The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTolmanCreek_1405 (PA-2010-00582) CITY ASHLAND August 11, 2010 Malibar Group, LLC 1405 Tolman Creek Road Ashland, OR 97520 RE: RE: Planning Action#2010-00582 Notice of Decision At its meeting of July 13, 2010, based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a lot line adjustment and a Variance to allow a lot to be wider than it is deep for the property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road-- Assessor's Map#39 1 E 23 BA; Tax Lot 308. The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, on August 10, 2010. Approval is valid for a period of 1 year. Please review the attached findings 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 of the 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. i Cc: Parties of Record and property owners within notice area II i i I DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel:541488-5305 20 E.Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.orms ky 11 I SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council. A. Appeals of Type II 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. Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.13. below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined 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 of the appeal proceeding. B. 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 appeal 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 b. 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 C. 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. I i DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel:541-088-5305 20 E.Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.orms 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 confined 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 findings 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 findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation 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 18.108.070.13.5 . F. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following; 1. The applicant. 2. 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. 3. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. I III I DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel:541488-5305 20 E.Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 WAR mmashland.orms BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 10th,2010 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION#2010-00582,A REQUEST FOR ) A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE )FINDINGS, WIDER THAN IT IS DEEP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1405 TOLMAN ) CONCLUSIONS CREEK ROAD. )AND ORDERS APPLICANTS: Malibar Group, LLC ) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RECITALS: 1) Tax lots #308 and #501 of Map 39 lE 23 BA are located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road and are zoned Single Family Residential(R-1-7.5). 2) The applicants are requesting a Lot Line Adjustment and a Variance to allow a lot wider than it is deep for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road. No specific development proposal is associated with these requests. The proposed adjusted lot configuration, including an identified building envelope, is outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Lot Line Adjustment approval are described in Chapter 18.76 as follows: SECTION 18.76.140 Lot Line Adjustments. The adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary, where the number of parcels is not changed and all zoning requirements are met, shall be accepted by the City, provided the requirements of Sections 18.76 090 through 18.76 130 are satisfied, in addition to Section 18.76170, where the lot adjustment causes access to be changed to an exterior unimproved street. SECTION 18.76.090 Conditions May be Set. The Planning Commission or the Staff Advisor may require dedication of land or easements, signing in favor of street improvements, and conditions or modifications relating to improvements such as sidewalks, utilities, and the standards of the Subdivision Chapter and the development plan for the area. In no event shall the Planning Commission or the Staff Advisor require greater dedications or conditions than could be required if the area were subdivided. Underground utilities shall be required in connection with all land partition applications as set forth in subsections 18.80.060(C) through 18.80.060(F) of this Title. i I SECTION 18.76.100 Final Step. Within twelve (12) months of the date of preliminary map approval, the tract of land shall be surveyed, pins set at all corners, and a final map submitted to the Planning Department PA#2010-00582 August 10,2010 Page 1 I incorporating any conditions or modifications of the map's preliminary approval. If the applicant has not completed the foregoing within the twelve (12) month period, the applicant must resubmit the partition for preliminary approval consideration. SECTION 18.76.110 Final Map Requirements. The map to be filed with the County Clerk shall be legibly drawn, printed, or reproduced by a process guaranteeing a permanent record in black on polyester-base film having a minimum thickness of.003'; 18"x 24". If ink is used on polyester-base film, the ink surface shall be coated with a suitable substance to ensure permanent legibility. An autopositive in black on polyester- base film shall also be filed with the County Surveyor. A reproducible copy of the final map shall be filed with the City Engineer. The map shall incorporate the following items before approval will be given: A. Title block, top and center specking "minor or major partition", the partition number, City of Ashland and the applicant's name. B. Name of the property owner and developer. C. Number of each lot in the partition. D. Date, scale and north point(arrow) generally pointing to the top of the map. E. Basis of bearing determined by solar observation, Polaris observation, or true bearing determined from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Survey Net (formerly Coast and Geodetic Survey). F. The name and right-of-way width of adjacent streets, alleys and private ways. G. Irrigation and drainage easements. Those portions of land within the boundaries of the partitioning subject to periodic inundation which affect the intended use of the land together with the method or source of such determination. Also, other easements of record or conditions which affect the title of land or the use of land H. All stakes, monuments, or other evidence found and used to establish boundaries of the partition. Any lines or boundaries shown by approximation clearly identified as such. I. Established center lines by the City of adjoining streets. J. The length of all arcs, radii and central angles. Adjust all distances to the nearest 100th of a foot, except on curves, which may be shown closer. Adjust all bearings to the nearest ten (10) seconds. The error of field closure shall not exceed one (])foot in five thousand(5,000). K. Area of each parcel expressed in either square feet or acres. L. Monumentation: j 1. All monuments shall be a minimum diameter of five-eighths inches (518')for iron pins and a minimum inside diameter of one-half inches (%')for iron pipes. For concrete monuments, refer to ORS 92.060 as amended by Senate Bill No. 487. 2. Witness corners may be set when it is impractical or impossible to set a monument in its true position,providing course and distance are given to the true position. 3. All monuments shall be clearly identified with the surveyor's or engineer's name or registration number. PA#2010-00582 August 10,2010 Page 2 i M. Certification of approval before filing with County Clerk and County Surveyor: 1. Signature of approval on the face of the map by the Executive Secretary of the Planning Commission, or authorized representative. 2. Dedication of easements for utilities and/or widening of street shall be made on the face of the map. Statement of dedication by owner-developer with signature attested to by notarization. 3. Surveyor's certificate is to be shown with surveyor's seal and signature on the face of the map. 4. Signature of approval by the City Engineer is required when dedication of streets or easements is made on the map. N. Discovery of error and omissions: 1. All corrections or additions on a final map shall be made in ink suitable for the material and sprayed with suitable plastic material for preservation, including those prior to recording. 2. He shall file an affidavit stating the nature of the error with the County Recorder. 3. The map then shall be corrected and initialed by the surveyor under the direction of the County Surveyor. 4. The affidavit document number and date shall be placed on the face of the map that is recorded. SECTION 18.76.120 Acceptance of the Final Map. Final maps offered for approval shall not be accepted if the individual or agent of a corporation being responsible for the final map is acting simultaneously as the surveyor or engineer for the applicant or developer and the entity having jurisdiction of the minor and major partitioning. SECTION 18.76.130 Final Approval by the Secretary. When the Staff Advisor determines that the final map conforms to the final map requirements and specifications and the conditions (if any) of preliminary approval, the Secretary, or authorized representative, shall date and sign the final map. 4) The criteria for approval of a Variance are described in 18.100 as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. j B. 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. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on July 13th, 2010 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application for a Lot Line Adjustment and a Variance to allow a lot wider than it is deep for the PA#2010-00582 August 10,2010 Page 3 I I vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a"P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes,Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report,public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal involves a Lot Line Adjustment to reduce the size of Tax Lot #501 from .89 acres to .33 acres while Tax Lot #308 is to increase from 2.32 acres to 2.90 acres. The Commission further finds that no additional lots are to be created with the application, and that no development is proposed. Lot Line Adjustments are typically approved ministerially by the Staff Advisor when all requirements of the zoning district are met. In this instance, the Commission finds that both of the proposed lots are larger than the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size for the zoning district, that both lots satisfy the minimum 65- foot lot width and that both lots meet the 80-foot minimum depth. The Commission further finds that while Tax Lot#308 exceeds the maximum width and depth limitations of 150 feet, these are existing conditions that are not exacerbated by the proposed adjustment. The Commission finds that the applicants have identified a proposed building envelope for Tax Lot#501 which provides the required yard areas for the lot as proposed, with a front yard on the east side of the lot between the envelope and Tolman Creels Road, but which also responds to a future street installation in place of the existing driveway. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed relocation of a lot line results in the creation of a flag lot that is 145 feet wide while having a depth of only 80 feet. General regulations within the R-1 zoning district require that no lot shall have a width greater than its depth. The Commission finds that only the proposed width versus depth relationship fails to meet zoning requirements, and as such a Variance to this general regulation is required. PA#2010-00582 August 10,2010 Page 4 I 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the applicants have provided a comprehensive site plan, which while not being considered for approval under the current application, is intended to illustrate conceptually that the proposal's benefits would be greater that any negative impacts on adjacent uses, and would further the intent of the Land Use Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. This plan identifies the area of the existing driveway, which is approximately 36.94 feet in width, as an area for which the applicants are willing to provide an irrevocable consent to dedicate as street right of way to accommodate a significant portion of the necessary right-of-way for a future street installation to serve the eventual development of the subject properties as well as adjacent Tax Lots #400 and #500 according to the target use of the zoning district. In addition, the applicants propose to provide access easements to both lots #400 and #500 for use of the existing driveway in the interim period to alleviate any access management concerns which might arise with the future development of those parcels. The plan identifies the potential for a phased future subdivision of the subject properties to create a total of eight lots, including a new street installation with turn-around and the potential to relocate an existing unimproved bicycle and pedestrian easement connecting Tolman Creek Road and Apple Way into the new street, eliminating the need for a crossing of Hamilton Creek Tributary #2. The applicants have also identified a proposed building envelope for Tax Lot#501 which provides the required yard areas for the lot as proposed with the current adjustment, with a front yard on the east side of the lot between the envelope and Tolman Creek Road, but which also responds appropriately to the future street installation. The Planning Commission finds that the subject properties, contiguous parcels under a single ownership, represent a significantly oversized parcel within the zoning district. As it exists, Tax Lot #308 exceeds both the maximum width and maximum depth allowed within the district and has no street frontage, yet this property, in combination with Tax Lot #501, has the potential under the current zoning to accommodate significant additional density, with a base density of 11.55 units (3.207 acres X 3.6 units per acre = 11.545 units). The Planning Commission finds this to be an unusual circumstance which merits consideration to ensure that current actions do not impede future land use efficiency. The Planning Commission finds that the underlying basis for the width versus depth relationship requirement is to insure efficient land use over the long term, as the creation of wider lots would spread development further along a street, increasing the need for pavement and utility extensions, while the use of narrower lots can accommodate the same number of houses with less pavement and less infrastructure extension. The Planning Commission finds that in the short term, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment has little negative effect on the adjacent properties—the number of lots does not change with the adjustment, and Tax Lot #501 could develop as illustrated in the proposed envelope without the adjustment. The Commission further finds that over the long term the applicants' conceptual comprehensive site plan demonstrates that the proposal is in keeping with the underlying basis of the width versus depth requirements — efficient land use over the long term. With the applicants' offer of easements to adjacent properties and an irrevocable consent to future right-of-way dedication, the proposal benefits adjacent uses and furthers the purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance and the i PA#2010-00582 August 10,2010 Page 5 i Comprehensive Plan by facilitating more efficient land use for the site, and for properties adjacent to the site, in the manner envisioned within the zoning district standards. Additionally, with the future street installation, Lot #501 would eventually front on the new street to its north, and at that time its width would be less than its depth, ultimately complying with the ordinance. The Planning Commission finds that the circumstances or conditions are not willfully or purposely self-imposed. The lot size and configuration pre-date the current owners' acquisition of the property, and while the applicants could potentially adjust the proposed width and depth to address the applicable standards in the short-term, in the long-term the proposed configuration ultimately facilitates more efficient land use for the subject properties and surround properties, as envisioned in the standards of the zoning district, and will ultimately satisfy the width versus depth requirement with the eventual street dedication, which the applicants will irrevocably consent to with the application. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that a tree inventory and tree preservation plan have been provided identifying 16 trees on and in the vicinity of Tax Lot #501 which could potentially be affected by future construction on this tax lot. Three of these trees are identified for removal, including Tree #10, a 12-inch maple and Trees #11 and #12, which are small fruit trees located within the identified fire truck turn-around, and which have a diameter of less than six-inches. The Planning Commission finds that none of these removals is subject to a Tree Removal Permit due to the sizes of the three trees to be removed, and that the remaining trees are to be protected with standard tree protection fencing prior to any site disturbance on the property. I 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the applicants' "Comprehensive Site Plan" has been provided for conceptual/illustrative purposes only, and is not approved with this application. Any future partitioning or subdividing of the property would be subject to land use approval according to the applicable regulations in place at the time of application. SECTION 3. DECISION I 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for a Lot Line Adjustment and a Variance to allow a lot wider than it is deep is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. i Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action#2010-00582. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 42010-00582 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: I 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. The applicants' "Comprehensive Site Plan" has been provided for conceptual/illustrative purposes only, and is not approved with this application. PA#2010-00582 August 10,2010 Page 6 2) That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months. Prior to city sign-off of the final survey plat: a) All easements for public and private utilities, trails, pedestrian and bicycle access, natural drainageways, irrigation, fire apparatus access, and the reciprocal access easements for shared use of the existing driveway by Tax Lots #400 and #500 (as proposed in the application) shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. b) That the applicants shall submit a signed and notarized agreement for recording which provides irrevocable consent to dedicate the existing driveway as future street right-of- way with further development of the subject properties, as proposed in the application, with the understanding that street improvements would be provided by the future developer of subject property(ies). 3) That prior to the issuance of a building permit to develop tax lot#501: a) That the applicants shall provide a site plan identifying improvements to the existing driveway to the development standards of a flag drive, including the required paved width and clear width and provisions for a third "visitors"' parking space. Any work within the Tolman Creek Road right-of-way, including but not limited to driveway improvements or utility installation, shall'be subject to review and approval by Jackson County and the City of Ashland, with permits to be issued by Jackson County. b) That any development including but not limited to driveway improvements or utility installation within the Hamilton Creels floodplain shall be subject to a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit. Prior to obtaining permits, the applicant shall provide a site plan identifying the limits of the floodplain prepared by an Oregon-licensed surveyor. C) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to fire hydrant distance; fire flow; fire apparatus access, turn-around, and work area; and approved addressing shall be satisfactorily addressed in the building permit plan submittals and complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever is applicable. d) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition or construction, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the three trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained and protected on and adjacent to the property. Tree protection shall consist of chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.13. i /L2 v/0 Planning Commission Approval Date PA#2010-00582 August 10,2010 Page 7 I PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 557 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 202 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 2100 ALLISON SCOTT BARTELLO JACK AND DEBORAH BECICH JOAN N 891 BESWICK WAY B BARTEL ET AL 1450 TOLMAN CR RD ASHLAND OR 97520 1355 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 309 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 568 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1601 BURNETT WILEY M/MARGUERITE CULBERTSON KATHERINE MAY DEL RIO ROBIN JO 1385 APPLE WAY PO BOX 3138 2354 GREEN MEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 547 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1700 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 400 DISMUKE J N/R L GODFREY- ENGELKING DONALD W TRUSTEE FACEY GRETCHEN TRUST ET AL 2125 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2368 GREEN MEADOWS WAY 211 FRONT ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 TALENT OR 97540 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1200 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 559 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 574 FAGUNDES MICHAEL H/JULIE R FRIEND JEANNETTE ET AL GALLEN JOHN T/SKURATOWICZ 2323 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2340 RANCH RD EVA M ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 2330 LUPINE DR ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 317 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 567 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 101 GREEN DOUGLAS P/KAREN K HAMILTON JOHN B HANSEN RICHARD CARL 1403 APPLE WAY 2345 LUPINE DR 1390 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1501 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1000 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 546 HELLER JOEL ALAN HENNEMAN MICHAEL W HERDRICH H Rd M TRUSTE FBO 2326 GREENMEADOWS WAY TRUSTEE ET AL 2225 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 2351 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1100 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 500 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 570 KENNEDY DAVID LEO/TERESA L KEY BANK N A LINDOW JAMES T/LINDOW 2337 GREENMEADOWS WAY 3535 SE FACTORIA BLVD 220 DIANNE K ASHLAND OR 97520 BELLEVUE WA 98006 2370 LUPINE DR ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 566 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 308 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 900 LOESSI KAREN M TRUSTEE ET AL MALIBAR GROUP LLC MORRISH WILLIAM B TRUSTEE 2335 LUPINE DR RETIREMENT PLAN FBO RO ET AL ASHLAND OR 97520 1405 S TOLMAN CREEK RD 639 PRIM ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 569 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 600 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 800 OLSEN BETTY J TRUSTEE FBO ORR DEBBIE PAUL OLAF TRUSTEE ET AL 10211 SW 55TH AVE 2395 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2375 GREENMEADOWS WAY PORTLAND OR 97219 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 104 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1400 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 571 PUDERBAUGH THOMAS R RATNER MARC L TRUSTEE ET AL RENE MELANIE TRUSTEE ET AL 2312 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2360 LUPINE DR 1400 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 Easy Peel®Labels i ® OEM= Bend along line to Use Avery®Template 51600 1 Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM O 51600 11 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 307 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 572 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 573 ROBERTSON BARBARA SORUM DONALD W TRUSTEE ET SPJUT BEVERLY 22255 CANYON VIEW CIR AL 2340 LUPINE DR CUPERTINO CA 95014 2350 LUPINE DR ASHLAND CA 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 103 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 544 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1300 STRUHS BERNICE T TRSTEE FBO THOMPSON DAVID J/JUNE L TURNER PAULINE CLAIRE 1378 TOLMAN CREEK RD 2230 GREENMEADOWS WAY TRUSTEE ET AL ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 2309 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 201 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 700 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 558 VOELLER JAMES W/ESTELLE H WILSON GORDON B TRUSTEE ZONNEVELD HELEN TRUSTEE ET 3784 COLEMAN CREEK RD 2385 GREEN MEADOW WAY AL MEDFORD OR 97501 ASHLAND OR 97520 2350 RANCH RD ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 PA-2010-00582 Urban Development Services, LLC Colin Swales NOD 485 W Nevada St 143 Eighth Street 1405 Tolman Cr Rd Ashland,OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 i i I i i I I I I i I i i i ttiquettes faciles a paler s de Repliez A la hachure afin de i www.avery.com Sens Utilisez le aabarit AVERY®51600 ! rAwMar la rahnrd Pnn-I InTM 1 7_onn A%/CDV 1 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION:#2010.00582 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1405 Tolman Creek Rd APPLICANT: Malibar Group, LLC DESCRIPTION:A request for a Boundary Line Adjustment and a Variance to allow a lot wider than it is deep for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;ZONING: R-1-7.5;ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 391E 23 BA; TAX LOT: 308 and 501. Commission Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Morris asked to be recused. He stated he has worked for the applicant in the past and has a potential conflict of interest. Commissioner Morris left the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Commissioners Rinaldi, Mindlin, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Miller and Marsh declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the location of the site and the existing conditions. He explained this application involves a lot line adjustment for two lots;the larger lot is currently 2.32 acres and the smaller lot is .89 acres.The proposal is to reduce the size of the smaller lot to .33 acres and increase the size of the larger lot to 2.89 acres. Mr. Severson noted this type of action is typically approved administratively; however in this case the movement of lot lines will result in a flag lot that is wider than it is deep and therefore a variance is required. Mr. Severson explained that the applicant has demonstrated there is significant development potential for this area. He noted the applicant is offering an irrevocable consent to dedicate a future street which will service development on that property in the future; and at that time,their lot will become compliant with the width versus depth standard. Mr. Severson stated staff is supportive of this application and are recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Staff was asked to clarify the width of the street. Mr. Severson explained the width of the flag drive is currently 37 ft, and a minimum of 47 ft is needed for a new residential street. He explained the applicant has agreed to provide a half-street improvement, which will consist of two travel lanes, a parkrow and a sidewalk on the south side; and if and when the neighboring lot develops,that property owner would be asked to dedicate the remaining 10 ft. Staff clarified the full street improvement of the flag drive would only be needed if the other property decides to build out their lot. Commissioner Dawkins raised concern with dedicating a street when the applicant does not own the tax lots on the north and south sides. Mr. Severson noted they have done this with other developments in Ashland where you ask for the improvement to develop according to the zoning, and as properties develop the property owners are asked to dedicate the necessary parts of the street. He added they are getting most of the street with this proposal and it is only the street trees and parkrow that will be needed in the future on the north side. Applicant's Presentation Roy Marti n/Appl!cant and Mark KnoxlApplicant's Representative addressed the Commission. Mr. Knox explained they have two existing lots and all they are really doing is shrinking one of them. He noted the existing development potential and stated where this gets complicated is when you consider how this area will eventually build out. Mr. Knox stated in the future, tax lots 400 and 500 are likely to be portioned off and developed,which will force a street to go in. He explained if you look at the City's Street Standards, it is clear that if these parcels are divided,they will be required to take access off this new lane. He stated as part of this application, his client is agreeing to a%street improvement;and if the owner of tax lot 400 decides to develop their lot,they will likely be asked to provide the last quarter which would consist of curbing, a planting strip and sidewalk. Mr. Knox noted his client's irrevocable consent to dedicate this strip right now, and stated they have identified reciprocal easements to allow the current property owner to use this strip of land. Mr. Martin noted that typically this type of action only requires a staff approval and it would not have come before the Commission if not for the situation of the lot being wider than it is long. He stated all they are doing is taking one buildable site and making it smaller. Ashland Planning Commission July 13, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Knox commented that they are designing these envelopes with the assumption that there is going to be a street there one day. He also noted a neighborhood meeting was held and feels it went well, Mr. Severson clarified this property is served by city utilities. Mr. Molnar commented on the setback requirements and how future homes might be oriented. It was clarified there are design standards for single family home development that address eaves and porches, but there is no requirement that states the front door must be oriented towards to the street. Public Testimony Maria Paul/2375 Green MeadowsNoiced her concern with the impact this lot formation will have on the existing home values along Green Meadows Way. She stated all of the surrounding homes are modest, single story homes and is worried if they start building two-story homes it will have a negative impact on the value of her home. Ms. Paul asked if the variance is approved that it carry with it a mandatory restriction for only single story homes. She stated anything else would be incompatible with the surrounding homes and their views and privacy would be compromised. Colin Swales/143 81"St/Stated this should not have come before the Commission as a variance and believes it could have been handled administratively. Mr. Swales clarified what he would like to speak to is the interpretation made by the City's former Assistant Attorney on the Hillview application about what constitutes a front, back, and rear yard. Mr. Swales stated he believes some real errors were made in that interpretation and it impacts this application. He stated infill issues including existing neighborhoods, privacy, and overlooking need to be sorted out; and while he supports approval of this application, he would like the Commission to direct staff to address these infill issues. Mr. Swales asked that the record be left open so he can enter into the record arguments as to why he believes that interpretation is wrong. He added he does not want to hold up this application up, but feels these issues need to be addressed. Commissioner Marsh asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Swales is asking to leave the record open. Mr. Swales stated he does not want to delay this application, but feels this interpretation needs to be addressed and does not know what the correct course of action is. Mr. Swales stated if the Commission will take up these infill issues on their own, he will withdraw his request to leave the record open. Michael Fagundes12323 Green Meadows/Stated he lives in this neighborhood and has heard a lot of verbiage tonight that makes him nervous. Mr. Fagundes noted that the applicant does not control this whole piece of land and they don't know what will happen on the other lot in the future. He commented on privacy issues and expressed concern with neighbors looking in on him, and added that a new subdivision will not fit in this area. Rebuttal by the Applicant Mark Knox/Stated they have attempted to address the neighbors concerns by providing excessive setbacks over what is required, and noted that these lots will also be bigger than the neighboring lots. Mr. Knox stated it is difficult to say what is compatible and what is not. He agreed that the Green Meadows development is predominately single story homes, but noted that there are two-story houses to the north that are mixed in. Mr. Knox agreed with Mr. Swales and stated he supports the Planning Commission taking another look at the interpretation made by the former Assistant City Attorney. Advice from Legal Counsel&Staff Mr. Severson briefly reviewed the setback requirements and the additional buffer that is part of this application; he also clarified there is no provision that would allow staff to prohibit a two-story house. Staff was asked to comment on whether a future subdivision application would come before the Planning Commission, Mr. Severson clarified yes,this type of action would be a Type II hearing before the Commission and at that time staff would be looking at all the standards and issues raised earlier. Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing and the record at 8,10 p.m. Deliberations&Decision Commissioners Dotterrer/Blake motion to approve Planning Action#2010.00582 with the conditions proposed by staff. DISCUSSION: Dawkins voiced his concern with the assumptions they are making about the future development of this Ashland Planning Commission July 13, 2010 Page 3 of 5 area and stated he will be voting no on this motion because he feels this is a roundabout way of approving a future subdivision. Mindlin stated she does not believe the applicant has met the criteria for unique or unusual circumstances that are not self imposed, and voiced concern with approving the applicant's concept for development without dealing with the issues. Blake stated he is not in disagreement with anything that has been said, but noted that a subdivision application would have to come back before them and the applicant is just acknowledging that there is future potential for this. He added he is a believer in master planning and is supportive of infill, and also agrees with management access and having fewer driveways on Tolman Creek Rd. Rinaldi commented that approving this application does not lock them into anything and stated they would be able to look at a development application in more detail when it comes before them. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Miller, Blake, Rinaldi and Marsh,YES. Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin, NO. Motion passed 5.2. Commissioner Morris rejoined the hearing at 8:25 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS A. Discussion of changes to the Planning Commission Rules of Conduct Staff provided a brief review of the changes to the Planning Commission Rules and clarified these updates are necessary to provide consistency with the Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures Ordinance passed by the City Council in February, 2010. Because of the provision in the Rules that requires proposed changes to be announced 14 days prior to the decision, staff noted the Commission will not vote on these changes until their August 10, 2010 meeting. Commissioner Dotterrer noted change to the number of votes needed to make amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Commissioner Marsh commented that the new Rules change the selection of the Chair and Vice Chair to their first meeting in January, and asked that they discuss at their next meeting how they would like to handle the current Chair's and Vice Chair's terms until they are selected again in January 2011. B. Planning Commission Liaison to the TSP Technical Advisory Committee Mr. Molnar asked for a volunteer to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee being formed for the City's Transportation System Plan update. Commissioner Dawkins noted his interest in serving on this group. General consensus was reached to select Michael Dawkins as the Planning Commission representative for the TSP TAC. C. Approval of Findings for PA-2009.01244, 1644 Ashland Street. Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin left the hearing at 8:37 p.m. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Miller stated she spoke with a citizen but did not receive any new information. No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified there is no opportunity for the public to rebut Commissioner Miller's disclosure since no new information was obtained. He added the record is now closed and there is no opportunity for the public to comment on the Findings, and it is too late to issue a challenge or give additional information to the Commission. Deliberations&Decision Mr.Appicello briefly reviewed the Findings with the Commission and noted the key issues came down to collocation and economic impacts. i Commissioner Dotterrer asked if the following language contained in the first paragraph on page 14 is necessary: "The City j Council as the legislative body could have written the above referenced design standards to reflect a more rigorous collocation requirement such as the following: ..." Mr.Appicello stated he included this language because many of the opponents that were commenting were characterizing the collocation standard as a mandatory standard that has to be met. Ashland Planning Commission July 13, 2010 Page 4 of 5 i 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 of time 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. o � � Name (please print) Address (no P.O.Box)_ Phone Email Tonight's Meeting Date'' ~ � t 1 Regular Meeting Agenda item number ,"� - ` OR Topic for public forum(non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: V 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 limitpublic testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase qf'a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly,follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespec ful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Of 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. 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 of time 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. Name (p a se print Address(no P.O.Bon) "" Phone ° Email Tonight's Meeting Date IIAL Regular Meeting Agenda item number 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 of 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. 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 of time 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. Name , '�Af ! ( r f '` r (please print Address (no P.O.Box) Phone '{J Email. °7` CLf°` °t, i Tonight's Meeting Date' Regular Meeting Agenda item numbera ' 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 di ringpublic 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 of 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. CITY OF City of Ashland ASHLAND Planning Exhibit EXHIBIT' PA# 1i M VE)k M A U01,k DATE"t TAFF ' L- DATE: October 28, 2005 TO: Maria Harris, Senior Planner and Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner FROM: Mike Reeder, Assistant City Attorney RE: Hearing Board Issues Raised in 893 Hillview Partition Planning Action 2005-01474 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an official opinion from the Legal Department for the benefit of the Planning Division and the Hearings Board regarding the 893 Hillview planning action. On October 11, 2005,the Hearings Board continued the initial hearing on this action to allow time for legal interpretations concerning the issues identified below to be addressed. i Issue#1—How is "Lot Depth"Measured for a Flag Lot? I i. What is the Correct Definition of"Lot depth?" I The definition of"Lot depth"as it reads in the code in ALUO 18.08.380 is incorrectly written. The current reading of the definition was erroneously copied from the ordinance to the code as far back as 1980. The"definition" of"Lot depth" current(erroneously) reads: i The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the rear lot line. This "definition," as written, is not only ambiguous,but meaningless. The definition provides no guidance as to how to measure lot depth. In order to measure a distance, one needs at least two points of reference. This definition provides only one: the midpoint of the rear lot line. Ordinance 1361 §3(29), adopted in 1964, and codified in 1974, includes the correct language,which i reads as follows: "Lot depth"means the horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot j line. Since Ordinance 1361 created the definition,which according to the City Recorder's Office was never changed by ordinance,the 1964 definition language is controlling. The Planning Division and the Planning Commission should, from now on, follow the definition as originally adopted and codified. ii. How is "Lot depth"measured for flag lots? The correct definition of"Lot depth" still does not explain how the depth of a flag lot is measured. In order to do so we must determine which lot line is the front lot line. i CITY OF ASHLAND Legal Department Tel:541-488-5350 Michael W.Franell,City Attorney 20 East Main Street Fax:541-552-2092 Micheal M.Reeder,Assistant City Attorney Ashland,OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 Sharlene P.Stephens,Legal Assistant/Claims Manager www,ashland.or,us Nancy Snow,Legal Secretary i "Lot line, front" is defined in 18.08.420: In the case of an interior lot, the lot line separating the lot from the street other than an alley... The subject property is an interior lot, as defined by 18.08.400. The only lot line abutting a street is the flag drive area of the (flag) lot. However,the language of the ordinance does not require the lot line to "abut"the street,but rather it identifies the front lot line as the lot line "separating the lot from the street." For non-flag lots the front lot line generally does, in fact, abut the street. However, "to separate"is broader than"to abut" and these two phases are not synonymous. Definitions of"separate" include: (1) set or kept apart, (2)not shared with another, (3) estranged from a parent body, (4) existing by itself, and (5) dissimilar in nature or identity.' The definition for"Lot, flag"was adopted concurrently with the definition of"Lot line, front,"in 1964. Therefore,the drafters of the ordinance knew that flag lots' "front lot lines"would be separated from the street, but would not"abut"the street. Furthermore,the fact that the drafters excluded from the"lot area" of a flag lot the flag drive area of the lot(18.76.060.I)is persuasive evidence that they specifically excluded the flag drive area from being calculated in the lot width and lot depth calculations. If they did not,then no flag lot would meet the lot depth standard. This would defeat the purposes of Section 18.76.060 which specifically allows for the creation of flag partitions. Therefore, for purposes of flag drives,the front lot line is the lot line that is closest and parallel to the street. i i Issue#2 How is"Lot Width"Measured for a Flag Lot? Lot width is defined in 18.08.470: The average(mean)horizontal distance between the side lot lines, ordinarily measured parallel to the front lot line. Side lot lines are defined as any lot line that is not a front or rear lot line. ALUO 18.08.470. In this case,the front lot line has been determined as the lot line closest and parallel to the street(and which is also parallel to the rear lot line). Therefore,the remaining two lot lines are side lot lines. Measuring the lot width is therefore an easy task. I Issue#3—Traffic Impact 18.76.050 requires that the partitioning be in conformance with the design and street standards contained in Chapter 18.88. This proposed minor land partition does not violate the streets standards. See Staff Report of Maria Harris, Senior Planner, October 11, 2005, page 3. I t Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1067(10th ed. 1995). 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Legal Department Tel:541488-5350 Michael W.Franell,City Attorney 20 East Main Street Fax:541552-2092 Micheal M.Reeder,Assistant City Attorney Ashland,OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 Sharlene P.Stephens,Legal Assistant/Claims Manager www.ashland.or.us Nancy Snow,Legal Secretary Issue#4—Does ALUO 18.62, "Physical &Environmental Constraints"Apply to the Subject Property No. The subject property is not identified on the P &E maps of the City as required under 18.62.060. Issue#5—Does ALUO 18.20.010, "Purpose," Prohibit this Proposed Minor Land Partition? No. The text of 18.20.010, "Purpose,"reads: The purpose of the R-1 district is to stabilize and protect the suburban characteristics of the district and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life. As discussed in previous planning actions,the code cannot be read to create a conflict where none exists. The argument that the "purpose"of the R-1 zone is not achieved by partitions that are specifically allowed in the R-1 zone is unpersuasive. Many of the permitted uses in the R-1 district, such as agriculture (18.20.020.C) and home occupations (18.20.020.G), as well as most of the conditional uses of 18.20.030 could arguably not support the purpose of R-1. The subsequent sections of the R-1 chapter implement the purpose of the R-1 district. Specifically,the density standard for R-1, as found in 18.20.040, implement this purpose. This application meets the standards of 18.20.040.A since each lot in each proposal is clearly above the 7,500 square foot minimum. In other words,the drafters of the R-1 chapter specifically allowed for partitions of lots (including flag lots)that meet the density standard of the zone. The decision about whether this type of development furthers the purpose of the zoning district has already been made legislatively and cannot be altered in a quasi-judicial planning action. Therefore,the purpose section of 18.20 does not prohibit a partition as proposed. The partition proposal must meet the criteria for minor land partitions as found in 18.76.050. i I I i i G:\legal\Reeder\PLANNING\893 Hillview Partition Memo to Planning(10-05).doe i 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Legal Department Tel:541488-5350 Michael W.Franell,City Attorney 20 East Main Street Fax:541-552-2092 Micheal M.Reeder,Assistant City Attorney Ashland,OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 Sharlene P.Stephens,Legal Assistant/Claims Manager www.ashland,or.us Nancy Snow,Legal Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT July 13, 2010 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2010-00582 APPLICANT: Malibar Group LLC LOCATION: 1405 Tolman Creels Road Map 39 lE 23 BA, Tax Lots#308 &#501 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: June 2, 2010 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: September 30, 2010 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 R-1 Single Family Residential District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.76.090 Conditions May Be Set 18.76.100 Final Step 18.76.110 Final Map Requirements 18.76.120 Acceptance of the Final Map 18.76.130 Final Approval by the Secretary 18.76.140 Lot Line Adjustments 18.100 Variance REQUEST: A request for a Lot Line Adjustment and a Variance to allow a lot wider than it is deep for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creels Road I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application In September of 1997,Planning Action 97-085 requested a variance to increase the number of livestock from the permitted two head of livestock over the age of six months per acre to four head of livestock over the age of six months per acre to keep 15 llamas on the property. This request was ultimately denied by the City Council. In July of 1995, Planning Action 95-037 requested Outline and Final Plan approval for the four-lot Wildcreek Subdivision under the Performance Standards Option. Tax Lot#308, one of the subject properties in the current application, was Lot#4 in that subdivision. There are no other planning actions of record for this site. Planning Action PA#2010-00582 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 1 of 9 B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The subject properties, Tax Lots #308 and #501, are located on the west side of Tolman Creek Road between Green Meadows Way and Morada Lane. Both properties are located within the R-1-7.5 zoning district,a single family residential zone which requires a minimum lot size of at least 7,500 square feet. Tax Lot#501 is 0.89 acres in area and is vacant with the exception of a small shed associated with the agricultural use of the property as a llama farm. Tax Lot #308 is 2.32 acres in area and contains a ranch-style, single-story single family residence, a detached garage with guest house above, and an additional large detached garage/storage building. According to Jackson County Assessor's data, the single family residence was constructed in 1890 and is approximately 2,515 square feet, and the guest house dates.to 1950 and is approximately 560 square feet. The application notes that all existing structures are intended to remain on the property with the proposal. Tax Lot#308 has no legal frontage on Tolman Creels Road; while it is served by a private driveway easement from Apple Way to the north,it takes functional access via an existing flag drive to Tolman Creels Road. The properties are generally flat,with an approximate four to five percent slope down to the northeast, although there are some steeper areas along the bank of a drainage at the western portion of the subject properties. A tree inventory and tree preservation plan has been provided identifying 16 trees in the vicinity of Tax Lot #501 which could potentially be affected by future construction on this tax lot. Three of these trees are identified for removal, including Tree #10, a 12-inch maple and Trees #11 and #12, which are small fruit trees located within the identified fire truck turn-around, and which have a diameter of less than six-inches. None of these removals is subject to a Tree Removal Permit due to the sizes of the three trees to be removed, and the remaining trees are to be protected with standard tree protection fencing prior to any site disturbance on the property. The Tree Commission reviewed the application's Tree Inventory and Tree Preservation Plan at its July 2010 meeting and had no additional recommendations. In addition to the trees identified on and around Tax Lot#501,there is a land drainage and associated riparian vegetation along the western portion of Tax Lot #308. While not identified as a water resource in the City of Ashland's inventory,this drainage appears to be an extension of Hamilton Creek Tributary#2 which terminates on the property to the north, near the Apple Way cul-de-sac. The drainage is protected by a Natural Drainageway Easement which was established with an earlier subdivision approval. Local stream Hamilton Creek runs along the east side of Tolman Creek Road in the property's vicinity, and its identified floodplain appears to be in close proximity to the entrance to the driveway serving the subject properties. Any work,constituting development within the floodplain would trigger a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit,and the applicants would need to provide a survey to clearly identify the limits of the floodplain before making application for any permits. i I i Planning Action PA#2010-00582 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 2 of 9 I Access to the subject properties is via an existing flag drive from Tolman Creek Road which serves an additional tax lot (Tax Lot#500) which has legal access from Tolman but takes functional access from the drive. Tolman Creek Road is classified as an Avenue or Major Collector,and is under Jackson County's jurisdiction in this vicinity. Tolman Creek Road is currently paved with open drainages on either side,but which lacks curbs, gutters,on-street parking, storm drains, park-row planting strips with street trees, sidewalks, and bike lanes. The proposal involves a Lot Line Adjustment to reduce the size of Tax Lot#501 from .89 acres to .33 acres. Tax Lot#308 is to increase from 2.32 acres to 2.90 acres. No additional lots are to be created with the application,and no development is proposed,however because the Lot Line Adjustment results in a lot that is by definition wider than it is deep,a Variance to the general requirement in Single Family Residential zoning districts that no lot shall be wider than it is deep is also required. This requirement is generally intended to insure efficient land use, as wider lots could result in the need for additional infrastructure to serve the same number of lots. When lots are not created to be wider than they are deep, a more compact urban form can more easily be maintained, with more lots served using less pavement and less necessary infrastructure extension. II. Project Impact The application involves a request for a Lot Line Adjustment, which typically could be approved ministerially by the Staff Advisor when the proposal meets all requirements of the zoning district. However,in this instance the proposed relocation of a lot line results in the creation of a flag lot that is 145 feet wide while having a depth of only 80 feet. General regulations within the R-1 zoning district require that no lot shall have a width greater than its depth, and with the width and depth proposed, a Variance to the standard is required. Because the width exceeds the depth by more than 20 percent, the Variance is subject to processing as a Type II and a public hearing is required. A. Lot Line Adjustment The proposal involves a Lot Line Adjustment to reduce the size of Tax Lot#501 from .89 acres to .33 acres. Tax Lot#308 is to increase from 2.32 acres to 2.90 acres. No additional lots are to be created with the application, and no development is proposed. Lot Line Adjustments are typically approved ministerially when all requirements of the zoning district are met. In this instance, both of the proposed lots are larger than the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size for the zoning district,both satisfy the minimum 65-foot lot width and both meet the 80-foot minimum depth. While Tax Lot#308 exceeds the maximum width and depth limitations of 150 feet, these are existing conditions that are not exacerbated by the proposed adjustment. The applicants have identified a proposed building envelope for Tax Lot#501 which provides the required yard areas for the lot as proposed,with a front yard on the east side of the lot between the envelope and Tolman Creek Road, but which also responds to a future street installation in place of the existing driveway. Only the proposed width versus depth relationship fails to meet zoning requirements,and as such a Variance has been requested. Planning Action PA#2010-00582 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 3 of 9 I B. Variance to Create Lot Wider than it is Deep During consideration of an appeal for a requested Variance to create a flag lot that was wider than it was deep in 2005,the Planning Commission Hearings Board was presented with an analysis of the Land Use Ordinance from the Legal Department which explained that by definition,the front lot line for a flag lot is the lot line that is closest and parallel to the street, excluding the flag pole area. The rear lot line is the line directly opposite the front lot line, with the remaining lot lines considered side lot lines, and yard areas, width and depth determinations proceed accordingly. The Hearings Board at that time concurred with the Legal Department's interpretation, and found that the lot width for a flag lot had to be measured between the two side lot lines. Through this action, it was clarified that by ordinance,there was no flexibility in determining the front lot line,yard areas or widths and depths when it came to flag lots. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment here results in a lot with a width of 145 feet and a depth of only 80 feet. Because the Lot Line Adjustment results in a lot that is wider than it is deep, a Variance to the general requirement in Single Family Residential zoning districts that no lot shall be wider than it is deep has been requested. The application materials note that there are a number of unique or unusual circumstances which apply in necessitating the proposed Variance: A)that Tax Lot#501 is already non- conforming in terms of width and depth;B)that Tax Lot#308 is already non-conforming in terms of having no legal street frontage, and is oddly shaped with a size which dwarfs surrounding properties;C)that Tax Lot#400(which is not part of the application)is a vacant parcel with its only access from Tolman Creels Road but which could take access from a future street that could be installed in place of the existing driveway; D)that Tax Lot#500 (also not part of the application)could redevelop or add an accessory residential unit taking access from a future street that could be installed in place of the existing driveway; and E) that without the proposed offering of an access easement within the proposed flag pole area, both Tax Lot #400 and #500 could further develop and require additional accesses from Tolman Creels Road creating access management concerns. The applicants have provided a comprehensive site plan,which while not being considered under the current application, is intended to illustrate that the proposal's benefits would be greater that any negative impacts on adjacent uses, and would further the intent of the ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The plan identifies the area of the existing driveway, which is approximately 3 6.94 feet in width,as an area for which the applicants are willing to provide an irrevocable consent to dedicate as street right of way to accommodate a significant portion of the necessary right-of-way for a future street installation to serve the eventual development of the subject properties as well as adjacent Tax Lots#400 and#500 according to the target use of the zoning district. In addition, the applicants propose to provide access easement to both lots#400 and#500 for use of the existing driveway in the interim period to alleviate any access management concerns. The plan identifies the potential for a phased future subdivision of the subject properties to create a total of eight lots, including a new street installation with turn-around and the potential to relocate an existing unimproved bicycle and pedestrian easement connecting Tolman Creek Road and Apple Way into the new street, eliminating the need for a crossing of Hamilton Creels Tributary #2. The applicants have identified a proposed building envelope for Tax Lot #501 which i i Planning Action PA#2010-00582 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 4 of 9 provides the required yard areas for the lot as proposed with the current adjustment,with a front yard on the east side of the lot between the envelope and Tolman Creek Road, but which also responds to the future street installation. The application materials note that the current circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed as the current owners only acquired the properties in May of 2009 and did not create the lot's odd configuration, size or have anything to do with the surrounding properties. The application goes on to note that the requested Lot Line Adjustment is intended as an initial step in creating a neighborhood in-fill project that complies with city policies and regulations while benefiting the neighboring properties as they eventually redevelop in a more logical pattern. For staff, the most applicable unique or unusual circumstance here is that the subject properties, contiguous parcels under a single ownership,represent a significantly oversized parcel within the zoning district. As it exists, Tax Lot #308 exceeds both the maximum width and maximum depth allowed within the district and has no street frontage. Yet this property, in combination with Tax Lot#501, has the potential under the current zoning to accommodate significant additional density,with a base density of 11.55 units(3.207 acres X 3.6 units per acre= 11.545 units). In terms of the benefits of the proposal outweighing any negative impacts on the development of adjacent uses and furthering the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan, staff believe that it is important to consider the underlying basis for the width versus depth relationship requirement. As staff understand it,this requirement is intended to insure efficient land use over the long term—the creation of wider lots spread development further along a street, increasing the need for pavement and utility extensions, while the use of narrower lots can accommodate the same number of houses with less pavement and less infrastructure extension. In the short term,the proposed Lot Line Adjustment has little negative effect on the adjacent properties—the number of lots does not change with the adjustment,and Tax Lot#501 could develop as illustrated in the proposed envelope without the adjustment. However, over the long term the applicants' comprehensive site plan demonstrates that the proposal is in keeping with the underlying basis of the width versus depth requirements—efficient land use over the long term. With the applicants' offer of easements to adjacent properties and an irrevocable consent to future right-of-way dedication,the proposal benefits adjacent uses and furthers the purpose and intent of the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan by facilitating more efficient land use for the site in the manner envisioned within the zoning district j standards. Additionally,with the future street installation,Lot#501 would eventually front on the new street to its north, and at that time its width would be less than its depth, complying with the ordinance. I Staff do not believe that the circumstances or conditions are willfully or purposely self- imposed. The lot size and configuration pre-date the current owners' acquisition of the property, and while the applicants could potentially adjust the proposed width and depth to address the applicable standards in the short-term, in the long-term the proposed configuration ultimately facilitates more efficient land use for the subject properties and Planning Action PA#2010-00582 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Malibar Group LLC Page 5 of 9 i surround properties,as envisioned in the standards of the zoning district,and will satisfy the width versus depth requirement with the eventual street dedication. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof Administrative approval of lot line adjustments are subject to the following, as detailed in AMC 18.76.140: The adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary, where the number of parcels is not changed and all zoning requirements are met, shall be accepted by the City, provided the requirements of Sections 18.76.090 through 18.76.130 are satisfied, in addition to Section 18.76.170, where the lot adjustment causes access to be changed to an exterior unimproved street. SECTION 18.76.090 Conditions May be Set. The Planning Commission or the Staff Advisor may require dedication of land or easements, signing in favorof street improvements, and conditions ormodifications relating to improvements such as sidewalks, utilities, and the standards of the Subdivision Chapter and the development plan for the area. In no event shall the Planning Commission or the Staff Advisorrequire greater dedications or conditions than could be required if the area were subdivided. Underground utilities shall be required in connection with all land partition applications as set forth in subsections 18.80.060(C) through 18.80.060(F) of this Title. SECTION 18.76.100 Final Step. Within twelve (12) months of the date of preliminary map approval, the tract of land shall be surveyed, pins set at all corners, and a final map submitted to the Planning Department incorporating any conditions or modifications of the map's preliminary approval. If the applicant has not completed the foregoing within the twelve (12) month period, the applicant must resubmit the partition for preliminary approval consideration. SECTION 18.76.110 Final Map Requirements. The map to be filed with the County Clerk shall be legibly drawn, printed, or reproduced by a process guaranteeing a permanent record in black on polyester- base film having a minimum thickness of.003", 18"x24"' If ink is used on polyester- base film, the ink surface shall be coated with a suitable substance to ensure permanent legibility. An autopositive in black on polyester-base film shall also be filed with the County Surveyor. A reproducible copy of the final map shall be filed with the City Engineer. The map shall incorporate the following items before approval will be given: A. Title block, top and center specifying "minor or major partition'; the partition number, City of Ashland and the applicant's name. B. Name of the property owner and developer. C. Number of each lot in the partition. j D. Date, scale and north point(arrow) generally pointing to the top of the map. E. Basis of bearing determined by solar observation, Polaris observation, or Planning Action PA#2010-00582 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 6 of 9 true bearing determined from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Survey Net (formerly Coast and Geodetic Survey). F. The name and right-of-way width of adjacent streets, alleys and private ways. G. Irrigation and drainage easements. Those portions of land within the boundaries of the partitioning subject to periodic inundation which affect the intended use of the land together with the method or source of such determination. Also, other easements of record orconditions which affect the title of land or the use of land. H. All stakes, monuments, or other evidence found and used to establish boundaries of the partition. Any lines or boundaries shown by approximation clearly identified as such. I. Established center lines by the City of adjoining streets. J. The length of all arcs, radii and central angles. Adjust all distances to the nearest 100th of a foot, except on curves, which may be shown closer. Adjust all bearings to the nearest ten (10) seconds. The error of field closure shall not exceed one (1) foot in five thousand (5,000). K. Area of each parcel expressed in either square feet or acres. L. Monumentation: 1. All monuments shall be a minimum diameter of five-eighths inches (518') for iron pins and a minimum inside diameter of one-half inches (%') for iron pipes. For concrete monuments, refer to ORS 92.060 as amended by Senate Bill No. 487. 2. Witness corners may be set when it is impractical or impossible to set a monument in its true position, providing course and distance are given to the true position. 3. All monuments shall be clearly identified with the surveyor's or engineer's name or registration number. M. Certification of approval before filing with County Clerk and County Surveyor.- 1. Signature of approval on the face of the map by the Executive Secretary of the Planning Commission, or authorized representative. 2. Dedication of easements for utilities and/or widening of street shall be made on the face of the map. Statement of dedication by owner- developer with signature attested to by notarization. 3. Surveyor's certificate is to be shown with surveyor's seal and signature on the face of the map. 4. Signature of approval by the City Engineer is required when dedication of streets or easements is made on the map. N. Discovery of error and omissions: 1. All corrections or additions on a final map shall be made in ink suitable for the material and sprayed with suitable plastic material for preservation, including those prior to recording. 2. He shall file an affidavit stating the nature of the error with the County Planning Action PA#2010-00582 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 7 of 9 Recorder. 3. The map then shall be corrected and initialed by the surveyor under the direction of the County Surveyor. 4. The affidavit document number and date shall be placed on the face of the map that is recorded. SECTION 18.76.120 Acceptance of the Final Map. Final maps offered for approval shall not be accepted if the individual or agent of a corporation being responsible for the final map is acting simultaneously as the surveyor or engineer for the applicant or developer and the entity having jurisdiction of the minor and major partitioning. SECTION 18.76.130 Final Approval by the Secretary. When the Staff Advisor determines that the final map conforms to the final map requirements and specifications and the conditions(if any) of preliminary approval, the Secretary, or authorized representative, shall date and sign the final map. The approval criteria for Variances are described in AMC 18.100 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 further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations In considering the requested Lot Line Adjustment and Variance to allow a lot wider than it is deep, staff believe that it is important to consider the underlying basis for the width versus depth requirement. As noted above,this requirement is intended to insure efficient land use over the long term,as the creation of wider lots spreads development further along a street,increasing the need for pavement and utility extensions,while the use of narrower lots accommodates the same number of houses with less paving and less necessary extension of utility infrastructure. In this instance,the subject properties, contiguous parcels under a single ownership,represent a significantly oversized parcel within the zoning district and have the potential under the current zoning to accommodate significant additional density,with a base density of 11.55 units. In the short term, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment has little negative effect on the adjacent properties — the number of lots does not change with the adjustment, and Tax Lot #501 could develop as illustrated in the proposed envelope without the adjustment. However, over the longer term the applicants' comprehensive site plan demonstrates that the proposal is in keeping with the underlying basis of the width versus depth requirements—efficient land use. With the applicants' offer of easements to adjacent properties in combination with an irrevocable consent to future right- of-way dedication, the proposal benefits adjacent uses and furthers the purpose and intent of the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan by facilitating more efficient future land use for the site as Planning Action PA#2010-00582 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 8 of 9 envisioned in the standards of the zoning district. And with the eventual street dedication,Lot#501 would eventually front on the new street to its north,and at that time its width would be less than its depth, ultimately complying with the width versus depth requirements. As such, staff would recommend approval of the application with the conditions below: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. The applicants' "Comprehensive Site Plan" has been provided for conceptual/illustrative purposes only, and is not approved with this application. 2) That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months. Prior to city sign-off of the final survey plat: a) All easements for public and private utilities, trails, pedestrian and bicycle access, natural drainageways, irrigation, fire apparatus access, and the reciprocal access easements for shared use of the existing driveway by Tax Lots #400 and#500 (as proposed in the application)shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. b) That the applicants shall submit a signed and notarized agreement for recording which provides irrevocable consent to dedicate the existing driveway as future street right-of-way with further development of the subject properties, as proposed in the application, with the understanding that street improvements would be provided by the future developer of subject property(ies). 3) That prior to the issuance of a building permit to develop tax lot#501: a) That the applicants shall provide a site plan identifying improvements to the existing driveway to the development standards of a flag drive,including the required paved width and clear width and provisions for a third"visitors"'parking space. Any work, within the Tolman Creek Road right-of-way, including but not limited to driveway improvements or utility installation, shall be subject to review and approval by Jackson County and the City of Ashland, with permits to be issued by Jackson County. b) That any development including but not limited to driveway improvements or utility installation within the Hamilton Creek floodplain shall be subject to a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit. Prior to obtaining permits,the applicant shall provide a site plan identifying the limits of the floodplain prepared by an Oregon-licensed surveyor. c) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to fire hydrant distance; fire flow; fire apparatus access,turn-around, and work area; and approved addressing shall be satisfactorily addressed in the building permit plan submittals and complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials,whichever is applicable. d) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition or construction, and/or storage of j materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the three trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained and protected on and adjacent to the property. Tree protection shall consist of chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.13. Planning Action PA#2010-00582 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Malibar Group LLC Page 9 of 9 i Upoli:cd 5/21/Q8 TALENT IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND USE AGENCY RESPONSE FORM 104 W. Valley View Rd. Phone; 541-535-1529 P.O. Sox 407 Fax: 541-53541.08 Talent, OR 97540 Email: tid @talenti.d.org NAME OF ENTITY REQUESTING RESPONSE: City of Ashland Planning Commission ENTITY REFERENCE NUMBER: 2010-00582 MEETING REVIEW BATE: July .1,3, 2010 MAP DESCRIPTION: 39-1E-23BA_Tax Lots 308/501 PROPERTY ADDRESS:1,405 Tolman. Creek Rd ® NO COMMENT ON LAND USE ISSUE (IF NOT MARKED, CONTINUE BELOW) NO If CHF.CK,F,p COMMENT COMMENTS ARE APPLICABLE ❑ A. WATER RIGHT ISSUES ® 1. Water, rights need to be sold to someone or transferred back to Talent Irrigation District. Number of Irrigated Acres: Comments: z 2. Must have District approval for water rights to remain in place on subject property. Comments: Please note tb.at Tax Lot 308 has 1.8 acres of water rights and. Tax Lot 501 has 0.8 acres of water ri�alts. ❑ 13. EASEMENTS DISTRICT EASEMENTS ® 1. Easement needs to remain clear. No pQniianent structures or deep rooted plants will be allowed within the easement limits. Corn,vents: Be aware of the District's Bellview Pipeline running along the western_property line of"fax Lot 501 and continuing through Tax Lot 308 ® 2. If facility is to be.relocated or.rnodi fled, specifications must meet the District's standards and be agreeable to the District. A new written and recorded easement must be conveyed to the District, Comments: _ ® 3. If a written and recorded easement does not exist for an existing facility, then one must be provided in favor of the District. Comments: PRIVATE.>GASEMENTS 1,. Property may have private facilities (ditch or pipeline) that the District does not manage. Arrangements may need to be made to provide continued service through the subject property for downstream water users. Comments: JUL 1 2010 shnrcd/word/forms Talent.Irrigation District Agency Response Form ,k Pale 1 of 2 NO Tr CHECKED Updated 5/21/06 COMMENT COMMENTS ARE APPLICABLE PRIVATE>C,A.SEMENT PROVISIONS FOR MINOR PARTITIONS AND/OR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS 1. If the property currently has water rights and it is being partitioned or a lot line adjustment is being made, easements must be,kitten and recorded which allow access for all of the pieces of property with water:rights to continue to have access to the water. Comments: . WATER METER REQUIREMENT ON TRANSFERRED WATER RIGHTS I. I:f the water right on this property is a transferred water right that currently has a water meter requirement, then each of the properties split off of the original parcel all need to have water meters installed prior to the use of irrigation, water on the newly formed parcels. Comments: ❑ C. FAC.I,L.ITIES (including but not limited to pipelines, ditches, calaals, control checks or boxes) 1. Upgrades to District facilities may be required to support any land use changes or developments, such as pipe installations or encasing existing pipe under roads or concrete, Comments: C] D. DRAINAGE / STORM WATER ® The District relies on.the Bureau of Reclamation's Storm,Water Policy. No urban storm water or point source flows will be allowed,into the Distri.ct's facilities without going through the Bureau of Reclamation process. (DevelopjD.ents in historically agricultural areas need to be aware of agricultural run, off water and take appropriate action to protect the development from upslope water.) Comments: GENERAL COMMENTS: 1.. No interrupt]orns to irrigation water deliveries will be allowed.. 2. T.I.D. is a Federal Project and some facilities and/or easeru,ent issues may need Bureau of Reclamation approval.. 3. The developer/sub-divider will take all appropriate actions to ensure the reliability and protection.of the original function of the District's facilities. As required by ORS 9,2.090(6) the entity must receive a Certification form from the District before approval of the final plat. Date Signed: t �® T'.r Pendleton T Manager Talent Irrigation District sh-ored/word/rnrn,a Talent Irrigation District Agency Response Fonrt, Page 2 of 2 ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW July 8, 2010 PLANNING ACTIONS: 2010-00582 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1405 Tolman Creek Road APPLICANT: Malibar Group, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Boundary Line Adjustment and a Variance to allow a lot wider than it is deep for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 lE 23 BA; TAX LOT: 308 and 501 Recommendation: 1) That the applicant shall mitigate the removal of the maple tree with a `street tree' along the lane at the time of the subdivision approval process. i I i i i i Department of Community Development Tel:541488-5350 CITY OF 51 Winburn Way Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us I i Planning Department,51 Winbu, .ay,Ashland,Oregon 97520 CITY OE 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland.orms TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2010-00582 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1405 Tolman Creek Rd OWN E RIAPPLI CANT: Malibar Group, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Boundary Line Adjustment and a Variance to allow a lot wider than it is deep for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;ZONING:R-1.7.5;ASSESSOR'S MAP#:391E 23 BA; TAX LOT:308 and 501 NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on July 8,2010 at 6:00 p.m, in the Community Development and Engineering Services building(Siskiyou Room)located at 51 Winburn Way. I ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: July 13, 2010, at 7:00 PM,Ashland Civic Center 1385 `� 1 l -- PA#2010 00582 1 1405 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD C SUBJECT PROPERTIES J r1 _J N 1 o3e v� Anp,rty ltn—are fur refernur o,Jy,nut—1—b(, 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 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division,541-488-5305. I i Wcomm-dev\planning\Notices Mailed\2010\2010.00582.doe 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. B. 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) i I i I I i i i Wcomm-dev\planning\Notices Mailed\2010\2010-00582.doc II I I Easy Peel®Labels i MMMM Bend along line to I 0 5160® Use Avery©Template 51600 , ied Paper expose Pop-Up Edge T^' j PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 557 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 202 gARTELLO JACK AND DEBORAH PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 2100 ALLISON SCOTT BECICH JOAN N 891 BESWICK WAY B BARTEL ET AL 1450 TOLMAN CR RD ASHLAND OR 97520 1355 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 309 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 568 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1601 BURNETT WILEY M/MARGUERITE CULBERTSON KATHERINE MAY DEL RIO ROBIN JO 1385 APPLE WAY PO BOX 3138 2354 GREEN MEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 547 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1700 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 400 DISMUKE J N/R L GODFREY- ENGELKING DONALD W TRUSTEE FACEY GRETCHEN TRUST ET AL 2125 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2368 GREEN MEADOWS WAY 211 FRONT ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 TALENT OR 97540 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1200 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 559 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 574 FAGUNDES MICHAEL H/JULIE R FRIEND JEANNETTE ET AL GALLEN JOHN T/SKURATOWICZ 2323 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2340 RANCH RD EVA M ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 2330 LUPINE DR ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 317 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 567 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 101 GREEN DOUGLAS P/KAREN K HAMILTON JOHN B HANSEN RICHARD CARL 1403 APPLE WAY 2345 LUPINE DR 1390 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1501 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1000 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 546 HELLER JOEL ALAN HENNEMAN MICHAEL W HERDRICH H R/J M TRUSTE FBO 2326 GREENMEADOWS WAY TRUSTEE ET AL 2225 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 2351 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 I PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1100 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 500 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 570 j KENNEDY DAVID LEO/TERESA L KEY BANK N A LINDOW JAMES T/LINDOW 2337 GREENMEADOWS WAY 3535 SE FACTORIA BLVD 220 DIANNE K ASHLAND OR 97520 BELLEVUE WA 98006 2370 LUPINE DR ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 566 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 308 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 900 LOESSI KAREN M TRUSTEE ET AL MALIBAR GROUP LLC MORRISH WILLIAM B TRUSTEE j 2335 LUPINE DR RETIREMENT PLAN FBO RO ET AL ASHLAND OR 97520 1405 S TOLMAN CREEK RD 639 PRIM ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 569 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 600 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 800 OLSEN BETTY J TRUSTEE FBO ORR DEBBIE PAUL OLAF TRUSTEE ET AL 10211 SW 55TH AVE 2395 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2375 GREENMEADOWS WAY PORTLAND OR 97219 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 104 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1400 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 571 PUDERBAUGH THOMAS R RATNER MARC L TRUSTEE ET AL RENE MELANIE TRUSTEE ET AL 2312 GREENMEADOWS WAY 2360 LUPINE DR 1400 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ttiquettes faeiles a paler i Repliez A la hachure afin de i www.avery.com Sens de Easy Peel®Labels i Rend along line to ® i Use Avery®Template 51600 j -eed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM ® S1gp �' PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 307 -'A-2010-00582 391E23BB 572 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 573 ROBERTSON BARBARA SORUM DONALD W TRUSTEE ET SPJUT BEVERLY 22255 CANYON VIEW CIR AL 2340 LUPINE DR CUPERTINO CA 95014 2350 LUPINE DR ASHLAND CA 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 103 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 544 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 1300 STRUHS BERNICE T TRSTEE FBO THOMPSON DAVID J/JUNE L TURNER PAULINE CLAIRE 1378 TOLMAN CREEK RD 2230 GREENMEADOWS WAY TRUSTEE ET AL ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 2309 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 201 PA-2010-00582 391E23BA 700 PA-2010-00582 391E23BB 558 VOELLER JAMES W/ESTELLE H WILSON GORDON B TRUSTEE ZONNEVELD HELEN TRUSTEE ET 3784 COLEMAN CREEK RD 2385 GREEN MEADOW WAY AL MEDFORD OR 97501 ASHLAND OR 97520 2350 RANCH RD ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2010-00582 Urban Development Services, LLC 40 485 W Nevada St 1405 Tolman Cr Rd Ashland,OR 97520 I I i i i Nquettes faciles A peter A Re Ile:h la hachure afin de' wwwwave xorn Sens de p 1 7_nnlun.°vFRV I Ifiliea'In rraharif°\/FRY®51RO® ! rbvblor la rahnrrl Pnn.11nym AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ► County of Jackson ► The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1 . 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, i i Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On June 18, 2010 1 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 #2010-00582, 1405 Tolman Creek Rd. Signa a of Employee i I i i Z V h O O N U .. .,.�.�"'.�..u ..' i 0 1 h N Y LU Li uj w y _uj / w N U o- Z �92 10- oow ® m mrcn , j ! � I M � � l t V. Date Received Y r 0 2 wo ot 53 'j (to be completed by staff) Applicant's Statement of Completeness (To be completed by the Applicant and returned to the City of Ashland Planning Division) Re; PA#2010.00582, 1405 Tolman Creek Road Date Application Expires: November 7, 2010 Pursuant to an Incompleteness Determination, I, the undersigned applicant or agent for the applicant, elect one of the three options below by initiating: ( ) 1. Submit All of the Missing Information (Initial i ' lected) j I am submitting all of the information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter. Unless checked below; I am requesting that the City of Ashland Planning Division review this additional information within 30 days of submission to determine whether the application is complete. I understand that this 30-day review for completeness period for the new information preserves my opportunity to submit additional materials, should it be determined that the application is still incomplete after the second review, (Note: the 120-day period for the City of Ashland's final determination of compliance with applicable criteria does not commence until the additional review for completeness period is completed.) i (Check if desired) i k I waive further review of the information submitted for completeness and direct review of the information submitted for compliance with the Community Development Code criteria, regardless of whether the application is, in fact, later determined by the staff toe be incomplete, I understand that by checking the above statement the application will be evaluated based upon the material submitted and no notice of any missing information will be given. If material information is missing from the application, the application will fail to meet the burden of showing that all criteria are met and the application will be denied. I Planning Division Tel:541-552-2040 20 E.Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland,or.us seversodna,ashland.or,us ( ) 2. Submit Some of the Requested Information: Decline to Provide Other Information (Initial if elected) I am submitting some of the information requested and declining to submit other information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter. I understand that by declining to submit all information the City of Ashland believes necessary, the Ashland Planning Division may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommended. ( ) 3. Decline to Provide any of the Requested Information (Initial if elected) I decline to provide any of the information requested. I understand that the Community Development Department may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommended. i Signed and Acknowle ed (Applicant or Applicant's Agent) i Date i Return to: i Planning Division Department of Community Development Attn: Derek Severson,Associate Planner City of Ashland 20 E. Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 i i i i Planning Division Tel:541-552-2040 20 E,Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.orms seversod(,ashiand.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING APPLICATION 1405 Tolman Creek Road; 391E23BA#308 & #501 PROPOSAL: This planning application proposal is for a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance for the"existing"vacant parcel adjacent to 1405 Tolman Creek Road. PROJECT INFORMATION: SITE INFORMATION: 1405 Tolman Creek Road ; 391E23BA 308 & 501 " 2 2.32 acres and .89 acres JUN ) 12 g R-1-7.5 Zoning Ali OWNER: s Malibar Group LLC 1405 Tolman Creek Road Ashland, OR 97520 LAND USE PLANNING: Urban Development Services, LLC 485 W. Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-482-3334 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5 LOT & HOUSE DATA: Tax Lot 308: 2.32 acres (existing) j 2.91 acres (proposed) House: 2,515 sq. ft. Guest House/Garage: 560 sq. ft. j Pool/ Sidewalks: 350 sq. ft. (approximate) Lot Coverage: 2.5% (45%permitted) j i Tax Lot 501 (Vacant) .89 acres (existing) .20 acres (proposed) Lot Coverage: 0% (45%permitted) APPLICABLE ORDINANCES: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential, Chapter 18.20 Lot Line Adjustments, Chapter 18.76 Variance, Chapter 18.100 1 ADJACENT ZONING: WEST: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential EAST: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential SOUTH: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential NORTH: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential SITE: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential 1. SITE & PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Description: The subject properties are located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road (upper Clay Street) and are commonly referred as the "Llama Farm" (391E 23BA TL 308 and 501 — see attached plans). The properties are .89 acres and 2.32 acres and are zoned R-1- 7.5. The property is relatively level and void of any significant natural features other than a few trees and a drainage swale traversing through the property's western end. The smaller parcel is vacant other than a small circular shed, but the larger parcel consists of an existing single-level single family residence, a detached guest house over a garage and a large detached garage-storage building. According to the Jackson County Assessor's Department, the home is 2,515 square feet and was constructed in 1890. The guest house is 560 square feet and was built in 1950. The architectural appearance of the single family residence is "ranch style" which appears to have been remodeled significantly in the 1950's from its original design. All of the structures on the property are expected to remain with this application. Accesses to the subject properties are from Tolman Creek Road via a private flag driveway. In total, the driveway serves three tax lots: 1) TL 500 (residence with legal access onto Tolman Creek Road, but functional access via the driveway), 2) TL 501 (vacant lot to be amended by Lot Line Adjustment) and 3) TL 308 (residence with sole access from driveway). A fourth tax lot, TL 400, also abuts the private driveway, but does not have an easement for access and is not part of this application. Project Description: As stated above, the proposal is for a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance. The Lot Line Adjustment request proposes to reduce the existing lot size from .89 acres (38,768 sq. ft.) to .33 acres (14,215 sq. ft.). The Variance request is to create a lot that is "wider than it is deep" based on its paralleling orientation with Tolman Creek Road.No additional lots are being proposed with this application. Lot Line Adjustment: The property owners desire an adjustment of the property line between their two properties creating one larger and one smaller tax lot. When finalized, each lot will continue to exceed the zone's R-1-7.5 minimum lot size (7,500 square feet). The overall area of Tax Lot #308 will be increased from 2.32 acres to 2.90 acres and Tax Lot #501 will be reduced in size from .89 acres to .33 acres (14,215 sq. ft.). Without the flag pole area, the actual lot size is 11,600 sq. ft. or 35% greater than the zone's minimum. Tax Lot#501: is a flag lot with its "flag pole" extending 154' to Tolman Creek Road. The width of the flag pole is approximately 37' wide and serves as the access to the subject lot, an adjacent parcel (not part of proposal) Tax Lot #500 as well as Tax Lot #308. The body of Tax Lot #501 is approximately 184' in depth by 206' in width. The parcel is 2 I I vacant, but for a small accessory building which will remain (as part of Tax Lot 308). With the Lot Line Adjustment, Tax Lot#501 will remain a flag lot,but will be reduced in size to 14,215 sq. ft. The "flag poles" width will also be reduced in order to provide the adjacent Tax lot #308 legal frontage onto Tolman Creek Road. The width of the parcel will be 80' and the depth 145'. Finally, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment plans identify a building envelope showing the maximum boundary of a future home, its porch boundary and garage boundary. NOTE: It should be understood that Tax Lot #501 is currently a legal parcel of record today and has the right to build one single family residence. The applicants have no desire to divide Tax Lot #501, but instead reduce its size, sell the parcel with development restrictions as noted below and maintain the remaining acreage as part of Tax Lot#308 for future development potential. Considering the national economic issues with the housing market, any future development could be far off in the future which is why the applicants are not proposing a phased subdivision as there would be time limits with each phase. Tax Lot #308: is currently a large odd shaped parcel with no frontage on Tolman Creek Road. Access to the lot is via an access easement through Tax Lot #501's flag pole. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment will increase the parcel's size and provide Tax Lot #308 with its own "flag pole" to Tolman Creek Road in an attempt to provide the parcel with legal frontage. No physical changes are proposed with this application as the existing driveway will remain "as is" as no sidewalks, curbing or paving is proposed at this time. However, it should be understood that the applicants have submitted a "conceptual" Comprehensive Site Plan (i.e., master plan) in an attempt to illustrate to staff as well as the Planning Commission and neighbors a "possible" (relatively logical) subdivision configuration in an attempt to retain the lot's development potential as well as address the City's desire to maintain minimum density standards, evaluate civil engineering issues and to assess various development constraints. That said, the attached Comprehensive Site Plan identifies a new road leading into the body of the parcel and serving approximately eight additional lots. Again, the attached Comprehensive Site Plan is NOT a proposed plan, simply a logical illustration of how the remaining Tax Lot #308 may be developed and would address the intent of AMC 18.76.080. Variance: A Variance request is desired due to the fact the modified parcel, Tax Lot #501, will be wider than it is deep and exceed 150' in width as prohibited under Ashland Municipal Code, 18.20.040, General Regulations, Section C. However, it should be understood the Variance proposal is really only temporary situation and that when Tax Lot #308 is further subdivided, the proposed Lot's configuration (width and depth) will then comply with City standards. Again, the Variance proposal is not for a new lot,just the reconfiguration of an existing lot. As previously stated, the attached "conceptual" Comprehensive Site Plan has been included to illustrate the remaining parcel's possible subdivision configuration which will include a public street extending from Tolman Creek Road. The new street will not only serve future lots of Tax Lot #308, but also serve the eventual development of Tax Lot #400 and possibly the redevelopment of Tax Lot#500. Depending on the timing, Tax Lot 3 #308 could install a half street improvement including sidewalk, parkrow and curbing on the south side and when Tax Lot #400 (now vacant) proposes to subdivide, that owner would then dedicate approximately a 10' X 225' strip of land as right-of-way and finalize the north side of the street with curb, gutter, parkrow and a sidewalk. Regardless, the applicants are willing to provide an access easement within the flag drive in order to eliminate future access onto Tolman Creek Road and maintain the City's access management standards along arterial streets. Development Restrictions: As noted above, a number of "private" development restrictions are proposed to be placed on both parcels titles, by the current property owners, in an attempt to maintain Tax Lot #308's development opportunities and density allocations. Equally important is to maintain the various access management standards of the City for not only Tax Lot #308, but also adjacent properties such as Tax Lots #400 and 500 where any future development of these parcels will allow vehicular access points to extend from the proposed flag pole area which will eventually convert to a street. As such, in the interim period, the flag poles will be layered with: 1) A reciprocal access easement for each of the adjoining tax lots (Lots #400 and #500) to use in an interim basis and 2) an irrevocable offer to dedicate the flag pole area as a public street with the understanding the street will be installed by the developer of Tax Lot #308 and possibly the owner of Tax Lot #501 (likely a private arrangement to be determined at the sale of the property). Regardless, in the future, when Tax Lot #308 does subdivide and adds additional dwelling units, the new street would be installed and dedicated as a "public" street. Finally, when Tax Lot #400 is proposed to be subdivided (by others), this arrangement will allow the City to force access management standards to be from the subject driveway. In this case, the City would require the remaining street width dedication and a half street improvement to occur to the west end of Tax Lot#400 with the understanding the remaining improvements would occur with the development of Tax Lot#400. i Overall, the applicants contend this is a "win-win" for the neighboring properties as they are granted access rights to use someone else's property and the City's access management standards and policies remain in tact. Without this arrangement and initial planning effort by the applicants, both Tax Lots #400 and #500 could potentially petition the City for direct access onto Tolman Creek Road which if approved, would be an unfortunate mistake. Solar Access: The proposed "revised" lot has been designed in accordance with Chapter 18.70.050. i Utilities: Meetings with each public utility will eventually occur, but it is expected that all utilities not already present will be extended via Tolman Creek Road. According to I City records, 8" water and sewer lines exist in Tolman Creek Road, Electric meters and a sewer easement is available from the subdivision to the south and stormwater could extend to the nearby tributary of Hamilton Creek, drain into the existing stormwater ditch along Tolman Creek Road or provide an on-site temporary dry well. At this point in time, a dry well option is preferred, with all design details being provided at the time of a home's construction. Overall, it's highly likely that some preliminary engineering will 4 i i occur after evaluating various future development options which will include various meetings and input with City Engineering and Public Works staff. Access Management: There are various City standards and policies regarding access management which, as stated previously, relate to this proposal. These can be found in various sections of the Zoning Code, Street Standards Handbook and Transportation System Plan and are as follows: • Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, Section 10-4 (Access a) & d)) a)Maintain carrying capacity and ease of movement of arterials and other streets by the use of limited access through the site review process; and d) Require design that combines the access of several developments to a single point in new developments. • Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76.060 D. (Partitions, Preliminary Approval of Flag Partitions): Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways; • Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72.120 A. (Site Design Review): Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall i meet the controlled access standards set forth in section (B) below., If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. NOTE: Although the subject property is in a Residential Single Family zone, the intent, in combination with the various other access management standards/policies noted herein is applicable. i Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.80.020 B. 7, Design Standards (Subdivisions), Access to subdivision: All major means of access to a subdivision or major partition shall be from existing streets fully improved to City standards, and which, in judgment of the Director of Public Works, have the capacity to carry all anticipated traffic from the development. i Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.80.020 B. 8, Design Standards (Subdivisions), Half street: Half streets, while generally not acceptable, may be approved when essential to the reasonable development of the subdivision, when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when the Planning Commission finds it will be practical to require the dedication of the other half when the adjoining property is subdivided. Whenever a half street is adjacent to a tract to be subdivided, the other half of the street may be platted within such tract. Reserve strips and street plugs may be j required to preserve the objectives of the half streets. Street Standards Handbook, Section I Required Street Layout and Design Principals, Driveway Aprons and Curb Cuts: The number of driveway aprons and curb cuts along streets should be minimized to enhance the pedestrian environment and maintain vehicular,pedestrian and bicycle capacity. i Street Standards Handbook, Section VI Driveway Apron and Curb Cut Standards, Shared Driveways: The number of driveway intersections with streets shall be minimized by the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots where feasible. 5 Transportation System Plan, Section 8, Access Management Plan, Recommended Conditions of Approval and Necessary Improvements to Evaluate (Crossover Access Easements): Will be required on all compatible parcels (topography, access and land use) to facilitate future access between adjoining parcels. 18.61.200 Tree Protection Plan: A total of three trees are to be removed as part of a future home's construction. Two of the three trees are less than 6" dbh and are fruit trees. These fruit trees generally sit where the required fire truck turn around will be (Tree #11 and #12). The applicants have evaluated other locations for the turn around area, but in the alternative locations either additional fruit trees are to be removed or added expense and/or unsightly impacts are created. The one tree that is greater than 6" dbh is a 12" dbh Maple (Tree #10) located at the front of the Tax Lot #501. This tree unfortunately sits in-line where either utilities are to be extended or the future street's sidewalk will be located. It is not the applicants desire to remove the Maple and will attempt to save the tree, but would like staff's understanding that this tree is proposed to be "removed" as part of this application. None of the site's trees or adjacent trees within 15' of the site's boundary appear to be in questionable health. The trees have survived without irrigation and appear to be thriving. The trees along the eastern property line (Trees #1 - #9), as well as their root zones, will not be impacted by the construction of a home on Tax Lot #501 as it sits a minimum of 15' from the property line and approximately 12' from the trees. According to multiple sources, all of the trees identified to be saved, based on the proposed building envelope, will not be impacted from future construction or utility installation. i Trees #1 - #14 will be protected as required under the standards noted in AMC 18.61.200 B. and will specifically be protected by a chain-link fence between the areas of disturbance (building envelope and driveway/utility improvements) and the outside edge of the trees dripline canopy. This effort will protect the trees from any construction disturbance. All of these measures noted herein will be installed prior to issuance of a building permit(prior to construction) for a home on Tax Lot#501. Other Issues: i Fire Truck Turn-Around: The applicants are aware that because the subject lot's driveway is greater than 150' in length, a fire truck turn-around is required. The plan identifies the turn around area as a "temporary" turn around. The turn around would not be necessary if and when a future street is installed and a permanent turn-around provided. The turn around will be improved to support 44,000 lbs. of weight (fire truck) and designed in accordance with Fire Department standards and constructed under their supervision. Note: If for some reason the Fire Department desires an alternative design or a slight adjustment in the location, the applicants are willing to work with Fire Department staff. Third Parking Space: Because the subject lot is a flag lot and its driveway greater than 50' in length, the applicants are aware a third parking space is required. This parking space will be identified at the time of a building permit. At the present time, the applicants do not foresee the need for any additional easements, but it is likely the third 6 parking space (and any additional impervious surface area) will be accommodated if and when Tax Lot#308 is subdivided and a street installed. Procedures: The applicants are aware the request is subject to a Type Il hearing with the Planning Commission. The applicants contend a significant amount of work is being generated for a Lot Line Adjustment and that this effort will help the Planning Commission not only justify approval of the requests, but also understand the site's likely development pattern in the future. Furthermore, the applicants are also aware there may be alternative procedures to accomplish the proposal, but it should be clearly understood the applicants have no desire to develop the remaining portion of Tax Lot#308 at this time. Alternative procedures are not only expensive and have time limits, but they are also speculative and something the property owners do not desire to explore at this time other than what is being provided. 18.100.020 Criteria for Variance Approval: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. There are a number of circumstances relating to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere which include: A) Tax Lot #501 is already an existing non-conforming lot as its depth and width requirements already exceed the limitations of Ashland Municipal Code 18.20.040, Section C; B) Tax Lot #308 is already an existing non-conforming lot with no legal frontage onto Tolman Creek Road, is oddly shaped and its size dwarfs the surrounding parcels; C) Tax Lot#400 (not a part of application) is a vacant parcel with its only legal access from Tolman Creek Road. Due to various City transportation access management policies and regulations (as noted below), access onto Tax Lot#400 and any subsequent additional lots would be from the proposed future street; D) Tax Lot #500 (not part of application) could redevelop or an additional accessory unit added that due to transportation access management policies and regulations, as addressed previously, would also use the new street and be prohibited from using Tolman Creek Road; and finally E) without the proposal offering an access easement within the proposed flag pole area, both Tax Lot #400 and #500 "could" add additional units and without the easement have to add a new and unnecessary driveway approach onto Tolman Creek Road. Overall, the applicants contend there are numerous oddities and unusual circumstances to this site that warrant the request. I I B. 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. The applicants have evaluated a variety of conceptual plans in an attempt to maintain the properties planned zoning densities and to better understand how the eventual subdivision of the remaining lot will fit within the context of the neighborhood. This is best illustrated on the comprehensive site plan where the adjusted Tax Lot (# 501) has its building envelope designed to not only provide a significant rear yard setback in order to minimize disturbances and view loss to the neighbors to the south,but also a front yard setback that recognizes the fact that a future street will be installed and all setbacks based on the street 7 I and not the actual property line. Finally, with the final plat, access easements for both Tax Lots #400 and #500 will be provided via the flag driveway in order to accommodate access management standards "in case" these lots subdivide or increase vehicular trips (one house or one accessory unit) prior to Tax Lot #308 subdividing and the new street's installation. In doing so, the "purpose and intent" of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, Performance Standards Options Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan policies relating to efficient use of land and transportation planning will be met. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. The circumstances with the proposal have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed as the property owners have only owned the property since May of 2009. The property owners did not create the lot's odd configuration, size or have anything to do with the surrounding properties. The request is intended to provide the initial steps in creating a neighborhood infill development that complies with a variety of City policies and regulations. In addition, these planning efforts benefit the neighboring properties as they will eventually develop and redevelop in a more logical and safer pattern. In reality, the planning efforts herein will preclude future requests for Variances or Exceptions. Conclusion: The applicants have considered a variety of options prior to the subject proposal, but each involved the creation of more residential lots then the applicant presently desired or would be subject to time expirations, additional fees and uncertainty. To this end, the applicant believes the proposal is far superior and has considered future development issues not only on the subject parcels, but also the neighboring ones as well with the various City standards in mind. Furthermore, the applicants have attempted to design the current Lot Line Adjustment with building envelopes that limits visual and sound impact on the adjoining properties to the south and at the same time, ensure that when a future street is installed within the flag pole area, the home on the lot will be compatible with the street's future lot and house designs. C i i i I i I I 8 4V08 )133213 NV"101 Y — -as.sc- — — — I • I I I � � LO ® C:) s II I oz O N a ,k w o? i to uj i I O ��------ ------ - - -- ------ - -- ----- ---------------------1 LU I M° I �------ Qom I 35V3 3N210 31dARid \ � I IL =�a I UJ -9 Lo l \ \\ S \\ I r 3 O �w N 0 a Co —-—- -------ayom .s? �Styy --- -- -—-—-—- ssg-------- --------as ss---- I - ------- ._.._.._...99'45{ L 7 ) rye • / y� Em 1 I I I I c ]� II I I o II a � A- -6 cn I I I I I• O a I P '+ FJ� �- 1 • � .emu _ � •C Z , I o I I I z IRRA a -3 I li lit a &ww I .09'59{ -- •5bl Wwo I I I'I'I ; z rrr------- ao 09 s . III I III I 3mo �,' . I i-I I Vie_ I —7-1 !l0 W III I . I u r , ——— ' `I f Tl CL .os n u W I I I I�; I 90 ----------------------------------- ' I --------- ----- --------- 11=-- ------ ' LU { , --------'TI.. LU - / o coW m-��5A1411 / - � Y• uj -cam < ^I 1 ' -------- _ _- ��.—.—_—_�_ j T sv3-- 3>vtiad i I i / I 1 / I V •M \ I oa I ' ------- ---------------------------- --------- --------- —.._.._.._.._..J. Q� — —.._.._.._.._.._.._. �.._.._ .._..� o o Z eW � A r CITY OF May 27, 2010 Malibar Group, LLC Attn: Roy Marvin 1405 Tolman Creek Road Ashland, OR 97520 Re: PA 42010-00582, for the property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road Incompleteness Determination Mr. Marvin, I have reviewed the May 11, 2010 submittals for your application for a boundary line adjustment and variances for the property located at 1405 Tolman Creels Road. After examining the materials presented, I have determined that the application is incomplete because the information listed below was not provided. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178. The application cannot be further processed and deemed complete until the missing information is submitted or the applicant indicates that the missing information will not be provided. Front Lot Line Determination: Under current land use ordinance AMC 18.08.420, the front lot line for an interior lot is defined as "...the lot line separating the lot from the street other than an alley." Setbacks and lot width and depth requirements all proceed from the front lot line determination. In this instance, the front lot line for TL#501 is the 145-foot long line on the eastern boundary nearest to Tolman Creek Road and abutting the rear property line of TL#500. Width Versus Depth: By ordinance, an R-1 zoned lot's width cannot exceed its depth. In this instance, the proposed adjustment results in a lot with a width of 145 feet and an depth of only 70 feet. This would require a Type II Variance, meaning that higher fees would be involved and a public hearing would be required. Lot Depth: A minimum lot depth of 80 feet is required for R-1 zoned lots. Because the proposed 70-foot depth represents a reduction of more than ten percent in the required depth, a Type II Variance would be required. Setbacks: By ordinance, a 15-foot front yard is required for an R-1 zoned lot and a 10-foot per story rear yard is also required. Both of these setbacks are shown at six-feet in the proposal, and as such two Variances to the required setbacks would be required. The magnitude of the front yard Variance would trigger a Type II Variance (higher fees and a public hearing); the rear yard Variance would be subject to a Type I review(administrative processing). i Planning Division Tel:541-552-2040 20 E.Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland,orms seversod @.ashland,orms i i Tree Protection Plan: All planning action submittals are required to provide a Tree Inventory and Tree Preservation/Protection Plan. All trees over six-inches in diameter at breast height on the property, and within 15-feet of the property line on adjacent properties, must be identified and proposals identified to provide for their protection during development of the property in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Tree Ordinance. Tree protection could be an issue, for instance, if the reduced front yard setback shown were to push development nearer to existing trees than would a standard setback. Fire Turn-Around: Because the proposed driveway is greater than 150 feet in length, a fire turn-around would be required with construction of a home on TL #501. You may wish to consider identifying any necessary easements to accommodate this requirement on the survey plat prior to lot creation or sale. Third Parking Space: Because the driveway serving TL#501 is greater than 50 feet in length, it would be subject to the development requirements of a flag drive, and as such would need to provide. for three parking spaces situated so that cars could turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. You may wish to consider identifying any necessary easements to accommodate this requirement on the survey plat prior to lot creation or sale. Procedures & Fees: Written findings addressing the approval criteria for these additional application components would be required before the application could be deemed complete. In addition, the fees for the additional application components would need to be paid as well. The total fees based on staff's assessment of the current proposal are as follows: Boundary Line Adjustment: $ 304 Variance.(II) for Width/Depth: $1,836 Variance (II) for Min. Depth: $1,836 Variance (II) for Front Setback: $1,836 Variance (1)for Rear Setback: $1,836 Total Fees for Application as proposed: $7,648 Less amount previously paid: $2,138 TOTAL DUE FOR APPLICATION AS PROPOSED: $5,510 Generally, staff believe that you may be better served to consider a phased Performance Standards Subdivision application, some details of which were discussed in your pre-application conference. I've discussed this a bit with Mark Knox already, and am happy to meet for further discussion as you are considering the options for this property. While a subdivision is generally a more involved application process, the flexibility inherent in our Performance Standards Options Chapter may ultimately prove less expensive in terms of the application fees involved, and be less complex in terms of the number and type of discretionary approvals required. To continue the Planning Department's review of your application submittal, you must select and complete one of the following three options: i 1. Submit all of the missing information; i Planning Division TeL 541-552-2040 20 E.Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 Fla www.ashland.or.us seversod(a ashIand.or.us I 2. Submit some of the re q uested information and give the City of Ashland Planning Division written notice that no other information will be provided; or 3. Submit written notice to the City of Ashland Planning Division indicating that no other information will be provided. Please note that failure to complete one of the three options within 180 days of the application submittal date (May 11, 2010) will result in your application being deemed void. The application will be deemed void if the additional information is not submitted by November 7, 2010. i I have enclosed a form, entitled the "Applicant's Statement of Completeness". Please review the enclosed form and return it to me with any additional material you will be submitting. Your application will not be further processed until the Applicant's Statement of Completeness form is completed and i received by the City of Ashland Planning Division. If you have questions or if I can provide any further information, assistance or clarification, please contact me at 541-552-2040 or seversod @ashland.or.us. Sincerely, i Derek Severson Associate Planner Encl: Applicant's Statement of Completeness I Cc: File Urban Development Services I I I i i Planning Division Tel:541-552-2040 20 E.Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland,orms seversod(a,ashland,orms i I CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING APPLICATION 1405 Tolman Creels Road; 391E23BA#308 & #501 PROPOSAL: This planning application proposal is for a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance for the vacant parcel adjacent to 1405 Tolman Creek Road. PROJECT INFORMATION: SITE INFORMATION: 1405 Tolman Creek Road 391E23BA 308 & 501 2.32 acres and .89 acres R-1-7.5 Zoning OWNER: Malibar Group LLC Roy&Janice Marvin 1405 Tolman Creek Road Ashland, OR 97520 i LAND USE PLANNING: Urban Development Services, LLC 485 W. Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-482-3334 I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential I ZONING DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5 LOT & HOUSE DATA: Tax Lot 308: 2.32 acres (existing) 2.91 acres (proposed) House: 2,515 sq. ft. Guest House/Garage: 560 sq. ft. Pool/ Sidewalks: 350 sq. ft. (approximate) Lot Coverage: 2.5% (45%permitted) Tax Lot 501 (Vacant) .89 acres (existing) .20 acres (proposed) Lot Coverage: 0% (45%permitted) APPLICABLE ORDINANCES: MAY R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential, Chapter 18.20 Lot Line Adjustments, Chapter 18.76 Variance, Chapter 18.100 1 ADJACENT ZONING: WEST: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential EAST: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential g• �.� 201 SOUTH: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential °` NORTH: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential SITE: R-1-7.5 Single Family Residential 1. SITE & PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Description: The subject properties are located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road (upper Clay Street) and are commonly referred as the "Llama Farm" (391E 23BA TL 308 and 501 —see attached plans). The properties are .89 acres and 2.32 acres and are zoned R-1- 7.5. The property is relatively level and void of any significant natural features other than a few trees and a drainage swale traversing through the property's western end. The smaller parcel is vacant other than a small circular shed, but the larger parcel consists of an existing single-level single family residence, a detached guest house over a garage and a large detached garage-storage building. According to the Jackson County Assessor's Department, the home is 2,515 square feet and was constructed in 1890. The guest house is 560 square feet and was built in 1950. The architectural appearance of the single family residence is "ranch style" which appears to have been remodeled significantly in the 1950's from its original design. All of the structures on the property are expected to remain with this application. Accesses to the subject properties are from Tolman Creek Road via a private flag driveway. In total, the driveway serves three tax lots: 1) TL 500 (residence with legal access onto Tolman Creek Road, but functional access via the driveway), 2) TL 501 (vacant lot to be amended by Lot Line Adjustment) and 3) TL 308 (residence with sole access from driveway). A fourth tax lot, TL 400, also abuts the private driveway, but does not have an easement for access and is not part of this application. Project Description: As stated above, the proposal is for a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance. The Lot Line Adjustment request proposes to reduce the existing lot size from .89 acres (38,768 sq. ft.) to .20 acres (8,700 sq. ft.). The Variance request is to create a lot i that is "wider than it is deep" based on its paralleling orientation with Tolman Creek Road.No additional lots are being proposed with this application. Lot Line Adjustment: The property owners desire an adjustment of the property line between their two properties creating one larger and one smaller tax lot. When finalized, each lot will continue to exceed the zone's R-1-7.5 minimum lot size (7,500 square feet). The overall area of Tax Lot #308 will be increased from 2.32 acres to 2.91 acres and Tax Lot#501 will be reduced in size from .89 acres to .20 acres (8,700 sq. ft.) or 16% greater than the zone's minimum. Tax Lot#501: is a flag lot with its "flag pole" extending 154' to Tolman Creek Road. The width of the flag pole is approximately 37' wide and serves as the access to the subject lot, an adjacent parcel (not part of proposal) Tax Lot #500 as well as Tax Lot #308. The body of Tax Lot #501 is approximately 184' in depth by 206' in width. The parcel is 2 i vacant, but for a small accessory building which will remain (as part of Tax Lot 308). With the Lot Line Adjustment, Tax Lot#501 will remain a flag lot, but will be reduced in size to 8,700 sq. ft. The "flag poles" width will also be reduced in order to provide the adjacent Tax lot #308 legal frontage onto Tolman Creek Road. The width of the parcel will be 70' and the depth 145'. Finally, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment plans identify a building envelope showing the maximum boundary of a future home, its porch boundary and garage boundary. It should be understood that Tax Lot #501 is currently a legal parcel today and has the rights to build one single family residence. The applicants have no desire to currently divide Tax Lot #501, but instead reduce its size, sell the parcel with development restrictions as noted below and maintain the remaining acreage as part of Tax Lot #308 for future development potential. Tax Lot #308: is currently a large odd shaped parcel with no frontage on Tolman Creek Road. Access to the lot is via an access easement through Tax Lot #501's flag pole. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment will increase the parcel's size and provide Tax Lot #308 with its own "flag pole" to Tolman Creek Road in an attempt to provide the parcel with legal frontage. No physical changes are proposed with this application as the existing driveway will remain "as is" as no sidewalks, curbing or paving is proposed at this time. However, it should be understood that the applicants have submitted a "conceptual" Comprehensive Site Plan (i.e., master plan) in an attempt to illustrate to staff as well as the Planning Commission and neighbors a "possible" (relatively logical) subdivision configuration in an attempt to retain the lot's development potential as well as address the City's desire to maintain minimum density standards, evaluate civil engineering issues and to assess various development constraints. That said, the attached Comprehensive Site Plan identifies a new road leading into the body of the parcel and serving approximately eight additional lots. I Variance: A Variance request is desired due to the fact the modified parcel, Tax Lot #501, will be wider than it is deep and exceed 150' in width as prohibited under Ashland Municipal Code, 18.20.040, General Regulations, Section C. However, it should be understood the Variance proposal is really only temporary situation and that when Tax Lot #308 is further subdivided, the proposed Lot's configuration (width and depth) will then comply with City standards. Again, the Variance proposal is not for a new lot,just the reconfiguration of an existing lot. As previously stated, the attached "conceptual" Comprehensive Site Plan has been included to illustrate the remaining parcel's possible subdivision configuration which will include a public street extending from Tolman Creek Road. The new street will not only serve future lots of Tax Lot #308, but also serve the eventual development of Tax Lot 400 and possibly the redevelopment of Tax Lot #500. Depending on the timing, Tax Lot #308 could install a half street improvement including sidewalk, parkrow and curbing on the south side and when Tax Lot #400 (now vacant) proposes to subdivide, that owner would then dedicate approximately a 10' X 225' strip of land as right-of-way and finalize the north side of the street with curb, gutter, parkrow and a sidewalk. Regardless, the applicants are willing to provide an access easement within the flag drive ig,,ptder)to`` 1� g 3 eliminate future access onto Tolman Creek Road and maintain the City's access management standards along arterial streets. Development Restrictions: As noted above, a number of development restrictions are proposed to be placed on both parcels titles, by the current property owners, in an attempt to maintain Tax Lot #308's development opportunities and density allowances. Equally important is to maintain the various access management standards of the City for not only Tax Lot #308, but also adjacent properties such as Tax Lots #400 and 500 where any future development of these parcels will allow vehicular access points to extend from the proposed flag pole area which will eventually convert to a street. As such, in the interim period, the flag poles will be layered with: 1) A reciprocal access easement for each of the adjoining tax lots (Lots #400 and #500) to use in an interim basis and 2) an irrevocable offer to dedicate the flag pole area as a public street with the understanding the street will be installed by the developer of Tax Lot #308 and possibly the owner of Tax Lot#501 (likely a private arrangement to be determined at the sale of the property). Regardless, in the future, when Tax Lot #308 does subdivide and adds additional dwelling units, the new street would be installed and dedicated as a "public" street. Finally, if for some reason Tax Lot #400 is proposed to be subdivided (by others), this arrangement will allow the City to enforce access management standards to be from the subject driveway. In this case, the City would require the remaining street width dedication and a half street improvement to occur to the west end of Tax Lot #400 with the understanding the remaining improvements would occur with the development of Tax Lot#400. Overall, the applicants contend this is a"win-win" for the neighboring properties as they are granted access rights to use someone else's property and the City's access management standards and policies remain in tact. Without this arrangement and planning effort,both Tax Lots#400 and#500 could potentially petition the City for direct access onto Tolman Creek Road which if approved,would be an unfortunate mistake. Solar Access: The proposed "revised" lot has been designed in accordance with Chapter 18.70.050. Utilities: Meetings with each public utility will eventually occur, but it is expected that all utilities not already present will be extended via Tolman Creek Road. According to City records, 8" water and sewer lines exist in Tolman Creel-, Road, Electric meters are available from the subdivision to the south and stormwater could extend to the nearby tributary of Hamilton Creek or drain into the existing stormwater ditch along Tolman Creek Road. Overall, it's highly likely that some preliminary engineering will occur after evaluating various future development options which will include various meetings and input with City Engineering and Public Works staff. Access Management: There are various City standards and policies regarding access management which, as stated previously, relate to this proposal. These can be found in various sections of the Zoning Code, Street Standards Handbook and Transportation System Plan and are as follows: 4 I Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, Section 10-4 (Access a) & d)) a)Maintain carrying capacity and ease of movement of arterials and other streets by the use of limited access through the site review process; and d) Require design that combines the access of several developments to a single point in new developments. • Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76.060 D. (Partitions, Preliminary Approval of Flag Partitions): Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways; Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72.120 A. (Site Design Review): Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth in section (B) below., If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. NOTE: Although the subject property is in a Residential Single Family zone, the intent, in combination with the various other access management standards/policies noted herein is applicable. • Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.80.020 B. 7, Design Standards (Subdivisions), Access to subdivision: All major means of access to a subdivision or major partition shall be from existing streets fully improved to City standards, and which, in judgment of I the Director of Public Works, have the capacity to carry all anticipated traffic from the development. Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 18.80.020 B. 8, Design Standards (Subdivisions), Half street: Half streets, while generally not acceptable, may be approved when essential to the reasonable development of the subdivision, when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when the Planning Commission finds it will be practical to require the dedication of the other half when the adjoining property is subdivided. Whenever a half street is adjacent to a tract to be subdivided, the other half of the street may be platted within such tract. Reserve strips and street plugs may be required to preserve the objectives of the half streets. Street Standards Handbook, Section I Required Street Layout and Design Principals, Driveway Aprons and Curb Cuts: The number of driveway aprons and curb cuts along streets should be minimized to enhance the pedestrian environment and maintain vehicular,pedestrian and bicycle capacity. i Street Standards Handbook, Section VI Driveway Apron and Curb Cut Standards, Shared Driveways: The number of driveway intersections with streets shall be minimized by the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots where feasible. i Transportation System Plan, Section 8, Access Management Plan, Recommended Conditions of Approval and Necessary Improvements to Evaluate (Crossover Access Easements): Will be required on all compatible parcels (topography, access and land use) to facilitate future access between adjoining parcels. MAY 5 18.100.020 Criteria for Variance Approval: r,� ' A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. There are a number of circumstances relating to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere which include: A) Tax Lot #501 is already an existing non-confonning lot as its depth and width requirements already exceed the limitations of Ashland Municipal Code 18.20.040, Section C; B) Tax Lot #308 is already an existing non-conforming lot with no legal frontage onto Tolman Creek Road, is oddly shaped and its size dwarfs the surrounding parcels; C) Tax Lot#400 (not a part of application) is a vacant parcel with its only legal access from Tolman Creek Road. Due to various City transportation access management policies and regulations (as noted below), access onto Tax Lot#400 and any subsequent additional lots would be from the proposed future street; D) Tax Lot #500 (not part of application) could redevelop or an additional accessory unit added that due to transportation access management policies and regulations, as addressed previously, would also use the new street and be prohibited from using Tolman Creek Road; and finally E) without the proposal offering an access easement within the proposed flag pole area, both Tax Lot #400 and #500 "could" add additional units and without the easement have to add a new and unnecessary driveway approach onto Tolman Creek Road. Overall, the applicants contend there are numerous oddities and unusual circumstances to this site that warrant the request. B. 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. The applicants have evaluated a variety of conceptual plans in an attempt to maintain the properties planned zoning densities and to better understand how the eventual subdivision of the remaining lot will fit within the context of the neighborhood. This is best illustrated on the comprehensive site plan where the adjusted Tax Lot (# 501) has its building envelope designed to not only provide a significant rear yard setback in order to minimize disturbances and view loss to the neighbors to the south,but also a front yard setback that recognizes the fact that a future street will be installed and all setbacks based on the street and not the actual property line. Finally, with the final plat, access easements for both Tax Lots #400 and #500 will be provided via the flag driveway in order to accommodate access management standards "in case" these lots subdivide or increase vehicular trips (one house or one accessory unit) prior to Tax Lot #308 subdividing and the new street's j installation. In doing so, the "purpose and intent" of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, Performance Standards Options Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan policies relating to j efficient use of land and transportation planning will be met. I C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. i The circumstances with the proposal have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed as the property owners have only owned the property since May of 2009. The property owners did not create the lot's odd configuration, size or have anything to do with the surrounding properties. The request is intended to provide the initial steps in creating a 6 i neighborhood infill development that complies with a variety of City policies and regulations. In addition, these planning efforts benefit the neighboring properties as they will eventually develop and redevelop in a more logical and safer pattern. In reality, the planning efforts herein will preclude future requests for Variances. Conclusion: The applicant has considered a variety of options prior to the subject proposal, but each involved the creation of more residential lots then the applicant presently desired. To this end, the applicant believes the proposal is far superior and has considered future development issues not only on the subject parcels, but also the neighboring ones as well. Furthermore, the applicant has attempted to design the current Lot Line Adjustment with building envelopes that limits visual and sound impact on the adjoining properties to the south and at the same time, ensure that when a future road is installed within the flag pole area, the home on the lot will be compatible with the street's future lot and house designs. 7 m � o € t Oil U 4 r•N r v} II'YYZ 1 . .. _ 71> ._. _..,. , p C N•c ° N01710H ,002 ,FO'OS ,Z6,01 ��TT'�7T�rr�/'�� ,Dr•olY 1�V 1'�1 1V►1� ,99'OSZ M,LO,OH � ,9B't51 Stl \\\\ _, 56'9f ,ZI'S91 .0 O m m O Cl N O 3„ft,9D,09 i\ pOp tee' d G n slss' N 81.15' " � a c Z� �sr• ,SZ'071 { i�g• !g LO t9'901 � ,96'56 O �\ � m O ni> .6f'6F1 a i. M - 0S �y r a CD lei3.26 15.I9� \M° P E2 a _ N 0 rD `fig O M o ICJ No f'fr M N r 61\ m C) .SD .58 ,9t'Lfl n- V r HH63 ET 60 dVW MS �I I i f�j�5 f ^I, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 344[, g Map Maker E 3 ° i Application } Front Counter Legend i C! Tax Lot Outlines 3 Tax Lot Numbers E , °�� f Buildings v.. L31 t ' 1 t _ E r -mot 130! _ { E ' � i �t�'•. € Irk i ;.� ;'. •.r 4041 t � E r I 164 i r r I 5 Fjs,7;2t E 0 IF' S4 6 3 i i r f , E If r fj JACKSON A, -� COUNTS' This map is based on a digital database compiled by Jackson County From a variety E of sources.Jackson County cannot accept positional ccracy.rs,ere'are ns or silional accurst There are no warranties,expressed or implied, Pic—reryrle with colored office grade paper Created with MapMaker Map created on 5/7/20101:37:25 PM using web.jacksoncounty.org r X r i tra a' A A ✓ ✓ �i is �1 • •• AllINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Map Maker Application � r Front Counter Legend 1 jz , 1 Tax LotC?utltnes .yF ✓ .`� x9 i%" Eby �. Tux Lot Numbers Z CountVwide Color d j1 Aerial Photo,2005 � � �3 1 l4 t QV' p , %°�a t INs {{r i` y v- `k`.�� 1 s y � cda a�,L� r t.„y), ' "� 5 E �L 6�/✓. �1, i �` d t r _ �€ II t 8 - ll II 4 ltv �j I lin rust,-s 1 _y .ia i°,, n 1,.✓WL G,l X l 01001 -Ar r fi Nt ? u ' 4 air+ q�� 1 a k. Y .. d � 3�5� �a�`..w1s Z'. IP JACKSON COUNTY 1 eg01t c This map Is based on a digital database 011- compiled by Jackson County From a variety, w ^ - of sources.Jackson County cannot accept �. „ Z e �1 av, responsiblly for errors,omissions,or positional accuracy.There are no .MxrFr _ 6 warranties,expressed or implied. Piease reryrla with rolcred office grad-;paper Created with MapMaker Map created on 51712010 1:38:19 PM using web.jacksonmunty.org SITE PHOTOS r , 4 x w� � � s -,y Entrance to 1405 Tolman Creek Road TL 501 (area to be partitioned) t s A Area to left to be adjusted by Lot Line Adjustment 1405 Tolman Creek Road (accessory building to be removed) MAYE �I I� rA� View of TL 400(not a part) View of barn(looking north) p, t Garage/Shed Turnaround Area(1405 Tolman Creek Road) Mix, s y V r °� ra t 3 4" Drainage Easement(looking east) Drainage Easement(looking west) M r § �-:�� ,� i A �- 1Y •f /� ,�t� �t� ~ `5�.� Iii a e a r � u Tolman Creek Road(looking north) Tolman Creek Road(looking south) I III i II I �I • LL Q� L OVON N33210 NvM'Oi sa-g9l 46.9£ ,9q� Q E � . . _ . . - . . �_ T . . _ . . _ . . � 0 -0 I , LO 0 C) U) 0 awl ; I I Z �m I 09'991. I n as :Q � oW ow � 61-97 ----_�----_ -- QVOd N33HO P"101 ,9B"y5l ,941 V Fr— . . — . . — . . �— IT . . ® . . — . . cz ® 73 LO c� ® ° co X I ry< W o ppo 1 = I . I o . N .O9 z 4- W I ,09"99l fil LU �I------ ------ — --- — ------- 7--------= --- -------------------------------------- Iml I �J4 ml O ' LU I JI "3SV3 3AN0 31VAl8d \ CL LU i i 1 I I = ---------- \ -----. \ \--- al \ � • Wi o� r O A N 0 C� a LO 0 OV08 >13380 NYM101 s� Y ry a� 1 1 1 I I o a 1> ry 1- r- � z I I I TI l i I z III �o I 1 a III I • LL I — 1 . w�o I ' I III '0Z z III I I w W 1 0909 � a III 1 III s I I ° 1 i I III III ^ o I I �---- TI mz• LU04 0 $ I ------------------------------------ 3 ag2 90 ------------------------------------� I ; ---- -----I-o- --�--------- 111--- -- -- � / : : -� 0 1 LU 4w- -u- LU I Q i i w LU -- J -r'3SV3 3AIa 31VARId �- 09 OR 1 � I N N" • • ro ® x - W ----------1-------.0–______�--1--� 0 —.._.._.._.._.. .._ ��_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. _ —1 CD wy� I LO ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Department CITY OF 51 Winburn Way,Ashland OR 97520 FILE# � /0 ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address i s z� Po Assessor's Map No.391E Z t Tax Lot(s) u, Zoning Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT Name Phone E-Mail F_'t-A; Address JOS- r ... ff PROPERTY OWNER Name i-t A Phone E-Mail AD IVI/I 0 Address city Zip SURVEYOR,ENGINEER,ARCHITECT,LANDSCAPE f A'S, hl'-111d i E ARCHITECT.OTHER Offlc( Title Name Phone E-Mail ----,,C11)UL141/ Address City Zip Title -Name Phone E-Mail Address city Zip hereby ceffiy 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. /understand that all propertypins 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./further understand that if this request is subsequently contested the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that 1produced 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 fiketv 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 my expense. if I have any doubts,/am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant's Signature Date As owner of the is request,l have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owqer. Prop drt' W' is Signature(required) Date [To be ocy6pleted by Qty Staff) Date Received J Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee$ Planning Action Type OVER C:\DOCUME—I\hmksa\LOCALS—I\Temp\Zoning permit Application Fom.doc � � �'a>?a�'\ u:; \i'�k,•„.-,'��L q..,o.,,:` .pI.:=t}"C. 'ax,�.„..`�3� ,G.,,e.<L.,.. #\Y,,';,�`°�:a n�:;s ...,E 3�`�z•'a.�,,.R.��?<t,.7.�'�.�>¢...,�'>,a...a t..,�a>�,�k.,x''..x��•r,. k�.,. ks,��:..,.e. ..:r�::;:� k`�a�s�.z,x a..�w.,�T,�.::,:-.:.:� w<.a 3�...sr�..v,a.��>,r'??-_:A..1,k'�x k..� �.� a��. ,v, ,.x;„+ ,,,�”��.3.. � .tz,�....� x.:1 c� b �t ,..�• �'� ., ..�z.a �, �� xz't.`\, � r��,�r ..:3P,. � ,s�r. ..:a�a t Y� a,Y i�. �� s�`a,%+„�r'`�""�w � �s'.�'� F ,4, ,�.`n •z e;,� �x�\�� ;�.'2�� u � �".9.'*,. ��,z •`��'��: ��,�. •r.,.- .�a.�. x a .��, � .� a,:�r, �� .,�.�ux'� �:: � �:r � .�"s.:� aat:�Y � :ax .��,�.�.� a' 'ti:�a.��.,<,.%�Yh"��.s�, ;x � •. ,'., ,.3 �, N� � �� '\. �,, '3 ��: �'"�v �:`��,�• y.„'� ��'.� � ��•�r w,�� ••�. �a ai a��d Y:.`ter an :�,�,u ��h"�a�:x�'`3a � ,FEU .a.,� �qua'��,� �� r� a Y�k�.,•",,,z �, � '�" '� �� u��\�' � x. b� �a � . �' "� �. �\��4 a� a� �4`( :,'��+ ��': '��3�.. ..'�s Y„y`�u:. � 4¢ � .3';"'\. �' �'t's�'•� ,�,i'a' �a 3• �,. i! �? h�ti'l�s� �h.., � � `t��kv�w,.' � „ .. 0111, �.k. �t 3 `'",•"" :� �, tr 3 in :„ k syx. q 'zcr+ a. , �, ;ac. # 5`s k £"r✓,� �:,.�.�.a> "� .,;t.t . ,•. a?: .s a .. .. ,, .;" ,a ,,.ate'.. •.:sk ��.'"�'.. .,. a'"a., "k., .z;o-Y�,. f�,.. �`t, �a �x��•� ,k,; �,,�,-r>,*.-;� a3.« �, �£�.. � •�., �S�.d r k�2 h�'�:;Y� ' � .� � :t,a� 'x �:.:.a?.�•� �'x � a. '"�« y a �,a. 4 a:.>� .,;�.t��3ysta`3ik8 �.:'''`ia�� ,��'; 'sr=gb„ ,�., "'s'v `�:G,9 °-h�ee +,, ��u•`�=` + ' .,,. ��. ,g, Job Address: 1405 S TOLMAN CREEK RD Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C Owner's Name: MALIBAR GROUP LLC RETIREMENT Phone: Customer#: 05709 W, State Lie No: ' MALIBAR GROUP LLC RETIREMENT T City Lie No: Applicant: Address: > C, Sub-Contractor: Phone: Address: Applied: 05/11/2010 Issued: Expires: 11/07/2010 Phone: State Lie No: Maplot: 391 E23BA400 City Lie No: DESCRIPTION: Two Variances and lot line adjustment VALOALpN Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: 1 CHAtVI A�» LLJ F CTR, AL .' S , CTt ,I A PEIRMITFEEOETAL"Iry � Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Type I 2,138.00 bNDITiONS of APP2C7VAt COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland,OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY ASHLAND �.,;,:rv� a „x3 :a�- �r�. .. .?;:o"'�,,,."i'�`�..�, :.�� `� s. ':1 :^ate Y�.: .�� F°z, ?=,'•�,�' : z. mr,. ,a;� v ,h:,"`a Gr'> � z� �'g �.�,•�.�' �zs:,c �.0 a ,�,r. �`a ,.; cz. '.::,'n"�. �„; � •,.��".x,. .� 4,.� ?....... v+a •,.. �,.a,:s, ,.,�$,'h `« x,"'. 'J�. `�. �. ,s""�?m` �?�,<., s *�ix;.a �. 8 .•z zt •�\�:,;.Wy :.�'Z .:c,� '.�-�Z• ��.,.".�-'�:$��a�..r . a`s ':�•.�.. ��r ta�� S�.r a� c � �u+ s^. ,r. § �.s ..sW �,s�C ,, x.. a -,.,k��.. z�jj y�, c:4a:",s, a �,�.- r. �,.. �..�.z �a e�`" �"�.��, o f�x.:'� w�=�.�s� ^�• �'`„'�;. �,.,a �a..��" c.�.+`>�s.fez ��C:.::.°"�'' '�y�. zx.�,... :i`"3:'r ,�``�.a.,`�" '��' ��, za-�' �`- •;,,uuv fz rq.u...>'� ;�srt 4:.,� 1, .a'K�`,�N''s. '"�::-:'� ... ...:��•.,a� �5L.a �' ” ?�`m.�:2.-.:n-�;, '�F a �• ,a�^..d;,v I.`v^� .z s.ya?�.. s��, � ��3��,a�.�`�.�,`a ;•,a'"-� _� � ...e.. ,�, , �,,w<.F�..`s�.y "a �Sg,u`. '%€;• :��• ,.��,. �� ; � �� ,��s. ,s Z^� ,r? � �F��. ,s.�w .:�u.3 Ica�c..,. � 3 '��. ,u,s�F �„�uv �"s � ,``�,:�.. �; ��`��, .'�• k';� ,t'^ a ,'.'a." `'u,,,�,;,,, ��. �:. � � `��Asa�� r �� `�s".�,.z,M�`v� �� ." �n�..•�z'�.,,. �� '�x�� :m, , �� ,�?,r's ,';a,,. „� .,.:� "�-",•,�� ,s �:. ��x�:,•*�"?' „�g �� "�,s,;:ur� .. ''., ,,,,tom ��1�,' ate•,. ' :. '�s 3 - �;....�'. �� ,. ,M: ti.x,r H s:.t .' 'x r Ku l PN -.. �.a �~�"¢�,�� •> �:,a � .�, ��`•�� a ,sI' ;a,.§ ,��`��r ' ..t� 3 a ^' �'�•€ a rte" �,si F•�: z'7,�'�' Z� a� ? ' :. ,, v3 ,. � g °` � �„z,•...;i 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: $ 2,138.00 $ 0.00 or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Sub-Total: $ 2,138.00 pp Fees Paid: $ 0 Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 2,138.00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland,OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us CITY F Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 j -ASI I L.A,N