Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0806 Council Mtg PACKET important: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. if you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 6, 1996 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL [II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of July 16, 1996. IV. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees. 2. Monthly departmental reports for June and July 1996. 3. City Administrator's Monthly Report - July, 1996. 4. Appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission regarding amendment to conditions governing Audubon Subdivision on Orange Street (set date for Public Hearing for August 20 at 7:00 p.m.). 5. Memo from City Recorder Barbara Christensen regarding status of initiative ballot measures. s 6.—Street C� ►+47'� ��''�bU�– , 7. Letter from ODOT regarding status of North Main/Siskiyou preservation overlay project and bikeway widening proposal. V. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker and all hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a later meeting). 1. Proposed withdrawal of recently annexed land from Jackson County Fire District No. 5 (ACCESS Annexation). 2. Appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission approving P.A.N96-047, an Outline and Final Plan for a six-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option located at 1452 Oregon Street (Applicant: Evan Archerd). VII. ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance adding Chapter 9.18 to the Ashland Municipal Code to establish procedures for dealing with chronic nuisance property." Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance repealing Chapter 2.20 of the /Ashland Municipal Code entitled Community Hospital Board." /8/ Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance amending the Fire Prevention Code, Chapter 15.28 of the Ashland Municipal Code." ,4--�Reading by title only of "A Resolution approving the formation of the Oregon Public and Cooperative Utility Association and authorizing membership in the Association. !Resolution approving a right of way easement to the Forest Service for a section of Loop Road above Morton Street. rea�i,�ts� (�tkfndna� C- rare dcsytc+ OKJ. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCH, MEMBERS IX. ADJOURNMENT -&- t6r?M MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL July 16, 1996 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Reid, Hagen and Wheeldon were present; Councilor Thompson and Hauck were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular meeting of July 2, 1996 were approved as presented. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees. 2. Monthly departmental reports for June 1996. 3. Approval of liquor license application from Breadboard Restaurant, 744 N. Main Street. 4. Adoption of Annual Consolidated Plan and allocation for CDBG funds. 5. Memo from Conservation Coordinator Dick Wanderscheid regarding new solar hot water program using OMECA funding. 6. Memo from Fire Chief Woodley relative to silvicultural project above Glenview Drive. Councilor Wheeldon requested that Item No. 1 be moved to New & Misc. Business; Mayor Golden requested that Item No. 6 be moved to New & Misc. Business. Councilors Reid/Laws m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Brook Buettner/315A Luna Vista/Was upset and concerned over the spraying of herbicides on blackberry bushes located along Walnut Street on June 6, 1996. Informed Council of dying shrubs and trees and concerned for human safety. Requested that Council pass an ordinance banning the use by the city of all herbicides and pesticides. Would also request that residents be given warning about impending use of chemicals. Feels that there is not a need to use chemical to control weeds. Mayor Golden agreed with Buettner and explained that city administration had only been made aware of this situation last week. She explained that immediate steps have been taken within the Public Works department to see that this does not happen again. City Council Meeting 7-16-96 1 Public Works Director Susan Wilson Broadus explained that the initial direction by using the herbicide was to control the blackberry bushes cons ueight;Ms. She explained that all residents had been contacted and statements of concern taken. She explained that the Oregon Department of Agriculture was contacted for information on herbicides used and their effects. After a site review with Ron Simeroth, Pesticide Investigator for Oregon Department of Agriculture, he verified that there had been misapplication of Crossbow under temperature and humidity conditions. The Pesticide Analytical & Response Center was contacted for health care and clean up information. Wilson-Broadus informed that Council that she had implemented written prohibition on use of herbicides and pesticides within the Street Division. Arrangements were made with residents for City reimbursement of medical and plant replacement expense as well as referring residents to Bob Nelson, City Risk Management Analyst for claims resolution. It was suggested by Council that an overall policy and signage regarding the use of pesticides be implemented for the City. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Authority to remove encroachment on alley off Emerick Street between Eureka and East Main Streets. City Attorney Paul Nolte requests council to revoke whatever permission that may have been given in the past to Ellis and Smith, and give them 30 days to remove the encroachment. Dianne Ellis 1023 E Main/Property owner encroaching the public right-of-way with a fence and garden. Explained that it would create a safety issue involving traffic but would be okay for pedestrians and bicycles. Robert Ellis/1023 E Main/Paving of alley would only create more traffic and encourage faster driving which would create a safety issue. Senior Planner Bill Molnar explained that there had been application for development of a six unit condominium. In the approval of the application, there was a requirement from the Planning Commission that the developer pave the alley way and use the alley for access on both ends. Molnar explained that the Planning Department agreed with the requirement because of the possibility of future development. He reported that there may be additional traffic on the alley but would not be used as a typical street. Councilor Laws suggested that a bicycle way and sidewalks be installed before setting up the alley way for additional traffic. City Council Meeting 7-16-96 2 Council discussion on removing encroachment but only for the purpose of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. It was suggested and discussed if the council should appeal the decision of the Planning Commission in regards to the requirement to the developer of paving alleyway. Councilors Hagen/Wheeldon m/s to authorize removal of encroachment. Roll Call Vote: Reid, Hagen and Wheeldon; YES, Laws; NO. Motion passed 3-1. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Request for sewer connection outside the City limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary from Daniel Wiltrout, 392 Crowson Road. City Administrator Brian Almquist presented recommendation by staff with the following conditions; 1) Property owner meets all requirements of AMC 14.08.030, Connection- Outside City, Inside Urban Growth Boundary; 2) Property owner signs an agreement to participate in the cost of constructing future sanitary sewer improvements in Crowson Road and 3) the septic system is decommissioned when a sewer system become available. Councilors Hagen/Laws m/s to approve sewer connection request. Discussion: Cost associated with connection was not available, but preliminary figures were given to property owner. Councilor Wheeldon suggested that there be future consideration of agreement letters for sewer improvements, etc. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. It was suggested that a Council Study Session the idea of having agreement letters for property owners connecting with the city be discussed. 2. Discussion of office space needs issue. It was suggested by Council that all information including past memorandums be made available to those interested. After this information has been distributed a Public Hearing would be held. City Administrator Brian Almquist updated council and public in summary of the Space Needs issue. A letter from Rob Winthrop requesting an accounting by the Council on the steps taken to meet the committee recommendations in regard to future space needs was presented to council. Rick Vezie/446 Walker/Reported to Council that City Administrator Almquist did not include him in the "loop" as was directed by Council. Requests that there be a ineeting to discuss council agreements. Council scheduled public hearing for September 24, 1996 to discuss the Space Needs issue. City Council Meeting 7-16-96 3 3. Minutes of boards, commissions and committees. Councilor Wheeldon questioned minutes from the Planning Commission regarding public hearing on the 26-lot Audubon Subdivision. Requested further information on the missing of a condition to make street improvements which was not included in Phase III of the development. Senior Planner Bill Molnar explained that this decision has been appealed and will be presented to Council in a future Council meeting. 4. Memo from Fire Chief Woodley relative to silvicultural project above Glenview Drive. Fire Chief Woodley reported that they had completed the wildfire fuels mitigation project on approximately 7 acres of city-owned forest lands above the granite pit off Glenview Drive. The project involved removal of approx. 28,000 board feet of timber. He also reported that due to the location and shallow depth of the water line, a surcharge was added onto the bid price by the logging contractor to cover special equipment needed and supplemental liability insurance coverage for the operation. ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance amending the Fire Prevention Code, Chapter 15.28 of the Ashland Municipal Code." Councilors Hagen/Laws m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call vote: Hagen, Wheeldon, Laws and Reid; YES. Motion passed. 2. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance adding Chapter 9.18 to the Ashland Municipal Code to establish procedures for dealing with chronic nuisance property." City Attorney Paul Nolte explained to council that this ordinance would address chronic nuisance properties where the police are frequently called by citizens to assist in curtailing behavior involving noise, disorderly conduct, harassment, intimidation and other criminal conduct or ordinance violations. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:50 p.m. Frank Lang/535 Taylor/Stated his support of proposed ordinance. Suggested that drugs be added into the ordinance. Susan Vaughn/565 Taylor/Voiced her concern with the negative energy and anticipated problems. Felt that the police have been very supportive but are as frustrated as the property owners. Supports ordinance to control chronic nuisance property and requests council attention. Keith Moseley/565 Taylor/Supports proposed ordinance and shared some of his negative personal experiences. City Council Meeting 7-16-96 4 Bill Rupp/574 Long Way/Supports proposed ordinance and shared some of his negative personal experiences. Suggests that the property owner be made responsible along with the tenants. Peter Brunner/245 Van Ness/Supports proposed ordinance. Advised council that Taylor Street is not the only area that is experiencing chronic neighborhood nuisance. Reported that support by police department has been very much appreciated. Questioned mitigating civil penalty.on the financial condition of the owner and the cooperativeness of the owner(s) with the city. Steve Flynn/Dean of Students-Southern Oregon State College/Aware of problem and have tried to deal with the students. Cooperation has been attempted with no solution. Agrees with and supports proposed ordinance. Laurel & Dragmir Vukovic/487 1/2 Scenic/Support proposed ordinance. Suggests that the property managers be made responsible along with t((�ie property owners and tenants. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:23 p.m. Councilors Reid/Hagen m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for second reading with possible amendments. Roll Call vote: Hagen, Laws, Mayor Golden and Reid; YES. Motion passed. Councilor Wheeldon absent from the room. 3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of the City of Ashland setting forth conditions of employment for management and confidential employees and repealing Resolution 79-55." City Administrator Almquist explained that all past amendments have been incorporated into this resolution, there are no changes to the existing policies. Mayor Golden requested that item number 2.2 under Definitions be corrected to include the Mayor because technically the Mayor is not part of the Council. Council noted typing error under 10.8 and it was suggested that under itetn 4.1 Goal Setting there could be a tighter relationship between Department Heads and Council Goals. Councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to approve Resolution No. 969637 with the discussed changes. Roll Call vote: Wheeldon, Laws, Reid, and Hagen; YES. Motion passed. City Council Meeting 7-16-96 5 4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution annexing property to the City of Ashland and providing for an effective date (ACCESS Annexation)." Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview/Opposed to the annexation and has concern with ACCESS relationship to the annexation. Voiced her concern with the procedure of the annexation and does not feel it had been fair to all players. Council,was informed that the property owners had unconditionally agreed to the annexation. Debbie Miller/Concerned that past information was confusing. Feels it is important to look at why the city does not have more of this type of zoning. Discussed with Council the different types of zoning needed within the city. Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to approve Resolution No. 96-34. Roll Call vote: Laws, Reid and Wheeldon; YES, Hagen; NO. Motion passed 3-1. 5. Reading by title only of "A Resolution setting the time and place for a public hearing on the withdrawal of certain real property from Jackson County Fire District No. 5 and directing publication of notice as required by ORS 222.524 (ACCESS Annexation)." Councilors Laws/Reid m/s to approve Resolution No. 969635. Roll Call vote: Laws, Reid and Wheeldon; YES, Hagen; NO. Motion passed 3-1. 6. First reading of "An Ordinance repealing Chapter 2.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code entitled "Community Hospital Board." Councilors Hagen/Laws m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call vote: Reid, Hagen, Wheeldon, and Laws; YES. Motion passed. 7. Reading of Resolution Supporting The Rogue Valley Transportation District's 5- Year Serial Levy for $3.5 Million Commencing in July 1996. Councilors Laws/Reid m/s to place Resolution on agenda. Voice vote; all AYES. Motion passed. Councilors Laws/Hagen m/s to approve Resolution No. 96-36. Roll Call vote: Hagen, Wheeldon, Laws and Reid; YES. Motion passed. City Council Meeting 7-16-96 6 OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Council agreed that there would be no study session this month. A letter from Seattle-Northwest Securities Corporation was not ding Seattle Nw vs. City of Oregon City involving an initiative amending the Cit s char er reduce water rates and limit future increases without voter approval. �z_K_ Council discussed future time and place for Council study sessions. No decision was made. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Barbara Christensen, Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor City Council Meeting 7-16-96 7 AD HOC CITIZEN'S COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE May 13, 1996 Minutes Members Present: Brice Farwell, Joe Eckhardt, Joanne Eggers, and Cate Hartzell (who arrived at 3:50); and Staff Dick Wanderscheid. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Eckhardt at 3:40 p.m. He started the meeting by suggesting it was time to appoint a subcommittee to assemble and filter out the recommendations down to four to six suggestions which would make up the draft plan. Farwell agreed it was time to do something like that also. Eggers agreed it was time but felt the plan should address areas where concerns overlap, not necessarily prioritize items in the plan. Eggers stated the meetings her subcommittee held to gather input did not get a very good response, while other meetings attract lots of people. Why is there a difference and how can the committee identify the difference and use it to attract people? Farwell said that controversy brings people out when they feel they will be affected. These controversial issues are the ones where the City needs to get input early on. He said he felt the existing newsletter isn't detailed enough and also isn't graphically interesting enough. He felt if it was longer and laid out better, it would be far more effective. Also, he noticed in the minutes from the last meeting that Steve Hauck had pointed out the Council had made a conscious decision not to respond to or debate people during public hearings. This points out a different process is needed if a dialogue between the Council and citizens is desired. Eggers said a new discussion format where no decisions will be made which will allow informal discussion of issues would get to this issue. Eckhardt asked if point number 4 of his plan gets to this issue? Farwell said he would like to have a discussion of the draft plan with the City Council on issues such as these to find out if it is open to these ideas. He said he had seen City Council meetings where public testimony had to be continued to additional meetings because of time constraints. If another avenue for input which was not a public hearing could be developed it would be helpful. Eckhardt asked if the committee felt limiting public testimony to three minutes was appropriate. Eggers responded yes, because people need to be brief and to the point. If another setting where informal discussion could occur in detail prior to public hearings, the three minute time limit is very appropriate. Farwell said part of the problem is people don't know of legal or statutory sequence of various public hearing processes. Wanderscheid pointed out that land use hearings have different legal hearing requirements than other City issues. Hartzell arrived at 3:50 p.m. She stated that in land use matters, meetings can be set up between developers, neighborhoods, and citizens outside the City's process so that the legal requirements of land use law are not relevant because the City's decision makers are not involved. Hartzell then asked if the minutes had been discussed yet. Eckhardt said no. Eggers said she had some corrections. On the second to the last paragraph on page 1 , she would like to replace the words "for such a body" with "for ways to convene such a forum." Also, on page 2, third to the last paragraph, she would like to replace the words "is happening right now" with "citizens are giving input and participating in the decision making processes." Hartzell said on page 3, in the third full paragraph, she would like the entire last sentence reading "Hartzell...on the CCI" replaced with "Hartzell said this group isn't active and may not be a group that could effectively handle the responsibilities we are suggesting." Farwell also pointed out that "Tabor" should be spelled "Taber" throughout the minutes. The minutes were then approved as corrected. Hartzell said that one thing she felt was missing from the draft plans submitted by members of the committee was a recognition that some things in the City's processes were already broken and the report needs to focus on those things. For example, neighborhood plans, or LIDS are starting to evolve new processes and the committee report should push these evolving processes. Eckhardt said while it would be ideal to address these things he felt the committee purview was limited and if the suggestions are spread so wide it will be ineffective. Hartzell said she was suggesting putting in the report the Council should consider ways to study previous situations of what worked and what didn't work and try to learn from those examples. Eggers also suggested possibly giving the Council some ideas that should be subjects for future town hall meetings. Hartzell also felt the plan should not only just identify responsibilities for the City but identify things to be done by citizens, City staff, elected officials and the newspaper. Farwell, in referring to the Oak Lawn paving project, said that citizens' action can take many forms. However, the City can't force people to do things but can stimulate action by citizens. Eckhardt hoped the Council would agree on the right tasks that needed to be pursued, that it was the committee's job to only make recommendation and he felt a few solid recommendations was the way to proceed. Hartzell supported an overall plan, not just a set of recommendations. The committee needs to put the puzzle together and give it to the Council and the entire community. This means copies to the library, a splash in the media, taking it to community meetings, and not worrying about overwhelming the Council with the scope of the plan. She said some of the things suggested in the draft committee plans she was not in favor of. For example, she felt recommending an ongoing citizen input committee would alienate the Council. She said Hauck had made it quite clear he didn't want an additional layer between himself and the citizens. Eckhardt felt the committee should stay with a simplistic plan and some other things will also happen. For example, the plan should recommend a need for the City to hold town hall meetings and not actually conduct the meetings. Farwell stated that Hal Cloer has raised the point a number of times that once a group becomes a "City- appointed" group, it becomes part of the establishment and the process will work better if it is not perceived as part of the establishment. Hartzell said she got a sense from reading Farwell's plan that somehow the communication problem in Ashland is because citizens are not involved and it is not necessarily the City's fault. Her own personal experience in some issues where she got involved early on was that issues were already decided by the Ad Hoc Citizen's Communication Committee 2 Minutes May 13, 1996 guy s puwe, Sit� tote and citizens had no opportunity in reality to affect the outcome. She felt for the report to be credible with citizens that have had the same experience as her, it needed to address this issue. Farwell agreed, but pointed out his feelings were that this problem is not unique to Ashland but is generic to all governments. Hartzell agreed that it is time for a subcommittee to assemble and fine tune an integrated draft plan for forwarding to the Council. Eckhardt volunteered to be on this subcommittee and felt Farwell should also be on this subcommittee. Eggers suggested setting a date for the subcommittee to meet and then bring back a merged plan to the full committee. All members present agreed to be on this subcommittee and set up the meeting for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday May 29th at Farwell's house, 290 West Nevada Street. Wanderscheid agreed to send out a memo this week to all committee members inviting them to attend this subcommittee meeting. Hartzell will confer with Wanderscheid after the subcommittee's meeting to set a date for the next full committee meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Ad Hoc Citizen's Communication Committee 3 Minutes May 13, 1996 Citizen Goal Setting Subcommittee Don Laws, member July, 1996 TOTAL COMMUNITY GOAL-SETTING 1. August- Circulate a citizen-satisfaction survey in the Daily Tidings 2. September-New Citizen Advisory Committee prepare a scientific telephone sample survey to be conducted by a professional polling organization 3. October- Department heads present annual reports and suggested departmental goals to Council in public hearings 4. November- Council hold hearing(s) to receive suggestions from city organizations and individuals 5. December - Council meet in goal setting session to prepare up to 10 possible goals for the City for the next fiscal year 6. January, first two weeks- Civic organizations, media, and individual newspaper letter writers be encouraged to participate in an intense discussion of the proposed City Goals 7. January, last week - The possible City Goals submitted to the citizens for an advisory vote. Citizens indicate for each possible goal whether they consider it important, unimprtant, or "a bad idea". The goals for which a majority say "important" become the new City Goals for the ensuing fiscal year. 8. February-May- City Administrator, Finance Director, and Budget Committee prepare and adopt a budget that will facilitate the new City Goals ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes July 3, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:40 p.m. Members present were Terry Skibby, Jim Lewis, Vava Bailey (arrived at 8:30), Joyce Cowan, Cliff Llewellyn and Larry Cardinale. Also present were City Council Liaison Brent Thompson, Senior Planner Bill Molnar and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Members Bill Harriff, Curt Anderson and Keith Chambers were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Skibby moved and Cowan seconded to approve the June 5, 1996 Minutes as submitted. The motion was unanimously passed. STAFF REPORTS Planning Action 96-063 Site Review 62-66 East Main Street Allan Sandler and Ed Bemis Molnar reported this application is for the renovation of the first floor and the addition of a mezzanine, second and third story of the existing building. There will be two leasable spaces off the sidewalk which will have angled entrances and an upper mezzanine for each. There will also be an entrance off East Main that will lead to a stairway that accesses the upper floors. The new second floor will open onto the Shakespeare plaza at the rear of the property and will consist of two retail spaces and a handicap accessible apartment. The third floor will consist of four small apartments, ranging in size from 508 square feet to 771 square feet. The primary material will be smooth red brick. The bottom floor will be constructed with real granite or granite-like material. An option will be brick, depending on the cost and availability of the granite. Granite will also accent the center of the building. Molnar conveyed this is a significant project in the downtown core and the design has evolved from the original plans submitted for the pre-application conference. There are two adjacent buildings to the east occupied by the Shakespeare Festival which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. They are historically known as the First National Bank Building and Vaupel Store/Oregon Hotel Building. The applicant has worked with Staff and the Review Board to accommodate concerns and incorporate suggestions. The design now pulls from the National Register buildings rather than the more contemporary building on the other side. Staff has raised the issue of building height due to its significant location. There is a 40 foot maximum average building height allowance in the Commercial-Downtown District. The proposed building measures 39 feet S inches trom the sidewalk along East Main Street to the top of the roof, and 25 feet 3 inches from the grade of the Shakespeare plaza to the roof top (for a total average building height of 32 feet 6 inches). Molnar then reviewed the changes which have been made to the design but were not in the packet. The ground floor windows have been changed to bays with angles. The windows on the mezzanine have been changed because consistency was a concern. These windows are now casement windows that can be opened/removed to look more similar with the top floor windows. Everything is now on the same plane, not cantilevered out over the sidewalk. The design now takes from the older buildings on East Main Street. The awning style will be continued in the rear of the building. Also, there is a need to reduce the landscaped area to the left of the phone area to accommodate another exit in the rear. Overall, Molnar stated Staff is pleased with the design and is recommending approval with six conditions. Cardinale asked if the building material will be similar to the one they are building on "A" Street. Contractor Ed Bemis said they will be using a different brick. Llewellyn questioned the clearance of the proposed awning. Molnar stated the height is regulated in the Sign Code Ordinance so it will have to be at least seven feet six inches at the lowest point. Bemis said the first story windows will be about eight feet when questioned about the height by Skibby. Applicant Allan Sandler said he would like to assure the Commission there will not be changes after the building permit is issued as there have been with the new building on "A" Street. The parapet requirements and ADA requirements dictate the height of the building, and he is not asking for a Variance. He also said he was not totally sold on the material yet. Although he loves the granite, it may be too expensive, so he said he would like to leave the option open to change the material on the first floor — either granite or brick. Availability of the granite may also be a problem. Bemis added the granite would have to be the right color to fit well with the brick and he isn't sure they can find enough. Lewis asked if there will be an interior frame. Bemis said there would because of the code. There will be the frame, siding, then the brick. Sandler added the brick will be the real thing, not "Z-Brick". Molnar asked if they had thought of using brick with granite accents on the first floor. Bemis said they had and that was an option. Skibby asked about lowering the parapet by a foot. Molnar said the rhythm of spacing would be broken if the parapet were lowered. After discussing this, the Commission agreed it is better to have the height variation on East Main Street. Sandler thanked the Review Board members for input he received from them, noting he had used one of their ideas. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 3, 1996 Page 2 Cowan asked if the awnings would be fabric and Sandler said they would. Llewellyn suggested putting Sandler/Bemis with the date built in stone and attaching it to the building. He then asked about the front doors. Bemis said there will be three doors constructed of glass and wood. They will be similar to those on the Tudor Guild. Cardinale moved to recommend approval of this application with the condition the applicants come to the Review Board after they decide on the material they would like to use for the first floor — prior to submitting the plans for the building permit. Cowan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of June follow: 461 Allison Street Colin Swales Demolition of Garage 461 Allison Street Colin Swales Replace Garage/Shop 62 East Main Street Allan Sandler Interior Remodel 51 Water Street Lloyd Haines 3rd Floor Remodel 195 Sherman Street Ronald Butz Bathroom Remodel 51 Water Street Lloyd Haines 1st Floor Remodel 219 Almond Street John & Sharon Javna Demolition of Carport 358 East Main Street Rogue Ski Shop Sign 397 #3 East Main Street Marketplace Deli Sign 33 Third Street Marketplace Deli Sign 624 "A" Street Project A Sign 240 East Main Street Footlights Sign 75 North Main Street Big Town Hero Sign REVIEW BOARD Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: July 11 Skibby, Cardinale and Cowan July 18 Lewis and Skibby July 25 Lewis, Skibby and Cowan August 1 Skibby and Cardinale OLD BUSINESS Project Assignments for Planning Actions Skibby volunteered to oversee PA 96-063. Ashland Historic Conunission Minutes July 3, 1996 Page 3 (Bailey arrived at this time.) Golden Sgike Marker The memo from the Mayor and Council regarding the relocation of the Golden Spike Marker was discussed. Lewis noted that in reading the wording on the marker, it would not be appropriate for it to be placed in the park closer to the actual location where the spike was driven. Skibby reported he was involved in the original placement of the marker in 1974. At that time, no one was as sure as they are now where the golden spike ceremony took place. When it was placed on "A" Street at the bottom of Fourth Street, it was the obvious place at the time because there was a little park there. Then for years, it was a weed patch and later, the Southern Pacific property was divided and sold. When the contractors came in last fall to work on street improvements, the marker was moved and damaged. Even after it was moved to the city yard area, it was threatened with being damaged. Consequently, he was contacted by someone from the Street Department and asked where the marker could be moved. This was discussed at the November and December 1995 Historic Commission meetings. On December 6, the Commission unanimously agreed to direct the City to move the marker from the city yard to the corner of Fifth and "A" Streets in the right-of-way. This seemed to be the natural site because it is by the only surviving railroad building — the south wing of the old depot. Councilor Thompson said any monument owned by the City needs to be on City property. Since it is in the right-of-way, he suggested writing a complete report to the Council including the location, and being at the Council meeting when it will be discussed to back up the decision. The Historic Commission again agreed it would not be appropriate in the park. Lewis stated an easement would need to be granted to the City if the marker were to be moved back to the Fourth and "A" Street location since there is not enough right-of-way to place the marker on City property. Skibby volunteered to write a draft letter to the Council. Infill Discussion Thompson submitted infill/sprawl information to staff and stated he would be happy to discuss this at one of the Historic Commission meetings. The information will be included in the next packet and Thompson will be invited to discuss this at another meeting. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 3, 1996 Page 4 Orientation/Goal Setting Session On August 7, the orientation will begin with a tour of the Historic District at 4:00. The regular meeting will begin at 8:30 rather than 7:30. Staff will send reminders. NEW BUSINESS Review Board Because the Review Board will not be meeting on July 4th, the Commission reviewed plans for 120 High Street, 485 "A" Street, and 190 Oak Street. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 3, 1996 Page 5 Monthly Building Activity Report: 04/96 Page 1 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Building: ADDITION 3 105, 314 ADDITION & ARBOR 1 16,000 ADDITION OF 1 B&B UNIT 1 15, 000 ART STUDIO/GUEST COTTAGE 1 40, 000 ATTACHED GARAGE/STUDIO 1 65, 000 CONVERSION TO ACCESS UNIT 1 5, 500 DECK 3 7, 660 DEMOLITION OF STORAGE BLD 1 0 DOOR 1 850 DORMER & FENCE 1 2 , 500 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1 . 3 , 920 GARAGE 1 6, 508 GARAGE/WORKSHOP 1 7 , 579 REMODEL 1 1, 500" REMODEL & NEW GREENHOUSE 1 10, 000 REROOF 1 4 , 200 SFR 8 1, 007, 541 SOLARIUM ADDITION 1 10, 000 STORAGE SHED 1 6, 248 Subtotal: $ 1, 315, 320 Electrical: 1 BR CIR FOR HEAT PUMP 1 400 3 BR CIRS FOR REMODEL 1 800 ADD 2 BRANCH CIRCUITS 1 300 ADD 3 BR CIR TO 9603029 1 900 ENTRY VOIDING 9603042 -1 -2 , 388 ENTRY VOIDING 9603054 -1 -400 REPLACE TWO SERVICES 1 200 SERVICE + 8 BR CIR 1 500 SERVICE CHANGE 2 700 TEMPORARY POWER 1 200 UPGRADE SERVICE 1 400 Subtotal: $ 1, 612 Mechanical: GAS LINE/FURNACE/l BR CIR 2 9, 992 GAS LINE/FURNACE/2 BR CIR 1 3 , 892 Monthly Building Activity Report: 04/96 Page 2 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Mechanical: GAS LINE/GAS STOVE 1 200 GAS LINE/GAS WTR HTR 1 0 GAS/FURN/WTR HTR/2 BR CIR 1 2 , 450 INSTALL 2-TON A/C 2 3 , 259 VOIDED ON 05/07/96 1 2 , 570 Subtotal: $ 22 , 363 Plumbing: DOUBLE CHECK VALVE 1 600 GAS WATER HEATER 1 200 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 2 4, 950 NEW SEWER LINE 1 150 REPLACE BOILER W/GAS FURN 1 2 , 800- REPLACE WATER HEATER 1 250 SEWER LINE 1 200 SPRINKLER SYSTEM 2 2, 700 Subtotal: $ 11, 850 ***Total: $ 1, 351, 145 COMMERCIAL: Building: ADD RESTROOM 1 35, 000 ADDENDUM TO #9509075 1 0 ARBOR 1 2 , 500 FENCE 2 0 INTERIOR REMODEL 1 5, 000 KIOSK/DECK 1 10, 000 MOVING PERMIT 1 0 REMODEL/HANDICAP BATHROOM 1 2, 500 SHED 1 1, 180 SPECIAL INSPECTION 1 0 Subtotal: $ 56, 180 Electrical: 1 BR CIR FOR LIGHTING 1 300 2 BR CIRS FOR LIGHTING 1 450 Monthly Building Activity Report: 04/96 Page 3 # Units Value COMMERCIAL: Electrical: SECURITY SYSTEM 1 1, 356 SERV/2 BR CIR @ STOR SHED 1 800 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 1 160, 000 Subtotal: $ 162 , 906 Plumbing: INSTALL FLOOR SINK/PIPING 1 750 Subtotal: $ 750 ***Total: $ 219 , 836 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total this month: 78 $ 1, 570,981 Total this month last year: 81 $ 1, 632, 045 Total year to date: 806 $20, 443 , 886 Total last year: 802 $19, 086, 334 This month This month This year last year Total Fees: 17 , 738 19,410 219, 000 Total Inspections: 481 553 4921 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 4/96 RESIDENTIAL PAGE NO. 1 07/15/96 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** ART STUDIO/GUEST COTTAGE 3 HILLCREST ST VERTICAL GRAIN 40000. 00 CONSTRUCTION ** Subtotal ** 40000. 00 ** GARAGE 164 EASTBROOK WY BONIN, DARYL - 6508 . 00 CONSTRUCTION ** Subtotal ** 6508 . 00 ** GARAGE/WORKSHOP 985 BELLVIEW AV J.H.R. INVESTMENTS, INC. 7579 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 7579 . 00 ** SFR 1228 ROSE LN BEAR CREEK CONSTRUCTION 74963 . 00 324 WIMER ST STURLEE CONSTRUCTION, INC. 225000 . 00 1625 PEACHEY RD OWNER 133176. 00 432 PARKSIDE DR ASHER, STEVEN DBA ASHER 122216. 00 HOMES 785 CREEK STONE WY MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 96500. 00 137 OAK MEADOWS PL GREENEWOOD HOMES 151997. 00 164 EASTBROOK WY BONIN, DARYL - 106689 . 00 CONSTRUCTION 538 OAK ST TURRELL, JON CONSTRUCTION 97000. 00 ** Subtotal ** 1007541. 00 ** STORAGE SHED 953 MARY JANE AV OWNER 6248 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 6248 . 00 *** Total *** 1067876. 00 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 4/96 COMMERCIAL PAGE NO. 1 07/15/96 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** ARBOR 5 GRANITE ST CONSOLIDATED SERVICES 2500. 00 ** Subtotal ** 2500. 00 ** FENCE 265 NORTH MAIN ST QUALITY FENCE CO. INC. 0. 00 340 OAK ST MORRIS CONSTRUCTION 0. 00 ** Subtotal ** 0. 00 _ ** SHED 472 SCENIC DR R V MINI BARNS 1180. 00 ** Subtotal ** 1180. 00 *** Total *** 3680. 00 e Monthly Building Activity Report: 05/96 Page 1 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Building: ADDENDUM TO #9510067 1 0 ADDENDUM TO #9604019 1 11, 000 ADDENDUM TO #9604073 1 0 ADDENDUM/PERMIT #9605089 1 0 . ADDITION . 2 30, 979 BATHROOM REMODEL 1 5, 000 COTTAGE E/RETIRE CENTER 1 0 DECK 1 3, 470 DEMOLITION OF SFR 1 0 FENCE 8 8, 390 GARAGE ADDITION 1 7, 289 INT REMODEL TO ADD BATH 1 4, 000 INTERIOR REMODEL 2 22 , 500 MANUFACTURED HOMES 1 72, 152 REMODEL 1 15, 000 REMODEL & ADDITION 6 281, 966 REPLACE PORCH 1 3, 500 REROOF 1 3 , 450 RETAINING WALL 2 3 , 900 SFR 20 2 , 335, 665 SHED 1 750 Subtotal: $ 2 , 809, 011 Electrical: 2 BR CIRS FOR HOT TUB 1 500 3 BR CIR FOR REMODEL/ADD 1 1, 200 3 BRANCH CIRCUITS 1 400 400AMP SERVICE/2 FEEDERS 1 2 , 500 ENTRY VOIDING 9605005 -1 -2, 600 SERVICE CHANGE 1 600 SERVICE CHANGE + 2 BR CIR 1 550 VOIDED ON 05/29/96 1 2 , 600 Subtotal : $ 5, 750 Mechanical: 3 LINES/FURN/DRYER/WTRHTR 1 3 , 300 ENTRY VOIDING 9604071 -1 -2 , 570 GAS LINE/FIREPLACE INSERT 1 275 Monthly Building Activity Report: 05/96 Page 2 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Mechanical: GAS LINE/FURN/AC/2 BR CIR 2 5, 881 GAS LINE/FURNACE 1 2 , 583 GAS LINE/GAS STOVE 1 1, 450 GAS LINE/HEATER/2 BR CIRS 1 4 , 800 GAS LINE/LOG LIGHTER 1 300 GAS LINE/WATER HEATER 1 150 GAS LINES/GAS LOG 1 150 INSTALL GAS HEATER 1 1, 000 INSTALL HT PUMP/2 BR CIRS 1 3 ,873 REPLACE FURN ADD A/C 1 2 , 685 WATER HEATER 1 500 Subtotal: $ 24 , 377 Plumbing: 3 SEWER & 3 WATER LINES 1 0 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 1 250 REPLACE PLMG FIX/REPLUMB 1 600 REPLACE WATER HEATER 2 400 SEWER & WATER LINES 1 0 SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1 2, 500 WATER LINE 1 4, 300 Subtotal: $ 8, 050 ***Total: $ 2, 847, 188 COMMERCIAL: Building: ADA BATHROOM UPGRADE 1 50, 000 DEMOLITION OF 2 SHEDS 1 0 GAZEBO 1 1, 500 INTERIOR REMODEL 2 8, 975 OFFICE/WAREHOUSE 1 409 , 097 REMODEL 2 7, 000 SPECIAL INSPECTION 1 0 Subtotal: $ 476, 572 Electrical: 1 BR CIR FOR SECURITY SYS 1 400 Monthly Building Activity Report: 05/96 Page 3 # Units Value COMMERCIAL: Electrical: 1 BRANCH CIRCUIT/KIOSK 1 75 2 BR CIR FOR CINEMA 1 185 5 BR CIR FOR INT REMODEL 1 760 ADD TWO FEEDERS 1 2 ,500 FEEDER + 2 BR CIR 1 650 REWIRE DENTAL EQUIPMENT 1 300 SECURITY SYSTEM 1 1,478 SERVICE 1 700 SERVICE SUBPANEL 1 650 TWO BRANCH CIRCUITS 1 400 Subtotal: $ 8, 098 Mechanical: GAS LINE/FURN/BOILER 1 5, 500 HEAT PUMP & SAND COIL 1 2 , 042 INSTALL HEAT PUMP/COOLER 1 8,932 Subtotal: $ 16, 474 Plumbing: ADD 2 FIXTURES/GAS RANGE 1 0 ADD 2 SINKS IN EXAM ROOMS 1 400 Subtotal: $ 400 ***Total: $ 501, 544 Total this month: ill $ 3 , 348 , 732 Total this month last year: 72 $ 2 , 109 901 Total year to date: 917 $23 , 792 , 618 Total last year: 874 $21, 196, 235 This month This month This year last year Total Fees: 38 , 150 24 , 932 257, 150 Total Inspections: 645 533 5566 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 5/96 RESIDENTIAL PAGE NO. 1 07/16/96 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** COTTAGE E/RETIRE CENTER 576 NORTH MAIN ST COLSON & COLSON 0. 00 ** Subtotal ** 0 . 00 ** FENCE 308 LUNA VISTA ST RAY ' S FENCES 1200. 00 351 BRIDGE ST OWNER 500. 00 445 GRANITE ST OWNER 500. 00 996 OAK ST OWNER 500. 00 302 BEACH ST ACCENT FENCE CONSTRUCTION 890. 00 718 INDIANA ST RAY ' S FENCES 1300. 00 260 WIMER ST RAY ' S FENCES 500. 00 355 GRANT ST BENCHMARK BUILDERS 3000. 00 ** Subtotal ** 8390 . 00 ** MANUFACTURED HOMES 824 CLAY ST PIONEER HOMES 72152 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 72152 . 00 ** REMODEL & ADDITION 299 SCENIC DR OWNER 114319 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 114319 . 00 ** SFR 420 PARKSIDE DR14 ASHER, STEVEN DBA ASHER 112879 . 00 HOMES 460 PARKSIDE DR9 ASHER, STEVEN DBA ASHER 111724 . 00 HOMES 470 PARKSIDE DR 7 ASHER, STEVEN DBA ASHER 123580. 00 HOMES 442 PARKSIDE DR ASHER, STEVEN DBA ASHER 112880 . 00 HOMES 430 SUNSHINE CR ASHER, STEVEN DBA ASHER 160000. 00 HOMES 451 PARKSIDE DR12 THIRKILL, LAURSEN 123278 . 00 1645 PEACHEY RD DUNDAS, JOHN - DESIGNER & 144986. 00 BUILDER 1052 PARADISE LN OWNER 156443 . 00 1208 ROSE LN BEAR CREEK CONSTRUCTION 80742 . 00 720 MEADOWLARK WAY MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 102000. 00 982 OAK ST OWNER 125435. 00 927 BELLVIEW AV1 ROSS HOMES 95598 . 00 927 BELLVIEW AV2 ROSS HOMES 95598 . 00 730 RIVER ROCK ROAD MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 106000. 00 1015 CANYON PARK DR MUNSON CONSTRUCTION 140000. 00 1341 EVAN LN MCCOY CONSTRUCTION & 108539 . 00 DESIGN PAGE NO. 2 07/16/96 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION 355 COVENTRY PL OWNER 165284 . 00 1268 ROSE LN EAGLE CONSTRUCTION 82100. 00 710 RIVER ROCK ROAD MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 112646. 00 1288 ROSE LN BEAR CREEK CONSTRUCTION 75953 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 2335665 . 00 ** SHED 494 FAIRVIEW ST OWNER 750. 00 ** Subtotal ** 750. 00 *** Total *** 2531276. 00 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 5/96 COMMERCIAL PAGE NO. 1 07/16/96 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** GAZEBO 364 WALKER AV OWNER 1500. 00 ** Subtotal ** 1500. 00 ** OFFICE/WAREHOUSE 699 MISTLETOE RD OWNER 409097 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 409097 . 00 *** Total *** 410597 . 00 Monthly Building Activity Report: 06/96 Page 1 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Building: 2 UNIT APARTMENTS 2 160,982 3 UNIT APARTMENTS 9 720,891 4 UNIT APARTMENTS 12 948,252 5 UNIT APARTMENTS 5 386,017 ADDENDUM/PERMIT #9511045 , 1 0 ADDITION 2 31,942 ADDITION & REV TO 9604067 1 1,200 ATTACHED ACCESS UNIT 1 144,000 ATTACHED SFR 2 173 ,866 BATHROOM REMODEL 1 6, 000 CHIMNEY PRE-INSPECTION 1 0 DECKS/PORCH ROOF 1 7 , 000 DEMOLITION OF CARPORT 1 0 DEMOLITION OF GARAGE 1 0 ENTRY VOIDING 9501034 -1 -179, 813 FENCE 3 4 , 928 PATIO COVER 1 350 PLAYHOUSE 1 2 , 000 REBUILD DECK 1 1, 500 REMODEL 2 11, 000 REMODEL & ADDITION 2 81, 000 REPLACE GARAGE/SHOP 1 6, 508 REVISION - PERMIT 9605047 1 0 SFR 4 435, 141 SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1 27, 645 STUDIO 2 49, 140 SWIMMING POOL 1 16, 950 Subtotal: $ 3 , 036, 500 Electrical: 1 BR CIR FOR GAS FURNACE 1 0 1 BR CIR FOR HOT TUB 1 461 1 BR CIR FOR JACCUZZI 1 300 CHANGE SERVICE + 2 BR CIR 1 600 SERVICE CHANGE 2 900 TEMP POWER 1 137 Subtotal: $ 2, 398 Mechanical:, 2 GAS LINES/STOVE/WTR HTR 1 100 Monthly Building Activity Report: 06/96 Page 2 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Mechanical: 3 GAS LINES/GAS DRYER 1 300 GAS LINE/FURN/AC/l BR CIR 3 12, 929 GAS LINE/FURN/AC/2 BR CIR 1 3 ,986 GAS LINE/FURN/WTR HTR/AC 1 2 ,500 GAS LINE/FURN/WTRHTR/1 BR 1 2 ,680 GAS LINE/FURNACE 1 1,802 GAS LINE/GAS FURNACE 1 3 ,916 GAS LINE/GAS STOVE 1 1, 100 INSTALL 2 AC/SERV +4 BRCR 1 11, 128 INSTALL AIR CONDITIONER 1 1, 694 REPLACE WATER HEATER 1 200 Subtotal: $ _ 42 , 335 Plumbing: ADD&RELOCATE PLMB FIXTURS 1 4 , 500 BACKFLOW DEVICE 1 200 ENTRY VOIDING 9603074 -1 -2, 500 FILL OLD SEPTIC TANK 1 100 GAS LINE/REPLACE WTR HTR 1 700 IRRIGATION & SUMP PUMP 6 3 , 000 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 1 3 , 850 REPLACE ELECT WATER HEATR 1 400 REPLACE SEWER LINE 1 1, 300 REPLACE TUB AND TOILET 1 2 , 000 REPLACE TUB W/JACCUZZI 1 2 , 000 REPLACE WATER LINE 1 200 Subtotal: $ 15, 750 ***Total: $ 3 , 096, 983 COMMERCIAL: Building: 1ST FLOOR TENANT IMPROVEM 1 80, 000 3RD FLOOR TENANT IMPROVE 1 100, 000 INTERIOR REMODEL 1 5, 000 REMODEL TO BAKERY KITCHEN 1 2, 000 RENOVATE PIONEER BLDG 1 1, 000, 000 Subtotal: $ 1, 187 , 000 Electrical: 1 BR CIR FOR AIR HANDLERS 1 250 Monthly Building Activity Report: 06/96 Page 3 # Units Value COMMERCIAL: Electrical: 2 BR CIR FOR FURN & AC 1 0 CHANGE PANEL + 2 BR CIRS 1 5,500 REPLACE BALLASTS 1 3 ,485 SERVICE FOR TRAFFIC LIGHT 1 1, 500 TEMPORARY POWER 1 150 Subtotal: $ 10,885 Mechanical: INSTALL AIR CONDITIONER 1 2 , 895 Subtotal: $ 2 , 895 Plumbing: ADD 2 FLOOR SINKS 1 350 BACKFLOW DEVICE 1 165 REPLACE ELECT WATER HTR 1 250 SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1 2 , 500 Subtotal: $ 3 , 265 ***Total: $ 1, 204, 045 ------------------ Total this month: 95 $ 4 , 301, 028 Total this month last year: 67 $ 1, 556, 566 Total year to date: 1012 $28 , 093 , 646 Total last year: 941 $22 , 752, 802 This month This month This year last year Total Fees: 42 , 729 17 , 928 299, 880 Total Inspections: 667 516 6234 •. r NEW CONSTRUCTION: 6/96 RESIDENTIAL PAGE NO. 1 07/30/96 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR. . VALUATION ** 2 UNIT APARTMENTS. 132 WIGHTMAN STD 2 ADROIT CONST. CO. 160982 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 160982 . 00 ** 3 UNIT APARTMENTS 60 WIGHTMAN STA 3 ADROIT CONST. CO. 221535. 00 144 WIGHTMAN STC 3 ADROIT CONST. CO. 225035. 80 96 WIGHTMAN ST NH 3 ADROIT CONST. CO. 274320. 50 ** Subtotal ** 720891. 30 ** 4 UNIT APARTMENTS 120 WIGHTMAN STB 4 ADROIT CONST. CO. 304323 . 45 72 WIGHTMAN ST NE 4 ADROIT CONST. CO. 336296 . 00 108 WIGHTMAN ST NG 4 ADROIT CONST. CO. 307632 . 80 ** Subtotal ** 948252 . 25 ** 5 UNIT APARTMENTS 84 WIGHTMAN ST NF 5 ADROIT CONST. CO. 386017 . 90 ** Subtotal ** 386017 . 90 ** ATTACHED SFR 925 BELLVIEW AVl ALLEN CONSTRUCTION 86933 . 00 925 BELLVIEW AV2 ALLEN CONSTRUCTION 86933 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 173866 . 00 ** ENTRY VOIDING 9501034 1120 OAK KNOLL DR TONEY, JERRY CONST. INC. -179813 . 28 ** Subtotal ** -179813 . 28 ** FENCE 621 SPRING CREEK DR OWNER 3000. 00 193 EASTBROOK WY ACCENT FENCE CONSTRUCTION 1428 . 00 89 SEVENTH ST GRAY, SHERRY 500. 00 ** Subtotal ** 4928 . 00 ** PLAYHOUSE 717 OAK ST OWNER 2000 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 2000. 00 ** REPLACE GARAGE/SHOP 461 ALLISON ST OWNER 6508 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 6508 . 00 y � PAGE NO. 2 07/30/96 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** SFR 915 BELLVIEW AV1 OWNER 91648. 00 915 BELLVIEW AV2 OWNER 91648.00 735 MEADOWLARK WAY MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 111845. 00 438 PARKSIDE DR15 ASHER, STEVEN DBA ASHER 140000. 00 HOMES ** Subtotal ** 435141. 00 ** STUDIO 806 MOUNTAIN AV S OWNER 34140. 00 308 LIBERTY ST STEVENSON, MARK - 15000. 00 CONSTRUCTION ** Subtotal ** 49140. 00 *** Total *** .2707913 . 17 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 6/96 COMMERCIAL PAGE NO. 1 07/30/96 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** ** Subtotal ** 0. 00 *** Total *** 0 . 00 CITY OF ASHLAND _WN CITY HALL ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)482-3211 Office of the City Recorder/Treasurer July 30, 1996 TO: p1�- Mayor and Council FROM: �1 � Barbara Christensen, City Recorder%Treasurer SUBJECT: JJ Liquor License Application Application has been received from James Paul Mills for a LIQUOR license for an ESTABLISHMENT, Caldera Brewing Company at 2805 East Main Street, Ashland. OLCC has completed the necessary background investigation and approval of this application is recommended. CITY OF ASHLAND p Af `.{ Department of Community Developments Planning Division - - : • C MEMORANDUM �'EGOS lV P1\5l DATE: August 2, 1996 TO: Brian Almquist, City Administrator FROM: John McLaughlin, Community Development Director RE: Setting Public Hearing, Appeal of Planning Action 96-080 Planning Action 96-080, a request for modification of a condition of approval for the previously approved 26-lot Audubon Subdivision (PA94-022) off Orange Avenue, has been appealed. Could you please set a public hearing for this action for August 20, 1996? The Planning Department will handle all necessary noticing. Thank you. a Contents of' Record for Ashland Planning Action 96-047 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL OF A SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED AT 1452 OREGON STREET. APPLICANT: EVAN ARCHERD Public Notice Map 1 Criteria for Outline and Final Plan Approval 2-3 Planning Commission Findings 5/11/96 4-9 Planning Commission Minutes 5/14/96 & 4/9/96 10-22 Staff Report Addendum 5/14/96 23-28 Initial Staff Reports 4/9/96 29-35 Staff's Open Space Calculations (Maps) 36-37 Tree Commission Comments 3/28/96 38 Addendum to Applicant's Findings 4/29/96 39-44 Applicant's Original Application Submittals 3/6/96 44-59 Petition Appealing PA96-047 7/1/96 60-63 Miscellaneous Letters 64-86 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following A copy of the application,all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on A ugust 6, 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,it 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall, Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. 20 East Main Street,Ashland,Oregon 97520. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. During the Public Hearing,the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and Oregon low States that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit either in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of criteria. Unless them is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to Specify conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel appeal to LUBA on that criterion. free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 4883 5305. t .�. 32 II �lZ '04!"1'!' OREGON STREET Pzopd5eon2tdEwa� •�r ,x - na• or 9100 - r�sfjnsTld Ie500 fisCTJ SA1l 5900 ° fps 1 I e3oo.,. 12: tam 7 m ^ Q 6�0 " a I. e000 o.t. 0 Z c<sr. N j X001 SIX o 6501 �Y a .,... t H7401 Z 70m '0m Z5400 W e% 6200 • m I ti S W. ? aoo N 7201 6 I Cor.DL.C.45 - �Nw COR. �p�0�p L/cIV EN/A� PLANNING ACTION 96-047 is a request for Outline and Final Plan approval of a six-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option located at 1452 Oregon Street, Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 15BA; Tax Lot 6600: APPLICANT: Evan Archerd 1 CRITERIA FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc. , have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. 2 CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more that ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title . C. The open spaces vary no more than ten (l0%) percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more that (10%) percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. 3 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 1996 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #96-047, REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL OF SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION ) FINDINGS, UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED AT 1452 ) CONCLUSIONS OREGON STREET. ) AND ORDERS APPLICANT: EVAN ARCHERD ) -------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 6600 of 391E 15BA is located at 1452 Oregon Street and is zoned R-1-7. 5; Single Family Residential. 2) The applicant is proposing a six-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options. Site improvements are outlined on the site plan on file at the Community Development Department. 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are as follows: a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b) That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection -and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities. as proposed in the entire project. . f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on May 14, 1996, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the 4 ` application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. 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 110" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2 . 1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a six-lot subdivision meets all applicable criteria for approval under the Performance Standards options chapter 18.88 . 2.3 Specifically, the Commission makes the following findings in relation to the criteria for approval: a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. Setback requirements along the perimeter of the project will be identical to those found in the R-1-7.5 zoning district. A rear yard setback of 10 feet per story is required, with a minimum front yard setback of 15 feet, excluding garages and porches. Condition #17 requires that the building envelopes be modified to comply with the above setback requirements. Compliance with the City's solar setback standard will be evaluated at the time of individual building permit submission. All lots with a slope of less than 15 percent in the northerly direction will be required to comply with solar setback standard "A". As indicated on the Outline Plan, the two private flag drives serving the four interior lots will be paved to the widths described under 18.88. 050. Neither driveway will exceed a maximum slope of 15 percent. b) That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. Paved access to the project is provided via Oregon and Windsor Streets which are paved, with curb and gutter. City sewer, water, electric and storm drain facilities are located within the public rights-of-way of Oregon and Windsor Streets. Also, a 15 inch storm drain runs down the west side of the property. A concrete walkway will be installed through the project, providing pedestrian and bicycle access between Oregon and Windsor Streets. C) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc. , have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. An inventory has been compiled of the existing trees on the property. A site visit was conducted by Planning Staff and Don Todt of the Ashland Parks Department to better ascertain the potential impacts on the trees from the development. The project incorporates as many existing trees into the project design as possible, giver, the underlying zoning. As stated in the applicant's findings, only five out of 58 trees will be removed to accommodate improvements associated with the project. other than trees, no other significant natural features have been identified on the property. d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent properties west of the project have been developed consistent with the permitted uses of the zoning district. Each property has existing, legal access onto an abutting city street that will not be impeded by the proposal. The two properties east of the project site have legal access on Oregon and Windsor Streets. No evidence has been presented which would infer that the proposal would prevent the adjacent parcels from being developed in accordance with the zoning district. e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. Common areas and mutual access driveways will be maintained through the Homeowner's Association. A copy of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the development, outlining maintenance responsibilities, will be submitted for approval prior to signature of the final survey plat. f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. Density calculations for the project are as follows: 6 Base Density = 1.398 acres x 3 . 6 du/acre = 5. 03 units Conservation = 15% x 5.03 = .754 units Bonus Open Space = (7.4% - 2%) x 5.03 = .271 units (4554 sq. ft. ) Total = 6. 05 units SECTION 3 . DECISION 3 . 1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that a six-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #96-047. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #96-047 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a final drainage plan to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division prior to signature of the final survey plat. 3) That all necessary easements for sewer, water, electric, streets, etc. be provided as required by City Departments and indicated on the Final survey plat. 4) That the property owner sign in favor of future sidewalk improvements to Windsor Street prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 5) That the utility layout be modified to preclude the routing of utilities through the driplines of trees noted for preservation. Revisions to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Engineering Division prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 6) That the final list of bonus points used for the Conservation Density Bonus be reviewed and approved by the Conservation Division prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 7) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department be met prior to construction using combustible materials. 8) That temporary fencing be installed around the drip line of the tree prior to any site preparation (i.e. grading) , storage of materials on the property, the use of vehicles on the property or prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 7 9) That the following measures be incorporated during the project's development to ensure the health of mature trees to be preserved: a. A limitation on the amount of fill within the dripline so as not to exceed 12 inches in height. Fill to consist of a sandy composition, rather than clay, to enhance drainage. b. Cuts within the dripline being kept to a minimum. C. No fill to be placed around the trunk/crown root. 10) That safety railing be installed on the east side of the driveway off of Windsor Street, adjacent to the fill slope, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any residence. 11) That installation of the pedestrian walkway and associated open space improvements be completed or bonded for prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 12) That a copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association outlining responsibility for maintenance of open space and private driveways be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 13) That solar envelopes be established for all lots in accordance with the provisions of the Solar Access chapter 18 . 70 prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 14) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat, that all proposed modifications to the existing irrigation line be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division. All costs associated with re- routing or modifying the irrigation lines to be borne by the developer. Modifications to the irrigation to be performed and coordinated so as to minimize the disruption of TID flow during construction. 15) That erosion control measures for the fill slope alongside driveway to be submitted prior to signature of the final survey plat. Methodology should include the use of a seeded erosion control blanket and provisions for irrigation. 16) That an irrigation plan be submitted for the open space areas to be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 17) That the buildings envelopes for lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 be revised on the final plan to indicate a rear yard setback from the west property line of 10 feet per story and a minimum front yard setback, excluding porch areas, of 15 feet. 18) That lot coverage calculations be provided for each lot at the time that building plans are submitted. Maximum lot coverage not to exceed 45 percent. 8 19) That developers or property owners replace any trees designated for preservation that die within three years of construction with new trees of comparable maximum height and spread specifications. 20) That a six foot fence be required to be erected on both the east and west sides of the property only if the adjacent neighbors(s) desire to have a fence constructed. Property owner to provide written verification by the adjacent property owner prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Planning Commission' Approval Date ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Armitage, Bingham, Giordano, Bass, Carr, Finkle, and Howe. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox, and Yates. APPROVAL MINUTES AND FINDINGS Jarvis amended the word 'disregard" on page 9 (second to last paragraph) of the April 9, 1996 Regular Meeting Minutes to"disservice". Carr moved approval of the Findings and amended Minutes, Giordano seconded the motion and the motion carried. Jarvis moved to approve the Minutes and Findings from the April 9, 1996 Hearings Board. Everyone approved. PUBLIC FORUM ROBERT MCCOY, 160 Orange Avenue, noted in the packet a copy of his letter regarding the subdivision (Daryl Bonin) on Orange. After talking with the Planning Department, there are now huge rocks in the . driveway that will prevent cars from driving through the development. Unfortunately there is no one to see the contractor is living up to the conditions of approval. Unless a neighbor is watching, an approval can be violated. Jarvis requested McCoy go to the City Council and ask them to hire a compliance officer. McLaughlin noted one of the Council's goals is code enforcement. Some time after the first of July, a code enforcement officer will be hired. DARYL BONIN, 359 Kearney Street, said he has nothing to do with paving the street. He has been told by Engineering that it will be done. MCLAUGHUN congratulated Barbara Jarvis for her receipt of the James Ragland Volunteer Service award. Jarvis thanked the Commission for their help and considered them part of that volunteer effort. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 96-047 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL OF A SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION 1452 OREGON STREET APPLICANT: EVAN ARCHERD Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts All Commissioners had a site visit. Giordano stepped down because of a conflict of interest. STAFF REPORT The applicant submitted an alternate site plan showing five lots. The major change is that with five lots, there is no need for density bonus, so the open space has been removed as well as the public walkway between Windsor and Oregon. There are Findings submitted by the applicant showing why the six lot development would be preferable. Staff has concluded the six lot design Is more desirable not only to project residents but beyond the project site to others In the neighborhood who can benefit from open space. Twenty conditions of approval have been attached with the six lot proposal. The applicant has presented the five lots to compare with the six lots. He Is asking for approval of the original plan considered with modifications, not five lots. The modifications are included in the applicant's findings. Howe wondered what kind of open space the Commission should be trying to achieve. Molnar read from 18.88.040(d). The residents should be able to interact with the open space on a day to day basis. PUBLIC HEARING EVAN ARCHERD, 120 N. Second Street, stated the reasons for continuing to propose six lots can be found in the applicant's findings dated April 29, 1996. Howe reiterated that the open space seems to be an amenity to the neighborhood. Finkle asked Archerd's thoughts about including the mid-street path under the five lot plan. Archerd said in looking at the five lot plan as a whole package, it is less in keeping in every way with development patterns, lot size and all the other issues. Jarvis asked Archerd to confirm what she understands with regard to the open space. What he has done and how the open space is planned meets not only the land use ordinance, but also every request the Commission has had for open space. Archerd confirmed. He read from the ordinance that the purpose of the density bonus or common open space is to permit areas to be retained in the their natural state 'ol"to be developed as a recreational amenity. Jarvis said that in order to deny this application, testimony has to be heard that the open space does not meet the standards in the land use ordinance or that it does not meet any other previous standards that have been set. Armitage asked that a wording be added to the covenants and restrictions to address the preservation and maintenance of the trees in the common area. McLaughlin said a fee could be required to be collected from the property owners. Armitage was bothered by the strip of open space that protects the one especially notable tree located in two front yards. How many times can open space be added to someone's front yard and be called open space? Molnar gave an example of Millpond where the rear yard envelopes were allowed to get much closer because the open space was part of the rear yards. In Oak Knoll, most of the rear yards are within five feet of an open space. This is not unusual to developments in Ashland. Archerd responded they could have moved the path further to the east, but because of the trees, it seems better where it is. Staff is satisfied there is adequate open space and with the density bonus ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14,1996 ' I calculation 6.1 units would be allowed. The sidewalk will act as a buffer and distinguish between common open space and someone's front yard. DENNIS SMITH relinquished his time to Dorothy Smith. DOROTHY SMITH, 708 Indiana, read her comments Into the record. Jarvis explained that the Commission cannot Insist the applicant submit a five lot plan. The applicant has decided to show a five lot plan to show how it could be developed but they do not Intend to submit is for consideration. The Commission will only be considering the six lot plan. At the last meeting there was a tie vote and the applicant was given the opportunity to make adjustments. Procedurally, the Commission has done this in the past. Smith expressed frustration at not having the expertise to interpret the ordinances and she relies on the Commission to hold steadfast to the ordinances that are in place. She believes the applicant did not try to make the five lot plan look as good as the six lot plan. The six lot proposal is not compatible with the neighborhood. Smith believes there is a serious conflict going on with the agent/architect. Jarvis explained, as she did at the previous meeting, that the agent/architect is not present and no one on the Commission is influenced by Giordano. Smith does not see how the Commission could not be influenced either by his presence, whether he is in the back of the room or sitting beside them. McLaughlin said the applicant is not required to notify the neighbors of the continued hearing. The hearing was continued at last month's meeting and that was the notice of tonight's meeting. The applicant has to submit any new materials to the office seven days prior to the meeting. NICOLE KAPP, 1480 Oregon Street, believes it is a good idea to protect the trees and she wants to see as little of the lot paved as possible. She likes her neighborhood and would like it preserved. She thinks the smaller lot sizes will significantly change the neighborhood. She is requesting legal easement off the Oregon Street driveway to her home to access the back part of her lot. Carr said there is nothing the Commission can do regarding access. RON CLOW, 701 Indiana, said all his testimony from last month's meeting still pertains to this meeting. It was his recollection that Archerd was told to come back with a five lot plan. The neighbors have been made to feel like criminals in this action. He does not think the Planning Department has been an advocate for the neighborhood. If Archerd is so concerned about the neighborhood, why doesn't he resubmit the five lot plan retaining the open space? The subdivision has not been made to comply with the ordinances. He was excluded from a neighborhood meeting held by the applicant. Armitage stated with reference to Smith's comments regarding last month's meeting that Jarvis would never coerce him into withdrawing a motion if he did not want to. He withdrew the second proposal because the Commission cannot legally meet past 11:00 p.m. in the interest of letting all parties look at the proposal. Jarvis feels mediation would be a better forum than a Planning Commission meeting for resolving community problems. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14,1996 IZ EWS WILSON, 1475 Windsor Street, still believes there are one too many houses. It is not in keeping with the neighborhood to have that many houses that close together. He is concerned the public sidewalk may have skateboarders. McLaughlin said they can post the sidewalk prohibiting skateboards and bikes. Staff Response Bingham asked If the Commission approved a five lot proposal, can they require a pedestrian walkway? McLaughlin said a finding would have to be made that the pedestrian traffic generated by this project was significant enough to require a connected walkway. The walkway would alleviate the impact caused by these lots, but the walkway could not be required to be public. It would be a private walkway. The only way to restrict the size of the building envelopes would be if some natural feature needed to be preserved. Molnar added that Condition 18 addresses lot coverage. Bingham asked about the nature of the "infill policy". McLaughlin said in the urbanization goal (Chapter 12 of Comprehensive Plan), it states the city of Ashland's goal is to maintain a compact urban forum. Other goals and policies are in the housing element. Rebuttal ARCHERD said his proposal at the last meeting was not denied. The vote was a tie. He has returned this month showing why a five lot plan is inferior to the six lot plan. There is an underlying thread of testimony that the ordinances are being violated. Archerd Is comply with the Performance Standards Ordinance. They held a second neighborhood meeting. They did not specifically exclude anyone. He invited those neighbors adjacent to the project and thought a smaller group could accomplish more. He has clearly shown previously and tonight that open space has been provided. This open space meets the criteria and the same criteria has applied to numerous other subdivisions in Ashland. Trees are being used instead of creek areas. The area will provide a natural area and visual amenity. . Secondly, the code requirements have been met either within the plan or by conditions imposed by Staff. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Armitage was concerned about the calculation of open space at the last meeting but he believes the requirement has been met and that all ordinances have been met. The six lots proposed are not out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. Bingham agreed with Armitage with regard to open space. He disagreed that six lots are compatible. This will be a block in transition. By the time you take the open space away, you will see large houses on small lots. Bass continues to support the project. He believes the City gets a better project overall with public access with the six lots and the amenities that come with in than with five. Whether it has been clearly ASHLANO PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14,1996 13 stated or not, the State has an infill policy even If Ashland does not. By encouraging infill, is is the only possible way to preserve agricultural land, forest land, and other open spaces. Carr is still not certain about open space calculations. She does not believe this particular clustering is In keeping with the property or the neighborhood. Finkle said the only potential conflict with the ordinances would be daily interaction with the open space. It seems the open space would be used by SOSC students or other pedestrians. Howe explained that the Commission is getting the Performance Standards to do the sort of things they want It to do Instead of cookie cutter development that has little variety and little public amenity. This is something that promotes the community, not just individual lots. The Performance Standards is more flexible zoning so more can be done to become more energy efficient and provide open space. If the Commission does not consider high trees as an amenity, then there won't be many trees. Howe moved to approve PA96-047 as conditioned by Staff. Bass seconded the motion. Jarvis said the density bonus is infill. If a developer does certain things (energy efficiency, low cost housing, open space) they get to build more houses. The ordinances are a community decision, not the Planning Commission's. The Commission just makes sure the ordinances are followed. As Archerd mentioned, creek areas are used all the time for open space and no one has ever questioned it. However, trees are just as beautiful as creeks and just as usable. There is significant area to be used for sitting and enjoying the open area. Jarvis also noted Condition 20 (six foot fencing). It seems the trees are beautiful and to cut off the view with a fence seems short-sighted. She has never heard the Commission say that a creek should be fenced. After taking a straw vote, the Condition will remain. Finkle expressed his appreciation and respect to the neighbors for their valuable input through letters and testimony. It Is difficult for him to make a decision when there is conflict. The Commission is doing their best to follow the ordinances in Ashland. The motion carried with Armitage, Howe, Jarvis, Bass, Finkle voted 'yes" and Bingham and Carr voted "no". PLANNING ACTION 96-068 REVOCATION HEARING TO REVIEW VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL PLAN (PLANNING ACTION 93-121) APPROVAL GRANTED IN JUNE OF 1994 FOR A FOUR-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE CUL-DE-SAC OF IVY LANE. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. -.Bingham saw Welles and he offered to answer Bingham's question. —Armitage said Welles called him at work and they talked of nothing substantive. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 NEGULM MEETING MINUTES MAY 14,19% I� COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Howe moved to approve Planning Action 96-020 with the attached Conditions. Carr seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Bass commented on a project of this size it would nice to have more recreational space within the project for the residents. PLANNING ACTION 96-047 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED AT 1452 OREGON STREET APPLICANT: EVAN ARCHERD Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts -•Giordano abstained because he is the project designer. —Finkle had an ex parte contact while visiting the site. A friend came by and commented that he thought there were too many houses. —Howe had a site visit. She lives a block away from the proposed project but was not sent a notice. She believes she can listen fairly to the proposal. —Bingham had a site visit and while there Ellis Wilson (owner of Lot 6501) drove up. They did not discuss the project but Wilson gave Bingham permission to drive down his driveway. —Jarvis, Cloer, Bass, and Carr had a site visit. STAFF REPORT Molnar reported the proposal is for six lots with access provided from Oregon and Windsor Streets from a private flag drive. These flag drives will not connect Oregon and Windsor. There will be a five foot concrete pedestrian walkway adjacent to and within the driveway that will connect Windsor Street to Oregon. There are approximately 50 to 60 trees on the site, approximately six of which will need to be removed. A number of letters have been submitted by the neighbors. Open space calculations have come under scrutiny. Staff took a more conservative approach to these calculations and felt that over half of the open space would quality under the bonus point provision. Even including only half would qualify the applicant for six units. The site plan did not indicate the provision for sidewalks along Oregon or Windsor. Staff has recommended the applicant should install a sidewalk along Oregon and sign in favor of participating in the installation of a sidewalk at a future date along Windsor. There are two large oak trees along the curb on Windsor along with a steep grade off Windsor, therefore, it was difficult to design an appropriate sidewalk. Molnar showed the project on the overhead and described how the open space was calculated. Staff considered what part of the open space would be a significant amenity for the residents and they felt 4500 square feet met the criteria. The open space is from 28 feet to 40 feet in width. Staff felt given the significmit trees and dimensions of the open space, it would comply. Staff has recommended approval with the attached 18 Conditions. ASHLAR'D PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 The letters from Wilson, Stephens and Smith have been entered into the record. Molnar said each home site will have a two-car garage and four guest parking spaces for the four Interior units. Guest parking or on-street parking is usually only mandatory when there is a creation of a public street. Bingham said one of the criteria for Outline Platt was that the applicant will provide access to and through the development. He understands if you provide access through the development, the open space would be lost, thereby losing the density bonus, then it would down to five lots. This will be another development that is being done piecemeal with flag lots. McLaughlin answered that in this situation there is an existing block that is larger than what would be designed today but it Is not of such a size where a big block street is needed. What is necessary is a mid-block pedestrian connection and provide what limited access is needed to get the cars to the homes and make it more convenient for bikes and pedestrians to cut through. Armitage wondered how much discussion went on during the development of the plan to run a street or an alley that could open up the back of Lot 6500, 6501, and 6400 without constructing another street to each of these. McLaughlin said in order to have that whole scenario play out, the street going through this development would have to be a full public street, 20 feet in width, and a five foot sidewalk on at least one side. It would serve ultimately more than four lots. An alley would not be allowed because no further development could occur off of it. The 'to and through the development" is more important to bikes and pedestrians with a direct route to the college and the Boulevard. Howe asked about the potential use of the driveway to Lot 6500. McLaughlin said if they wish to come to an agreement with the applicant, they could return to the Planning Commission with a request but that is not a part of this application. The Staff Report indicates under Condition 17, Howe noted, that building envelopes be revised at final plan. That would indicate this hearing is approval of Outline Plan only, not Final Plan too. And again in Condition 13, it would seem Final Plan cannot be approved until solar envelopes are provided. McLaughlin said these Conditions have been placed because the applicant is asking for distinct changes not requiring the applicant return for Final Plan. The Commission can say this is information needed before making a decision. Finkle asked about the TID water lines running through the property. Molnar said he had talked with Keith Marshall from the Water Department and he said the irrigation lines are under the jurisdiction of the City at this time. This property has water rights from the line. If the subdivision is approved, only the residents at 1452 Oregon Street will retain the water rights. The other parcels do not have rights to water. Any modifications to the water lines are reviewed by the Engineering Department. The wording "minimize the disruption of TID floo' can be added to Condition 14. PUBLIC HEARING EVAN ARCHERD, 120 N. Second Street, explained why the street was configured the way it was. The open space area contains some of the nicest and largest trees. There were lots of other options he could have chosen but this is the most sensitive to the property. The five trees to be removed are very small. 11e recognizes that some of the neighbors feel the open space is insignificant. It has been ASHL. ' D PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGL'1_'.R M.FETING MINU i z.<i APRIL 9, 1936 t b placed in the nicest place on the site with many large trees. He submitted photographs of the proposed open space. There seems to be some confusion over the building envelopes and building footprints. In this development, the footprints have been designed specifically to avoid trees on the property. The garages are closer together to buffer the houses from one another and reduce solar conflicts. The existing houses have been considered in the plan. The lots abutting this property on the west are fairly deep. There is approximately 50 feet between the west property line and the nearest neighbor to the west. There is no solar impact on the neighborhood. On a typical elevation, a long sloping roof has been shown to minimize solar impacts between the houses in the development. Traffic impact will be small. The vehicle trips will be split between two streets. Archerd submitted an assessor's map indicating similar densities. He strongly disagrees that the open space area is incidental. He will comply with TID requirements. Armitage asked Archerd if he had any estimate how many trees would have to be removed to put a road from Windsor to Oregon. Archerd said ft would be many. Bass clarified that the intent is that the portion of the house facing the driveway would be considered the front of the home with a rear setback of 20 feet if the house is two-story. Archerd would not object to a fence along the property but he feels the openness of the site plus the trees and a hedge provide a visual buffer, but ff a fence Is required he would install ft. Finkle asked Archerd to address the drainage and water run-off. Arherd said the driveways will be constructed in such a way that it will comply with engineering standards. POKII ROBERTS, 131 Church Street, spoke about availability and affordability. There are only 12 lots in Ashland presently under$70,000. It is her understanding the price of these lots will be between $55,000 and $65,000. The last time the average price of a lot was under$55,000 was in 1990. While this project Is only five lots, it does provide some available lots at an affordable price. She noted the remarkable trees on the property. Much care and sensitivity has gone into saving the trees. This project will provide density as well with minimal impact on the neighborhood. ELLIS WILSON, 1475 Windsor, Lot 6501, asked if the developer has the right to waive the solar setback requirements for the rest of the project. McLaughlin said he cannot just waive ft but would have to show how the design does not significantly reduce the solar opportunities on the lot to the north. Wilson mentioned the letter from Herndobler who is quite concerned about TID water lines. Wilson felt this project would be better served with one less lot. When he bought his lot (ft was partitioned off from the lot to the north, Dec. '77), the City Council made a point to say the lot never be developed any further with only one residence and that a flag lot never be created. Wilson's concern about the road is the slope and drainage but he also wants to see the trees saved. Jarvis read comments from PATRICIA CHOATE AND GLENN CHOATE, 1472 Windsor, and R. W. EVENS, 14£34 Windsor. ASHLA iD PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGUI.AR -MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 ► 7 NICOLE KAPP, 1480 Oregon Street (Lot 6500), said she submitted a letter to the Planning Department asking that in order to reduce the Impact on her property she would request legal access to her rear yard by way of the driveway off Oregon Street if the driveway is 10 feet from her house, she would like a fence and plantings. She is concerned about drainage from the private drive. Kapp is also concerned about the interruption of irrigation service. Jarvis asked Kapp if she wanted a fence both during and after construction. Kapp affirmed. Kapp would like a gate because she does not have a need to access the back of her lot on a day to day basis. She is looking for access if she needs it in the future. MILDRED WILSON, yielded her time to Dorothy Smith. LORNA AND DYLAN PETERSON, yielded their time to Dennis Smith. The Peterson's left the meeting, therefore Jarvis gave the Smiths ten minutes to present their testimony. DOROTHY SMITH AND DENNIS SMITH, 708 Indiana, owners of 6901 read their letter into the record expressing their opposition to the proposal. Armitage shared the Smith's concerns regarding accessing the development the development. If there was a 20 foot street, it would take out most of the trees. What is the Smith's preference? Dennis felt four lots would be appropriate. He did not think anyone was pushing for a through street but there are just too many lots being proposed on the property. The Smith's received the plan outline just seven days a;n and the have had very Tittle time to review the proposal. Dennis said everyone is in agreement to save the trees. The open space does not appeal to him. Fifty cars par dry is significant. The trips will not be spread out evenly over a day. The zoning is Gear--it has been pulled rkilit up to the edge to get the bonus points. Dennis is not looking for the letter of the law but the spirit of the ordinance. The neighbors need to be taken into consideration. Finkle asked why the Smith's would like a six foot fence on the west side of the property. The Smith's responded they would prefer a site obscuring fence for safety and visual aesthetics. Finkle reported that in walking,around the neighborhood, it appeared most of the development is just as dense as this development. Smith argued that the first two homes are placed close to the street with large backyards and not 20 feet from each other. The houses are smaller too. RON CLOW, 701 Indiana, who rives at the comer of Indiana and Oregon, said that his 7,500 square foot lot was the main appeal for buying his house. He is opposed to Mill Pond type lots encouraging infill. Parking is non-existent in the neighborhood. The open space requirement has not met. No one is opposed to development. The solar access requirement has not been met. Fire trucks cannot get in and out. Access to and through the development is not provided. Clow said he would prefer a street through the development. He would like fewer homes. The setback requirements has not been met. The houses have no front yards and solar access cannot be met. He is concerned about Giordano using his position to benefit himself. Clow is asking for the development to conform to the existing codes. In response to Clow's comments about Giordano, there has been a legal interpretation of Giordano's situation. it is an ethical problem and Giordano has removed himself from the hearing. Jarvis assured ASHLA - ^L'-.t•SNING COMMISSION 6 REGU1 .-.'`t MUTING MINU'i ES APRIL 9. 1896 Clow that this is the most independent planning commission she has ever served on and the Commissioners are not influenced by Giordano and they will independently make a determination. If anything, the Commissioners will bend over backwards the other way because they are fully aware of the situation. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. ARMITAGE SECONDED AND IT WAS APPROVED. JIM SHUTE, 1347 Prospect, said the applicant Is trying to `shoehorn'too many units in and if it is not done right, it will change the character of the neighborhood. He is concerned about fire protection. The entry proposed off Windsor will be very steep and he questioned where the turnaround for large emergency vehicles would be. He is concerned about solar access. If houses are two-story, it would be an eyesore from where he is situated. The density is too high and the proposal stretches the limits of zoning la is to get the last unit in. He wants it to blend into the neighborhood. There should be four units. LEON NULLING, 718 Indiana, speaking on behalf of the absent neighbors at 720 Indiana wondered If the walnut trey would be removed. Staff assured him it would not be removed. They want the development of only `o_;r lots as they too are concerned with density. DON PAUL, Assistant Fire Chief, discussed the process the Fire Department uses when reviewing an application. Every department is given an opportunity to review the proposal to make sure it meets the standarc's set forth in the ordinances. The Fire Department looks at the sites and considers grade issues, the width of the proposed access, the distance to available fire hydrants in the area and whether those fire fydrants are capable of delivering the fire flow needed for the proposed amount of square footane of ;h: development. In this case, it was determined, the proposed development met the stanc+:tr-;,. From a practical standpoint, the Fire Department viewed R as two flag drive developments. The o:cGna;nr..e requires a turnaround only if the length of the flag drive exceeds 250 feet. The width of the flai c;:,e serving the interior structures require a width of 15 feet (paved width). The structures adjacent to the street (Windsor and Oregon) would be served from the street. In the case of severe weather and it appeared to be unsafe, the Fire Department would have the option to access with the all- wheel d,',,e vehicle or elect to serve the property from the street. Sufficient hose is carried on the apparatus to do that. There was nothing out of the ordinary with this project. The Fire Department is bound very tightly by ordinance and that is what is used as criteria in determining If a project is going to be able to be served. Jarvis asl<ed if Paul felt the Fire Department could adequately serve all houses. Paul confirmed. Paul said it ta':es a little more effort to deal with flag drives because of a Tittle more restricted work area. But there ar= _taodards to work infill areas and he feels the minimums are workable. Finkle ac:'-.ed if Paul would see any value in requiring interior sprinklers. Paul said he did not have the means to require it in this development. BRAD H! DRETH, 330 Wimer, explained from a builder's standpoint, this Is a pretty well thought out project. The lots are pretty affordable for this type of neighborhood. DANIEL ST=PHENS, 1458 Windsor (across the street), said the issue for him is density. He likes the openne:e: ;hat is why he moved to this area. ASH!_' ;I'' ! i "!PIING COMMISSION 7 REG_f i.:_:'. :iE=TING MINt1?1.6 APRIL_ S. 1P96 19 Staff Response Molnar explained how the flag widths are determined. The pavement width requirements were originally developed for those lots that do not have standard legal access onto a city street. For lots not abutting a public street the driveway width becomes greater. The driveway is essentially serving two lots. The existing storm drain connects Windsor to Oregon. The driveway is designed to carry run-off as shown in the preliminary engineered drawings. Staff's concerns about erosion are addressed in Condition 15. The engineered drawings have been made part of the record. The trees can be clearly marked and preliminary fencing has been requested. The ordii lance requires six guest parking spaces. The Performance Standards require the spaces be within [t0 i feet of the dwelling it will serve. There are two or three on-street spaces along Windsor, Lot 1 and 2 are within the two parking spaces, Lot 3 and 4 are within 200 feet of the space adjacent to the open sp-cc, and Lots 5 and 6 are within 200 feet of the two on-street space. Each home will have a two-car garage with a 20 foot apron. The request for fencing has not been made a part of this application. If the 85=- square feet of open space was removed from the bonus point calculation on the west side of the waif:way, it would bring the density calculation would be 5.98 units. The nre'irnir1nri typical elevations have been designed to anticipate solar. There is also the waiver proc:�: , if r.... ed. Rebu t=1 Arched said there is existing wire fencing around the property it safety is an issue but If privacy is the issue, fie can build a fence. With regard to drainage, there was flooding in the area because of water that cdt : !eft running. A drainage plan has been submitted. Archerd will comply with the relocation of the TO !roes and he does not intend to disrupt service. COMR4iS5tONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Armit::ic;= surl tested the following items: Sjx loot fence on both sides of the project t:°In;niize disruption of TID flow during construction tree replacement wording. 4u1!er trees during construction with orange construction fence. Armitage believes, after hearing testimony, it would be wrong to Insist on vehicular access to and through the development. The saving of the trees is important. The open space bonus is really being stretrt,ed. He does not ever envision the residents of the house on Oregon Street using the open space. He believes the street coming off Windsor should be 20 feet wide. He believes the application be more appropriate at five lots not sic. ASti`. t 1.+`,t!t'thlG COMMISSION 8 MINI;' APRIL i;, 3396 Z� Bingham agreed with Armitage to create the flag lots rather than a through street in order to save the trees. He has a problem with the open space being functional. Even though the philosophy of the City Is Increase density, do we want to build large houses on small lots. There should be some proportionality. Howe is impressed with the number of trees the applicant will preserve. She believes the open space area will give a feeling of a much older area Instead of a new subdivision. The sidewalk looks like it something the people will use from Windsor to get to the school. She believes five is a more appropriate number of lots but she does not see how the Commission can arbitrarily consider the area not to be open space. This is an amenity that could otherwise just be ignored. Finkle believes the criteria have been met. We have made choices as a city to encourage conservation and open space. He thinks this open space will be used by the entire neighborhood. He is concerned about :he size of the building envelopes and it will be up to the sensitivity of those people building their homes. He rloes not see anything in the criteria that would allow him to deny the application. Carr agret,,d c,vith Armitage and Bingham and believes five lots would be appropriate. If Bass evore a neir,hbor, he too would want less density, but he agrees with Howe and Finkle and he does ncn see hoed it can be denied based on density. Staff has been conservative with open space. Cloer is disturbed by the infill changing the character of the neighborhood. He is persuaded Finkle is right, however, this is a situation where development is being pursued at densities that are different than the esa;'..4tshed neighborhood. After cir inr+ some calculations, Jarvis found that even with 2500 square feet of open space, it comes out very Arml:ogo-; askndl if ;he open space would be an area where the residents would Interact on a day-today basis. H feels the code leaves some latitude. Howe r,!nir-!ed the Commission that on North Mountain they approved an open space next to the water that would be roost accessible by the homes closest to it and no one ever mentioned whether or not this would b0 used on a daily basis by the residents. Usefulness is important but you don't have to go out and be there. Bass added that an open space could be a wetland that would be interesting to view. Finkle moved to approve Planning Action 96-047 with the attached 18 Conditions and add to Condition 14 to minimize the disruption of TID flow during construction and a new Condition 19 that developers or propeny owncrs re.0ace any trees that die within three years of construction with new trees and that a six loot i<,:,;:c he caected on both the east and west sides of the property. Bass seconded the motion. Jarvis is very concerned if fences border the property it will give a tunnel look. It is a disregard for the peol_:.e i;cyiny the lots. Cloer agreed with Jarvis. Finkle amended his motion to only construct a fence If the adjacent neighbors desire to have a fence constructed. Bass seconded the amendment. The motion failed with Howe, Finkle, Jarvis, and Bass voting "N,a s' and Bingham, Armitage, Carr, and Cloer voting "no". ASFi_,ii!' -;_..^.r "?i�iG COMMISSION 9 APF!� 21 I Armitage moved deny Planning Action 96-047 based on the discussion about the open space. Carr seconded the motion. Jarvis explained to Archerd that the application is likely to be denied. Would he like a continuance or go through the appeals process? Archerd said he would prefer to continue. He waived his 120 time limit and requested a 30 day extension. Armitage will idrew his motion and Carr her second. Carr moved to continue the action. Howe seconded the motion and all favored. OTHER Hearings Board assignment - Giordano will take Goer's place during May, June, July and August. The n ecali!:c; •r as ndourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHI_.?NJ t ` t lfdG COMMISSION 10 REG'A.:'., PAEcTING MIN`"1:=e: APRIL 9. 1990" 7,-Z- ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Addendum May 14, 1996 PLANNING ACTION: 96-047 APPLICANT. Evan Archerd LOCATION: 1452 Oregon Street ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 Single Family 18.88 Performance Standards 18.92 Off-Street Parking REQUEST: Outline and Final Plan approval of a six-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option located at 1452 Oregon Street. I. Additional Information This application was continued from last month. The Commission was deadlocked after two separate tie votes, one for approval the other for denial of the application. It appeared that one commissioner was going to change his vote, which would have resulted in the application being denied, when the applicant agreed to a continuance. Alternate Site Plan - 5 lots Given the late hour of the previous hearing and the myriad of issues raised, the applicant chose to have the application continued to the June meeting rather than face a possible denial of the application. The applicant has submitted an additional site plan showing a five-lot subdivision layout, rather than six as shown on the original proposal. The average lot size for each of the five lots exceeds 12,000 square feet, well in excess of the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size for the area. The existing house at 1452 Oregon Street maintains an existing driveway from the street. Two additional 15 foot wide driveways will be constructed, one from Oregon Street and the other from Windsor Street, to serve the four new lots. The open space area at the east side of the project and the five foot wide public walkway have been eliminated in the five lot plan. The area originally proposed as open space has been incorporated into the lot area of each of the four new lots. Z3 Original Six-Lot Plan Additional written findings have been prepared by the applicant comparing the two plans and explaining why the applicant believes the six-lot design is still the preferable option. In concluding, it appears that the applicant has submitted the five-lot plan for comparison sake, but would like the Commission to base their decision on the original six-lot design with some noted modifications. II. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Outline Plan approval are as follows: a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b) That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan- e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. Further, the criteria for Final Plan approval are as follows: Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open PA96-047 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Evan Archerd May 14, 1996 Page 2 2� space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that. a) The number of dwelling units vary no more than 10% of those shown on the . approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b) The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than 10% of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. c) The open spaces vary no more than 10% of that provided on the outline plan. d) The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than 10%. e) The building elevations and exterior material are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f) That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g) Any amendment to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure. III. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff believes that the open space area and public walkway shown on the original six-lot plan would be a significant amenity to future project residents as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Open space bonuses have been granted in the past for a variety of natural areas which do not necessarily allow for active, physical interaction by residents, but permit residents to interact daily on a visual basis. The ordinance specifically allows for "natural areas, wetlands, playgrounds, active or passive recreational areas, and similar areas" to be considered as common open space. Daily active use of some of these areas is often not possible or is limited due to sensitive environmental issues. It is Staffs opinion that the elimination of the open space and public walkway PA96-047 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Evan Archerd May 14, 1996 Page 3 Z� would result in a loss not only to project residents, but to the larger surrounding neighborhood which would also benefit. The proposed open space and walkway offers multiple benefits not normally seen in other proposals. It provides a gently sloped area for active use, while offering a visual amenity by preserving a continuous pocket of green space with large mature trees. The public walkway provides the entire neighborhood with the opportunity to enjoy (not actively) the area as they pass through. Without the open space, a valuable, mid-block short cut for pedestrians and bicyclists is no longer attainable. Overall, Staff believes that the six-lot design with the open space and walkway is a better long range plan for project residents and the general neighborhood and recommends approval with the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a final drainage plan to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division prior to signature of the final survey plat. 3) That all necessary easements for sewer, water, electric, streets, etc. be provided as required by City Departments and indicated on the Final survey plat. 4) That the property owner sign in favor of future sidewalk improvements to Windsor Street prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 5) That the utility layout be modified to preclude the routing of utilities through the driplines of trees noted for preservation. Revisions to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Engineering Division prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 6) That the final list of bonus points used for the Conservation Density Bonus be reviewed and approved by the Conservation Division prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 7) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department be met prior to construction using combustible materials. 8) That temporary fencing be installed around the drip line of the tree prior to any site preparation (i.e. grading), storage of materials on the property, the use of vehicles on the property or prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 9) That the following measures be incorporated during the project's development to ensure the health of mature trees to be preserved: PA96-047 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Evan Archerd May 14, 1996 Page 4 26 a. A limitation on the amount of fill within the dripline so as not to exceed 12 inches in height. Fill to consist of a sandy composition, rather than clay, to enhance drainage. b. Cuts within the dripline being kept to a *minimum. C. No fill to be placed around the trunk/crown root. 10) That safety railing be installed on the east side of the driveway off of Windsor Street, adjacent to the fill slope, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any residence. 11) That installation of the pedestrian walkway and associated open space improvements be completed or bonded for prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 12) That a copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association outlining responsibility for maintenance of open space and private driveways be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 13) That solar envelopes be established for all lots in accordance with the provisions of the Solar Access chapter 18.70 prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 14) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat, that all proposed modifications to the existing irrigation line be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division. All costs associated with re-routing or modifying the irrigation lines to be borne by the developer. Modifications to the irrigation to be performed and coordinated so as to minimize the disruption of T D flow during construction. 15) That erosion control measures for the fill slope alongside driveway to be submitted prior to signature of the final survey plat. Methodology should include the use of a seeded erosion control blanket and provisions for irrigation. 16) That an irrigation plan be submitted for the open space areas to be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 17) That the buildings envelopes for lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 be revised on the final plan to indicate a rear yard setback from the west property line of 10 feet per PA96-047 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Evan Archerd May 14, 1996 Page 5 story and a minimum front yard setback, excluding porch areas, of 15 feet. 18) That lot coverage calculations be provided for each lot at the time that building plans are submitted. Maximum lot coverage not to exceed 45 percent. 19) That developers or property owners replace any trees designated for preservation that die within three years of construction with new trees of comparable maximum height and spread specifications. 20) That a six foot fence be required to be erected on both the east and west sides of the property only if the adjacent neighbors(s) desire to have a fence constructed. Property owner to provide written verification by the adjacent property owner prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. PA96-047 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Evan Archerd May 14, 1996 Zv Page 6 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT April 9, 1996 PLANNING ACTION: 96-047 APPLICANT: Evan Archerd LOCATION: 1452 Oregon Street ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 Single Family 18.88 Performance Standards 18.92 Off-Street Parking REQUEST: Outline and Final Plan approval of a six-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option located at 1452 Oregon Street. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: There are no planning actions of record for this site. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The project site consists of 1.4 acres, sloping from south to north at approximately 8.5 percent and with a severe drop off along Windsor Street. The property is defined as a "through lot", having frontage on two parallel running streets. There is an existing residence, shed and carport located on the lower portion of the property near Oregon Street. Many large, mature trees are situated throughout the site and have been identified on the plan. The project site and the neighboring properties located to the east, west and south are zoned Single Family Residential. The Southern Oregon State College campus and associated student housing is situated across Oregon Street from the project. The proposal involves dividing the 1.4 acres into six lots with the existing residence, shed and carport to be retained on Lot 1. Access to the development will be from both Oregon and Windsor Streets from two separate private driveways. A concrete pathway is proposed to be Z� constructed and run through the site from Oregon to Windsor Street, providing a mid-block connection for pedestrian and bicyclists. A portion of the site is proposed to be dedicated a common open space (private) for use by the residents of the development. A homeowner's association will be set up for the maintenance of the open space and private driveways. Oregon and Windsor Streets are paved, with curb and gutter. Currently, there are no public sidewalks along this section of either street. City sewer, water and storm drain facilities are located within the public rights-of-way of Oregon and Windsor Streets. Also, a 15 inch storm drain runs down the west side of the property. II. Project Impact Overall, Staff is supportive of the proposed subdivision design. City facilities, including sewer, water, electric and storm drainage are adjacent to the site and available to serve the project. Both Windsor and Oregon Streets are paved to City standards, with curb, gutter and storm drainage facilities. Density Calculations The applicant has proposed a exercising a density bonus through compliance with the Conservation and Open Space bonus provision found in the ordinance. . Adjacent neighbors have raised concerns regarding the project's consistency with the ordinance requirements for awarding an open space bonus. Specifically, the total area relied upon for the bonus and the realistic use of the area has been questioned. After reviewing the applicant's open space calculations, Staff agrees that it is doubtful that "project residents will realistically interact with the open space on a day-t-day basis" for much of the area designated as open space, as required by ordinance. However, even after excluding a significant percentage of the open space due to grade (fill slope) and its incidental nature, the project still complies with density requirements. Staff's density calculations have been provided below: Base Density = 1.398 acres x 3.6 du/acre = 5.03 units Conservation = 15% x 5.03 = .754 units Bonus Open Space = (7.4% - 2%) x 5.03 = .271 units (4554 sq. ft.) PA96-047 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Evan Archerd April 9, 1996 30 Page 2 Total = 6.05 units Significant Natural Features An inventory has been compiled of the existing trees on the property. As indicated in the applicant's findings, a site visit was conducted by Planning Staff and Don Todt of the Ashland Parks Department to better ascertain the potential impacts on the trees from the development. Staff believes that the applicant has made a commendable effort to incorporate as many existing trees into the project design as possible, given the underlying zoning. As stated in the applicant's findings, five out of 58 trees will be removed to accommodate improvements associated with the project. Walnut Tree Between lots 4 & 5 A letter has been submitted by the owner of 720 Indiana concerning the fate of a 14 inch in diameter walnut, located between lots 4 & 5. This tree is designated for preservation under the current proposal. Maintenance of Open Space The open space will be maintained through the use of a homeowner's association. The applicant has stated that the landscaping will be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a new residence. The City will need better assurance that adequate funds have been earmarked for these improvements prior to signature of the plat. This can be done through bonding for the improvements or some other similar instrument. Impact on the Development of Adjacent Land A letter has been submitted by the adjacent property owner to the east (1480 Oregon Street) requesting that the access driveway off of Oregon Street 'be moved to the western side of the existing house", away from her house. This option was reviewed during an initial site visit to the property and discussed during the pre-application conference. This option would require the removal of a carport, more excavation due to grade and, most importantly, removal of a greater number of trees. For these reasons, it was determined that the proposed driveway location was the preferred option. It appears that if the project is approved as proposed, the same neighbor requests that an easement be granted by the applicant to allow her access to the rear of PA96-047 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Evan Archerd April 9, 1996 3 I Page 3 her lot. The property is in excess of 17,000 square feet, with the potential for an additional homesite behind the existing residence. The width of the existing house and its setback from side property lines, however, would probably preclude the construction of a separate flag drive off of Oregon Street. Staff would support any effort between the applicant and the adjacent neighbor to discuss access between one another. However, at this point, we believe that this is an issue which should be coordinated between the two property owners and could be further discussed at the public hearing. Sidewalks along Oregon and Windsor Streets As earlier stated, there are currently no sidewalks along either frontage of this property. Given the excessive slope off of Windsor Street, Staff would recommend that all lots agree to participate in the future construction of sidewalks along Windsor Street, rather than constructing it at this time. While there are no sidewalks along the south side of Oregon Street, Staff believes a public sidewalk should be constructed along the Oregon Street frontage of the project, as part of the overall improvements associated with the development. Although the new sidewalk would not link up to an existing sidewalk system, it has been a general policy of the Council and Commission to require public sidewalks in conjunction with development. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Outline Plan approval are as follows: a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b) That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. PA96-047 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Evan Archerd April 9, 1996 3& Page 4 e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. Further, the criteria for Final Plan approval are as follows: Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that. a) The number of dwelling units vary no more than 10% of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b), The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than 10% of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. c) The open spaces vary no more than 10% of that provided on the outline plan. d) The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than 10 01o. e) The building elevations and exterior material are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. fJ That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g) Any amendment to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure. W. Conclusions and Recommendations PA96-047 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Evan Archerd April 9, 1996 3 Page 5 Staff believes that the proposal when accompanied by the attached conditions is consistent with the applicable criteria for approval and density provisions of the zone. Public facilities are available to serve the project, while Oregon and Windsor Streets are adequate to serve the incremental increase in traffic associated with the development. Staff recommends approval of the project with the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a final drainage plan to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division prior to signature of the final survey plat. 3) That all necessary easements for sewer, water, electric, streets, etc. be provided as required by City Departments and indicated on the Final survey plat. 4) That the property owner sign in favor of future sidewalk improvements to Windsor Street prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 5) That the utility layout be modified to preclude the routing of utilities through the driplines of trees noted for preservation. Revisions to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Engineering Division prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 6) That the final list of bonus points used for the Conservation Density Bonus be reviewed and approved by the Conservation Division prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 7) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department be met prior to construction using combustible materials. 8) That temporary fencing be installed around the drip line of the tree prior to any site preparation (i.e. grading), storage of materials on the property, the use of vehicles on the property or prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 9) That the following measures be incorporated during the project's development to ensure the health of mature trees to be preserved: a. A limitation on the amount of fill within the dripline so as not to exceed 12 inches in height. Fill to consist of a sandy composition, rather than clay, to enhance drainage. PA96-047 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Evan Archerd April 9, 1996 34 Page 6 b. Cuts within the dripline being kept to a minimum. C. No fill to be placed around the trunk/crown root. 10) That safety railing be installed on the east side of the driveway off of Windsor Street, adjacent to the fill slope, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any residence. 11) That installation of the pedestrian walkway and associated open space improvements be completed or bonded for prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 12) That a copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association outlining responsibility for maintenance of open space and private driveways be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 13) That solar envelopes be established for all lots in accordance with the provisions of the Solar Access chapter 18.70 prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 14) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat, that all proposed modifications to the existing irrigation line be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division. All costs associated with re-routing or modifying the irrigation lines to be borne by the developer. 15) That erosion control measures for the fill slope alongside driveway to be submitted prior to signature of the final survey plat. Methodology should include the use of a seeded erosion control blanket and provisions for irrigation. 16) That an irrigation plan be submitted for the open space areas to be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 17) That the buildings envelopes for lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 be revised on the final plan to indicate a rear yard setback from the west property line of 10 feet per story and a minimum front yard setback, excluding porch areas, of 15 feet. 18) That lot coverage calculations be provided for each lot at the time that building plans are submitted. Maximum lot coverage not to exceed 45 percent. PA96-047 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Evan Archerd April 9, 1996 �S Page 7 t .i t t a i ! j�Ipf t --- to f r� S p Z 7 : 9 O i ' J - �( ° ii VN i ' fC 0 Ll : o 713 - r s 36 a E t 1 1 i 4t- 211 ul it S i i fl z o ............ W�ry + 1 �i eG 1i--� � ���1 � Ul •c Z' IM x x --11— ; 1 V ; z Yl i-$12z e ri t ; �,. i e r ASHLAND STREET TREE COMMISSION rr SITE REVIEW Applicant GUQ;n A rckr,r� 11 L -0`l-7 Date 3 2 -ci Address Commercial Residential_ —T Proposed Action: Recommendation: t' Aski(t ,ci tt,, xk - q Street Tree Commission Representative Date .Follow-up: 38 April 29, 1996 Ashland Planning Commission and Planning Staff 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Planning Action #96-047 Birnam Woods Subdivision Evan Archerd and Hal Dresner, Applicants Dear Commissioners and Staff: For the past seven months, we have worked with the Planning Staff to create a plan for a six lot subdivision which we sincerely believe best serves the interests of the neighborhood and the community. The plan's design was based on community interaction and is consistent with the city's infill policies. Since some neighbors and members of the Planning Commission have expressed an interest in a smaller five lot subdivision, we have explored that alternative and attached a drawing showing such a plan. On Friday April 26, we met with a representative group from the neighborhood to explain why we believe the six lot development is the preferred proposal. Here are some comparative findings in several key areas: 1. Common Space In the proposed six lot subdivision over 12,000 square feet are dedicated to common space. This area was specifically designed around a group of the largest and most beautiful trees on the property. It also includes: lighted pathways that allow foot and bike access from Windsor and Oregon Streets, hedges, fencing and benches. A five lot subdivision would require no common space or pathway so this 12,000 square foot area, access and all amenities would be lost to the public and the neighborhood. 2. Lot and House Size In the proposed six lot subdivision the five new lots would average 8,000 square feet with commensurate building envelopes. A smaller five lot subdivision would absorb the space allotted for the one additional lot as well as the 12,000 square feet of common space and this square footage would be divided among the four remaining lots. Thus the average lot in a five lot subdivision would be approximately 12,500 square feet or 30% larger and the building envelopes could be proportionately increased. 39 Birnam Woods Subdivision Planning Action 96-047 Page 2 3. Lot and House Cost In the proposed six lot subdivision the five new lots would average $55,000. This would put them at the low end in the current Ashland property market. A five lot subdivision would create an average cost of $72,000 per lot -- which is in the high end of lots int he property market. If making infill property more affordable is a development goal, then clearly the proposed six lot subdivision best helps to achieve that end. In addition, as house costs average four times lot cost, a home in a five lot subdivision would average $288,000 (4 X 72,000) as compared to $220,000 (4 X 55,000) for homes in the proposed six lot subdivision. Also, the builder/owners in the smaller, more expensive subdivision may seek to maximize their investment by constructing larger, multi- story homes which would further impact on neighbor's views. Also, these larger more expensive homes may be incompatible with the existing neighborhood in size and cost and may have the consequence of raising neighborhood property taxes. 4. Trees In the proposed six lot subdivision, all but five of the existing trees would be preserved and most would be in common space. In a smaller five lot subdivision, all of the trees would be on private property and there may not be adequate legal safeguards to prevent individual owners from removing any trees on their property. 5. Traffic and Parking Although at first consideration a smaller five lot subdivision would seem to provide less traffic and parking problems than a larger six lot subdivision, in reality this may not be true. Consider that larger more expensive homes usually house more people who can afford more vehicles. What seems to be a small reduction in traffic and parking problems in the lower density subdivision may, in fact, turn out to have the opposite effect. 6. The Greedy Developer Scenario Although this is not strictly a consideration of the Planning commission, neighbors have suggested that the prime motive for the larger subdivision is simple greed. However, in simple fact, the smaller subdivision consists of four lots at an average price of $72,000 which totals $288,000 whereas five lots at an average price of $55,000 totals $275,000. In addition, in the smaller subdivision there would fewer lots to sell and the development �'ta Birnam Woods Subdivision Planning Action 96-047 Page 3 cost of the common space i.e. pathway, lighting, hedges, fencing and benches would be eliminated. We would also like to clarify some areas of misunderstanding within our original proposal. 7. Building Envelope v.s. Building Footprints The original plan indicates building envelopes for each of the lots. These envelopes are provided to show set-back requirements and possible house placement. They are similar in this regard to the standard setback requirements for subdivisions. In a typical subdivision the front yard set-back is twenty feet, the rear yard set-back is ten feet and the side yard set back is six feet. Because of all of the mature trees on this property, k was extremely important to define more exact buildable areas or envelopes: However, these envelopes only indicate where a house could be built on each lot not the final house size. In many cases, the envelopes were interpreted as actual building foot prints, creating a false impression of houses that are out of scale with their lot size. 8. Open Space Areas Several concerns were raised regarding the useability of the open space within the subdivision. The open space area was specifically designed around the most beautiful grove of trees on the property. By creating this open space and the path that connects Windsor and Oregon Streets, this area becomes available not only to the residents of the Birnam Woods development, but the broader neighborhood as well. The public path is a vital part of the open space because it increases the probability that area will be used and appreciated. The path also provides an important mid-block pedestrian and bicycle linkage from Windsor Street to SOSC. While it is true that the open space area may not be useable for sports activ ties, this standard has never been applied before. According to the Ashland Land Use Code Section 18.88 B.3.b.1. "Common open spaces may be provided in the form of natural areas, wetlands, playgrounds, active or passive recreational areas, and similar areas in common ownership". Most of the recent subdivisions in Ashland use seasonal creek drainages as open space. This is particularly true of the Struve Subdivision on Oak Street and the Clear Creek Subdivision near Mill Pond. Each of these developments has a long, narrow, steeply sloped open space area that cannot be used for recreational activities. However, these open space areas provide significant scenic elements to their projects. The open space within Birnam Woods, is a beautiful natural area that protects and maintains a wooded area in much the same way that these other projects protect riparian areas. To deny the validity and useability of the Birnam Woods open space is inconsistent with years of planning activity within the city. 41 Birnam Woods Subdivision Planning Action 96-047 Page 4 9. Neighborhood Development Patterns There were also some concerns raised about the density of the project in comparison to the existing neighborhood. The project is completely consistent with the surrounding development patterns. There are already six houses located adjacent to the project between Oregon Street and Windsor Street along the east side of Indiana Street. On the west side of Indiana Street there are seven lots and eight houses in this same block. Most of these homes are average size dwellings between 1,500 to 2,200 square foot in size. Many of these existing homes are built with minimal side yard setbacks that place the homes closer together than the proposed side yard setbacks within the Birnam Woods Project. As mentioned earlier, reducing the density of this project to five lots, increases the probability that larger homes will be built that are inconsistent with the existing neighborhood development patterns. The project as originally proposed is consistent with the City of Ashland infill policies for both density and design. While it is true, that homes on the south side of Windsor Street are built on larger lots, this is only true because the zoning on the south side of Windsor changes from the subject's R-1-7.5 zoning to R-1-10, which mandates larger lots. Conclusion As we have illustrated, a smaller subdivision would result in the loss of common space and pathway access, fewer affordable lots, the creation of large homes not in keeping with the existing neighborhood and may result in fewer trees, more traffic and higher property taxes. Therefore we are requesting that you reconsider our original plan with the following modifications: 1. There was some concern that the existing house at 1452 Oregon Street would not benefit or interact with the open space area. We have included an additional open space area adjacent to the house. There is another beautiful grove of trees in this location that deserves protection. There is also an old stone stairway that leads from the existing house to this area, which will increase the probability that this new open space area will be used. 2. The driveway off of Windsor has been widened to twenty feet from Windsor Street down to the garage of the first home on the driveway. Birnam Woods Subdivision Planning Action 96-047 Page 5 3. Permanent park benches will be provided in the open space areas to insure that the residents of the development can interact with these areas on a day to day basis. 4. Fencing was discussed at the previous Planning Commission Meeting and our neighborhood meeting. There appears to be some disagreement between both commissioners and neighbors about the need for fencing. We certainly want to maintain safety during construction, and the perimeter of the property is already fenced with field (wire) fencing. While we do not advocate wood fencing on both sides of the property, we will abide by the Commission's decision on this issue. Finally, in our second meeting with the neighbors on April 26, many expressed their understanding that the six lot development might, in comparison, be more acceptable than the five larger lot alternative. Another neighbor suggested that we use the six lot layout but dedicate one lot - or an additional 20% of the property - to common open space. As property owners, this idea is simply not practical. We recognize and respect that the issues of infill and density are ones about which reasonable people will disagree, And when neighborhood change is in the offing, emotions will also weigh in. However, after all the conflicting sentiments are considered, we feel our plan for a six lot development meets all of the appropriate legal standards and should be approved. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our proposal and to present you with new information. We jook forward to meeting with you on May 14, 1996. , Yours tr ly, Evan Archerd Hal Dresner 43 l �t Az � 191 ' r -� lu I I J.r.. ' C• b 4 1 I /� 1 - 1 L � I / I Az Z - g � .44 ARCHITECTURE PROJECT NARRATIVE LAND PLANNING AND FINDINGS 6 MARCH 1996 PROJECT NAME: Birnam Woods Subdivision TYPE OF PLANNING ACTION: A request for review of a site, outline and final plan approval for a six-lot, single family project under the performance standards options for the property located between Oregon and Windsor Streets. PROJECT INFORMATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: Evan Archerd P.O. Box 699 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 482-8856 ARCHITECT/AGENT: Tom Giordano 157 Morninglight Dr. Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 482-9193 SURVEYOR: David Edwards 816 West 8th Street Medford, OR 97501 Tel: 776-2313 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1452 Oregon Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: GLoO 39S - lE - 15BA T.L � .COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential 157 Morninglight Drive ♦ Ashland, OR 97520 ♦ Phone and Fax (503) 482-9193 45' ZONING DEt ;NATION: R-1-7.5 (P Overlay Requested) LOTS STATISTICS: Lot 1 10,721 S.F. Lot 5 6,084 S.F. (Existing home) Lot 2 7,776 S.F. Lot 6 7,293 S.F. Lot 3 6,167 S.F. Lot 7 9,644 S.F. (Open space) Lot 4 6,008 S.F. Total Parcel 60,984 S.F. (1.40 Acres) 100 % Paving/Streets 7,891 S.F. 13 % Openspace 9,644 S.F. 15.8% Lot 1 to 6 43,449 S.F. 71 .2% ALLOWABLE DENSITY: 3.60 X 1.40 = 5 Dwelling Units REQUESTED DENSITY: 6 (10% Conservation and 10% Openspace for bonus density) PARKING PROVIDED: 12 Covered 4 Uncovered (on site) 2 On Street 18 Total' SITE DESCRIPTION: The project is 1.40 acres (60,984 S.F.) in size and slopes down an average 8.5% to the north between Windsor and Oregon Street. Both these streets are considered local residential streets in the city's Comprehensive Plan with traffic flows less than 800 ADTs. The nearest collector street is Walker to the east. The topography drops more dramatically next to Windsor Street, see Topographic Survey. The site has numerous mature trees throughout the site, see topographic survey and photographs for size and description. On the subject property there is a single story wood frame and stucco house located adjacent to Oregon Street. A carport and shed is also located near this existing home. The topographic survey also shows a wooden shed near the easterly boundary. Existing adjacent land uses to the west, south and east is single family residences. The land use to the north (across Oregon Street) is a residence hall for Southern Oregon State College. The existing zoning (R-1-7.5) allows for 7.500 square foot lots. The zoning across Oregon Street allows for Southern Oregon State College while the zoning to the south (across Windsor Street) allows 10,000 square foot lots. There are views of the city and mountains to the north. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes six lots for the 1.40 acre parcel. The lot along Oregon Street will include the existing home (Lot One). It is requested that this lot be divided in Phase One of the project and Phase Two will be the division of remaining five lots. A seventh lot will be owned and maintained in common by all six residential lots and be utilized as openspace, see the Site Plan. A Homeowners Association Agreement for maintenance of the openspace will be provided prior to the recording of the final map. The applicant is also requesting the performance standards option to allow for the common openspace and the preservation of most of the existing trees, see the Site Plan. The building envelops and garage locations were located to protect trees, hide the view of the garages, and allow for views to the north. A one dwelling unit bonus density is requested. This bonus density request is based on 15%n for conservation and 5%n for openspace (20% total). The openspace lot is 11,659 S.F. which is 19 % of the total parcel, see project information above for calculations. The exterior character of homes will be contemporary with wood, stucco and masonry materials, see the sample elevations. The roof will be either composition shingle or tile. Due to the 8.5% slope of the site the homes will have split level floor plans to step up and down the site. All homes will utilize Super Good Sense and water conservation strategies per City of Ashland standards. One existing wooden shed (adjacent to the east property line) will be removed while the wooden shed next to the existing home will be partially demolished. Access to Lot One will be directly from Oregon Street via the existing driveways. Access to Lots Two and Three will be from Oregon Street on a new 15 foot wide paved road while access to Lots Four, Five and Six will be from Windsor Street, through the openspace, see Site Plan. A pedestrian path/sidewalk will connect Windsor and Oregon Streets. q-7 f:;�+cn jot <• ,n pi, •% ioc :. eened trash/recycling areas in th. ;arage. Bicycle parking will also be located within the proposed garage. All on-site utilities will be located underground. The existing on-site storm drainage system, see Survey Drawing, will be utilized for site drainage. All homes will have gutters and downspouts. Existing 6 inch sanitary sewer, gas, 4 inch water, electric, CTV, telephone services (see Survey) are located along Oregon Street. A water loan is also located along Windsor Street. The proposed subdivision will connect to these existing facilities. The project will utilize the following energy conservation measures for the new construction: • High Efficiency Furnance or Heat Pump (90% gas furnace AFUE or 7.4 heat pump HSPF) 2 pts • Efficient Lighting 3 pts • High Efficiency Water Heater 2 pts • R-26 Advanced Framed Walls 3 pts • Advanced Air Leakage Control (with heat recovery ventilation) 3 pts • .35 U Value for all Windows 3 pts FINDINGS: The following findings are provided to address criteria for approval of a subdivision under the performance standards options. Criteria for approval A. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. The application package consists of drawings (design site plan/landscape plan, utility plan, grading plan, survey, sample exterior elevations, road cross-section, photographs, descriptive narrative and findings of fact. These documents delineate in detail both the scope of the proposed project and the existing conditions of the site. The applicant has met with City staff and received pre application review. As illustrated in the application package, the proposed project meets or exceeds the City's Development Standard for density, lot coverage, parking, height, solar restrictions, setbacks, lot dimensions and gradings. No conditional uses or waivers of variance are requested. B. That adequate key City.faci.lities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and the development will not cause a City.facility to operate beyond capaci);. WATER - The applicant intends to provide water for fire control, domestic usage and plant irrigation. Existing 4 inch lines are located in Oregon and Windsor Streets. Two lots will connect to Oregon Street and the three upper lots will connect to Windsor Street. See Utility Plan. Four hydrants are located at the corner of Windsor and Frances, Oregon and Frances, Indiana and Windsor, and Indiana and Oregon Streets. Don Paul of the City Ashland Fire Department has stated that these are adequate to serve the project. Low water use plant materials (see Design Site Plan, Plant Selection) and plumbing fixtures will be utilized in the project. SEWER-An existing 6" sanitary sewer is located in Oregon Street. The applicant will connect to this line, see Utility Plan. ELECTRICAL, TELEPHONE AND CTV - All on-site services will be underground and connect to existing above ground service along Oregon Street, see Utility Plan. Further, the project will utilize energy conservation measures. STORM DRAINS - All new structures will have gutters and downspouts and on-artc fu. ,!! " is --k- � acted and connected to either an -isting line along the west boundary of the property or surface drain, see Utility Plan. TRANSPORTATION - The proposed development will generate an additional 60 Average Daily Trips (ADTs). The ADTs will be split evenly between Windsor and Oregon Streets. The closest collector streets are Walker Street tot he east and Siskiyou Boulevard to the north. Bicycle paths and transit stops-are located on Siskiyou Boulevard 1 1/2 blocks.to the north. GRADING - The average slope across the site (south to north) is 8.5%; however, the slope adjacent to Windsor is 20%. In this area, the driveway will be graded to not exceed 15%, see Preliminary Grading Plan Driveway Cross Section and Utility Plan. Split level floor plans for the proposed homes would be desirable to accommodate the change in elevation, see Exterior Elevations. C. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands,floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plait of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. As mentioned in the narrative and shown on the survey and Design Site Plan, there are many significant, mature trees on the site. Every attempt has been made by the applicant to preserve these trees, see building envelops on the Design Site Plan. In fact, only five out of the fifty-eight trees will be removed. The applicant has met with planning staff and Don Toth of the Tree Commission on site to assess the tree situation. Both Bill Molner and Don Toth feel that the four trees to be removed was not an unreasonable request. The applicant recognizes the value the existing trees have and will protect the trees during grading and construction with temporary fencing surrounding the tree. The applicant will'also comply with the recommendations of the Tree Commission. Additional trees will be added along the proposed roads, see Design Plan. These trees will enhance the existing trees in the openspace, see the Design Site Plan and Finding E and F. D. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project will not prevent adjacent land from being developed. Adjacent land gains access from both Oregon and Windsor Streets. E. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in 50 phases that the early p ses have the sane or higher ratio. .f amenities as proposed in the entire project. All the common landscape areas/openspace, driveway and sidewalk will be maintained by a homeowners maintenance agreement to be signed by all property owners at time of purchase. A copy of the agreement will be provided prior to final map approval. All landscaping will be installed prior to issuance of final occupancy. F. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. Bonus density is requested to allow an additional lot. The applicant is requesting 20% bonus density (10% conservation and 10% openspace) to allow the extra lot. The conservation density is as follows: * High Efficiency Furnance or Heat Pump (90% gas furnace AFUE or 7.4 heat pump HSPF) 2 pts * Efficient Lighting 3 pts * High Efficiency Water Heater 2 pts * R-26 Advanced Framed Walls • 3 pts * Advanced Air Leakage Control (with heat recovery ventilation) 3 pts * .35 U Value for all Windows 3 pts TOTAL 16 pts 16 pts total = 15% bonus density (10 requested) The Design Site Plan map delineates 9,644 square feet for the openspace. This is 15.8% of the total site which will yield 10% bonds density for openspace. ! LLL _ ! . m ! - . . ; 2 b m . y / Ix - ) ) . M 7 c m OM ; i;\E co o Q $ \|§ \ 2 ° t ® | © • < ! $ r ), ) z IN ( 2 2 i ! \ )| § - � C § jw ) | \ \ co �Z 4 ., NIff, 8 3 3 .e¢sw srv¢r e$ 1 a a : --------------------- I p:r ---- =ae- -- - ----- -------- --- ---- : } E m •._ =gym G'1 .l -- j m - ___ _ __ Jji Va Y ills �s : a i _ I I I Y : : : 4 : I I d ar - --_ \ m ' I i I I ak - - ----- g ZxNO I------ -----, Y -----; mOm : .;e.l : �maN � I --- - --- -------- --- ----- ---- I �i4 T l _: r -1 -1 i � I _ I ,. Ey _1 _L _ _J __ _ __ ___ CD N I I I I I 1 : , NI o� x I m L $a a - rp S 53 I : u I I I TP, �.� y I. !s! ( I e • a to til M III M j,IN if ij ! 111 'III 4I 11'77//- B zo BIRNAK IDO, •J �fl iq° i . 0 SURD � iNt" . _ ... Min �F i7�I ' QQ 2D 5 l tu'aSy£. 3 bm a ,g caFea�+ fm[ti 'I 8y: 1' li p rfi. °a i X94__r„ -r _,_____, _ -____, __ ____ � I �6�v � Y•� i i � G � ______ __ f9a V �e � L�3 rL � •�t �>med � J - -li cn T r�� \,1 I a :? b !8r? t.' -L _--'-- -----_ -i l---- ---- ----- a<< : s r `\ - - - i i ^'S is ``.• \ 'M` ic T 3 x - em'ti Z ti a 9s '� •�� I e e �a r� ��a SS HI O 1 r '_____ ____ ;l___i __Q, Itl _ •ice rz !1�,. _ r------------------ , ' - _ k\pp'' I I \ yV R£ Y .I j♦ \ �T \Y - 1 U S U L L-' OMU ro O o Z m --- -----; --- -- -- ---- I \ \ i 11 I „, / f ----- ,.._- ;?------ ______ i i t_ t_ i-----L____ ____-_____i_____ c1 i �?r_ ___ O� OF Cpq SS ! . d f \\ 9 ? m. e w ax © '; 2 ® r *o � . , T y NG`§ � g S $ /\ . k � ! a ! A [ 2 ) 4q \ } $ \ _ - . , . } j & ! - NI - � - - 2 q ; ! ga / �\ \ ) j \ / » � 5 ( . 3 2 ( § d lip \ j � �& 4 s_ r 1' 111 ! 1 ! ! - ..,• � �- 1 f Ott � �., ,\ L:_. � �►� � 0 m nI fit IJI Fri" c� co m 4 5'7 oo'oal mr<n t�. UWVAm r D CCOCRM WALK(PUBLIC) Eta.va• fnuma AMA oRif; fish n eQ $ e� c �i c c r era � C _ � � gE. Z ue j a ' µ'dY - � i -7 o 6S IV �.'-1 '`,'�._ -o . Ia I FW t , 10% C..M1� 'ale''-��--=L�•cs U-.CO=D cory mW�nucuq wratoa nna =MAY(Al) r ,3 P 9Ni. DD o.2 D ;. Zn OD � Cn�©©DO � - ova �� f—I _ i II (9tC$I <t ' t ,L ; . o c ' 3 N �c p3 D Lr • ' i �c �- t i � o d > t t ------------ { 1 ---- ------ d- Nlp3gl ' t �t' ST.2L - i 59 _ rjm n� mrm 13 c) atn -3 > U z ro z 1� S Hxz - 21CC c� zoocn z voro 110 � zdm � Ht� m 13 ro :v cn H co ztorrn S Cl v w n H z J cox -3m J cn 00 --'3Uly a H mad > < r t ' — 1 x < a v rrncM > r a x f, - 00 ry S z � h 3vm t,7 > z z x Y� ,O C] amzr C -3 C1 H > as t7 Hz > � rx-, xro: H iz d Q \ tj ozro011 # (D �1 trl O H 0 -�. �-' T• �'I t0Hin 1-7 O) n cn cic) m < 1 O H O 016 JH \ L. W razz m w O V7 O hl H cn z cn 13 cn 7 ro > zc� HZ ro T r li Cf2 q x n r a o 0 d t� ro Hx < v\ t En n 0 th v C \ - cz, cot7 � � r Hta Hcn -00 rs arro < z .eHro < r �. Mtoto 0 rocz n < H zzaz c•"• z a a o rh axzb0 bQ x z H s ` I r Ha0 .90 s z ro � r ta oz C� :R3 -3 o > t-] G7C to o th 0 \t rH zcn vro, n7 ma 0t rt, mzz 3 z O b O E trj En -3 / H t•1 C=l 'z] cn C CO axxcH n a z o T (1)l z z x _ o ocnm f m >A3 IV v m # H # cl COL xz trom o Z C° � r orr� co O Z to m a rh tri x > x > v m .pzvHro 'n o Z a V ro 'U ro d > O > Z w1-3M Cr U > x C a x s In rxrz A < 1 (' m xoorror v z o r > A �O rrJ 2: Y Cn r-1 > z z ca 0142' H Z 3 0 0 2 A xlacic7 aOa > o n — cn b7 mil -^. nr r s o z -Jzav c as M� z mxro oz v MZto ZH J pp� d oz10t z ;A7 N O H lO 1O H W M 01 (] ,/11 H O O 01 J H pal V '17 A z Cl)cn �t 'y SCC o - zz n ocn En m � c" s "' c Oca roro co Tex AA t) cn X roOC [] O fn n m > z tjl A r Q C/I Cn WC7 Cn a Hm cn K' O 1-4 ..11a3� .C>� kH •� Cr ti h7 i17 ['+7 01-4 J ro C A > > O hl t7z T' b H z z a z zaaota - M > a H O z axzs' O > x' ax b � � _I� 0 t c °d ak) °C z ro M Aron n oo tv v © W (� \' r dmo � o cf°o N '\ OrHzcn m Z a cn W 0� d q cn rH -33ro AO 3 --3 c � � mmnlvlcm \ �J xxcn H .3 C z z o o m _\ v t1 z7 dad V J 3 zo o 0 v fi' m m z v o ro n1 d " zrzitax m o - ro > zro I qq m 1-3 ro > cn • I� C ` S # �Z r � w ro Z Kr H !� ; pro to t' co C) HZ G rJ N � r COM13M a Cf) 0 G 3 • r H m tJ z a c mM > C --3 , m > 3007 m , Z zx C rnHq m H m 7 0 Z Z J m J r0 -3 �X ro Zti7E �3b 13 -3 m H Z C n x ro O Z r7 0zror # Q H O M O J H y� 4 m ECn zCO zmHZ " ro C 0 m v v 3 L1 / nvx m0 1 `1 `I tyulHxro < n y � � d � - � m H cn K O V KH .m < r m m m o m ZZ -3Z _ S' Z -3 -3 t7 cn m - H 7J �`� •y 6 `3 =:q y :-3 ="v \ 13 Z 'L m C �U •� v 'U H -3 ,� �. n `�`'• S cn S O VI Cm.H O �o 00 , - ly b cn > �u m Z -33 t�-3� Lm to dw om �. l m 2z -3 00 > Z H -3 '7 ° L 1, -3 zmrxo ('() O t7 r m �a m 1 -3 Z i 1 1 • C� ro � ZO SHOE M C7 'T7 CnC M. H t G) H H Z �-3 m h7r (n H H z zo � o (Mro > e7aro �a Z OO (n z ID v0v "III Z zz [tl 3 H t-I C+7 Hb T- (n EK rH $ z cnrz10rm o ro 03 C) Hz , co -3 • 7x ?0Y 0 n > ro ro (-' (n G7Hutroro H ra azm u O Y O > z wHm < r > O < H > `3 6' G7 r4 7 r -3 , c rx x ro uxrorro 7 3 0 r > z .z L 1 ^3 b Cn m > z z x oQ -30) Zr C H rn H > Hr- . rozz p M ;Z7 -3 ocly rC' z0 -3 > ro El x n r z ?l E H > H H n H z mxv oz H o O m n z d C7 z oz0r (7) � n o H � !-] OHtn 0701 CZ W � CGl C7C I O � rd as �0 HOOO� JH In V ) O NC: 0 0 =J 'T10H C 00 I\ �7 •C C7 (n H (n O E b tl > z �j Hro ro a raroro ` � z 0 0 Nhl\v C7 cn x IV < Z0 � C7 zr (n Ctl O (n H :-f m H (n •< O Hr "I ro eH < r V < z n < O Ch 2y Z 7 Z z -3 - zHHdr_71 Hx ov (n 7 H H m -3 x z 7 () `� 7Y 3x m H z ro m W v Ha � ISd C oC o cn roroN (n V z ro ro N itl r .y H O a7 +Q > :nb am Z -3 H e7 .O 7 t-1 7 C PIS O C" i-+ z W per•. m z -3 r N cn > H �3ro v ( 0 Z:) r71 z H NotlCu ,S hereby g,vu, that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following ' '^w ^� -.-•-• -•__ .. ,.,..,,,,,ants and evidence relied upon by the applicant request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE and appla:aula cntana 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 will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on August 6, inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department.City Hall, Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. 20 East Me,.Street. Ashland.Oregon 97520. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. During the Public Hearing,the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and Oregon law state. that failure to raise an objection conceming this application, those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit either in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to specify conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel appeal to LUBA on that criterion. free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 486. 5305. —`-� Richard Laubert 5151 Vallecito Ave. JUL 2 9 1996 Westminster, CA 92683 v 1 32 16 t4 .69• (•.....i f.;:.�. - 1.,.•.11 - t R STREET ., DewEw A� _ I11. 77' 8100 - :6.00- �fj(t5t1J 10500 6400 5� 580J 8-00 OK W - .. 7800 ] (b Q '64J0 I n one I; ,a v 8300 ^ Coco d.: O = c<s< I> r..,.,.n 76001 Q 0 6501 . vloo N v-us^v Z Si ti ..... t 7100'iio e Z H I I� •P�0 V. W I Ao0 Y • tr.e.,xl e � I f lQN Q 7401 - ♦ Qf I i (y i 5 W. 9501 pyk 17201 I .y_ _ _ Jol .Q„ "W Go,01-.C. 45 _ �uw COR. <.....n ..... It 0 PLANNING ACTION 96-047 is a request for Outline and Final Plan approval of a six-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option located at 1452 Oregon Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 15BA; Tax Lot 6600. APPLICANT: Evan Archerd City of Ashland May 14, 1996 Planning Exhibit E%HIBIT b - PA 8 -0q -- DATE.S-NI�9L STAF V. Planning Commission City of Ashland 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520. RE: PLANNING ACTION 396-07/ BIRNAM WOODS SUBDIVISION Member of the Planning Commission: Last month this Commission made a decision which Barbara Jarvis presented to the applicant. That was that his proposal for a 6 lot subdivision would be denied. He had the option of accepting that denial vote& appealing the decision or he could ask for, and would be granted, a continuance if he was willing to return with a 5 lot proposal. Mr. Archerd said he preferred (and he accepted) the terms of the continuance. This is all part of the public record, both through the Commission Stenographer and the locally broadcast video tape. Yet in this poorly planned second proposal for 5 lots, Mr. Archerd is once again primarily addressing his 6 lot plan. In his written proposal, Mr. Archerd makes two references to a second neighborhood meeting. We were at that meeting. It was not a representative neighborhood group; only 4 homes were represented. There was no consensus. "Many" did not express an agreement that the 6 lot proposal might be better than 5 lots. We would like to also address Mr. Archerd's proposed"comparative findings." 1. Common Space - The main Commission finding that led to certain denial of this proposal was that, although there is common space, it is not usable open space (as defined in Ordinance 18.88.40,B3.b 1). �o Even though a 5 lot subdivision would not require a common space area, it would open up 15,000 square feet of open space as opposed to the proposed 11,659 in the 6 lot plan (allowing for 3000 sq. ft homes). Even though it is not designated open space it will still be there for the neighbors to enjoy if the trees are protected. We request that a deed restriction be placed on all lots that will prohibit-any trees outside the building envelopes to be cut unless they're dead or dying & that there be a separate sidewalk & pedestrian easement through the entire development to connect the streets. (Right now there is no way for lots 4 & 5 to get to Oregon St.) It is a City policy to require pedestrian walkways that connect street ways. 2. Lot and House Size - Larger lots do not necessarily mean larger houses. Building envelopes for the 6 lot plan would allow for very large houses. The developer has no control over what size houses will be built here. This point is not based in fact. The 5 got plan shows envelopes in excess of 6000 (up to almost 7000) sq. ft. These are unrealistic and should be drastically reduced to preserve open space on the site. The average home would be 3000 sq. ft. We request a condition be added to make reasonable sized envelopes. With variations of the lots and building envelopes, Mr. Archerd has the possibility of creating wonderful homesights here. 3. Lot and House Cost - Lot prices for the 6 lot plan are quoted at $55,000 and called affordable. Are they willing to guarantee these prices? If so, let's make it a condition. There is no definitive proof that more expensive lots lead to larger homes. Home sizes will be determined by the buyer's & what they can afford. There is also no definitive proof that this would raise taxes in the area. Taxes are based on the size of your house, not your neighbors. Findings must be based in fact. This whole section is not. 4. Trees This was covered in the common space finding. 5. Traffic and Parking-There is no proof that larger more expensive homes usually house more people who can afford more vehicles and will result in b6 increased traffic. On the contrary, we believe it is reasonable that more expensive lots/homes are currently being bought mainly by retired couples (without children) and professional couples (who might even believe in planned parenthood). Here again, all findings must be based in fact - not illustrations. These are not facts. 6. The "Greedy Developer Scenario" - The only comment we wish to make regarding the greedy developer scenario is that from beginning of their proposal, Mr. Archerd and his associates have repeatedly stated that their primary goal in the Birnam Woods Subdivision has been the preservation of this uniquely beautiful site and its magnificent trees. We would encourage them tonight to put action behind their words and develop a 5 lot subdivision that meets the ideals they so often professed beyond the love of bonus points. 7. Building Envelope vs. Building Footprints - We understand that footprints and envelopes are not the same. We again request that building envelopes be of a reasonable size. A 3,000 sq. ft envelope is certainly more reasonable and realistic than the proposed 6,000 to almost 7,000 sq. ft. lot envelopes submitted on their second plan. 8. Open Space Areas - We must adhere to Ordinance #1 8.88.40,B3.b. 1. The 6 lot plan clearly does not meet this Ordinance. The applicant admits this himself in finding #8. The open space provided is not usable open space as defined and required by the Ordinance. In addition, the open space they set up was never intended for the neighbor's use - it is not public open space - it was for the homes on the development. With a pedestrian walkway, neighbors will still be able to enjoy the open space just as much as in the previous proposal, only now there will be more of it to enjoy because there will be less homes. 9. Neighborhood Development Patterns - Another Commission finding that led to the certain denial of the 6 lot proposal was that it was not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Infill is not a City policy in Ashland. However, infill at established densities of a neighborhood is desired in current development. The key here is "at established densities". The Commission and neighbors agreed at the last hearing that this subdivision does not meet that criteria. This is a situation �7 where development.is being pursued at densities that are in fact different than the established neighborhood. That changes the character of the neighborhood. The 5 lot subdivision provides for appropriate infill and is consistent with neighborhood development patterns. The property is Zoned R-1-7-5 which allows for a density of 5 lots. Zoning is on square footage and that is the most that can legally be approved and still be consistent with neighborhood development patterns, period. It is our understanding that the applicant is required to send written notification to all the neighbors with full explanation of all the proposed findings prior to this meeting. This was.not done. This presentation is not clear enough. Without a full notification and understanding of what is being proposed, neighbors are at a disadvantage in presenting arguments. In conclusion, we request that the developer be required to resubmit a proposal with more detailed and complete findings; solely addressing a 5 lot plan. If the Commission even considers this poorly thought out 5 lot proposal, we ask that you include our stated conditions as well as requiring the developers to meet flag lot driveway and parking standards (not allowing guest parking in front of a garage) and reducing building envelopes to no more than 3,000 sq. ft. Thank you for your consideration. Dennis & Dorothy Smith 708 Indiana Street Ashland, OR 97520 68 TESTIMONY REQUEST If you wish to provide evidence, please indicate if you are in favor of or opposed to the proposal. If you are in favor of the proposal, your evidence should show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing. If you are an opponent, your testimony should show that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or your testimony rebuts the applicant's testimony by showing the facts relied upon are incorrect. NAME ADDRESS PLANNING ACTION # I am in favor of the proposal. —,�I am against the the proposal. I wish to give oral testimony. I do not wish to give oral testimony. I do not wish to give oral testimony, but wish to make the following comments: &'a v r t4v�,s a-S W o L/ L' .6 �3 -.P/ 01&- L ✓ 'a-- Na y� e S ILI O v L 1 $ a, -T JW SvvLl� p:,v Pi aL i D) �/v �' ,S 7_ P,, PLEASE GIVE THIS FORM TO A STAFF PERSON AT THE HEAD TABLE. 69 TESTIMONY REQUEST If you wish to provide evidence, please indicate if you are in favor of or opposed to the proposal. If you are in favor of the proposal, your evidence should show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing. If you are an opponent, your testimony should show that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or your testimony rebuts the applicant's testimony by showing the facts relied upon are incorrect. NAME �� ����5 ADDRESS PLANNING ACTION # _ I m in favor of the proposal. I am against the the proposal. I wish to give oral testimony. I do not wish to give oral testimony. I do not wish to give oral testimony, but wish to make the following comments: >�(0 AZ' Fie-✓V A0921Z Y :7" r4e 14 PLEASE GIVE THIS FORM TO A STAFF PERSON AT THE HEAD TABLE. 7� s TESTIMONY REQUEST If you wish to provide evidence, please indicate if you are in favor of or opposed to the proposal. If you are in favor of the proposal, your evidence should show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing. If you are an opponent, your testimony should show that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or your testimony rebuts the applicant's testimony by showing the facts relied upon are incorrect. NAME ADDRESS ' PLANNING ACTION # I am in favor of the proposal. I am against the the proposal. I wish to give oral testimony. I do not wish to give oral testimony. I do not wish to give oral testimony, but wish to make the following comments: i i li p.a PLEASE GIVE THIS FORM TO A STAFF PERSON AT THE HEAD TABLE. April R 1996 Planninaa C'nmmiccinn City of Ashland 20 Fact Main Ashland OR 97520 RP: PT ANTNTING ACTION 296_07/ RTRNAM WOODS SUBDIVISION Members of the Planning Commiccinn; As owners of and rPCirjentc nn Tav T n ot 16901 immediately atiiarPnt to the 7 J_-_._ _ _ erect Side of the nrnnncPrl Rirnam Wnndc Riihdivicinn (T nt 71 wp are extremely concerned ahre,,.t nnecihlP violations of at inannrnnriatP "inteTnretatinnc" of City nrdinanrec relatina to this develnnmPnt 1 Ordinance fEl R RR ,40 RZ h 1 states The mimmi- of the riPncity hnnim for commor. open space is to permit areas which could otherwise he developed, or Sold as individual lots to be retained in their natural state nr to 01 be developed as a rerreatinnal amenihr, TT TC NOT THE PTTRpQQF OF THIS PROVISION TO PERMIT T)FNSTTY BONUSES FOR INCIDENTAL OPEN SPACES WHICH HAVE NO REALISTIC USE BY PRO ECT RESIDENTS ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS." The developer is regLeStlna Under the hnmc points Cal ralatinn fnr ConS?rvatinn and open spare, that one additinnal house he added to the 5 ito allowed under the PerfnrmanrP Qtandardc Optinnc for the Cit<,' of A chland. The proposed narrow strip of onen snare is not laroe ennnah to he cnlri ac an r r indPridLal lot or to provide eparP fnr ciihctantial rarreatinn (i,P.; 1.nlleifhall 10. soccer, baseball hiryrlina etc ) Tt is in our onini in incidental nnen snare ...._. _.., _ j _.�.a, ___./ r�...,.., r_ _r and therehi, ,n direct defiance to Ordmance ff i R 588.40. i�ioreover, it pen,ertc the intended "Spirit" of the Ordinance to provide npen spare fnr realictir lice by nrniert residents nn a day-to-day basic In the Ashland Planning Department's Staff Report dated 4/9/96 (Project Impact-paragraph 3), that staff agrees, "...that it is doubtful that project residents will realistically interact with the open space on a day-t-day basis for much of the area designated as open space, AS REQUIRED by ordinance." 2. We appreciate the developer's efforts to preserve all but 5 of the existing 58 trees on the project site. We do, however, agree with the Ashland Planning Department's findings that "envelopes for 4 & 5 should be modified in order to preserve the 14" walnut tree." In addition, we request that all trees identified to be preserved - be clearly "marked" and properly barricaded and buffered during construction. We also request that if any one of the trees die as a result of construction of this development, that each be replaced with large trees, not saplings. 3. Realistically, there is no on-street parking available in this area. The east side of Indiana St. From Oregon to Windsor and the south side of Oregon Street from Indiana to Francis are no parking zones. Due to the large number of students parking in the area, on-street parking is completely used up for blocks in every direction. The on-street parking on Windsor St. is too far away from most of the units and must be accessed up a 15% driveway. We therefore request that all 6 required on-street spaces be provided WITHIN the development. The flag lot Ordinance requires that each lot have 4 spaces with adequate turnaround area. Using the garage and driveway with stacked parking is inappropriate for this development. (Perhaps we could have a show of hands to see how many people have 2 spaces available in their garage for their cars) The Commission has the power to interpret the parking ordinance and find it invalid to use stacked parking in this case. This development does not allow adequate turnaround space. The minimum for a car is 24' of backup space with a hammerhead at a dead end. This project, with its 10' wide road and 5' sidewalk will make it nearly impossible for a car to maneuver and delivery trucks and emergency vehicles will not be able to turn around at all. We believe the developers have used a loophole in the flag drive Ordinance to avoid the costly requirements of meeting street standards which would eliminate all the problems the flag drives are causing. There would be a proper sidewalk, curbs, gutters, storm drains and proper turnaround standards would be met. Dead end roads are poor planning tools and I urge you to require the developers to meet the standards that all other 6 lot subdivisions must meet. This is a SUBDIVISION, which is, by Ordinance, defined as the creation of 4 or more lots. This development is not a partition and should not be allowed to use the Flag Lot development standards. They are building a subdivision and using partition standards. Please make the developers properly meet the Ordinance standards for a subdivision...or...reduce the number of lots to 3 as required to make this action a legal partition,just like everyone else does. We're all in the same ballpark. 4. Ordinance #18.88.050 A.4. states that standard measurements for a flag drive serving three (3) units must be "...20 feet with 25 feet dedicated width." Ordinance #18.76.060 says "...flag drive shall be 20 feet, with 15 feet of pavement to the rear of the fast lot...." The Bimam Woods Subdivision does not meet this standard. They are using the sidewalk as part of the requirement. Clearly, one car would have to drive up onto the sidewalk for two cars to pass one another, creating a potentially hazardous situation if a pedestrian (especially a child) is using the sidewalk at the time. We request that the City Planning Commission pay special attention to making sure that all safety requirements for flag drives are observed, especially adequate access of emergency vehicles during a fire or any other event requiring emergency vehicles. It is our understanding that fire hydrants must be placed within 300 feet of one another throughout a flag lot. We request that the developers be required to provide details on the Bimam Woods Subdivision design site plan, showing the placement of the required hydrants . 5. A major concern of ours is the proposed 10 foot rear setback along the west property line of the site, which borders our lot. It is our understanding that a 10 foot PER STORY setback for two level dwellings (as presented in the Bimam Woods Subdivision application) is mandatory. This clearly does not meet that standard. In the Ashland Planning Department's Staff Report (IV Conclusions and Recommendations, #17), they agree that "...the building envelopes for lots 2,3,4 and 5 be revised to indicate a rear yard setback...of 10 feet per story..." Our neighborhood primarily consists of larger lots, resulting in more thatithe minimum setbacks which allows for more open space and lower density. Infilling this property with six houses and then placing those homes 10 feet from the property line will dramatically reduce salability and property value of homes adjacent to the west side perimeter of the subdivision. We request that that the developers be required to comply with perimeter setback standards and solar setback Ordinances, that any residential construction in the City of Ashland must adhere to and that they not be allowed to waive these setbacks. 6. Ordinance #18.76.060 requires that, "Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways.,, It is our understanding that flag lot Ordinance requires that drainage be taken care of by a subsurface drain. Due to the multiple slopes on the proposed site and the potential for an overflow of water to curbs and properties adjoining the north and east perimeters of the site (previous flooding of adjoining property has occurred), as well as the potential of sediment flowing into water systems, we request that a standard berm and subsurface drainage system be connected directly to the City of Ashland's system. Please do not allow a surface drain to be used. ' I � 7. We request that developers be required to construct a six foot high vertical fence the length of the development, except for the last twenty feet on each end to be three feet high, on the west side of the site before any construction begins. We ask that this fence be built INSIDE the Bimam Woods.Subdivision property line and that it be maintained by the individual site owners. This will protect small children and animals from entering the site during construction, will cut down construction noise and dust and, hopefully, will afford adjoining property owners some degree of privacy during (and after) construction. 8. Our final concern is regarding our feeling that there is an obvious conflict of interest on the part of Tom Giordano, the acting Architect/Agent for the Bimam Woods Subdivision, who currently holds a position on the Ashland City Planning Commission. Individuals who place themselves in a position of public service should be using their knowledge to better the community, not using that knowledge to manipulate or "interpret" regulations for personal gain. This influence places an unfair disadvantage on the neighbors of the Bimam Woods Subdivision. Such a position should be one of trust, not opportunism. Finally, because of the possible violations of Ordinances and serious issues raised above, we respectfully request that this Commission deny approval of the outlined plan of the Bimarri Woods Subdivision as presented. We ask that a new application with a public hearing be required to be submitted to meet changes necessary to fulfill all required Ordinances and requests or, at the very least, that an extension of 30 days be granted for further study. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dennis and Dorothy Smith 708 Indiana Street Ashland, OR 97520 7l J APR - 5 1996 Ron Clow 701 Indiana St. Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Commission City of Ashland 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 Attn: Susan Yates Re: Planning Action #96-047/Birmam Woods Subdivision Members of the Planning Commission, As a resident and owner of 701 Indiana, I do hereby express my deep conviction that the Birmam Woods Sub- division should be denied final approval. I have several reasons for my position, and I would like to speak at the Planning Commission meeting this coming Tuesday, April 9. Thank you, Ron Clow Steven Lanini Maureen Lanini 1428 Windsor St . ' Ashland , Or . 97520 APR - 1996 Planning Commission City of Ashland 20 East Main St . Ashland, Or 97520 Attn: Susan Yates Re : Planning Action #96-047/Birnam Woods Subdivision Members of the Planning Commission , As owners of , and residents on Tax Lot #4400 , which is southwest of the proposed Birnam Woods Subdivision development , we. would like to express the following concerns : 1 ) We feel that the traffic on both Indiana , and Oregon Sts . , as well as the traffic on Windsor St . , will be adversely affected by the proposed building plans . Traffic coming from Oregon St . onto Indiana already results in frequent near misses as a result of the SOSC traffic virtually ignoring any existing traffic signs . There have been several accidents on the corner of Windsor and Indiana , and this is the direct result of the blind corners . The intersection of Indiana and Oregon has an identical blind corner , as a result of the cars being parked on the one side of Indiana . It seems impractical to add traffic to what should be a one way street , as a result of its lack of width. 2 ) We feel that if there isn ' t sufficient room for a regular two way street going from Oregon to Windsor , that there certainly isn ' t enough room for a five home subdivision, with the possible inclusion of a sixth. We want to be sure that the only undeveloped space in our neighborhood, is not given up without the best possible plan in place . 3 ) We feel like the integrity of our neighborhood will be compromised as a result of the proposed subdivision. There will be additional noise , additional traffic , and less aestetic value to all of the existing homes . 4 ) We want to be assured that the developer has no intention of waiving the solar setback requirement . We didn ' t buy our house twenty years ago so we could see somebodys ' roof instead of the trees that we 've been enjoying. /(J 5 ) We feel that this particular building plan is nonsensical . We do not care how weather proof these houses are , we care about having to look at them at all . There is no way those houses belong on that tract of land . 6) We feel that it ' s bad enough building a new road in the middle of an existing neighborhood , but when someone wants to wedge five, or six new homes between a regular city block, sideways , so they ' ll fit , then that seems rather ill conceived. 7 ) We will support all of the neighbors in fighting the passage of this development. It is not a necessity for our neighborhood , or for that matter, anywhere in Ashland. This is not So . California , the last time we looked out the window. We hope that we continue to be able to say that in the future , as we enjoy the view of rooftops . 'r 8 )We, do not believe that the open space proposed should include the paved driveways . Since when is this the definition of open space? Thank you for taking the time to let us air our concerns . We hope that you will thoughtfully consider your decision, and give our concerns the same weight that is given to the developers ' money.' Steven Lanini Maureen Lanini 7y Ellis Wilson APR - 2 1996 Mildred Wilson 1475 Windsor St. Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Commission City of Ashland 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 Attn: Susan Yates Re: Planning Action#96-047/Birnam Woods Subdivision Members of the Planning Commission, As owners of and residents on Tax lot 6501 immediately adjacent to the east of Birnam Woods Subdivision development, we have the following concerns and requests: 1) That open space calculations shown in Project Narrative and Findings 6 March 1996, be verified for accuracy of square footage and compliance with Performance Standards Options. We question that the open space, correctly calculated, will allow the bonus density requested for one additional dwelling. In addition, the paved driveway off Windsor St. goes through the open space. Is this allowed? 2) That the plan comply with solar setback as required for any residential construction in the City of Ashland. Does the developer have the right to waive solar setback requirements? 3) That a berm and drainage system be constructed along the east side of the development to keep water from draining to lots to the east. 4) That a vertical cedar fence be constructed the length of the development on the east side; this fence to be eight feet high, except for the last twenty feet on each end to be three feet high. 5) That heavy visual evergreen landscaping be planted along the east fence line. 6) That the TID irrigation pipeline easement be included in the deed, and that it be maintained. 7) That Bollard lights be no higher than two feet. Thank you for your attention to these requests and concerns. Ellis Wilson Mildred Wilson Nicole Kapp APR - 2 1996 1480 Oregon Street Ashland, OR 97520 482-9619 April 1, 1996 Ashland Planning Department I live next door to the proposed subdivision at 1452 Oregon Street. I have several requests I believe will reduce the impact of the development on the neighborhood. 1' I have studied the site plans and I think that the lots planned are too small. Open space is a good idea, but there is very little of it planned. I think a total of 5 lots(4 new)and a natural park in the middle of at least 9,000 S. F. ,would.be a plan that would be much better for this neighborhood. 2. Please verify the area of the open space on the site plan. I do not believe that driveways, sidewalks, parking, paving and incidental undeveloped areas should be included in the open space calculations. I have calculated that there is at the most 4000 S. F. of open space. 3. A graded berm on the eastern side of the driveways(down hill) be provided to keep water from draining onto adjoining land. I had flooding problems from water running from that site last summer. Paving won't help. 4. Install a 8'high vertical cedar fence on the eastern side of the property,with a gate to my property about 165'South of Oregon Street, so that we can visit the new neighbors. The fence needs to be installed before any other construction begins in order to help keep small children out of the construction area. 5. 1 request tree plantings be made along the fence wherever there is not an existing tree within 10' of the barrier fence. Many years from now the fence will have decayed, but the trees will be a good size by then. The holly leaf cherry sounds like a reasonable choice. 6. The bollard lights along the footpath be no taller than 2 feet. This will be helpful for people walking, but will not reduce the view of the sky. 7. 1 ask that construction hours be restricted to 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday only. 8. 1 request that no variations be granted for solar setback. 9. 1 request that the access driveway off Oregon Street be moved to the western side of the existing house at 1452 Oregon Street. The existing carport is old and rotted, and would not be a great inconvenience to remove. 10. 1 request legal access to the proposed private driveway off Oregon Street from my lot. 11. 1 request that no"Bimam Woods"subdivision sign be posted. Posting the addresses is acceptable of course. 82 The following information is included for the information of the planning department: 1. There is a deeded easement for an irrigation pipe through the development site. Several families on this block use the irrigation water as does the college, and we want the make sure that the construction does not interrupt out access to the water. 2. There is no parking available on Oregon Street. It has a yellow curb. 3. There is no bicycle path north of this site on Siskiyou. Sincerely. 21"-16/'�/' . Nicole Morgan Kapp e Page 2 _i 1 April 2, 1996 APR - 3 1996 Ashland Planning Commission City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 I wish to register our concern over the proposed six-lot sub- division under the Performance Standards Option located at 1452 Oregon Street , Assessor ' s Map ## 15BA; Tax Lot 6600; Applicant : Evan Archerd. In the Project Narrative and Findings , Dated March 6, 1996 there is no mention of an existing T.I.D. irrigation line crossing the property and supplying additional properties. No mention of the fact that the main supply valve, which must be activated when water leaks occur, is located on the proposed lot ##6 nor that the line crosses proposed lot ##5, the proposed Driveway and the proposed open space. Water leaks do occur and repairs must be made to main- tain the lines. There is no mention that this existing T. I.D. line will be relocated, nor that the applicant will pay for the reloca- tion- of the lines so that adjacent property owners will have no interuption in the use of T. I:D. water nor incur any expense to continue using the irrigation water, except for the annual use fee. We are further concerned about the addition of five additional users on an already overloaded T. I.D. line. When the college uses T. I .D. water, water pressure to our property is greatly reduced and we are unable to use our 2" sprinkler lines. In addition, we are concerned that the applicant made no mention of abiding by the city's regulations concerning construction noises in the early morning or evening. It is our belief that the city established the existing zoning (R-1-7.5) allowing for 7,500 square foot lots for good reason and that that size lot in this area should be required. Sincerely, Richard A. Herndobler 1500 Oregon Street Ashland, Oregon 97520-0011 e4 AlUrday. Mar,.i, m ;14,o, r N Page 1 of t r March 30, 1996 Mr. Bill Molnar, Senior Planner City of Ashland Department of Community Development- Planning Division City Hall 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mr. Molnar: We own the house at 720 Indiana in Ashland, adjacent to the proposed Birnam Woods Subdivision. Specifically, our house is behind the proposed houses on Lots 4 and 5 of the subdivision. This is currently our secondary residence, but as we intend for it to be our primary residence in the future we are interested in any development planned for the neighborhood. The purpose of this letter is to voice our concerns relating to the Birnam Woods project before it is approved by the City. Our first concern is the removal of trees from the project site. We noted that the developer plans to remove only five of the 58 trees on the site which is commendable. However, one of the trees planned for removal is the large walnut tree on Lot 4. We feel strongly that this tree should not be removed. We had a local landscaper examine this tree to determine if it could be moved. He said that because of its age, he did not recommend moving it. We feel everything possible should be done to preserve this tree. It is the only mature tree on the proposed Lot 4. It will serve as a natural privacy barrier between our house and the house to be built. The trees we plan to plant to provide privacy between our house and the proposed house will take decades to grow to the size of this tree. Based on your pre-application conference comment sheet dated 1/23/96, you agree that the tree should be spared. Specifically, you state, "envelopes for 4 & 5 should be modified in order to preserve the 14"walnut tree." We ask that this tree be preserved as part of the final approval for this project. Our second concern is the proposed density for this project. Five additional houses are planned for this project. It is our understanding from reviewing the developer's proposal that the developer is asking for one additional house under the bonus points calculation for conservation and open space under the Performance Standards Options for the City of Ashland. We have to challenge the bonus points earned for open space. In reviewing a copy of the Performance Standards Option, specifically 18.88.040, Performance Standards for Residential Developments, B.3.b., 'the purpose of the density bonus for common open space is to permit areas Saturday. Marchh 30, 1996 0' '�.�9 AM 4 Mr. Bill Molnar Page 2 Senior Planner which could otherwise be developed, or sold as individual lots, to be retained in their natural state or to be developed as a recreational amenity." This provision goes on to state, "it is not the purpose of this provision to permit density bonuses for incidental open spaces which have no realistic use by project residents on a day-to- day basis." In reviewing the project plan, the open space provided by the developer is a narrow strip of land which lies on the east side of the proposed access roads. This is hardly land which could be developed or sold as an individual lot. At best, this is incidental open space. We strongly argue that the density for this project should be the same as the existing neighborhood which would only allow four additional houses to be built on this property. Due to our work schedules, we will not be able to attend the Planning Commission Meeting on April 9. However, we would appreciate this letter addressing our concerns be submitted to the Planning Commission for their consideration. We will call you after the April 9 meeting to get an update on the progress of this project. In the meantime, if you need to reach us, please call us at (415)359-8747, or you can reach us by E-mail at mhohulin@mail.concentric.net. We thank you and the Planning Commission for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, . John & Margo Hohulin 255 Reichling Avenue Pacifica, CA 94044 cc: Mr. Evan Archerd P. O. Box 699 Ashland, OR 97520 Mr..Leon C. Mulling 718 Indiana Ashland, OR 97520 Dennis and Dorothy Smith 708 Indiana Ashland, OR 97520 A 11 EAGLE CONSTRUCTION LIC. # 92414 Andrea Shapiro • 186 Mominglight • Ashland. OR 97520 • TEL (503) 482-4727 • FAX: (503) 482-0230 • Pager. 857-4877 City Council Ashland, OR 97520 August 6, 1996 Dear Council Members: I would like to recommend approval of the Bimam Woods Subdivision submitted by Evan Archerd. This subdivision is in keeping with the City of Ashland's goals for both reasonable density and the use of available land for infill rather than expanding the City's boundaries. This subdivision also provides for open space for the residents of the development and should enhance property values in the immediate area. Sincerely yours, _ Andrea Shapiro Eagle Construction Daniel Stephens 1458 Windsor St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-7830 RE: Planning Action 996-047 Dear Council Members, I am writing in support of the APPEAL of the Bimam Woods Development located at 1452 Oregon St. I am the property owner of the tax lot directly across from the south end of the development on Windsor St. I live at 1458 Windsor St. This project will increase the traffic and on street parking in our neighborhood which is already a problem when SOSC is in session. Three residences are served by the same driveway. One of these driveways will be located directly across from mine which will increase the noise level on our street. Because of these driveways fire protection for any homes located there becomes barely adequate. In connection with the open space Ord. 18:88:040: this project doesn't meet the criteria for bonus points especially in area of"realistic_use_by_project:residents:on:a=day-today cbasis-s Numbers may have been manipulated on the plot map to barely meet ordinance criteria, but numbers don't address the usable space issue. I understand that the city wants to infill land rather than allow urban sprawl. But, urban density is also not desired. For a project that is borderline it seems that going for less density is better than more. This is in keeping with the aesthetics of Ashland (I know aesthetic is not a legal or measurable term) but aesthetics is what ideas like open space and solar access are about, not just the practical. Then there are neighborhood aesthetics. None of the Birnam Woods lots come close in size to the rest of the neighborhood lots. As open space 1452 Oregon St. has more aesthetic value and neighborhood interaction now than it would as developed property. But it will be developed, the question is how. The infill policy creates the development of lots with bits of land left over. Maybe the council needs to address what to do with the bits of land. Moderation, don't try to fit square pegs into round holes. I ask you to reject Planning Action #96-047. Sincerely, D niel Stephen oxxz .a ra cn ' U�.1 H H v v v 111 !O ; W 3 -3z0 mx v Hm am Hm 3 U7 a Gl m O m cn 2: nd 10 > a r 13 H m T ztmyaaai r H a 13 H C; m t c In LA M =a —3 Z M } (u .. mmr i me z a r > fo 1 r� C 0zom In 3mmm "7a I Q 13 n z "0 z = z nm 1� 1 siJ H Cf m Tl m z a vv z z K wan 110 mry ov rzHcr # ndm > .o rn r Rr�. cox 13 'T7 \ LA> w 'V- `\ OD -3� �. m 0 13 > t, , • m vm C7 H Z Y Z > v cx < X Hcn omm zx 1 1VA V' V lad �1 d w r r G) r 4� UJ n mgz ' Htn LkJ y`�,` ,\v n H OOr �J z 3 o z L ,0Zy # z 3 tC IN r� ao -3Ernz \ 0 m m o ramo 3 -3 W .an mx •V m � o n r Zm0r �Z Cl) zroim � \' mo < 0w '3HU1m WCn 7 0) -30 9\ 11�V CO xm - 0 vamp cn b rxzaIli H0 cn cn av 110Hm 0 I �-< O -3 En 'V 'V p K mm � -3 OC O S x 00 f 1 p rJ 1 o zrxnnm v ^c v vz N cn H R] -3 v Cl -3 < m z n �j y 1 V tiJ j` > '< m Z c7 cx d Pp U) r� 7 z C) Z m m „ r N H z3 � 2 "a CC: c 4 5 Z cn SxO :tl Hm am n z 0 — m mHooz •� n vmvz zt) 3 > > ty1 Cl oz _ z zm 13 Ctn r H '.Z1 3 H � l d H Z m L L o C1 171 m H Z mxH •3zm mmr i mty a or > o 2: 0 Cl) S? ca ✓111 3 m 171 m Tl C H rnHro ( \ rm cm] LCV z t� z M M IV En ITI ei b \ a 0000 > zm N _ M z e ro > > > 13 # ro IIV zzewroro n mr > oq rzH < r J # dmq 1� coX13H rO --MI v x u, - - mz > tz 'd 3 nn 00013 > r = l" .Gm to Zm � xX �z C i cn LI)t ci rx+ > -3 > o p Ul U1 Y' 'Z 01 H 'iJ nyoor > OZZ -3 a H0 �3 ; rnz t-11 0 y a .r � U�] Z0 [HTJ n 0E N \ mo < 0G) MmZ � = t70) •'3O a 0 x Z 0t7xm > i1m0 Cl rxzaro H0M Cl z > * O H m O ro K t7 13 C1 'a '0 c m m T mx r ro to Hm r \�` W � -CCU m a0Cm Ym �VV CY' \ J m V] OCIcn t7 < zr+ Hm > 9 to H m H z a, ro tZI 3 w w w Kmzo x 4 m d cn 6 �� Y\ c m \.. ro ro '3yH '- a7 . �� (� W L� z Oxxz � mm P H H > > b C 3 01 y H z -33 ro N m 13 w .3 �3z 0 0x O 2 1 z x x O Z 13M x cn z 0 'T7 C gy' [yi cn Oz 9 • ocnrornHz mclr > Zo 5 �, op 0 2: 0 cn m m h] to "n C H cn H ro -X0 Vlzro H -3 0 Cn m m C m G] O 13 ti Ja COO 'U'O > :4M X n S + z z dz ro v > K w ro or > o > rzHro r # ti > H n r o vxv, ^ co z co G) > Ili 3 a co G) 3rx m a r z a 013 m > zv r - xcxHcn wt-I00 6] > Go e. rr � a -3-3 > z H > 3 c7 q in mnzoor z .3 o z > fi P 0Z 3 � H W �• CS H O -3 £ (n z V o, + z 'n x rn i c) m rn o mTI mn J O 3 � z cn0 < ocn H Cn ro CH n 0 M = tvoo 0xz codxcn - a bzrno m rxzcro HO ( (n z2' \ nOHrnoro � ty13mroro K z z 0 z z O X ro > 0 0 x C C � T x � xoo 41 v C�h � C: cn m > to d 07 H Cl > tl tx tj m � � cn �. i i av�e. �,Rer ..- .-. _.. ._ _. fill s ! j11F 1 ; ,---- ------ I ' F .�, lit it i i M s d f i t Q o N 3 (n r- ,. �. t c �I1 0 Ul Z $12z 9 - F J e i i tmp �-- N nwww ;i{ srasr ASHLAND STREET TREE COMMISSION SITE REVIEW Applicant EVQn A r ckc, I c/6-0y7 Date 3 2 -mot Address �6 2 Commercial Residential_ Proposed Action: Recommendation: tx , 5� n<� `f (cG; Street Tree Commission Representative Date Follow-up: 38 V v vaoonn ► d N 9 il9C jyJ64NIM i r -r I---T A ,^ L1 ' 7 ,a V1 s � i 4r. LIB c •w� i a 61 •1 lu W I P x N _l e F :} 44 v 1 Birnam Woods Subdivision Planning Action 96-047 Page 5 3. Permanent park benches will be provided in the open space areas to insure that the residents of the development can interact with these areas on a day to day basis. 4. Fencing was discussed at the previous Planning Commission Meeting and our neighborhood meeting. There appears to be some disagreement between both commissioners and neighbors about the need for fencing. We certainly want to maintain safety during construction, and the perimeter of the property is already fenced with field (wire) fencing. While we do not advocate wood fencing on both sides of the property, we will abide by the Commission's decision on this issue. Finally, in our second meeting with the neighbors on April 26, many expressed their understanding that the six lot development might, in comparison, be more acceptable than the five larger lot alternative. Another neighbor suggested that we use the six lot layout but dedicate one lot - or an additional 20% of the property - to common open space. As property owners, this idea is simply not practical. We recognize and respect that the issues of infill and density are ones about which reasonable people will disagree, And when neighborhood change is in the offing, emotions will also weigh in. However, after all the conflicting sentiments are considered, we feel our plan for a six lot development meets all of the appropriate legal standards and should be approved. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our proposal and to present you with new information. We jook forward to meeting with you on May 14, 1996. Yours tr ly, Evan, Archerd Hal Dresner 43 SUBJECT PROPERTY - NEIGHBORHOOD MAP •rr :flrr •IM I•� ♦ II(I r r• I .-. it 1 1 i i/ • _ : I 1 1 117•lf 3/� tNt tONI •• I. r ' _ ;1i3Y10 IOYMOq - T I �• ' ' -• � � �" I I' I J I ��rj P I I 117Y1• " OY1/NOfI LO I -a I• r_ ..__.. . .,•�.I • � i - j - 1 I ll�i I II• I � 1 i 1 ' 1 SUBDIVISION OPEN SPACE EXAMPLES a ni �a R a a ✓�' N E a o� ao• n8 "�[ Y a a N U A uro A rt ny i R Pa �nX nY 'A g Nx Y •+ n Y la s ne r� ne a N Nx E h9 E N3 NT nE a w:l a -Fig A — — — — — A -- A 123NIS NIVINrOW N— R I j I I: 39 IE CO Fr v 5-8 � i ! 1 Lizt i- H i OETAX MAP , .y 400 5 . 00 11]]r +~ • iLr. N 10.11.!•1 i al 1 � •• `I Il01 1 cl. IWI OETA/L MAP NO. 2 5_' I IWITIYI PLAY •0. P_u9-1990 701 1.-a t•n 0 I•r I d1 90.NIN•91 r•r. law last Inv PARTITION PLAT j O.Nr01 MO. P•44.g97 we wra. t.: I's u0 190 1109 110• 1107 1100 our 9M M q 919 MI 999 owr our C•r our our rlr aar our a am our art Cur q s �. u • r • • •m n a n • sp• 114 +r j R w we :, r.: -_— li•••---4.AlIE—� r ) �*[VI11�•- f � .�.,.. IaI�• N IO�Yr Inver ICYY llay O » gllr ulr wlr 900 I Crr Cur orr �aN M7 •1 900 � 011 �iQ Cur Alr • our f • R • • • ] In as air ! ww I► M Itttr As so 900 A IYVIEW S4eawSa/ a M r� ••r A allr 38 a No i Sf�f WC T.30 t. ILL IL 27• _0 39• IE •CA r �« . FOO o a a sv► am o�i r nr osr os owr omr O 0 Mm o uft d o p" , CRISPIN— —� am Gem 219 .� y -4 no.. o 20 w M3 P a , 2 �• v oa=r o.r= s oae Cb,r Q'm, m oar, or a e r . 0 zz ....... .A --AITTERSON— —STREET— !a Soo "ft "m m cos w, lam OW OL rMO t•- SU -... o HOO ZOO. 1 f' ••HlS• o� /o" ' Z! - . � 1 •�i a a • SEE 1!✓ 394 ♦CD I I i G 5_1 POPLAR PLACE SUED/V/S/ON, A PCD CS 11% -�T ---PATTERSON - STREET cr ♦1• W J qY 417 f 1 � V • JqY 4m i Q 0'1Y a 1 • � O.nY 1 MO M! O. OOY a qY 0 00•Y 414 f J UY 1 C G.W 101M" ��,• � f • \ I i Il - CANMN PARK 3 SUMVIS w +f.o OfY. OSSY ` k ie >A ' `� • o Of1Y o •� n • �' •i s a 1 H "• m CANYON -RARK --DRIVE- .. 5_1 • r •M 02... 11 • � n a • � ti 30 J i n JAQ UOY if 001 • Wt u I + f THOMAS SJBD/V/SAOIV (A P.U.D.) ru r_ N. ...• 700 702 703 u u.. o t.. W9 f., f ?06 •' t07 .... H f • ' ROMEO----.:;.. -DRIVE 7u ono nit.. 0 am .•70P 9.c'` .. •• ., 706 U G I t BlK I \ t INA