The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGlenn_345 (PA-2010-00694) CITY OF ASHLAND September 10,2010 Brent Thompson POBox 201 Ashland, OR 97520 Notice of Final Decision On September 10, 2010, the Staff Advisor for the Ashland Planning Division administratively approved your request for the following: PLANNING ACTIONS: 2010-00694 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Glenn Street APPLICANT: Brent Thompson DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Partition to create two flag lots from a single lot. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High-Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R- 3; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 05DA; TAX LOT: 3701 The Staff Advisor's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13th day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Prior to that date, anyone who was mailed this Notice Of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of the action by the Staff Advisor as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.1 08.070(B)(2)(b) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in the ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2)(c). An appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, 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 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 allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at no cost at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies offile documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Department of Community Development between the hours of 8;00 am and 4;30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305. cc; Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft 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 ~~, ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTIONS: 2010-00694 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Glenn Street APPLICANT: Brent Thompson DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Partition to create two flag lots from a single lot. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High-Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 05DA; TAX LOT: 3701 SUBMITTAL DATE: DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: STAFF APPROVAL DATE: FINAL DECISION DATE: APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: exception of partitions which are 18 months June 4, 2010 June 23, 2010 Enter Date Notice of Decision mailed 13 days after Notice of Decision' mailed One year from date of final decision with the DECISION The subject property is located on Glenn Street, east of North Main, west ofthe railroad, and directly north of the intersection of Lori Lane and Glenn Street. The subject property is 21,863 square feet (.5 of an acre) and is zoned R-3, High Density Multi-Family. The property slopes approximately 12% to the northeast and has two Poplar Trees near the Helman Irrigation Ditch that traverses through the northeast corner of the property. The applicant had originally partitioned the lot from the larger parent parcel in 2002, to create the three lots that currently exist today; the two that front onto Glenn Street (tax lots 3702 and 3703), and the subject "T" shaped lot (tax lot 3701). The applicant is proposing to divide the subject parcel into two equal tax lots consisting of approximately 11,000 square feet each (.25 of an acre). The existing flag drive is 20 feet wide and will provide access to the four lots. A shared access agreement for all parcels will be required to be signed and recorded as aeasement. Adjacent and parallel to the flag drive is a proposed 4' pedestrian easement that extends from Glenn Street towards the Mountain View Retirement Center to the north. Public utilities are easily accessible in the Glenn Street Right-of-way and an electrical transformer will have to be installed for future development on the site. Planning actions in multi-family zones are required to show how future development will not impede the minimum density requirements of the underlying zone. The base density for the R-3 zone is 20 units per acre. As previously stated, the subject half-acre parcel was partitioned from a larger I-acre parcel in 2002. The subject parcel is 21863 square feet, half-acre. At a base density of20 units per acre, the density for the parcel as a whole is to be 10 units. The applicant is proposing on partitioning the parcel in two equal parts, thus giving each lot a base density of 5 units per parcel, or 4 units at 80%. The applicant's narrative states that each lot is large enough to have ample space for parking, open space, and housing structures. The Department of State Lands has determined that the Helman Irrigation Ditch does not have a substantial hydrologic system or significant vegetation to classifY the ditch as a wetland or ephemeral stream. Therefore, no mechanism exists within the Ashland Municipal Code that would protect the ditch as such. The applicant P A # 20 I 0-00694 345 Glenn St/MP Page I is proposing to place the ditch in a culvert following the same general contour that exists today. Easements are to be provided for the access and maintenance of the ditch. For purposes of solar setback, the nOlih property line is determined to be the line that borders the Mountain View Retirement facility. The plans show that with a 21 feet high structure, the building is to be setback 37 feet from that property line. The plans also show a 20 foot backup and access easement that will run the width of the two parcels for the purposes providing on-site parking in accordance to Chapter 18.92. Two Black Poplar trees greater than 6" DBH exists on the property near the Helman Ditch along with many Blackberry bushes. These trees have been identified by an arborist as "prone to wind throw and catastrophic trunk failure" and are recommended for removal. However since no development is planned, the applicant has no intention on removing the trees at this time. Other trees within 15 feet of the property line have also been identified and will be preserved when development occurs on site. These trees are the eight Pine trees that border the parcel to the north, an Almond and Black Walnut to the west, and an Almond on the east property line. The applicant has also agreed to plant four Maple trees along the east property that borders the Glennview Estates. These trees will be planted as an agreement between he applicant to the appellants to combat noise, and visual impacts from potential development. As a condition of approval, these trees will be required to remain during development of the site. The criteria for a Minor Land Partition are described in AMC Chapter 18.76, as follows: A. Thefitture 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 with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord 2836 S8, 1999) F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that suchfacilities 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-joot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearestfidly improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designedfor 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 nearestfidly 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 offidl 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 P A # 20 I 0-00694 345 Glenn St/MP Page 2 grounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and ({ 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 providedJ;'om the alley and prohibited.fi'om the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995) The criteria for a Flag Lot Partition are described in AMC 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 of15feet, and a 12 foot paved driving swface, For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20feet 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 of20feet, with a 15foot paved driving swface. (Ord. 2815 SI, 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 theflag 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 grantedforflag 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 40feet within 50 feet of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived ({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 Un({orm 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. Eachflag 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 o/theflag drive have been screened with a site-obscuringfence, wall or evergreen hedge to a height offrom four to six feet, except in the.front yard setback area where, startingfive fiet,from the property line, the height shall be fi'om 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 andfiled 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 ({applicant shouldfail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the fit/I cost and expense thereoffrom the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the P A # 20 I 0-00694 345 Glenn St/MP Page 3 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 thefollowing information: 1. The location of driveways, turnarounds parking spaces and useable yard areas. 2, The location and type o.t'screening. 3. For site plans o.t'aflag lot, the building envelope shall be identified. H. No more than two lots are served by theflag drive. l For the purpose o.t'meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive o.t'theflag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements o.fthe zoning district. J. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension o.t'20feet 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: 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. Afour:foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flagpole, improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface.from the street to the buildable area o.t'theflag lot; 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eightfeet wide and the entrance o.fthe pole at the street shall be identified by the address oftheflaglot clearly visible.from the street on a 4,t X 4" post 3YJ feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers 3 inches high running vertically down the front of the post. Forflagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses 0.1' 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) The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances. Planning Action 20 I 0-00694 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if anyone or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 20 I 0- 00694 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 the four maple trees proposed by the applicant, are to be planted along the east property line bordering the Glennview Estates, and shall be planted prior the signature of final plat. The trees shall be protected and retained during development, unless any unforeseen hazardous circumstances that may occur that will necessitate removal with an approved report from a certified arborist. 3) That sidewalks, street trees, park rows, and utility improvements shall be installed along the frontage of Glenn Street at the time of Site Review approval. 4) That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months ofthis approval. P A # 20 I 0-00694 345 Glenn StlMP Page 4 5) All easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus access, and reciprocal utility, maintenance, and access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division, including the approval of the irrigation ditch relocation by ditch users.. 6) That a final utility plan for the parcels shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning, Engineering, 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. 7) That calculations shall be submitted demonstrating that a 21-foot high structure can be placed on the new lot with a Standard A Solar Setback that does not exceed 50 percent of the lot's north-south lot dimension, or a solar envelope and written description of its effects demonstrating compliance with Solar Standard A shall be submitted, prior to signature of the final survey plat as required in Chapter 18.70.050 of the Solar Ordinance. 8) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including installation of any required fire hydrants and fire apparatus access shall be complied with at the time of Site Review approval, construction, and prior to occupancy. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public facilities. 9) That the two newly created lots shall meet the minimum density requirements of four units per acre in accordance with Planning Action 2002-057 and with AMC 18.28.040.A. Date P A # 20 I 0-00694 345 Glenn St/MP Page 5 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 3900 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 80003 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 328 ASHLAND COMMUNITY BAMMAN VICTORIA L BOLDT INGRID E A HOSPITAL 311 GLENN ST 486 LORI LANE 925 FOURTH AVE 3300 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SEATTLE WA 98104 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 11900 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 330 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 326 CAMPOLI-RICHARDS DEBORAH M COLLINS CLAIRE TRUSTEE FBO CONSIDINE DOROTHY 371 GLENN ST 482 LORI LANE 328 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 3899 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 80005 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 11100 COT A GEORGE G ET AL DEROCHER LAURA C ELTERMAN W RONALD PO BOX 548 319 GLENN ST 355 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 80004 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 11700 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 12300 FARIA PATRICIA L FIELDS ECHO ELLEN FOSTER PETER S 2933 LINCOLN AVE 367 GLENN ST 379 GLENN ST ALAMEDA CA 94501 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 200 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 3403 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 11300 GARDINER MICHAEL A/MARY N GAY ALMA/DENNIS GINTHER NORMA REV LIV TRUST 349 ORANGE AVE 493 LORI LN 359 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 3401 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 12100 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 331 GUDGER KENNETH RlDEBORAH C . HEBERT ELAINE T HOWARD JUDITH L 42711 NELDER HEIGHTS DR 375 GLENN ST 90 RIDGE RD OAKHURST CA 93644 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 P A-20 1 0-00694 391 E05DA 3402 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 327 PA-2010-00694 391EOSDA 3100 JOHNSON MILO K TRUSTEE KENDALL JULIETTE TRSTE FBO KILHAM EDWARD GEARY PO BOX 1055 488 LORI LANE TRUSTEE FERNDALE CA 95536 ASHLAND OR 97520 476 NORTH MAIN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 3600 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 322 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 11800 KISTLER RAYMOND J KOTHS CATHERINE ELUTES KUBAL OWEN A TRUSTEE 2025 BUTLER CREEK RD 344 GLENN ST 16 WOODSIDE DR ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 DANVILLE CA 94506 PA-2010-00694 391 E05DA 323 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 3500 PA-2010-00694 391 E05DA 12500 LIPPERT MARILYN S LIVELY VIC/CLAUDIA TRST FBO L YON PETER LYNDON 3444 HILLS TERR PO BOX 276 224 A VENUE F MEDFORD OR 97501 TALENT OR 97540 REDONDO BEACH CA 90277 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 11500 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 303 PA-201O-00694 391 E05DA 208 MACERA ELIZABETH V MARTINI HERMONA MC ARDLE PHILIP J/KAREN T 140 MAJASTIC AVE PO BOX 1349 2400 EUNICE ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94112 ASHLAND OR 97520 BERKELEY CA 94708 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 324 MCKINLEY CANDICE L 336 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 3400 PURVES MARGARET Y 1190 SLAGLE CR RD GRANTS PASS OR 97527 P A-20 10-00694391 E05DA 80006 SHERBOW MARK ALAN 323 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 P A-20 10-00694391 E05DA 11600 SOL ERIK RlRACHEL C A 365 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 12400 TESELLE KATHRYN J 381 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 80002 TWIEST AMY K 307 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 12600 WOLFF ROBERT N ET AL 508 N MAIN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 P A-20 1 0-00694 Hoffbuhr & Associates 3155 Alameda St #201 Medford OR 97504 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 11200 MOORE EDWARD A TRUSTEE 211 OAK AVE REDWOOD CITY CA 94061 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 80007 ROGERS CAROL LEE POBOX 745 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 11400 SKINNER ROBERT MET AL 1219 OLD WILLOW LN ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 325 STEELE JOAN D TRUSTEE FBO 332 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 3701 THOMPSON BRENT E POBOX 201 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 304 WILKEY BERNARD RlMONYEEN R POBOX 1349 ASHLAND OR 97520 P A-20 10-00694 Urban Development Services Mark Knox 485 W Nevada St Ashland, OR 97520 P A-20 1 0-00694 Construction Engineering Consultants PO Box 1724 Medford OR 97501 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 12000 OUSSENBEC AINOURA 373 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-20 I 0-00694 391E05DA 329 SCHUSTER LAURA LANE C 484 LORI LN ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 3404 SMITH CONSTANCE L TRUSTEE ETAL 935 CIENEGUIT AS RD C SANTA BARBARA CA 93110 PA-2010-00694 391E05AD 507 STOUT CARLYLE III TRSTE FBO 356 OTIS ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 12200 TITUS JAMES TRUSTEE ET AL 3765 SHERWOOD PARK DR MEDFORD OR 97504 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 80008 WILLIAMS PATRICIA C 331 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 P A-20 I 0-00694 Computerized Architecture Drafting 170 Ashland Loop Rd Ashland, OR 97520 53 r:7~i:> q- / ~ytj Glenn St From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Adam Hanks Michael Pina Billie Boswell; Carolyn Schwendener; Miranda Iwamoto 9/9/2010 10:48 AM Brent Thompson Deposit Michael, The $4,450 is still in the GL in the correct spot (builders and other deposits 110.21810) so it can be refunded once the work that it was collected for has been completed and inspected. I did a quick query in Eden Permits and it was taken in that way so there is a "permit number" PL-2003-00210 so this should follow the typical process for any permit refund. Once it is approved by either the Planner or the PWjEngineering Staff (hopefully both), Billie or Carolyn generate a check request, signed by them as requesting, get the Planner signature (or Bill's depending on the dollar amount that he feels comfortable having staff approve) as approved and process the refund through Eden as we would any permit refund (permit receipt adjustment, edit, post - permit billing adjustment, edit, post) with the check request and a copy of the posting report connected and sent over to Finance to generate and release the check. Any questions, feel free to call. Adam r "- "- --T'- -,- ~- - I I I ^' I C) "- I '" ~/ 0 0 ~ '0 ",,, . ill ~~ <0 Z :a :a n~.~ 0 :~ :~ 3~: i= <( "' ~ i ~u:5 U "0' ~cii ::; ~<o 0- co ::i 0- Z '" n 27'o~ u <( " " -" w 0 ill ":02 E <( '" >=z 0- i; [:; C (l) U z ~:5 -o.~ 0 c- c- E <i:J 0 " N " :5.~ 8 i= I-~ 00.. llis.: "'Z co z i= "'''' ~S , ~~E 0 '" too 2 ::;: 0 ;:: <( z6 " " (/J >.:::1 0- zz "'<( ii5;<::, E <( I- ~<( 1-> ~ ~ -0 ~:S :2 c>;' ""~ m ill 0 0 U ~~ E Il:' ...J ~ Z~ oj 0 0 0 z :5~ ro c- c- ;H Lc ~ 0-0.. oj N N z 8' w 0 0- I- " C~-o '" N>- gj~N :>: V; 0' - ~ ="0 'E~ ~ u ~2 0 .:':. ill ~ 0 <C ,,-" I g- g- em "- 'co""' 0.. I- '" ':J J::: Ul 0 2 ",,,- u...... ill '-- ,,-=> Q.) ...... 0... '" "' ro rn ceO W ",w '" c CD = 0 l:o.l!l. [f1 CO "- 2~ ill 0 .. .. o~~c '~I~ '0_ m m .. f ~ ~o -m ill ~~~E Il:' ~o ~-l.Oc.ol.1..! 0 ~ <; <( " I '" CD ~*rn '" D"- -" " 11 I~ 5~ww~ 1;; ot, ~~~i 0 ""' [f1 x,,", x": "-I' n:::wQQl.1..2 1 ......;<::' '" ~D:::VH/)> -3 C o c '" " ~ " * ~:S~ ~ 1-0 ZW o~1::: 0::::22 l..L.eJ85 ~tJCL <tOG:; ~~~ "'0'" "'I- <: W 0..<1::: w""' <1:;:"- l- => 0 - r-~ - "-uw w<:::z: vmi= Q) 8~~ I "" ~ ~ I L/~T---~-- -:;1 ;7. / --- "- "- if.~ ~ <!J"'" 1"- :;;~W<l 01 ~~5 ~I ~--llJ...~ I ~ I ~OZO ~ w/C1g::~-l I ~I ......- ~u~gs I __ c~C52 r I I J~i:'---l::q~ i~; ~ <J:::ww ----; I -I ,'~8~ . OCL~ ~ ' I ~~<C ~I " J ~I ~:' _."",,.._..~ I. /1 I I -l < C) j::::: U ~ C) Q:: a... < [j3 [:1:: 0_ ~6 F:::-a < :'C.. *'C :::,;: 11 it eJ~ !-t..J (Jj Gj ;.::: lc.J-, i?< Q:: G v J a... U) f- W W Cl:: f- Ul Z Z W ~ (') 1:3 ",E:!: Z "'''''''' Q.;ti2 ~ ~~~ 4: [L~S: ~ ~ Q "- it a li!~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR A PROPOSED TWO-LOT LAND PARTITION FOR THE VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED ON ADDENDUM (August 23, 2010) The following is an addendum to the June 4th, 2010 Partition to partition a single residential flag lot into two residential flag lots. The property is zoned R-3 (Multi-Family High Density Residential) and is currently "T- shaped" and the proposal is to divide the lot into two "L-shaped" flag lots. The application is subject to the requirements of Ashland Municipal Code, Chapters 18.76 (Partitions), 18.61 (Tree Preservation and Protection) and 18.70 (Solar Access). The addendum is in response to letter received by the Glennview Estates Owner's Association - located directly downhill and to the east of the subject property. The letter identified a couple of items that were missing from the application as well as two items not germane to the application. These items included: 1) Absence of a Tree Protection/Preservation Plan; 2) Absence of a Site Plan showing a building envelope that satisfies the zoning regulations; 3) Failure to adhere to the Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter; and 4) Negative effects on Glenview Estates Once the letter was forwarded by the City's Planning Department to the applicant/ property owner, a neighborhood meeting on July 15th, 2010 was held to discuss the proposal and to clarify neighbor questions. A second neighborhood meeting followed on August 5th, 2010, in an attempt to address some of the neighbors' issues as noted above as well as any concerns expressed from the first meeting. That said, please find attached a revised Site Plan & Tree Protection/Preservation Plan in accordance with Chapter 18.61. Also, attached are the narrative documents from a licensed Arborist that accompany the plan. The plan addresses items 1) and 2) above that identifies a building envelope in accordance with the R-3 Zoning regulations as well as the City's Solar Access Code. In addition, the plan identifies the location of all trees greater than 6" (dbh) on the property and within 15' of its boundaries. Finally, the plan identifies four "new" trees to be planted along the shared east property line. Although it should be clear, no building design or building construction is proposed at this time, the applicant, based on his discussions with the neighbors, is proposing to leave all of the site's trees and plant four new trees along the shared property line in an attempt to address the neighbors' concerns regarding livability and lost vegetation. It should also be understood that none of the site's trees were ever to be removed with the original application and that any neighbor concerns regarding tree removal are simply a miss- understanding. Further, although the proj ect Arborist has identified two of the site's trees on Lot #2 as "prone to windthrow and catastrophic trunk failure" and that he recommends 1 "removal of these two trees", the applicant is willing to retain them until actual development ofthe subject property is proposed. All items required by Chapter 18.61.200 A.l - 3. are identified on or within the attached submittals or are not applicable. Items identified in Chapter 18.61.200 B. (fencing, signs, etc.) are not proposed to be installed as the subject trees in question are not near any of the site's disturbance areas and have been recommended for removal by the Tree Arborist, but are being retained out of generosity of the applicant. If additional expense for fencing or signage is to be required as a condition, the applicant would like to retain his right to remove these trees based on the recommendation of the Arborist's report. All other trees are not within the applicant's boundaries nor are they near any disturbance areas, but they are protected by existing perimeter fencing. In the applicant's opinion, items 3) and 4) are not applicable as they are not criteria nor do they relate to any Partition standards. At a future date when building design and building construction is proposed, these items will need to be addressed in accordance with the City's Site Design and Use Standards as well as the various criteria in the Ashland Municipal Code regulating setbacks, solar access, parking, tree preservation, landscaping, architecture, etc. Nevertheless, the applicant has attempted to address these items and mitigate any perceived impact of the Partition by retaining potentially hazardous trees as well as planting four new trees along the neighbors' property line. Finally, attached is the latest correspondence received from the adjacent Glennview Estates Owner's Association on August 16th, 2010 which addresses some of the correspondence previously submitted to the City and/or dialogue from the neighborhood meetings. The correspondence concludes with two requests of the Ashland Planning Department: a. We would ask that the Planning Department place a condition on approval of the partition application that states that those new trees will be preserved in any subsequent development. b. We would also ask that a 20' conservation easement be located along the east boundary of the proposed flag lot at 345 Glenn. In regards to the neighbor's two requests above, the applicant/property owner agrees, with item "a." without question. These trees, Red Maples (as requested by the neighbors), are appropriate to the area and will hopefully mature to their full extent providing shade, view and aesthetic benefits for everyone. A condition of approval is acceptable, but it should include language that allows removal of these trees based on any unforeseen ha~a:~~~~~i!cll~s.t_<ll1<::~~c_~l1(IQllJywithll tn~.~ J~PQrtfrQ11l auc;ertifit:l<l A[lJ()ri~!~____ As for item "b.", this request is not acceptable to the applicant. The applicant wishes to convey to City Planning staff and the Planning Commission his desire to help the neighbors and sincerely understands their concerns - even though he's not proposing any buildings at this time, but the request for a 20' side yard setback, where only six feet is required, is simply unacceptable. To the best ofthe applicant's knowledge, all items to complete the application for a Land Partition have been submitted and addressed within either the original application or within this addendum. 2 Phone: 541-482<3667 Attn: Mark Knox 485 W. Nevada Ashland, Or 97520 7/29/2010 Tree Protection Plan for 345 Glenn St Ashland The Tree Protection Plan for 245 Glenn 8t. is designed to address the needs of all existing trees within the project. The trees are identified by number on the plan as well as by numbered tag attached to the tree in the field, The specified tree protection zones (as stipulated in the enclosed tree inventory) will be drawn on the plans as well as delineated on the site by approved fencing. Trees noted in the tree inventory with a poor condition rating should be considered for removal (unless they are on an adjacent lot). In addition, any trees that have a designated tree protection zone within an area requiring a grade change or trenching should be reevaluated to determine if removal is required, Trees #}-and #2 are Black Poplars. They are not a desirable tree to have near a structure because they are prone to windthrow and catastrophic trunk failure. I would recommend removal of these two trees and replacement with a more appropriate tree for the site. . 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. A certified arborist must supervise any work done within the specified tree protection zone. A certified arborist will conduct an inspection of the trees during and after construction. If you have any questions regarding this tree protection plan please call me at 482- 3667. Tom Myers, Certified Arborist DBA Upper Limb-it ~ iTr_el!_ln_Vl!!!'t.~-ry-~O!'1~~.!3_I'~'!'!'l~,~s~i~~~L()'f"""''''...............L..............___....._1_......................................................?12.9/~_~ i i [ Crown i protection [ relative [ : i DBH in ,Height in [ Radius in [ zone radius [ tolerance to : i 1 iPrunus dulais [ 9 i 24 i 9 i 9 imoderate igood i 3 [Populus ttiahocarpa i 7 i 26 i 7 i 7 [poor igood [ -~--...._._._---_._---_._..._._._....];~~;~~.~-~~~;~:-....-.-..::.-.-...-..::: ::::-._-.._._-.---.I::::~;::::.r::.--;;_.:_---J-.--_..:;~.::...-:r:_-.-..:_-_~~.__.._._..I~_~~;~t~_-_._.:_-_-.._-:_..-]; -i;._._._-_.....-_._..-:.-.._._.:...._]~~~;_:~_~~-_-_:.-_-:.._._-:_-.-.-_-_-.-_._-__.:_....-_-:::_._._..:::_._.:....-..:.._-:.-._-:_ 5 iPrunus dulais i 13 i 22 i 10 [ 13 [moderate [fair ! 9 iPinus contolta i 7 i 24 [ 7 i 3.5 [good [fair [ 32 Specifications for Tree Preservation During Construction 1, 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 permission of the consultant. 3. Construction 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 the tree, 5. No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within the tree protection zone (fenced area). 6. Additional tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be performed 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 determined 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 knife. 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 retained, 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. 15. Spoil from trenches, basements, or other excavations shall not be placed within the tree protection zone, either temporarily or permanently. 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. 17. Maintain fire-safe areas around fenced areas. Also, no heat sources, flames, ignition sources, or smoking is allowed near mulch or trees. Specifications for Demolition and Site Clearing 1. The demolition contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site prior to beginning work to review all work procedures, access and haul routes, and tree protection measures. 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 of tree( s) to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by demolition or construction contractors. The qualified arborist 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 as to 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. The 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 11. 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. Specifications for Tree Pruning 1. 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 woundwood 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. Pruning shall not be performed during periods of flight of adult boring insects because fresh wounds attract pests. Pruning shall be performed only when the danger of infestation is 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 oflive foliage shall be removed within the trees. 10. While in the tree, the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects 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 tree protection zone to a maximum depth of six inches leaving the trunk clear of mulch. August 16, 2010 To: Brent Thompson and Mark Knox From: Glennview Estates Owners' Association Re: Planning Action 2010-00694 (345 Glenn Street) Description: A request for a Minor Partition to create two flag lots from a single lot We appreciate your willingness to address some of our earlier concerns (see our letter of July 6,2010) by having a tree inventory done, clarifying the plan for the Helman Irrigation Ditch, improving the site plan, helping us understand the hypothetical building envelope and solar access issues, and by meeting with us to talk about issues. We have also learned a lot from conversations with Mike Pena in the Ashland Planning Department. At our most recent Board meeting, we discussed our response to the latest revision of the partition application. This process has helped us to be able to clearly articulate our major objective for the Glennview Estates community: We want to preserve the effects of the existing landscape that provides a visual and sound buffer between our property and whatever will eventually be built at 345 Glenn Street. We want to maintain a buffer that is aesthetically pleasing and that reduces impact from any eventual new construction on our ability to enjoy quiet and privacy in our backyards. Most of our original concerns/questions have been addressed. The following addresses our major objective as stated above: 1. We would like to preserve the existing healthy large cottonwood trees and the almond tree on the property because they provide us with visual and sound buffering. Brent indicated in our most recent conversation (Aug. 5) that he didn't see any immediate need to remove those trees as well. 2. We appreciate your proposal to plant several new trees now along the east property line, in anticipation of a day when the current trees may need to be removed. The new trees would help preserve our current visual and sound buffering in that case. Your proposal, as indicated on a copy of the tree protection/preservation plan that you shared with us at our most recent meeting (August 5) and in conversation, is to plant, in the near future, four new trees spaced evenly along the east property line of the proposed flag lot. The copy of the plan we received identifies those trees as maples. The City of Ashland tree guide lists several acceptable types of maples and we would like to jointly agree to select from that list. Because the existing blackberries would compete with new trees for water and nutrients, we believe that they would need to be controlled in order to assure the health of the new trees. Our community would be happy to help water those new trees. Their health would be in our mutual interest. 3. We would also like to be confident that while those new trees are small- under the 6" diameter at breast height size that is protected by the tree ordinance-any subsequent development on the property not negatively affect the health of the trees. To that end, we have the following two requests: a. We would ask that the Planning Department place a condition on approval of the partition application that states that those new trees will be preserved in any subsequent development. b. We would also ask that a 20' conservation easement be located along the east boundary of the proposed flag lot at 345 Glenn. Here's our thinking on this: First, the easement would provide needed protection and space for healthy new trees to mature. Red maples (Acer rubrum), for example (on the approved list in the City of Ashland tree guidelines), reach 40-60 feet in height at maturity with a spread of about 25 feet at the dripline. Second, assuming that the Helman Ditch will be relocated and rerouted into a pipe (as discussed in our August 5 conversation), sections of what would then be a dry ditch bed could be filled in and become a walking path that would connect the Mountain View Retirement property to Glenn Street, as Brent told us was his desire with the original conservation easement in the 2002 plan. The 20' conservation easement on the east boundary of the property would thus include both the trees and a path that follows the old ditch bed. The old and new trees would help shade such a path, making it pleasant for those using it, as well as giving the new trees room to grow. The path would also serve as an amenity to any eventual developer of the property. Thank you for your willingness to work with us and address our concerns. Sincerely, Glennview Estates Homeowners' Association Board of Directors Ainoura Oussenbec, President (373 Glenn Street) Echo Fields, Vice-President (367 Glenn Street) Edward Moore, Board member (owner of 357 Glenn Street) Kristal Foster, Association Secretary/Treasurer (379 Glenn Street) t3 'w Oi'c< u~ , w ~-" 0- ~~ I I I ~ - - I soT - I / '" 0 '0 N Z "' 0 ~ U ::J .VJ 0-- 0-- Z u -0: -~ w 0 <1: a:: i=z 0-- U z! ~:'5 "'3 Q II;;~ bCL z ~ I~~ a::z 0 cr. 11';;0 ~Q F ~ I~~ w>- a::-o: <1: >- ~:) >-> :2' ""a:: 0 "I W Cl: -' ~ Z"' 0 z :'5:::! LL 2 CLCL ;; 0' w 0 0-- I- '" N>- w L in u '"'6 ~~ 0 <r: ~ I m inUl 0.. I- ,,0- f- c< 0-=0 W ,",W " Vi en ::I~ 0- S~ O. 0;- 1 ~ _0 '-'ffi Cl: _0 ~:~~d <r: NI -' " " 0 n ~~gg[5 Vi IUl " LLCt:U1U1> ~ 0 -~:~~->~-~I o;-w- II~I .~~~ SJ C"'J~<( gs I 1~ii: ~il."i I --1J _--~ '__ . oj - '0.1 .' ~ z w "d2 ,.- W O-Ul =0<( "w Uw " <r::u:v !=Ow .u ou N<( .1 I ~I Ie l ~ I ~o -- .- -g~L ----- . r I I I) I ~,\'O'Orj 1 I <:: Cl [::: () ~ Cl 0::: Q<:: C:J3 ~Q ~6 f::c, <:: :<c "l- "C ::0; II ;;J Ct::o '-'- l.cj- ki Crj Gj f,:: ki-J ;-;, 0:::2'5 VJ QU) f- W W Cl::: f- (/) z z W -.J (J z g ~ (j z U~~ <( ""Z"'" ~ ~~i < ~ o '" '" :J V z <( m a: co 1m IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-2010-00694, ~ REQUEST FOR A request for a Minor Partition to create 2 flag lots from a single lot. ~ AN EXTENSION ~ OF THE TIME l LIMIT ~ ORS 227.178(1) ) APPLICANTS: Brent Thompson Applicants request a 2/ day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1). ~~~ Applicant /7 ~ c9cP/o Date / [Note: ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120-day period set in (ORS 227.178(1)) may be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total of all extensions may not exceed 245 days."] From: To: Date: Subject: "M Knox" <knox@mind.net> <pinam@ashland.or.us> 7/16/20108:25 AM Under the bus! Hey Michael, Last night's neighborhood meeting for the Partition on Glenn Street went well - for the most part. At one point in the meeting I may have thrown you under the bus, but it wasn't really that bad. Generally, it was one of those "well, Michael said... " and I ended up saying that you were relatively new and that there are a variety of reasons why you said what you said, but maybe it was out of context, etc. Anyway, it was minor, but I would like to explain the issue so that you understand. Essentially it was a mixture of setback interpretation / solar interpretation.. My cell # is 821-3752. We're working on the tree protection plan, arborist report, solar plan (graphics) and a revised site plan. I think we're going to try and give them a few nuggets such as increased setbacks, extra trees, irrigation, etc. As for the 120 day notice form, Brent arrived late and left early so didn't sign. I'll catch him today - hopefully. - Mark AN DEVELOPMENT SERVIC , LLC LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 12,2010 Kristal Foster 379 Glen Street Ashland, OR 97520 Subject: Neighborhood Meeting - 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, July lSt\ 2010 Regarding: Map and Tax Lot, 391E05DA Tax Lot #3701 *Meeting to be held along Glenn Street in front of property Hello, My name is Mark Knox and I'm a local Land Use Planning Consultant working with your neighbor, Brent Thompson, who owns the vacant lots to the south of your property (345 Glenn Street). Brent and I would like to meet with the properties neighbors to discuss various land use matters and to clarify any questions the neighbors may have. We're aware there are some concerns and would like to address each. The meeting time is in the evening in an attempt to minimize the hot temperatures, but I don't expect the meeting to last longer than one hour. However, if for some reason you can't attend the meeting or, will be outside the area, please feel free to contact me at 541-821-3752. Please forward to your other neighbors within the Glennview Estates residential community. I look forward to meeting and/or talking with you. Sincerely, Mark Knox Urban Development Services, LLC Sent to: Ainoura Oussenbec, President Echo Fields, Vice President Edward Moore, Board Member Kristal Foster, Association Secretary Phone: 541 - 4 8 2 - 3 3 34 Fax: 541 - 482 - 3 3 3 6 ~ 71~~1b ~TLAND LAND USE NOTIFICATION. 1M (this form is to be completed only by planning department staff for mapped wetJands/watervvays) DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS WETLANDS PROGRAM West side of Cascades, send to: 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100; Salem, OR 97301- 1279; (503) 986-5200 East side of Cascades, send to: 1645 NE Forbes Rd., Suite 112 Bend, OR 9770 I; (541) 388-6112 I. County: City: Responsible Jurisdiction: City 0 County 2. -AP .-V\J\\t.N\lN_--\ V~~ E. \V\!\' ^ _ mailin~address b:Sh\.~, OiL.. C\":\-5<--0 city, state zip (':)t-U )22L - 'L oc; (,_ phone Local Case File #: PA- 'Lo\CJ- cP (cAy DSL File #: WN 2.oID-611 t ;com~leted b~ DSL~ DSL Project#: 61~~6 _comJeted b~DSL_ LANDOWNER: ~~~ W \:xJ~ 10~ A I mailin,g, address "J'v--\0Ir-eA 0 ~ ~ 1- "SLO city, state zip ('9-1. \ ) Y. '6~ 0 L\ 0-~ phone 3. LOCATION T ?J~ R I 6 S CJ; ~ Y4 Address 'b'l..\. S- <D I e..n", 'SA-. City As'^-\t>vvJ..- ) 0(2... q:+SCO NWr quad map name DA Tax Lot(s) (L)--:::t-D \ 4. ATTACHMENTS Attach all the following (with site marked): CI L WI / NWl Map ( If applicable attach: 0 Other 5. SITE INFORMATION LWIINWI Wetland Classification Codes(s) Adjacent Waterway (if any) M ,. <'. h...::.f. \ - TLt. d:Wh ; s /Vot- }J I'is clic.. .\>'0 Y'\ 2 \ J Ot.s k?e (?,. u.s:e ; 5 o subdivision o planned unit development Y4. pOt'\cJ. fO ~c-t. CA fJ~ev<5 Y.JUvV c ( ev-. /-ed. !./fl~Y\cl5) IS 0Y\ ?CJ'e.. Ir'\ S13€'. c......rJ..... L 5 UJA.-ol & ~ ere s~ he.. pv(fos-eS.. t.y- ru.. 6. }-o III '" ~ dYDvV\ \ -ess (\~,J A<: ~ ") DSL RESPONSE o A removal-fill permit is required from the Department of State Lands o A removal-fill permit will be required when the development project proceeds o A removal-fill permit may be required o A permit may be required by the Corps of Engineers (503-808-4373) o Information needed includes: o A wetland determination/del ineation report o o State Permit # 0 was issued 0 has been applied for t'tI No removal-fill pennit is required for the described project i~auS3 t,",\e Lot It ~ 7D 1 d. oes 06+ Co f\ -h:. ,'", ) v"'; s.tl i c.H t.>'i1 d J t.ve:H.t....-uA 5. cr U c.. f..e (' t.AJ U. 't s. :r: 1- o.f pe.:u- s t1-...J- ~ ir.....' Cl/;..th.o..... r-\: k-h W4.S r.ree...k~ ROM ufl4.J.S ~_rJ. d~s net CD.., d-e-.]r\ fooo{ or Comm~nts: orcu"t,c?' P\sh . W[)\'iA"Z..- 0 'Z--z.O o On-Site Visit By: Date: Response completed by: CIA.AD~ ~~ ~ Date: ~~ o~. 2...0 Ii) * If the project is changed to involve fill or removal from the wetlands area, a~e removal-fill perm' will be required. http://www.oregonstatelands.us/wetlanduse.htm 0 Mailings Completed ~ Data Entry Completed September 2008 4:<. 26" 3 .- /2. 2.. 7 J 9 (.. ~rw'uvs. Y'~<'-\- ~\- w"-S 'S<-~'\- b QS,L \~~o..,ct;~ \>"Ss',\o\L '-"'-+\~ ~\e'f'I(V;..,~~':~''''' 0"" C"-0qc..e.~.",--~ ~m~r~, (\{\N;J~~\'~ \)\~0 ~ 1<k vvOr~,^- \ a V\0-\- ~r~~~ \=" ~c,,-t~ CC:..\CA.\.<vl \;:) *,^-\ '::. ,?^I{'(.~,J,. /'1S /Vl. ~I^""'I DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PORTLAND DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. o. BOX 2946 PORTLAND. OREGON 97208-2946 Reply to Attention of: March 9, 1993 Planning and Engineering Division SUBJECT: Review of Wetland Determination in Wetland of Tributary of Wright creek, Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon - Request No. 92-990. Wetland Environment Technologies, Inc. Attn: Mr. Scott craig P.O. Box 632 Corvallis, Oregon 97339-0632 Dear Mr. Craig: I have reviewed the delineation you completed for the Ashland Community Hospital at the request of the architectural firm of Curry and Brandaw. I concur with the determination that a small portion of wetland is located on the property, deriving its hydrology from seepage of a nearby constructed irrigation ditch. That ditch was constructed in upland soils. As you indicated on March 8, 1993, the water supply from the irrigation ditch comes from a pipe that connects to Ashland Creek. My review of the information leads me to believe the identified wetland and irrigation ditch should not be considered as a "Waters of the United states". This decision is based on clarifications within 'the preamble to our regulations (page 41217 of 33 CFR 320 through 330) that state, "... irrigation ditches excavated on dry land" and "artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased" are generally not considered to be "Waters of the United states". As such, no permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is required from the Department of the Army for the placement of dredged or fill material at the site. This wetland jurisdictional delineation is valid for a period of three years from the date of this letter, subject to any equity provisions that may be adopted as part of implementation of the final revisions to the 1989 Manual, or unless new information warrants revision of the delin~ation before the expiration date. If you have questions about the above reviews and comments, please contact me at (503) 326-5500. Sincerely, Jim Goudzwaard Wetland Specialist Resource Protection and Fish and Wildlife Section Copies Furnished: ODSL EPA (Portland) Curry and Brandaw CENPP-PE-RP (Marg) 141 001 10/28/94 15:20 '5'503 488 5393 ,ASHLAND COM HOSP ~~~ CITY HALL-ADMIN. . -'Il" S/6 /10!JJf/~ ~ Oregon October 13, 1992 DIVISION OF 'ST ATE' I.'ANtiS' Mr. Scott Craig Wetland Environment Technologies, Inc. PO Box 632 Corvallis, OR 97339-0632 STATE LAND BoARD Re: 8A~BARA ROJ;lERI'S Governor PHIL KElSUNC Seocmary of Stale ANTHOl.\l;( MEEIc:E:R SblET~ Wetland Delineation for Ashland ~ommunity aospital, . ~?c~SO~ Co.._.,_ T39~", RIE" Se.ction. -5. _ " '.,'. ',' __. . .. ".~-.:. Dear Mr_ Craig: I have reviewed the above referenced ~etland delineation. Based on the data provided in your report, I concur with the determination that appro~imately 700 square feet of the site meets the definition of "wetland". The wetland area is clearly created by leakage from an irrigation ditch and'would be considered by the Division of State Lands as an "artificially created" wetland in non-hydric soils which would not be regulated by Oregon"s Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.800 - 196.990). I would encourage you to work' directly with the Corps of Engineers to determine their regulatory authority over the site. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please call. Sincerely, \. ..~H,~ ~enneth F. Bierly , Wetlands Program Manager ~---.: '-. - "'."'-".. ,,_.". . " KFB/jp ken:lS8 p6 cc: Jim Goudz~aard, Corps of Engineers Asnland Community Hospital o 775 Sum.m.er 5lnet NE Salem, OR 973IIH337 (503) 378-3805 'r."AV ;:":""....., .......,'" ",...,1'" \ _ .1a l1virol1mcnt Technologie~. P.O. Box 632 Corvallis, OR, 97339-0632 (503) 753-8635 8 July 1992 CI i fford Cu rry Curry and Bradshaw 471 High St. SE Salem, OR, 97310 RECEIVED APR B 1994 Dear Cliff: The source of the water is a spring and/or irrigation out-fall located on an adjacent vacant lot to the south. The water source is located just up slope and center of the Glenn Apartment Complex (photo #'s 1 925 & 31). Flow of the spring is significant even in a drought year. The apartments were built astride the natural drainage of the spring. This idea is confirmed by the existence of a large, concrete box culvert built under the railroad tracks on the down slope side of the apartments dated 1914 (photo # 1 921). Wilter is diverted across slope to the north. The ditch has not been too sllccessful in diverting the water. Apartment residents are bothered by water in their backyards and the ditch is actively maintained (photo # 1 927). There is tlow under the apartments, as is evident from new plastic piping on the down slope side to relieve erosion (photo # 1 920). An mti ricial wetlands is located on the north end of the apartments. It appears that water is tlowing underground from the ditch. The soils on the site are very shallow. It will probably be difficult to dig in the area. I think it would be a good idea to remove the water from the site before constlUction as the soils are well drained and could affect structures. . Sincerely, ~/i--l I ".' ( ~.' li:__.! /' , ~ " ", \ ~-- . Scott J. Cr, ig~ .c./ .-; l : ~ il .d Environment Technologie. P.O. Box 632 Corvallis, OR, 97339-0632 (503) 753-8635 .r' ,ll _ 6 July 1992 Kenneth F. Bierly, Wetlands Program Manager Division of State Lands 775 Summer St. NE Salem, OR, 97310 Dear Ken: I examined the Main and Maple site in Ashland, OR (TL 1100, 3900, 4000, 4100, 4200, & 4300), owned by the Ashland Community Hospital Foundation, on 1 July 1992 for Curry and Brandaw, Salem, OR. I have concluded that a portion of the site does meet the Federal criteria of a Jurisdictional Wetlands subject to Army Corps of Engineers and DSL regulatory authority. This determination is based on information available from published sources and onsite inspection. SITE INFORMATION Information relied on for this determination came from the following SOlUCes: 1. Soils mapping by the Soil ConselVation SelVice described in the preliminary Soil SUlVey of Jackson County. Oregon. 2. Site inspection utilizing routine onsite determination methods as outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987). 3. Site inspection utilizing routine onsite determination method~ as outlined in the Federal Manual For Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989). RESULTS Based on my obselVation, <700 sq. ft. do meet the criteria of a Jurisdictional Wetlands. However, this wetland is artificially created, The site is located on an east facing slope of about 7-20%. Soils on the site are not hydric (Shefflein loam). Vegetation is dominated by upland species. Hydrology on the site is upland in nature. Wetlands were tentatively identified by a private land appraiser. I found that no wetlands are present where first identified. The tentatively identified wetland is actually a man made ditch. The source of the water is a spring and/or irrigation out-fall point located on an adjacent vacant lot. The ditch enters the property on the south property line and flows about halfway across the site. At this point there is a weir that is no longer used (photo # 1 911). Water then flows downhill and off the property. A small wooden box culvert is located under the railroad tracks (photo # 1 9 17). The ditch is for irrigation and there is an easement for it in the deed. The water rights are owned by Mr. Billings of Ashland, OR. An artificial wetlands is located on the north end of the apartments. It appears that water flowing underground from the ditch is responsible for the maintenance of hydrophytic species. If the irrigation ditch is piped, it is my opinion that this wetland would no longer exist. I base this judgment on the shallow, highly porous nature of the soils (well drained), and the decrease in flow of water in the ditch after it passes this portion of the property (see map). There is no difference in the amount of wetlands delineated on this site as defined in the 1987 and 1989 Manuals. ~) aard, COr Project: Applicant: Owner: County: Zoninglland lIse: Location: Size: Elevation: Vegetation type: Tax lot: Topography: Floodway: Present lIse: date lIse began: Past use: date use began: Adjacent areas: nOlih: ecl<;t: south: west: SITE DATA Wetland Environment Technologies, Inc. P.O. Box 632 Corvallis, OR, 97339-0632 Maple and E Main site Curry and Brandaw 471 High St. SE Salem, OR, 97310 8 July 1992 Ashland Community Hospital Foundation 280 Maple St. Ashland, OR 97520 Jackson El T 39S R 1 E Sec. 5 SESE, east of E Main St. at tbe intersection of E Main and Maple Sts. 3.95 acres "",1900' ~grass land Map # 39 IE 05 DA TL's 1100,3900,4000,4100,4200, & 4300 hill side, east exposure, 7-20 % slope no pasture and residence (TL 4300) at least 50 years residence and commercial residence, commercial, & pasture residence, commercial, & pasture residence and commercial ~\.J E ONSITE DETERMINATION h....:,f}- Plot 1, upland (photo # 1 902) plot below ditch Field investigator(s): Scott Craig Project/Site: Main and Maple site Applicant/Owner: Ashland Hospital c/o Curry & Bradshaw 471 High St. SE Salem, OR 97301 Date: 1 July 1992 State: OR County: Jackson Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes X NO (If no, explain) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes NO X (If yes, explain) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species 1. Lolium perenne 2. Trifolium ~ 3. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC (J Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: Upland vegetation is dominant on plot. Plot was placed to represent a down slope position below the ditch. Above the ditch, vegetation was of a drier nature (e.g., Hordeum Ieporinum, NI; & Centaurea solstitialis, UPL). Patches of blackberries are also found on the site. Indicator Status FACU FACU Percent Cover 55 25 Veg. Stratum herb herb SOILS Series/phase: Shefflein loam Is the soil on the hydric soil list? Yes No Soil is a histosol? Yes No ~ I-listic epipedon? Soil Pit Characteristics: Depth Matrix Color (Jo()'1 10 YR 3/2 ()" Other hydric soil indicators: none Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: Soil profile is similar to SCS soil survey protile for the mapped area, a non-hydric soil. Subgroup: _n X Undetermined Yes No ~ Gleyed? Yes No X Mottle Characteristics Texture, Other Characteristics sandy loam parent material, granite HYDROLOGY Is ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No X- Depth to free standing water in pit/soil probe hole: ~ encountered to 6" List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: none Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: Soil is not saturated during the growing season. JURIsorCfIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Wetland criteria has not been met. RuufI NSITE DETERMINATION Mt:d.H Plot 2,\~i~~i (photo # 1 9 05, 46) Fielu investigator(s): Scott Craig Project/Site: Main anu Maple site Applicant/Owner: Ashland Hospital c/o Curry & Bradshaw 471 High St. SE Salem, OR 97301 Date: State: OR County: 1 July 1992 Dougla.') Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? 'Yes X NO (If no, explain) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hyurology been significantly disturbed? Yes NO ~ (If yes, explain) VEGETATION Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status 1. HoIcus lanatus FAC 2. Anthemis cotula FACU 3. Cichorium intybus UPL Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 33 Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: Hydrophytic vegetation does not dominate plot. Part of the ditch area is covered in blackberries (Rubus vetitus). Obligate species (e.g., Veronica americana. OBL) are found in the ditch. Percent Cover 40 30 20 Veg. herb herb herb SOILS Series/phase: Sheftlein loam Subgroup: _n Is the soil on the hydric soil list? Yes No X Undetermined Soil is a histosol? Yes No ~ Histic epipedon? Yes _ No ~ Gleyed? Yes No X Soil Pit Characteristic,;: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Characteristic') Texture, Other Characteristics 0-6" 10 YR 3/2 sandy loam 6" parent material, granite Other hydric soil indicators: none Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: Soil profile is similar to SCS soil survey profile for the mapped area, a non-hydric soil. There are signs of active maintenance of the ditch, HYDROLOGY Is ground surface inundated? Yes X No Surface water depth: 3" Is the soil saturated? Yes X No Depth to free standi ng water in pit/soil probe hole: -=- List other !ield evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: none Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: The ditch is constructed across an upland area. The ditch is about a meter wide and 6" deep where it enters the propeliy. Within 20' the water is barely 12" wide and a couple of inches ueep. The flow decreases across the propeliy to a trickle. This is apparently due to the well drain nature of the soil as it is flowing out underground and down slope. JURISDlCfIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictionnl decision: Ditch is ariificial and r~ross an upland slope. The ditch has its origin on an adjacent property. kv -< ONSITE DETERMINATION 1\,>...,1' Plot 3, wetland (photo # 1 923, 31, & 39) >1,400 sq. ft. on propeI1y along south fence Field investigator(s): Scott Craig Project/Site: Main and Maple site Applicant/Owner: Ashland Hospital c/o Curry & Bradshaw 471 High Sl. SE Salem, OR 97301 Date: State: OR County: 1 July 1992 Douglas Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes X NO (If no, explain) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes NO X (If yes, explain) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species 1. I.Y.2.bl! lati fol ia 2. Ranunculus occidentalis Indicator Status OBL FACW Percent Cover 55 35 Veg. Stratum herb herb 3. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 100 Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: IIydrophytic vegetation dominates plol. SOILS Series/phase: Sheftlein loam Is the soil on the hydric soil list? Soil is a histosol? Yes No Soil Pit Characteristics: . Depth Matrix Color O-Hll 10 YR 3/2 Subgroup: _n Yes No X Undetermined ~ Histic epipedon? Yes No ~ Gleyed? Yes No X Mott Ie Characteristics 10 YR 4/4 Texture, Other Characteristics sandy loam Other hydric soil indicators: none Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: Soil profile is similar to SCS soil sllIvey protile for the mapped area, a non-hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Is ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes X No- Depth to free standing water in pit/soil probe hole: saturated to surface List other tield evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: Soil is saturated for at least two consecutive weeks during the growing season. However, the source of water is a ditch which tlows across the property. Water is tlowing down hill underground and saturating this area. Source of spring is on adjacent property. JURISDICfIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: All three weIland criteria have been met. Wetlands are apparently artificially created by a ditch. ~L. -, I' , -l., \ \ W.E.7['., ][l!U;. P,Q. Box 632 Corvallis OR 97339-0632 f WE.lt..ANDS I . i5 MAPLE COOLIOGE ~O"PER"Y BOVI\IDA RV A5HLAND,01\ j/lL V /992.. I CITY OF AS LAN Planning Department, 51 Winb....1 Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www,ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: 2010-00694 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Glenn St. OWNER/APPLICANT: Brent Thompson DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Partition to create 2 flag lots from a single lot located at 345 Glenn Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA TION: High-Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 05DA; TAX LOT: 3701 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 23,2010 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: July 7, 2010 The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above, Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above, Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period, After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, 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 allow this Department 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. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. G:\comm-dev\planninglNotices Mailed\20 I 0\20 1 0-00694.doc MINOR LAND PARTITION CRITERIA Section 18.76.050 Preliminary Approval An application for a preliminary partition shall be 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 in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter 18,88, Performance Standards Options. (ORD 2836, 1999) 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 undergrounding 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. (ORD 2951, 2008) G:\comm-dev\planninglNotices Mailed\20 1 0\20 1 0-00694.doc 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 23, 2010 I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action 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 #2010-00694, 345 Glenn St. Comm-Dev\Planning\ Templates T AH:J^"-og-ooS-1. I UJO)",uaA8'MMM I PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 3900 ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 925 FOURTH AVE 3300 SEATTLE WA 98104 P A-20 1 0-00694 391 E05DA 11900 CAMPOLI-RICHARDS DEBORAH M 371 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 3899 COT A GEORGE G ET AL PO BOX 548 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 80004 FARIA PATRICIA L 2933 LINCOLN AVE ALAMEDA CA 94501 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 200 GARDINER MICHAEL A/MARY N 349 ORANGE AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 39lE05DA 3401 GUDGER KENNETH R/DEBORAH C 42711 NELDER HEIGHTS DR OAKHURST CA 93644 PA-20 1 0-00694391 E05DA 3402 JOHNSON MILO K TRUSTEE PO BOX 1055 FERNDALE CA 95536 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 3600 KISTLER RAYMOND J 2025 BUTLER CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 323 LIPPERT MARILYN S 3444 HILLS TERR. MEDFORD OR 9750 I PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 11500 MACERA ELIZABETH V 140 MAJASTIC AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94112 T ~09l.fii @AUaAV ~ f Widn-dod p.IoqaJ el Jal~^~J ~uawa6JeljJ I ap UUll aJnljJIiI4 IiII 'l zandau ep sues I . PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 80003 BAMMAN VICTORIA L 311 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391 E05DA 330 COLLINS CLAIRE TRUSTEE FBO 482 LORI LANE ASHLAND OR 97520 P A-20 I 0-00694 391 E05DA 80005 DEROCHER LAURA C 319 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694391E05DA 11700 FIELDS ECHO ELLEN 367 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-20 I 0-00694 391E05DA 3403 GAY ALMA/DENNIS 493 LORI LN ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 12100 HEBERT ELAINE T 375 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 P A-20 10-00694 391 E05DA 327 KENDALL JULIETTE TRSTE FBO 488 LORI LANE ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 322 KOTHS CATHERINE ELUTES 344 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-20 I 0-00694 391E05DA 3500 LIVELY VIC/CLAUDIA TRST FBO PO BOX 276 TALENT OR 97540 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 303 MARTINI HERMONA PO BOX 1349 ASHLAND OR 97520 , wla6P3 dn-dod asodxa I OUUII 6uolu DUao __ Jaded pa9:/ __ w f ~091.!ii ~H:J^" ~'Jeqe6 al zas!l!~n I Jalad , selpe:J sa>>enbl~;t I PA-20 I 0-00694 391E05DA 328 BOLDT INGRID E A 486 LORI LANE ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-20 I 0-00694 391E05DA 326 CONSIDINE DOROTHY 328 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 11100 EL TERMAN W RONALD 355 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 12300 FOSTER PETER S 379 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 11300 GINTHER NORMA REV LIV TRUST 359 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 331 HOWARD JUDITH L 90 RIDGE RD ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-20 I 0-00694 391E05DA 3100 KILHAM EDWARD GEARY TRUSTEE 476 NORTH MAIN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 11800 KUBAL OWEN A TRUSTEE 16 WOODSIDE DR DANVILLE CA 94506 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 12500 LYON PETER LYNDON 224 AVENUE F REDONDO BEACH CA 90277 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 208 MC ARDLE PHILIP J/KAREN T 2400 EUNICE ST BERKELEY CA 94708 , I I ~09"S a~liIldw;U ~aA" asn C:IRnR"'l _IRR.I -'C:I:I::I T Aa:l3^"-o9-00S-J. I WO)"Al8AU"MN\M I PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 324 MCKINLEY CANDICE L 336 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 3400 PURVES MARGARET Y 1190 SLAGLE CR RD GRANTS PASS OR 97527 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 80006 SHERBOW MARK ALAN 323 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 11600 SOL ERIK RlRACHEL C A 365 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 12400 TESELLE KATHRYN J 381 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 80002 TWIEST AMY K 307 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 12600 WOLFF ROBERT N ET AL 508 N MAIN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 P A-20 10-00694 Hoffbuhr & Associates 3155 AlamedaSt #201 Medford OR 97504 T @09j.1i @AUaAV ~ r IUdn-dod p.loqeJ el Jal\l^~ ~uewa6.lelp I ap uya eJnqJ8L1 81 " zandau ap suas I ... PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 11200 MOORE EDWARD A TRUSTEE 211 OAK AVE REDWOOD CITY CA 94061 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 80007 ROGERS CAROL LEE POBOX 745 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 11400 SKINNER ROBERT M ET AL 1219 OLD WILLOW LN ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 325 STEELE JOAN D TRUSTEE FBO 332 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 3701 THOMPSON BRENT E POBOX 201 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 304 WILKEY BERNARD RlMONYEEN R POBOX 1349 ASHLAND OR 97520 P A-20 1 0-00694 Urban Development Services Mark Knox 485 W Nevada St Ashland, OR 97520 P A-20 10-00694 Construction Engineering Consultants PO Box 1 724 Medford OR 97501 r lUa6P3 dn-dod esodxe I OJ sun 6UOl8 puag __ Jaded pa<l;I ., r @09J.S @AH3^" ~!Jeqe6 91 zas!I!l-n I J919d ~ S8U:U!j. s9~anbl~;I PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 12000 OUSSENBEC AINOURA 373 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05DA 329 SCHUSTER LAURA LANE C 484 LORI LN ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 3404 SMITH CONSTANCE L TRUSTEE ETAL 935 ClENEGUITAS RD C SANTA BARBARA CA 93110 PA-20 1 0-00694 391E05AD 507 STOUT CARLYLE III TRSTE FBO 356 OTIS ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 391E05DA 12200 TITUS JAMES TRUSTEE ET AL 3765 SHERWOOD PARK DR MEDFORD OR 97504 PA-201O-00694 391E05DA 80008 WILLIAMS PATRICIA C 331 GLENN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00694 Computerized Architecture Drafting 170 Ashland Loop Rd Ashland, OR 97520 53 7-7-10 o Glenn St r I I @09J.S all:!ldwal ~a^" asn CIRnln _IRR..I .(Ct:l:2 ThIs map Is based on a digital database complied by Jackson County From a variety of sources. Jackson County cannot accept responsiblly for errors, omIssions, or positional accuracy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied. Map created on 6/15/2010 11:47:00 AM using web.jacksoncounty.org OTiS 2:00 100 1100 5()2 50S .5(};0 001 4400 \ " \ ... \ 64~" 12:'100 \, " \, " . 50000 I. . tl., " 1'!1<JOO1 \, '. 67~\ r 6.800..... \, f:OOUr."GE 3900 '72.00 \,' \ ('S3t 11\ \/"3.~, ~ II \ '\,/"'33'9 ,p" \ \" i'l "f^' 34.0 "'I' \ II \\" .' 34.,1 ' II P 'I 'I' }~,. 300 " .' .34~' /, I "A"i' ",l l ~II /~ ,P' l~,~ I~ " ',' ~'O /' ,,i'2Mb \ .(/343i-35()/ ", ;'.... \,,'/.<'/ /,:i3St';';1~'D(H) , "1:,t111i1lt? 2800 \ " , , I , I i I I I, @, @ Please recycle with colored office grade paper Created with MapMaker JACKSON COUNTY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Map Maker Application Front Counter Legend Highlighted feature the Buffer lheBufferTarget Tax Lot Oulllnes Tax Lot Numbers \, JACKSON COUNTY Oregon July 6, 2010 To: City of Ashland Planning Department Attn: Mike Pina 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520 From: Glennview Estates Owners' Association Re: Planning Action 2010-00694 (345 Glenn Street) Description: A request for a Minor Partition to create two flag lots from a single lot We, the Board of Directors of the Glennview Estates Owners' Association, object to the proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694 because the application does not fulfill the Criteria for Minor Land Partition (Section 18.76.050), which include ''The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land." Further, we are concerned by the incompleteness and inaccuracies of this proposal and the 2002 Flag Lot Partition. Our specific objections are: 1. Absence of a Tree Protection/Preservation Plan. 2. Absence of a site plan showing building envelope that satisfies the zoning regulations. 3. Failure to adhere to the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options. 4. Negative effects on Glennview Estates. 1) Tree Protection/Preservation Plan The proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694, as well as the 2002 Flag Lot Partition of the property, do not adhere to the Tree Protection/Preservation Plan. The Tree Preservation and Protection code states "Tree protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action...". (Section 18.61.200) Proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694 incorrectly states "There are no trees on the property and no trees are proposed to be removed with this application." Actually, there are several trees on the property, including the 16" dbh tree mentioned in the proposal, and two mature cottonwoods of >6" dbh and >30 feet in height, which are located in the northeast corner, with drip lines extending over the year-round water course. On the cover of the Project Description for Proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694, these two mature trees are clearly visible between Mountain View Retirement Center and Glennview Estates, towering over the latter. Also, please see the attached photographs. The Purpose of the Tree Preservation and Protection code states "Trees on [developmental] properties should be preserved so that they may be considered for incorporation into development plans" and"... properties located in multifamily residential zones often have special landscaping circumstances, [which] have the potential to affect significantly larger numbers of persons if unregulated." (Section 18.61.010) Failure to preserve these trees will have a "significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property". (Section 18.61.080) Furthermore, failure to preserve these trees will eliminate an effective visual barrier and noise buffer between Glennview Estates and other development (ie, Mountain View Retirement Center and future development on the applicant property). ACTION REQUESTED · Develop a Tree Protection/Preservation Plan and use it to incorporate the existing mature trees in an alternative site plan that adheres to the Purpose and Intent of the Tree Preservation and Protection code. Glennview Estates comments on planning action 2010-00694 1 2) Site Plan The Criteria 'for Preliminary Approval of Flag Partitions (Section 18.76.060) state that the creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission if certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions include approval of a site plan by the Planning Commission. The criteria state, "The site plan shall be approved provided the regulations of the zoning and subdivision titles are satisfied."(Section G) Further, "For site plans of a flag lot, the building envelope shall be identified." (Section G, 3). The site plan for the proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694 does not include building envelopes and the site plan created for the 2002 Flag Lot Partition did not satisfy the zoning regulations because of inadequate solar setback for the building envelope at the property line with Glennview Estates. Specifically, the 2002 Flag Lot Partition site plan and map show only a 6' side yard setback for the building envelope of the 2-story apartment building at the northeast property line. Given the dimensions of the building envelope, a setback of 6' would eliminate virtually all solar radiation across the southeast to southwest arc of the sun from reaching 373 and 375 Glenn Street. Despite the failure to satisfy the zoning regulations with the 2002 Flag Lot Partition site plan, the proposed Minor Partition states, "Please see site plan.. . All standard setbacks, including solar setbacks, are proposed which illustrates the building envelope (10' front yard for a porch, 15' house and 20' garage; 6' side yard [emphasis added], and 10' per story rear yard)." ACTION REQUESTED . Include in the site plan for the proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694 all building envelopes with Solar Envelope illustrated, so that the impact of allowable development on the solar access of Glennview Estates can be assessed. 3) Performance Standards Options In describing the easement associated with the water course on the property, the 2002 Flag Lot Partition uses the terminology "Conservation Easement". Although Assistant Planner, Mike Pena, stated that this terminology might not have any general meaning or regulatory protection outside of the planning process, we will continue to use it in the following discussion. The Conservation Easement was mapped incorrectly on the 2002 Flag Lot Partition. The water course defining the Easement actually follows contour line 1840' at the bottom of the slope near the Glennview Estates property line. Furthermore, the proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694 refers to the water course as an "irrigation pipe". Actually, it is the historic Helman Irrigation Ditch, an open water course hydrologically connected to Ashland creek, which has existed for> 150 years at this site.1 In contrast to many of Ashland's natural small water courses, the Helman Irrigation Ditch provides a reliable, year-round flow of water. As such, it supports extensive vegetation (ie, trees of >6" dbh) and wildlife (ie, small mammals, birds, insects). Furthermore, the area may be a small wetland, as evidenced by the presence of several cottonwood trees, although it is too small (<0.5 acre) to have been inventoried according to the Department of State Lands rules for the 2007 City of Ashland local 1 A Timeline of Local Historic Water Events, From An Introduction to: Water of the Rogue Valley. North Mountain Park Nature Center, A Division of the Ashland Parks and Recreation Department, April 1 , 2009 (http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/Water%20Backq rou nd%20Booklet. pdf 1851: First water right claimed in Oregon by Jacob Wagner on Wagner Creek in Talent. 1852: Abel Helman and Eber Emery arrive in Ashland, build sawmill on Ashland Creek. 1854: Hargadine Ditch constructed. Ashland's flour mill constructed on Ashland Creek. 1856: Million Ditch constructed. Native Americans marched to reservation. 1858: Helman Ditch constructed [emphasis added] Glennview Estates comments on planning action 2010-00694 2 Wetlands Inventory and Assessment. Unfortunately, the owner has allowed the area to become overgrown with noxious plants (Himalayan blackberries). The property is zoned R-3 with a Performance Standards Options overlay. The purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options (Section 18.88.010) are as follows: "... to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should... use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood. Removal of the Conservation Easement would contravene the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options by not using the natural features of the landscape to greatest advantage and by increasing the impact of development on the natural environment and the neighborhood. ACTIONS REQUESTED · To better follow the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options, lessening the impact of development on the natural environment and on the neighborhood A. Maintain the Conservation Easement, moving its mapped location to the correct position at the northeastern end of the property (where the Helman Irrigation Ditch and associated mature trees and habitat are located), next to the property line with Glennview Estates. B. Provide an alternative site plan and proposed structure placement that does not encroach on the natural habitat and mature trees on the property. · Working with the Ashland Historic Commission and Parks and Recreation, conduct an assessment of the historic importance of the Helman Irrigation Ditch at this location. · Assess the area according to the Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Method. 4) Other Negative Effects on Glennview Estates The proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694, and the development that it will allow, has the potential to impose additional negative effects on Glennview Estates. Firstly, removal of the existing trees and bushes on the property will affect the hydrology of the sloping property, potentially allowing increased water runoff down-slope onto Glennview Estates. Secondly, if the Helman Irrigation Ditch is enclosed in a pipe and the pipe should become blocked and/or damaged, leakage will likely develop, resulting in seepage down-slope onto Glennview Estates. If the land above a pipe is developed, the pipe will be completely inaccessible for maintenance and repair. ACTIONS REQUESTED · Conduct a hydrology report to assess the impact of tree and bush removal on runoff down-slope onto Glennview Estates property. · Develop a plan to address the issue of maintenance and repair of an irrigation pipe buried below the development that would be allowed by the proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694. Glennview Estates comments on planning action 2010-00694 3 SUMMARY The proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694 and the 2002 Flag Lot Partition are incomplete and inaccurate. The proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694 does not meet all laws, ordinances, and resolutions because of: 1. Absence of a Tree Protection/Preservation Plan. 2. Absence of a site plan showing building envelope that satisfies the zoning regulations. 3. Failure to adhere to the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options. Development allowed by the proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694 has the potential to adversely affect the natural environment and the neighborhood. Furthermore, development allowed by the proposed Minor Partition 2010-00694 has the potential to adversely affect Glennview Estates by interfering with solar access, increasing runoff, and allowing seepage if the proposed irrigation pipe (which would be inaccessible to maintenance and repair) is ever damaged. We request that Minor Partition 2010-00694 be denied until it meets all laws, ordinances, and resolutions and until the potential negative effects on the natural environment, the neighborhood, and on Glennview Estates have been fully addressed, as detailed in this document. We also request that the site plan for the 2002 Flag Lot Partition have two important modifications. Firstly, that the Conservation Easement associated with the Helman Irrigation Ditch be mapped to its correct location on the northeastern end of the property next to the Glennview Estates property line, thus allowing protection of the existing mature trees and habitat. Secondly, that a site plan be produced which illustrates building envelopes with Solar Envelopes that fulfill the zoning requirements. These modifications would lessen the impact of development on the natural environment and on the neighborhood. Also, they would preserve the existing visual barrier and noise buffer provided by mature trees. Lastly, they would help to mitigate negative effects of property development on runoff and seepage, and on the solar access of Glennvisw Estates. Sincerely, Glennview Estates Homeowners' Association Board of Directors Ainoura Oussenbec, President (373 Glenn Street) Echo Fields, Vice-President (367 Glenn Street) Edward Moore, Board member (owner of 357 Glenn Street) Kristal Foster, Association Secretary/Treasurer (379 Glenn Street) Glennview Estates comments on planning action 2010-00694 4 ~ (J) lO o o Vl I o ~ o · Nt) c c o c o,f:i OJ (JJ ~15 bDLJ) c ~ .- m c c ro -- 0. . . Q) 0:: OJ ...c -I-' c V) OJ OJ lo- -I-' OJ tlO>- lo- -I-' C'O lo- OJ OJ a. ...c a -I-' lo- "C a. c -I-' . C'O U 0 OJ ~ ...c . --. 0 ~-gN .- V) .... o OJ Lf') c ...c >- a -I-' ~ -1-'4----' C'O a tlO -I-' C 'C C OJ lo- C'O ~ lo- C'O c"C-I-' C'O C'O OJ E ~ lo- o-OJ OJ -I-' :5: I V) C'O OJ OJ ...c ...c -I-' -I-' 4- l0- a a V) c a -I-' a ...c a. OJ V) OJ ...c I- V) OJ -I-' re -I-' V) UJ $: OJ .- > c c OJ - 19 c OJ OJ $: -I-' OJ ..0 V) OJ -I-' OJ C ~ OJ bOE C OJ .- ~ $: .~ o OJ ..cO::: ~ $: -I-' OJ V) ._ re > OJ ..c C -I-' .- ~ re o -I-' C C :J bOO .~ ~ ~ 0"'0 o C .....J re . C re E - OJ I OJ ..c I-- >- ~ ~ OJ ..0 ~ u re - ..0 OJ V) C OJ "'0 OJ ..c -I-' ..c . -I-' "'0 re C OJ :J C 0 ~ ~ OJ bO "'0 OJ C ~ :J 0 '+- V) OJ C..c 2 -I-' ..c .~ .B..c . - -I-' (:) $: C 0 o ~ .~ E:.D re OJ .9P "'0 ~ C ~ :J ~ OJ -I-' C OJ U N '<:t. m UJ o o I o .-I o N c: o ',p u (U b.O c: c: c: (U 0. c: o l/1 01-' c: OJ E E o u o .-I o N ~ ........ f"'-. rt'l V} ro 3 E 0 V} q.:: 0 0) 3 . ..c V} ....., I- 0 0 ....., ....., . 0 V} c 0) ..c ....., c. V} ro 0) ~ ....., !o.... V} V} 0 L.L.J 0) I.!- 3 ..c ..c ....., u 0) c ....., '> ""C c C c 0) ~ c 0) en 0) w 0 - V} 0 l!J 0 ....., V} I ro b.O 0 C 'F'i b.O ro 0 .- ..c N !o.... ... !o.... C ""C s:: (') 0) c c '-8 0) ro .. rn ..c - V} .. l!J b.O ....., 0) s:: "" ..c s:: III III s:: \.0 ....., rn ....c cY'l ..c Q. ""C ....., s:: U .- (') c 3 Vl .- +" +-' ..c ""C s:: c.u -- 0) 0) E 0 ..c - E 0) 0 (') !o.... u U ....., C c c 0) 0 I.!- U ro 0) b.O ..c c E ....., V} 0) V} ..c .....- 0 >- !o.... CIJ U ....., ro c I ....., 0) V} !o.... :::J !o.... .~ :::J QJ V} u 0) ....c c 0 C 'F'i Cd I-- ro N ..c , f'-. U , .. f'-. .. '<:t Q) c: +-' '"C rtl rtl c: +-' +-' III c: :::I UJ :::I 0 3: 0 III ~ cXl Q) 'S; Q) rtl c: ...c:: :::I c: +-' III Q) '"C 'S; l!:I c: rtl rtl '+- III E 0 III Q) 10... '+- +-' 0 0 rtl '+- 0 +-' III '"C 10... UJ c: Q) 3: rtl ...c:: Q) Q) f- 's; a. 0 +-' c: III c: III rtl Q) Q) Q) '<:1' ...c:: ........... en l!:I +-' ...c:: '"C \D +-' 0 c: Q) 10... c: 0 Q) N 0 :::I I Q) c: 0 0 'F1 3: ..c b.O 10... 0 +-' rtl c: b.O N Q) +-' :.2 ~ c ..c III U o rtl 0 III '+:1 '"C Q) o..c u Q) Q) Q) .. l1:J +-' 10... Q) ...c:: .. b1) rtl +-' 10... U +-' C 0 Q) rtl b.O III c: C ...J 10... 0 C rtl +-' '"C l1:J V') 0 Q) 0. Q) ...c:: III C (]J III a. a. 0 Q) E ...c:: Q) V') ,~ +-' III b"o c (]J +-,"' Q) <lJ III ...c:: Q) E !a.- Q) f- ..c E ~ c: 0 +-' III rtl u ...c:: Q) u +-' '.j:j 10... 10... -c 0 Q) c: a. 0 Q) 0 ...c:: 10... +-' a. 0 0 +-' c: +-' Q) 10... U Q) rtl +-' '--' c: '"C Q) rtl U Q) C +-' ...c:: c: +-' 0 Q) c: E Q) Q) Q) +-' 10... ~ '.j:j +-' Q) Q) 0 c:r:: ..c ~l 0 3: 10... 0 Q) N Q) '-.. U :> 'C '" 10... '-.. rtl .. r' ..c .. OJ Vl OJ ..c I- +-' V'l .. s::: ........, ~ Vl l!J (]J L.f) 3: ~ ~~ ....c.g ~ .~ o .~ Vl ~ c. bO~ c '8 u_ l'tl ~~ o ~ o ~ - ~ ~ u OJ '"0 ~ U l'tl ..0 OJ ..c +-' ..... Vl (]J (]J Sa..... ........, -c~ l- O~ O~ 3: ~ c OJ o ~ ........,+-' ........,~ o c. U . . . Lf') <q- en \J:l o o I o V'""I o N b o '.j:; u ro no b b b ro Cl. b o Vl "-' b OJ E E o u o V'""I o N -- I' -- f'. III III !a.- (]J .- !a.- !a.- rc ..c c o III_ +-' rc +-' (]J t:lO (]J > QJ ..c:: oj-l ro E III I- QJ ..c:: oj-l o QJ E o III -0 c: ro III QJ QJ I- oj-l -0 o o ~ c: o oj-l oj-l o u E o I- ..... b.Ooj-l c: QJ c: ~ QJ oj-l QJ Vl b c: III c: III QJ ~l!J .- M > '" e M 0..-0 -0 c: c: .- ro~ Qj..c 'c E I- 0 ro I- ..c ..... ro ~ III QJ E ~ 1-..... .E 0 c:..c:: o oj-l ._ :J oj-l 0 ro III oj-l >- QJ- b.Ooj-l QJ..c:: > b.O QJ ..c:: I-'- III III ~ o QJ 0 ..c 0 III oj-l '> 0 QJ..c:: I- 0.. ro III -..c:: ("\-. I-'- C-. I- III QJ QJ ..c:: .- u 1::: III QJ 0..0.. ro 0 ..c:: l- I- 0.. QJ oj-l 0.. c: -QJ III U QJ ro QJ ....., 1--0 oj-l ro I- QJ oj-l QJ E ro -0 ~.o <oj- en w o o I o M o N C o '';:; U f\J c o U') ol'"" C (!) E E o u o M o N -, " .......... " III III OJ OJ ~ +-' -c C o E - <( ... ..c u -l-l o c ro E QJ :c QJ ..c -l-l o -l-l -l-l C QJ U ro ....... "'C ro II) 3: o l-. tlO o II) ro QJ QJ l-. -l-l :>. 0 -l-l -l-l l-. -l-l QJ QJ 0.. -l-l QJ o II) 4- C. ~ 3: -l-l QJ ~ C ~ ro QJ"'C u 4- II) .~ 0 l-. "'C..cQJ ro-l-l"'C l-. "'C 0 .:::: c c "'C ro >-..c II) - U QJ -l-l -l-l ..c ._ ~ tlO 0 t;; -vi c: W II) ro ~ E o o QJ :c_ .8 QJ ro o ..c E ..c I-- II) a.. QJ ..c -l-l 4- o QJ tlO l-. ro II) ..c I-- 3: QJ > C C QJ lD c QJ C QJ C 3: QJ ~lD ..oLJ'l tlOlO c m C4- QJ 0 QJ QJ l-. U U C "'C II) QJ C II) 4- QJ ro QJ ~ l-. "'C u ro QJ QJ > ro II) l-. o ..0 QJ -l-l l-. QJ l-. "'C o....c .a C "'C -l-l U 0 C II) :::s E ro (g ~ QJ'" b II) ~ 0.. ro ~ ..c O"'C-l-l-l-l II) QJ .rg 4- QJ -l-l II) 0 ..crow.:j:: -l-l:5 QJ II) QJ II) N ..0 ro -l-l II) 3: QJ QJ >..c -l-l C -l-l C QJ, lD "'C C ~ o -l-l l-. C tlO 0 ~ l-. U 4- ro C ..0 QJ -l-l ..c II) -l-l ~ C .:j:: QJ QJ ..c -l-l C o C QJ QJ II) II) "'C o o 3: C o -l-l -l-l o U ....... " '<:t en w <::) <::) I <::) ~ <::) N !:: o t:J ro !:: o Vl +'" !:: <lJ E E o u <::) ~ <::) N '" I"- '" " PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR A PROPOSED TWO-LOT LAND PARTITION FOR THE VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED ON GLENN STREET SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASHLAND, OREGON SUBMITTED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LL 485 w. NEVADA STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 I. PROJECT INFORMATION: ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 391E 05DA Tax Lot 3701 PLANNING ACTION: This application is for a Land Partition to partition a single residential flag lot into two residential flag lots. The property is zoned R-3 (Multi- Family High Density Residential) and is currently "T -shaped" and the proposal is to divide the lot into two "L~shaped" flag lots, The application is subject to the requirements of Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76. OWNER: Brent Thompson PO Box 201 Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541-488-0407 PLANNING: Urban Development Services, LLC 485 W. Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541-821-3752 DRAFTING: Computerized Architecture Drafting 170 Ashland Loop Road Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541~488-5899 SURVEYOR: Hoffbuhr & Associates 3155 Alameda Street, Suite 201 Medford, Oregon 97504 Phone: 541~779-4641 CIVIL ENGINEERING: Construction Engineering Consultants P.O. Box 1724 Medford, Oregon 97501 Phone: 541-779-5268 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-3 (Multi-Family High Density Residential) MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 5,000 sq. ft. '1 LOT SIZE: Existing Size Proposed Lot One: Proposed Lot Two: 21,853 sq. ft. (with 2,900 sq. ft. flag pole) 9,481 sq. ft, (includes flag lot area) 9,469 sq. ft. (includes flag lot area) APPLICABLE ORDINANCES: High Density Multiple-Family Residential, Chapter 18.28 Partitions, Chapter 18.76 ADJACENT ZONING: WEST: E-1, Employment NORTH: HC, Health Care SOUTH: R-3, High Density Multi-Family Residential EAST: R-3, High Density Multi-Family Residential SITE: R-3, High Density Multi-Family Residential n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND: A pre-application meeting was held on May 5th, 2010, at which time comments, questions and observations were raised by the Planning and other City Staff. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, all City standards and requests are being complied with, Proposal: The applicant is requesting a single-lot Partition dividing the property into two parcels of 9,162 square feet and 9,179 square feet. Each parcel exceeds the R-3 zone's minimum 5,000 square foot lot size and conforms to all dimensional standards, Considering the parcels are zoned R-3, High Density Multi-Family, and each lot has a maximum development potential of four dwelling units, Property Description: The property in question is approximately .47 acres zoned R-3, High Density Residential, with a Performance Standards Options overlay. The property is "T" shaped with dimensions of 105' X 175' and a 20' X 145' flag pole connection to Glenn Street. The property was partitioned from its parent parcel in June of 2003 (P A- 2002-057). The property is vacant and has no physical attributes other than its 11 % downhill slope to the northeast, a few bushes, many Blackberry bushes and a partially exposed irrigation ditch that extends through the property, onto the adjacent property to the north (Mountain View Retirement Center) and then onto Billings' Ranch. The applicant currently owns or is the trustee of the two lots fronting along Glenn Streets as well as the parcel to the west at 532 North Main Street. Other than the irrigation ditches relocation, the adjacent parcels mentioned are not proposed to be modified at this time or are included in this application. Irrigation Ditch & Easement: With this application, the applicant intends to repair and relocate the irrigation pipe slightly to the south in order to maintain its capacity and improve the lot's development options. The irrigation ditch's easement will shift as identified on the attached plan (Exhibit "B", Construction Engineering Consultants) to "1 more closely align with the southern property line to better accommodate structures, solar access and various other site improvements. This application will also remove the conservation easement, originally granted by the property owner, due to the fact the irrigation ditch was not identified correctly and that its existence severely limits the ability of the lot to obtain projected densities and creative flexibility. In fact, it appears the ditch more closely follows contour line 1840' than previously identified. Nevertheless, at time ofthe plat's survey, the ditch will be identified. Pedestrian Easement: The public pedestrian easement extending through the property will remain as identified on the plans. As these parcels develop, the owner(s) will install the path, but may decide to slightly meander the path in order to add articulating elements such as landscaping elements or to avoid such a direct view perspective through the property. Nevertheless, the applicant is committed to retain a pedestrian connection from the retirement center to the north to Glenn Street. In doing so, the applicant contends the link will support pedestrian activity and provide an alternative walking path to nearby services and the downtown area. Looking north - identifies existing retirement home (proposed pedestrian connection would lead to retirement home) Fire Truck Access: The Fire Department's access standards of a 20' clear driveway width and paving (or equivalent) material capable of supporting 44,000 Ibs. will be complied with at the time development occurs or when deemed appropriate by the Fire Department. In addition, after a number of conceptual drafts, the applicant's believe the driveway area will also serve as the development's back-up and turn-around area which maintains the property's development potential. A Utility Plans: At the present time, all utilities are within the Glenn Street right-of-way with all utility connections extending from the street through the "flag pole" via the existing public utility easement. All utilities, including storm drainage system and storm water quality, to be engineered and installed simultaneously when a building permit is being applied for. Any work associated with the Helman Irrigation Ditch will be coordinated with the Ashland Engineering and State Water Master. Solar Access: The proposed Partition has been designed in accordance with AMC 18.70.050 A. which generally states that all newly created lots must show that a 21' tall structure, placed at the center of the property, would not have a shadow that casts more than 50% of the lots north/south lot dimension, In this particular case, both lots are 105' in depth and Lot One has an approximate 11 % north slope and a 21' tall structure in the center of the lot would create only a 45' shadow and Lot Two has an approximate 7% slope and a 21' tall structure in the center of the lot would create only a 40' shadow. Finally, both lots exceed the north/south calculation requirements identified as Formula I of AMC 18,70,030 which is 30' / .445 + North Slope. In a worst case scenario, an 11 % north sloping lot would have "minimum" north/south of 90' and the subject lots are both 105'. Looking northeast - identifies neighboring condominiums. Minimum Density: Each of the lots have been carefully designed to comply with the zones minimum density standards, In addition, careful consideration has occurred to increase maximum coordination between not just the proposed lots, but adjacent properties as well. In this case, the site plan identifies common easements for vehicular access and back-up turning movements as it's very likely any proposed development will utilize shared driveways for backing in and out of parking areas. With these added provisions, the applicant contends each lot should easily be able to maintain the zone's 80% base density (3 units) and provide for ample landscaping, parking and building area. , Note: because of the ample area and common driveway approach and the fact that the property is zoned for apartments / townhomes, each lot could easily accommodate three units, parking needs, common area and structures. Tree Protection Plan: There are no trees on the property and no trees are proposed to be removed with this application. However, a 16" dbh Acacia tree sits on the east side of the east property line, There is not any planned disturbance in this area and the existing fence sits at the trees' root zone. The existing fence is not proposed to be altered and functions as a tree protection fence, Looking southwest - identifies neighboring condominiums. III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: NOTE: For clarity, the following document has been formatted in "outline" form with the City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. Also, due to repetitiveness in the required findings of fact, there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of fact are complete. 18.76.050 Criteria for Minor Land Partition Approval: A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. The proposed partition has no remainder parcels that could be further partitioned. The property is zoned R-3 allowing three to four units each. The proposal does not impede the property's ability to accommodate the zone's permissible densities or uses as outlined in AMC 18.28.040, B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. h. There is no remaining land associated with this property, However, the applicant has attempted to maintain the ability to accommodate reciprocal access to the property to the west (Tax Lot 3800). Regardless, all adjacent properties are developed with access from an alternative street. C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. The parcel has not been partitioned in the previous 12 months. D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land. The Partition meets all laws, ordinances, and resolutions for the proposed partition. E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. The proposed partition is in accordance with the design and street standard contained in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards. 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. All public facilities serving this parcel are adequate and located within the Glenn Street right-of-way. All of the services such as water, sewer, storm, and electricity are available and are not at capacity and can easily accommodate the base densities associated with each parcel. 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. Not applicable as Glenn Street is currently improved to City Design standards. H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. No alleys exist on or adjacent to the subject property 18.76.060 Criteria for Preliminary Approval of Flae: Partitions: Partitions involving the creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission if the following conditions are satisfied: '7 A. Conditions of the previous section have been met. Applicant believes all conditions of section 18.76,050 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 shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. The proposal meets this standard as the driveway's paved width will be 16' wide and have an overall clearance width of20' as illustrated on the attached plans. Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. Applicant agrees to this requirement and will ensure this requirement is met at time of site design and construction. The storm water collected from the driveway will be drained towards Glenn Street directed by a small raised edge along the northern side of the driveway. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. At time of final plat, the flag lot will include the flag drive within the same tax lot and a reciprocal access easement, as historically provided, dedicated to not just the subject two lots, but also the front two existing parcels. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance. There will be no parking 10' on either side ofthe flag drive entrance. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. The flag drive will not exceed 15% slope. 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. At time of structural design, applicant understands that if the structure(s) exceeds 24 feet in height, the design must include a 20' x 40' fire work area within 50 ft. of the structure. When required by the Oregon Fire Code, flag drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090. The Staff Advisor, in coordination with the Fire Code Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround requirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in length as allowed by Oregon Fire Code access exemptions. Q The flag drive does not exceed 150' in length as the current driveway length is only 145'. C. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated in such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for backing out. The design of a future structure(s) will need to incorporate this requirement. As currently designed, this requirement should easily be met. D. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. The applicants are meeting this requirement as only one driveway access point is being proposed. 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 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 extreme outside of the flag drive in order to ensure adequate fire access. Applicant agrees to install screening as described in this section at the time of construction or prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. Applicant understands that screening/fence should be installed at the extreme outside of the flag drive/pole area. Applicant understands that deferment of screening is likely to coincide with a finished construction proposal due to possible disturbance and site compaction. 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 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. At time of construction, applicant or future will need to agree to execute and file appropriate documents to satisfy this requirement. 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: 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. o Please see site plan, but most of the requested information will be provided at the time of construction. The location of the primary driveway will be as identified on the plans. The vast majority of the parking spaces will extend from the proposed flag driveway. All useable yards as well as the site's flag drive screening will be provided, as a condition of approval, at the time construction is proposed. All standard setbacks, including solar setbacks, are proposed which illustrates the building envelope (10' front yard for a porch, 15' house and 20' garage; 6' side yard, and 10' per story rear yard. H. No more than two lots are served by the flag drive. 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. Both lots One and Two meet the minimum 5,000 square footage requirements of the R-3 zone. Lot One, exclusive of flag drive area, is 9,192 sq. ft. and Lot Two is 9,179 sq. ft. 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 term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. At the time of structural design, the useable yard area will be identified as this type of space will likely be dependent on floor plans, individual preferences, views, privacy needs, etc. Furthermore the actual building(s) will unlikely utilize the entire proposed building envelope and therefore there will be more yard area surrounding the structure(s) once constructed. 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 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 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 on a two feet by three feet white sign clearly visible from the street with three inch black numbers. (Amended Ord. 2757, 1995) The subject property does not abut an alley. 1() 0;......-.\ \ '\ :' ~:.t.:I (J~ II --~_"] " l J ~---~-- L.- --~');,;,- (3 ~\ I \, J.,.-...~,_.J'-=-- '\ ---""""'- \ --.~ \ \ \, \ /.~ I, <or .\..-'""'........m'1\ \.. '".p~...nl \ r \'" .p""'" \::~ t 't \\"1" {-.,..-- ... " ---~_} 4100 (..~." ! ~~~~~- =--, "-( I ....~J ,I 4200 i I ~_A,)r" ,/ .,.._..~.,\ .('_ ,r_~.~1 r' ,~_/\. \."'> l ....-,\,' :\ .~./ ... ~' // \~ '1, or'" y~ J'"' I \~..-,."rd" r;.r\-:.J. .......,p. 'I J .."'-_..,,'''.,~' ..- 'l~ _o,p"'- /--~ ../,p' .~-- \ \ 1\ ~.........F' ""'.....d~ \ \" 'f.{""Il, '\ \ I " ~ \}~/-.--) \ ~~ \...~""'-~ 7 l ",-. I It-,..-:~ l' I' l l I I l " I l..-_..l 44'00 .,", i6~- \, \ \ I~ ,) \, \.-, \ &~l. \......- alf> r--"1c--~-\ "\ . . .. . I ,...~ lOO(t ~.-~' \ _r I--~--'" l~_ si;! 200 W5 o o D SOY J-i r "OJ o !:t()l .AG'l} \~) .....,..\ "...'tZl'lJIt' \, ,,'V~~I \, '123~ \:, 124f1l+O \.\ \.12~(j \i.~7'~"'" ::JY(J(J ,/ .I ./ / ..., ;roJ ......w ~- 2i/t,Ji .. BOO-/} ,....~..&....."''l\~... fP \ I ,d' '.F\.r.....,r....I 3Soo 31:G3 ''f1,'I;'\ rj'~" J./:!'!l9 ~.<"'~ _./tl1l00\ /--;:;::~,;i'J ...:;a'iJoo-G Ii"" VU'lr1.rJ;t ,.J"~' Iwoo~,..." . \..d.... ...."'. F........~... ",.>") ( 32<6....."., I... " 32:5 <:. 324>" \ 323\..'..... ". 322"' 3(tik ",""...:.., .../,., \., ')i27 \. ....' 'v\ > ;~2./:!. "\ 'v'- \."". '.... '. ~'9 .\ <, .' < }~ " '\... ".....~ ,3~ ..........331 .... " , ....~ '\\. .' ...... '~\ ..........\ .......... i.... 3'600 . ..,..,~~ ........,.../,..;;~..::........_.. 1: . . ..31'!1.. 1<332 .... '..... '\ ........... .... ~3 "''.. )~ta.4 . ',...T:>' <....~s/ W2 3100 JACKSON COUNTY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Map Maker Application Front Counter Legend Highlighted Feature Tax Lot OuUlnes Tax Lot Numbers /./ Buildings [ JACKSON COUNTY oregolJ ";"';""1 ' ~J \--mll. ::J1!Iq"-:;.'-", ....='" \::""-"",,r I~ This map is based on a digital database ,\ ~43 ....\. 300 ~:::;~~~YJ~~fs:n~~~lyC:~':I~::;lly \';;=/~I~ ~4 ;:'S:~~~i~~r:~~j,::~S:~~ or .-, warranties, expressed or implied, Created with MapMaker Map created on 6131201() 11 :17:55 PM using web.jacksoncounty.org ------.--.-) ~_. \ r- .... ~ ..,..... '-~1 \ :l""'.''';~ \ I @ Please recycle with colored office grade paper \ :u .. ::i ) (j I ~ o I\.) ~o >0 o 01\.) "'0 ;co o :t ~ ~ 23 og (f)' ,...... 000 00> -1>-...... ......0> 00 (f)(f) , , ......00 0<0 r-v...... <00> r-v 00'09 W98~ UODaJO 'pueI4s" ~Olt "0903 ~6t 1.1 - JaaJJS uual~ :;c UO!nJ.n~d 101 a; (1) uosdw041. ~ ~ C N ~ c 00 , I I~\; (< N I c!- eil C 'ii ... u l/) C U N :c c. Cll ... 0 G \ @ < / V" ~~ ;...-- ./ / /' z< ~~ - _______ ------- ~ ~ / ;/ . /' A ~s~ / ~~ r ~~i /~ / ~;;v:/1~~ -~~ - _______ o"-ct o~~ / L _ z:~ . y~ /z : / / s ~~< ------~ w~~ ..-- . ~ ~~~.~ ~ 2:38 /"_________ .........., 05' 145' ____ 41'.42'-" ./ " ,., -.. --"'"-.. ~.. -" /' 97.03' /' f- W W '" f- (f) Z Z w -' "Cl s:: n:I _ 0::5> o Ci)'<t :::11 CI)~ ~:\L ~ ~ ~ :- g O':?r ~ in r-..1Ii LAND PARTITION .PAKTITIU1\J ~UltVr.;:r PLAT NO. P- 40 - lOo:}; Flied f( at ...t: P-I-f fllibl c Index \ COUN1 ALL TAl BY O,R, ~ ~ SURVEYOR'S CERTI I Darrell L Oregon, do herel correctly surveye with proper monl representation of of the tract, BEGINNING at th development to th now of record lr right-of-way line Iron pin located c Instrument No, 8! thence along the (Record North 28' the northwest cor tract, North 60'59', Inch Iron pin wltne North 60'59'05" Ec corner thereof, bE ESTATES; thence South 28'09'55" ~ ~o,\'i.. s'i.."- c,~<(' ",,,-IC, 1<;<;1 I '1,-"~,,,<;. ~,,-'11 '\I .,;" <(\" c,o~\Q;1 .' \~o'l':''\I\\11~ /' '~~'?-"'<;I~ '1,,'?-Y '/ WOOD CREEK CONDOMINIUM 4'\'i..~ '" ~ ,/A"-"-\' / -N- '/ ~ '" '" ",/ '/ '" '/ '/ / ~ '/ '/ '/ '/ '/ '" '/ /' SiN 7767 SI -x- REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR D~ -&~~ NOTE 1 = IRRIGATION EASEMENT OVER HELMAN IRRIGATION DITCH AS SET OUT IN VOLUME 30, PAGE 320 OF' DEED RECORDS OF JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON. p NOTE 2 INGRESS--EGRESS EASEMENT & P,U.E. NOTE 3 INGRESS-EGRESS EASEMENT OREGON ""1lUAII't 4'''' DARREll. L HUCK 20211 Expires 6/30/2003 NOTE 4 rD. 5/8" IRON PIN WI PLASTIC CAP MARKED "osMus I'LS 2464" (SURVEY IS IN PROGRESS, SURVEY MAP HAS NOT YET BEEN FILED) WOOD CREEK \0\00'[ONDOMIN U M \,0 ~ SiN 7767 '" ~. <~ ,t; tl "- t;' /' / / / / ~ '1IiF \ \ \ ---'~-"'?'< .~-- -1 .1-:.~ c: ~~a ~ Q). Q). On /' '->'- ~~.U' ~ \5'.. J-f. ./ ./ 0_- ./ ./../ ./ ~ /./ ~ '0 ~ 0_ /' ; SIN 84 " ... ~- ~% ---""-" ._~""~"" j< ,",,,g"e;:.;;'''.~c~ ./ ~?"" '''/ ;~./ ./ / / f.,<." '".,../ /.// / /./ ..-/ /./ , ./ /~/'''' ;, //'/ /./ S./ //' C\.-S./ // / . \>-Ye<,./ S . ~~0~ ~. . \\;;,9 ~e .~... ' SS\ G~\, GocG'. , \.-\) s~S/.h~5..' ~ \>-s '/S,'(: \.- /./ ~ ./ /~\-\-~ / ./ ./ G / ....,/ /^:'" /' / / / / / ) b) '( " -&:17) 71 'i3 / / P.O. BOX 1724 -MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 PH. (641) 779-:iZSB- FAX (541) 779-31J9 / ..[t;;,:' .~. 5- L . we> O::Z ~z OZ w:) I-Il. Ie ~z <(:) >,,0(1'):< ~~~~ Olill . ' E[(t'J-g ~O~lU . - 1-"" 1O~~~ (l)J:'to mallQ.!: <\1<(......0.. uo6aJO 'PUeILlS'f sJaaJJS UUal~ 'B U!ew LI~ON ueld JalSew lUawdolaAaa UOSdWOll.L ~ <( g - ~ (I) ;;; (I) .c . en ~ .... .- '>'"'t ~-:; '", l:! \ .:~ ;., ..... -'; - '\ ~ ....-~ ... ~ '" ,l- X ~) 'l~ -;J" \&;=0' ~ ~ p ;:, '" '<;' , ,\ <;) <-- oS \.~ "F 1 "" ~ ... '" -<':t. ~ ~ '3> {. \~ .:;, ;:, 00 ~.J I ~, . ;:, (I) ... iii <.l en ;:, .!:! '" J:: 0- m ]1- .... ]1.oJ <:> C> I.oJ ]<>: I: z ]1.oJ -' It:) ] 97.03' \... i ] c @ i ] (U I I q a.. (:, (J) "<t :!:::: II en ..... :!: .S cr.i .~i~ >iz 133CJ1S NI\fVi HICJON ~~--- ~~ ~~ From: To: Date: Subject: "M Knox" <knox@mind.net> "'Derek Severson'" <dereks@ashland,or,us>, <pinam@ashland,or.us> 5/6/20108:41 AM 345 Glen Street Guess what.. The file Brent gave me has a bond receipt in it for $4,450 (#00003630 dated 2/6/2003). Attached is an estimate for the work for the same amount. I'm assuming its purpose was to allow all or a portion of the development to occur in order to minimize construction damage and not as part of any platting phase? The interesting thing was that it's a cash bond and not a regular bond, - Mark CITY OF ASHLAND Planning Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 541-488-5305 Ashland Historic Commission Design Review Form Proposed Action (~AI?' J I. / lVtU r;~~/( 4lLt~v S:~VVL.q (f' ( Date cf!c~q If Applicant Address :::"70 o Commercial o New Construction Gr'" Residential o Changes to Existing Structure Historic Review Board Comments: ___tJ/t([I/1lJ___ /1/ ;:;?c:)/2l~ / ~5t/& f- In the spirit of protecting the historic design and compatibility of your project, if you wish to amend your building plan in order to apply any recommendations of the Historic Review Board, we encourage you to prepare an addendum and resubmit it to the Building Dep' rt I Applicant Signature Historic Review Board Signature G:lcomm-devlplannlnglCommissions & Committees\Hisloric CommissionlMisc Admin-FORMSIDesign Review Form.doc 12/13/2007 r~' DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ,') 'J<{UIArJ FILE# ~U\ '}l.-I1~ ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Pit - ;)0/0-- oD 09't/ Planning Department 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 CITY Of AS H LAN 0 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 6'L~N~1 Zoning Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E K'~ Comp Plan Designation ,'3 7(! / , nf\ .tAJ.JL J l)vV\;lC ~ ~ \ APPLICANT PhoneS'll tifT' --of/tV? E-Mail Name Address fJ (j' ~;;1dl X' ~tf' I PROPERTY OWNER Name If tlte~/'r 17{ 0/11.11..11'",; Address I!.. fl. ./Jtf!.X ;21) r SURVEYOR. ENGINEER. ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER City #S/ILJlAr/i) Zip Phone5fl "1,?"1f:- tJ Y t;',I 7 E-Mail City /f,S/lL/I/!!), Zip Title Name Phone E.Mail Address City Zip Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. I understand 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 found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at expensyf I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. ,.~ ,.;?:h.J'f7;1'Z' .c; Yvne ~;:;;2rJ' / c;) Applicant's Signature Datw As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. </'f ~~C~ (,~/;.t7~h f <Jz,t<7..{ .:5l?'/{? " ~Property Owner's Signature (required) Dat#. [To be completed by City Staff] Date Received b -' L/ -' I 0 Zoning Permit Type I Filing Fee $ I OVER ~~ r..\('nml1\.rl"\I\nlllnn;IlH\Fnrnl~ Il.. H~llflmll,,\7nnillu flrormif Annlir:1linl1 Fnrm nnr A Owner's Name: THOMPSON BRENT E Phone: p State Lie No: p Customer #: 05739 THOMPSON BRENT E City Lie No: L Applicant: PO BOX 201 I Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: Address: N Applied: 06/04/2010 T Issued: Expires: 12/01/2010 Phone: State Lie No: Maplot: 391 E05DA3701 City Lie No: DESCRIPTION: Partition lot from 1 lot to 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF ASHLAl\JD