into the right form (resolution vs. ordinance) and it was suggested that Council refer this issue to Staff for legal analysis. Mayor Morrison stated that it was clear that a policy was needed and voiced his support for moving forward. He stated the policy should reflect the broad base of the community and should be formed bythl~ Council not the Public Safety Commission. He recommended that they refer the ordinance to Staff for a legal review, develop a list of individuals that should be involved in the review, and schedule a date for when 1his will come back to Council. Pam Vavra/280 Dead Indian Memorial RoadN oiced her support for Police Chief Bi,mca and the formation of a community policing policy. John Fisher-Smith/945 Oak StreetIVoiced his support for community policing in Ashland and hopes the Council can carry the community towards that goal. Mr. Fisher-Smith stated that he did not view the presentation as negative and noted incidences of undue police actiorl. He shared that Police Chic~fBianca had been invited to speak to a group he belongs to and voiced his support for community policing. Councilor Jackson left the meeting at 8:51 p.m. Molly WetzellGarfieldStreet/Noted her experience with this issue and commented on the need for strategic planning twice a month where the community and the police could come together to discuss community policing needs. She stated that community policing goes beyond the police department and commented on the need to bring the community and the police department together. She added that strategic planning should come first to define what the policy is. Police Chief Mike Bianca stated that there was a timeliness involved in this issue. He acknowledged that he had been contacted by the committee and had provided input; and stated that he had not been able to find any city that has enacted a law supporting a community policing policy and finds it fascinating. He voiced his hope that he would be the chief that brought unity to the police department, but acknowledged that there has been turmoil within the department. Chief Bianca shared the feeling of the department on how the proposed ordinance is difficult for them to accept, as it seems to be negative towards the department. He stated that he is opened-minded and ready to explore this issue further. Councilor HartzelllHardesty m/s for legal staff to review the ordinance and bring back lto Council at their November 15 meeting for first reading and review. DISCUSSION: Suggestion was made for the /', Police Chief and his department to provide input. Comment was made supporting movement in this direction, but opposing action until legal review is complete. Mayor Morrison stressed the importance of this issue and stated that they need to have a clearly articulated set of expectations as defined by policy and understood by all. He stated that this was a wonderful start and suggested that the Council move forward. ASHLAND CITY COUNCiL MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2005 PAGE 4 0(6 Voice Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Hardesty, Chapman and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Amarotico, NO. Motion passed. 4-1 2. Fire Station 2 Update Fire Chief Keith Woodley presented the Staff Report to Council. He explained that earlier this year Staff conducted a survey of commercial property along the Ashland Street corridor that would be suitable for Fire Station #2; and noted that the constru.ction of a new fire. station has been before 'the Council as a Capital . i, Improvements Project for several years. He stated that Staff is proposing this be voted upon by the public at the November 2006 election. This would allow Staff more time to update the 1995 SpaceNe~:ds Study and develop an outline plan for the project. He added that no Council action is required at this time. Mr. Woodley clarified for Council that the existing fire station site was selected as the preferred site for expansion following the commercial property survey; and stated that Staff was following a similar program as what was used for Fire Station # 1. Mr. Woodley noted the issue of trying to get the fire station planning and the budget cycle to match each other, as they are currently out of sync. .: Mr, i Woodley.oonclu.dedby clarifying that several years ago he approached the Parks Cornmissioni.and . proposed the possibility of purchasing some of the parklands. Mayor Morrison responded to the Public Forum testimony regarding the Ashland Fiber Network surcharge and stated that the Council was taking the future of AFN very seriously. He explained that they have appointed a committee that is looking into what can be done and stated that all options are being considered. He stated that Council was concerned with the impact this surcharge would have on fixed and low-income households and stated that they have been exploring ways to identify and exempt citizens with hardship cases. Mayor Morrison stated that AFN has contributed greatly to the community and explained how the costs of cable television would be a great deal higher if it were not for AFN. He noted that there are many individuals in the community who rely on AFN, and stated that the community needs to continue to support this resource until a final detennination is made. He noted that the options for AFN would be pre.". sn n~'ed It:Ot '.he Council iIl-A-- November. flu.t-I J -rr ~r!:? fJm%.f!J 3. Police Preparation for Halloween Events v - Y1ir.( 5f-Ol1?JJt. I.t 1- It/;i-e Police Chief Mike Bianca introduced Officers Teresa Selby and Rich Walsh and shared his experiences with the Halloween holiday as both a citizen and a police officer. Mr. Bianca explained that after the 2004 celebration, he directed Staff to analyze the problems associated.with,.Halloween and to make recommendations for police response in 2005. Mr. Bianca voiced his concern with the potential negative impacts for the community associated with the Halloween celebrations. Officer Rich Walsh stated that the Police Department's recommendation was to bring in outside forces to help , insure a safe celebration. Officer Selby stated that she had been working on a public outreach plan educating how the Police Department will be handling violations during the Halloween celebration. She noted the other communities that have volunteered to assist in patrolling our community on Halloween. Office:r Selby stated that they held a non-mandatory meeting with local bar owners to address their concerns and discuss potential problems. She further clarified for Council the process in which the Police Department would follow in regards to chain-of-command. Joaquin Saloma/368 York Street/Spoke regarding the police action of Halloween of 2005 and noted ,/ - incidents that he felt violated police conduct. He stated that it was important to look at how police action would be structured on Halloween. ------y--- ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEE71NG OCTOBER 4, 2005 PAGE 50/6 4. Council Goals Update City Administrator Gino Grimaldi provided a brief update and a timeline for meeting the goals and requested Council feedback. Council discussed several of the goals and provided the following input: Goal #1: Goal #5: Suggestion was made to broaden this goal to involve more of the community than just the Chamber of Commerce. Suggestion was made for Staff to provide a report on the status of what the Chamber has done and to provide a set of options on how to broaden involvement. Suggestion was made to move this forward to the Planning Commission by January 2006 and to Council by February 2006. Interim Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated that a potential difficulty is that the Riparian Ordinance deals with a lot of technical issues that many of the decision makers are not familiar with. He stated that there is a learning curve associated with this goal, but thinks the suggested time line is a feasible goal. Goal #1-2: Goal #15: Goal #16: Goal #17: Goal #19: Goal #20: Goal #24: Suggestion was made to have the Study Session to tevie:w:theexisting TTPC plan sooner, than d_ Fall '07. Suggestion was made to amend the language to read "Secure ODOT support for the project." City Administrator Gino Grimaldi clarified for Council that the City had been given permission from the railroad to perform work on the tracks, which would involve grinding down bumps and filling holes to make the crossings passable for pedestrians and bicyclists. Suggestion was made for Staff to propose a time line for increasing conservation effectiveness before the budget. Suggestion was made for Staff to set target dates for the activities listed in the second, third and fourth bullet points. Suggestion was made to replace the bullet points, which are a reflection of the Navigant recommendations, with the actions the City is currently taking. Comment was made noting that this goal had been delayed due to budget restrictions and request was made that Council address this issue during next years goal setting process. Mr. Grimaldi stated that Staff would revise the goals and distribute to the Council. s. Approve Voting Delegate for Oregon LOC conference Councilor HartzelllAmarotico mls to approve Councilor Silbiger as the Voting Delegate for the LOC Conference. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor SilbigerlHardesty mls to approve Councilor Hartzell as the alternative Voting Delegate for the LOC Conference. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First Reading by Title only with changes of "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Relating to Rules of Procedure for Public Contracting and~ersonalService Contnds." Assistant City Attorney Mike Reeder explained that this ordinance was mostly for housecleaning and clarification, but stated that due to some recent input from Staff and Council it might be best to postpone / - the first reading in order to obtain more feedback from Council. Council reached consensus to allow Staff additonal time to prepare the ordinance for Council review. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg clarified for Council that Staff could include information on the AFN contracting procedures when this ordinance comes back to Council for first reading. ------...-- ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETiNG OCTOBER 4. 2005 PAGE 6 0(6 Staff requested direction from Council regarding the proposed change #3, which states that change orders and amendments to a contract over $75,000 or more than 25% of the original contract must be approved by the Local Contract Review Board. Mr. Grimaldi explained that the proposed language'would be problematic from an operational standpoint and could cause project delays. He stated that they could change it to only require approval if it is more than 25%. Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. City Attorney Mike Franell stated that changes that result in significant budget impacts already come back to Council in the form of a supplemental budget. Mr. Reeder noted that Council might wish to discuss the current exception of not needing to bring a contract before. the Review Board when it has already been approved though the capital improvement and budget process. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained that in the past, Staff would provide updates to the Council on capital improvement projects as they move,forwaro, He stated that with large projects, such as the Siskiyou Blvd. project, change orders do occur and it could become costly to have to wait for Council approval. Comment was made that it seems redundant to require Council approval on CIP projects that are already thoroughly reviewed. Council questioned at what point Staff brings contracts that have excei;:ded their bid amount back to Council. Mr. Tuneberg stated that there is no specific guideline, but suggested that 10% over might be an appropriate figure. Statement was made voicing support for establishing a threshold. Concern was expressed about projects coming in at a low bid and then having multiple change orders that raise the price. Mr. Tuneberg stated that change orders are inevitable with some projects, but stated that the estimate and bidding follows a fair process. He voiced his support for the threshold being 25% for ch.mge orders to require Council approval. Suggestion was made to include language "as allowed by the city charter". Mr. Franell clarified that anything that would be in an ordinance could not violate provisions within the Charter. He noted that the current Charter prohibits the City from selling water other than to residents and noted that further clarification of this charter language may be necessary. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:11 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor . ..-.'T.- -, - - -----.-- CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 3, 2005 PAGE I 0/3 MINUTES FOR STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL October 3, 2005 Civic Center Councll Chambers 1175 E. Main Street "CALL TO ORDER: \. Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambc~r. ROLL'CALL: Councilor Hardesty, Amarotico, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Hartzell arrived at 5:07 p.m. , STUDY SESSION TOPICS: 1. Charter Recommendations Next Steps Management Analyst Ann Seltzer presented the Staff Report. She explained that the Charter Review Committee presented their recommendations in layman,'s terms and the next steps win be for the consultant Tom Sponslor to prepare a drafVbasedon the,reoommendations of the Committee, Council will then review the draft language and determine which of the recommendations will be placed on the May 2006 ballot. Ms. Seltzer stated that Staff has scheduled meetings for November 7th, December 5th and January 12th for Council to review the recommendations, take public input, and come to a dl~cision on the ballot language. Mrs. Seltzer explained that the Charter Review Committee recommended that further research was needed on the following items: Duties of the City Recorder, Compensation of the Municipal Judge, Water Works Language, and References to the Hospital and Cemetery. The suggested actions include: 1) Appointing a small committee to review current duties of the City Recorder and compensation of the Municipal Judge and bring a recommendation back to the Council, and 2) Direct the City Attorney to present to the Council an overview of the Water Works provision for clarification purpOSI~S and review and draft updated language regarding the hospital and cemetery provisions. Councilor Jackson explained that she would need to leave early and suggested that the Council discuss how to proceed with the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee. She voiced her support for forming a small sub-committee as suggested that they further discuss which election date to shoot for. Councilor Jackson left the meeting at 5: 15 p.m. Comment was made that the May election might be too soon. Additional cominent was mlllde suggesting that the Council not have Mr. Sponslor prepare a draft until after they have had discussions amongst themselves and the public on the ,Committee's recommended changes. Ms. Seltzer clarified that the CoUncil can move forward however they so choose. Assistant Attorney Mike Reeder clarified that the Council can make changes and are not bound to the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee. Council discussed how they would like to proceed, including whether to adopt the forma1t of the model charter. Ms. Seltzer explained that the Charter Review Committee recommended the format of the model charter because they felt the charter should be easy to read, concise and precise. She stated that the /. Council could move forward by either discussing the recommendations of the Committee frrst, and then having the consultant prepare a draft; or preparing the draft document first and - then holding their discussions. She stated that a benefit of having a draft document first is that it gives the citizens a chance CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 3. 2005 PAGE 3 on concern about a citizen group that seems to think they are speaking for all of the citizens of Ashland. She stated that the information presented by this group would only amount to gridlock. Philip Lang/758 B Street/Stated that process was the problem and encouraged th~ Council to consider all of the suggestions presented and not just the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee. Mr. Land commented on Ethics and stated that this is addre~sed in the Ashland Municipal Code; however it only applies- to emplQyees;and needs to apply to elected and appointed officials as, well. He also. voiced his support for incorporating items into the Charter stating that ordinances can be changed too easily. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbdra Christensen, City Recorder Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission September 15th, 2005 Regular Minutes Roll Call Council Liaison: Staff: RVTD liaison: High s~hoolliaison: , Vice Chair Brad Knicke!!J.ocker(absent) Christina Lacy Dylan Robbins Russ Silbiger Derek Severson, Assistant Planner (absent) Paige West, RVTD/TDM Planner (absent) Cory Lescher (absent) Tracy Hardipg Tom Marvin Julia Sommer Tom Cook, Police Ojj7cer SOU liaison: Vacant Call to Order Secretary Robbins called the meeting to order at 5: 15 p.m. Approval of Minutes - Auaust 18th, 2005 Silbiger noted that he had not voted where he wl!lsindicated as having done so on page 1. The minultes of August 18th, 2005 were approved with this correction. Public Forum None. Election of Officers (Chair. Vice.Chair & Secretary) Harding moved to table this item. The motion died for a lack of a second. Marvin nominated Robbins as chair. Harding seconed the motioned. Voice vote: A11,AlYES. Motion passed. Marvin nominated Harding as vice chair. Robbins seconded the motion. Harding declined the nomination, and the motion and second were withdrawn. Marvin nominated Sommer as vice chair. Robbins seconded. Sommer accepted the nomination. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Robbins nominated Marvin as secretary. Harding seconded. Marvin declined the nomination, and the motion and second were withdrawn. Robbins nominated Lacy as secretary. Marvin seconded the motion. Lacy accepted the nomination. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Budaet Update $500 has been committed to Car Free Day; there have been no actual expenditures to date. Car Free Dav Event Plannina - Finalize Details Robbins noted flyers and an ad in the Siskiyou Velo newsletter. Pointed out that bike shops were getting a lot of inquiries and would like more information. Sommer noted that she would be following up with a merchant letter, and Harding stated that she would contact bike shops and update them. Robbins stated that he would talk to the shop on Oak Street and that he had some employees who would be on site. Robbins noted that Ed who runs the pedi-cab business has an insurance problem and is unable to provide service without insurance. He explained that only one insurance company would provide coverage and they would require that five cabs be the minimum to be .-' . covered. 2005-0915 Bike Min Page I of3 ., r . ---.------- Harding urged commissioners to be around as much as possible during the event. She noted that she had silk- screened and had followed up with tablers. She also noted a meeting on Tuesday at Standing Stone at 3:30 to discuss last minute details. She pointed out that there were guides for walking and biking tours and tha:t she would be on JPR on Monday to promote the event as well as getting coverage in the Tidings. Hardmg pointed out that there has been a good response to the publicity so far, and she provided a sample of the T-shirts. Discussed posters. Lacy noted that she had postered at the high school. Harding noted that she placed several banners as well. Harding added that Evo's had been very supportive and wanted to do more. Sonuner suggested a bike tour from Oak Street to Garfield Park as a mini-Critical Mass. Bike Path Sianaae Robbins noted that draft letters from Marvin had been included in the packets, and asked if there were :any suggested changes. Members concurred that the letters were satisfactory as presented, and should be copied to Chapman as well. Chapman noted that he was the council liaison to the Greenway Committee working on maintenance is,sues. Marvin noted that sign size was his biggest concern. New Business Robbins noted that he had a concern with getting from Van Ness Avenue to AStreet Marketplace, and he feels that the intersection of Oak, A and Van Ness is an extremely difficult one. Silbiger noted that Traffic Safety Commission had discussed the matter, and the intersection did not meet warrants. Chapman noted that this would likely depend on work done on the railroad crossing and then extending the bikepath, and the railroad jurisdiction made it more complicated. Members discussed the need to bring this up as an issue for Traffic Safety Commission. Chapman noted that he had met with Walker parents, principal, and others and wanted to inquire about whether the Commission would provide funds to match Traffic Safety's contribution to provide 30 helmets for Walking Wednesdays and Safe Routes to School Day. Chapman suggested contacting APD to see if they have :any stock, and Robbins stated that he could handle this, and would check on light stocks too. Chapman indicated that a stock of helmets, lights, bells, and reflectors should be kept on hand. Harding noted that a dinner was being held tonight to discuss Car Free Day and Safe Routes to School with parents. Marvin/Harding m/s to provide funds of up to $150 to purchase helmets and lights. Voice vote: All AYES. Sonuner noted that she was going to propose working with Public Arts Commission to co-sponsor some artistic, creative, functional bike racks. Sonuner indicated.her willingness to work on this. Marvin expressed concern with over-stuffmg the downtown given that it is a small scale area within a small town. Robbins suggested that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Conunission and Public Arts Commission could be sensitive to this issue. Sue Graham of Sk8Guard asked that skateboarding be considered as a viable, environmental fril~ndly form of transportation in the downtown planning process. Members suggested working to remove impediments to the installation of skateboard racks. Marvin asked that the Commission take a role in improving bike lanes on North Main going to the north of town. There was discUssion of the fact that it was state highway being a limitation as well as the need to acquire additional right of way. Asked that this be an agenda item this month. Discussed whether any additional conunent on the ODOT resurfacing of Siskiyou was necessary. Members indicated that the feedback initially provided had addressed their concerns. Sonuner noted that she had applied to serve on the Transportation Advisory Commission through RVCOG and the MPO. Aaenda Items for Next Meetina Intersection concerns on Van Ness/Oak Street/A Street; Skateboard Racks; North Main. Car Free Day PostmortemlDe-Briefing. Bike Racks. Membership drive. 1005-09 J 5 Bike Min Page 1 of 3 Adiournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:23 p.rn. Upcomina Meetinas: October 20th Regular Meeting in the Siskiyou Room at 5: 15 P.M. 2005-09/5 Bike Min Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2005 Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn K:'ay:- Siskiyou Room Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Sam Whitford. Rob Salad oft:. Terry Skibby, Jay Leighton. Alex Krach, and Henry Baker , Absent Members: Tom Giordano. Allen Krach Council Liaison: Jack Hardesty Hiah School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Maria Harris, Senior Planner. Billie Boswell, Administration . CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING At 7:04, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the regular meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Boswell said applicant, Bill Emerson asked to have the minutes amended to add "the designer and" added to paragraph two and to add "main cornice and" to paragraph three of the 11 First Street section. Ms. Leighton moved to approve the September 7, 2005 minutes as amended. Mr. Swink seconded the motion. They were approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS i .~ Planning Action 2005-01674 Site Review Ron & Carrie Yamaoka 11 First Street . ' j. .' . ~ , Chairman Shostrom described the request for a Site Review approval for a three-story, mixed-use building comprised of restaurant space, office space and two residential units. The proposed building is approximately 4,500 square feet in size, and is located in the Downtown and Detail Site Review zones. A TreE~ Removal Permit is requested to remove four trees sized six inches in diameter at breastheight andgr-eater;- Ms. Harris explained the request for the 4,536 square foot. 3-stQry building is subject to Basic. Detail, Downtown and Historic Site Review Standards within in the C-1-D zone. The project meets the major design details to maintain the pedestrian-friendly alley on Will Dodge Way. a ten-foot public sidewalk. a generous articulated front entrance, strong ' vertical rhythm and vertical windows. The height is in relation to the buildin~ mass. Staff recommends approval with 27 conditions to include conditions recommended by the Historic Commission and to require Historic Commission review for any future additions of awnings and/or marqU€les. Bill Emerson. designer and applicant's agent shared colored samples of the brick proposed. He also provided a copy of a letterfromtheadjacent property owner giving permission to remove a tree. He reviewed architectural" details of the building and the finishes of stucco and thin-brick at the request of Mr. Skibby. Smce there was no one in the audience to speak, the public meeting was closed. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 10/11/2005 .-T -----,.- CITY OF ASHLAND was confusing as to the time period and that would be the reason he would not be voting in favor of the recommended approval. Mr. Swink amended his motion to recommend approval of the project subject to the following rElcommendations: 1. Explore relocating the elevator core to the front of the building for ease of accessibility. 2. Brick should be smooth or "wire-cut" and should not be tumbled or old. COIOf'Should be traditional with no antique finish. 3. Use of a more contemporary treatment such as poured concrete on the column baSJJs. ;-, 4. Provide samples of exterior building materials and colors with submittal of the building permit for review by the Historic Commission. Mr. Whitford seconded the motion and it was approved 7-1 with Chairman Shostrom casting the dissenting vote. Planning Action 2005-011307 Site Review Russ Dale 125 Sherman Street Chairman Shostrom described the request for a Site Review approval to construct a second residential unit attached to the existing garage. A Conditional Use Permit is required to expand the non-conforming garage structure. The garage is located within a foot of the rear property line and ten feet is required. The new proposed addition would meet setback requirements. Ms. Harris said the 471 square foot unit would be attached to an existing, non-conforming single-car garage located to the rear of the property off the alley. The garage would also be enlarged to a 2-car size. The property is zoned R-2. A Conditional Use is required because the garage encroaches 9 feet into the 10-foot . setback. Staff recommends approval with 14 conditions including requiring the applicant to submit colors :and materials to the historic commission with their submission of the building permit. Chairman Shostrom pointed out that the patio cover appeared to encroach into the. setback. Russ Dale. owner of the property. explained that the new unit would be compatible with sevElral other small units on the adjoining properties and with the neighborhood in general. Mr. Dale brought several pictures of the existing units, the garage and the surrounding yards. Mr. Skibby pointed out that the plans showed 8 inch lap sidiDg., Mf... Dale said he would prefElr to use vertical bat and board siding to match the existing house on the' property: He wants the siding stained, not painted. Ms. Leighton was concerned about the small. high windows near the front door. Mr. Dale said this was to mitigate the view of the existing house and public walkway. Chairman Shostroni felt the expansion of the garage and the layout of the new unit would eliminate important functional use of the backyard space that is not typical in historic neighborhoods. The pedestrian traffic flow through the property is unnatural. Suggestions were made to change the garage doors to the alley side and flipping the orientation of the ridge of the garage to minimize the front elevation and open up more usable space in the yard. Ms. Leighton pointed outthat this would allow the man-door to be relocatE~d away from the new unit's front door. Mr. Saladoff felt the close proximity of the unit to the existing house eliminated too much outdoor space and cre.ated a "no man's land". A motion by Mr. Skibby and seconded by Mr. Baker stating that the Commission would recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for the following reasons: Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 10/11/2005 3 ~-_._...--_._..~-_..__.__._-----------,--- CITY OF ASHLAND PA #2002-100 142 East Main Street (EarthlY Goods) Leiohton PA #2004-026 81 Central Avenue (Wes & Lucinda Vail) Giordano PA #2004-018 322 Pioneer Street (AI & Sandra Car1son) Swink PA #2004-100 80 Wimer (Tom & Kathy Petersen) Whitford PA #2004-102 832 "A" Street 1ilene Rubenstein) '. Saladoff . . PA #2004-110 150 Church St (Robert M. Saladoff) .- Whitford PA #2004-115 724 Iowa St ( Dave and Jamie Kaufman) Swink P A #2004-138 234 Vista St Sid & Karen DeBoer) Saladoff PA #2004-150 87 Fourth St Unitarian Universal Fellowship Church) Shostrom PA #2004-154 180 Lithia Wav (Archerd & Dresner) Leiohton PA-#2004-160 685 A Street William Reeves) Swink PL#2005-00039 150 N. Pioneer (Stan Potocki & Bruce McLean) Leiohton PL#2005-00869 249 Hillcrest Drive (Russell & JoAnn Manzone) Swink PL#2005-01043 70 Water Street (Ashland Creek Holdinos. LLC) Leiohton PL#2005-01226 820 "C" Street (Randy & Helen Ellison) Shostrom PL#2005-01674 11 First Street (Ron Yamaoka) Skibby C. Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop - No report D. Lithia Sprinos National Reoister Nomination - Ms. Harris reported she is preparing a !~rant proposal to fund hiring a consultant to do a pilot recognizance survey of the Quiet Village neighborhood. Using this smaller section of the City is intended to help formulate the methodology and stay withi n the confines of the budget. Chairman Shostrom suggested using the funds to look at the top 70 known historically significant structure instead. Further discussion was tabled to the next meeting. E. Multiple Listino Survey for National Reoister of Historic Places - No report F. Sinale FamilY Residential Desian Standards - No report G. Brown Baa Meetina - No report NEW BUSINESS - Ms. Leighton told the Commissioners that she was contacted by the Arts Commission to be on a Ad Hoc committee to choose a piece of public art to be displayed at the comer of Lithia Way and Pioneer in front of the Naturals. The artwork was funded by some loCal families who were original owners of several restaurants. The piece chosen was three basalt stone pillars ranging from 4 to 8 feet and imbedded with uplifting words and other artistic items. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Historic Commission meeting will be on November 2. 2005 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Leighton and second by Saladoff, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. /, Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 10/11/2005 5 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 18, 2005 RE: City Council Members Mayor John Morrison ~ '!\ Appointment to Tree Commission TO: FROM: October 18, 2005 Council Meeting Please confirm my appointment of Steve Siewert to the Tree Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2006. The vacancy was created when Tracy Cohen recently resigned from her seat on the Tree Commission. An advertisement for the open position appeared in the Ashland Daily Tidings (attached), and was also advertised on the City's Web site and posted on the notice board in City Hall. Applications are attached. Attachments S T EVE S I EWE R THO R TIC U L T URAL S E R V ICE S /~-- RECEIVED SEP 29 2005 September 27, 2005 City Recorder 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 To Whom it May Concern: I am interested in'the--position opening up on your Tree Commission. Attached please find my curriculum vitae. If you have any questions or need any further information or references please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, .~ Steve Siewert 3330 OLD HIGHWAY 99 SOUTH ASHLAND. OREGON 97520 PH: 541/552-0440 FX: 541/552-0442 PLANTATION S@HIGHSTREAM.NET Steve Siewert 3330 Old Siskiyou Hwy. Ashland, OR 97520 PH: 541/552-0440 FX: 541/552-0442 Plantations@highstream.net CURRICULUM VITAE OBJECTIVE To use my skills in horticulture to the betterment of myself, my co-workers & my community. OWlier 1980 - Present Siewert Horticultural Services Safford, AZ Ashland, OR Consultation & fine estate maintenance. All phases of landscape maintenance including tree pruning, tree & soil health & problem diagnosis. Projects include: Ashland Springs Hotel, A Mid- Summer's Dream Bed & Breakfast, The Doug & Becky Neuman Estate, The Bob London Arboretum, The Berg Estate & Tara Labs are among the many projects I have worked on within the Rogue Valley. Assistant Manager 1993 - Present Plant Oregon Nursery Talent, OR In this tree nursery I am involved in propagation, planting, management of plants and nursery personnel. Wholesale & retail sales. Arborist Topridge Farm, LLC Ashland, OR 1999-2003 From its inception I was responsible for the planning & installation of a 200+ tree: arboretum which included over seeing a 40+ employee work force. Most of the trees installed were from 4-7" caliper in size requiring special maintenance for establishment. Owner Pheasant Fields Farm Phoenix, OR 1995-1999 GrowiI!g & marketing of organic fruits, vegetables & herbs for local farmer's markets & restaurants as well as an active CSA garden. Steve Siewert Page Two Eastern Arizona College A.A. Degree Thatcher, AZ Graduated with a Associate of Arts degree with an emphasis on Biology & Botany. 1980-1983 RELATED SKILLS I regularly attend continuing education classes through OSU, WSU, ISA & OAN. I am an active member of the ISA Pacific Northwest chapter. I was a member of Oregon Tilth for many years & have taught composting seminars within the Pacific Northwesj. Atbp}:.ne I.manage two greenhouses for propagation, research & development of natives & new plant & tree species for this area. I I ( I I . I ~ 1 Please publish: Thursday, September 15 and Saturday, September 17 in The Tidings Refer to P.O. 70113 Please contact Laura at 488-6002 if any questions -,.~- ..[ The City of Ashland has a vacancy on the TREE COMMISSION for a term to expire April 30, 2006. If you are interested in being consid- ered for a volunteer position on the Tree Commission, please submit your request in writing, with a copy of your resume (if available) to the City Recorder's office. Additional information regarding this posi- tion can be obtained from the office of the City Recorder, and the City's Web site at www.ashland.or.us. APPLY TO: The City Recorder, City Hall, 20 East Main St., Ashland APPLY BY: Friday, September 30, 2005 ~.l' CITY Of ASHLAND . ,~ .-1 _.~--------------------...---- MEMORANDUM DATE: October 18, 2005 TO: City Council Members Mayor John W. Morrison ~ Y\ Appointment to Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission FROM: RE: October 18, 2005 Council Meeting Please confirm my appointment of Selene Aitken to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2006. The vacancy was created when Lexi Delgado resigned due to tim'e conflicts from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission. Attached is a copy of Selene Aitken's application, and a copy of the advertisement as it appeared in the Daily Tidings. The vacancy was also advertised on the City's Web site, and on the notice board in City Hall. Attachments - -------.-- Selene Aitken 446 Helman St. Ashland, OR 97520 RECEIVED -~ -- \ I S E P 2 6 2005 b~~) -\~~It~ , I - _. '.. .1.- . ... ...... ..:". . .. _..~ September 21,2005 To Whom It May Concern: I'm interested in being a member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. I've been a resident of Ashland since 1985 and a homeowner since 1987. I enjoy walking and riding my bike and I'd like to encourage other folks to do the same. Working collaboratively with citizens and government is something I value and I'd appreciate the opportunity to work with this commission. Enclosed is my resume. Th~Q~ Selene Aitken SELENE AITKEN 446 Helman St Ashland, OR 97520 Aitken@sou.edu (541) 482-7567 HIGHLIGHTS OF QUALIFICATIONS . Resourceful and skilled communicator . Effective team member . Skilled at implementing, evaluating and improving programs RELEVANT WORK HISTORY Counselor/Advisor, Student Support Services, Southern Oregon University 2004-current Colloquium Instructor. Southern Oregon University 2001-2004 Reach Higher, Orientation leader. Southern Oregon University September 2001 Study Abroad and International Internships Coordinator. Southern Oregon University Ashland, Oregon. 1996-2004 Instructor, Spanish 101, 102, 103. Southern Oregon State College. Ashland, Oregon. 1996-97 Coordinator. National Coalition Building Institute at Southern Oregon University. Ashland, Oregon. 1999-2000 Workshop facilitator. National Coalition Building Institute. Ashland, Oregon. 1998-2002 Substitute Teacher. Ashland High School. Ashland, Oregon. 1994-96 Mediator. MediationWorks. Medford, Oregon. 1992-2001 Director, Peace House/Fellowship of Reconciliation. Ashland, Oregon. 1987-92 Substitute Teacher for Severely Emotionally Disturbed and Develop- Mentally Disabled Classes K-12, Jackson County Educational Services Medford, Oregon. 1985-86 '.T L EDUCATION and TRAININGS M.Ed. Stanford University. Stanford, California. California Secondary Teaching License. 1971 BS Georgetown University, Washington DC. Languages and Linguistics. Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa. 1969 Cre'dential to Teach Orthopedically Handicapped and Cerebral Palsied, K-12 California State University, San Francisco, California. 1975 National Coalition Building Institute Workshop Facilitator Training~ Southern Oregon University, Ashland, Oregon. July1998 a.nttJUlle,J;99~,t. Non-violent Communication Trainings with Marshall Rosenberg. Ashland and Eugene, Oregon. October 1997; November 1999; March 2001l August 2001, April 2004 Training in Group Mediation and Facilitation. Portland State University Institute on Aging. Bend, Oregon. 1995 Training to Train Mediators. Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission. Ashland, Oregon. 1994 Mediation Training. Approved by Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission. Ashland, Oregon. 1992 ORGANIZATIONS Honorary Phi Beta Kappa (Academic Honors) Phi Sigma Iota (International Foreign Language Honor Society) Oregon Mediation Association Fellowship of Reconciliation Buddhist Peace Fellowship LICENSES Life Standard Secondary Teaching Credential (California) Minor in Orthopedically Handicapped, including Cerebral Palsied, K-12 LANGUAGES Spanish and French ------r----- .:',:_:::(:j;""" ..:.,.... f ~ i ~ J A Please publish: Thursday, August 18th and Saturday, August 20th Tidings - Refer to P.O. 70111 Questions? Please call Laura at 488-6002 The City of Ashland has one vacancy on the BICYCLE & PEDES- , TRIAN COMMISSION for a term to expire April 30, 2006. If you are interested in being considered for a volunteer position on the Bicycle & Commission, please submit your request in writing, with a copy of your resume (if available) to the City Recorder's office. Additional information regarding this position can be obtained from the office of the City Recorder or the City's Web site at www.ashland.or.us. APPLY TO:The City Recorder, City Hall, 20 East Main St., Ashland. APPLY BY: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 r., CITY OF ASHLAND ~ g(lllO~' . ',*, .-T MEMORANDUM DATE: October 18, 2005 FROM: City Council Members Mayor John W. Morrison 3 \'\. Appointment of Youth Liaison to Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission TO: RE: ..- October 18, 2005 Council Meeting Please confirm my appointment of Nathan Meyerson as the Youth Liaison to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission for a temi to expire April 30, 2006. The vacancy was created when Cory Lescher resigned due to time conflicts from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission. Attached is a copy of the e-mail expressing his interest in becoming the Youth Liaison to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. Attachments iJOf.r. Mf.'.:-~on - ~OU Liason for the Ashland ~Icycle and Pedest~a.!l.~omlsslon t-'a,S~'Lj From: To: Date: Subject: "Nathan P. Meyerson" <meyersonn@students.sou.edu> <morrisoj@ashland.or.us> 10/10/2005 11 :01 :29 AM SOU Liason for the Ashland Bicycle and Pedestrian Comission Dear John, My name is Nathan Meyerson. I am an Enviornmental Studies and Geography Major at SOU. I have been in contact with members of the Ashland Bicycle and Pedestrian comission who have mentionEtd that they are lacking an SOU liason. I am writing this to express my interest in the position. Though I have no previous experience woorking in the public domain,1 am an avid bicycle activisUenthusiast and have been involved in organizing bicycle rallies, education and advocation. I am currently involved in RVTD's transpprttion options program, in which we( a group of SOU capstone students) are seeking to survey the campus about their transportation habits in efforts to reduce the unneccessary use of automobiles. I am more than happy to give you any additional information that you require. Please get back to me. Thanks in advance, Nathan Meyerson CITY OlF ASH LA 1'1 D Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Approval: October 18, 200m5 City Recorder Gino Grimaldi ~ Liquor License Application Primary Staff Contact: Barbara ChriS!~ 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: Consent Agenda Statement: Liquor License Application from Peter Hunkele dba Creekside Pizza Bistro at92,YJ N Main Background: Application for liquor license is for additional privilege. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applic~mt complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. Council Options: Approve or disapprove Liquor License application. Staff Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing ofthis application. Potential Motions: Motion to approve Liquor License application. Attachments: None r.l' -- -- -..-----------.----------..--------- ........---.--y-.. CITY OF ASH LAI\lD Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Approval: October 18, 200~5 City Recorder Gino Grimaldi ~ Liquor License Application Primary Staff Contact: Barb~hrist'ensen 488-5307 christeb@ashIand.or.us Estimated Time: Consent Agenda Statement: Liquor License Application from Dnaiel Gan dba Yuan-Yuan Restaurant at 2270 Ashland Street. Background: Application for liquor license is for a change of ownership. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. Council Options: Approve or disapprove Liquor License application. Staff Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing of this application. Potential Motions: Motion to approve Liquor License application. Attachments: None I". .. 1..."1 CITY OF ASH LAI'I D Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Approval: October 18, 20~0 City Recorder Gino Grimaldi < Liquor License Application Primary Staff Contact: Bar~stensen 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Estimated time: Consent Agenda Statement: Liquor License Application from Lela Sherdon dba Lela's Cafe at 258 A Street #3 Background: Application for liquor license is for additional privilege. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AM[C Chapter 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. Council Options: Approve or disapprove Liquor License application. Staff Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location ofthis business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing of this application. Potential Motions: Motion to approve Liquor License application. Attachments: None r~' ....., . . . ........ ASHLJ\ND Council Communication Meeting Date: DepartmentPlanning Department t Contributing Departments: Engineering Depa t Approval: Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator . Request for Waiver of Community Development and Engineering Fees As!jociated with the Building Permits for an Affordable Housing Development at 2001 Siskiyou Blvd Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman, HOUSi~ Program Specialist E-mail: goldmanb@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar. Interim. Director of Community Development. E-mail: mOlnarb@aShland.~ Estimated Time: 10 minutes Statement: The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation requests the Community Development and Engineering Services'be"waivedfortheiPn1K~13nitaffordable housing project located at 2001 Siskiyou Blvd. Background: The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) is developingl a nine-unit affordable housing project at 2001 Siskiyou Blvd to provide ownership opportunities for nine families. The City has awarded funds from the CDBG process to assist in this development in the amount of $374,800, and the project is being undertaken in conjunction with the USDA Rural Development Se~-Help Program. These contributions, and the land lease model employed by RVCDC, ensure the units will remain affordable for the long term (99 years). RVCDC is requesting that the Community Development and Engineering Fees be waived for this guaranteed affordable project. The Community Development Fees for the nine units is $6,348.54, and the Engineering Fees amount to $5286.48, for a total waiver of $11,635.02. The City has a process for deferring systems development charges (SDC's) for affordable projects, as well as a process for reducing the cost of utility hook ups. However, we are still formulating the policy for the reduction of other fees associated with affordable development. As part of this evaluation the Housing Commission will recommend to Council revisions to the SDC program, Engineering Fees, and Community Development fees for affordable housing projects. Both the Community Development and Engineering Fees were instituted to address the overall funding needs of the Planning and Engineering Divisions. They are collected at the time of building permit issuanc:e and are based on a percentage of the value of construction. A letter from RVCDC is attached outlining their request. Related City Policies and Prior Actions: The Housing Action Plan states thattheCity,>sbetJld::determin9'which planning and development 'fees could be waived for affordable housing. In 2003 the City Council refunded the Community Development and Engineering fees in their entirety for a 6 unit affordable rental project at 41 Garfield Way based on the public benefit provided by its long term afford ability. r., Council Options: Council can approve the request for a waiver from the Community Development and Engineering Services Fees in their entirety. Additionally the Council could place the item on the a!genda for discussion to consider denial, or a partial reduction, of the fees to be collected from each of the nine households at issuance of building permits. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council waive the Community Development and Engineering Services Fees for all nine units within the affordable housing project at 2001 Siskiyou Blvd. This in line with the adopted Housing Action Plan, as well as with the.precedent set by prior CouAOi.action waiving such fees for an affordable rental project, and is consistent with the SDC deferral and reduced utility hook up costs for affordable housing projects. Due to the long term affordability guarantees, staff does not see the need for any recapture agreements for these fees on this project. Should the Council choose to waive these fees, revenues to the Planning Division will be reduced by $6,348.54, and revenues to the Engineering Division will be reduced by $5286.48. Given the importance of tlhis project to the City and the overall budgets of these divisions, this is a relatively small amount and will not negatively impact either division. Attachments: Request letter from RVCDC .r., ORVCDC ----------- Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation PO Box 1733eMedford, OR 97501 T 541 e 734.2355 F 541 e 245.6966 www.rvcdc.com rvcdc@grrtech.com Improving the quality of life of the median- and low-income population of Jackson County through community development activities, BOARD Dwayne Murray President Floyd Pawlowski Vice President RaeLynn Barker Secretary Clara Rowe Treasurer Sam Fung Harry B. Marshall Jr. Joan Middendorff Dona Mitrany Marty Mosenthiem Rich Rohde John Statler Michael Travis STAFF Ron Demele Executive Director Andrea Miranda Fiscal Officer Bill Brandsen Site Supervisor Roxana Zepeda Homebuyer Services John Wheeler Construction Supervisor Hector Aleman Youthbuild Crewleader /. .(5) -- ......f..11Y This institution is an equal opportunity provider. October 8, 2005 Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator City of Ashland 20 East Main St. Ashland, Or. 97520 Dear Mr. Grimaldi, The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation is hc~lping families close loans and prepare to start work on nine new affordable homes for low to moderate income households in Ashland. The families who have qualified for the Rural Development SelfHelp Housing Program are dedica1ting their sweat equity to make this dream of home ownership a reality for them. RVCDC has partnered with the City of Ashland in creating a home ownership program that will retain the land beneath for 99 years in a land trust, assuring ongoing affordable housing. It is our request to the City of Ashland to consider a possible waiver of the "Community Development" and "Engineering Fees", as wellllS any other development permit fees such as building permit, sewer, and e:1ectrica1 ,plan review and connection fees charged to the project. Because of the complexity in bringing together the multiple grant sources and pennanent financing to fund a project like this, cost increases combined with project fees challenge any developer of affordable housing, especially nonprofit organizations. We believe the community land trust model with its long teon affordability is an investment in the community and benefiting families who (x>uld not own a home and live in Ashland. Nine children attend Ashland schools and our lowest qualifying family earns only 20% of the area median income. We would recommend that the Council review our request in the spirit of the Housing Action Plan language which states The City should determine which planning and utility fees could be reduced or waived for affordable housing (action plan; Strategy ll, page 14). RVCDC has utilized both the CDBG and SDC deferral programs to help create this $1.4 million dollar affordabJehousing,pl"Dject, working with a total of 18 funding sources. We appreciate the forward thinking approach the city has initiated for affordable housing projects and respectfully request your consideration for this project at 2001 Siskiyou Blvd Ron Demele, ED., RVCDC. CITY ()F ASHLAlND Council Communication Meeting Date: October 18, 2005 Department: Administrative 1/-e 'c s Contributing Departments: Approval: ' Gino Grimaldi Resolution to Repeal Resolution 2005-36 Amending the'lmplementation ,Date for the Ashland Fiber Network.,Surcharge on Electric Ac<<:ounts. M~ Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg E-mail: tunebed@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: E-mail: Estimated Time: 30 Minutes Statement: The $7.50 per month per account surcharge established September 7,2005, is expectecLto have a significant impact on many senior citizens and low income families of Ashland. This rescllution would repeal the original resolution and defer implementation until January, 2006, providing time to develop a methodology to provide relief to low income customers. Background: As r.equested, staff reviewed the impact of the $7.50 per month charge recently approved for all accounts, The impact will be significant on most seniors and poverty level families, especially those with limited resources or low incomes that receive only inflationary increases. Many willlhave great difficulty making room in their budgets for this new charge. Some have already ceased clOy cable television and computer use in order to balance their personal budget. The city has two programs that provide relief to low income families through a qualificaticln process but they do not apply to cable television related charges such as the surcharge. They are the Senior Citizen Discount and the Low Income Energy Assistance programs. The Senior Citizen Discount program is found in Section 14.02.015 of the Ashland Munic:ipal Code and also includes provisions for disabled citizens over 60. The Ashland Low 'Income EnE~rgy Assistance Program is geared to electricity costs and fotlows:theincomeguidelines of the Senior Citizen Discount program but is open to all ages. An administrative policy was establishl~d by the city in December 2001 to support the program established through the budget process. Even with the above processes there are many who would not qualify for relief and could be heavily impacted by the surcharge. Deferring the implementation date is recommended in' order for staff to do further research and provide alternatives to Council regarding the calculation of the surcharge and potential discounts or exemptions that could be employed. Related City Policies: Ashland Municipal Code 14.02.015 Low Income Energy Assistance Program Administrative Policy ~.l' ---------------y--- Council Options: Leave surcharge as adopted. (Take no action on the attached resolution.) Defer implementation of the surcharge. (Approve the attached resolution.) Amend the attached resolution based upon Council discussion. Staff Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution deferring implementation until January, 2006, 'awaiting additional information. In doing so it will be necessary for the Finance staff to credit all accounts th,at were billed the AFN surcharge 'per Resolutiori2005-36. ." . Potential Motions: Council moves to approve the resolution as presented. Council moves to change the applicability (or amount) of the surcharge and directs staff to bring back a revised resolution at the next meeting. Attachments: Resolution Resolution 2005-36 r~~ RESOLUTION NO. 05- A RESOLUTION TO REPEAL RESOLUTION 2005-36 AMENDING TI-IE IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR THE ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK SURCHARGE ON ELECTRIC ACCOUNTS Recitals: A. The City of Ashland operates Ashland Electric Utility to provide electricity to customers within the City limits of Ashland. B. The City of Ashland also operates Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) which uses a fiber optic backbone to provide cable television and internet services to customers within the City of Ashland. C. The Ashland Electric Utility utilizes the AFN fiber optic backbone to transmit data important to the operation of the electric utility and therefore finds it appropriat,e to subsidize the operation of AFN. D. The City established a $7.50 surcharge on all electric accounts effectivE~ with Cycle 2 billings prepared on or after October 7, 2005, through Resolution 200Ei-36. E. The City finds it beneficial to repeal Resolution 2005-36 and defer the implementation of the AFN surcharge on electric utility customer accounts allowing staff time to propose changes to the calculation and relief to low income customers. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Ashland adopts a $7.50 surcharge on electric account billings to provide a subsidy to Ashland Fiber Network, said surcharge to be!gin with Cycle 2 billings prepared on or after January 10, 2006. SECTION 2. The ~Iectric utility accounts thc:it have been billed under Resolution 2005-36 are to be credited for the AFN Surcharge resulting in no payment of the surcharge being required per that resolution. SECTION 3. The surcharge revenue is not subject to the Electric Utility Tax or included in the franchise fee calculation for Generat'Fund Revenues. SECTION 4. Resolution 2005-36 is repealed. 1-Resolution - Repeal 2005-36 Delaying AFN Surcharge ImplementationG:\Iegal\PAUL\FOF~~\resolll~on form,wpd SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 92.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th day of October, 2005. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2005. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: ~vv. ~ Mike Reeder, Assistant City Attorney 2- Resolution - Repeal 2005-36 Delaying AFN Surcharge ImplementationG:\Iegal\PAUL\FOHMS\resolution form.wpd RESOLUTION NO." ZOOS- oLD A RESOLUTION ADDING A SURCHARGE TO ELECTRIC UTILln' ACCOUNTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBSIDIZING ASHLAND FIBIER NETWORK Recitals: A. The City of Ashland operates Ashland Electric Utility to provide electricity to customers within the City limits of Ashland. B. The City of Ashland also operates Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) which uses a fiber bptic backbone to provide cable television and internet services to customers within the City of Ashland. C. The Ashland Electric ,Utility utilizes the AFN fiber optic backbone to transmit data important to the operation of the electric utility and therefore finds it beneficial to subsidize the operation of AFN. D. The City finds it beneficial to establish a surcharge on electric utility cu:stomer accounts for the purpose of subsidizing AFN. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Ashland adopts a $7.50 surcharge on electric account billings to provide a subsidy to Ashland Fiber Network, said surcharge to begin with Cycle 2 billings prepared on or after October 7, 2005. SECTION 2. The surcharge revenue is not subject to the Electric Utility Talx or included in the franchise fee calculation for General Fund Revenues. SECTION 3. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04 0 duly PASS D and ADOPTED this ih day of September. 2005. arbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 2- day ~005. , . anell. City Attorney 1- Resolution - AFN Surcharge on Electric Accounts 2005-9-7G:\IegaI\PAUL\FORMS\resolutlon form.wpd CITY 01' ASHLA~~D Council Communication An Appeal of Planning Action 2005-01050 - Request for a Lartd Partition to create a flag lot from the rear of two existing parcels for the properties located at 720 and 730 Liberty Street. A Physical Constraints Review Permi~ is requested to construct a driveway across a Riparian Drainage and to create a parcel with slopes 25% and greater in Hillside Lands. Meeting Date: Department: Approval: October 18, 200jJ Planning Gino Grimaldi '< Primary Staff Contacts: Maria Harris, :552-2045, harrism@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar, ~552- 2042, molnarb@asWand.or.us '? Time Estimate: 2.5 hour ,^,~' Statement: The record for Planning Action 2005-01050 was distributed prior to the regular packet for the October 18, 2005 meeting to provide additional time for the Mayor and Council to review the materials. The Planning Action was approved by the Planning Commission on August 9, 2005, and the decision was subsequently appealed. The public hearing is scheduled for the October 18, 2005 Council meeting. The item is time sensitive because the 120-day limit expires on November 18, 2005. Ideally, the hearing would be completed and a decision made at the October 18, 2005 meeting. This would allow preparation of the findings for a November meeting. Background: On June 10, 2005, the applicant filed the request for the above referenced planning action. On June 22, 2005, the application was deemed complete. The application was administratively approved and a public notice was sent on June 22, 2005. A request for a public hearing was received on July 5, 2005. The application was rescheduled and noticed for a public hearing at the August 9,2005 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission approved the application at the August 9, 2005 meeting, and the findings were reviewed and approved at the September 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The item is time sensitive because the 120-day limit expires on November 18,2005. The , original time limit ends on October 19,20005. However, the applicant granted a 30-day extension. Ideally, the hearing would be completed and a decision made at the October 18, 2005 meeting. This would allow preparation of the findings for a November meeting. 1 r~' CITY IOF ASHLJ\.N D A timely appeal was filed by Christian E. Hearn representing Eric P. Jones on September 22, 2005 including 15 issues as the grounds for the appeal. The issues raised in the appeal request letter are identical to the issues raised in the letter dated July 5, 2005 requesting a public hearing at the Planning Commission (see pages 60-62 of the record). The Planning Commission reviewed the issues raised in the initial request, and found that three of the 15 had merit including the use of the alley for vehicular access to the proposed new lot, emergency access and the amount of impact on the drainage swale by the proposed driveway crossing. The August 9 staff report and August 9 Planning Commission findings included in the record provides a detailed description ofthe proposal, the issues raised and the Planning Commission's findings. See pages 30-42 of the record for the staff report report, and pages 15-24 for the Plarming Commission findings. The Planning Commission found the alley, with improvements outlined in the conditions of approval, sufficient to- serve one additional home. The alley access as well as Fire Department access is discussed under 2;5 on page 5 of the findings. The Planning Commission required that the alley be graded to 12 feet in width for a driving surface with 15 feet in clear width. Additionally, the Commission required the alley to be graded to 18 feet in width to create wider passing areas approximately every 250 feet in length along the alley. Finally, the Commission required the overgrown vegetation to create a clear vertical space of a minimum of 13'6" in height, and horizontal clearance the width of the alley right-of-way. These requirements are covered by conditions 15 and 25 on page 10 of the findings. The requirement for an alley in the adopted Ashland Street Standards is a 16 foot wide right-of- way with 12 feet in width for a driving surface with two feet of graveled or planted strips on the sides. An alley is defined in 18.08.060 as "a narrow street, twenty (20) feet or less in width, through a block primarily for vehicular service access to the back or side of properties otherwise abutting on another street." This definition was updated and elaborated on in the Ashland Street Standards adopted in February 1999 as follows. The alley is a semi-public neighborhood space that provides access via the rear of the property. The use of alleys eliminates the need for front yard driveways andprovides the opportunity for a more positive front yard street scape, allows the street located adjacent to the front of properties to be designed using a narrow width with limited on-street parking, and creates the opportunity for the use of narrower lots to increase residential densities. ' Alleys are appropriate in all residential areas and in some commercial areas for business frontage. Alleys provide access and delivery depending on the circulation pattern of the area. The Planning Commission found the proposal to construct a driveway across the riparian drainage to the new Dome site to be<designed to minimally disturb the drainage: area. This finding is discussed under 2.7 on page 6 of the findings. Condition 24 on page 10 of the /, Findings, Conclusions and Orders requires the project engineer to submit calculations for the 100-year flood flow for the crossing. 2 r., CITY ()F ASHLAND The proposal is to install two 12-inch diameter culverts in the drainage swale with .one to two feet in depth of fill at the center line of the drive in the swale area. The driveway improvement would be 12 feet in width with an additional rock inlet and outlet transitiQning to the culvert. , - The resulting drainage channel disturbance would be approximately 10 feet in width. In response to Staffs inquiry, the applicant's materials state that the project engineer indicated an HArizona crossing" in which a minimal road surface is constructed which allows water to flow directly over the driveway could be used. The driveway could be finished with pavers, rock, grasscrete or pavement. This treatment is generally used in intermittent stream situations and is intended to minimize fill areas and allow a small degree of ground water peculation. The project engineer also looked at using a half-pipe culvert, but indicated it was more appropriate for a fish bearing waterway. The Planning Commission approved the proposed culverted crossing with the application, and did not require an alternative treatment. Finally, if the application is approved, another option the Council could consider is requiring the driving surface of the proposed culverted crossing to be pavers, rock or grasscrete rather than pavement. A non-paved driving surface may provide for peculation and provide a f1nishthat~is more compatible with the character' of the riparian corridor. Council Options: The Council may approve, approve with modifications and conditions, or deny the application. Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission approved the Land Partition and Physical Constraints Review Permit by a 5 to 3 vote. Staff supports the decision ofthe Planning Conunission as stated in the findings. The Council may wish to attach other conditions that they deem relevant to the criteria for approval. Potential Motions: Move to approve the application for a Land Partition and Physical Constraints Review Permit in P A 2005-01050 with 25 attached conditions as approved by the Planning Commission on August 9,2005. Move to approve the application as submitted. Move to deny the application as submitted. Attachments: Record for Planning Action 2005-01050 3 r., CITY o. -ASH LAN D Memo Date: From: To: Re: October 10,2005 Maria Harris, Senior Planner ~.iA-. Mayor and City Council . . Appeal of PA 2005-01050/720 and 730 Liberty Street The record for Planning Action 2005-01050 is being distributed prior to the regular packet for the October 18, 2005 meeting to provide additional time for the Mayor and Council[ to review the materials. The public hearing for the appeal of the Planning Commission decision of the application is scheduled for the October 18 meeting. Communlty.Development 20 E. Mail S1reet Ashland OR 97520 www.8shland.or.us Tel: 5411488-5305 Fax: 541/~ TTY: 8001735-2900 'A' CITY Of ASHLAND RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2005-01050 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 and 730. Liberty Street . - -." '.-. . "" ;tl'",< . OWNERlAPPUOANT:. Dean Shostrom/Dale Shostrom DESCRIPTION: Request for a Land Partition to create Ii flag lot from tht. rear of two existing parcels for the properties located at 720 and 730 Liberty Street. A Physical Constraints Review Permit Is requested to construct a driveway across a Riparian Drainage and to create a parcel with slopes 25% and greater In Hillside Lands. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 391E 16 AA; Tax Lot: 7300 & 7302. 12m! 9-22-05 9-28-05 9-28-05 9-15-05 8-9-05 8-9-05 8-4-05 8-2-05 8-1-05 7-22-05 7-22-05 7-21-05 7-21-05 7-5-06 6-29-05 6-23-05 6-23-05 6-22-05 6-22-05 Undated 6-10-05 6-10-05 Item .... ..... . Notice of Appeal to City Council from Davis, Hearn, Ssradoff&Smith.. ' representing Eric P. Jones. appellant Mailed Notice of Public Hearing (and related criteria) scheduled before Council on 10-18-05 Affidavit of Mailing, Mailing List, Tidings Notice Planning Commission Findings and Orders Planning Commission Minutes Planning Dept. Staff Report Tree Commission Planning Application Notice to Tidings of Site Visit on 8-8-05 Supplemental Information from the applicant Notice to Tidings of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on 8-9-05 Notice to Tidings of Public Hearing before the Tree Commission on 8-4-05 Mailed Notice of Public Hearing (and related criteria) scheduled before the Planning Commission on 8-9-05 Affidavit of Mailing. Mailing List Letter from Davis. Hearn. Saladoff & Smith requesting a public hearing on behalf of their client, Eric P. Jones E-mail from Eric P. Jones Notice to Tidings of Meeting before the Planning Commission on 7-12-05 Notice to Tidings of Landscape Review on 6-23-05 Mailed Notice of Public Hearing (and related criteria) scheduled before the Planning Commission on 6-22-05 Affidavit of Mailing, Mailing List Plat maps of 720 & 730 Liberty Street Applicant's Findings Application Paae # 1-6 7-9 10-12 13-24 25-29 30-42 43 44 45-52 53 54 55-57 58-59 60-62 63 64 65 66-68 69-70 71-72 73-114 115-118 MEMO 05-467 em Jones .' ~.. ......... ,~.. ...A.:. ;.(,_7':~'" 11'003 q ~ 3'" .". 1: ~ 23 20b? 3bl:0 ~ ~ 5 ~O~ 200'" '.'i1:-:.'';~ . q. .............. . .. .. ....-......... .... .. .. ./::::::,:,::,:,,:<:;:.,,:-',..,._,.,.:-:,::, -. -. .,. .'. .". . . .... ...... .......... ....,. . ." ... . - .... '. ." .~.' '. .. , ~,"f'_".""<<"""'~ ".......""- ....... ~.'/"~~..;'.,;.;:C.~~~;';,;::;;;.~..;.;.^ -. .. ,'. ".'-.. ..... ............. ,", ,.. . ......_..._, '-0_. .......,". .......... ; :~ -~ :~:~.~:~ ~.~ ;:-~..' .:~.. ,-~.' .~:~'. '....:'''': :~. ,- -::", ~~:: ~:~-~::: :-.~~:~:~~.;: ..~~::~.~~:~~r::;:~~~~ "" . .. -.- ...... / ---~.- JACK DAVIS CHRISTIAN E, HEARN. SUSAN VOGEl8Al.ADOFF* DAVID L SMtTI-rt JENNIFER A BRIDGES JENNIFER l, CRANE t LAW . liAM B, DAVIS - RelIred l~lDNEY E. AINSWORTH (1927-2003) 1>ONAlD M, PINNOCK. Retired IlAVlD V. GilSTRAP. Of Counsel . Also AdmlIted 10 Pr8c:lIce In CA * Also AdmlIted 10 Pnoc:llce In DC, MO, PA lIIld NJ t LL,M, In T8X8fion t Also AdmIlIed 10 P~ In UT A Professional Corporation 515 EAST MAIN STREET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (541) 482-3111 FAX (541) 488-4455 WNW.davlsheam.com September 22, 2005 Via Hand Delivery Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator City of Ashland 20 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Notice of Appeal to City Council of Planning Commission Decision (Planning Action #2005-01050) Applicants: Shostrom Appellant: Eric P. Jones Dear Mr. Grimaldi: Notice of Appeal Our firm represents Eric P. Jones, owner of property located at 725 Beach Street, Ashland, OR 97520. On-behaltof,Mr. Jones, we hereby appeal to the Ashland City Council the Findings, Conclusions and Orders issued by the Planning Commission in Planning Action #PA2005-01050. The following information relating t<;> this appeal is provided in cl:>mpliance with Ashland Municipal Code ~ 18.108.110: Information Provided Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code ~1fl.108.110 1. Appeal Fee: ,The appeal fee in the sum -of $277 is enclosed. /, 2. Effective Date of Commission Decision: September 30,2005. J. Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator September 22, 2005 Page -2- 3. Appellant Information: Eric P. Jones 4445 Fair Ave. Oakland, CA 94619-2924 4. Appellant's Attorney/Agent: Christian E. Hearn, OSB ~~ 91182 Davis, Hearn, Saladoff & Smith, P.C. 515 Ea$t Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 482-3111 (phone) (541) 488-4455 (fax) chearn@davishearn.com I[ email) 5. Decision for Review: Findings, Conclusions and Orders Planning Action # 2005-010501 Applicant: Shostrom 6. Appellant Standing: A. On July 5, 2005, Appellant (through his autl10rized attorneylagt~nt) requested a pUblic hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission (Planning Action # 2005-0'1050). . B. On August 9, 2005, Appelliant (through his authorized . attorney/agent) appeared cmd submitted evidence and testimony at the public hearing held on Planning Action # 2005-01050. C. Appellant is filing this noticl3 of appeal with the City Administrator within 15 days of the date it was signed by the Chair of the Commission (September 'Approving Applicant's request for a land partition to create a flag lot from the rear of two properties located at 720 and 730 Liberty Street. A physical constraints review permit was requested to construct a driveway across a riparian drainage, and to create and develop a parcel with slopes 25% and greater on Hillside Lands. DAVIS, HEARN, SALADOFF" SMITH . A PIllf..,1onal CorponIllon 3 516 EAST MAIN STREET ASHlAND, OREGON 117520 (641)482-3111 FAX(641).cee~55 Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator September 22, 2005 Page -3- / 13) and mailed to the parties" (September 15).AMC 9 1B.108.070. . . D. Appellant is the owner of real property and improvements located at 725 Beach Street. This; property is adjacent to, and shares a boundary with, the property which is the subject of Planning Action # 2005.-01050. E. Appellant is adversely affe!cted by the decision of the Planning Commission. 7. Date of Decision: A. Adopted by Planning Commission and signed by Chair on SElptember 13,2005. B. Decision mailed by Staff to owner and applicant, with copies to interested parties, on September 15, 2005. 8. Grounds for Appeal: A. TbeprOPQsedplirtition is in conflict with laws, ordinances, and resolutions applicable to the land. Section 18.76.050(0). B. The partitioning is not in accordance with the design and street standards contained in Chapter 18.88. The alley access is of insufficient width and design, and already serves too many units to allow the new partition, especially when existing accessory dwelling units are taken into account. Section 18. 76.050(E). C. Adequate public facilities do not exist to allow the partition, particularly sufficient alley width, storm drainage system, and fire apparatus access and turnaround. Section 18. 7l). 050(F). DAVIS, HEARN. SALADOFF &. SMITH A Proletllonal Co!pamlon J L 1i11i EAST MAIN STREET ,..,. ASH~D,OREGON87~ (641) <482-3111 FAX (641) <C88-<C<C1i5 Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator September 22, 2005 Page -4- . . /, D. The access requirements interposed~y Se~tion 1€1.76.050(G) are not met. E. While alley access exists adjacent to the partitron, ;and access via the alley is proposed by the application, the allElY is of insufficient width and design to accommodate the proposed development. Section 18.76. 050(H). F. The conditions required by Section 18.76.050 are not met by the application. Section 18. 76.060(A)., G. The conditions imposed by Section 18.76.060 are not me~ by the application, since the alley is of insufficient width and standards to accommodate the partition. Section 18.76.060(8). H. Adequate turnaround.as defined by the performance guidelines and the Fire Apparatus Access Road guidelines are not met. Section 18.76.060(8). I. The proposed flag lot has insufficient number of parking spaces to eliminate the necessity of backing out. Section 18.76.0600. J. The structure will be more than24ifeet'in~height when properly measured from the bottom of the foundation, requiring a fire work area of 20' by 40' within 50 feet of the structure. Section 18.76.060(8). K. The proposed flag lot does not meet the minimum useable yard area requirements. Section 18. 76.060(J). L. . . Through the application of development standards, potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have not been adequately considered, and adverse impacts have not been minimized. Section 18.62.040(1)(1). DAVIS, HEARN. SALADOFF & SMITH A Pnlf...1onII1 Corpordon S 515 EAST MAIN STREET ASHlAND, OREGON 87520 (541)482-3111 FAX(541)~55 Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator September 22, 2005 Page -5- M. .> The applicant has not adequately considered the p10tential :..~ hazards that the development may create, and implemented measures to mitigate potential hazards caused by the development. Section 18.62.040(/)(2). These include but are not limited to fire safety concerns, alley access deficiencies, and storm drainage issues. N. The applicant has not taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Section 18.62.040(/)(3). O. Mr. Jones and other neighbors are also concerned about the amount of fill required to develop this project, the tn3e protections issues presented, and the slope of the parcels involved. Based on the above, the Decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, DAVIS, HEARN, SALADOFF & SMITH A Professional Corporation ~(1/\. -- CHRISTIAN E. HEARN CEH/dc Enclosure: Check #3913 cc: Eric P. Jones Karen Bates Nancy Meaken Jan Craigie DAVIS, HEARN, SALADOFF & SMITH A Prof...IOM! Corporatlon I 515 EAST MAIN STREET Ie:) ASHlAND. OREGON 87520 (541) ~-3111 FN< (541) .c8~55 ~ 4 W Plann.ing Department 51 Wr( ,I. Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 ' ( r.. ~ 541-4~5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.US TTY: 1-800-735-2900 CITY Of A.SHLAN[ PLANNING ACTION: #2005-01050 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 & 730 Liberty Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Dale Shostrom & Dean Shostrom DESCRIPTION: Request for a Land Partition to create a flag lot from the rear of two existing parcels for the properties I()cat~d at 720 and 730 LI".,.,St A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to construct a driveway across a Riparian Drainage and to c,reate a parcel with slopes 25% and greater In Hillside Lands. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map: 391E 16AA; Tax Lot: 7300 & 7302. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: October 18, 2005, 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center A / [] "'\ Notlc:e Is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHlAND CITY COUNCIL on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objecllon concemIng tills application, ....10 person or by letter. or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to V18 Issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that Issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objecUon Is be!led on also precludes your right . of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. FaHure of the appUcant to raise oonstItutIonal or other Issues relating to proposed condlltlons of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the Issue precludes an action for damages In circuit COt.rt A copy of the applICation. an doct.ments and ellklence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for Inspecllon at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, If requested. A copy of the Staff Report win be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and win be provided at reasonable cost, If requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Plannlng Department, Community Development and Engineering Services. 51 WInbUm Way. Ashland. Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing. the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those In attendance concem/ng tills request The Chair shan have the right to 11m" the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there Is a continuance, If a participant so requests befonI the conclusion of the hearing, the recorcI shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have. questions or comments concem/ng this request. please feel free to contactthe'AshIahdPlanNng'~ent, at 541-488-5305. 1 o:~ MaIIocII2OOS.oI050 10-11-05 Couacll AppeII.cIoc (S~ctlon 18.76.050) (- It the proposed partition does not appear to comply with the requirements for routine administrative approval, the proposal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and approved when the folllowlng conditions exist: A. The future use for urban pur~ses ofthe remainder of the tract will not be Impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto wlU not be Impeded. C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. D. The partitioning Is not In conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution appliCable to the land. E. The partitioning Is In accordance with the deslg~ and street standards contained In the Chapter 18.88, Performance. Standards Options. COrd 2836 58; 1999>) , F. When there exists adequate public fadlltles, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as determined by tl Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity. G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully Improved collector or arterial street, as designated In the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be Improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when all of the following conditions exist: a. .The unpaved street Is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully Improved collector or cl rterla I street. b. The centerl'.I)~grade()n anvpoqion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. ,- ,.'--;C~ 2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving Is not required, the applicant: shall agree to participate In the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate In the cost of full street Improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local Improvement district to cover such Improvements and costs therleof. Full street Improvements shall Include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergroundlng of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and If the owner declines to so i:tgree, then the application shall be denied. . H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995) FLAG PARTITlON!i (Section 18.76.060) ~'?~~': Partitions Involving the creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission If the following conditions are satisfied: A. Conditions of the previous section have been met. B. Except as provided In subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 1~ feet of driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by ",J~nt propettlesshall-have a width 0'20 feet, with a 15 foot paved drlvJttgsU'tfa~i~fi.lnt.Jt815 51, 1998) Flag'drlves shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. Flag drives shall be In the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may be granted for flag drlyes for grades In excess of15% but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be! required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found In 18.100. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet In height, as defined In 18.08.290, shan provide a Fire Work Area of 20 feet by 40 feet within 50 feet of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived .If the structure served by the drive has an-apPR:)ved automatic sprinkler system Installed. Flag drives and fire work areas shall15Efdeemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Uniform Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. Flag drives greater than 250 feet In length shall provide a turnaround as defined In the Performance Standards Guldellne-s In 18.88.090. C. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated In such a manner as to ellmlnat4~ the necessity for bacJdng out. D. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. E. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a slte-obscurJng~fence,wall or evergreen hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except In the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 Inches In the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be ~ O:~IMalac\Notlceo J.wJedI2OO5-4IOS0 10-18.os Co.. AppeI1.doc placed at the extreme outside of thrElag drive In order to ensure adeqUatrre access. 1:' The applicant has executed and ,j with the Planning Director an agre_ ,ant betweE!n applicant and the clt) for. paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the appllcar or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Director of Publi Works and screening as required by this section, and providing that If applicant should fall to complete such wo within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening to standards as Indicated In this section and the assurance that such maintenance shall be continued. G. A site plan has been approved by.the Planning Commission. The site plan snail be aplProved provided the regulations of the zoning and subdivision tltles- are satisfied. Such a site planshatl contain the map requirement listed In Section, 18.76.050 and the followlnglnformatlGn: "'~< 1. The location of driveways, turnarounds parking spaces and useable yard areas. 2. The location and type of screening. 3. For site plans of a flag lot, the building envelope shall be Identified. H. No more tha'n two lots are served by the flag drive. . J. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage-requirements of the zoning district. J. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dlmenslol1 of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used In this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which Is unobstructe by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. K. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall. meet aU-of the r-equlrements of this section, except that: 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only wherereqlitred-"8s'8 condition of approval; 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole; 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be Installed within th.e flag pole, Improved and malntcllned with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface from the street to the buildable area of the flag lot; 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole alt the street shall be . Identified by the address of theflaglot clearly visible from the street on a 4" X 4" post 31f:t feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers 3 Inches high running vertically down the front: of the post. For flagpOles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two feet by three feet white sign clearly visible from the street with three Inch black numbers. (amended Ord. 2.757, 1995) PHYSICAL&. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS (18.62.040.1) I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be Issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potentiallmlPacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse Impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the appllcant bas tal<i!n,-a'Lri!asonable steps to; reduce the adverse Impact on the l:!nvlronment. C"'>::~:,;.(C-1;(' Irreversible actions shall.be consldered,more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission .shall consider the existing develQpment; of the surrounding area, and the maJdmum permitted development permitted by the Land .use Ordinance. ,COrd, 283451,1998) , (Ord.2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Sect'on18.62.040-J~deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) " - , , i i , /. 'I O:~Ieaalaa\Notlca J.r.iIecNOO5.oJ050 J().JI.{lS Co-U AppeIJ.doc: ( ( AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON), ,County of Jackson ) The undersigned being firstduly sworn states,that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On September 28. 2005, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Council Appeal Notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2005-o1()50. ~~x Signature of Employee SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 28th day of SeDtember. 2,005. _ OFFICIAL-SEAL CAROLYN SCHWENDENER NOTARY PUBLlC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 390825 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAR. 20. 2009 II d.eneA-/ Nota ublic for State of Oregon My ommission Expires:. 3 -Olo -07' /~ PA#2005-1050 391E16AA 5200 . BATES KAREN L TRUSTEE ET AL 711 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2oo5-1050 391E16AA 2702 CROSS CLAIRE F 714 B~CH ST __ ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2oo5-1050 391E16AB 3405 HAY RICHARD L TRUSTEE FBO 15 S PIONEER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2OO5-1050 391EI6AD 6200 - ,KURTZ-WALSH'PROPERTY LLC 831 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2005-1050 391E16AA 7100 NASH VICTOR T 684 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2005-IOSO 391E16AA 5500 SECHAN FRED G - TRUSTEE 3121 DATOAVE mOHLAND PARK, IL 60035 PA#2OO5-1050 AMRHEIN MARK 804 ROCA ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A#200S-10S0 SHOSTROM DEAN 720 LIBERTY ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A-2ooS-O 1 050 ---CHRIS HEARN DAVIS, HEARN, SALADOFF & SMITH S15 EASTMAIN ST ASHLAND, OR 97S20 P A-2ooS-O 10SO NANCY MEAKEN 588 LIBERTY STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 ( PA#2oo5-10SO 391E16AA 7001 COKER. EUZABETII H 676 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, cA 97S20 PA#200S-1050 391E16AA S400 DEMOSS KATE 82 WOODHAMS RD - SANTA CLARA, CA 95051 PA#2oo5-1050 391E16AA SIOO JONES ERIC P 725 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2oo5-IOSO 391E16AD 6201 .h. LANDES JONATHAN - '",",j 800 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2005-1050 391EI6AB 3400 NOONE KEVIN G/JOANNE 681 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97S20 PA#2005-1050 391E16AA 7200 SEULEAN DAVID P A/NANCY S 1546 BUfLER CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-1050 391E16AA 7301 SINCERNY STEPHEN c/SWORT - ,,'; PEtUSEJEAN 790 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A#2oo5-1 050 SHOSTROM DALE 309 NORTH PIONEER STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A-2oo5-O 10SO ALAN FOERDER S67 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 COUNCIL APPEAL 10-18-05 720 & 730 LffiERTY STREET SHOSTROM (, PA#2oo5-1050 391E16AAS3oo CRAIGm JAN 689 BEACH ST ASHLAND" OR 97520 PA#2ooS-1050 391E16AA 5000 FINKLE PETER L 785 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A#2005-1050 SINCERNY STEPHEN/DENISE SWOR'J 790 LffiERTY ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2ooS-1O:50 391EI6AD 6100 -",,;:~;KINLEY DOROTHY-'A/MC KINLEl - - GEORGE W 795 BEACH ST ASHLAND, lOR 97520 PA#2005-1050 391EI6AA 5600 REEVE BARBARA B 665 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2005-1050 MEYERS TOM PO BOX 881 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2005-IOSO 39 lEI 6AA 2703 WORKMAN ANGELA J/WEEDEN DERRICK LE:E 77S GLENWOOD DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A#200S-1050 EAGLE-EYE SURVEYING CO. PO BOX 4397' MEDFOR, OR 97501 PA-200S-01050 LINDA JOHNSON 793 ST. ANDREWS CIRCLE ASHLAND, OR 97S20 II -maiLed qhg !tJ.!.;- A TTN: ANDREA. CLASSIFIED PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERnSING NonCE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland City Council on . October 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. At such public hearing any person is entitled to be heard, unless the . public hearing portion of the review has been closed during a previous meeting. Request for a Land Partition to create a flag lot from the rear of two existing parcels for the properties located at 720 and 730 Uberty St. A Physical Constraints Review Pennlt Is requested to constJuct a driveway across a Riparian Drainage and to create a parcel with slopes 25% and greater In HIII,lde Lands. ,J/ . . In compllarn with the Americans with Disabilities Act, If you need special assIstarn to partfdpate In this meeting, please contact the Oty Admlnlsl:ratol"s office at (541) 488-6002 (TlY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the mE!eting (28 a=R 35.102-35.104 ADA TItle I). Barbara Christensen City Recorder Publish: 10/3/05 P. O.No. 70260 E-mailed: 9/27/05 /. l~ ( r \ -.. CITY OF ASHLAND September IS, 2005 Dale Shostrom 309 North Pioneer Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dean Shostrom 720 Liberty Street Ashlan~ OR 97520 RE: Planning Action #: PA#2005-QI050 ~~;,'d\',::': ::;':"\.d"1"":'.:'~" At its. meeting of July 12, 2005, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for-u Minor Land l?~tj'm to create'a Flag Lot and a Physicul and. Environmental Constraints. Review Pemiii-iofotl1i~propci\f ..', loeatCd at 720 & 730 Liberty Street -- Assessor's Map # 39 IE 16 AA Tax Lot 7300 & 7302. The Findings, Conclusions and Orders d~ument, adopted a~ the September 13, 2005 meeting, is enclosed. Please note the following circled items: C) A fInal map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of th<! date of preliminary approval; othenvise, approval becomes invalid. ,2. A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. 8 There is a I5-day appeal period that must elapse before a building pennit may be issued. All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before an occupancy permit may be issued. ' 5. Planning Commission approval is valid for a periodofbrle'year bmy, after which time a new application would have to be submitted. Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions. ;;Lid Maria Harris Senior Planner cc: See attached list /- DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2OE.Man Slreet Ashland,. Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5305 F<u 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 13 - -1rJ.~ H'A ( (-, Copies sent to the following: Stephen C. Sincemy . Denise Swort j 790 Liberty AsWand, OR 97520 Chris Hearn Davis, Hearn, Saladoff & Smith 515 East Main Street AsWand, OR 97520 Alan Foerder 567 Beach Street AsWand, OR 97520 Linda 1ohnSon 793 St. Andrews Circle AsWand, OR 97520 Karen Bates . 711 Beach Street tV AsWand, OR 97520 Nancy Meaken 588 Liberty Street Ashland, OR 97520 .Jan Craigie 'v 689 Beach Street Ashland, OR 97520 Eric P.1ones J 725 Beach Street Ashland, OR 97520 . DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main Street . Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 /Lf r., ( ( BEFORE 1HE PLANNING COMMISSION August 9, 2005 IN mE MATTEa OF PLANNING ACTI0N'>#2oo5-01050, REQUEST FOR ' A LAND PARTITION TO CREATE.A FLAG WT FROM THE REAR OF TWO EXISTING PARCELS FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 720 AND 730 LffiERTY STREET. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY ACROSS A RIPARIAN DRAINAGE, AND TO CREATE AND DEVEWP A PARCEL WITH SWPES 25% AND GREATER IN HILLSIDE LANDS. ) ) FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS ) AND ORDERS ) ) ') ) ) APPLICANT: Dale Shostrum '~.~.,;;:r~ v RECITALS: -_.,-,~",- I) Tax lots 7300 and 7302 of39 IE 16AA are located at 720 and 730 Liberty Street and are zoned R- 1~75; Single-Family Residential. 2) The applicant is requesting a land partition to create a flaglot from the rear of two existing parcels, and a physical constraints review pennit to constmct a driveway across a riparian drainage and to create and develop a parcel with slopes 25% and greater in Hillside Lands. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Land Partition approval are described in Ch,apter 18.76 as follows: F. G. /, A. B. The future use for urban pwposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access tlH~reto will not be impeded. . The tract ofland has not been partitioned for 12 months: The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter on Subdivisions. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as detennined by the Public Works Director and specified by City doc~uments, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity. When,ther.e exi$ts, a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to- the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all C. D. E. P A 2005-01050 August 9, 2005 Page 1 /5" (-' r. ~.'~ work done under pennit of the Public Works Department. 1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when all of the following conditions 'e~ist: a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. . ~~';,; The -centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does-not exceed ten percent. 2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respl~t to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the fonnation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall . be pr~ent to, the signing of the. final survey plat, and if,the-fjWaerdec1~to'";~o _ agree, then the application shall be denied. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. -p H. Further, the criteria for Flag Partition approval are described in Chapter 18.76 as follows: A. Conditions of the previous section have been met. B. Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driVing surface. For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the ~ lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. . Flag drives shall be constructed, so as to prevent surface drainag(~ from flowing over . sidewalks or other public ways. . Flag drives'shall "be. in the same ownl~hip as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entranc(~. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. VarianC(~s may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15% but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100. '-<;: ~'., '.',?:~'l . .:"~""'~ fla;gdrives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in 18.08.290,i'~haU!'l." provide a Fire Work Area of20 feet by 40 feet within 50 feet of the stru(~ture. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. /, P A 2005-01050 August 9, 2005 Page 2 1~ (-< ( Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus A,ccess Roads under the Unifonn Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. . -:, Flag diives greater than 250 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the . Perfonnance Standards 'Guidelines in 18.88.090.4:0.:, C. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated in such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for backing out. D. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. E. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a site-obscuring 'fence, wall or evergreen hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the iiront yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 'to 42 inches in the remaining ~~ckarea Suchfence orJandscaping shall be placed at 1the extr-eme outside of the flag drive in order to ensure adequate fire access. I F. The applicant has -executed and filed with the Planning Director fm agreement between applicant and the city for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Director of Public Works and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and ,expense thereof froin the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for th4~ maintenance of the paving and screening to standards as indicated in this section and th4~ aSsurance that such maintenance shall be continued. ' , G. A site plan has been approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan shall be approved provided the regulations of the zoning and subdivision titles are satisfied. Such a site plan shall contain the map requirements listed in Section 18.76.0:50 and the following infonnation: . ' 1. The location of driveways, turnarounds parking spaces and useable yard areas. 2. The location and type of screening. 3. For site plans of a flag lot, the building envelope shall be identified. H. No more than two lots are served by the flag drive. I. For the purpose of meeting the. miniinum lot area requirement, the llot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. l7 P A 2005-01050 August 9 J 2005 Page 3 ( ( I. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has n minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the.tenn "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is uilobstructed by a structure or aU~~mQbile from the ground upward. K.. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: 1. Vehicle,access shall be from the al-Ieyonly where required as a condition of apprtWa1; 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole; 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flag pole, improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface from the street to the buildable area of the flag lot; 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the lentrance of the pole at the street.shall be identified by the address of the flaglot clearly visible from the street on a 4" X 4" post 3Y2 feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers 3 inches high tunning vertically down the front of the post For flagpoles serving two or more t;;;..,;}J~~1ings,.thea4c;lresses of such dwellings shall be on a two feet by three feet white si8ti-cc clearly visible from the street with three inch black numbers. Further, the criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Pennit are described in Chaptc~ 18.62 as follows: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this l~hapter, 'the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas. have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. . That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. . The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum pennitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on August 9, 2005 at .which tUne 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 City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows; SECTION 1. EXHffiITS /, For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. P A 2005-01050 August 9,2005 Pa$e 4 tg ( (- , Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Praponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "PH Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0" Hearing Minutes, Natices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all informatian necess~uy to' make a decision based an the Staff Report, public hearing testimany and the exhibits received. . 2.2 The Planning Commissian finds that the proposed parcels meet the minimum lat size and ;,l~~.c.,~",gpn.~i()n~tIirem~ts. The three latS ~fexececlct:bts/miftin1\llt1i,iat:size af 7,500 square' feet and meet the dimensianal, requirements.afthe R-1-7.5 zoning district. Additianally, the. existing houses located on 720 and 730 Liberty Street will meet setback requirements to the proposed lat lines, and will meet lat coverage requirements. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that public facilities including water, 'sanitaIy sewer, storm drainage, electric and transportatian are in place and have adeqWite capacity to' senre the new vacant parcel. Public utilities are including water and electric are provided from the Liberty Street tight-of-way, a sanitaIy sewer line connectian is available in the southeast comer af the proposed vacant lot, and storm water can be directed to the drainage running through the site. Access is provided by two public right-of-ways including an alley and Liberty Street. The primary proposed vehicular access is by way af the alley, and the secondary access far emergency and guest access is by way af the existing looped driveway system connected to' Liberty Street and the alley. 2.4 The southern end af Liberty Street is unpaved far a length af approximately :500 feet. The subject properties front Liberty Street an the unpaved portian af the street. The minar land partition criteria allaw the Public WarksD~rto-:allowan unpaved street far access far a land partitian if the driving, surface is at least 20 feet wide to' the nearest fully. improved collector ar arterial street, and the centerline af the unpaved portian af the street does nat exceed ten percent. Additianally, the applicant is required to sign in favar af a local improvement district to improve the unpaved street to' city standards in. the future. Liberty Street meets the width and grade requirements, and the applicant is willing to sign in favor af a lacal improvement district for the Liberty Street improvements. 2.5 The Planning Commissian finds the alley is sufficient to' serve ane additianal home. The Planning Commissian recognizes that an engineering standard far alley capacity does not exist, and the Ashland Land Use Ordinance does nat specify a maximum numbero-funits"that'cahirtIsean allley ar a perfarmance standard far alleys. Rather, the Planning Commissian recognizes that the primary issues in evaluating alley access are the number af vehicle trips per day an the alley, the width af the driving ~'Wface, the history af / - accidents, and emergency access. The alley is a public right-of-way serving the sit(: and is connected to' P A 2005-01050 August 9, 2005 Page 5 1'1 (., (, '-' - Ashland Street. The alley is adjacent to 26 parcels and twelve properties cwrently use the alley for . vehicUlar access. Twelve properties would generate approximately 120 car tripSpel' day. The proposed . partition would result in the addition of one new lot using the alley which w<?u1d generate approximately 10 vehicle trips per day. The Planning Commission finds the alley currently experiences low volumes of vehicle trips and can accommodate ten additional trips per day. The alley has eight to nine.feet of driving sll1face, and the applicant propos~ to widen the driving suRiiE!e to 12 feet in width with 15' feet in clear width. The Planning Commission finds that the driving width of 12 feet is accordance with,the required . alley width of 12 feet in the Ashland Street Standards. There are no recorded accidents for the alley or intersection of the alley and Ashland Street, nor any indications of safety problems involving the alley. Additionally, the intersections of Liberty and Ashland, and Beach and Ashland. have four way stops, and th~e are not indications of problems at these intersections. The Planning Commission finds there are no safety issues in regards to motor vehicle accidents in the alley or at the alley intc~ection with Ashland Street. The Ashland Fire Department has detennined that Liberty. Street and the existing looped driveway system would be used as the ingress in an emergency event, and egress would be by way of the alley to Ashland Street.. .,With the~Ycementsto the driveway system proposed by the applicant, 'widening of the. alley driving surface to 12 feet with 15 feet clear width; and the vertical clearance in the alley stipulated, the Ashland Fire Department has detennined the driveway system from Liberty and alley to Ashland Street adequa~ access for an emergency event. The Planning Commission finds that this right- of-way was platted as an alley and has been historically used as an alley to provide vehicular service access to the back or side of properties. WliiIe the Planning CommiSsion recognizes that it is less common in Ashland to have an aliey,with one connection to a public street, the Planning Commission findS that this narrow right-of-way functions as a seconcIaty vehicular access to the back or side of properties otherwise abutting on Liberty or Beach Street, and therefore is an alley. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the flag drive as proposed meets the width and grade requirements of Chapter 18.76. At the maximwn, the flag drive is 15% grade in the area north of the drainage with the majority of the flag drive grade being 3 to 4%. The proposal is to pave the flag drive to 12 feet in width with 15 feet clear width as required. The flag drive is 155 feet in length which is well below the threshold of 250 feet for the fire truck turnaround requirement. Three. off-street parking spaces are provided on the flag lot as required by the approval criteria Additionally, a turnaround is provided near _tpepx:qposedhome so that cars can exit the driveway onto the alley in a fOlWard mamler." . . 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that proposal to construct a driveway across the riparian drainage to the new home site is designed to tiUnimally diSturb the drainage area and use relatively small amounts of fill material. The drainage channel is identified as a Riparian Land Drainage on the. Ashland Comprehensive Plan map, and therefore is .subject to the development standards. tl)r floodplain corridor lands in Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). The development standards for Floodplain Conidor Lands pennit culverting or bridging of watelWays or creeks identified on the Ashland Comprehensive Plan maps. The amount of fill is required to be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access. The proposal is to install.tw(lc12..oinch diameter culverts in the drainage swale with one to three feet offill in the swale area. The driveway iritprovement would be 12 feet in width with an additional rock inlet and outlet transitioning to the culvert. The resulting drainage chamiel distuIbance would be / - approximately 20 feet in width. The crossing is required to be designed by an en~lneer and designed to P A 2005-01050 August 9, 2005 Page 6 ~o /--' ( ( accommodate a lOO-year flood event. The proposed crossing design is designed by the project environmental and geotechnical engineer. Outside of the driveway and the driveway crossing, any other development is required to be ten feet from the drainage. The site plan: i4eritifies a 20 foot setback from the drainage easement to the closest point of the building envelope. Given that 811 alternate route is not available to the home site, the Planning Commission finds that the proposal to cross the drainage channel '~"'1with the driveway will create minimal impacts on the property, adjacent properties:' abd the "Wift"'n()t create adverse impacts on the environment of the riparian swale. 2.8 .' The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to create and develop a parcel with slopes 25% and 'greater in Hillside Lands consistent with the development standards for Hillside Lands and the approval criteria for a Physical Constniints Review Permit. The Hillside Development Standards require newly created lots to include a buildable area and driveway locations with slopes of 35 percent and less, and to include 'a report prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the site is stable for the proposed development. The building envelope for the proposed home is located on a bench area was a:eated..aLsome. time in the past. The natural grade 'of,tbi$ 'ar~"8S'mdicatCd~in the applieation fs-'betweerr'" ;.., , 20 and 33 percent. The majority of the propOsed driveway is located on an area with a natural grade of 14 percent in. slope. The exception is the southern end of the driveway between the drainage channel and the garage which includes areas of a natural grade of 25 percent slope. The application includes a geotechnical report assessing the stability of the site as well as recommendations for retaining walls, storm drainage treatment and temporary and permanent erosion control measures. The areas of development that area located on slopes 25 percent and greater, and 1therefore subject to the development standards for Hillside Lands are approximately 20 to 30 feet of driveway on both sides of the drainage, the area of the proposed garage and the southern edge of the proposed home location. The geotechnical report includes recommendations for grading and retaining, foundation design, storm drainage treatment and erosion control as required. The application includes an inventory of existing trees and the driveway and building envelope have been located to preserve the maximum nwnber trees on the site. Since the building pad was created years in the past, the area is largely void of trees. The driveway construction will require removal of four trees and the garage construction will require removal of one tree leaving 89 of the 95 trees on the site in place. The Planning Commission finds the proposal has been designed to utilize areas'oflesset slop~1Jtld to minimize' impacts to' the areas of natural grades of 25 percent and greater. '2.9 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable criteria for a Land Partition and Flag Partition described in the Partitions Chaptet H~. 76, and the applicable criteria for a Physical ,ConStraints ReView Pennit in the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter 18.62. SECI10N 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Plarining Coinmission concludes that the . proposal to' create a flag lot from the rear of two existing parcels, and a physical constraints review pennit / . to construct a driveway across a riparian drainage and to create and develop a parcel with slopes 25% and greater in Hillside Lands is supported by evidence contained within the record. P A 2005-01050 August 9, 2005 Page 7 ~\ (, ( Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2005-01050. Further, if anyone or: more 4)f the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2005-01050 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a final survey plat shall be submitted to the City within 12 months of this approval. 3) That the third parking space shall be located on the flag lot (parcel 3) by adjustments to the lot line configuration. A reVised site plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor reflecting this change prior to signatUre of the final survey. 4) That all easements for public utilities shall be indicated on the final sunreyas required by the Ashland Engineering Division. . 5) That a dedicated fire access easement and a mutual access easement for the flag lot (parcel 3) shall be indicated on the final survey for the existing looped driveway system from Liberty Street to the public alley. The dedicated fire access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department, and the easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Engineering Division. 6) That the electric service shall be installed underground to service the parcels as required by the Ashland Electric Department prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to signature of the final survey plat. 7) That a. final utility plan for the parcels shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey plat. The utility plan shalhit:1elude.thelocation of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water litIes':aml'"')~:,,;! meter sizes, fire hydrantS, sanitary sewer lines, stonn drain lines and electric serviC(~. ~) That the property owner(s) of 720 and 730 Liberty shall sign In favor of a local improvement district to fully improve the unpaved portion of the Liberty Street and to pave and improve the alley at the rear of the property to city standards prior to signature of the final survey. Additionally, the property owner(s) shall agree to waive the right to remonstr~te to the formatiop of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs of Liberty Street through a local improvement district at a future date. 9) That the tree protection shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials or issuance of the building permit. The tree protection shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the P A 2005-01050 August 9,2005 Page 8 ~~ ( (- \ issuance of a building permit. 10) That all recommendations of the Tree Commission, with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be incorporated into the Tree Protection Plan and submitted for ieview and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of the building pennit. 11) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met, including but not limited to installation a residential fire sprinkler system in the new home, prior to issuanc:e of the certificate of occupancy for the first home or structure. 12} That a fire prevention and control plan for wildfire lands shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Fire Department, and implemented prior to the issuance of the building pennit. 13) That the flag drive shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the flag lot. . (Pa,rcel 3). The. flag drive shall be screened with a site-obscuring:,f-en~:wa}h'~e:vetgreen hedge inc.~~jf accordance with 18.76.060.E. 14) That the existing looped driveway system. shall nieet fire apparatus .acces:s requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including but not limited to weight, width and grade requirements prior to combustible construction. 15) That the public alley must cleared of overgrown vegetation to create a clc::aI' vertical space of a minimum of 13'6" in height, and horizontal clearance the width of the alley right-of-way prior to combustible construction as required by the Ashland Fire Department. 16) That the building permit submittals for the new home . on the flag lot shall demonstrate compliance with the building design standards of 18.62.080.E. 17) That all easements, including public utility easements, shall be identified on the building permit submittals. 18) That new construction on the flag lot (Parcel 3) shall meet Solar Setback Standard A. Solar setback calculations shall be included in the building permit submittals. 19) That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 45% of the lot area in accordance with 18.20.040.F. Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitt(xl with the building pennits. '-'!~'\';":'",L'-:r~'i'? '~~.' ~~;~~ . 20) That the flag lot (parcel 3) shall have a usable yard area, as defined in 18.76.060.J that has a l~~~,tniJ;Umal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. The usable yard area,"sha1l1,ber4deatified~ on the building permit submittals. 21) That all recommendations including but not limited to grading, drainage: and erosion control P A 2005-01050 August 9, 2005 Page 9 J.J ( (' measures in the geotechnical engineering report by Amrhein Associates, Inc.. included in the application and date stamped June 10,2005, shall be implemented in the development of the property. 22) That a preconstruction coI?ference to review the requirements of the Hillside Development Permit shall be held prior to issuance of the building permit. The conference shall include the Ashland Planning. Department, Ashland Building - Department, - -&e - design professional;",me'general contI-actor, geotechnical expert, landscape/tree professional and project engineer. Contact the Ashland Planning Department to schedule the preconstruction conference. 23) That Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall inspect the site according to the inspl~ction schedule of the gootechnical engineering report by Amrhein Associates, Inc. included in the application and date stamped June 10,2005. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout:the ptoject":'c~ "'- -_~ 24) That the final driveway crossing of the riparian drainage shall be engineered to accommodate a l00-year flood flow. The report and calculations by the project engineer for the dtiveway crossing shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and - Engineering Divisions prior to signature of the finals surveyor commencement of driveway construction. 25) That the full length of the alley shall be graded to 12 in width for a driving surface with 15 feet in clear width prior to combustible construction. In addition, passing areas shall be created that are graded to 18 feet in width of driving surface, and shall be spaced at approximately every 250 feet along the alley. Passing areas shall also be installed prior to combustible construction. .p,-'-"-_.---~Y""-'-.'"" ~,.".. '/ -' ~([)~ - Date- ! .~ -'. P A 2005-01050 August 9, 2005 Page 10 ~Y-' CITY OF ASH LAN D ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEmNG MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2005 CALL TO ORDER. Chair lohn Fields called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Cenul1', 1175 East Main Street Commlllloners Present: lohn Fields, Chair Dave Dotterrer lohn Stromberg Michael Dawkins Keny KenCaim Mike Morris Olena Black Allen Douma Russ Chapman lack Hardesty, Absent Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Maria Harris, Senior Planner Mike Reeder, Assistant City Attorney Sue Yates, Executive Secretary Absent Members: Council Liaison: Staff Present: ANNOUNCEMENTS - There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS . Dotterrer/Dawkins mls to approve the Minutes of the lune 28, 2005 Continuation of June 14,2005 Regullar Meeting and the lune 28, 2005 Study Session. Voice Vote: Approved. PUBLIC FORUM BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty Street, said at a recent meeting he spoke about an amendment to the Tree ordinance with regard to building permits. Since then, the Tree Commission has received a lengthy document from Randall Hopkins regarding the entire process and some underlying legal arguments. The Tree Commission will be reviewing Hopkins' document and the ordinances. He also suggested that the Planning Commission ask the other City commissions to send a list of ordinances that pertain to each of their commissions that might need to be reviewed; -'1;',"'-,<,*'" TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: 2005-01050 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 AND 730 LIBERTY STREET OWNER/APPLICANT: DEAN SHOSTROMlDALE SHOSTROM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITfON TO CREATE A FLAG LOT FROM THE REAR OF TWo exiSTING PARCELS FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 720 AND 730 LIBERTY STREET. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY ACROSS A RIPARIAN DRAINAGE AND TO CREATE A PARCEL WITH SLOPES 25 PERCENT AND GREATER IN HILLSIDE LANDS. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts · Dotterrer had a site visit and no ex parte contacts. · Stromberg had a site visit He had a business relationship in 2001 with Dale Shostrom but he does nelt believe that will / affect his ability to make an unbiased decision. He is open to being questioned or challenged. · - Dawkins had a site visit with Staff. · Fields had a site visit with Staff. · KenCaim had a site visit on her own. · Morris had a site visit. He was employed by Shostrom Brothers a year and a half ago. He is open to questions if anyone thinks he might be biased. He believes he can.be ;impartial. A.~ I · Black had a site visit on her own and an ex parte communication with a resident on Beach StIwt. Black asbd her several questions about the Beach Creek waterway. · Douma had a site visit. ~MF~~T .. Harris stated this action was adminiRtiativelyapproved in June 2005. A request for a public he8rlng was received Banis showed a vicinity map and a site plan. The site is composed of two parcels, each containing a single family home. The p~ at 730 Liberty bas a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory residential unit in the basement. There isan,~xisting "looped driveWay system that goes froDi LibertY street to the end of the alley improvement. There is' a dniiDage ~e that runs diagonally through the property as well as some steeper sloped areas related to the drainage. The site is heavily treed. The propo~ is to create out of two rectangular lots, a new lot at the back of 730 Liberty., There is an eight foot flagpole going up to Liberty Street. It is considered a flag lot because the frontage on the public street is comprised of the eight foot pedestrian connection to Liberty Street. The proposed vehicular access is by way of the existing alley. The Fire Department would aOOess the property from Liberty Street and exit out the alley. The third guest parking space required of a flag lot is proposed off the existing looped driveway system. Most of the utilities will come from Liberty Street down the driveway, into the site to serve the home. A Tree Protection Plan bas been provided. There are 95 trees identified on the plan that are six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and greater. There are six trees proposed for removal. The driveway would comeoff,the"endofthe8IIeytight-of.;.wa.y, and improved to a flag drive standard because it is more that 50 feet in length. The proposed building envelope is on a bench that was created at some time in the past that is relatively fIat. The Physical and Environmental Constraints is twofold. A permit is required to cross the drainage area !because it is identified as a Riparian Land Drainage in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. A permit is required for development of Hillside Lands. The areas 25 percent or greater are on each side of the drainage. The second piece relates to the drainage crossing and is identified as Riparian Land Drainage and is subject to the Floodplain Corridor Standards. There is a drainage easement on the property and it is 20 feet in width. The site plan shows a 20 foot setback from the drainage easement to the edge of the building envelope. Harris recommended the Planning Commission discuss three items. 1. The Alley. Does the alley have adequate capacity to handle an additional single family home? . Can it be the sole vehicular access for the residents that live there or will a street access be required? The following can be considered: The current number of vehicle trips compared to the impact of one additional home using the alley (rouglily ten lrips a day), emergency vehicle access issues, and the purpose of an alley. 2. Liberty Street. Liberty Street is not paved along the property frontage. The criteria allow the Public Works Director to make a determination that the street does not need to be improved to city street standard if there is at least 20 feet in width of driving surface and the section is not more than ten percent grade and slope. Both standards have been met. The Public Works Director bas said he can-approve:the proposal'as is, but to sigrl'in favor of a Local Improvement District. 3. Physical and Environmental Constraints iind Hillside Development Standards. The approval criteria are pretty broad. Dawkins said in walking up the alley, he identified at least 12 lots that could be split and luive homes on the alley. This action might be fine, but it only adds more fuel for more development on the alley. When does it become too much? Is there a standard? Molnar said when assessing the impact of a particular application on any public facility, the CommissiQn would be making a finding, "Is the public facility adequate at this time to serve the proposal?" Eventually, with subsequent applications it reaches a point where the application can't make a finding that the facility is adequate. Douma questioned the meaning of "impacts offill are minimi7.ed." Harris said the intent is to use the least amount offill necessary to build a crossing (depth and width). Fields noted that anyone coming forward from the audience to speak can, outside their allotted tim~, ask llbout the Commissioners' ex parte contacts. / PUBUC HEARING DALE SHO~ROM, 309 North Pioneer Street, agent for his brother, Dean Shostrom, said he would answer <luestions. Douma asked how much fill would be used. Shostrom said they sloped the drainage to 15 percent to minlmi7-C the fill in the drainageway. J'heculvert will sit about six inches below the existing grade, enabling the flat grade to fall toward the- openings ASHLAND PLANNINO COMMISSION 2 REGULAR IEETIfO AUGUST t, 2005 MINUTES ~" I I of the pipes. There will be about a foot of fill over the culVCl18. On the uphill side the fill will be about 18 inches. The doWDhill side will have about tine feet. Three feet will be the maximum fill used anywhere. Stromberg asked about residences that would have only alley access. Shostrom said accessory units would have their access from the alley. The alley extending to the back of 720 Liberty has been covered up since 1970. The fills were pushed into the alley. By using retaining walls and extending the existing city alley, it makes a nice flat enf:rai1Ce for the driveway into the house. . . Dottel1lUsked thebesis ofShostrom~B8tatement in his findings that alley is undemtilized;ShostrOm said ifthealleytulti been designed today, the houses would have their accesses off the alley. When these deep properties were developed, the houses were built fairly close to either Uberty or Beach Streets, making it less convenient for someone to park off the alley. The potential f~r use is not as great. There are 26 houses on the alley, 12 of them have access to the alley and there are two or three accessory Units. Not everyone paries off the 12 accesses. .. Fields asked the developed length of the alley and about paving. The neighbors might have an issue with dust. Shostrom thought the alley is about 1000 feet in length. His brother goes down the alley every day and he has encountered another car only twice. Thy plan: to use ~ minus compacted gravel. Liberty Street is scheduled for improvement between 2005 and 2010. The City Engineers will make the determination as to whether they need to grade any of Liberty Street down. If they lower it, it would only help the sl~ off Liberty Street. LINDA JOHNSON, 773 St. Andrew's Circle, gave her time to CHRIS HEARN, 515 E. Main Street, attorney representing ERIC JONES, a property owner to the east. Heam said Iones is downstream from the proposed development. He said this is an example of infill in Ashland carried to an extreme. He believes the Planning Commission has the authority to say enough is enough where they are pushing the edge of the envelope. The applicants comply with most or all of the criteria, but don't really meeting the intent of the ordinance. There is leeway for the CoDunission to deny this application. Inadeauacv oflhe allevaccess. The Staff Report makes it clear the alley is discretionary according to 18.76.050.0, 18.76.050.0.1, and H. These have to be met first according to 18;76.060.A before moving the second part. If the lot is a flag lot, it requires subsection K. If it is required as a condition of.!lPproval, access can be from the alley. Th,e alley is deficient. It is a prior non-conforming use and should not be expanded with the new standards being met. It is not paved and only about ten to 12 feet wide. The alley is 1000 feet long, is very narrow and cannot accommodate two vehicles meeting on ~e roadway. The alley serves at least 12 residences and ~t means is'would be 120 vehicle trips per day (vtpd). Ifthiulleywas a simple flag lot request serving two lots, the code would require a 20 foot width with a minimum of 15 feet of paved driving surface. The discrepancy between the intent of the code and other portions of the code and requirements for a standard access and what is proposed should be looked at carefully when looking at how much is enough. ' Phvsical Constraints Review Permit Has the applicant addressed this.to the extentpossible or ",inimi7.edimpacts? Theseare highly discretionary standards. It is a stream ~ge.. It is not flowillg ~utwa.teI:~. ~~g 911t ofth~ gl'OijDq. tb~~e is identified as Beach Creek and the disruption of drainage may have adverse impacts- on the;adjacent downhill properties; The neighbOrs are concerned that in a flood event, willthe'two 12 inch'cu1verts g6itig'underth:e roadway more forcefully direct the water into a small area and perhaps do more damage? Heam showed pictures of the alley and the encroachments (fences, homes, acceSsory units) all along the alley. Harris ~d there is an 18 foot wide alley dedication. . ., KAREN BATES, 711 Beach Street, lives downhill frOm the proposed property. . The nparian stream runs along the side of her house. Besides fire, she is concerned if there are culverts the stream could go either way. There is a substantial amount of water in the wintertime. If the culverting is done differently, will the riparian stream get any water or willi it be diverted in a different way? She built her house ten feet away, as required. NANCY MENKEN, 588 Uberty Street, lives four houses up from Ashland Street. Their garage has alleyaccc:ss. There is Ii lot more alley access use than stated earlier. There are 23 homes that have potentjal to have a driveway offtbe alley. There are five units she counted that have access only from the alley and four homes that hav~ garages off the alley. Several others have drlveways they could use. There are pedestrians, bicyclists and cars. If two cars meet, one car has to back up to Ashland Street There is no place to give right-of-way. When it rains heavily, the alley can become very deeply rutted. It is impossible to drive down the alley until the city grades it. The city dug a ditch along the west side of the laIley to catch the runoft: so a car cannot get out onto that part of the alley. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST t, 2005 "UTES 3 ~'1 ,I Black asked if an exit at the other end would be helpful. MCDbn said it would help. JAN CRAIGIE, 689 Beach Street, noted there are 95 trees on the property filled with a lot of oak and madrone trees that can bum quite hot It is in the forest interface. The applicants have used a band-aid approach There will be an 18 percent grade off Liberty. That is the minimum acceptable grade for a fire truck. The residence has to bewithip.3oo feet of a fire hydrant or an interior sprinkler system has to be installed. She feels the existing homes are being put at a',greater fire risk. She asked the Commission to look at the overall project and keep the forest interface in mind and the 1000 foot alley, asking if this is really fair, safe and responsible to endanger this many homes.. '. .-." . . \ . ~ STEVE SINCERNY, 790 Liberty Street, lives just south of the property. He believes this is a really thoughtful, considerate plan and that the Shostroms have addressed his concerns. However, when the riparian ordinance is revised, he is not sure the house could be bWlt there. The riparian zone on the Bates property has been changed because the canopy has been removed. He is.- concerned the riparian zone will be negatively impacted and the cumulative development will have a negative impact on the riparian zone. The character of the neighborhood is changing from the rural feeling it used to have. Douma asked Staff about the culvert flows. Molnar said the culvert is required to accommodate a 100 year flood flow. Shostrom has provided a preliminary design. The City Engineer will look at a watershed analysis. Staff RISDOnse . MARGUERlTTE HICKMAN, Fire Marshall, 455 Siskiyou Boulevard, stated the application .meets ~ code .;",;',..",.:,;.;.f,equirements.. As the property currently stands, there-is--no ordinance that reqWres'the'OWheis'ifirt1Timmi7,cr.'fire dailgeron the property. Once they decide to start develOping the propeity, the i'equii'ement to reduce the wildfire hazard is implemented. With regard to access to the property, the AMC is very specific: if a driveway is between IS and 18 feet wide or up to 200 feet in length, it is allowed providing the bWlding is tire sprinkled. TheOretically, where the tire tJuck parks, it is required that the furthest point of the structure within ISO feet: The State adopted fiie code allows that to be increased if there are fire sprinklers in the bWlding. Hickman noted that if she was building her house today, she would rather have tire sprinklers in it than a fire hydrant in front of it. A fire hydrant won't do any good until the fire truck arrives. The sprinklers would! respond immediately. Rebuttal- Shostrom said they plan to re-gi-ade the alley to a full 15 foot width and 13 !is feet in heightfor clearance. Or, they could opt to grade the alley up to 18 feet in some areas to make passing easier. As part of their applicaticln they are going to improve the alley to the roadbed required by the Fire Department, 1'2 feet of pavemerit for "1000 feet. . With regard to water on Bates' property, Made Amrhein, the geotechnical engineer, did not see any evidence of scouring above. Bates gets her water from two sources. Shostrom does not have any water from the drainage ditch. any time of the year most of the time. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION KenCalrnlStromberg mil to approve PA200S-010SO. Black believes the alley should have an opening lltaeh-en&,Molnar R84 the definition (if an alley. He added that the majority of alleys are through rights-of-way but some are Unimproved or'vacated and will never connect to another street. Harris suggested Black look at whether the alley has adequate capacity to serve the additional single family home. Dawkins cannot approve something that willeontinue to over-utilize the alley's capacity by opening the area up'to more development. "~_':'~!l:-' !":+.:,!~';: _~~ Harris suggested a Condition 24 because she didn't recollect seeing anything about paving as part of the proposal. The ,Fire Department did a drive through and took the emergency VehiCle dciwrithe route tliey ire acceptirig. WlieIl they Went out the ' . alley they measured for the 13 !is vertical clearance and there is one tree that needs to be removed.' ,~~'..-sked if we address the problem of development along the alley in a preventative way>bynot'8i1O\'\l'iiig1bis'f''''''~' application to proceed, or does something trigger action as more development occurs along the alley. Molnar said he has never come across a capacity standard for an alley. Until the community Comes up 'with 'a livability capaCity standard; it is done on a case by case basis. - '. ". .'.,.'., . /~ Douma is concerned about the fire related issues and the riParian irea. Fields envisions two 12 inch pipes installed and no erosion. Black said the lack of an outlet on both ends of the alley will make it unusable to the applicant. ~D~NWGCOMM~~N REGULAR IEE1lNG AUGUST t, 2005 tJ.. 8' "UTES 4 / Monis did not see much traffic on the alley and believes 15 feet is adequate. He does not dUnk: the alley has to have an opening at each end. He has to rely on the Fire Department's information as to what is adequate. KenCaim said if the Fire Department has accepted the proposal, she can too because their requirements are stringent. She is concerned about the quality and character of the alley, but believes we will have the optioD\in"the future to call a halt to development. She does not want the alley to get too wide. She likes the Shostrom's proposal to improve the alley 80 traffic flows better. Fields was concerned with the impact of the drive. If we ask them to pave, there will be a group who wants the alley to remain natural. It would be beneficial to have a place to pass every 500 feet. Harris said Page 11 of the Staff Report, Condition 8, second sentence after "Uberty Street" should say, "and the alley at the rear of the property." The property would be signing in favor of future improvements to Liberty Street as well as the paving of the alley. Harris added a new Condition 24, "That prior to the signature of the final surveyor commencement of driveway construction, the fmal driveway crossing shall be engineered to accommodate a 100 year flood flow. Harrissu.,gg~~aCo-n..4ition.25.,'That the alley shall be graded to.18feet~inwidth for passing areas, approximatelyevery'1"SO'" ';, . , in length. " Harris said Condition 26 could state "That the alley shall be graded to 12 feet in width. Driving surface of 15 feet and clear width prior to combustl"le construction as required by the Ashland Fire Department." Stromberg wishes there could be a specific trigger, however, he doesn't feel we are at that point yet Dotterrer is comfortable with the fire issues and the Physical Constraints issues. He has a lot of problems with adequate capacity of the alley, but the added Conditions have alleviated his conc~. KenCafrnlDouma mls to amend the motion to include Conditions 24, 2S and 26 as identified by Staff and the re- wording of Condition 11. Roll Call: The motion carried with Ken Cairn, Stromberg, Dotterrer, Fields, and Morris voting "yes" and Douma, Dawkins and Black voting "no." PLANNING ACTION: 2005-01313 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 917 E. MAIN STREET OWNER: JERRY QUAST ;''''~~f"~;~,,,'''DESCRlPTION: APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF A STAFF ADVISOR DETERMttU:TfOlttffA1'~'tffe-'CURRENT USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 917 E. MAIN STREET AS A COFFEE SHOP IS AN ILLEGAL, NON.cONFORMING USE IN VIOLATION OF ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE 18.68.090. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts · Douma said he has heard a lot of people talking about this application but as soon as possible, he's told everyone he cannot listen to or discuss the action. · Black has not had any contacts. She read'tWo Daily Tidings. articles." " · Monisfrequents Rogue Valley Roasting. He ran against one person for City Council that has been involved in this action. He has read the Daily Tidings articles. He's received, but not read e-mails. He believes he can be impartial · KenCaim frequents, Rogue~alley Roasting, she's're8d the "newspa~; but believes she 'can 'be impartial. . · Fields agreed with KenCaim. '. · Dawkins has known the store through all of its inc~tions. He goes there for hot chocolate. · /' Stromberg has not read the articles in the Tidings. He has been to the Roasting Company a few times in the last few - months. · Dotterrer has read all the Tidings articles and he can be unbiased. Fields asked if anyone had an issue with the ex parte contacts. No one responded. ASHLAND PLAHNRfO COMMISSION REGULAR IEETIfO AUGUST 8, 2005 "UTES ~G} 5 .I (-; (- ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFFREPOR,T August 9, 2005 PLANNING ACTION: 2005-01050 APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: June 22,2005 . APPLICANT: Dale Shostrwn LOCATION: 720 and 730 Liberty Street. ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5 ,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 18.76 18.62 Single-Family Residential Partitions Physical and Environmental Constraints REQUEST: A Land Partition to create a flag lot from the rear of two existing par(:els for the properties located at 720 and 730 Liberty St. A Physical Constraints Review Pennit is requested to construct a driveway across a riparian drainage and to create and develop a parcel with slopes 25% and greater in Hillside Lands. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: On June 22 2005, a preliminary approval was granted and noticed for the current application for a Land Partition and Physical Constraints Review Pennit. Subsequently, a request for a public hearing was submitted (see attached letter). The action was rescheduled for a public hearing and noticed for the August 9, 2005 Planning Commission meetirig. /, .In January2oo2, a Conditional Use Pennit was approved to convert the baSemenP;"" . area of730 Liberty Street to an accessory residential unit, 483 square: feet in size (pA 2002-149). , ,.:1 ....... .,....~ There are no planning actions of record for this site. Planning Application 2005-0 I 050 Applicant: Dale Shostrum Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report August9,2005 Page 1 ao I ( (, 2) DetaHed Description of the Site and Proposal: Site Description ~ -. "'. ., .. -<". . The cUrrent siie of the parcel located at 720 Liberty is 11,865 sqUare feet, and 730 Liberty is 23,747 square feet in size. The parcels are located near the south end of Liberty Street. Liberty Street is an existing street right-of-way which is not paved to city standards in the location of the subject parcels. The propertY is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7.5). A single-family home is located on the property at 720 Liberty Street, and a single-family home with an accessory residential unit in the basement is located at 730 Liberty Street. A public alley ends at the northern boundary of the site which connects to Ashland Street. The site.slopes.downhill to the east and northeast. A drainage channel bisects the parcel located at 730 Liberty St., running from the southwest comer to the northeast comer in a diagonal direction. The drainage accommodates an intennittent flow and includes a wide swale area. The drainage is not identified as a fish-bearing stream. The drainage channel has been significantly altered and channelized on the property directly east of the site. The site contains a wide variety of slopes ranging from some relatively flat areas along the sites eastern and southern boundaries with steeper slopes in the area surrounding the drainage. Proposal The application is for a land partition approval to create a flag lot from the rear of 730 Liberty Street. A portion of the rear of720 Liberty Street will also be made part of the flag lot to connect this new vacant lot to the end of the existing public alley. A "flag pole" connection to Liberty Street is proposed to provide pedestrian access to the public street system. Vehicular access to the new vacant parcel (parcel 3) is by way of a driveway to be constructed off the end of the public alley and running along the east property line. Fire apparatus access is provided by way an existing driveway system which is a looped system coluiected to Liberty Street to'the west and'the public alley to the north. In addition, a third guest parking space will be accessed by the existing driveway system. Improvements to Liberty Street and the alley are not proposed. The applicationincludes.arequest for a physical constraints review pennit to cross the drainage channel with the new driveway. 'This involves insta1linga culvert in the drainage channel. The drainage channel is identified as a Riparian Land Drainage on the Ashland Comprehensive Plan map. The drainage is also identified as Beach Creek basin in the City of Ashland Stonn Water and Drainage Master Plan. Planning Application 2005-0 I 050 Applicant: Dale Shostrum Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report August 9, 2005 Page 1 .al I ( ( stOrm drainage resulting from the new home and associat~ improvements will be directed to the drainage channel. Water and electric services will be connected to the existing lines in the Liberty Street right-of-way. The 'home will be connected , to an existing s~tary sewer line to that runs through the southeast comer of the . proposed vacant parceL ' ' ,', , , The application includes a Tree Protection Plan which identifies 95 trees on the site and within 15 feet of the site that are six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and greater. Six trees are proposed for removal with four of the trees being in the roadbed, one tree being in the building envelope and one tree near the east ' property. The trees proposed for removal include an eight inch dbh White Oak (#52), a ten-inch dbh Incense Cedar (#57), a dead ten-inch dbh Madrone (#61), a 12-inch dbh Black Oak (#88), an eight-inch dbh Black Oak (#94) and a 14-inch ~ dbh Madrone (#95). II. Proiect ImDact The proposed land partition requires approval under the Partition Chapter 18.76 approval criteria for a minor land partition and a flag partition. A physical constraints review permit is required to cross the drainage channel and to create and develop a parcel with slopes 25% and greater ~ Hillside Lands. The appeal letter addresses a variety of issues related to the partition as well as the permit for development of floodplain and hillside lands. In' addition to the original application, the applicant has submitted a response to the appea1letter, date stamped August 1,2005. Land Partition The approval criteria for a minor land partition and a flag' partition are relatively straightforward, and the application appears to satisfy these requiIlments. The proposed lots exceed the minimwn lot size of 7,500 square feet and meet the dimensional requirements of the R-I-7.5 zoning district. Public utilities are including water and electric are provided from the Liberty Street right-of-way, a sanitary sewer line connection is available in the southeast comer of the proposed vacant lot, and storm water can be directed to the drainage running through the site. Access is provided by two public right-of-ways including an alley and Liberty.Street. The primary proposed vehicular access is by way of the alley, and.,y,.,-;-, "" .c>~."'i the secondary access for emergency and guest access is by way of the existing looped driveway system connected to Liberty Street and the alley. The letter requesting a public hearing identifies ten points related to the approval Planning Application 2005-01050 Applicant: Dale Shostrum Ashland Planning DepartmeIlt:... Staff Report August 9,2005 Page 3 .8.'t. , , ( ,,-- I criteria for a minor land partition and a flag partition. While the points raised in the letter address a variety of issues, Staff believes the use J)f the alley as primary access to the new vacant parcel and the improvement of Liberty Street are the primary considerations. . The niinorl8rid partition -approval ciiterla require adequat~ public facilities to be provided to serve newly created parcels. The alley serving the site is connected to Ashland Street and is a public right-of-way. The alley is approximately 1,000 feet in length and is adjacent to 26 parcels.. The applicant's information states that 12 properties currently use the alley for vehicular access. TIie proposed partition would result in the addition of one new lot using the alley which would generate approximately 10 vehicle trips per day. The Engineering Division does not have any recorded accidents for the alley or intersection with Ashland Street, nor any indications.ofsafetyproblems involving the alley. Additionally, the intersections of Liberty and Ashland, and Beach and Ashland have four way stops, and there are not indications of problems at these intersections. Chapter 18 including the Ashland Street Standards does not limit an alley to a specific number of parcels or units. The detennination of "adequacy" of the alley is at the discretion of the hearing authority. In making the detennination of the adequacy of the alley to serve one additional home, Staff suggests considering the current and proposed vehicle trips using the alley during a typical day, and emergency vehicle access requirements. The Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and met on site witll the applicant. The Fire Department has indicated they would use Liberty Street and the existing looped driveway syStem as the ingress point stoppmg in the area of the third parking space at the bend of the drive to access the site. The emergency vehicle would leave the site by way of the alley to Ashland Street. Additionally, the Fire Departmentwould require a fire sprinkler system to be installed in thenew,home~ Regardless of the Fire Departments use of the existing secondary access, the new driveway off the end of the public alley is considered a flag drive and must meet the requirements of 18.76.060. This flag drive meets the applicable requirements including the width and gnide requireinents~ The flag drive is 155 feet in length which is weli below the threshold of 250 feet for the fire truck turnaround requirement. The southern end of Liberty Street, approximately 500 feet in length, is unpaved. The subject properties front Liberty Street on the unpaved portion of the street. The minor land partition criteria allow the Public Works Director to allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition if the driving surface is at least 20 feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, and th~ Planning Application 2005-01050 Applicant: Dale Shostrum Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report August 9, 2005 Page 4 83 I (' ( centerline of the unpaved portion of the street does not exceed ten percent. Additionally, the applicant is required to sign in favor of aJocal improvement district to improve the unpaved street to city standards in the future. The applicant's materials state that the Liberty Street meets the width and grade requirements, and the'flpplicant is williIlg to sign in favo~C?f a local. im~ovement 'district'fot the Liberty street improvements. The Public Works Department has indicated concurrence with permitting the partition on an unpaved street. Liberty Street is scheduled for improvement in the 2005 - 2010 Capital Improvements Plan targeted for a local improvement district process. Physical Constraints Review Permit A Physical Constraints Review Permit in accordance with Chapter 18.62 is req,*~ for two components of the proposal. First, a permit is required to construct a driveway across the riparian drainage. Second, the property is identified on the adopted Hillside Lands map, and a permit is required to create and develop a parcel with slopes 25% and greater in Hillside Lands. The drainage channel is identified as a Riparian Land. Drainage on the Ashland Comprehensive Plan map, and therefore is subject to the development standards for floodplain corridor lands in Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). The application proposes to cross the drainage channel with the new driveway to the home site. The application includes a report and design from the project environmental and geotechnical engineer. The proposal is to install two 12- inch diameter culverts in the diainage swale with one to two feet of fill in the swale area. The driveway improvement would be 12 feet in width with an additional rock inlet and outlet transitioning to the culvert. The resulting drainage channel disturbance would be approximately 20 feet in width. In response to Staff's inquiry, the applicant's materials state that the project engineer indicated an "Arizona crossing" in which a minimal road surface is construct-ed ,which allows water to flow directly over the driveway could be used. This treatment is generally used in intermittent stream situatioris aild is intended to minimize fill areas and allow a small degree of ground water peculation. The development standards for Floodplain Comdor Lands permit culverting or bridging of waterways or creeks identified on the Ashland Comprehensive Plan maps. The crossing is required to be designed by an engineer and designed' to accommodate a 100-year flood event. The amount of fill is required to be kept to the minimum neces$ary to achieve property access. Outside of the driveway and the driveway crossing, any other development is required to be ten feet from the drainage. The site plan identifies a 20 foot setback from the drainage easement to the closest point of the building envelope. Finally, the proposal must meet the approval criteria for a physical constraints review permit as outlined in 18.62.040.1. Given that Planning Application 2005-01050 Applicant: Dale Shostrum Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report . August 9, 2005 Page 5 ~'f I / (- ( \ an alternate route is not available to the home site, Staffbelieves the request to cross the drainage channel with the driveway is reasonable.. The design presented in the application appears to minimally disturb the drainage ~"as well as use relatively small amounts of fill material. . . .- \ ;" .'". The second component of the physical constraints r6V:iew permit is satisfaction of the requirements of the Hillside Development Stalidards of Chapter 18.62.. This involves two areas of review - the establishment of a building area of35 percent and less, and the development of areas 25 percent and greater being consistent with the standards. The steepest portion of the site is the ravine area on either side ,of the drainage channel. The application includes cross sections of the property which establish natural grades compared to existing grades. The application states that the natural grades of the site have -been altered over the years by. the development of roads, driveways, home sites and city utility installations. The Hillside Development Standards require application to create new parcels to include a buildable area and driveway locations with slopes of 35 percent and less, and to include a report prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the site is stable for the 'proposed development. The building envelope for the home is located on a bench area was created at some time in the past. The natural grade of this are as indicated in the application is between 20 and 33 percent. The majority of the proposed driveway is located on an area with a natural grade of 14 percent in slope. The exception is the southern end of the drive'Yay between the drainage channel and the garage which includes areas of a natural grade of 25 percent slope. The application includes a geotechnical report assessing the stability of the site as well as recommendations for retaining walls, storm drainage treatment and temporary and permanent erosion control measures. /, The, lU"eas of development that area located on slopes 25 percent and greater;and" therefore subject to the development standards for Hillside Lands are approximately . 20 to 30 feet of driveway on both sides of the drainage, the area of the proposed garage and the southern edge of the proposed home location. The geotechnical report includes recommendations for grading and retaining, foundation design, storm drainage treatment and erosion control as required. 'nle application incl~des an' inventory of existing trees and the driveway and building envelope have been located to preserve the maximwn. nUmber trees on the site. Since the building pad was created years in the past, the area is largely void of trees. The driveway construction will require removal offoQf trees and the-garage construction will require removal of one tree leaVing 89 of the 95 trees on the site in place. In Staff's opinion, the proposal has been designed to utilize areas oflesser slopes and to minimize impacts to the areas of natural grades of25 percent and greater. Staffbelieyes the proposal as presented satisfies the Hillside Development Standards. Planning Application 2005-01050 Applicant: Dale Shostrum Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report August 9, 2005 Page 6 a& i ! (-j ( m., Procedural- Reouired Burden of Proof The criteria for Land Partition approval are described in Partitions Chapter 18.76 as follows: If the proposed partition does not appear to comply with the requirements for routine administrative approval, the proposal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and approved when the following conditions exist: , A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be . impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C.-_* The tract ofland has not been partitioned for 12 months. D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land. E. ,The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter on Subdivisions. F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity. G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when all of the following conditions exist: a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet Wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. 2. . Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the, costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving,' curb, /, gutter, sidewalks and the under grounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey . Planning Application 2005~ 1 050 Applicant: Dale Shostnun Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report August 9, 2005 Page 7 .3, I (' ( plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. H~ Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995) The criteria for'a Flag Partition are described in Chapter 18.76 as follows: A. Conditions of the previous section have been met. B. Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag driv~ for one flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, r~tively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have awidth:Of~!Ofeet~ with a 15 foot paved drivitig surface. Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15% but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100. "Flagdrlv,es serving structures greater th81124 feet in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide aFire Work Area of20 feet by 40 feet within 50 feet of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprlnklersystem installed. . Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Uniform Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. Flag drives greater than 250 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090.. " C. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated in such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for backing out. Planning Application 2005~1050 Applicant: Dale Shostnun Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report . August 9. 2005 Page 8 '07 I (", (' D.Curb cuts have been minimi~ed, where possible, through the use of common driveways. E. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a site-obscuring fence, wall or ever!Veen hedge to a 4eightf)ffrom four to six'-h?et, exceptjnthe ft'Qnt yard setback area'where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed at the extreme outside of the flag drive in order to ensure adequate fire access. F. The applicant has executed and filed with the Planning Director an agreement between applicant and the city for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Director, of Public Works and. scret;nin&.~ required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An.agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening to standards as indicated in this section and the aSsurance that such maintenance shall be continued. G. A site plan has been approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan shall be approved provided the regulations of the zoning and subdivision titles are satisfied. Such a site plan shall contain the map requirements listed in Section 18.76.050 and the following information: I. The location of drivew~ys, turnarounds parking spaces and useable yard areas. 2. The location and type of screening. 3. For site plans ofa flag lot, the building envelope shall be identified. H. No more than two lots, are served by the flag drive. I. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. J. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. K. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: Planning Application 2005-01050 Applicant: Dale Shostrum Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report . August 9, 2005 Page 9 '! .go / (- ,.- ( 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approvai; 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be reqUired for the flagpole; 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed witliin the flag pole, improved and maintained with either a concret~, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface from the street to thebtiildableatea of the flag lot; j",,' " '. . "'" ;- ". 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole at the street-shall be identified by the address of the flaglot clearly visible . from the street on a 4" X 4" post 3~ feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers 3 inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be ona two feet by three feet white sign clearly visible from the street with .three inch black numbers. ' The criteria for a'Physical Constraints Re1fewrPermit..r~lIeseribed in Chapter 18.62 as follows: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing . development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The appeal letter addresses a variety of issues related to the partition as well as the permit for'development of floodplain and hillside lands. In addition to the original application, the applicant has submitted a response to the appeal letter, date stamped August 1,2005. The Planning Commission muSt weigh the evidence submitted both in writing and at the public hearing, and determine if the application meets the three sets of applicable approval criteria for a'minor land partition, flag partition and physical constraints review permit (see pages 7-10). While the approval criteria for a minor land partition and flag partition are relatively straight forward, the Planning Commission has the ability to make a determination of Planning Application 2005-01050 Applicant: Dale Shostnun Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report August 9.2005 Page 10 .B~ I ( ( . , I "adequate capacity" of transportation facilities including the public alley serving the project. Similarly the development standards for flood plain and hillside lands are specific. At the same time, ,the Planning Commission has the ~ility to make a determination of whether the potential impacts of the drainage crossing and development of the driveway and home/garage ~n ~llside lands has mil}imized,"tb,c potential impacts to the propertY and nearby areas" as well as minimizing adverse impacts. If the Plarining Commission approves the application, Staff recommends attaching the following conditions. 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a final surveyplat,shall-be submitted to the City within 12 months of this approval. 3) That the third parking space shall be located on the flag lot (Parcel 3) by adjustments to the lot line configuration. A revised site plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor reflecting this change prior to signature of the final survey. 4) That all easements for public utilities shall be indicated on the final survey as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. . 5) That a dedicated fire access easement and a mutual access eaSement for the flag lot (Parcel 3 ) shall be indicated on the final surveyJor the existing looped driveway system from Liberty Street to the public alley. The dedicated fire access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department, and the easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Engineering Division. 6) :rhat~the.electric service shall be installed underground to service the parcels 8S"'-l required by the Ashland Electric Department prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to signature of the final survey plat. 7) That a final utility plan for the parcels shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey'plat. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines and electric services. 8) That the property owner(s) of 720 and 730 Liberty shall sign in favor of a local / -improvement district to fully improve. the unpaved portion of the Liberty Street to city standards prior to signature of the final survey. Additionally, the property owner(s) shall Planning Application 2005~ I 050 . 'AppUcant: Dale Shostrum Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report August 9, 2005 Page 11 Ifo I I ( ) t' ( agree to waive the right to remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and Costs of Liberty Street through alocal improvement district at a future date. -' Q) That the tree protection shall be.installed accordiIlg to the al?proved plan pri()~ to any .'- . 'site work, storage ofmateriaIs <idssuance oftlie building permit. The tree protection shall~" be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of abuilding permit. 10) That all recommendations of the Tree Commission, with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be incorporated into the Tree Protection Plan and submitted for review and approv~ of the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of the building p~it. II) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met, including but not 'limited to installation of fire hydrant(s), and a resideritial fire sprihktet'system in the new home, prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the first home or structure. 12) That a fire prevention and control plan for wildfire lands shall be~ submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Fire Department, and implemented prior to the issuance of the building permit. 13) That the flag drive shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the flag lot (parcel 3). The flag drive shall be screened with a site-obscuring fence, wall or evergreen hedge in accordance with 18.76.060.E. 14) . That the existing looped driveway system shall meet fire apparatus access requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including but not limited to weight, width and grade requirements prior to combUstible construction. 15) That the public alley must cleared of overgrown vegetation to create a clear vertical space of a minimum oft3 ' 6" in height, and horizontal clearance the width of the alley right- of-way prior to combustible construction as required by the Ashland Fire Department. 16) That the building permit submittals for the new home on the flag lot shall demonstrate compliance with the building design standards of 18.62.080.E. 17) That all easements, including public utility easements, shall be identified on the building permit submittals. 18) That new construction on the flag lot (parcel 3) shall meet Solar Setback Standard A. Solar setback calculations shall be included in the building permit submittals. 19) That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 45% of the lot area in accordance with Planning Application 2005~ 1 050 Applicant: Dale Shostnun 4-1 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report August 9, 200.5 Page 12 ! ( (, 18.20.040.F. Lot coverage calculations including all impervioUs surfaces shall })esubmitted with the building permits. 20) That the flag lot (parcel 3) shall have a usable yard area, 'as defined in 18.76.060.J, that has a minimal dimension of20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. The usable yard area shall be . identified on the building permit submittals. C". .." .,. . ~'i';:".' .' 21) That all recommendations including but not limited to grading, drainage and erosion control measures in the geotechnical engineering report by Amrhein Associates, Inc. included in the application and date stamped June 10, 2005, shall be implemented in the development of the property. 22) That a preconstruction conference to review the requirements of the Hillside Development Permit shall be held prior to i~suance of the building pennit. The conference shall include the Ashland Planning Depattmen~cAsl1land Building Oepartment, the design professional, the general contractor, gootechnical expert, landscape/tree professional and project engineer. Contact the Ashland Planning Department to schedule the preconstruction conference. 23) That Amrhein Associates,rnc. shall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule of the geotechnical engineering report by Amrhein Associates, Inc. included in the application and date stamped June 10, 2005. . Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were Conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Planning Application 2005-01050 Applicant: Dale Shostnun ~~ Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report August 9, 2005 Page 13 (', (': ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW Applicant: Dale Shostrom Address: 720/7,3.0 Liberty St~ Date: August 4. 2005 Commercial: ' Residential: X" Proposed Action: tor'",. PLANNING ACfION 2005-01050 is a request for a Land Partition to create a flag lot from the rear of two existing parcels for the properties located at 720 and 730 Liberty St A Physical Constraints Review Pennit is requested to construct a driveway across a Riparian Drainage and to create a parcel with slopes 25% aud greater in Hillside Lands. CompreheltSive Plan Designation: Single Family' Residential District; Zoning: R-I-7.5; Assessor's Map: 39 IE 16 AA; Tax Lot 7302.. . Recommendation: 1) Acknowledge the importance of the Ponderosa Pines during and after construction. 2) Clear construction debris and electrical box from the base of tree # 56. Commission Representative: ~ Date: 8.5.05 Follow-up: '-13 ( ATTN: ANDREA - CLASSIFIED PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING NOTICE OF SITE VISIT r . '; .-.... There will be a site visit by the Ashland Planning Commission on Monday, August 8, 2005 at nopn to tour the site at the 720/730 Liberty Street. The applicant is requesting a land partition (Applicant: Dale Shostrom) (Reference: P A2005-01 050). By order of the Planning Manager Publish: 8/6/05 E-mailed: 8/2/05 P. O. No. 70251 4--~ Bill Molnar JHOJTRPM ~RPJ LTD. ,AUG - 1 2005 .~ DESIGNERS' BUILDERS In ,regards to the proposed"partition at 720, and 730 Liberty Street,(Planning Action 2005-0150), by'applicant Dean Shostrom, the following documentation has been provided to the Ashland Planning Commission as supplemental information to the applicant's Findings of Facts and submittal documentation dated June 10,.2005. In addition, the following provides a direct response to the letter submitted by Chris , Hearn, Attorney for Eric P. Jones, appellant and property owner of 725 Beach Street, Ashland. 1. Appellant JoneslHeam: The proposed Partition is in conflict with laws, ordinances, and resolutions applicable to~the land, Section 18.76.050(0), Applicant's Response: The applicant finds that all applicable laws, ordinances and resolutions applicable to the subject properties have and will be complied with. In addition to the Findings of Fact and exhibits dated June 10th, 2005, the al)plicant . finds that all laws, ordinances and resolutions governing lot access, minimum lot size, minimum setbacks, minim~m solar access, minimum lot dimensions and maximum lot slopes are complied with. 2, Appellant JoneslHeam: The partitioning is not in accordance with the design and street standards contained in Chapter 18.88. Alley is of insufficient width and design, and already serves too many units, to allow the new partition, especially when existing accessory dwelling units are taken into account Section 19.76.050(E), Applicants Response: The applicant finds the partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained ,in Chapter 18.88. The flag driveway is not greater than 250 feet and therefore not subject to ttrestandards~colltained in chapter 18.88. However, the flag lot's driveway has been designed to be in compliance with Chapter 18.76.060(K) with the lot being accessed by pedestrians via the flag pole and vehicular access from the existing alley. "'~. The applicant further finds the adjacent alley has sufficient width and design to accommodate the proposed parcel and its future dwelling unit. The alley extends from Ashland Street to the subject property with direct ingress and/or egress from Ashland Street or Liberty Street. A total of26 houses abut the alley, but only 12 use . the alley for vehicular access. The remaining houses take access from either' Beach or Liberty Street. In reality, the alley is underutilized when compared to its potential or original intent. The applicant further finds the proposal as submitted has been approved by the appropriate City Departments - Ashland Fire Department (Margueritte Hickman, Fire Protection Officer), Ashland Public Works Department (Jim Olsen, City 309 NORTH PI'ONEER STREET, A:l[NO, OREGON 97520 541-482-9761 - FAX-488-2767 , Engineer) Ashland ElectricDepartment (Dave Tygerson) and Ashland Water Department (Terry Oldfield). All are very familiar with the site an.d applir.ation. Mrs. Hickman was recently on-site with the applicant's agent and, has verbally stated the alley access and the proposed improvements are adequate. The applicant proposes deeded access in perpetuity to the Fire Department to have emergency ingress and egress between Liberty Street and the alley. This will increase fire fighting capabilities and options compared to the dead end alley that now exists. '!t--,_, Lastly, the applicant finds that at least two accessory units off the subject alley have . been approved and constructed in the last five years via the City's Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. Conditional Use Permits are highly discretionary and in both cases the subject alley was determined to be of sufficient width, design and safety. 3. Appellant Jones/Hearn: Adequate public facilities do not exist to allow the partition;.' particularly sufficient alley width, storm drainage system, and fire apparatus access and turnaround. Section 18.76.050 (F). Applicant's Response: As stated above, the applicant finds the application has been approved by the City of Ashland's Fire Department and Public Works Department. Both Departments, including the staff of the Planning Department, determined there was adequate capacity of the alley to service the proposed parcel. The alley and proposed improvements provide adequate fire apparatus access for the Department to access not only the existing home and the future home, but also provides additional rear fire access to some of the homes along Beach Street. The applicant further finds the site is adjacent to an existing storm drain swale that traverses through the property and down through the water channel under Beach Street. According to City records and verified by the Public Work's department, the culvert is large enough to easilyaccommodate,tbe storm water,from a new home. This is verified by the geotechnical design for culverting and road crossing at the drainageway. The various city departments bave verified the adequacy of public facilities with on-site visits with the applicant. The proposed and approved locations are shown on the site plan for sewer, water, electric and storm drainage. 4. Appellant Jones/Hearn: The access requirements interposed by Section 18,76.0S0(G) are not met. ~-'''.''~r,,"'''':.',!l~o' Applicant's Response: The applicant finds Section 18.76.050 (G) ha$ be,en,m,etas, ,,,,,," the City's Public Works Director can allow for partitions to occur when certain conditions exist. In this application's case, the applicant finds that Libert)' Street is unpaved, but is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector street (Ashland Street) arid does not exceed 10% grade. Furthermore, the applicant is ~ore than willing to agree to participate in the cost of full street improvements and .~},;':.. 4-1c AUG - 1 zoos to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district (LID) to cover such improvements and costs thereof. 5, Appellant Jones/Hearn: While alley access exists adjacent to the partition, and access via the alley is proposed by the applicatien, the alley is of insufficien~ width and design. to accommodate the proposed development. Section 18.76.050(H). Applicant's Response: The applicant finds that proposed flag lot's driveway has been designed to be incompliance with Chapter 18.76.060(K). with the lot being ,accessed by pedestrians via the flag pole and vehicular access from the existing alley. The applicant further finds the adjacent alley has sufficient width and design to accommodate the proposed parcel and its future dwelling unit. The alley extends from.Ashland~S.treet to ,the subject property with direct ingress and/or egress from Ashland Street or Liberty Street. A total of261l0uses abut the alley, but only 12 use the alley for vehicular access. The remaining houses take access from either Beach or Liberty Street. In reality, the alley is underutilized when compared to its potential or original intent. The applicant further finds the proposal as submitted has been approved by the appropriate City Departments - Ashland Fire Department (Margueritte Hickman, Fire Protection Officer) and Ashland Public Works Department (Jim Olsen, City Engineer). Both are very familiar with the site and application. Mrs. Hickman was recently on-site with the applicant's agent and has verbally stated the alley access and the proposed improvements are adequate. Lastly, the applicant finds that at least two accessory units otTthe subject alley have been approved and constructed in the last five years via the City's Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. Conditional Use Permits are highly discretionary and in both cases the subject alley was determined to be of sufficient width,~design.and,safety,.. 6. Appellant Jones/Heam: The conditions required by Section 18,76.050 are not met by the application. Section 18.76.060(A), Applicant's Response: The applicant finds that all conditions required by the Minor Land Partition criteria (Section 18.76.050) are met by the application as stated above. 7, Appellant JoneslHearn:.,,'theconditions imposed by Section 18.76.060 are not met by the application, since the alley is of insufficient width and standards to accommodate the partition, Section 18.76.060(B), Applicant's Response: The applicant finds that Section 18.76.060(B) is met and specifically complies, as a condition of approval, with Section 18.76.060(K).. The :'AUG - 1 2005 47 subject flag lot is adjacent to an alley with vehicular ingress and egress from the adjacent alley and a pedestrian path within the proposed flag pole.. The applicant further finds that Sectian 18.76.060(K) 3 & 4 will be met prior to ,occupancy of the prO' posed home ar as directed by the Planning Commission. 8, Appellant Jones/Hearn: Adequate turnaround as defined by the performance guidelines and the Fire Apparatus Access Road guidelines are not met. Section 18.76.060(B). .Applicant's Respanse: The applicant finds that Sectian 18.76.060 (B) has been met as previausly stated. In particular, the applicatians for a flag partition desi.gned accordingly under Section 18.76.060(K) with the flag pole designed for pedestrian travel and the alley as vehicular ingress and egress. Th;e applicant further finds, as daes the Ashland Fire Department, that adequate fire apparatus access and work area is available to service the new lat. In additian, the applicants are willing to' install residential fire sprinklers to mitigate response times. The applicant further finds the access driveway for ingress or egress fram Liberty Street will be improved to suppart 44,000 Ib.. (Fire Truck) and can accommadate necessary turning mavements, road clearance of 15 ft wide, road bed af 12' wide, height clearance of 13.5 ft. and slape of 18% ar less. ;.,J. ....__ 9. Appellant Jones/Hearn: The proposed flag lot pas insufficient number of parking spaces to eliminate the necessity of backing out. Section 18.76.060(C). Applicant's Respanse: The applicant finds that Section 18.76.060(C)has been met as there are three parking spaces available to' service the flag lot. TwO' af the parking spaces will be within the hame's garage and a third parking space is adjacent to' the flag lat (See Site Plan, "New Parking NO'. 3") The garage parking spaces have a small turn around area adjacent,teocthe.garage for"easy maneuvering sa that vehicles can exit the praperty in a farward manner. The third parking space is located adjacent to' the prapased pedestrian flag pole and the existing driveway that connects with the public alley. The third parking space is an a level area with easy access to the hause via the propased stairs dawn to the new driveway. The applicant further finds that the design of the driveway, turn around area and parking spaces were specifically considered in order to minimize any adverse impacts to' the site's trees, topography. drainage system, neighbors and the environment as required under Section 18.62.040(1)(3). 10, Appellant Jones/Hearn: The structure will be more than 24 feet in height when properly measured from the bottom of the foundation, requiring a fire work area of 20' by 40' within 50 feet of the structure. Section 18,76,060(B), "AUG - 1 2005 t.f~ Applicant's Response: The applicant finds that Section 18.76.060(B), regarding structure height or adequate fire work area, will be complied with ,at the time the new lot's home is designed and constructed. At the present time, die home has not been designed but regardless, will meet the City's Fire Department height regulations when it is. Further, the applicants will design the home so that it not only meets the governing design regulations, but will base all measurements on the definitions listed within the Ashland Municipal Code as well as adopted Uniform Building Code (UBC). , 11. Appellant IoneslHearn: The proposed flag lot does not meet the minimum useable yard area requirements, Section 18.76.060(1). . Applicant's Response: The applicant finds that Section 18.76.060(J) will be complied with at'the time the new lot?s home is designed and constructed. The applicant finds that even prior to the home being designed, the proposed "buildable area" (not buildable footprint) identified on the submitted site plan c1earl:,. shows the proposed lot as having "multiple" 20' by 20' useable yard areas. The l)rOposed lot is 15,115 sfwith more than 75% of the tot~1 considered to be "useable )'ard space. " 12, Appellant JoneslHeam: T~ough the application of development standards, potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have not been adequately considered, and adverse impacts have not been minimized. Section 18.62.040(1)(1), Applicant's Response: The applicant finds that the Physical and Environmental Constraints Section 18.62.040(1)(1) has been complied with. The applicant and the agent are two local home builders with immaculate reputations for detail a.nd environmental sensitivity. The applicant and agent have spent over a year on the application assessing the most appropriate development standards to minimize adverse impacts to the site's trees, topography, drainage system, neighbors and. the<, environment. The applicant has consulted with respected consultants specializing in tree preservation (See Exhibit A, Upper Limb-It Tree Service, Tom Myers, Certified Arborist) and geotechnical engineering (See Exhibit B, Amrhein Associates, Inc., Mark Amrhein). The applicant has taken into consideration and will impl.ement the strategies and recommendations of the consultants' findings, The applicant further finds that the design of the driveway, turn around area and parking spaces were specifically considered in order to minimize any adverse impacts to the site's trees, topography., drainage system, neighbors and thc~ environment as required under Section 18.62.040(1)(3). One's first impression of the site might indicate that the site would be difficult to develop" but a clear understanding of the minimal proposed cuts and fills make this project quite simple and of very low impact (See sections A and B on site plan and see cross sections of driveway attached). AUG - 1 2005 4'7 13, Appellant Jones/Hearn: The applicant has not adequately considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate potential hazards caused by the development. Section 18,62.040(1)(2). These include but are not limited to fire safety concerns, alley access deficiencies, and storm drainage issues. Applicant's Response: The applicant finds that Section 18.62.040(1)(2) has been complied with and in particular, has considered any potential hazards related to fire safety concerns, alley access and storm drainage issues. The applicant further finds the proposal as submitted has been approved by the appropriate City Departments - Ashland Fire department (Margueritte Hi.ckman, Fire Protection Officer) and Ashland Public Works Department (Jim Olsen, City Engineer). Both 'ar~.very familiar with the site and application. Mrs. Hickman was recently on-site with the applicant and agent and has verbally stated the alley access and the proposed improvements are adequate. The applicant further finds that the recommendations will be followed as presented within the findings (Exhibit B) provided by Amrhein, Associate, Inc to address erosion control and storm water drainage. 14, Appellant Jones/Hearn: The applicant has not taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment Section 18.62.040(1)(3). Applicant's Response: The applicant finds that Section 18.62.040(1)(3) has been complied with. The applicant contends the property is within City limits, is zoned appropriately and meets all of the applicable partition criteria noted in Section 18.76 of the Ashland Municipal Code. The applicant contends that all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment have been considered. The buildable area of the proposed new parcel has been designed to minimize~treeJoss and to sit a future home on the lot's most level area with the garage being located within an embankment to minimize cut and fill area to accommodate a minimal sloping driveway grade leading into the garage. The applicant further finds that the proposed buildable area (not footprint) and driveway location have been designed in coordination with the projects Tree Arborist (Tom Myers, Upper Limb-it Tree Service) and Civil Engineer (Mark Amrhein, Amrhein Associated, Inc.) to further reduce any adverse impacts. 15, Appellant Jones/Hearn: Mr. Jones and other neighbors are also concerned ;about the amount offill required to develop this project, the tree protection issues, and the slope of the parcels involved, Applicant's Response: The applicant finds that Mr. Jones and other neighbors concerned with tbe proposed planning action are reasonable. However, as demonstrated with the application submittals dated June 10th, 2005 and the 5"tJ AUG - 1 2005 i " additional findings ..oted herein, the applicants contend the concerns have been evaluated and minimized by careful and thoughtful land use planning and engineering. The applicant is also a long time neighbor of the site 'and not only owns one house but two houses adjacent to the proposed new lot. The applicant has every intention to minimize any reasonable adverse impacts associated with the proposal. The applicant and his agent have been designing and building together in Ashland for over 30 years. From the inception of this project it has been the applicant's intention to design and build a modest home for himself appropriate for this beautiful wooded site. In the application submittals of June 10th, 2005, the owner states on Page 7: "To further minimize the impacts on both the hillside lands and the visual character of the neighborhood the owner agrees to the following self-imposed restrictions. The residence be limited to a maximum of 1800 sf floor area above the garage level or less. No accessory unit will be permitted." The applicant is willing to limit further the size of proposed residence to 1400 gffloor area on a single story above the garage/baselbent level. A guiding principal of the owner is to create a sensitive house design that will maximize the privacy of both the adjacent neighbors and himself. Information request by Planning Staff The Planning Staff asked if there are alternatives to the proposed culverts to better serve the reparian corridor? What about a "half pipe" culvert? Response by Mark Amrhein, Amrhein Assoc Inc: "half-pipe" culverts are primarily intended for fish passage and would require the same amount of fill to protect the culvert from the road above. An "Arizona crossing" would allow seasonal water flow over the road surface and would minimize fill and increase (to a small degree) ground water perculation. The finish road surface could be "grasscrete" pavers, 4" minus rock, or pavement with similar results. AUG - 1 2005 51 ! ~J ", ~AD - pLAN v,EW \ --- ~I'\~w . - . - O<J'o ~L I \ ~AtJ PA-,-,f e.~l1tJ" ~~ - .----.-.--- y ~)(Jsnl\Jc, A'2,vE. - - ~ 70 -, - ~UNE~-~ hJ.E.-<( f,Ji1 - - - . - flZoPOSEO O~l/EW: -1 - - ~~ S€VlloN 4"0 4-~ ------------- . -_. ---..-..-- Ln C) C) N ,..., I (.!;J ~ "- '" - - e..<l-; At-u - ____,j,% ?L01'6 ~v. , 1,no 2.lbo' ~ ~~ il '>- ~ I .-""""'\ ~ () ~~ -'" () ~ f~ , '"Z 'A () t~ -J 't< 6(\_ ":)~ ~i ec -:20 C i;~ i~ ~i -.;1 ~~ ~i :~.,r- ~ ~~ ~~ ATTN: LEGAL PUBLlCATt ,'8 (ANDREA) ) PUBLIC HEARING NonCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect 10 the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commissiorl,Aug,ust 9, ~~005 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, ,1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard. Request for a land Partition to create a flag lot from the rear of two existing parcels for thl~ properties located at 720 and 730 Liberty St. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to construct a driveway across a Riparian Drainage and to create a parcel with slopes 25% and greater in Hillside lands. Appeal tq the Planning Commission of a Staff Advisor Determination that the current use of the l)ubject property at 917 E. Main Street as a coffee shop is an illegal, non-conforming use in violation of Ashland Municipal Code 18.68.090. Request for an ordinance amendment to the Performance Standards Options, Chapter 18.88 of Ithe Ashland Ml,IQicipal Code, regarding Conservation Density Bonusfor-:reSidentiatde"'elopm~nts. '" APPLICANT: City of Ashland' '- In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Ni, If you need special assistance tp partldpate In this meeting, please contact the Oty Administrator's office at (541) 'l88-6002 (flY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meetin!l will enable the dty to make ~ble arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA TltJe I). By order of the Planning Director John Mclaughlin Publish: 7/28/05 Date e-mailed: 7/22/05 Purchase Order: 65498 53 ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (ANDREA) PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with Fespe~t lto the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Tree Commission on August 4, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the office of Community Development and Engineering Services (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. At such Pubic Hearing any person is entitled to be heard; ,', Request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to construct a 4,900 square foot storage building in the existing maintenance facility of the Oregon Department of Transportation for the property lo<:ated at 706 Tolman Creek Rd. The proposed building is centrally located in the parcel, and will house existing . maintenance equipment. . Request for a Land Partition to create a flag lot from the rear of two existing parcels for thl~ properties located at 720 and 730 Liberty St. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to construct a driveway across a Riparian Drainage and to create a parcel with slopes 25% and greater in Hillside Lands. In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Ad, if you need spec/al assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please contact the Oty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (11Y phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meetln9 will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). By order of the Planning Director John McLaughlin, Publish: 7/26/05 Date e-mailed: 7/22/05 Purchase Order: 65498 6t rA' Planning Department 51 \'tin Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2005-01050 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 and 730 Liberty Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Dean Shostrom/Dale Shostrom DESCRIPTION: Request for a Land Partition to create a flag lot from the rear of two eXisting parcels for the properties located at 720,.nd 730 Liberty St. A Physical Constraints Review Permit i~ requested. to construct a . driveway across a Riparian Drainage and to create a parcel with slopes 25% and greater in Hillside Lands. . Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessors Map: 39 1E 16 AA; Tax Lot: 7300 & 7302. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on August 4~ 2005 at 7:00 I,.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn'Way. . ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: August 9, 2005, 7:00 P.M. A I Notice Is hereby given that a PUB~IC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHlAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 11jr5 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance afteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either In person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of eppeaI to tie Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure tospec/fy which ordinance criterion the objection Is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on tNit criterion. Failure of the appUcant to raise constitutional or other Issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient apecIficIty tpaliow this,. CommIssIOn to respond to the Issue precludes an aellon for damages In circuit court. 0.'..'.. '" ,- A copy of the application, all docunents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for ins,:tecllon at no cost and will be povIded at reasonable cost, If requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable ClOSt, If requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Developm$llt aild Engineering Services, 51 WInburn way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. Dwtng the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the app/lc8nt and those In attendance conCernIng this request The Chair shan have the right tD Imlt the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there Is a contlnuanCEl, If a partk:lpant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shan remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. , If you ~ve questions or comments concernlll9 thIs~:pIease feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Dep,artment, 541-488-5305. 5S o:..............~ MIdIed\2OOS.OI05O 1-900$_ IIEBIA (Section 18.76.0'50) If the proposed partition does not appear to cOmply with the requirements for routine administrative approval, the proposal shall be submitted to the Planning CommiSsion and approved when the following condl~lons exist: A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be Impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will ,not be Impeded. C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. . , D. The partitioning Is not In conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land. E. The partitioning Is In accordance)Ylth the design and street standards contaln~d In the Chapter 1,8.88, Performance5tandards Options. (Ofd~2836 58, 1999) . " F. When there exists adequate public fadlltles, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as determined by tl Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity. G. When there exists a 20-footwlde access along the entire street frontage of the pareelto the nearest fully Improved collector or arterial street, as designated In the Comprehensive Plan. Such aCC4:!SS shall be Improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the ' street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit ,of the Public Works Department. 1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land pal1:ltlon when all of the following conditions exist: a. The unpaved street Is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully Improved collector orartf!rlal~trE!et. b4-.Ih~cellte.rljne,grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten perceAi;'J;".:"i";~'"-:'":"~;,,,,..~-,:"t'+' . " 2~" Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving Is not required, the applicant shall ag,ree to participate In the costs and to waive the'rlghts of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate In the cost of full street Improvements and Ito not remonstrate to the fonnatlon ofa local Improvement district to cover such Improvements and costs therE!of. Full street Improvements shall Indude paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergroundlng of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and If the owner declines to so cllgree, then the application shall be denied. ' H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995) FLAG PARTITIO"S Section 18.76.060 Preliminary Approval of Rag Partitions. Partitions Involving the creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission If the following Conditions are satisfied: A. Conditions of the prevl()us section have been met. .. . B. Except as provided In subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drlvecf9Y'O(l1i;~?.f~t~hall have i!i mlnlmum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving tWo lots, the'flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. (Ord. 2815 51, 1998) Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sldew,alks or other public ways. Rag drives shall be In the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are serve<;f by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may be granted fOlr flag drives for grades In excess of 15% but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found In 18.100. . .'. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet In height, as defined In 18.08.290, shall provide a -Fire Work Area of 20 feet by 40 feet within 50 feet of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement !;hall be waived If the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system Installed. . Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Unllform Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. . . Flag drives greater than 250 feet In length shall provide a turnaround as defined In the Performance Standards Guidelines In 18.88.090. C. Each flag ,Jot, has at least three parking spacessltuated" In such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for backing out. . D. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. ~ O;~ r.. ~~~1050w.os.doc 1;;. gU&.1I o:.lUCo:. UI "ne nag gnve nave Deen screenea Wltn a Site-obSCUring fence, wall or evergreen hedge to a height of from four to six feet, exa . In the front yard setback area wherE :artlng five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 Inches In the remaining setback area. Such fence lor landscaping shall be placed at the extreme outside of the flag drive In o~er to ensure adequate fire access. .~ F. The applicant-has executed and filed with the Planning Director an agreement between applicant and the city for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Director of Public Works and screening as required by this section, and providing that If applicant should fa!1I to complete such wor within such 'period, the Oty may complete the same and recover the full cost 8Qd expens:e thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide fQr the maintenance of the paving and screenilng to standards as Indicated In this section arid the assurance that such maintenance shall be continued. G. A site plan has been approved by the PfannlngCommlsslon. The site plan shall be approved provided me regulations of the zoning and subdivision titles are satisfied. Such a site plan shall contain the map requlremenu listed In Section 18.76.050 and the following Information: ,1~ The location o,f driveways, turnarounds parking spaces and useable yard areas. 2. The location and type of screening. 3. For site plans of a flag lot, the building envelope shall be Identified. H. No more than two lots are served by, the flag drive. ' I. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements' of the zoning district. J. Flag lots shall be req'ulred to provide a useable yard area that has a mlAlmal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet de~p'.:,,'As~....~ed:;Jn!rtbl$;Qhapter, the term "useable yard area" means a prlv~te yard area whtoh-::fS''f:I1:1'Qbsr;aa;eff1!lV' bya structure or automobile from the ground upward. . .- K. Flag lots adjacent to ,an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except lthat: 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval; 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole; 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be Installed within the flag pole, Improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface from the street to the buildable area of the flag lot; 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of ttle pole at: the street shall be Identified by the address of the flaglot dearly visible from the street on a 4" X 4" post 3112 feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers 3 Inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a twOI feet by three feet white sign clearly visible from the street with three Inch black numbers. (amended Ord. 2~757, 1995) , 18.62.040.1 I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be Issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential Impacts to the property t.,and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse Impacts havttbeen-mtnlmJzed,;"",,<,;, , ~ 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the developmentl1'1ay create and Implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has talcen all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse Impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 51, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J "de,leted"; Ord 2~08, Added, 12/CI2/1997) '57 0:'_...... '.'Nodccd'.1Ie'12005.o1050~.doc :, :'1 ' AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On July 21. 2005, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Public Meeting Notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as S€it forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2005-01050. ) re of Employee L-t...--' /J/ff SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 0\ . day of July, 2005. _. OFFICIAL SEAL , B. BOSWELL NOTARY pusLlC-OREGON COMMISSION N,O. 391525 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR. 07, 2009 ~ Notary Public for State of Oregon a My Commission Expires: ~t - 1-0-( "- sr G:\convn~ev\pl8nnlng\Fonns & HandoutsIAFFIDA'il1T OF MAILlNG.doc ~991 1919 J91RUiAB 1~97 AFE8nI G.\RY N fi9J UI?9tTV ET :\iHl../d'JQ, OR 91329 RETIJRNED PA#2ooS-10S0 391E16AA 5300 CRAIGIE JAN 689 BEACH ST ASHLAND; OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 391E16AA 5000 FINKLE PETER L 785 BEACH ST , . ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10SO 391E16AA SZOO BATES KAREN L TRUSTEE ET AL 711 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2OOS-10S0 391El6AA 2702 CROSS CLAIRE F 714 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 391E16AB 3405 HAY RICHARD L TRUSTEE FBO 15 S PIONEER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 P.~9S 19S9 191RlfiAI> fi999 PA#200S-10SO 391E16AA 5100 HQ.WAlID JUl>ITH I..'I>EWEY S1'RVBN:-;~";.~GP -u",.~,_ 891 BBA-CH 8T 4043 PIEDMONT AVE 254 A8HLAI'JD, OR 97329 OAKLAND, CA 94611 RETURNED PA#200S-10S0 391E16AD 6200 KURTZ-WALSH PROPERTY LLC 831 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 391E16AD 6100 MC KINLEY DOROTHY A/MC KINLEY GEORGE W 795 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 391E16AA 5600 REEVE BARBARA B 665 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ..... PA#200S-10S0 391E16AA 7200 SEULEAN DAVID P AlNANCY S 1546 BUTLER CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A#2OOS-1050 AMRHEIN MARK 804 ROCA ST. ASHLANI}. OR 97520 PA#2ooS-10S0 SHOSTROM DEAN , 720 LIBERTY ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 391E16AD 6201 LANDES JONATHAN 800 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2ooS-10S0 391E16AA 7100 NASH VICTOR T 684 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 Pf.#299S 19S9 391R1fi.\R 3~99 RICH..\RIlE<>>r IMJB 7~ fi1fi7 AUI DR &AIW:'~ :K:ONA, HI 9~719 RETURNED p..~993 19S9 391R1fif.A 7399 8HOSTROU DB.\N 773 LlB9tTY ST ASHL\NP, OR 91S29 RETURNED PA#2OOS-1050 391E16AA 7301 SINCERNYSTEPHEN C1SWORT DENISE lEAN 790 LmERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 SHOSTROM DALE 309 NORm PIONEER STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 5'1 PA#2ooS-10S0 391E16AA 7001 COKER ELIZABETH H 676 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, CA 97520 PA#200S-10S0 39IE16AA 5400 DEMOSS KATE 82 WOODHAMS RD . SANTA CLARA, CA 95051 P:'Jf2993 1930 391R1fi:\B J399 H..\ Y RICH.\RD L TRUSTBR FBO IS S PI<>>lBm ST :\SHJ...MID, OR 97S29 P A#2OOS-1 050 ..SJNCERNY STEPHEN/DENISE SWORT t; 790 LIBERTY ASHLAND, OR 97520 PAJf299S 1939 391B1~:\D fi292 LANDES JoNATH:.\N 899 LIBERTY 81' :\SHLAlID, OR 97329 PA#200S-10S0 391E16AB 3400 NOONE KEVIN G/JOANNE 681 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 391E16AAS500 SECHAN FRED G - TRUSTEE 3121 DATOAVE HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 P A#200S-1 050 MEYERS TOM POBOX 881 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0' 39lE16AA2703 WORKMAN ANGELA J/WEEDEN DERRICK LEE 775 GLENWOOD DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A#200S-1050 EAGLE-EYE SURVEYING CO. , PO BOX 4397 MEDFOR, OR 1')7501 JACK DAVIS CHRISTIAN E. HEARN" SUSAN VOGEl SAlAOOFFi DAVID L SMITH't JENNIFERA. BRIDGES JENNIFER L. CRANE E BAM B, DAVIS - Retired mONEY E. AINSWORTH (1927-2003) llONALD M, PINNOCK - Retired DAVID V, GILSTRAP - Of Counsel . Also Admitted to Practlce In CA i Also Admitted to Practlce In DC, MD. PA and NJ t L,L,M, In TaxatiOn ' E Also Admitted to Practlce In UT LAW A Professional Corporation 515 EAST MAIN STREET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (541) 482-3111 FAX (541) 488-4455 www.davlsheam.com July 5, 2005 "JUL 5 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 51 WINBURN WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 A TTN: Susan Yates RE: Request for Public Hearing Before the Ashland Planning Commission 'Planning Action: #2005-01050 Subject Property: 720 and 730 Liberty Street Owner/Applicant: Dale Shostrom Dear Ms. Yates: I represent Eric P. Jones, owner of the property located at 725 Beach Street in Ashland. Mr. Jones' property abuts the Applicant's property in Planning Action #2005-01050, the rear of Mr. Jones' parcel sharing a property line with the rear of the subject property. Mr. Jones hereby formally requests a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission on Planning Action #2005-01050. The grounds upon which the Department's preliminary decision' concerning approval of the application should be reversed on modified include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The proposed partition is in conflict with laws, ordinances, and resolutions applicable to the land. Section 18. 76.050(D). 2. The partitioning is not in accordance with the design and street standards contained in Chapter 18.88. Alley is of insufficient width and design, and already serves too many units, to allow the new partition, especially when existing accessory dwelling units are taken into account. Section 18.76.050(E). ' 3. Adequate public facilities do not exist to allow the partition, particularly sufficient alley width, storm drainage system, and fire apparatus access and turnaround. Section 18.76.050(F). 4. The access requirements interposed by Section 18.76.050(G) are not met. ~o ( July 5, 2005 Page -2- 5. While alley access exists adjacent to the partition, and access via th(~ alley is proposed by the application, the alley is of insufficient with and design to accommodate the proposed development. Section 18.76. fJSO(H). . 6. The conditions required by Section 18.76.050 are not met by the application. Section 18. 76.060(A). 7. The conditions imposed by Section 18,76.060 are not met by the application, since the alley is of insufficient width and standards to accommodate the partition. Section 18. 76.060(B). ,"! 8. Adequate turnaround as definedhy the;pmQrmance guidelines and the Fire Apparatus Access Road guidelines are not met. Section 18. 76.060(B). 9. The proposed flag lot has insufficient number of parking spaces to eliminate the necessity of backing out. Section 18.76.060(C). 10. The structure will he more than 24 feet in height when properly measured from the bottom of the foundation, requiring a fire work area of 20' by 40' within 50 feet of the structure. Section 18. 76.060(B). 11. The proposed flag lot does not meet the minimum useable yard area requirements. Section 18.76.060(J). 12. Through the application of development standards, potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have not heen adequately considered, and adverse impacts have not been minimized. Section 18.62,040(I)(I). '13~. ...~.. The applicant has not adequately considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate potential hazards caused by the. development. Section 18.62.040(1)(2). These include but are not limited to fire safety concerns, alley access deficiencies, and storm drainage issues. 14. The applicant has not taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse: impact on the environment. Section 18.62. 040(I)(3). 15. Mr. Jones and other neighbors are also concerned ahout the amount offill required to develop this project, the tree protections issues, and the slope of the parcels involved. 'I DAVIS, HEARN, SALAOOFF & SMITH A Professional Cotporation 515 EAST MAIN STREET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (541) 482-3111 FAX (541) 488-'1455 ; :' July 5, 2005 Page -3- I understand this wmlikely be set for a public hearing on August 10. Please be so kind as to confirm date and time of public hearing when it is determined. Thanks. Sincerely, DA VIS, HEARN:, SALADOFF & SMITH A Professional Corporation C~ CHRISTIAN E. HEARN CEH/dc cc: Eric P. Jones ":;L DAVIS, HEARN, SALADOFF & SMITH A Professional Corporation 515 EAST MAIN STREET ASHlAND, OREGON 97520 (541) 482-3111 FAX (541) 488-4455 tSusan Yates - Re: /'-" \ I I PaQE From: To: Subject: Susan Yates Eric P Jones Re: Hello Mr. Jones, In CJ'g,~to speak at a hearing regarding PA2005-01 050, you or someonewilftneed to mak:e a requestfc:W~~ public hearing. You eluded to that in your note, but we need an official request for a hearing. The request . 'should contain your reasons for objecting to the application based on the approval criteria" It would be best if you either faxed or mailed your signed request. (Fax - 541-552-2050 or mail to City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520.) We can accept an e-mail request for hearing, bUlt it should be followed up by a signed reqeust. , I am e-mailing you a copy of the notice and applicable criteria. If you decide to request a public hearing, we are required to re-notice the application and i1t will likely be scheduled for our next Hearings Board meeting to be held August 9, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. I will make a copy of the applicant's findings and mail them to you at the address you've provided. I hope that covers the questions you had. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you. Sue Yates >>> "Eric P Jones" <ericpjones@comcast.net> 6/25/2005 2:35:28 PM >>> Ms. Yates, My name is Eric P. Jones. I own the property at 725 Beach Street, which will be affected by the proposed Planning Action #2005-01050. I want to notify the department of my intention to appear at the hearing on this matter and register my objections to the planned action. I am writing you to ask: 1. Is this note sufficient written notice to reserve my write to speak at the public hearing? 2. The copy of the notification of the proposed action I received by fax from a neighbor is streaked- can you send me a clean copy, either here by email or to myhomeaddress:4445 Fair Avenue, Oaklanti, CA 94619-2924 ASAP? -., -1 )1 ~ !Y' I vV \11A.. 0 ,D; lP 3. Can you also let me know how to get a copy of the application and the staff report in advance of the hearing? My phone number is 510-482-0936, or of course you can reply here. Thank you for your assistance, Eric Jones t,8 ATTN; LEGAL PUBUCAncC.; (ANDREA) ( MEEnNG NonCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ashland Planning Department pre"ml~rlly approved the fOllowing requests. The actions will be reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board at 1 :30 p.m. on July 12, 2005 at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, lOR. No public testimony is allowed at,Jhis review. Any affected property owner or resident ,has aright to make a written request for a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission prior to 4:30p.I1l., July 5,2005 to the Planning Department, 51Winbum Way, Ashland, OR. Request for, a Conditional Use Permit to construct an accessory residential unit on the western portion of the parcel adjacent to Terrace street for the property located at 249 Hillcrest Drive. Request lor a Corlditional Use Permit and Site Review to construct a 4,900 square foot storage building in the existing maintenance facjli~ of . the Oregon Department of Transportation for the property located at 706 Tolman Creek Rd. The proposed building is centrally located in the parcel, and will house ~xisting maintenance equipment. ~t.I~tpI:, a Conditional Use Per.mltand Site Review approval to convert the seven apartments toseven;OGndGmiftiums':;fpr~.property located at 928 Glendale Ave. Request for a Land Partition to divide one existing parcel into two parcels including a flag lot at the rear for th4~ property located at 1673 Parker Street. . Request for Site Review approval for the construction of an approximately 4,000 square-foot office building located within the Washington Street Professional Plaza at 526 Washington St. Request for a Land Partition to aeate a flag lot from the rear of two existing parcels for the properties located at 720 and 730 LIberty St. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to construct a driveway across a Riparian Drainage, and to create a parcel with slopes 25% and greater In Hillside Lands. . Request for Site Review approval and Conditional Use Permit for the second-story expansion of the Ashland Creek Inn to construct two additional overnight accommodation units for the property located at rO Water St. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is also requested for the second-story addition because the site Is located In the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Request for Final Plan approval for an eight-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option for the property located at 400 E. Nevada St., within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area, The development requests Sit~ Review approval for an eight-unit multi- family residE!ntial development. In compliance with the AmerIcans with DIsabilities Act, If you need special assistance to partidpate In this meeting, please mntact the Oty AdministratOr's office at (541) 488-6002 (TrY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dty,to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting {28 (:FR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). By order of the Planning Director John L.1cLaughiin Publish: 6/30/05 Date e-mailed: 6/23/05 . Purchase Order: 65494 ,~ (, (' ATTN: (ANDREA) - LEGAL PUBLICATIONS PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE Public comment 9Qnpeming the projecfs landscaping plan will be taken on July.7, 2005 between 5:30 and 7:00 p.m. at the Community Developrn,ent and Engineering offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an accessory residential unit on the western portion of the parcel adjacent to Terrace Street for the property located at 249 Hillcrest DrIve. Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to CQrlstruct a 4,900 square foot storage building in the existing maintenance facility of the Oregon Department of Transportation for the property located at 706 Tolman Creek Rd. The proposed building is centrally located In the parcel, an~ will house existirig maintenance equipmenlL ">j~equest for a ConditionalcUse.Permlt -and. Site Review approval to convert the seven apartfiIMts;':tcf"~2~;>~~.>.') , . condominiums for the property loCated at 928 Glendale Ave. Request for a Land Partition to divide one existing parCel into two parcels including a flag lot at the rear, 1673 Parker Street. Request for Site Review approval for the construction of an approximately 4,000 square-foot office building located within the Washington Street Professional Plaza at 526 Wuhlngton st. Request for a Land Partition to aeate a flag lot from the rear of two existing parcelS for the properties kx:ated at 720 and 730 LIberty St. A PhySical Constraints ReView Permit is requested to construct a driveway aaoss a Riparian Drainage and to aeate a parcel with slopes 25% and greater in Hillside Lands. Request for a Site Review approval and Conditional Use Permit for the second-story expansion of the ,Ashland Creek Inn to construct two additional overnight accommodation units for the property located at' 70 Water &'t. A PhySical Constraints Review Permit is also requested for the second-story addition because the site is located in the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Request for Final Plan approval for an eight-lot subdivision under the Performance S~ndards Option for the property located at 400 E. Nevada St., within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area. The development requests SIte Review approval for an eight-unit multi-family residential development, ., ", In compliance with the Ameticans with Disabilities Ad, if yOu need special assistance to partldpate In thls meeting, please contact the Oty Administrator's office at (541) ~2 (T1Y phOne rllI11ber 1-800-735-29OQ). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to I1'l8ke reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). . . By the order of the Planning Director John McLaughlin Publish: 6/28/05 Date e-malled: 6/23/05 Purchase Order: 65494 ".~ 1l'.1I .,-~ Planning Departmen~ 5(",ibum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 ( 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashlarid.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 CITY OF ASHLAN[ PLANNING ACTION: 2005-01050 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 and 730 Liberty St. OWNER/APPLICANT: Dale Shostrom DESCRIPTION: Land Partition to create a flag lot from the rear of two existing parcels for the properties located at 720 and 73tUbertySt '. A Physical 0on'ltralnts RevlewPennlt Is. requested to construct a driveway across a Riparian Drainage and to create a parcel with slopes 25% and greater In Hillside Lands. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential District; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map: 391E 16 AA; Tax lot 7302. NOTE: Public comment concerning the project's landscaping plan will be taken on July 7, 2005 between 5:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering building located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL: June 22, 2005 ASHLAND PLANNINGCOMf,tSSION HEARINGS B9ARDMEETING: July 12, 2.005, 1:30 PM DEADLINE FOR REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING: July 5, 2005, 4:30 PM // o 'l The Ashland Planning Department Staff have preliminarily approved this request. This p1,ming action will be reviewed by thn Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board on the meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the Ashland CIvIc Center, 1175 East Main Street, As,hland, Oregon. No Dublic testimonv Is allowed at this I'Elvlew. . Any effected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission on this don. To exerciSe this right, a WRInEN request must be received In the Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above.. The written request for the public hearing must Include your name, address, the file number (If the planning action and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on' the applicable criteria. If YC;>Y D9 NOT, SPECIFIC~~ Y REQUEST A PUBLIC H~I~G bv the dea411ne time .n~ date stated a~ve; there will be no Dubllc te",lmonv D8~I#~, If a hearing Is requested. It~l.besCheduledfor'ltle:lPUowlng month. Unless there Is a continuance, If a participant so reqUEtSts before the conclyslOl'!ofll1e hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application. either In person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the Issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection Is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to aRow this Commission to respond to thE! issue precludes an action for damages In circuit court. A copy of the application. all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost. If requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reaSonable cost, If requested. All materials are available at the Ashland PbtnnIrlg Departmentr,Communlty Development and e:nglneerlng Services, 51 W1nbur1'1 Way, Ashland. Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request. please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, 541-552-2041. O:~lIIIiIIalNollcca Malledl200s.o10S0,doe MINOR LAND PARnnON'C~ (Section 18.76.050) If the proposed partition does n,ot appear to comply with the reqUirements for routine administrative approval, the proposal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and approved when the following conditions exist: , . , A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be Impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be Impeded: ' C. The tract of land has not been. partitIOned for 12 months. ' D. The partitioning Is not In conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land. E. The partitioning is InaCC.Ql"dance with the design ancl street. standards contained In the Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Orel 2836 S8, 1999) - F.' When there exists adequate pUblic facilities, or proof that such fadlltles can be provided, as determined by the Public Works' Director and Specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, stann sewer, and electrldty. G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of.the parcel to the nearest fully Improved collector or arterial street, as designated In the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be Improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. .' 1. The Publlt Works, Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when all of the following conditions exist: . a. The unpaved street Is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully Improved collector or arterial street. b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. 2. Should the partition be on an un'paved street and paving Is not required, the'appllcant shall agree to participate In the costs and to waive the,r,lgh~,of#leovmer,pfthesubject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to partlclpaterrv" the cost of fullstreetlmprovements-8fld'to not remonstrate to the fonnatlon of a local Improvement district to cover such.'."~ Improvements and costs thereof. Full street Improvements shalllndude paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergroundlng of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and If the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.' . H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757,1995) fLAG PARTITIONS Section 18.76.060 Preliminary Approval of Flag Partitions. Partitions Involving the creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission If the following conditions are satisfied: A. Conditions of the preVious section have been met. B. Except as provided In subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives sh~red by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. (Ord. 281551, 1998) Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public: ways. Flag drives shall be In the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance. flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may be granted for flag drfvesforgr'ades In excess of 15% but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the crft4!rla for approval as found In 18.100. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet In height, as defined !n 18:08.290, shall proVide a Fire Work Area of 20 feet by 40 feet within 50 feet of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived If the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system Installed.. . . Rag drives and firework areasshcill be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Unifonn Fire Code aM subject to all requirements thereof. Rag drive.s greater than 250 feet In length shall proVide a turnaround as defined. In the Perfonnance Standards Guidelines In 18.88.090. C. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated in such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for backing out. ' D. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. E. Both sides of the f1agdrlVEi.have,beelucreenedwith a site-obscuring fence, wall or evergreen hedge to a height of from four to six feet, exCept In the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 Inches In the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed at the extrerne outside of thE! flag drive In order to ensure adequate fire access. F. Thuppllcant has executed and filed with the Planning Director an agreement between applicant and the dty for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall spedfy the period within which the applicant, or agent fclr applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the DI~or of Public Works, and screening 8S required by this section, and providing that If applicant should fall to,colTlplete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening to standards as Indicated In this section and the assurance that such maintenance shall be continued. G. A site plan has been approved by the Plimnlng Commlsslon,Theslteplan shallbe:approved provided the I'Iegulatlons of the zoning and subdivision titles are satisfied. Such a site plan shaU contain the map requirements listed In Sectlo.n 18.76.050 and the following Infonnatlon: . 1. The location of driveways, tur:narounds parking spaces and useable yard areas. 2. The lOcation and type of screening. ~ 1 ...;#...... O:lcomm-deY'c>lIIIalDa\Notlcel t.WW.2oo5-4I050,cIoc 3. For site plans of a flag lot, the bulldlllt' 1lf'Ivelope shall be Identltled. H. No more than two lots are served by flag drive. , I. For the purpose of meeting the mlnlml.lll'lot area requirement, the lot area, exduslve tI, me flag dr1ve area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements at the zoning dlsb1ct ' ' ' J. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a' minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used In this chapter, the tenn "useable yard area" means a private yard area which Is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from ' the ground upward., , K. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval; 2. No screening and paVing requirements shall be required for the flagpole; 3. A four toot pedestrian path shall be Installed within the flag pole, Improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface from the street to the buildable area of the flag lot; 4. The flag pole width shall be no les.s than eight feet wide and the entrance of ~e pole at the street shall be Identified by th.e address of the flag lot deariy visible frQmthe street on a 4- X 4" post 3112 feet:hlgh. The post shall be paInted white with black numbers 3 Inches high running vertically clown the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings,' the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two feet by three feet white sign clearly visible from the street with three Inch black numbers. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995) PHYSICAL It ENVIRONMENTAL CONS~flAINTS 18.62.040.1 I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be ,Issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential Impacts to the propelrty and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse Impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and Implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. . 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse Impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider Ithe existing development of the surrounding area, and the ,maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 51, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) ~'-=h ~f O:~llIIld",IN0ticc8 MIi\0d\200S-oI050,cIoc ( (' AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1 . I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On June 22. 2005, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Public Meeting Notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2005-01050. ~2~~Ar<~ Signatu of Employee SIGNED AND SWORNTO before me this 22 day of June, 2005. _' OFFICIAL SEAL B. BOSWELL NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 391525 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR. 07, 2009 ~ Notary Pu~lic. for Sta.te of ol/lon ~ E:JT My Commission Expires:, '1 0 -:Of I ", I;; r G:\comm-devlplaoolnglFonns & HandoutslAFFIOAVIT OF MAILlNG,doc P..A#2ooS-10S0 391E16AB 3407 AFSE1H GARY N 695 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 391El6AA 5300 ' CRAlGffi IAN 689 BEACH ST ASHLAND,OR97S20 PA#200S-lOS0 391E16AA 5000 FINKLE PETER L 785 BEACH ST, ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 391E16AD 6000 HOW ARDJUDITH UDEWEY STEVEN 801 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 391E16AD 6200 KURTZ-WALSH PROPERTY LLC 831 LmERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2ooS-10S0 391E16AD 6100 MC KINLEY DOROTHY AlMC KINLEY GEORGE W 795 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2ooS-10S0 391E16AA 5600 REEVE BARBARA B 665 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2ooS-10S0 391E16AA 7200 SEULEAN DAVID P AlNANCY S 1546 BUfLER CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ... P A#2ooS-10S0 AMRHEIN MARK. 804 ROCA ST. ASHL~~ OR 97520 P A#2OOS-10S0 SHOSTROM DEAN 720 LIBERTY ASHLAND, OR 97520 (0'" ," PA#200S-10S0 391E16AA 5200 BATES KAREN L TRUSTEE ET AL 711 BEACHST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-IOSO 391E16AA 2702 CROSS CLAIRE F 714 BEACH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 391E16AB 3405 HAY RICHARD L TRUSTEE FBO 15 S PIONEER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 . PA#200S-10S0 ,3.91E16AA 5100 JONES ERI€'p;. "" 4043 PIEDMONT AVE 254 OAKLAND, CA 94611 PA#2ooS-10S0 391E16AD 6201 LANDES 10NATHAN 800 LmERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 391E16AA 7100 NASH VIcrOR T 684 LmERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2005-10S0 391E16AB 3600 RICHARDSON lANE 76-6167 ALll DR KAILUA-KONA, ill 9674Q PA#200S-10S0 391E16AA 7300 SHOSTROM DEAN 775 LmERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 391E16AA 7301 SINCERNY STEPHEN C/SWORT DENISE JEAN 790 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2ooS-10S0 SHOSTROM DALE 309 NORTH PIONEER STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 "l'() (" PA#200S-10,SO 391E16AA 7001 COKER ELIZABETH H 676 LmERTY ST ASHLAND, CA 97520 PA#200S-10~)O 391E16AA 5400 DEMOSS KATE 82 W60DHAMS RD ' SANTA CLARA, CA9S0S1 P.AJf2995 19$9 391E16.'\B 3500 H.A.Y RICHARD L TRUSTBE mo 15 S PIONEER ST ASHLAND, OR 97529 PA#200S-10S0 SINCERNYSTEPHENIDENISE SWORT 790 LmERTY ASHLAND. OR 97520 PA#29951950 391EI6AD 6202 L:\NI)ES JONATHAN 809 LIBBRTY-S+ ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-10S0 39lEI6AB 3400 NOONE KEVJ!N G/I0ANNE 681 LIBERTY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#200S-IOSO 39lE16AA 5500 SECHAN FRED G - TRUSTEE 3121 DATO AVE HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 P A#200S-1 050 MEYERS TOM PO BOX 881 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA#2ooS-10S0 391E16AA2703 WORKMAN ANGELA l/WEEDEN DERRICK LEE 775 GLENWOOD DR ASHLAND. OR 97520 P A#200S-1 050 EAGLE-EYE SURVEYING CO. PO BOX 4397 MEDFOR, OR 97501 i.'t217 " , V". f i..- ~.".,'.'.,','~...,."",'..", : r..,. " F' ' 5 .0 '",., R .1,.:'."221..,.,. ..,.,',',,1' j , J 391E11AB UI I J I '" <(\~ \, ~. 'I..v........... ".,....., .\~,V. ~-- y.-' UO ~'I -?} U \) ..-:t ." -------j .. ... ~/" ,/ ~,/ , 391E11AC 100 -.I, //' ~' CJao1 o 68GO , (', [] .g '1] ~ 391e11AA ~, -L~ i[)nOO II .. O[ ~ I I' DI 0", ,. .54f!:]l 1:] : D 7300 ~ / 3100 l llr:l I I'~ .r7 5200 ,I l //"/ Iii I ~.. ~i i ~ i!:; ..f!' c'~"'l ,'T,.'..l I: . : '1g!O:. I. 6200 ~.rl o "L.J 'a QJ. q r'-.....-....rr--.J-~ \.1-....-....,...,--....:.) -----... ....., ~ -..... ""/l.....~ ../.... ~1./ Ill- 201 -rocydo---go8do - 720n30 Uberty . MLP Front CounlIIr Le"nd --- .......... o Taa LGtOulI.... T...... .......n ~~ d JACKSON COUNTY oregon , ThIo.....II......,....dIgilII..... oompIod by _ Counll' FnIm. VIIiIly " of_ -Counll'-oacopl , ~for......___or ..-... _. n....'1IO _.-..op.lllll I ',--, l...... . . II ~. I PA #2005-01050 720-730 LIBERTY ST SUBJECT PROPERTY - '~ r-..; f . rl fI I ~ f I r r f I rr I, i [ ~ f' l j. [ I rr 11 rr H II 11 U U U U j JHOJTRPM ~RPJ LTD. DESIGNERS' BUILDERS PLANNING COMMISSION and ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF ASHLAND June 10, 2005 REQUEST: Minor Land Partition SITE: 730 Liberty Street - Map 39 lE16AA-7302 ZONING: R-I-7.5, Single Family Residential District APPLICANT: Dean Shostrom, Owner REPRESENTATIVE: Dale Shostrom, ShostromBros., Ltd, SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION: This is a request for a minor land partition to divide the 1/2 acre property at 730 Liberty Street into (2) lots of approximate 10,000 sfand 15,000 sf The existing house fronts Liberty Street, and to the rear, the new lot will be accessed by vehicle from the alley between Liberty Street and Beach Street Pedestrian access will be from an 8 ft. ,Nide 'flag pole' extending to the Liberty Street frontage. This sloping wooded site with an existing drainageway bisecting the two proposed lots requires a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review and aTreePreservation and Protection Plan to insure the native trees and ecology will be retained to the greatest extent possible, The relevant ordinances and design standards are addressed in the following 'Findings of Fact' . Jib Dale Shostrom Representative R. "'= (, "\ r-: ~ \ ! /!'"7 D i._ J't..-I " ...~: JUN 1 0 2005 13 C,, .. ~'_'~ ~ r"'''' ~..) ~I' /I> .' d I '. .,..... ," ~"'"'j . . .;-...J oj ~ ~ ",,~...l i' 309 NORTH PIONEER STREET, ASHLANO, OREGON 97520 541-482-9781 - FAX-488-2767 r , I 1 ;; , , r I ! r 1 i I n . f I ! ! j i I r r ! j i f , 1 ! i f , 1 . ! , i t . r I p 1 r L , ! t--t r r II r J '. 1 I I J Shostrom - 730 Liberty Street Minor Land Partition - Findings of Fact PROJECT TEAM INFORMATION Owner/Applicant: Dean Shostrom 720 Liberty Street Ashland, OR 97520 541 482-4564 Agent: Dale Shostrom Shostrom Bros LTD 309 North Pioneer Street Ashland, OR 97520 541 482-9761 Surveyor: Eagle-Eye Surveying Corporation P. 0, Box 4397 Medford, OR 97501 541 512-1520 Geotechnical Engineering: Mark Amrhein Amrhein Assoc, Inc. 804 Roca Street Ashland, OR 97520 541 482-6680 Arborist: Tom Myers p, O. Box 881 Ashland, OR 97520 541482-3667 RECEIVED JUN 1 0 2005 C~" ".".. '~d ~ ..:/ v II ~ ...."""" II L ~ ~..~ i 1f z fif I, r' i I r I, ! [ 11 I. rt I I I. I! ; j . I : [ I r .. ! ! 1 . i 1 I ! t1 I r , 1 r ,1 r ~ I f 1 J .' Shostrom - 730 Libe~ Street Minor Land Partition - Findings of Fact . FINDINGS OF FACTS The following is an outline of the Chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinances . that are deemed applicable, in whole or in part, to this Minor Land Partition Application: . ORDINANCES AND STANDARDS Page '.":Jtc :- 18.20 Single-Fainily Residential District 4 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 4 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints 5 18.62.070 Flood plain Corridor Lands 5 18.62.075 Riparian Preservation Lands 6 18.62.080 Hillside Lands '6 18.76 Minor Land Partition 7 . EXHmITS-A TTACHED Site Plan - (Partial 11 x 17) Tree Protection Site Plan - (Partial 11 X 17) Tree Protection and Removal Plan - Exhibit A Geotechnical Engineering Report - Exhibit B 9 10 11 20 . OTHER SUBMISSIONS Site Plan - Sheet 1 of 2 (24 X 36) Tree Protection Site Plan - Sheet 2 of 2 (24 X 36) /, RECEIVED JUN 1 0 2005 City cr /\~;iL~.~ld '15 "3 n i i , , I 1 Shostrom - 730 Liberty Street Minor Land Partition - Findings of Fact f 1 i i l P l 1 Chapter 18.20 - Single-Family Residential District ! ! 1 i i 1 730 Liberty Street is a 23,598 sq. ft. lot (.545 acres) in a residential zoning ofR-1-7.5 (7500 s,f. min, lot area). By dividing this large property into two parcels we will provide a quiet wooded environment for a modestly sized house on approximate 15,000 s.f. ofland. The lot width is 132', lot depth 143', and yard setbacks are easily satisfied as is the maximum building height and the maximum lot coverages. Three off-street parking spaces shall be provided with one space on the adjacent lot. f I fl , I I i 1 i Chapter 18.61 - Tree Preservation and Protection I : 730 Liberty is covered with a variety of native trees and shrubs species in a heavi!ly shaded drainage way. Every effort feasible will be made to minimize the removal of trees and to protect the inventory from the damage of grading, road building, and construction. The proposed driveway and building envelope have been located with wood stake:s to identify their location on site. I ~ I I I r d A Tree Conservation, Protection, and R~moval Plan is required on Hillside Lands. This report entitled 'Tree Protection Plan for 730 Liberty Street' is attached (Exhibit A). A 'Tree Protection Site Plan' attached (Sheet 2 of2) identifies the number of trees, size, species and location of all trees to be protected, removed, or replaced on the site, The 1/2 acre lot includes 96 trees ranging in size from 6" to 36" in diameter. Four (4) trees greater than 6" in diameter are to be removed for driveway requirements and one in the proposed building envelope, Three (3) trees are very near the roadbed and extra care will be taken to save them. ! r ; I Ll T i ! Trees over 6" are marked on site with yellow ribbon flagging.tapeand,Q.u,mbered for reference in the arborists report, The trees to be removed are identified on site by pink ribbon flagging tape as required for a verification permit. The removal will take place within 6 months of approval. r , i There are no heritage trees on the subject property. r i 1 Hazard trees to be removed are identified and discussed by the arborist in his report (Exhibit A attached). r 1 The proposed trees to be removed have been carefully minimized to accommodate only the entrance driveway and a modest building envelope. Other potential locations for the .I J 1/0 RE'CEIVED JUN 1 0 2005 Ciiy 0'1 t\sJ'w~8nd 4 r: I ; I. Shostrom - 730 Liberty Street Minor Land Partition - Findings of Fact f! p 1 i ; t} I j ~ ( , driveway and/or building envelope have been explored but no reasonable alternate exists, The arborisfreport supports that the tree removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface water; tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. , r ! ; 1 i The applicant proposes that native trees be replanted adjacent to the entrance driveway to mitigate the trees removed in this area, Additionally, the removal of English Ivy from existing tree trunks will be implemented to increase the health of these infested tmes, rr Ii . . p j : L Fencing and signage to protect the trees, drainageway, and reparian zones will be in place ""8.ndinspected~prior"to any construction activity. The applicant agrees to a Perfonnance Security if required by the City Of Ashland, I r I; Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints r ' i i .:. The partitioning and development of730 Liberty Street Will follow a safe and environmental approach that will protect and preserve, to the maximum extent possible, the natural grades and native landscape features of this land. The property is subj,ect to the development standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands, Reparian Reserve Lands, and Hillside Lands to satisfy the requirements of a physical constraints review permit. A geotechnical engineer has been consulted to insure that proper procedures and methods will be employed, rr 11 r ? i ~ I ! [ T ! 1 H 18,62,070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor r , I 1 The 20 ft. wide drainageway is classified as Flood plain Corridor,Lands: l'hesestandards and requirements are addressed in detail in the geotechnical report entitled 'Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Report' (Exhibit B). Briefly, the only construction fill dirt in the flood plain corridor will only occur where the driveway crosses the drainageway, The driveway crossing has been engineered and includes structural fill (two to three feet maximum depth), slope protection, and culverting, The propos,ed habitable floor level will be approximately 14 ft. above the road crossing which would be considered flood level and located 30 ft, laterally from the drainageway central line, (the proposed basement garage is 5 ft above and also 30 ft away respectively), , 1 I r 1 No fences, decks, or other structures are planned in the drainageway or reparian lands, Utilities shall cross the drainageway under the proposed driveway as per specificaltions in the geotechnical report attached, 1 J R. rr:CE-~\/r:D h_ i ;; .... JUN 1 0 2005 11 City of Ashh::nd IS r r Shostrom - 730 Liberty Street Minor Land Partition - Findings of Fact r r 1 j j , ! I j , I I; 18.62.075 Development Standards for Reparian Preservation Lands ,r ~ i Any trees over 6" d.b,h. shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. All other native trees and shrubs of any size shall be saved for habitat and erosion control if at all possible. Fills, culverting, and utility crossing shall be minimized. I i f J , ' j t I 1862.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands ! f I ; i j The partitioned lot will be developed with every effort to protect the character of the natural topography and mitigate any, soil erosion, severe cutting,or,scaring of the site, A geotechnical study, as required under this section, details site geology, grading, emsion, drainag~ retaining wall design, driveway construction, and foundation requirements. (Exhibit B attached). f ~ i ' ! ; "1 ~, I' 11 The subject properties topography and natural grades have been altered over the years by the development of roads, driveways, home sites, and city utility installations, These activities, mostly in the form of relocated excess fill dirt, have created steeper fill slopes and unusually flat pads on this and adjacent properties, The existing grades and original historic natural grades are shown on the site plan at 10' contour intervals. Cross sections are also included for clarification, f! I L r I : ~ , I ! } These fills have impacted the site development in two areas, The first affected location is in the city alley where the proposed driveway will begin and extend to the house, JFills from two house excavations in the early 1980' s were pushed toward the eastern property line and into the alley to create a private road and level ground above, These fill slopes are 3' to 7' high, approximately 90' long and average 50% to 60% grades (the original historic natural grades were approximately 20%), To make room for the driveway' a 2' -5' high stacked block wall will retain the vertical cut bank eliminating those steep grades altogether; the geotechnical report details the treatment of this area. The finished driveway grades will be between 3 and 15%. l 1 '", - t T I 1 The second affected area is in the location of the building envelope. This area was probably disturbed by the installation of a City Of Ashland sanitary sewer line and the construction of a residence at 790 Liberty Street in 1970, The natural grade in the buildable area was originally between 22-25% slope, The disturbed or existing grades show a nearly flat bench or pad that is 35' x 75' at the southern property line. Thle back half of the building envelope is here and the front half falls on slopes of 35% with a narrow band (8-10' wide) of 40% slope in one area, The excavated basement garage will take the R, "=:f''' ~ ~'} or-: D l "- '(,...1 ii-.I .. __ f ~ 1<6 JUN 1 0 2005 City of Asi"~~und b 1 ! , , , j Shostrom - 730 Liberty Street Minor Land Partition - Findings of Fact ! r r ! j i f · I \ I, place of the steeper slopes and the flat area above will be at floor level of the proposed residence leaving plenty of yard space with southern exposure. ' H I , j 1 To further minimize the impacts on both the hillside lands and the visual character of the neighborhood the owner agrees to the following self-imposed restrictions, The residence be limited a maximum of 1800 sq,ft. floor area above the garage level or less, ,No accessory unit will be permitted. The remainder of the property will remain in a natural state - approximately 65% (55% required), f r 1, p ; L 18.76 Minor Land Partitions ! . l . The newly created lot has alley access and therefore will have only a 'flag pole' of frontage on Liberty Street. This flag pole, 8 ft, in width, will provide pedestrian aecess from Liberty Street via a 4 ft, pathway to the new home site. The path shall be made of paver blocks and be identified with the address on a white 4 x 4 post at Liberty Street. r 1l j " f t The new driveway to serve the partitioned lot is an extension of the 18' alley that begins on Ashland Street and is between Liberty St. and Beach Street and terminates at the subject property, The driveway is approximately 155' in length with a graded road bed 12 ft in width and slopes between 3-15%, The finish surface of this driveway is proposed to be 3/4 minus gravel to promote percolation and help maintain ground water migration for a healthy eco-system. An existing hedge to be removed for the driveway will be replaced if so desired by the affected neighbor at the expense of the applicant. . T I I 1 r ; , I j The house is required to have three (3) off street parking spaces because of the flag lot ,designation and alley access. The garage will hold 2 cars and a hammer head back-up space will let cars exit the drive in a forward direction. In an effort to protect the trees and slopes near the house, the third parking space shall be provided on the adjacenlt property (easements in perpetuity). This space shall have ingress and egress via the alley with access to the house via steps down the embankment to the driveway. , f l The City of Ashland Fire Dept. has stipulated that fire fighting access shall be from Liberty Street, down an adjacent 12 ft. wide private drive (deeded access) of 18% maximum slope or less, to a flat work area adjacent to steps that lead to the driveway and then to the house. The work area is within the 150?,lt1aximum required distance for fire access: around the house, The proposed structure will be equipped with a residential sprinkler system, The fire trucks will exit via the alley to Ashland Street. The regraded r i ! R,1CCEu~,"rr-.D Ii-. , ~ ..., J JUN 1 0 2005 11 c...,. O'~ ,Il<, "".' ',' ,-.,..,'. lei '~;'..~, ~;:...j .:".1 7 ! I " J I I f r ! i I r , 1- Shostrom - 730 Liberty Street Minor Land partition- Findings of Fact drive will have 15 ft. clearance width and an all weather road (3/4 minus gravel) will be engineered for 40,000 fire truck loads. i 1 1 r The applicant will sign in favor of street improvements to Liberty Street if required. Within twelve (12) months of the date of preliminary map approval, the land will be sUl:veyed, pins set at all comers, and a final map submitted to the Planning Dept.; incorporating any conditions or modification of the maps preliminary approval. After City approval the map will be filed with the County Clerk, County Surveyor:, and City Engineer. , ' . j.- Ii J. r · 1 . i . The final map shall be approved and pins setbefore;a building permit shall be issued. 1 r l i.1. r ' I I, r ~ I , 11 f ~ I l i ~ r .j, . ! r ,t f f 1. '1; ! 1- I r 1 F:'~"E!\!~D : I" :,'" ~ '" ,'" ...,,_v 1",_ J ~o JUN 1 0 Z005 C:~J 0'; l\shIL:nd G J . ' I : ( 0,.- -"-:'" _~Il_ JllJ ( , J ."~:<,_ ~ ,~ .... ---...._..T - - ",,- -,~,..,. "- 0, '-4~== dtVrt, . -Z/.BK./frY SF/UIF , ~, r(.....~,~ ' ft....... _.~1 ......:.. .~ --~ 441,009 t.6. . UJIf<<1. ~TY n f: ~ I :.i l. , , . > - -------- ;22a L -- .:-~~ . . j I ~ 1 , , i f f) i J ~ I J . r ~ . j --- --- --- --- --- --- " ' --- - - fSf2l1~N~g~1 (iRAQ ~~ --- ..... . I ~~f'LAN ~ ,"~'ld No(l(1l\~. -j. . ~ I ! '.......',..'.1.. . .. f i ........ ...... - - -- --- --- ,2180- t . [I'$11NG odIw:WAY a '?,,~ 4"~' 0" ' r~/~ ~~.. 'S ., fi ; f'~"- ii --(~f~ rr" ~~ J , ll- - itn: P i ; , , l i "l.O% 40,. ~'" ~% ,:' % oSLDPE _..,.._:,-,~. "".~l ,-.~-ted ~~~AV ' 'V5% "'"~1~ O~ - % $wPG.. ~~% ! . , : j i ^ ~~ -A H-t?1l>fUC \J5.~fSTI~'.'~&:?- r~ ' ~J~r" :,'z/:;;>'-t:,r" ..,.,-. .... '...', RECt:I",,''"7D 1 , ! ' 1 . '5% S$.~ ! . i .. r r I i p (i , . , I 11 +-- , l ! I u ^ t3E:C-TfON - S ' I 't& ~ "C :::.'lc'-t:I 14-1.. . JUN 1 0 2005 .~,c.. ~1iAf: ~E4S z~" , I ,-- -u eo 2nd {90~ lt1swf.,fC- V~. 0f.1.5TINLi Ct (ZA'D~ . . IS}'. ~"~j;>~;~'" ,u..___j ~"'5 ,.. , . 1 t I~I~~~ tA~ _ _ - - . 1 '~,-",- , -- -- -- ......~ -- '~ =:c, 8L<<K " ~ fttDPos&O Dt't-\VEWAy !f Ll '1 J IroT~ru.s . ~'~T1tJ4 Lor ~I-z..e.. ,~W LOT SIze.. .Iir''-OI~ I E"...c.U.D1N4 ~~tJT7 I ~ ,c., ",: ' ,',.,' '. tit'" .' ' ~_u~ ::.~ :/S I P~1\l11 ~ ',. "., LOf<:DV~ '" P~I -~. . .-....~-,,,.-...~..- ....-, lI,gb5 ~ 10, r 0(, ~ '~~ '% :7'50 zzoo . '2,..Q'70 ~ Z1~ <'(~ . P!(fZ.U.L 2- ".""-:' ....~, . -,::~.",,:,::-~-,,': t.~,1+7'$f , 0. ~1 ~F ~~ I \,0 1;00 z..&~O~ 'l.1% p~.., -9- IS, Ill? ~ , ~F:' '~o i,&tW) t...ltlO ~_t~% Q'7 ( 4-.>>_= ,~ ~~ ;) . ... .. ... ~4~) UArHrr S'f'&'..tT .. ~'- .'-' :;-:'T'-~_ t t t ! l ~ 'I" ti~~t~~ 't.t~~-IS~, ,. /l4W. ~ ".,y ~tlOO .... ~ ~"'n, C,, C' ~-"~~"-d r~"-' i. ,1,". ~: 'l '," v ","- ~ Itj J i'.;,.., l~~.i M \ . ~ ~ . , L. ~.. ~...~~'--~ - -~ ,.v,}....~"-';:,..., , ' i t t, t.'.,'.,.',.," .. I ( ~ i - --~- -- --, --- --- -- - -~QB'~N.IDJ~JiR@E_ PROPOSED PARCEL 1 o 232 AC f~ Pflm~oN PLAN ~ I' --w NOIVrl4- ~ <?/~o r I I i" .... - t EXISTING DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BASEMENT " GARAGE) .('L~ f - -...:: .......~...D.a ,.... f . . i rl p I I f I f , 11 1 f r r 1 1 I f I 1 L rr f . r , [ 1 , , ! t i I H , r , 1 r . x I I " , I J ~~fft,si.., A Upper Limb-it Tree Service PO Box 881 Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541-482-3667 Shostrom Bros. L TO 309 N. Pioneer , Ashland, OR 97520 51612004 Tree Protection Plan for 730 Uberty Street The Tree Protection Plan for 730 Uberty Street Is designed to address the needs of all el<lsting trees within the project. The enc10sed tree inventory details each individual tree within the proposed project including trees on neighboring properties. The tree inventory includes the radius of the tree protection zone for each tree. The trees are identified by number on the plan as well as by numbered, ribbon attached to the tree in the field. The enclosed specifications detail exactly how the trees are to be protected. The building contractor and subcontractors will meet with a certified arborist before and during construction to insure that the ,correct measures are in plaCe. The specified tree protec::tion zones (as stipulated In the enclosed tree inventory) will be drawn on the plans as weD as delineated on the site by apprOved fencing. In some cases it wi make since to erect a fence to 'isolate a ,whole group of trees with a single fence. Other trees wiD need individual fences. Trees numbered 1 through 43 are so far removed from the actual construction that fencing is not necessary. A certified arboriSt must supervise any work done within the specified tree protection zone. A certified arborist will conduct an inispection of' the trees during and after oonstruction. If you have any questions regarding this tree protection plan please call me at 482-3667. Tom Myers, Certified ~ DBA Upper Umtrit I. . . . . . ' RECEIVED JUN 1 0 Z005 CiG-I O'r l\shland '9'1 II I : L [7 , , r r J I 1 I 1 i II n :; r i l I 1 t ~ r t l . [ r p [i r r rl : r I I , t T I i r i I r J RECEIVED _~UmMt 1 0 2b 'me Serv:Ice ..IUN ' PO Box lI01 ' , ~~..!!.l52ll .. - - Tree Inventorv for 730 Ubertv Glty or J~ 't 8I6l2OO5 ". . t;.',--" II - T_ ~ Nldw SDecIes Crown zone I'IdIuI tIlIIruce to Tne' D8H It.Ight Rlldlua Inflllt C!OIlStructIon ConcIItIon NolIM 1 QuM:us IrItIoGaI 8 28 18 8 IIIlldenIle FlIlr Ilwlnlnle 2 ' PInus - 15 42 a 7.6 aood Good !lwlnlnle , 3 IIOCItIr*tIIIs 7 28 . 3.5 'CIOlld Good I IvY In lnle 4 Cectva Wodant a 32 a 4 CIOlld Good Iw In 1nle 5 QcMn:us IrItIoGaI 7 30 . 5.25 IIIOdlIr8III Good IvY In he 6 Cectva Wodant a 32 7 4 CIOlld , Good Iwlnlnle 7 Ffnus 14 37 7 7 aood FlIlr Iwlnlnle . Ffnus 10 34 7 5 CIOlld FlIlr Iwirllnle 9 QuM:ua IrItIoGaI 14 33 15 10.5 IIIOdIIrItIIt FlIlr 10 Ffnus 7 30 5 3.5 ICIOlld FlIlr Ilwlnlnle " 11 PInus 13 30 7 8.5 laood FlIlr IlvYlnlnle 12 QcMn:us Ir.eIIoaa6 11 36 15 8.25 modllnIIe F* IIw In lnle ImullIlrulk 13 QcMn:us IrItIoGaI 6 26 5 4.5 modllnIIe FlIlr Ilwlnlnle 14 QuM:us IrItIoGaI 6 28 4 4.5 IIIOdIIrItIIt fair IIw In he 15 Qwn:us IrItIoGaI 10 28 5 7.5 modenIle FlIlr IIw In lnle 18 AtOutus menzJesi 9 '32 6 9 I DOOr Fair I IvY In 1nle 17 Qwn:as IrItIoGaI 10 30 7 7.5 IIIlldenIle F* Iw In lnle 1. Qwn:as ..... 6 28 7 4.5 IIIlldenIle FlIlr Iwlnlnle 19 AIOufus menzJesi 8 30 5 8 DOOr FlIIr 20 Atbutua menzJesi 7 30 6 7 DOOr FlIIr Iw In lnle 21 PInus 19 ,42 6 9.5 CIOlld F* 22 8 32 5 6 IIIlldenIle F* 23 AtOutus IrI8IIZINI 11 36 15 11 DOOr F* MuIli TNlk 24 ,...., 14 20 ... mocIenIle Deed lecoh..leold far tIIbIl8llnle 25 IrI8IIZINI 14 20 ... mocIenIle Deed nlco...._1d for IlIIbllallnle 28 Qwn:as- 12 -40 15 ., aood 27 PInua , 26 80 9 19.5 laaocI F8Ir 28 ~ I<<IIIoggf 14 38 15 14 moderate Good MuIll trunk 29 Amutu:s IIIIIIJZINI 10 38 9 10 1_ Good 30 Attlutus trltIIIZfNI 10 -40 9 10 I DOOr Good 31 Qwn:us- 8 30 9 4 'CIOlld FlIlr 32 Qwn:us- 18 42 16 13.5 laaocI Good 'lwlnhe 33 ~ IItIIIZIesI 14 42 9 14 1_ FlIi' Ilwlrhe 34 Qwn:us- 14 -40 12 7 laood Goad i Iw In tree 3S MIlItua trltIIIZfNI 7 38 6 7 1_ FlIir IIw In lnle 36 10 -40 9 7.5 IllOdenIt8 Fair IvY In lnle 37 Qwn:us- 8 -40 9 4 CIOlld F8Ir Iw In he 38 - 7 42 7 5.25 modenile F* IvY In lnle1mulll1nl1l( 39 Qwn:us- 7 22 5 3,5 CIOlld Poor Iw In ne '"' Quen:ua IIIIIMIna 7 28 5 3.5 aood Poor IvY In lnle . ld 41 QllM::w_.- 7 <IS 5 3.5 aood F8Ir Iw In lnle 42 QueR:us IrItIoGaI 7 <IS 6 5.25 mocIenIle F8Ir Iw In tree ~- PInus , 12 47 5 8 aood F* ~-, PInus 16 50 7 8 aood F* Iw In he <45 Quen;ua IrItIoGaI 9 38 6 6.75 IIIlldenIle FlIIr I IVY In lnle Imulti MI, 48 IIIIIIIZieII 10 <45 IS 7.6 moderate F8Ir IIw In lnle 47 Qwn:us- . 37 16 4 ICIOlld F8Ir Ilwlnhe 48 Qwn:us ..... 7 33 12 5.25 macIenIIe Goad 49 10 38 15 5 ICIOlld Good 05 ~ "''H~ ,d, I.~ull:" 1~ 11. f' J ; f r r: i,' i ! i I I [ fI p . ~ l ; I r j L . f ' I i . I t P I ' I i , ~ H ~ t 1 . j 1 I 1 r 1 r J TIM pnlIICIIon l'IIItIwl Clown - ...... ,*--to TnNI. SpecIw DBH HeIght RIllIla In filet COIIA1ICtIon COIIcIltIorI ..-' 50 MIuIuI menzIttaI 10 34 II 10 1- Good 51 MlcM ........ 8 32 II 8 1- Good 52 QueR:us- 8 30 12 NrnOVe laoad Good TwIn Tndt Remove 53 QueR:us'1c8IoGaI 7 28 II 5.25 lIlIICIenIle Good MuIlIIrunk 54 QueR:us Ic8IoGaI 8 40 12 II lIlIICIenIle F_ MullI hi*, Ivy In "Ie 55 I"tIua 7 311 II 3.5 IlIIIlld F_ MullIIrunk.Iw In .... 56 I"tIua 24 58 12 18 laoad Good MullIIrunk, IVY In "Ie 57 CaIocecIruI ~ 10 18 6 NrnOVe lIlIICIenIle F_ Remove (In nlIlCIbe!!L_ '_____, 56 c.bclIctus~ 8 20 4 NrnOVe IIIlICler* Good Remove tin nlIlCIbe~,~~_'\ 59 . Pft:ee .,.. 8 28 4 8. modenIl8 Good 60 PInus 14 40 7 7 IlIIIlld Good Ivwv.-1OlICIbed '_1Idnl cant J 1e1 AItIcU "."".., 110 30 II NrnOVe 1- DelId Remove 62 QueR:us- 10 30 11 5 .lIIIlld Good 63 MluIus ..... 8 32 8 8 - Good fl4 MIufus--.. , 11 40 II 11 - Good ,. '" 85 PInus 36 7S 10 27 lIIIlld Good 66 PInus 32 68 II 24 aoad Good 67 PInus 28 fiO II 21 lIIIlld Good 68 QueR:us Ic8IoGaI 8 2ll 7 4.5 modenIl8 F_ 89 QlIfn;us IrlIIIootJI 10 33 9 7.5 modenIle F_ 70 10 30 5 5 IlIIIlld FlIIr Co-cIornIn8N IDD 71 QueR:us- 7 30 10 3.5 IlIIIlld Good 72 PInus 10 30 8 5 IlIIIlld FIIir Co-domInart top !3 c.bclIctus~ 7 26 4 5.25 modenIIe Good 74 CaIocecIruI ~ II 24 4 4.5 modenIle Good 75 Attlufu$ mtIIIlle$I 10 30 6 10 IDOOr F_ 76 QueR:us- 7 31 5 3.5 laoad FlIir n QueR:us- 8 33 8 4 IlIIIlld F8lr 78 QuM:ua bIIoaDI 8 38 6 6 modenIIe F_ ~ Quen:us- 6 36 4 3 IlIIIlld FlIir 80 ~- II 32 4 3 laoad F_ ---- 81 Quen:us~ 10 36 9 7.5 modenIle F_ I IVY in lnle 82 PInus 12 49 7 6 IlIIIlld FlIir I IVY In lnIe 83 Quen:us- 7 42 6 3.5 laoad F8ir 1 IVY In lnle 84 ~ 6 41 3 ., 3.~, GlIlId ' Poor 1w.1n ReI......1Id 85 Quen:us IleIIoIIaI II 42 - 4 U modenIIe Poor IVY In ReI_lid ~ PInus 22 56 8 16.5 .lIIIlld Good 87 Quen:us kieIIoaaI 6 30 7 4.5 modenIIe F- Double TI\Ilk 88 Quen:us~ 12 36 12 NrnOVe modenIIe F8Ir M,*, TI\Ilk It\.mI tlllml.lL Remove 89 MIlIfus tnenIZIesi 11 42 8 11 - Good ~-- Attlutus memzIesI 10 43 6 10 1- Good 91 . ~~ 6 311 6 3 laoad F8Ir ,-- ~----,- gwn:us~ II 40 6 3 IlIIIlld F8ir Double TI\Ilk 93 ~~ 6 37 7 3 laoad FlIir MuIlI TI\Ilk _. ----- ~_.- ~ kieIIoaaI 8 42 6 -- modenIIe F* Remove tin nlIlCIbed) 95", IAItJutus menzIesI 14 43 8 -- IIIIXIf' F_ Remove tin RlIICIbedl RECEIVEI) JUN 1 0 2005 g, City, o'f J\shlc~nd 1'7, Upper Limb-it Tree Service PO Box 881 Ashland, OR 97520 Phone 541-482-3667 REC:EIV'ED JUN 1 0 2005 Cibl O'~ ~,(;++'lnd ~"'1 i 1~""iJ~. ~........'~ · r r r? I ~ i I I r f , I ! j i J I fl . I P I i I ' fI II if H ~ r II II r r U r I " . 1I U June 2, 2005 Shostrom Bros, l TO 309 N, Pioneer , Ashland, OR 97520 Tree Removal Plan for 730 Liberty There are seven trees that stand within the proposed project at 730 Liberty that need to be removed, The trees proposed for removal are either dead, or are within the proposed roadbed. The trees in question are tagged by number on site, listed in the attached tree inventory and labeled on the building plans. Below is a list of the trees that need to be removed as they are numbered in the tree inventory, There are two additional dead trees on the inventory (trees # 24 and 25) that I propose be left standing as habitat trees. , Tree # 52 is an a-inch diameter White Oak, It stands within the proposed roadbed. The removal of this tree will not have a significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability, or the flow of surface water. It does not serve as protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks, Its removal will not have a signilficant impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feet of 730 Liberty. Tree # 57 is a 10-inch Incense cedar. It stands within the proposed roadbed. The removal of this tree will not have a significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability, or the flow of surface water. It does not serve as protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks. Its removal will not have a significant impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feat of 730 Liberty. Tree # 58 is an a-inch Incense cedar. It stands within the proposed roadbed, Ther-emoval of this tree will not have a significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability, or the flow of surface water. It does not serve as protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks, Its removal will not have a significant impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feet of 730 Liberty, "T'RY 10 -'7A oJ E.- ,- '" ~ ~y N r; Af{... l204b ~fG,.D - V;~ BX:~ CA'~ Tree # 61 is a 10-inch diameter Madrone, It is dead and would be a hazard, The removal of this tree will not have a significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability, or the flow of surface water. It does not serve as protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks, Its removal will not have a significant impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feet of 730 Liberty. /""" ~~i- 1eXc.A-I/A11oN Tree # 88 is a 12-inch diameter Multi trunked Black oak with a trunk cavity and associated decay. It stands within the proposed roaaeed:'The removal of this tree will not have a significant impal~ on soil erosion, soil stability, or the flow of surface water. It does not serve as protection to adjacent tmes or windbreaks. Its removal will not have a significant impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feet of 730 Liberty, ~7 14- f J i : j; 61212005 r l I ! I ' 11 Tree # 94 is an 8-inch diameter Black oak, It stands within the proposed roadbed. The removal of this tree will not have a significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability, or the floW of surface water. It does not serve as protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks, Its removal will not have a significant Impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feet of 730 Liberty, Tree # 95 is a~4-inch diameter Madrone. It stands, within the proposed roadbed. The fEtmoval of this tree will not have a significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability, or the flow of surface water. It does not serve as protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks, Its removal will not have a significant impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feet of 730 Liberty, P 1 i r r , ? I i J i j , r r . i Tree Mitigation .', 'I: i ~ All trees that are removed will be mitigated by the planting of at least as many newhealthyttees.jn, ,.. ,..' appropriate places. In addition all existing trees that are cover with ivy will have the ivy remov~ad. The importance of habitat trees cannot be understated sol propose two dead fir snags be left standing to provide habitat for birds, If you have any questions regarding this plan, please contact me at 482-3667. Tom Myers ~ [ l l i I : I I Certified Arborist DBA Upper Limb-it I r ! r I! H I : I , I . 1 I " 1 T , i 1 [ I J R~CEIVED JUN 1 0 21005 . Page 2 C,, , " ':': ,,~,.' I -c''ld ..~..I v. w'..~....,J'Ii ~..~~.. I~ ~~ r! L n n r f r I r r I l P I L I' t . r ~ I r II rr H f l' 1 ; It u [ I rr J I J Specifications for Demolition and Site Clearing 1. The demolition contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the ~ite prior to beginning work to review all work procedures, access and haul routes, and tree protection measurc~s. 2.' The limits of all tree protection zones shall be staked in the field. 3. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy oftree(s) to rlemain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by demolition or construction contractors. The qualified ar~or.ist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and. under story to remam. 4. Any brush clearing required within the tree protection zone shall be accomplished with hand-operated equipment. 5. Trees to be removed shall be felled so asto fall way from tree protection zones and to avoid pulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the consultant may require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees. This may be accomplished by cutting through the roots by hand, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root-pruning equipment.] 6. Trees to be removed from within the tree protection zone shall be removed by a qualified arborist. The trees shall be cut near ground level and the stump ground out. 7. All downed brush and trees shall be removed from the tree protection zone either by hand or with equipment sitting outside the tree protection zone. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out, not by skidding it across the ground. 8. Brush shall be chipped and placed in the tree protection zone to a depth of 6 inches 9. Structures and underground features to be removed within the tree protection zone shall Use the smallest equipment possible and operate from outside the tree protection zone. Thle consultant shall be on site during all operations within the tree protection zone to monitor demolition activity 10. All trees shall be pruned in accordance with the provided Pruning Specifications II. A six-foot chain link fence with posts sunk into the ground shall be erected to enclose the tree protection zone 12. Any damage to trees due to demolition activities shall be reported to the consulting arborist within six hours so that remedial action can be taken. Timeliness is critical to tree health. 13. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a roadbed of 6 inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The roadbed material shall be replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth. RECEIVED ~~ JUN 1 0 2005 Citv of A~h'~nrf '" ! ~ 1; rr j [ P i ; I [ r t , I I ' I [ I I II J ) 1 ; I ~ I I p' d f l , I H f 1 , I 11 11 If II [1 1I u Specifications for Tree Pruning I. All trees within the project area shall be pruned to: a) Clear the crown of diseased, crossing, weak, and dead wood to a minimum size of 1 1/2 inches diameter. b) Provide 14 feet of vertical clearance over streets and 8 feet over sidewalks. c) Remove stubs, cutting outside the wound wood tissue that has formed around the branch. d) Reduce end weight on heavy, horizontal branches by selectively removing small diameter branches, no greater than 2 to 3 inches near the ends of the scaffolds. e) Remove any mistletoe. 2. Where temporary clearance is needed for access, branches shall be tied back to hold them out of the clearance zone. 3. ,',/ ,Pruningshall.not be performed-during periods of flight of adult bori ng insects becausef1:esh '.'" wounds attract pests. Pruning shall be performed only when the danger of infestation iis past. 4. All pruning shall be performed by a qualified arborist. 5. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree-Pruning Guidelines (International Society of Arboriculture) and/or the ANSI A300 Pruning Standard (American National Standard for Tree Care Operations) and adhere to the most recent edition of ANSI Z133.1. 6. Interior branches shall not be stripped out. 7. Pruning cuts larger than 4 inches in diameter, except for dead wood, shall be avoided. 8. Pruning cuts that expose heartwood shall be avoided whenever possible. 9. No more than 20 percent of live foliage shall be removed within the trees. 10. While in the tree, the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defi~cts that require treatment. Any additional work needed shall be reported to the consultant. 11. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees within the trl~e protection zone to a maximum depth of six inches leaving the trunk clear of mulch. , RECEIV;:::[) JUN 1 0 Z005 City of P~s:iL..tJd IT &:;0 , f ! I , t 1 ! r I ; ! ! .. i [ 1 I i r r I ; i; ,f r , ' , , r r 1 i 11 ! T I L r ... L I I p 1 i fT H f '" i d if ! \ I j [ r [ I .I J l:l !='C"r= ~\l-r:,n 1. _ .... I oJ! "",,,..., JUN } 0 2005 Specifications for Tree Preservation During ConstructIon C.I'~Y O'~ ,f;. f'" ~., "-".~ IL. 'j i--'''~~'ii L.; .,j L ,,-:~ I. Before beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas. and tree protection measures. 2. Fences must be erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific protection zone for each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without the written pennission of the consultant. 3. Cqnstruction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times. 4. All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the tree protection zone. If lines must traverse the protection area, they shall be tunneled or bored under th~: tree. 5. No materials, equipment, spoil. or waste or washout water may be deposited, stof(~d, or parked within the tree protection zone (fenced area). 6. Additional tree pruning required for clearance during construction mUst be perfonned by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel. 7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use. Any pesticides used on site must be tree-safe and not easily transported by water. 8. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, the tree consultant should evaluate it as soon as possible so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 9. The consulting arborist must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots. 10. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be detennined by the consultant. Irrigation shall wet the soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30 inches. 11. Erosion control devices such as silt fencing, debris basins, and water diversion structures shall be installed to prevent siltation and/or erosion within the tree protection zone. 12. Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any trees within the specific construction zone shall be root pruned 1 foot outside the tree protection zone by cutting all roots cleanly to a depth of 24 inches. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating lsnife. rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root-pruning equipment. 13. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly " with a saw. 14. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retaine:d, a road bed of 6 inche~ of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The road bed material shall be replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth. q/ IS -----..-----------.-- rr .. 15. Spoil from trenches, basements. or other excavations shall not be placed within the tree protection zone, either temporarily or permanently. fl I ! l ; 16. No burn piles or debris pits shall be placed within the tree protection zone: No ashes, debris, or garbage may be dumped or buried within the tree protection zone. r ! It 17. Maintain fire-safe areas around fenced areas. Also, no heat sources, flames, ignition sources, or smoking is allowed near mulch or trees. f " 1 [ If 1 r < t f r 1 f j . P L ;/. f ~ rr d fj L fT , I H [ I ~ f I , j r ,l I r 1 RECEIVED JUN 1 0 2005 Ci~y O"J /\c:'(L:~nd J 1;;. 19 :1 .(1 ~l h i Iq I I f J i I I ! :) I :1 I j . f , ; . j , 1 11 ~'1' " ~~,",.. , ..{:ltfr , 1 i . j "' ':'~....: ';',1'-" .. i:... ,.~~~.~{~'~ J " , ' !~,", . L......."",,' .. ' ft.-, ~,'~-'''.1' .~- r -) . E.)<HI5rr e> SUBSURFACE INVESTIGA TIONAND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED LOT PARTITION & RESIDENCE 730 LIBERTY STREET ASHLAND, OREGON ::i-':,,',::::.. July 29, 2004 Project No. 8B93-01.01 Prepared for: 8hostrom Bros. Ltd. 309 No. Pioneer Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 RECEIVED JUN 1 0 2005 C~:'\I O\~ h\~'~1t?nd Wit.; W. ..,,;;;. .......1 804 RoaS_t If! Ashland, OR 97520-3318 AM R HE I N Ph: (541) 482-6680 ASSOCIATU, Inc. Environf'7enfa/ ff Geofechnical Enqineerinq 1.3 'U; - - - - - --------.-- Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street 1, I , July 29, 2004 Project No:: 8B93-01.01 r SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND " GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED LOT PARTITION & RESIDENCE 730 LIBERTY STREET ASHLAND, OREGON The engineering material and data contained in this Geotechnical Engineelring Report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal as a registered professional engineer is affixed below. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been prepared in conformance with cgeneraUy>accef:)tedgeotechnical en'€lineering principles and practices. No other,;:::"";'j;:,,;,;,, warranty, either expressed or implied, is'made or intended. Amrhein Associates, Inc. r I > !~~ President I Senior Engineer R,., ""':r"~~\ l'L:D i~{.JJ.i-,li '1iiI ~ JUN 1 0 2005 C.,- f' ",~ ,II;, .,"~' ,I, "~d ral~"i (;~;ii ~ "\to-.....'Il t.~~.j Ii - .!J Geo-lnlro,072904 ii 9'1- Amrhein Associates. Inc. f f 1 Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street July 29,2004 Project No: SB93-01.01 T able of Contents r f 1 ' j , i 1 SUMMARy............. ...................................................... .............. 1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 2 3 SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................... .............. 2 3.1 Surface Conditions .......................................................... 2 ,3.2 Subsurface Conditions .................................................... 3 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 4 4.1 Site Preparation ............................................................... 4 4.2 Structural ,Fill, "':>..:. .............................................................. 4 4.3 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes ........................................ 5 4.4 Drainage Easement Recommendations .......................... 5 4.5 Rockeries and Stacked Block Walls ................................ 6 4.6 Pedestrian Access Considerations .................................. 6 4.7 Spread Footing Recommendations ................................. 7 4.8 Concrete Floor Slabs ....................................................... 7 4.9 Backfilled Retaining Walls ............................................... 8 4.10 Building Drainage Considerations ................................... 8 4.11 Erosion Control Measures ............................................... 9 4.11.1 Temporary Erosion Control Measures ............... 9 4.11.2 Permanent Erosion Control Measures ............... 10 1 r i ' l t -. i 5 INSPECTION SCHEDULE ........ ....................... .................... ...... 10 FiQures Figure 1 - Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2 - Culvert Details Figure 3 - Rockery Details Figure 4 - Stacked Block Wall Details Figure 5 - Erosion Control Details Rrr--If"""-"r-O ,,_~!1 . :.,.. ,; . l,,-V....,i'# _' JUN 1 I~ 2005 /, Appendices Appendix A - Subsurface Exploration Procedures and Logs C;'hy' O','~ /\f"',I_~ ~d U. ,'Y II ....;1, ,J ~~W .' Geo-lnlro,072904 iii 95" Amrhein ASisoclates, Inc. 11 J . Ii Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street R~rr.:~\!r:D c:.- ~' .... i YI ....:au July 29, 2004 Project No: SB93-01.01 ! I p I ~ JUN 1 0 2005 1.0 SUMMARY ',' ' CIty o'r l\SjO~~:~rrd .. The proposed lot partition and future residence is to be located bel1il1d 730 Uberty Street (Map 39 1 E 16AA, Lot 7302) in Ashland, Oregon. The proposed partition and subsequent construction of a residence is feasible with respect to th~ subsurface and slope conditions at the site. A brief summary of the project's geotechnical considerations is presented below. r; [ l i The site was moderately sloping with a small, short area of a steeper slope in the proposed house area. The proposed lot and house area was covered with a mature stand of madrone, oak and conifer trees. A drainage easement ran across the proposed lot, southwest to northeast. A long driveway of approximately 130 feet will be required to reach the house site from the end of the alley to the north. The driveway will require sgme cutting and filling of the onsite soils, and the placement of a culvert to cross,the drainage-easement. Subsurface conditions in the proposed building area consisted of approximately 2 feet of loose fill over medium dense to dense, weathered decomposed granite. No indications of slope movement or faulting were observed at or above the site. r I 1 The driveway grades can be achieved with cutting of the onsite soil and supporting those cuts with rockeries or stack block walls and filling with those soils as compacted "structural fill". We recommend the houses be supported on shallow spread footings designed with a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot for footings founded on at least medium dense, native, decomposed granite soils. Retaining walls incorporated into the house design should be designed for a lateral equivalent fluid pressures of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for flexible walls and 55 pcf for a wall that is fixed top and bottom at the time of backfilling. These pressures assume that the wall backfill is clean, granular, free-draining material. T ! r 1 The site soils are extremely prone to erosion. Erosion control measures should be ,,;;}il';.,,.,."":,.iimplemented during construction and maintained until permanentvegetatitm:lla~been established. Two primary erosion control measures are to minimize the area of disturbance as much as possible and to construct a silt fence downslope from the construction area. The construction access driveway area should also be covered with crushed rock during construction and areas of exposed soil should be covered with plastic, mulch or straw prior to any precipitation. ;<.'j,<._""":,,--',,, ,. "'"", This summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the full text of this report. The project description, site conditions and detailed design reoommendationsare presented in the text of this report. The scope of work was completed within the constraints of the site and in accordance with our proposal. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Shostrom Bros. ",Ltd., and their agents, for specific application for this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. Geo-Report.072904 1 9' Amrhein Associates, Inc. Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street July 29, 2004 Project No: SB93-01.01 f r 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION r1 I ! i ., i I I The proposed lot partition and future residence is to be located behJnd 730 Liberty Street (Map 39 1 E 16M, Lot 7302) in Ashland, Oregon. We understand that structural retaining walls will be in!;Qfporated into the back of the house to support the slope above. A driveway of approximately 130 feet will be required to reach the house site from the end of the alley to the north. A series of stack block walls and rockl3ries will be required to support the driveway cuts and fills. The driveway will require the placement of a culvert to cross the drainage easement (see Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan). In Hie event of any changes in the nature, loading, or location of the house or driveway, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, if necessary, to reflect those changes. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The site conditions were evaluated on July 27,2004. The subsurface conditions were determined by hand drilling of one test hole in order to observe soil material1types and consistency. The surface and subsurface conditions are described below. The location of the test hole is indicated on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. A description of the exploration procedures and detailed interpretive log is provided in Appendix A. 3.1 Surface Conditions f The site was moderately sloping with a small, short area of a steeper slope in the proposed house area. Just above the proposed house, there was a relatively flat bench cleared of trees. The majority of the proposed lot and house area was covered with a mature stand of madrone, oak and conifer trees. A drainage easement ran across the proposed lot, southwest to northeast. At the head of the drainage easement, a culvert under Liberty Street discharged into the drainage. The northeast end of the drainage continued across an adjacent private parcel and toward Beach Street. Based upon the vegetation, the amount of forest duff in the swale and the apparent flow patterns on the surface soils, only a very small amounjt of recent flow was evident. The driveway and house areas drain into this swale. No surficial signs of slope movement were observed on or adjacent to the sitl9. Geo-Report,072904 p" --:'~LI\/r-D . :. " ~ 'T~ . I" .. "-,"~ ,,,,,,' '"- ;( II-. JUI~ 1 0 2005 (, .. " , 47 ',"', (' C', ~cl '" i '-'. j.~. ILu.nd Amrhein Associates, Inc. r ! fI Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street July 29,2004 Project No: SB93-01.01 3.2 Subsurface Conditions :1 I i Our test hole, located at the proposed house retaining wall location', encountered a thin topsoil horizon of approximately 0.2 feet over loose fill soils consisting of fine to medium sand with some<silt This fill extended to a depth of approximately 2.2 feetin our exploration. It is likely that this upper loose material was disturbed during cutting and grading the flat bench just above the house site. Underlying the fill, our test hole found medium dense to dense, weathered decomposed granite. The decomposed granite extended to the full depth of our test hole of 8.1 feet. In general, the area is underlain by the Ashland intrusive pluton composed primarily of diorite and granodiorite, commonly referred to as granite or bedrock. The parent rock decomposes very slowly creating three general zones. The three zones are weathered granitic soil, decomposed granite, and granodiorite bedrock. The upper layer is weathered granitic soil, which is generally a red-brown color. Thedecomposed"0^ranite typically appears to be fresh bedrock, but can be ,ripped by heavy equipment and breaks down to a fine to medium or fine to coarse sandy soil with some silt. The decomposed granite can be red-brown, mottled red-brown and gray (swirled), and generally turning gray with depth. Occasionally, boulders of hard granite can occur in the decomposed granite that cannot be ripped by conventional equipment. The granodiorite bedrock is very hard and typically characterized by its inability to be ripped by conventional, earth-moving equipment and requires chiseling or blasting to be excavated. ; I r r T "A;< ~J':r:~','::"f~'ii-.';,";j;, :--:.:.~_~:::; i i } No expression of groundwater was seen at the site during our evaluation in July 2004. i However, it may be possible that some perched zones with limited volumes of water l may exist randomly in the upper soil stratums, especially atop the denser laY1srs of decomposed granitic soil, after extended periods of precipitation. It should be noted r that the level of groundwater may fluctuate due to variations in rainfall, season, site i utilization and other factors. r The subsurface conditions should be confirmed during construction by the gE~otechnical t engineer in accordance with the construction inspection schedule described in Section 5.0. Ri f"': r r= b\'~ 'D, .,,_,'J~,~ "" lil""7"',' JUN 1 0 ZOGS C:"~l (',..", ~.. i ;.... " ",d Geo-Report,072904 3e;r' Amrhein Associates, Inc. Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street July 29, 2004 Project NCI: SB93-01.01 p , ! , I I I 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS , . , I 1 ! 4.1 Site Preparation ; i : I '1 , The driveway area, building footing areas, concrete floor slabs, retaining walls footings, rockery or stacked block wall foundations or areas to receive structural fill should be stripped of all forest duff, topsoil, and loose, weathered gra'nitic soil. If durin~l the stripping process, an area is required to be over-excavated to reach decomposed granite, the area should be backfilled with "structural fill" as described subsequently. We recommend that the subgrade be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of structural fill or building footings. The site soils contain sOrTIe silt and therefore are prone to disturbance in wet site conditions. The contractor should minimize traffic across prepared soil subgrade areas. , I ! I I 4.2 Structural Fill All fill placed in the under the driveway, building footings, the concrete floor sllabs, on the slope around the house, and the backfill behind structural retaining walls should be placed in accordance with the recommendations for structural fill. All surfaces to receive fill should be prepared as previously recommended. Structural fill should be placed in loos,e lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Individual lifts should be compacted such that a density of at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:D 1557 or AASHTO T 180) is achieved. We recommend that a representative of the geotechnical engineer be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as grading progresses. 1 The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on the soil particle size gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As:the"amountof<fihes (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Soil containing more than about Ei percent fines by weight, when measured against the minus NO.4 sieve fraction, cannot be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition when the moisture content is about 2 percent above optimum. If needed, the use of clean, granular soil would expodite wet weather construction. The site soils can.be-"used.,for structural fill purposes. The decomposed granite soils contain some silt and should be considered moisture sensitive. It will most effectively be used during the dry summer months when the water content may be carefully /,controlled. In all cases, site soils or soil imported to the site to be used for structural fill should have a maximum particle size on the order of 8 inches and be free of organics and other deleterious material. R, 'r:('Cft\!'l"'7D ~,_""/J_i ># ..._ Geo-Report,072904 JU~ 1 ~~05 c,, " ". d' i..j Vj i"lJHj_J~ Amrhein Associates, Inc. Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street July 29, 2004 Project No: SB93-01.01 I r I I If inclement weather occurs during grading, the upper wetted portion of the subgrade may need to be scarified and dried prior to further earthwork. If it is Qot practical to dry the wet, silty soils, it may be more expedient to remove the wet materials and replace them with dry soil. f r i ' i , r , I 1 i [ , , 4.3 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes '"'T We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be designed for a maximum inclination of 1-1/2H:1V (horizontal:vertical), but these steeper slopes must be covered with'topsoil and erosion control matting installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The erosion control matting may be eliminated for slopes less than 2H:1V. The maximum fill slope length should not exceed 20 feet in vertical height. The maximum cut slope should not exceed 15 feet in vertical height. Permanent fill slopes should be constructed in accordance with our recommfmdations for structural fill. The surface of the fill slope should compacted to the same 90 percent density (ASTM:D 1557) as the body of the fill. This may be accomplished by overbuilding the embankment and then cutting if back to its compacted core or compacted the surface of the fill as its is constructed. ' Fill placed on slopes should be keyed and benched in as it is being placed. This can be accomplished by starting at the bottom of the slope cutting material horizontally from the slope to create a level bench. The material can be most effectively compacted on the level bench. As additional material is placed on the bench, the equipment should cut out the next bench into the slope, stair-stepping up the slope. The bottom key should be a horizontal cut at least 6 feet in width. Each horizontal bench should be cut at least 4 feet into the native soil. The top of all slopes greater than 8 feet in vertical height should be protectecl from runoff by diversion berms or swales. The surface oUhe'"s{61'~&"soot:JlE:i be covered'with topsoil and seeded. 4.4 Drainage Easement Recommendations The proposed driveway will cross the existing surface water drainage easeml3nt with approximately 2 feet of fill at its lowest point. We recommend that a pair of 12-inch diameter culverts be installed through the driveway fill (see Figure 2) to provide for any drainage. TheculveF.ts should be set with at least a 2 percent grade along their length. These culverts should easily accommodate any flow in the swale as evident by the surface conditions. ['\"": ,f" r-: ~\ IT: D r~"_v,-~ "'_ Geo-Report,072904 JUN 1 0 Z005 r,() c',, 11:'" 51"!~ Ld " "f G".' ," "" . '..' '....., ' . '.'... . '.. I'....., ',. '''j 'j I~' ,uL;'.i w Amrhein Associates, Inc. n Ii 5hostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street nor: ('r.:~\ {:" r .. __ ;:",J.....I '.I .:-.. JJ July 29. 2004 Project No: 5B93-01.01 f r JUN 1 0 2005 4.5 Rockeries and Stacked Block Walls C,'~""~ C': l\ "':,:'~":-d, '''j'''B ""_,J., Rockeries and stacked block walls may be used to face stable cut slopes. Rockeries and stacked block walls should be constructed no greater than 5 feet in height. If more than one rockery or wall is to be used for greater heightsieach wall must be set back at least 4' feet horizontally from the top of the lower wall. ' r-1 I 1 ~ 'I I I I . t I , 1 Rockeries should be constructed of sound, durable rock with a batter no steHper than 6V:1H. The bottom course of each rockery should be founded at least medium dense native or fill soil and set into a 6-inch deep "key". The long dimension of the rock should be set perpendicular to the wall face. A minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe should be installed behind the first rockery course and be fully embeddod in washed rock or pea gravel. The drain line should discharge into the storm drainage system or other suitable discharge point. As the large rocks are being placed, free- 'draining crushed rock~, to:4:inchesin size) should be placed behind-the rockery to' provide for drainage and prevent soil migration through the rockery. The top foot of the wall may be backfilled with native or topsoil for vegetation and prevent direct communication of surface water on the terrace into the rock backfill. Typical details for rockery construction are shown on Figure 3. '! 'f ' i Although commonly used to face cut slopes in this area, it should be noted that rockeries are not truly engineered structures such as a retaining wall. The primary function is to face stable slopes and protect from erosion and sloughing at a relatively low cost. It also should be realized that rockeries, even when properly constructed, could lose rocks and need maintenance. r i r 1 Stacked block walls facing stable cut slopes may be constructed without reinforcing grid (see Figure 4). Stacked block walls may also be used to face fill slopes were reinforcing grid is installed as part of wall construction and structural fill placement. The reinforcing grid must be attached to the wall facing as an integral part of the wall. The "fJrictdTlustextend into the structural fill being placed behind the wall. Reinforc:inggfido'-'?' 0t<'i,"""'~hi!~' length and vertical spacing should be designed by an engineer for the particular wall system to be used and the specific conditions at the wall's location. 4.6 Pedestrian Access Considerations We understand that a utility corridor will be required down the slope from Libl3rty Street to the proposed residence that will also serve as pedestrian access. Utility tr,enches , excavated directly down the flowAineofa.,slope,"'0:ften experience erosion problems due to the difficulty of compacting the backfill on the slope in a narrow trench and water collecting in the trench backfill. We understand that the pedestrian access will consist of a series of steps climbing up the slope on top of the utility trench. In our opinion, this will effectively divert water from the trench backfill and provide stability to the surface soils. Geo-Report,072904 6 lal Amrhein Associates, Inc. Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street July 29, 2004 Project No,: SB93-01.01 q I , j i 4.7 Spread Footing Foundations f t j l : t i The proposed house may be supported by conventional shallow spread footings and continuous wall footings, founded on undisturbed, at least medium dense, docomposed granite. Based upon our test hole, the native material should be encpuntered at approximately 2 feet, however due to the random fill, varied terrain and drainage swale, the depth of loose m~terial will vary. The house footings should not be set in or above loose soil or uncontrolled fill. If over-excavation of the uncontrolled fill is required, the over-excavation should be backfilled with compacted crushed rock or shale, or a lean concrete mix. r t , I i I . Based upon these conditions, we recommend that the footings be designed with a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable loads may be increased by up to one-third to accommodate seismic or transient loads'.Altifeotingsshould have a minimum width of12 inches. The! base of exterior footings should be located at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacl3nt ground surface or top of floor slab, for frost protection. Interior footings may penetrate 12 inches below the lowest surrounding grade or slab surface. .....~",. "<. "c' As the site soils contain some silt and therefore are moisture sensitive, site work in the presence of water or during wet weather would disturb the bearing strata. The contractor should avoid disturbance of these soils and limit traffic across the building pad and foundation areas during wet weather. To minimize disturbance associated with form work and reinforcement bar placement, the use of a "mud mat" or crushed rock blanket may be required. I 1 Assuming the foundation elements are founded on the prescribed bearing strata, we anticipate that the total settlements should be less than %-inch with differential settlements on the order of half of that total. Most of the settlement should occur during the construction of the house. If any disturbed or soft materials area left within the footing areas prior to concrete placement, settlements may be increased~;'~Felr7.trnJt;'{#o,i'., reason, the condition of the footing subgrades should be observed prior to concrete placement, to confirm the condition of the bearing soils are consistent with those assumed during design. 4.8 Concrete Floor Slabs All concrete floor slabs subgrades should be prepared in accordance with Section 4.1, Site Preparation. The slab-on..gradeJ.toor should be founded on undisturbed native soil or properly compacted structural fill (Section 4.2), We recommend that the floor slab be underlain by a minimum of a 6-inch thickness of clean, crushed rock or washed rock to /, serve as a capillary break and working surface. An impervious moisture barrier (plastic sheeting) should also be placed beneath the slab. Geo-Report,072904 r:..-"...,,~~' r-o ., ... 0"' ',.,., 1':;'" . ... . .N'" ""':0"' :~....~,~. <II' ....;.,.':.... , JUNn o/z6U'~ I Amrhein Associates, Inc, C~~"y' O'~ !!'\r-'~' ~""""'1d u. ' i j ~>JJ ~ J ~j ~ Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street R-c-~' '-:-:D' '~'. :t--: ~I.'JI'~ '. '.;, '.: _; ~i1- ,"'......Q.JJ t'J:.AI July 29, 2004 Project No: SB93-01.01 P i i JUN 1 0 2005 4.9 Backfilled Retaining Walls .,~~, :~ ,~, ~,~::\ . t;d Backfilled retaining walls are categor~iityqhe' d;~diti~n of restraint~at the top of the wall at the time of backfilling. Retaining walls where the top of the walls are 'free to move laterally or rotate to at least 0.1 percent of the wall height durin,g backijUing may be designed for an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If the walls are structurally restrained for lateral movements at the top of the wall at the time of backfilling, we recommend that they be designed for an equivalent fluid unit weight of 55 pcf. These values assume that the walls' are supporting the slope above the proposed house and no buildup of hydrostatic water pressure behind the wallis. , r ~ I ' : ' , l t A value for the allowable passive earth resistance of 400 pcf may be assumed for each foot of penetration below the ground surface, neglecting the first foot. An allowable wall base friction value of 0.45 is recommended. This assumes that the concrete makes intimate contact with the soil. ' , ;,c.C':c..." All backfill placed behind the walls or around foundation units should be placed in accordance with our recommendations for structural fill. The above lateral earth pressures, are based upon granular backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pretssure behind the wall. To minimize lateral earth pressure and prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures, the wall backfill should consist of free-draining, granular material with drainage provisions as discussed in Section 4.8, Drainage Considerations. Ideally all backfill behind the retaining walls should be free-draining, granular soil, however at a minimum, the thickness of the granular drainage should be at least 12-inches against the wall. The backfill should be compacted to between 88 to 90 percent of the I,aboratory maximum dry density (ASTM:D 1557 or AASHTO T 180). Additional compaction adjacent to the wall will increase the lateral pressure while lesser degree of compaction could permit post construction settlements. If silty soils are used as backfill behind the wall, far greater lateral pressures can be expected to act on the wall. It is difficult to evaluate what lateral earth pressures will actually be imposed on the retaininu wall due to the lower permeability silty backfill. The density of the soils, as well as the moisture ' content plays a significant role. If much of the soil material is loose, the soil will readily absorb and become a saturated mass, even further increasing wall pressures. Also, the fines can plugged the footing drain itself that may allow full hydrostatic pressures to develop. The soil pressure and water pressure are additive and can approximately triple the total lateral pressure against the wall. 4.10 Building Drainage Considerations /,During periods of high precipitation, seepage zones may develop randomly in the cut faces. Any seepage should be routed away from the construction and building area as much as possible. We recommend that the house be provided with a permanent footing drain system to collect any available water. The footing drains should consist of Geo--Report,072904 8 to!' Amrhein Associates, Inc. Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street July 29, 2004 Project No: SB93-01.01 n II rr at least 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by at least 4 inches of pea gravel on all sides. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system; instead a separate tight line drain system should be installed: The footing drains and roof downspout drain pipes should be extended to the bottom of the slope ~nd discharge into the existing surface water,drainage crossing the-'site. Sitl~ grades should be planned to slope away from the house. i ,; 1 r I ' I , 4.11 Erosion Control Measures .." . Erosion control measures should be implemented to limit and control the erosion as a result of the proposed development. The erosion and sedimentation process is a natural process whereby particles of soil are loosened from the soil and vegetation matrix and carried down by water.ConstruGtion and.tand disturbance can increase the rate of erosion above natural backgroond Isvels'by;several hundred percent. Good erosion control practices during construction can significantly reduce the erosion process during and after construction. However even with the best erosion control practices, disturbed areas will produce more sediment than naturally vegetated, undisturbed areas. Typically the rate of erosion is highest during construction and improves significantly after the permanent erosion control measures are installed and vegetation becomes established. Over time with the establishment and maturing of vegetation and proper maintenance of the erosion control features, the rate of erosion can stabilize to near natural conditions. 4.11.1 Temporary Erosion Control Measures The following measures should be implemented during construction in order to best t limit the rate of erosion from the site. Some erosion control measure details are shown on Figure 5. Surface water will flow from the driveway area into the existing drainage to the north and the house site will drain towards the property to the east. The following are some measures that should be implemented. T-1) Minimize the disturbed area. The natural topsoil and root mat offer the best protection from erosion. T-2) Install fabric sediment fences downstop:eoftheaisturbed areas to slow the velocity of water runoff and contain sediment. The sediment fences should traverse the slope along a line of equal elevation. Additional support can be provided to the sediment fences with straw bales at each fence post. The fences should allow for the slow release of water through the fabric. R~ -r:r:~1\}r:D . \l ..:- '<::iIlo"C'''' ".-.. J .. ....._H ... Geo.Report.072904 JUNgl ~ fjl~ CJ~j G;~ i\<.)J .:_.;-~j Amrhein Associates, Inc, Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street July 29, 2004 Project No: SB93-01.01 r I : 1 T-3) . , r T-4) Placed a crushed rock pad at the site entrance to allow for parking of vehicles and inhibit the tracking of soil onto the City street. Vehicle acc-ess onto unprotected soil areas should be limited. Shiel9" the exposed soil stockpiles and slopes from rainfall impacLand hold soil particles in place. This should be done by protecting exposed or disturbed soils prior to rain by means of a complete layer of straw, erosion control matting, or plastic sheeting. , l' , T -5), During the excavation and prior to any rainfall, corrugated pipes should be placed at the low points in the excavation to drain any collected water down slope. This will prevent overwhelming the sediment fences at points of concentrated water flow. The entrance of the pipes should be placed in an area of ponding water and the e.ntrance lifted above the gro~nci,s,ur:{aceJoqraiJloff water that has had an opportunity to slow its velocity and drop out sandy sediment. 4.11.2 Permanent Erosion Control Measures The following permanent erosion control measures should be implemented and maintained at the site. T P-1) Surface water concentrations should be controlled by directing the flow to appropriate paths and structures. If surface water routes are not designed, water will create its own path sometimes across or into undesirable areas. P-2) Maintain the soil's capacity to absorb water. Topsoil should be placed over the native soil after construction has been completed. Ground cover vegHtation or bark/wood mulch should be used over new topsoil areas. P-3) Implement a thorough maintenance and follow-up program. Maintenance of the erosion control measures is critical over the long term. The major reason for failure of erosion control measures is poor maintenance. 5.0 INSPECTION SCHEDULE The integrity of the site development, site grading, foundation support, retaining wall sUPPQrt, and rockery or stacked block wall construction depends on proper, site preparation and construction procedures. It is recommended that a representative of the geotechnical engineer observe the construction at key times to determine the /'adequacy of construction as it progresses. It also allows the engineer to obsHrve variations in the site and subsurface conditions, and provide additional geotechnical recommendations to minimize delays as the project develops. n ~ 1'" r.:': ~'~ l-r-.. D" r i1 ~'_ :~J ~. ~ "Ji i;.<~~ 't Geo-Report,072904 JUN 1\)0 2005/05' Amrhein Associates, Inc. C: '.. ,,1: {l,,,.' , '~'d P..'; o. J'-..~. n....~ M Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street July 29, 2004 Project No: SB93-01.01 r r I ~ The geotechnical engineer will be required by th~ City to verify that these items were observed and completed in general conformance with the plans and specifications. It should be made the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineer with at Ileast 24 hours notice that each of the following items are ready to be observed. The key items are as follows: r r ! : i i f ~ " ! i ; · Temporary Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the start of site preparation and other earthwork, erosion control measures must be installed and observed by the engineer. · Subgrade Preparation - When the topsoil and loose soil has been removed and structural fill is ready to be placed. · Structural Fill Placement - During placement ofstructurahfiJl, 8' representative number of in-place density tests should be performed to verify the density and adequacy of the structural fill. · Footing Subgrades - Footing subgrades should be observed prior to form work construction and preferably when the backhoe is still on site to allow for the removal of any unsuitable soils recommended by the engineer. · Retaining Wall Backfilling - Prior to beginning of retaining wall backfill so that the drainage system can be verified. The acceptability of the drainage material should also be verified. A representative number of density tests should also be conducted during the backfill placement. r t · Rockery and Stacked Block Walls - The subgrade for the bottom course of rocks or blocks should be observed. In addition the placement of the drainage material behind the rockeries and walls should also be observed. · Floor Slab Subgrade - The subgrade(s) should be observed during finali compaction of any concrete floor slab subgrade. Placement of the vapor barrier should also be verified. ~ "":'1: !f:':' \ ! ~ D r . ,"'.,.,. ',~, .:..- ~ -.I b.o...~: JUN 1 0 2005 C,, .. ~ .~, .1 ~ .. '" .~ ,,' ~ --, ~J ~ ".. L . __,j ~,~j Geo-Report.072904 11 I ()~ Amrhein Associates, Inc. FIGURES /, /01 r 1 II r1 R~r.'~nl~D \l..~~J._. tII ~-:w' ,j i JUN 1 0 Z005 r r ! ' i i A 0 15 30 Scale In Feet Legend C.. ... ~ . " '.. !!"".. " " ',I "J(o.i ~.,'l ~-'..~-'_._ ~j--:CJ Proposed Culverts (see Figure 2 roposed Partition . -. ~roperty Line- . AMRHEIN DATE 07/29/04 OWN t.4JA 1.& ASSOCIATES, Inc. ,DES".,; Project No. SB93-01.01 Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street Ashland, Oregon FIGURE SITE & EXPLORATION PILAN l~ 'lJ 1 1 1 if I l , r r t : i I 1 ~~ JO'"\,~1\ !rr-'.D r~'~"il .j ~ JU;'1 1 0 Z005 C., ..; ~ t.>.i' · ~:''''''''''d' \.c' J " . p L J ~~n' <, ...c -+-' 3: -+-'~ V U -+-'2 :J o (f) :J ~.~ -+-'E v c...c .- U C ~.- ul ON 0:::.- /, L-N V'- > o (f) UQ) - > .- :J g U L- C Q) > 20 w a: ~C\J lL. L- V -+-' V E o \J ~ (f) v ...c U c c: o '0 .... "f:: ~ Q) c ..... ~ 0 Q) ..... 01 en ~(f) ~ I .... >.0 en lIlt en EQ)-o e o:e c 0 .... ..J oS! 1;) 0 iii t 01"") <( Q) Oi" ~ ::J o ...c U c I N(f} .-t Q) o > 3: :J 1-0 . ..... ,: ! ..: .. : Q) I 0... .' ::-'. 0 .. (f) ( '- '. C .li" E " .. '. :. ~ " ~ . ' '. N :~. ~ q "<t- o 0 I ........ <( '" en -, <7l N ~ m ........ (/) " 0 0 Z +' 0 W Z 4) ~ ~ ffl oe 0 0' 0 Q. z~ - .... ... W~ J:~ a::U :E~ 4:l .1 ~ It:; rr I , I R~,r'\~~~ ,- o .,~,. ,.,.,n, ' D, ~ .:.- '~-J ~ ~ f>~? ~ 3' 00 C;7~, ("<<?: .1\ ,". , , f Ii ~ t.. /~ . ;',~- .. '. ... ~ ~~ " . w JJ "",J"'; l' ,.,". ., ~ ~-_,"" t; '_- JUN 1 0 2005 Topsoil or vegetative soil ~ Lf) 6 x o ~ Free-draining angular rock M. 6" In. Washed rock or peagravel Min. 4" diam. perf. pipe (slope to outlet) 1 ) 2) 3) 4) 5) Rockery should be founded on firm, undisturbed soil. The long dimension of all rocks shall be pl(]ced perpendicular to the wall. Each rock should bear on at least two rocks in tier below. Rock shall consist of sound. durable rock. Rockeries are erosion control structures, not retaining walls. Cut face must be stable, and free standing. . AMRHEIN DATE 07/29/04 Shostrom Bros. Ltd. OWN t.lJA 730 Liberty Street FIGURE Ashland, Oregon 3 I.'" ASSOCIATES, Inc. DES , .- .'"--, Project No. ROCKERY DETAILS SB93-01.01 I/o 1 I I I n r: ':'""'" r::: , V'""": D I'" w..._ ';,~rJ *-ao J '~ ~~: Stable Decomposed Granite Native Soil Cap " JU1.J 1 0 2005 C. ":1 ,(,...O:P>. ,,,' 0,,:_ rI ;';;u.} ',-_.o. M ..:..,).. :..,;,~_,..J ii'U r i , i pinS Free-draining. crushed rock backfill 5' max. height pipe 6-inch deep key Compacted, crushed rock foundation /, .. AMRHEIN "I.'&- ASSOCIATES, Inc. DATE 07/29/04 OWN MJA DES Proje~t No. S893-01.01 Shostrom Bros. Ltd, 730 Liberty Street Ashland, Oregon STACK BLOCK WALL0E1AIlS I FIGURE J4 III ,~ fl i to I N Filter fabric material supported by wire mesh if necessary Attach filter fabric 3 places per post ! r N ~t r 1 - - -~ Bury ~ottom -:,;- - - ., fabric in 9" to 12" deep trench I J 6' Max. . I 2" by 2" wood stake or metal T stake FILTER FABRIC SILT FENCE R,...'-~'.. ~--.'. D . '. ' . . " .~. . if ,,:;,...'!3 .' 1 2" Coo rse Rock JI ' 1 - IJ ')(1105 ,~, ~ (,J C ."" .~'. J~:~nd LJ - Rocked Access Drive /, . AMRHEIN DATE 07/29/04 [)WN MJA I... ASSOCIATES, Inc. DES Project No. , S893-01.01 Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Uberty Street . .. ,Ashland, Ore90~ EROsION'CONTRO[DETAILS FIGURE 5 II~ .~ APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION"PROCEDURES AND LOGS 113 ,Jj r 1 · I I r 1 Shostrom Bros. Ltd. 730 Liberty Street July 29, 2004 Project No: SB93-01.01 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION The field exploration program conducted for this study consisted of one, hand-drilled test hole. The approximate exploration location is shown on Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan. The location of the exploration was obtained in the field by tape measure from existing building corner staking. TEST HOLE The test hole was drilled and the soils logged by Mark Amrhein, P.E. on July 27,2004. The drilling was accomplished by hand using a 2-inch diameter, bucket-type auger. ' Disturbed soil samples were obtained from the bucket auger continuously throughout the drilling process. The test hole log presented in this appendix is based upon the field log and inspection of the soils recovered. The relative soil densities indicated on the test hole log are interpretive description based on the drilling conditions. Visual classification of the soils was done in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Test Hole TH-1 IJ>EPT!!if~!!)~-'-"-'~~~J~QILS!>E.sCRI~ILQ~-==-',='~-'=-'-',~__-'-'-',,-"-'==-'=-'..-',=-'-'-'=-'-'-'-'-',-'-'.-'-'=-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'..-'-',-'-'-".-'.! 1-0.0 - 0.3 ! ROOT MAT - TOPSOIL ! I! i I 0.3 - 2.2'> ---::4 Fine tomedium SAND wilii"sorTIeSiil(SM),tBJl.loose,dry -(F~ 12.2 - a::r-i Fine to medium SAND w~h some si~ (SM), tan-:- mediumdense to I ,I dense, damp to mOist (Weathered decomposed granite) i 1,_______.. ___ ,..___ ,_.J '_'_ __.___ ._,_ ________ __._____ _ _,_,_ _..__ ,_ _..., _ _ _._,..,__ ,. _._..._,.... __ ,_ _, _~ : I No seepage 1 ! ! No caving I i I : 1__ ..._..____.. ............ ,..,. _..J.....__ __,____,.., __ ...._ .._...._ ...., _._.____ __....__..__ _ ",.. _..,.. ,_, __ _ __, _, _ __ _.. .." R" r:r~:;:-:T\ t!7"".:D ;,' . ., - ":'I \, - ~ ~ __ J....' "-... ..", J /, JUN 1 0 2005 C'" If' "" · I j i,~1 (,' ," "...' ;,' ~~'r II t!. .I ' II JI ... .eJ J ~ ........4J U ... r..tHoles.072904 A-1 II f Amrhein Associates, Inc. Phone: State Lie No: City Lie No: Sub-Contractor: Address: Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuctlon Description Total for Valuation: Fee Description Type I Amount Fee Description 920.00 Amount COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 East Main Sl Ashland, OR 91520 WWW.uhIend.or.U8 Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-135.2900 InspecIIon Request Una: 541-552-2080 1/5 CITY OF ASHLAND IiI] . . Type I Planning Action Permit Number: PA-2005-01050 I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the best of my knowledge, and furthennore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts understood and agreed to the following: Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1. this pennlt shall remain valid only In accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 or regul~tion provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 (180 days). 2. Work shall not proceed past app'roved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 required inspections shall be called for 24 hours In advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 10.00 $ 0.00 3. Any modifications In plans or work shall be reported in Public Works Fees: $ Q:OO' $ 0.00 acWance to the department. 4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 920.00 $ 920.00 or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the Sub-Total: $ 920.00 applica.!!t. Fees Paid: $ 920.00 Total Amount Due: $ 0 ApplIcant Date COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 East Main 'Sl Alhland, OR 97520 WWW.nhland.or.UI Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 InapecIIon Request Une: 541-552-2080 1/(, CITY Of ASHLAND 06/14/2005 TUE 13:52 FAX 5U48Sr"'\Clty of Ashland CoD Dev .' ,,'>z, , ~OOl/OOZ \ I i . ,.-/ ._~, ,".,." ',~:..,' .'~A ~~....... ~. nor Sl WiDlQa Way, AJb1aui OR 9.7510 ASHLAND 541-4Q~ FIX541~&&~ ". ..' .. - . ", "! ..' .':' . .', ~"~.,,\I'. ~ '\ TypeL PLANNING ~PLICATl!m File# t5?Ot7S- /61,50 9;(0. O~ Filing Fee $ CoInp Plan Designation APPUC4TION IS F()R; Outline Plan (# Units) Final Plan Site Review ,Annexation Variance Conditional Use Pennit Do Line Zone Change Comp Plan O1ange Staff Penriit Solar Waiver Application pertaius to , {3 r1b . (cbaptcr. seclion., subpart), of the Ashland Munidpal Cock. . 'APPLICANT NaltleJfJrtAf.- ~t..tv~~ Address ~ O~ ''Ptq~ qr~ ' E-Mail , ~...-..:~~' 'Phone ./I/llz..q 7k I-- Oty ~~ tJL Zip~17j'70 raOPERTY OWl'iER Name--!)~ ~tJtx;',nz.,~ ' Phone 'f~2 ~~i . A~dress 17.,0 LA ~~ 0/1~ City AJ~ I tilL Zip J7r~ ~yOK. ~~I:iBR. AR'-=W"l'KCI'. ~SCAPE ARCili:l~c:r:\'..,."" Name ~~. 8l1tJ1lt/.fflttl-e~ $YE,$1JWtYtltif Phone B1P,l/fJo/ Address ;::o.'6lJY'f~97 City #fW~ (/)1 ~ ZAp 1:7>p! : DESCRlPTIO~91 PRQ~1;Y , StrectAddress 7"7D 4,,~ $r AssessortsMapNo.391E ItkPr TaxLot(s) 7101- , On. ~o she<< of paper, list any ~ CODditions or testrlctioos conoeming use oftbc property or improyemeqt$ couterDplatcd, as well as yarcS sct-baok and 8I'OI or height requirements that were p~ on the property by subdivision tlagt dQYdopers. Give date Hid mtnctions expire. ' ' OVER .. 'G!JJ 11eI"'.v_",~AR ~..tL-- . ....,........... I It.1 , ~ 06/14/2005 TUE 13:53 FAX S41488~'~)CltY of Ashland ColI Dev r-', ( } " ' ~OO2l002 .rr... " ,r " :':' '~:' '! FINDINGS or FACT ~ Type yOur response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another sbeet(s) of paper and enclose it with this form. K~ in mind your responses must be in the: ~omi'of factUal statements or findings of fact aDd supported by evidence. List the findings criteria Md the m&moofu~mDOOmrt. , I hereby certify that the statements and information contained ,in this application, including the enclosed drawings and tho 1'CQ.uired findings of fact. are in all respects, true and conect. I undecstand that, all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection., In the,event the pins are not shown or their location Cound to be incorrect, the owner aSsumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this 1'eqUM is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: -1) tbat I produced sufliC;ient factUal evidence at the nearing to support ~ request; 2) that 'the findings offact furnished ju$tifies the granting of the request; ,3) that the fin~ offact furnished by me are adequate; and ~er' 4) that all stmctures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Pailure in this regard wiUrcsult most libly in not only the request 'being set, aside, but also po~"ly' in my structures being built iu reliance thereon being required to be removed at my . ~auy .doubIs, I am advised to seek cOmpetentprofessiOll8\ advice and ..--..-: = ~ , . ,~./11. or- Applicant', S~ Dale AJ owner of the propetty involved in this request, I have ~d and understood the complete appliciJtiol1 BDd ~~ me ua propatyOW1let. _ . & . , 17./~t?& ~WIl<<'tiF'gnaturc /' Date N911Cfi;. ,~JJ..(H,24D oftlte hhland MUllicipal Cod~ prohibiu t/J.c occupancy of a building Qr 4iele~~' ';":r~""j-". .... <~'" "~/"itfiilesprio,.to dte' Wuance of Q Certificate ofOccttpancy by t!eeBuilJing Div/liQPI AND the ciomp/etiqn of JJ :zordng req,unRnfml& and corit!itWtu imposed by the Planning CoInmLuUm UNLBSS a S(l/isfizetory perfomumce bond has bebI ptMted to ~Mlre co",p!f!lion. nOu.TIONS "'4Y re.JUlt en prtJlecution and/or disooTmection o/utilities. " c;.\...-4.~~ ~tncaM.IhIIUJ"'.i' ,~"""4M l' f \...11 I Ut ASHLAND Council Communication Police Review Study Meeting Date: 10/18/05 Department: Police Contributing Depa t : Administration Approval: ' Primary Staff Contact: Mike Bianca E-mail: biancam@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Gino Grimaldi E-mail: grimaldg@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 15 min. Statement: Council to consider a contract for services by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to conduct an independent study and review of our police department. Background: During the recruitment for police chief in 2003 the City declared an intention that the chief .conduct a comprehensive assessment of the Department's structure, resources, crime and service demands, evaluate data, training, policies and performance standards and develop a subsequent strategic plan for any needed changes and/or improvements". This proposed study is a major piece for completing this task. The impetus for a study at this time is a combination of issues raised by the Police Chief, the Police Association, the Mayor, Council and City Administrator. In August of 2005 the City solicited proposals from 15 consulting firms/companies identified as having specialties in conducting police department organizational reviews. Five responses were received. A selection committee comprised of Chief Bianca, Mayor Morrison, Council Member Hartzell & City Administrator Grimaldi selected three of the proposals for further consideration. The committee conducted telephone interviews with The Matrix Consulting Group of Palo Alto, Ca, Joseph Brann and Associates of Palos Verdes, Ca. and Police Executive Research Forum of Washington D.C. and selected PERF as the top provider. The committee subsequently made reference checks with several cities that have used this firm. The outcome of the study is expected to be a series of recommendations and options to address validated issues and concerns. These recommendations should help define and implement methods of policing appropriate for the community of Ashland. Related City Policies: None Council Options: 1) Approve contract for $51 ,035 2) Decline contract 3) Direct staff to restructure scope of work or amount Staff Recommendation: Approve project. Potential Motions: None Attachments: Department review - scope of work r., Attachment I The following services are requested: Public Perception . Identify existing public perception of staffing, response times, and responsiveness to safety/emergency needs Staffing Levels < . Evaluate staffing levels taking into consideration public perception, call volume, response times by priority level, amount of officer initiated activity and percentage of uncommitted time per shift. Identify other factors that the city should take into consideration when determining appropriate staffing levels . Evaluate the causes of overtime. Determine if overtime is having a detrimental impact on employees and/or the delivery of service. Suggest methods to reduce the amount of overtime worked by employees. Communications . Evaluate communication and interaction with officers, detectives, union representatives, non-sworn employees and management staff . Evaluate communication and interaction between the department and the City Administrator . Evaluate communication with the community and the media . Evaluate communication up and down the organizational structure as well as between employees at the same level in the organizational structure; identify any breaks in information dissemination that may impede communication . Evaluate effectiveness of departmental policy/procedure communication and adherence Human Resource Management . Evaluate opportunities for professional development and promotion . Evaluate employee turnover . Evaluate recruitment, selection, and training of officers . Evaluate minimum requirements for all positions within the department . Evaluate internal disciplinary action protocol Incident Control and Management . Evaluate response to major incidents and events including an evaluation of events leading up to major incidents . Evaluate policies and procedures should an officer involved shooting take place ~ --,-- . Evaluate policies and procedures to debrief major incidents and events Organizational Structure . Evaluate the effectiveness/efficiency of the department's organizational and rank structure Policing the Community . Evaluate current mission, vision, and values ,. Evaluate the translation of the current mission, vision and values into operational procedures for all employees of the department . Establish mechanisms to determine the effectiveness of the department's efforts regarding community policing. Study Participants . It is expected that this study will require participation from the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, and that each member of the Ashland Police Department will also have the ability to participate. It is also expected that study will involve input from the public in a manner yet to be determined. PART FIVE: COST PROPOSAL Based on the tasks described in this proposal, PERF will conduct the work for a fixed fee of $51,035.00. This includes $24,180.00 for staff costs and $9,770.00 for travel expenses. COST PROPOSAL - Clt of Ashland A PERSONNEL TOTAL Hourly Hours Rate Craig Fraser 36 $64.36 $2,316.96 Bryce Kolpack 80 $48.41 $3,872.80 Tony Narr 60 $56,05 $3,363.00 Corina Sole Brito 80 $34,56 $2,764.80 Terry Chowanec 80 $42.76 $3,420.80 336 Total Personnel 15,738.36 B FRINGE BENEFITS Rate Amount Paid Leave 16.55% 2,604.70 Fringe Costs 29.15% 4,587.73 Total Fringe Benefits 7,192.43 # C TRAVEL Price # Persons Amount Air Fare - DC to Ashland $600.00 7 1 $4,200,00 Hotel $100,00 20 1 $2,000,00 Meal Per-Diem $46.00 20 1 $920,00 Transportation to/from airporUparking $65,00 10 1 $650,00 Rental Car $200,00 10 1 $2,000,00 Total Travel 9,770.00 STAFF OTHER THAN PERF D EMPLOYEES Hours Rate Amount PERF Fellow. 50 $25,00 $ 1,250.00 Total hours 50 Total Outside Staff 1,250.00 E OTHER DIRECT COSTS Cost Events Amount Project Supplies $50,00 $50,00 Postage $20.00 $20.00 Project Copying $100,00 $100.00 Telephone $200.00 $200,00 Total Other Direct Costs 370.00 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 34,320.79 H INDIRECT COSTS ** 48.70% 16,714.22 I TOTAL EXPENSES $51,035 . Since the PERF fellow's home department contribute's his salary and benefits, only living expenses in Washington are passed on. .. Indirect costs are PERF's general and adminisrtative fees as authorized and required by the U,S. Department of Justice, 22 EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT THE OCTOBER 18, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Planning Action #2005-01050 Liberty Street Appeal City Council Meeting Oct, 18th, 2005 Closing Statement Dean Shostrom, the applicant, and I,have been designing and together in Ashland/for over 30 years,with a reputation for attention to detail and environmental sensitivity. From the beginning of this project,it has been applicantintention,to design and bUild,a modestly scaled home for himself/appropriate for this beautiful wooded site. We have spent over a year, preparing this application,and assessing the development standar1Cimize the adverse impacts/to the trees, topography, drainage' , neighbors, and fire safety. The applicantrhas consulted respected professionals/specializing in tree preservation and geotechnical engineering/and will implement the strategies and recommendations/of their findings. The build-able area,of the proposed new parcell.has been designed to minimize tree loss,and to site a future home,on the lot's most level area, with a garage below, located within an embankment to minimize exposed cuts and fills. The alley access, with the proposed improvements, is underutilized,and has adequate capacity/and will extend to a minimal sloping drivewaY,leading directly to the garage. A guiding principle of the owner, is to create a sensitive house design/~nd driveway access/that will maximize the privacy, of both the adjacent neighbors/and himself. To further minimize the impact,1on the adjacent. neighbors, the applicant agrees/to the following self-imposed restrictions. The residence will be limited, to a single story horn? with a maximum of ~~:s~~,;~~%o,:h:~e;t~r:~~~ ?ea;~~~~~~~i~i~e~:~oo~~dq ~i. lot in a , . natural state. -r,iF) OOi Mr Jones, the appellant, and other neighbor's concerns with the proposed planning actionrare reasonable, and have been taken into consideration. The evidence, is in the application submittals,and the Planning Commission's Findings/and Conditions for Approval. The applicant contends,that the concerns of the neighbors have been evaluated and minimized,by careful and thoughtful land use planning, design, and engineering. The applicant also is a longtime neighbor, and lives on site, and has every intention,to minimize any reasonable adverse impacts, associated with this proposal. CITY OF ASHLAND Ashland Tree Commission Regular Meeting August4,2005 Minutes City of Ashland Planning Exhibit Exhibit # OO~ PA #?COf>- 0\0 Date'O\\~\a5taff ....4-4- I. Call to Order: Chair January Jennings called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. on August 4,2005 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development'Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way. Commissioners Present: January Jennings Bryan Holley Mary Pritchard Laurie Sager Pennie Rose Ted Loftus (arrived at 7:08 p.m.) Council Liaison: Staff Present: Cate Hartzell (arrived at 7:30 p.m.) Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner Donn Todt, Parks Department (absent) Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk II. Approval of Minutes: The following corrections were noted for the July 7,2005 minutes. Page 2, section of public testimony, second paragraph that starts with Mr. Gomez. Esthetically was misspelled. Page 3 of 5 bottom of the page. Donn Todt's name was misspelled two times. Page 4 of 5 at the top, Scott Green's last name is Kaiser not Green. Pritchard/Sager m/s to approve the minutes of July 7, 2005 with the above corrections. Voice vote: All Ayes, Motion passed. The minutes of July 7, 2005 were approved as corrected. Amy announced that the ODOT Planning Action #2005-01050 had been postponed. III. Welcome Guests & Public Forum: There were no guests in attendance tonight. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PLANNING ACTION: 2005-00870 is a request for Final Plan approval for a four-lot (one County lot) development under the Performance Standards Options for the property located at 795 Orchard St. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is also requested to allow road development within floodplain corridor lands associated with Wrights Creek. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Residential and Woodland Residential; Zoning: RR-.-5-P and WR; Assessor's Map #: 39 IE 08 BA; Tax Lot: 500. OWNER/APPLICANT: Archerd & Dresner, LLC. Amy read the staff report. She reminded the Commissioners that this planning action had previously come before them. There are six conditions pertaining to the trees, one of which states that final tree protection plan consistent with the standards with 18.61.200 be submitted for review by the Tree Commission and approval of staff advisor prior to the issuance of building permit. Amy felt that this might be a typing error because otherwise the staff would m:ed the Tree Commission every time a building permit goes out. Amy will confirm this condition with Bill Molnar. Because each house will be submitted separately with specific foundation construction Page 1 of 5 --~---_.._._---..... --- --------. -- _... ------y------ Sager suggested that the condition should read that the foundation construction needs to be viewed by an arborist before construction but not necessarily the Tree Commission. The Commissioners discussed the discrepancy regarding the number of trees that are to be removed. Rose asked if the applicant was obligated to take care of the trees for two years. Amy stated that the applicant is writing in the CCR's of how the trees should be cared for. This only applies as long as there is a Home Owners Association however. Rose asked if a Bond will be in place to insure that the trees survive for a minimum of two years. Amy stated that this Planning Action will have a landscaping bond because it has Physical and Environmental Constraints though there is no obligation of a two year survival. Applicant Testimony: Evan Archerd, applicant, and James Love from Galbraith and Associates were present to answer questions. Loftus asked Mr. Archerd ifhe and his partner will be building these homes themselves or selling the lots to other builders. Mr. Archerd stated that the current plan is to sell one lot and build on the other two. Loftus' concern was that the intent of tree protection and requirements change when there is different builders on site. Mr. Archerd stated that the CCR' s specifically states that no other trees can be removed other then those indicated on the plans without going back through the process again. Pritchard asked Mr. Archerd if within the CCR's does it state that a certified arborist would be on site if there was another builder. Mr. Archerd stated that it is not in the CCR's but that it could be. Sager suggested that a site plan showing the trees that were meant to be preserved be: included in the CCR's so the buyer can beware. Mr. Archerd thought that was a great idea. Holly told Mr. Archer that the Tree Commission is trying to be consistent with all applicants so they will be requesting this with future applicants that come before the Commission. Mr. Archerd wanted the Tree Commissioners to know that they relocated the road so that it would be much friendlier to the trees, topography and the site in general. He shared that they spent a lot of time going through a County approval process because the road is now on primarily County zoned property. They placed the road where the existing driveway is to do the least amount of harm to the trees and the grade. Mr. Archerd stated that in their developments it is their intent to be as tree and environmentally friendly as they can. Sager thought it would be a good idea to see the mitigation plan. Holley asked Mr. Archerd if he cared if he did the mitigation off site. Mr. Archerd said he would be happy to mitigate off site if that was the request of the Tree Commission. Pritchard inquired about the future irrigation of the trees on the lots and how it will be regulated. She is concerned about over watering the trees on the property because oaks typically do not do well when they are watered. Mr. Archerd stated that they created the building envelope primarily in areas where there isn't a lot of trees so that there won't be irrigation right next to trees. Recommendations: 1) Tree Commission would like to see clarification of the number of trees to be removed on the Final Landscape and Tree Protection Plans 2) Tree Commission recommends including a copy of the revised Tree Protection plan with the CC&R exhibits. 3) Tree Commission recommends are-review of the mitigation plan for the trees thall are to be mitigated on-site. 4) Tree Commission recommends including irrigation usage language in the CC&R's emphasizing low water use similar to the Oaks Subdivision. Cate Hartzell arrived at 7:30 P.M. Page 2 of 5 PLANNING ACTION 2005-01050 is a request for a Land Partition to create a flag lot from the rear of two existing parcels for the properties located at 720 and 730 Liberty St. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to construct a driveway across a Riparian Drainage and to create a parcel with slopes 25% and greater in Hillside Lands. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential District; Zoning: R-I-7.5; Assessor's Map: 39 IE 16 AA; Tax Lot 7302. OWNER/APPLICANT: Dale Shostrom Amy read the staff report reviewing the trees sited for removal. The Tree Commissioners acknowledged that the site visit to this property was very he:lpful. Amy noted that Pennie Rose was unintentionally left out of the site visit. The Tree Commissioners talked about the need to remove additional trees that were not originally planned for removal. Holley noted that there is an electric box at tree #56 located near the alley that needs to be taken care of. Loftus commended the applicant for trying to save so many trees but wants the applicant to be aware that some of them might be compromised. Jennings also stated that it would be more economically efficient to know what needs to be removed and remove it before hand. Hartzell asked the Commissioners if they were recommending taking out the Ponderosa Pines just to open up the canopy. The Commissioners reassured Hartzell they were concerne:d about the pines but not recommending taking them out. Public Testimony: Stephen Sincerny, 790 Liberty St. spoke. Dale Shostrom representative for the applicant was present for questions. Mr. Sincerny acknowledged that this is a great plan and development and is pleased with the concern the applicant has with saving the trees. His concern is that this is a real transition from what was going on there before and that it is a ripariian area. He stated they are changing what was a shady covered area with lots of deer and wildlife. It is a total transformation from a riparian zone to an open building lot. The other concern that Mr. Sincerny had was that the Tree Commission just approved the removal of canopy on the property downstream from this property and now by removing the canopy off this lot they are totally changing this riparian zone. Holley urged Mr. Sincerny to take his concerns to the Planning Commission because the Tree Commission doesn't look at things from the riparian point of view. Hartzell inquired if this property would be listed under the Riparian Ordinance. Mr. Shostrom stated that it is mentioned in the staff report that it will be a part of the Riparian Ordinance. Hartzell would like to note that we should look at why this Commission isn't part of the Riparian Ordinance. She feels that trees are intrical to riparian areas. Pritchard asked Mr. Shostrom if they intend to leave the area natural. Mr. Shostrom confirmed that their intent is to keep it as natural as possible. There will be no outbuildings, no fences, no elaborate landscaping, no assessory units, etc. Mr. Shostrom also stated that they would not have approached this project if they didn't feel that they could do a good job in saving the trees. This is the environment that the applicant wants to live in. Recommendations: I) Recommendations: Acknowledge the importance of the Ponderosa Pines during and after construction. 2) Clear construction debris and electrical box from the base of tree # 56. Page 3 of 5 ~------_._------------ ---------y------- Jennings asked to be excused at 8:15 because she had company. Pritchard continued as Vice Chair. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Car Free Day - Tree Tours The Commissioners agreed to have the tree tour at 4:30 p.m. for one hour. It was decided that Rose and Pritchard will do a railroad district tour. Amy will give Tracy Harding the contact information for Rose and Pritchard. B. Over the Counter Building Permits - Tree Protection Memo Holley appeared before the Planning Commission representing the general views of the Tree Commission. Subsequent to that Randall Hopkins gave Holley a memo regarding "Bad Things That Happen to Trees during Construction." Mr. Hopkins has a totally different understanding of the ordinance. Holley would like to suggest that the Tree Commission do nothing at this time regarding the ordinance. He would like to have it removed from the September 6, 2005 City Council agenda. Holley would like to go slow on the building permit ordinance and work with the new Planning Director and consultant to come up with the Tree Commissions own suggestions to resolve the building permit issue. Hartzell reviewed the process of hiring a new Planning Director stating it could take up to 9 months to a year before the City has a new Director. Her suggestion was not to worry too much about tying it to that contract with the consultant or a new Planning Director. Pritchard feels that educating the home owners is still necessary. Amy reminded the Commissioners that a large percentage of Ashland residents do care about the protection of their trees. Hartzell stated that she would like to see this dealt with in a separate meeting where Mr. Hopkins is present along with others and the constraints are put out as constraints not as boundaries. Hartzell suggested putting it all on the table and doing some problem solving. Amy suggested that they devote next months agenda to discussing what are the issues, what are the ramifications, what are the benefits, what are the pit falls of tree protection fencing etc. The Commissioners decided to have one sub-committee meeting regarding the ordinance to look at potential inconsistencies and discrepancies. At the September meeting the Commissioners will discuss a date. Amy agreed to notify the City Administrator of the Tree Commissions plan to continue to review the ordinance and ask to be removed from the City Council Agenda at this time. VI. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS A. Liaison Reports Cate Hartzell had nothing at this time. a. Heritage Tree Sub Committee Tracy has resigned from the Tree Commission so it was suggested that someone else help Rose with that committee. It is tabled at this time. B. Old Business a. Potluck I BBQ at Bryans Possible dates are September 10th, 11th, 17th or 18th. It was suggested that a Sunday afternoon would be the best for everyone. Holley will send a memo regarding the dates. Bryan would like everyone to email him back with any dietary needs. Page 4 of 5 C. New Items a. Loftus would like to keep mitigation trees on the forefront and put it on next month's agenda. He would like to discuss where to put mitigation trees. Sager stated that in the past the Commissioners put this decision on Donn Todt. It was decided that all the Deboer trees should go to Siskiyou Blvd. Loftus volunteered to contact Todt and let him know their plan so he can get the ball rolling for tree removal. Loftus said there are open spaces on Siskiyou right now and he would like the Tree Commission to commit to planting 5 trees in November. Loftus suggested having a tree walk down Siskiyou talking about the sites and species. Amy reminded the Commissioners to let her know about it first so she can notice it. b. Holley brought in labels from hoses which were both donated and purchased. Holley installed the hoses this afternoon and they are watering three of the trees on the Lincoln School grounds. Holley made a motion that the "Tree Commission share the cost of soaker and other hoses with Save Our Schools and Playgrounds, a citizen group, and that we allow SOSP to keep the hoses at the end of the dry season with the understanding that they will use them for School District watering projects and that the Tree Commission reserves the right to ask and work with SOSP if we have a use for these hoses." Holley/Loftus m/s that the Commission donate up to $100.00. for the purchase of hoses. Voice vote: All Ayes, Motion passed. The Commissioners will also work on getting donations from the local businesses. c. Current Balance $750.00 d. Tree Commission Goals i. Education 1. Daily Tidings Back Page. Holley received notice on July 27, 2005 that the Tidings is ready for articles. The Commissioners agreed to bring their information for articles to the next meeting. ii. Tree Clinics Pritchard's plan is to approach North Mountain and speak with Linda Chesney. iii. Monitoring 1. Tracking Reports to City Council VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Pritchard adjourned meeting at 9: 1 0 pm Page 5 of 5 C~.j Page 1 of 1 ~f?~ --"fC) -p~~y I ^-.I~ ~O~. '17l,..kNU(k!~ AC7\I<:)tAj ~ddr ~ - (0-:;-0 Subj: Date: From: To: Alley 10/18/200510:43:30 A.M. Pacific Standard Time vrag 159@hotmaiLcom quiltnow@aol.com To Ashland City Council; My family has lived on the property next to the Beach, Ashland St. Alley for over twenty years. The alley used to be a nice, quiet place to walk. Over the years, the alley has become very busy with car traffic. There is much more noise and dust from the cars driving down the alley, many going too fast. There have been many near misses as one car~es down he alley as another is entering. There is not enough room for two cars so someone has to back up if another vehicle comes along. Actually, there is not really enough room to walk while a truck or car is driving by. City of Ashland Planning Exhibit Exhibit # 00 4 PA #?0J5- 0...050 Date\O I \~ \O&aff -4 ~ I think building on a lot which has only alley access is a terrible mistake. As it is, the alley is too busy. Big vehicles for construction would add to the noise, dust and erosion of property. I understand that The City of Ashland wants infill rather than sprawl, but, it should not be done at the expense of neighbors. Building a house at the top of the alley is not in the neighbors best interest. Sincerely, G. Vaatveit 908 Ashland St. Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.c1ick-url.com/golonm00200636ave/direcUO 1/ Tuesday, October 18,2005 America Online: QuiltNow _ _ . ___...._._~_,._'_..m.___.___..._.________.._._.__ ______.__.^_..___________"_._._~