HomeMy WebLinkAboutOak Knoll_805-897_PA-2011-00319
April 28, 2011
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Dan Thomas
897 Oak Knoll Drive
Ashland OR 97520
RE: RE: Planning Action #PA-2011-00319
Notice of Decision
At its meeting of April 12, 2011, based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter, the
Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a variance for the property located at
805,815,825,835,843,851,861,873,881,889,&897 Oak Knoll Drive -- Assessor's Map # 39 1E 14 AD; Tax Lots
4900-5900.
The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, on
April 26, 2011.
Approval is valid for a period of one year. Please review the attached fmdings and conditions of
approval. The conditions of approval shall be met prior to project completion.
Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and
evidence submitted, applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community
Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed within 13 days ofthe
date this notice was mailed and with the required fee ($304), in accordance with Chapter 18.108.110 (A) of the
Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeal
shall be limited to the criteria listed in Chapter 18.108.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Community Development Department
between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Property Owners within 200 feet of project
Parties of record
Margueritte Hickman, Ashland Fire Marshal
Ian Horlacher, ODOT
DEPT, OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TIY: 800-735-2900
SECTION 18.108.110
Appeal to Council.
A. Appeals of Type IT decisions - shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator.
The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the appeal requirements of Section
18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as
jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or considered.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission,
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be
reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being
appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision
should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place to consider the appeal by the
Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
4.
A.
B.
Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.B.
below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be
confmed to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. The record
shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence,
exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record
before the Planning Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when
available), the executed decision of the Planning Commission, including the findings and
conclusions. In addition, for purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and
the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if
any, shall become part of the record ofthe appeal proceeding.
The Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such
a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator together with the filing
of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the City Council
aPl?eal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated:
a.
That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of
the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and
that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of
correcting the error; or
That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault of
the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the
decision; or
That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was
unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the
proceeding was open,. and during the period when the requesting party could
have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this
exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant- to an
approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly
construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and
testimony is submitted to the hearing body.
b.
c.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E, Main Street
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TIY: 800-735-2900
Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of
additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of
evidence before the City Council.
C. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall
be limited to ten (10) minutes for the applicant, ten (10) for the appellant, if different, and
three (3) minutes for any other Party who participated below. A party shall not be
permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written
arguments shall be submitted no less than ten (10) days prior to the Council consideration
of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues
clearly and distinctly set forth in the Notice of Appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be
confmed to the substance of the written argument~
D. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the City
Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining
whether there is substantial evidence to support the fmdings of the Planning Commission,
or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review shall in
any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal.
No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Planning
Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to
respond.
E. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify or remand the decision and may approve or
deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make fmdings and
conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its
action. The Council shall cause copies of a fmal order to be sent to all parties
participating in the appeal. Upon recommendatioll. of the Administrator, the Council may
elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the City Council
elects to remand a decision to the Planning Commission, either summarily or otherwise,
the Planning Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the
Council calls the matter up pursuant to Section 18.l08.070.B.5 ,
F. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as
the following:
1.
2.
The applicant.
Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure
to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right
of appeal to the Council.
Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
3.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E, Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TIY: 800-735-2900
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 26, 2011
IN THE MATIER OF PLANNING ACTION #2011-00319, A REQUEST FOR )
A 23 PERCENT VARIANCE APPROVAL TO THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT )
OF SIX-AND-ONE-HALF FEET. THE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TO )
CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL WALL ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY ) FINDINGS,
LINES FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 805 - 897 OAK KNOLL DRIVE ) CONCLUSIONS
ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 5 AND TAX LOT 7000 ) AND ORDERS
APPLICANT: Dan Thomas, Neighborhood Representative
RECITALS:
1) Tax lots #4900 through 5900 of Map 39 IE 14 AD are located at 805 through 897 Oak Knoll Drive
and are zoned R-l-l 0, Single Family Residential.
2) The applicants are requesting a 23 percent Variance approval to the maximum fence height of six-
and-one-half feet. The applicants are proposing to construct an eight foot tall wall along the rear
property lines ofthe properties located at 805 - 897 Oak Knoll Drive.
3) The criteria for Fence Permit approval are described in Chapter 18.68.010 as follows:
Fences, walls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standards:
A. In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and on~,~half (3 112) fiet in
height.
B. In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half (6 112) fiet in
height.
C. The height of finces or walls in rear or sideyard setback areas abutting a public street
shall be forty-eight (48) inches or less if said fences or walls are within ten (10) feet of
any public street except an alley.
D, The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's
property, except where fences are jointly constructed.
E. Fences shall lean at an angle from the vertical plane no greater than five (5%) percent.
In cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the
Planning Department, the property owner shall be notified, in writing, of the problem.
The Planning Department shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or
on its own action,
4) The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100.02(}as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of
the a4Jacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord2425 S1, 1987)
PA #2011-00319
April 26, 2011
Page 1
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
(Ord. 2775, 1996)
5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on Apri112, 2011
at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the
application subject to conditions pertaining to the variance to maximum wall height.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission fmds that the proposal for 23 percent variance approval to
construct an eight foot tall wall meets all applicable criteria for Variance approval as described in
Chapter 18.100.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance
requirements of the City of Ashland with the attached conditions of approval. The Site Plan
provided delineates the proposed wall location, and the findings address the proposed
construction materials as concrete.
2.4 The Planning Commission fmds that the proposed 23 percent variance to the maximum
wall height of six-and-one-half feet to construct an eight foot tall wall is merited because it is the
minimum necessary to abate the noise and will provide a non-combustible physical barrier to the
freeway.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that there are unique or unusual circumstances which
necessitate a Variance to the wall height, that the benefits of the proposal will outweigh any
negative impacts of the proposed Variance, and that the need for a Variance is not willfully or
purposely self-imposed.
PA #2011.00319
April 26, 2011
Page 2
The Commission finds that this is a unique situation because the subject area is the only
residential neighborhood in Ashland which is directly adjacent to Interstate 5. The Commission
further finds that the proposed wall furthers the purpose and intent of Element IV of the
Comprehensive Plan dealing with Environmental Resources which calls for no new residential
developments adjacent to the freeway due to potential noise impacts and where residential
development has occurred, it calls for efforts to achieve acceptable noise standards for the living
space within the homes.
The Commission finds that the ability to build a wall that is 23% taller than is normally
permitted will provide the applicants, recently affected by the Oak Knoll Fire, with an increased
sense of security by providing a visual and physical barrier between their yards and the freeway.
Additionally, the additional wall height provides a greater degree of sound attenuation for the
applicants and their neighbors.
The Commission finds that the Variance to build an eight-foot tall wall provides security and
sound attenuation benefits to the applicants, and the Variance criteria require that these benefits
outweigh any negative impacts to the surrounding area. The proposed wall will be a
considerable length because it spans the rear of 11 properties, and the wall will be visible from
properties across the freeway and from Interstate 5. The area to the south of Interchange 14
including the subject properties serve as a gateway to Ashland because the area is the first
impression that many visitors see when entering the city from the south. The Commission finds
the visual impacts of the eight-foot tall wall to neighboring properties, as well as the to the
gateway location, need to be considered. The proposal is to construct the wall in simple concrete
block with grey seams. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed wall should have an
aesthetically-pleasing appearance to mitigate the visual impacts of an eight-foot tall wall of
considerable length, and that the exterior of the wall facing the neighboring properties and
Interstate 5 should be of a high design standard providing visual relief. As a result, a condition
of approval is included requiring the wall to be constructed with colored and/or textured block.
The Commission finds that requiring wall with color or varied surface is consistent with the
policies of Element VIII of the Comprehensive Plan which require "high standards of design and
landscaping for development adjacent to major arterials" (VIII, policy 11).
The Commission fmds that the proximity of the freeway to the residential properties which the
applicant are attempting to buffer with the eight foot tall wall with the requested Variance are not
a willfully or purposely self-imposed condition, as both the subdivision and the freeway existed
prior to the current owners' acquisition of the property.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposed Variance to the maximum wall height to construct an eight (8) foot tall wall is supported by
evidence contained within the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2011-00319. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2011-00319 is denied. The
PA #2011-00319
April 26, 2011
Page 3
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 wall shall be constructed of colored and/or textured block, or a comparable alternative
method approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the building permit. If colored
block is used, the color shall be a neutral, earth tone color. The three northernmost lots (805,
815 and 835 Oak Knoll Dr.) which share a common boundary with (39 IE 14AD 7000) shall
meet a minimum of a concrete block and seam wall, but are not required to be constructed of
colored and/or textured block due to the location not being directly adjacent to and visible from
the Interstate 5 right-of-way.
3) That building permit submittals shall include engineered designs signed and stamped by the
project engineer.
4) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) The request fee waiver for the Planning Action fees shall be approved by the Ashland
City Council. If no fee waiver is approved by Council, the Planning Action fees would
need to be paid, along with any applicable building permit fees, prior to building permit
issuance.
b) That a utility locate to identify any utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed wall
construction prior to the commencement of construction for the wall.
5) The wall and its surface finish shall be maintained in perpetuity, including the removal of
graffiti, and re-surfacing if the surface fades, chips, erodes or otherwise degrades over time.
6) That property owners may construct independent sections of the proposed eight-foot tall concrete
wall in lieu of a permitted six and a half foot tall fence. The concrete wall may be built in
independent segments provided it is constructed in accordance with the above condition of
approval regulating color and materials in order to ensure the wall is ultimately designed and
constructed as one cohesive unit.
1/
Planning Commission Approval
Date
PA #2011~00319
April 26, 2011
Page 4
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 2200 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 6209 PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4000
ASPINALL JEAN C ET AL BEAUGHAN BARBARA BELL LYNDA L
1119 CLIFF DR 780 W PEBBLE BEACH 780 OAK KNOLL DR
SANTABARBARA CA 93109 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 5700 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5300 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 3400
BREWER LOIS L ET AL CHRISTIAN L1ZA KENDALL COFFIN JOSEPHINE
881 OAK KNOLL DR PO BOX 13 862 OAK KNOLL DR
ASHLAND OR 97520 TALENT OR 97540 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4100 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5000 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 2100
CULLINS LETICIA ANNE TRUSTEE ET AL DAOUST JASON NEAL DOHERTY MEGAN
778 OAK KNOLL DR 815 OAK KNOLL DR 795 TWIN PINES CIR
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4900 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 2600 PA-2011-003.19 391E14AD 3100
FARIA PATRICIA L FRANCISCO EMILY A MILLER/GRANT D FREED JERRY R/ESTHER M
2933 LINCOLN AVE MILLER 944 OAK KNOLL DR
ALAMEDA CA 94501 845 TWIN PINES CIR ASHLAND OR 97520
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 3500 PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 3600 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5800
FREY EMOGENE A GENISE LIVIA GUSTAFSON DAVID L/DANNA L
852 OAK KNOLL 840 OAK KNOLL 889 OAK KNOLL DR
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA"2011-00319 391 E14AD 2500 PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4700 PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 3300
HAUGHTON BRIAN S/TRACY S HOOD RICHARD D/L1NDA JOHNS ROBERT L/KA THLEEN G
32 THALIA ST 785 OAK KNOLL DR 874 OAK KNOLL DR
MILL VALLEY CA 94941 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 2700 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5600 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 7100
LOGAN JAMES B/ELlZABETH B LUCAS NANOSH/JONES LISA MILLS JAMES P
853 TWIN PINES CIR 873 OAK KNOLL DR PO BOX 3196
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 7000 PA-2011-00319 391 E14AA 7000 PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 6211
MOORE CLAUDETTE MORJIG STEVEN H NOAKES SHIRLEY J
985 HIGHBURY DR 610 CHESTNUT ST 740 W PEBBLE BEACH DR
MEDFORD OR 97501 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5200 PA-2011-00319 391E14AA 7000 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5100
OGIER RICHARD A/MICHELLE L OUTDOOR MEDIA DIMENSIONS INC PATTERSON CLARENCE 0 - TRUSTEE
835 OAK KNOLL DR 2626 WYATT DR 6830 HWY 66
ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97501 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 5500 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 6210 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 6000
PEDERSON GARY R/PEDERSON PIERCE CARL D TRUSTEE ET AL RECIO MARTIN A TRUSTEE ET AL
ROBERT L 2012 STONEFIELD LN 979 OAK KNOLL DR
861 OAK KNOLL DR SANTA ROSA CA 95403 ASHLAND OR 97520
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 4800 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 6100 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 2400
REINHOLZ HARVEY H TRUSTEE SECOY JACK REED TRUSTEE ET AL SIEFKIN RANDOLPH R TRUSTEE ET AL
1310 TALENT AVE A 1257 SISKIYOU BLVD 132 1809 EDGEBROOD DR A
TALENT OR 97540 ASHLAND OR 97520 MODESTO CA 95354
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4400 PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4500 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 3800
SLAPNICKA ELDEN R TRUSTEE SLAPNICKA ELDEN R TRUSTEE SWEET DENNIS E/BEVERL Y T
765 OAK KNOLL DR 765 OAK KNOLL DR 1135 REITEN DR
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4600 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5900 PA-2011-00319 391E14AA 6100
T & R VENTURES LLC THOMAS DANIEL J/JULLE C TRIPOLI RICHARD TRUSTEE ET AL
994 MORTON ST 897 OAK KNOLL DR 690 SPRING CR DR
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 5400 P!'. 2011 00319 391E14!'.D 3200 PA72011-00319 391E14AD 3700
TURNER MARTHA I VAN DER LINDEN VIRGINIA H WALKER MATTHEW S/CYNTHIA L
851 OAK KNOLL DR !\SCH!\FFENBURGERSTR.16A 826 OAK KNOLL DR
ASHLAND OR 97520 10779 BERLIN I ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 2301 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 3000 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 2800
WAND JUDE/WAND AISHA S WARD JOHN D/PAULA K WEISINGER ERIC J
811 TWIN PINES CIR 885 TWIN PINES CIR 861 TWIN PINE CIR
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
ODOT - lan.K,Horlacher Marguerite Hickman 46
100 Antelope Road Ashland Fire Department 3-23-11 AL
White City, OR 97503 20 E Main St 805-897 Oak Knoll
Ashland OR 97520
CITY Of
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
April 26, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the special meeting to order at 8:45 p.m, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present:
Larry Blake
Micahel Dawkins
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
John Rinaldi, Jr,
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Absent Members:
Debbie Miller
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Approval of Findings for PA.2011.00319, Oak Knoll Wall Variance.
Ex Parte Contact: Commissioner Marsh stated she made a brief house warming visit to one of the houses, but did not go in
the backyard or discuss this action, No ex parte contact was reported,
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the options outlined in the Staff Memo for an additional condition #6, He
clarified Option 1 requires one continuous wall with the same style along all 11 properties; while Option 2 sets a specific 8 ft.
wall design, but allows the properties owners to build it in sections and does not preclude an individual property owner from
building a 6,5 ft, fence as allowed by the ordinance,
Commissioner Marsh clarified the question before them is not what they believe is the best solution looking back in retrospect,
but rather what did they intend to approve when the motion was made, Rinaldi stated it was his understanding that they all
understood it was unlikely al111 property owners would build the same kind of fence, and all of the homes might not utilize the
variance, He commented that the best solution would be a continuous wall, but stated this is not what was approved, Marsh
agreed with Rinaldi's recollection, Suggestion was made to amend section 2,5 of the Findings to state lias a result, a condition
of approval is included requiring the wall to be constructed with colored and/or textured block, in ardor to onsuro the wall is
ana cohosi'/O unit which is 3/S0 3asthotic311y pleasing".
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman clarified the first person who applies to build an 8 ft. concrete wall will establish the design
pattern that the rest of the owners will have to follow, Staff clarified the approval already requires the blocks be painted,
textured and earth-toned, so the design options are fairly limited, Mindlin requested staff make sure the property owners are
aware that the first wall section sets the precedent that the rest of the owners will have to follow if they want to go up to 8 ft,
Commissioners Rinaldi/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA.2011.00319 with the addition of Condition #6
option 2, and amending the sentence in section 2.5 as discussed. DISCUSSION: Mindlin questioned section 2.4 and a
friendly amendment was requested to change the sentence to read "", an 8 ft tall wall is merited because it is the minimum
necessary to abate the noise and will provide a non-combustible physical barrier to the freeway." Rinaldi and Dawkins agreed
to this amendment. Voice Vote on motion as amended: All AYES, Motion passed 5.0.
Planning Commission Special Meeting
Aplil26, 2011
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
April 12, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Larry Blake
Michael Dawkins
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
John Rinaldi, Jr,
Staff Present:
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Absent Members:
Debbie Miller
Council Liaison:
Russ Silbiger, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh noted the April 26th Study Session will be a joint meeting with the Transportation Commission to discuss the
City's TSP Update.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. March 8, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4.0.
(Rinaldi abstained)
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak,
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA.2011.00043, 400 Allison Street.
Ex Parte Contact: No ex parte contact was reported,
Commissioners Rinaldi/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA.2011.00043. Voice Vote: All AYES, Motion passed 4.0.
(Rinaldi abstained)
B. Approval of Findings for PA.2011.01611, 260 First Street.
Ex Parte Contact: No ex parte contact was reported,
Commissioners Dawkins/Blake m/s to approve the Findings for PA.2011.01611, Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 4.0.
(Rinaldi abstained)
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2011.00319
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 805, 815, 835, 843, 851, 861, 873, 881, 889 and 897 Oak Knoll Dr.
Ashlancl Planning Commission
A[JliI12, 2011
Page 1 of 4
APPLICANT: Dan Thomas, Representative
DESCRIPTION: A request for a 25% Variance to the maximum fence height of six and one half (6 1;2) feet. The
applicants are proposing an eight (8) foot wall along the rear property lines for the properties located at 805-897 Oak
Knoll Drive adjacent to Interstate 1.5 and tax lot 7000.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R.1.10; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 14
AD; TAX LOTS: 4900 - 5900.
Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings,
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins, Rinaldi, Blake and Mindlin made site visits, No ex parte contact was reported,
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained the 11 homes along Oak Knoll Drive that were destroyed in a fire last year are requesting
a variance to construct an 8 foot tall concrete block fence at the rear of their properties, adjacent to Interstate 5, Ms, Gunter stated
the maximum fence height allowed is 6,5 feet and listed the variance approval criteria for the Commission, She stated staff believes
this is a unique situation and noted this is the only residential area within the City that is directly adjacent to the freeway,
Additionally, she stated the wall would provide a sense of security for the residents and would also reduce freeway noise for these
homes and the homes on the opposite side of Oak Knoll Drive, Ms Gunter noted the wall would be visible from 1-5 and from the
properties on the other side of the freeway, and stated that while staff is supportive of the variance they believe the visual impacts
should be mitigated, Ms, Gunter displayed examples of different wall surface treatments that could be used and recommended this
be addressed in any conditions for approval. She concluded her presentation and stated staff is recommending approval of the
variance given the circumstances of the properties and the benefits it will create,
Applicant's Presentation
Dan Thomas/897 Oak Knoll Drive/Stated he is representing the residents whose homes were destroyed in the fire, and noted all
11 property owners have given their consent to this application, Mr, Thomas stated they believe there is a need for some type of
wall between their homes and the freeway, and stated the old wood-style fencing may have contributed to the widespread fire
damage, He added they strongly believe their homes would still be standing had there been a concrete wall in place when the fire
occurred, Mr, Thomas stated a block wall would make the property owners feel safer about the potential for a repeat grass fire, and
would reduce freeway noise and provide added security, He spoke to the issue of cost, and explained the home owners will be
paying for this out of their own pockets and may not be able to afford the types of surface treatments suggested by staff. Mr,
Thomas stated they are dealing with two issues, the first is the height variance and the second is what type of wall they can afford
to build, He stated it is clear that an 8 foot wall would greatly reduce the freeway noise and would work well for security; however
the fire issue likely won't be affected by the height of the block wall since any grass fire would conceivably stop at the base, In terms
of the type of wall and cost, he stated a masonry block wall or an ICF-stucco wall are possible options; however the stucco
treatment for an ICF wall may push them over their budget. He suggested the homeowners pay for the ICF wall, and for the City to
coat it however they like, Mr, Thomas stated they want the wall to look nice, since they will be the ones looking at it every day, but it
has to be economically feasible, He added if this application is not approved, each homeowner would likely build their own 6,5 ft
wall or fence, each in different styles and materials, '
Commissioner Dawkins stated there is some conflict in regards to whether a wall would have protected these homes from the fire,
and noted the Memo submitted into the record by the Ashland Fire Marshall contradicts Mr, Thomas' testimony, Additionally, he
disagreed with Mr, Thomas' comment about the cost of block walls. He stated he recently purchased a large amount of block wall
and textured blocks cost the same as smooth face blocks,
Commissioner Dawkins asked Mr, Thomas to explain how they plan on installing one continuous wall when some of the owners
aren't rebuilding, Mr, Thomas agreed that this is an issue and stated as a group they are asking for the option to build up to 8 feet
tall. He stated some people may not want to go as high as 8 feet and clarified they are not in contract with each other to build this
as a single wall. Concern was expressed about this wall being built in stages and with varying materials, Mr, Thomas noted they will
be going before the City Council to request a portion of their building permit fees be credited back to them and stated this would
really help to build this as a single wall with the treatments suggested by staff, However, even if the application is approved, his
neighbor could decide to build a 6 ft tall cedar fence and that's their option, He stated unless the City wants to step up and build the
Ashland Planning Commission
APli112, 2011
Page 2 of 4
wall, this is a gray area that they are trying to work out. He stated their best chance is to keep their costs down and if they can get a
fair price he thinks all of the property owners will jump on board,
Commissioner Blake noted there is not a consistent grade across those properties and a fence or wall would likely be stepped to
adjust to the varying grades, Ms. Gunter clarified there is a 3% slope; and Mr. Thomson stated he believes some height variation
would be aesthetically appealing.
Commissioner Marsh asked Mr, Thomas about painting the concrete blocks. Mr, Thomson stated this could be done, but it is
another cost that would be added on, He suggested if this is desired the City should consider painting it.
Public Testimonv
Nanosh Lucas/873 Oak Knoll Drive/Requested clarification about the process and asked if the wall or fence were constructed at
the permitted 6,5 foot height, could it be whatever material they wanted, Commissioner Marsh clarified "Yes", and added the
application for a variance opens the door to these types of requests, since they are asking for something that would not normally be
allowed, Mr, Lucas asked the Commission to look at the aesthetics of the wall and the height variance as separate issues,
Applicant's Rebuttal
Dan Thomas/Requested clarification about the appeal process,
Commissioner Marsh clarified the applicants can appeal to the City Council if they do not like the Planning Commission's decision,
Commissioner Marsh closed the record and public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Rinaldi stated there are two different wall issues, one along the freeway and one along tax lot 7000; and questioned
whether they should require them to treat the wall abutting the Caldera property, Rinaldi stated he believes some type of treatment
on the freeway side is rather important and likes the idea of at least paint.
Commissioner Dawkins stated he just completed a project with 1400 colored and textured blocks, and the blocks he purchased
were the same price as the smooth block face,
Commissioner Mindlin stated this application came fOlWard with the argument about fire safety, and between the Fire Marshall's
letter and the applicant's own testimony, it is clear this variance is not for fire safety, She stated it does not seem that the applicant
has met the burden of proof in terms of why an 8 foot fence is necessary,
Commissioner Blake commented that a 6 foot fence is not a reasonable height limit for these properties along the freeway, He
stated there is an added benefit in terms of sound control and stated he is comfortable with an 8 foot fence.
Commissioners Blake/Dawkins m/s to approve an increase in height from 6.5 ft to 8 ft and require the material to be at a
minimum concrete masonry, and encourage some form of aesthetic treatment. DISCUSSION: Blake stated he is sympathetic
to the home owners and noted the taller walls you see in other areas along the freeway are typically built by bigger organizations
with greater funding resources. Dawkins stated it is a false premise to state this wall would stop a fire from spreading, but he is
sympathetic to the noise abatement. In terms of the material, he recommended the motion be amended to require some sort of
textured block, The option of painting the wall was briefly discussed, and Dawkins noted blocks now come in different colors and
stated paint would not adhere to the block very well. Comment was made that they could add a condition for all of the home owners
to construct the same wall, or at least a certain number of homes in a row to participate, Marsh stated this is unrealistic and people
are going to build whatever they want. She stated if they approve something that is a reasonable cost they will have a greater
number that participate, but you can't guarantee what the owners will build, Dawkins stated if they allow them an extra 1,5 feet, he
would like some assurance that they don't all do their own thing, Dawkins made a friendly amendment for the block wall to be
textured and colored; Blake agreed to this addition. Rinaldi questioned if they should remove the decorative treatment
requirement for the three lots that don't abut the freeway, Rinaldi made a friendly amendment to exempt the northerly three
lots from the texture and color requirements; Blake agreed to this addition, Marsh made a friendly amendment to include
the language "or an alternative method for surfacing the wall as approved by staf"'; Blake agreed to this addition.
Ashland Planning Commission
Apri/12, 2011
Page 3 of 4
Roll Call Vote on motion as amended: Commissioners Dawkins, Blake, Rinaldi and Marsh, YES. Commissioner Mindlin,
NO, Motion passed 4-1.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Pedestrian Places Follow-up.
The Commission held a brief follow-up discussion regarding the Pedestrian Places presentation given at their last meeting, Rinaldi
asked if they will be prioritizing which locations they want to look at first. Blake commented that this is private property and the
property owners are going to determine which develops first, but if there is civic investment that could accelerate one site, In terms
of how to proceed, Planning Manager Maria Harris clarified five main suggestions have been presented: 1) Reduce the parking
standards, 2) Increase the allowable floor area ratio, 3) Require buildings to be closer to the street, 4) Require a minimum building
height, and 5) Revise the landscape area requirements, The Commission briefly discussed various topics, including a history of the
setback issue, opportunities at the Shop'n Kart/BiMart shopping center, and which areas they might want to focus on, Marsh
requested they reserve time on the regular meeting agendas for Planning Commission discussion only of items that come up at
these joint meetings,
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m,
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ash/and Planning Commission
Apli/ '12, 20'/1
Page 4 of 4
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone,
3) State your name and address for the record,
4) Limit your comments to the amount oftime given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number
L
OR
Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For:
Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time
constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order o.f proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room,
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
April 12, 2011
PLANNING ACTION: 2011-00319
APPLICANT: Dan Thomas, representative of the Oak Knoll Neighborhood
LOCATION: 805, 815, 825, 835, 843, 851, 861, 873, 881, 889, and 897 Oak Knoll Drive
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-I-I0
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: April 4, 2011
120-DAY TIME LIMIT: August 2,2011
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.68 General
18.1 00 Variances
REQUEST: The request is for a 23 percent Variance to maximum fence height of six-and-one-half
feet. The applicants are proposing an eight-foot wall along the rear property lines for the properties
located at 805 - 897 Oak Knoll Drive adjacent to Interstate 5 and tax lot 7000.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
There are no planning actions of record on the parcels requesting the variance to the
maximum fence height. The properties are part of the 'Greensprings Subdivision' which was
developed in Jackson County in 1963 and later annexed into the city.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The subject properties are located on the southwest side of Oak Knoll Drive between Oak
Knoll and Interstate 5 (I-5). The properties are between approximately 6,300 square feet to
10,800 square feet in area, and are all zoned R-l-l 0, a Single-Family Residential zoning with
a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size.
The properties have a slope of approximately three percent downhill to the northeast. The
lots at 805, 815, and 825 Oak Knoll Drive have a steep slope at the rear of the property, along
their west property lines, downhill towards 1-5. On August 24, 2010 a large grass and
structure fire was started on the west side ofI-5; embers from that fire ignited and burned the
homes on the properties requesting the fence height Variance here. The remaining structures
Planning Action 2011-00319
Applicant: Dan Thomas, Representative of the Oak Knoll Neighbors
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Page 1 of 5
on these properties have been cleared, and the construction of new, replacement structures
has begun on nine of the II parcels.
1. Fences
The proposal is to construct a block wall along the rear property lines of the 11
properties abutting 1-5. Fences, walls, hedges and screen plantings are subject to the
fence requirements in the Ashland Municipal Code's Land Use Ordinance found in
section 18.68.010. The maximum wall height along a rear property lines is set at six-
and-one-half feet; the proposal is to construct an eight foot high wall at the rear
property lines.
2. Variance
The request involves a variance to the maximum wall height of six-and-one-halffeet
to construct an eight-foot tall wall. The Variance request is for an additional one-and-
one-half feet, or a 23 percent Variance (1.5/6.5 = 23.07 %).
II. Proiect Impact
The proposal requires a fence permit, which is typically a ministerial approval, since it
involves the construction of a new wall along the rear property lines of 11 properties
abutting 1-5. A Variance is required for the fence to exceed the maximum fence height of
six -and-one- half feet, and because the Variance request is for more than a ten percent
increase in the allowed height requirements a "Type II" procedure with a public hearing is
required under AMC 18.108.A.4.j.
A. Fence
Prior to the Oak Knoll Fire, there were six to six-and-one-halffoot wood fences along the
rear property lines of the subject properties. The current request is to replace these wood
fences with a concrete wall; if the wall were not to exceed six -and-one-half feet in height the
request could be ministerially approved with an over-the-counter fence permit.
B. Variance
However, the applicants have requested a Variance to exceed the maximum allowed fence
height by 23 percent to allow an eight foot high wall. The proposed eight-foot high wall is to
be constructed of a non-combustible material to provide a physical as well as a noise barrier
which would dampen the sound created by freeway traffic on 1-5.
A Variance of this nature requires a demonstration that: 1) that there are unique or unusual
circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere; 2) that the
proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Planning Action 2011-00319
Applicant: Dan Thomas, Representative of the Oak Knoll Neighbors
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Page 2 of 5
Comprehensive Plan of the City; and 3) that the circumstances or conditions leading to the
Variance request have not been willfully or purposely self imposed by the applicants.
In considering the request, staff noted that the properties are unique in that the Oak Knoll
neighborhood is the only area of residentially-zoned property within the city that is directly
adjacent to the freeway's right-of-way. In staffs view, this could certainly be found to be a
unique and unusual circumstance specific to these properties.
The application identifies the positive benefit of the proposal as the sense of security and
noise reduction that would be provided by the proposed wall. The Comprehensive Plan
specifically discourages new residential development adjacent to the freeway due to potential
noise impacts (Policy #57 in Chapter IV) and where residential development has occurred, it
calls for efforts to achieve acceptable noise standards for the living space within the homes.
In staff s view, the proposal is clearly in line with this policy and could have noise reduction
benefits that not only benefit those constructing the wall but that extend beyond the subject
properties. According to the Federal Highway Administration, a noise barrier wall may
reduce noise within 200 feet of the highway, therefore dampening the sound for those on the
east side of Oak Knoll Drive as well.
Staff believes that the installation of an eight-foot wall on the subject properties will not
negatively impact adj acent uses, which consist primarily of vehicular traffic on 1-5. However,
staff would note that the subject properties are in somewhat of a gateway location for traffic
entering Ashland from the freeway and can also be seen from properties directly across the
freeway, With that in mind, staff believes that the visual impacts of the wall need to be
mitigated and that the wall should be treated in an aesthetically pleasing manner by surfacing
it in a finish or material other than unadorned, bare concrete block. There are a number of
options available to address this concern, including the use of split face concrete masonry
units (eMU) or the application of an artificial surface applied to the concrete block. The
applicants have stated that they may use a synthetic stucco treatment if it proves to be
financially feasible, and staff believes this would be a suitable way of addressing the issue.
A condition of approval has been recommended below which addresses the surfacing and its
maintenance in perpetuity.
The sites' proximity to 1-5 was not created or self imposed by the applicants.
Ian Horlacher, Development Review Planner with Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) has submitted a letter stating that while ODOT has no objection to the proposal,
they do request that the property owners provide a one-foot separation between the ODOT
right-of-way and the rear property lines. In considering the matter, staff would note that there
is approximately 40 feet of additional ODOT right-of-way between the subject properties'
rear boundaries and the paved shoulder of the freeway, and staff does not see a clear basis to
require the property owners to provide the additional one-foot of separation between the
proposed wall and their property lines.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for Fence Permit approval are described in 18.68.010 as follows:
Planning Action 2011-00319
Applicant: Dan Thomas, Representative of the Oak Knoll Neighbors
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Page 3 of 5
Fences, walls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standards:
A. In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and one-half (3 Y2) feet in
height,
B. In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half (6 Y2) feet in height.
C, The height of fences or walls in rear or sideyard setback areas abutting a public street shall
be forly-eight (48) inches or less if said fences or walls are within ten (10) feet of any public
street except an alley,
0, The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's
properly, except where fences are jointly constructed.
E. Fences shall lean at an angle from the verlical plane no greater than five (5%) percent, In
cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the Planning
Oeparlment, the properly owner shall be notified, in writing, of the problem. . The Planning
Deparlment shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or on its own action.
The criteria for a Variance are described in 18.100.020 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically
apply elsewhere.
B, That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of
the adjacent uses; and will furlher the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 S1, 1987),
C, That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed,
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
The request for an eight-foot high wall along the rear property lines of the properties located
at 805 - 893 Oak Knoll Drive, which are among the only residentially zoned properties
immediately adjacent to the 1-5 freeway right-of-way, seems a reasonable request in staffs
view. The Variance requested will provide the applicants, recently affected by the Oak Knoll
Fire, with an increased sense of security by providing a visual and physical barrier between
their yards and the freeway while having the added benefit of providing a degree of sound
attenuation for the applicants and their neighbors.
The proposed wall is to be constructed in simple concrete block with grey seams. As the Oak
Knoll neighborhood is the first impression that many freeway traveler's will have of
Ashland, staff believes that the wall should have an aesthetically-pleasing appearance and
should be finished with a synthetic stucco or similar product to mitigate visual impacts at a
gateway location visible from and across the freeway. The Planning Commission may wish
to provide clear direction in their decision with regard to an approved finishing method to
clarify what materials, colors or other surface treatments would be acceptable in this location.
Staff are supportive of the request, provided that the wall can be treated in a manner which
mitigates its visual impacts, and we would accordingly recommend approval of the
application with the following conditions attached:
Planning Action 2011-00319
Applicant: Dan Thomas, Representative of the Oak Knoll Neighbors
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Page 4 of 5
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That the selected method of surfacing for the wall shall be submitted and approved by
the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the building permit. Concrete block and
seam construction is not permitted as the final wall surface.
3) That building permit submittals shall include engineered designs signed and stamped
by the project engineer.
4) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) The request fee waiver for the Planning Action fees shall be approved by the
Ashland City Council. If no fee waiver is approved by Council, the Planning
Action fees would need to be paid, along with any applicable building permit
fees, prior to building permit issuance.
b) That a utility locate to identify any utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed
wall construction prior to the commencement of construction for the wall.
5) The wall and its surface finish shall be maintained in perpetuity, including the
removal of graffiti, and re-surfacing if the surface fades, chips, erodes or otherwise
degrades over time.
Planning Action 2011-00319
Applicant: Dan Thomas, Representative of the Oak Knoll Neighbors
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Page 5 of 5
~ \..~
-<~
~S\ .
\~i~ .
,
I
I
L~~II=
r:J I
"---. --ll
I
I
I
Ij
'"
:Q
i g
OJ
u
'"
~
'\ g
2>
'"
o
1]
'"
!!:
~
!!:
...
~
!!:
<:I
'"
'"
li
~
'"
g.
<t
a
a
u
c
"
~
c
cr
c
C"
c
"
Memot
File
CRTY OF
AS LAN
DATE:
TO:
April 11,2011
Ashland Community Development Department
, Ashland Planning Commission
\r0~~al'gueritte Hickman, Division Chief .of Fire & Life Safety I Fire Marshal
P A20 11-00319 - 805-895 Oak Knoll .
FROM:
RE:
Ashland Fire & Rescue finds that this applicatian, as submitted, complies with the requirements
of the 20 I 0 Oregon Fire Code.
This memo is in respanse to the following two statements made by the applicant in this planning
application:
. "We truly feel that our homes would not have been destroyed had a concrete wall been in
place prior to the fire set on A\lgust 24, 2010."
. "We feel a concrete wall would suffice in deterring any fire that starts along Interstate 5
from engulfing our homes."
The first statement is not based on ~n analysis of basic wildlanq fire behaviar. The fire behavior
experienced on August 24, 2010, is: defined as erratic, severe 01' extreme.fIre pehavior. The fire
spread was impacted.b)' the convectiVe column that developed.on the west side of the freeway
carrying firebrands a dista.llce qf 1,125 feet, almost a q\Hlli~l'ofa m~le. Ba~ed on eye-witness
accounts, the smoke from the convective column was neve!' lower than 2QJeet above the
freeway. Photo accauntsdel?C\l1straty that the fire ran paraUeLta the fi',eeway, which would have
also been parallel to the propo~edwalLHad this wall beeh in place \atthe time of the fire, the
only difference is that the fire wouldhave burned an both sides of the Wall. The attached photo
demonstrates this path of fire travel.
Ashland Fire & Rescue does not want there to be any false sense of security on the behalf of the
applicant. While this wall may help to slow down a low intensity fire that originates from the
freeway, it cannot guarantee the "deterrence of any fire" that begins next to the freeway.
Ashland Fire & Rescue encourages the applicants to maintain landscaping that is fire resistant in
order ta reduce the potential offuture fire spread and commends the applicants in choosing fire
resistant roofing. We hope that none of these families, no anyane in .our city has to experience a
fire of this devastation again,
ASHLAND FIRE &- RESCUE
455 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland. OR 97520
(541) 482-2770' Fax (541) 488-5318
TlY: 800-735-2900
filllllEU 011 REGYClEU P.IHR
John A. Kitzhaber, MD, Governor
Department of Transportation
Rogue Valley Office
100 Antelope Rd
White City, OR 97503-1674
(541) 774-6299
FAX (541) 774-6349
March 29, 2011
City of Ashland Community Development Department
Attn: Billie Boswell
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: A request for a 25% variance to maximum fence height of six and one half feet
(6.5) for 12 properties along Oak Knoll Drive in Ashland (807 - 897 Oak Knoll
Drive).
Dear Ms. Boswell,
Thank you for the opportunity to consider a request for a 25% variance of the maximum
fence height from six and a half (6,5) feet to eight (8) feet for 12 properties along Oak
Knoll Drive adjacent to Interstate-5 (1-5) and Tax Lot 7000.
ODOT has reviewed the site plan request and determined this proposal will not
adversely impact the state's transportation facility; therefore, these proposed land use
actions do not trigger ODOT's review under the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-
012-0000), or Access Management Rule under (OAR 734-051-0000).
We do request the property owners provide a one (1) foot separation between the ODOT
right-of-way and the rear property lines of those properties constructing the proposed
block wall.
Please enter this letter into the public record for the proposed project and send me a
copy of the City's final decision. Please feel free to contact me at (541) 774-6399 if you
have any additional comments or concerns.
~spec~_
la K, Horlacher
Development Review Planner
@
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www,ashland,or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
LAND
PLANNING ACTION: 2011-00319
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 805,815,825,835,843,851,861,873,881,889,897 Oak Knoll Drive
APPLICANT: Dan Thomas, Representative
DESCRIPTION: A request for a 25% Variance to maximum fence height of six and one half (6 YZ) feet.
The applicants are proposing an eight (8) foot wall along the rear property lines for the properties located at 805 - 897
Oak Knoll Dr. adjacent to Interstate 1-5 and tax lot 7000.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-I-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 IE 14AD; TAX LOT: 4900 - 5900
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
~
"-
,
,
"'-"'-,
~J
1-=0
~
::A
~
~
~
~
~
::A
~
~
~
~
()'
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
805.615.625,635,643,651,
851 ,661 , 673,881 .889 & 897
OAK KNOLL DRIVE
[}
""
""
"
"
'"
o--:J
,
"
,
,
",
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above, The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the Issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that Issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right
of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient
specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages In circuit court,
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested, A copy of the Staff Report will be available for Inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, If requested, All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51
Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria, Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing,
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate In this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office
at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900), Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35,102,-35.104 ADA Title I).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305,
G:\comm.dev\planninglNotices Mal1ed\2011\2011.00319.doc
VARIANCE
18,100.020 Application
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor, Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans
and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing that all of
the following circumstances exist:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere,
8, That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of
this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
(ORD 2425,1987).
C, That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed,
(ORD 2775, 1996)
G:lcomm-devlplanninglNotices Mailed120 11120 11-00319 .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 March 23, 2011 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 #2011-00319,
805,815,825,835,851,861,873,889,897 Oak Knoll.
G:\comm-dev\planning\Forms & HandoutslAffidavit of Mailing_Planning Action Notice,doc
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 2200 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 6209 PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4000
ASPINALL JEAN C ET AL BEAUGHAN BARBARA BELL LYNDA L
1119 CLIFF DR 780 W PEBBLE BEACH 780 OAK KNOLL DR
SANTABARBARA CA 93109 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5700 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5300 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 3400
BREWER LOIS L ET AL CHRISTIAN L1ZA KENDALL COFFIN JOSEPHINE
881 OAK KNOLL DR PO BOX 13 862 OAK KNOLL DR
ASHLAND OR 97520 TALENT OR 97540 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4100 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5000 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 2100
CULLINS LETICIA ANNE TRUSTEE ET AL DAOUST JASON NEAL DOHERTY MEGAN
778 OAK KNOLL DR 815 OAK KNOLL DR 795 TWIN PINES CIR
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4900 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 2600 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 3100
FARIA PATRICIA L FRANCISCO EMILY A MILLER/GRANT 0 FREED JERRY R/ESTHER M
2933 LINCOLN AVE MILLER 944 OAK KNOLL DR
ALAMEDA CA 94501 845 TWIN PINES CIR ASHLAND OR 97520
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 3500 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 3600 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5800
FREY EMOGENE A GENISE LIVIA GUSTAFSON DAVID L/DANNA L
852 OAK KNOLL 840 OAK KNOLL 889 OAK KNOLL DR
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 2500 PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4700 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 3300
HAUGHTON BRIAN S/TRACY S HOOD RICHARD D/L1NDA JOHNS ROBERT L/KATHLEEN G
32 THALIA ST 785 OAK KNOLL DR 874 OAK KNOLL DR
MILL VALLEY CA 94941 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 2700 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5600 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 7100
LOGAN JAMES B/ELlZABETH B LUCAS NANOSH/JONES LISA MILLS JAMES P
853 TWIN PINES CIR 873 OAK KNOLL DR PO BOX 3196
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 7000 PA-2011-00319 391E14AA 7000 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 6211
MOORE CLAUDETTE MORJIG STEVEN H NOAKES SHIRLEY J
985 HIGHBURY DR 610 CHESTNUT ST 740 W PEBBLE BEACH DR
MEDFORD OR 97501 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 5200 PA-2011-00319 391E14AA 7000 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 5100
OGIER RICHARD A/MICHELLE L OUTDOOR MEDIA DIMENSIONS INC PATTERSON CLARENCE 0 - TRUSTEE
835 OAK KNOLL DR 2626 WYATT DR 6830 HWY 66
ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97501 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 5500 PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 6210 PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 6000
PEDERSON GARY R/PEDERSON PIERCE CARL 0 TRUSTEE ET AL RECIO MARTIN A TRUSTEE ET AL
ROBERT L 2012 STONEFIELD LN 979 OAK KNOLL DR
861 OAK KNOLL DR SANTA ROSA CA 95403 ASHLAND OR 97520
ASHLAND OR 97520
y
I
I
I
AH3AV-09-OOS- L
WO)'JUa^e"MMM
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4800
REINHOLZ HARVEY H TRUSTEE
1310 TALENT AVE A
TALENT OR 97540
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4400
SLAPNICKA ELDEN R TRUSTEE
765 OAK KNOLL DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 4600
T & R VENTURES LLC
994 MORTON ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 5400
TURNER MARTHA I
851 OAK KNOLL DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 2301
WAND JUDE/WAND AISHA S
811 TWIN PINES CIR
ASHLAND OR 97520
ODOT-
lan, K, HORLACHER@odot.state.or.us
Development Review Planner
ODOT Region 3, District 8 (White City)
., ~
I @)09L5 @AHaAY ~
r )wdn.dod pJoqeJ al Jal~^~J
: ap U!le aJn4Je4 el ~ za!ldal:l
~uaw_a6Je4J
ap suas
V
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 6100
SECOY JACK REED TRUSTEE ET AL
1257 SISKIYOU BLVD 132
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 4500
SLAPNICKA ELDEN R TRUSTEE
765 OAK KNOLL DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391 E14AD 5900
THOMAS DANIEL J/JULLE C
897 OAK KNOLL DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 3200
VAN DER LINDEN VIRGINIA H
ASCHAFFENBURGERSTR,16A
10779 BERLIN,
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 3000
WARD JOHN D/PAULA K
885 TWIN PINES CIR
ASHLAND OR 97520
T vu~~~~!16~d~~ ~~~~~a -- Jaded paad
I - ..
f
I
I
I
@09LS @AH3AV':!.peqe6 al zas!I!:m
Jalad l? sal!:>eJ sananbj:l.;1
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 2400
SIEFKIN RANDOLPH R TRUSTEE ET AL
1809 EDGEBROOD DR A
MODESTO CA 95354
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 3800
SWEET DENNIS E/BEVERL Y T
1135 REITEN DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391E14AA 6100
TRIPOLI RICHARD TRUSTEE ET AL
690 SPRING CR DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 3700
WALKER MATTHEW S/CYNTHIA L
826 OAK KNOLL DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00319 391E14AD 2800
WEISINGER ERIC J
861 TWIN PINE CIR
ASHLAND OR 97520
45
3-23-11 NOC
805-897 Oak Knoll
T
I
I
I
@09~S 8:J,eldwal @/iJa^vaSn
slaqel @Iaad Ase3
I 6234
II
I
I:UOO
I This map Is based on a digital database
T 3200 ~~~:~~~~:YJ~~~:~~n~~~~tyc~~~~t ~~~~i;~
1t41m~ I ~~S~t~~~~~j~c~~r:~~r~h~~l~~~~~ or
, ' warranties, expressed or Implied.
Created with MapMaker Map created on 3/2212011 9:23:19 MvI using web.Jacksoncounty,org
6iMW
6100
1000
(
I
I
I
I
1~~
,/
"
''to (1600
~,,/,
iI "'.
I"" <_M,
~" "
1MlO
,1'-
>""'"
1.200
1400 "
,/ MlO./
{'
1300 I;..~A(I;O
~\J" \
~1
~.~
.~
~iJ""'="/":~~\
;; g0005
t" ~.'..'
-~.. 'x J,:.,.:.~.
...,;) \ . ...... ,~:;"~:;~:':~)'<,.
\\. ,~9(I1i) '6213
~ib'i",: 001 \
..
l
{'.
I
I
I
I
It
I
I
"
7300
\\,."
aoo ....
II ._"..'.""".,p'"
["62:23
L.
I
I
!
.. 6201
l~
'"
1<100
"
\,62~
ll..,. \
\ ij20S
~I\ '\~ "
, ,\~"
','
""j
;~
"\
\1
1MlO
102
11ll(~
@ Please recycle with colored office grade paper
Map Maker
Application
Front Counter Legend
Selected Features
Tax Lol Numbers
/
11- d 0
JACKSON
COUNTY
oregon
We the owners of the afore mentioned lots on Oak Knoll Drive, do hereby make
application for a concrete wall of up to eight feet tall to be placed between our
properties and Interstate 5 . We feel there are unique circumstances following the
fire of August 24,2010 which destroyed our homes, that the proposal's benefit will
be much greater than the negative impacts to any adjacent users, and that these
circumstances have not been willfully or purposefully imposed upon us as
homeowners. We feel that a concrete wall is necessary for fire protection, security
and elimination of noise from Interstate traffic.
We truly feel that our homes would not have been destroyed had a concrete wall
been in place prior to the fire set on August 24,2010. Due to the topographical and
climatic nature that exists between our homes and the Interstate, an ideal "perfect
stonn" /fire hazard exists as evidenced by our homes being consumed so quickly
and completely. The uphill grade along Interstate 5 as well as the prevailing winds
from the west combined with the vegetation and cedar fences, of which we all had,
our homes sit in a very vulnerable spot and we feel we need to do something to
prevent this from happening all over again. We feel a concrete wall would suffice
in deterring any fire that starts along Interstate 5 from engulfing Olrr homes.
(Wood fences actually create a greater fire hazard.)
Secondly, we feel the need for adequate security from trespassers who have
climbed our fences in the past. This is especially urgent now as the fire has
destroyed all vegetation which visually separated us from the thousands of daily
Interstate travelers.
The benefits of an eight foot concrete wall would have zero negative impact on
the Interstate 5 traffic but would give us, the homeowners, a sense of security and
peace of mind with the added benefit of decreasing the noise level that has
continually increased over the years.
As mentioned earlier, each individual homeowner has not been willfully or
purposefully imposed upon to seek this variance; rather we would feel much more
at ease in our new homes if said wall was built. The benefits received will help us
forget the pain and suffering we have and are still enduring.
Please consider our request as quickly as possible as we are rebuilding our
homes and will soon be again living on Oak Knoll Drive.
We the owners of the afore mentioned lots on Oak Knoll Drive, do hereby make application for a
concrete wall of up to eight feet tall to be placed between our properties and Interstate 5. We feel there
are unique circumstances following the fire of August 24, 2010 which destroyed our homes, that the
proposal's benefit will be much greater than the negative impacts to any adjacent users, and that these
circumstances have not been willfully or purposefully imposed upon us as homeowners. We feel that a
concrete wall is necessary for fire protection, security and elimination of noise from Interstate traffic.
We truly feel that our homes would not have been destroyed had a concrete wall been in place prior to
the fire set on August 24,2010. Due to the topographical and climatic nature that exists between our
homes and the Interstate, an ideal "perfect stonn"/fire hazard exists as evidenced by our homes being
consumed so quickly and completely. The uphill grade along Interstate 5 as well as the prevailing winds
from the west combined with the vegetation and cedar fences, of which we all had, our homes sit in a very
vulnerable spot and we feel we need to do something to prevent this from happening all over again. We
feel a concrete wall would suffice in detelTing any fire that starts along Interstate 5 from engulfmg our
homes . (Wood fences actually create a greater fire hazard.)
Secondly, we feel the need for adequate security from trespassers who have climbed our fences in the
past. This is especially urgent now as the fire has destroyed all vegetation which visually separated us
from the thousands of daily Interstate travelers.
The benefits of an eight foot concrete wall would have zero negative impact on the Interstate 5 traffic
but would give us, the homeowners, a sense of security and peace of mind with the added benefit of
decreasing the noise level that has continually increased over the years.
As mentioned earlier, each individual homeowner has not been willfully or purposefully imposed upon
to seek this variance; rather we would feel much more at ease in our new homes if said wall was built.
The benefits received will help us forget the pain and suffering we have and are still enduring.
Please consider our request as quickly as possible as we are rebuilding our homes and will soon be
again living on Oak Knoll Drive.
Please note: Liza Christian will not be moving back to the property at 843 Oak Knoll Drive, but she is in
support of this request for variance and as such, has attached a digital signature to this document.
. Irgi~~
Project
No.
Designed
_~_~ Date 3, ).JL
A CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FIRM
Revised
Date
815 Bennett Avenue
PHONE 541/772-1399
Medford Oregon 97504
FAX 541/772-1436
Subject
\
,
-1----~
I
I
4J.)d'IZ
II
e 2,4
~
110::;
,}
)J
(jJ
6>
c
/ 'I
/6 '":),
~L-S)
10'
)
Oak Knoll Residents
Name
Patricia Faria
Jason Daoust
Janet Patterson
Rick & Michelle Ogier
Liza Christian
Marty Turner
Gary Pederson
Lisa Jones & Nanosh Lucas
Lois Brewer & David Friedenberg
David & Danna Gustafson
Dan & Julie Thomas
Address
805 Oak Knoll
815 Oak Knoll
825 Oak Knoll
835 Oak Knoll
843 Oak Knoll
Sie:nature
/1 ), r)
/1/ I
/ I '. I .
C. /QS;<:iI" \, ~/tjc~~~/
I ,j
f)ffl./Vl~f (~, )<t7I;/~
-". ,'/.... " \ \ \\'\
. "..!- \. )\ \J \ \ \,
(' )'
'7VYI I .s<'
.' t I ~U~~. CI" \~~ '
.' : : J.1
(,C!(rA-t.h.x-.e'~I,(
:I~~~
873 Oak Knoll L-:~--
851 Oak Knoll
861 Oak Knoll
881 Oak Knoll
889 Oak Knoll
897 Oak Knoll
(J ~
~~/ f:- ILR.-aJ.-i2Jl J
It 'j ~/I ! (7
. , '~1 /{ .^-.~j)/t J" .~,
}--
a.~.
4-
~.
~~~(;L~
(.
\.....
~.,
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE # Y
Planning Division
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
CITY OF
ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
I.-
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTY l" I N-
DESCRIPTION OF P~OPERTY
Street Address <;;-o~ 9-1 S
Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E
OlAP wJ l di.\CM -+.re.e..'-0?L
-.......
Pursuing LEED@ Certification? 0 YES 0 NO
Y,)-)',yJ~Q-LfJ, >;-)/ ~I J ~73, ?lrl, R~ ~'1 7 (9~tll(Vu)/1 (Jr,
/ -' -- / / / I )
Tax Lot(s)
Zoning
Comp Plan Designation
:::~ICA~ ~Ql
Address ~ 7 O-L~ kv~1
. l(v J-..-to~- '5 ()
PhonecJ(q~1 _Lp..l{ 3, E-Mail cYtt{~J-l0~~/C{~V ,c,..,~
City j~~ lQ 0(..
{
zipq7s-~
Dc.
PROPERTY OWNER
Name h r-e. V ~ c;.. \;'1 W\ ~ Ov>. {).,.t4 &. vc" (I Phone
Add'.': C ~A-rt0~lil ~;VnA~~G"'J')
SURVEYOR. ENGINEER. ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. OTHER
E-Mail
City
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.
in this reque_st, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
~ C7lQtJ,fh/
~ l;y",f\J>.'-<'$ C"ltt-J..Q Date
?-I )..~!t I
I r
[To be completed by City Staff]
Date Received
Zoning Permit Type~D(';; ~
, I
Filing Fee $
OVER ~~
,..",n"...,....,,~... ""~ c"";...,,,., I.,,,,,.... r\_..,l....... 7,~..:_., fl.._..:, ~ __1:.....:.._ ,J....
Contractor:
Address:
Phone:
State Lie No:
City Lie No:
Sub-Contractor:
Address:
Phone:
State Lie No:
City Lie No:
DESCRIPTION: Variance to build a 8' concrete wall next to Interstate 5, 11 applicant's Dan Thomas is their representativeFees have
not been paid yet, the applicant's may be appearing before the Council asking to h
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
ASHLAND
I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the
best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts
understood and agreed to the following: Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
(180 days).
2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in
advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the Sub-Total: $ 0
applicant. Fees Paid: $ 0
Total Amount Due: $ 0
Applicant Date
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
ASHLAND