ozO

Jli

VV

0

urLl

orLl

lZopop

r

fl

z

lIt

sJ4

I

ol1

cio

o

efil

00J

It

offil

NIt

IIci

c05i

eG

l

i3

cIt

0N

an1l

Eci

3di

0

HI

0

GRANDVIEW112 n

P9J q

0 I5 U Ij

IOCA1 O r 2lJ p 04

1 30035 2 3 290

2IW

005 y0y

f250

It

tJUD

21500uo AC

to

01 1

2fl4 0

GSlJ271

105 11119

300r

Jr

I 0I

0290

30120

305

yf

30

1

i ir

t3 r IOHe

AREA TO BEH c

9

DEEDED TO CITYf 1 Y

0 38 ACRESSMITH PROPERTY 28

3 13006

r

20

4I

3010 rr

SJ

285

1 1Ir

OO 02 Y 090 94 C270 9p rp cs15747

U

5 9 JO 11 W

of

I

I

14 9

fJI I

PROPOSED ALLEY VACATION

30020 50 C CITY PROPERTY

1E 5IXASPlLAND

J l t i t

A 5 I iti iJI

i11

m

I tJII Im l

2

i 4e

o

GCil

W5

g72U

oo

lS6m

li

SoXYil

Kl

88

tJloS

HO

ZSl61I06aJQ

lpullllS

VJ

StI

lWJuOI

ElR

lnsllV

SI

S

r1

Wmfo

hg

JjN

Qo

QQNVlH8V

cijo

ZIf

Ii

HilM

lSJNYICJ

ON

HV

I

SK

ItiiaSiJfJ

Jj

li

fif

li1

ti

Il

IifJ

II

Iit

Jillitit

JIl

ll

l

lJIII

xx

SK

YC

RE

ST

DRI

IIIIillI

51I

II

vi1111

Date Flied

PETITIONWe the Undef 19lledPfopeiiy own8lirfM4 en or near 3 ycB t Dr iv ein Mhland Oron do hereby petition the City Council to initiateproceedings to vacate the above mentioned public right of way being further described

as follows

See Attached exhibit A

We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 100 of the propertiesabutting the proposed vacation and at least 66 of the affected area which lies within200 feet on either side and 400 feet from the ends ot the public right ot way proposed forvacation

2

3

4

5

6

TAX LOT NO

30ft2600

1063 CJ 3

03L t

30oigCXJ0 Ie

0 5

It rc rf

00 5kb re 6

305 Stjc2 J 7 0c

2 0 5vh Y LJ S f

C cd S

SKOyO Sc fV

9

10

County ofJackson

State of Oregon

I j5 It ing one of the principal Proponents oftheproposed vacation do hereby subscribe and swear that the above signatures were takenin my presence and are the signatures of the p jjns own rope tting or withinthe area affected by Ihe Proposed vacation

j iSignaJure

Not PublicMy Commission Expires W 2 O OFFICIAL SEAL

JASON T SOUDERSNOTARY PUBlICQREGONCOMMISSION NO 379435MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR 8 2008

G OawnlStreetlVacatlon P8t lon wpd

t JDate Flied

PETITIONWe th Uflderelgnedproper1y9WA

e retiding on or near 3 1C 8 t Dr iven A shland Orgon do hereby petition the City Council to initiateproceedings to vacate the above mentioned public right of way being further describedas follows

Bee Attached exhibit A

We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 100 ofthe propertiesabutting the proposed vacation and at least 66 of the affected area which lies within200 feet on either side and 400 feet from the ends of the public right of way proposed forvacation

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

H

10

County ofJackson

State ofOregon

ADDRESS

9U 0df7J S7 1M QW

Jyg ffttnnyVI O3b3 rfl I J IJ

3 a VVfA

29 le1fIJ hid Ihu

TAX LOT NO

00if 310O

Wlo I

J h O

Jr V

J L tJ JAJa

o

I DlMESTWVl 5rlrn being one of the principal proponents oftheproposed vacation do hereby subscribe and swear that the above signatures were takenin my presence and are the signatures ofthe persons owning property abutting or withinthe area affected by the proposed vacation

i

P SignatureNot PublicMy Commission Expires 1 g Og

G DawnslreeIIVaeatlon Petnlon wpd

OFFICIAL SEALJASON T SOUDERS

NOTARY PUBUCOREGONCOMMISSION NO 379435

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR 8 2008

40

IIIL SSOC

May 26 2005

To Whom It May Concern

I am writing to convey ourorganizations support ofthe alley vacation described in theattachment providing the owners Brian L Smith and Diane Steffey Smith grant a publicaccess easement for the described trail in the same attachment Providing usable trailaccess in place of an unusable alley makes sense for all parties involved Theireasementis described from the intersection of their northerly property line and Ditch Road southby southwest roughly parallel to the Ditch Road transecting their back lot

Rob Cain

AWTAPresident279 Granite Street

AsWand OR 97520I IIIII11 lIIl1l1l11111 IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII 1IIIUUd

May 5 2005

RiJflt

To Whom It May Concern

We the undersigned are in favor ofthe alley vacation described in attached Exhibit Aproviding the owners Brian L Smith and Diane SteffeySmith of290 Skycrest Drivegrant an easement for the purpose ofa public trail from the intersection of their northerlypropertY line and Ditch Road south by southwest roughly parallel to Ditch Roadacross their property as approximately shown on Exhibit B

QLhvman Susan4hapman

390 0rcbanI Street jAsWand OR 97520

If VI v

IIOIUJDJ I IIIIIIII I IIIIII mmOmnlnunmmumlll UOIIIDIDIIIIIDOllmml

FromToDate

Subject

Don RobertsonJim Olson8 2 20051 25 18 PMSmith alley vacation request

Jim

I just met with Brian and Diane Smith reqarding their vacation request

The alley connects to Ditch road and their own property The Ditch road is currently used by many hikersbut this alley as is provides no current or future improvment to the hiking conditions In exchange for thealley vacation the smiths have proposed a new pedestrian access easment PAE be placed roughlyparallel to the ditch road but angled towards city open space property While it will not complete a link tothe property it will startone that can be continued to provide better access onto current city property andeventually link up to sky crest drive along another PAE

From my prospective I think it should be granted with the provision that it be replaced with a perminentPAE surveyed route approved by Jeff McFarland our trails coordinator

thanks

don

CITY OF

ASHLANDASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEmNGNOVEMBER 8 2005

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER Chair lohn Fields called themeeting to order at 7 05 p m at the Civic Center 1175 E Main Street AshlandOR

Commissioners Present lohn Fields ChairRuss ChapmanOlena BlackMichael Dawkins

Allen DoumaDave Dotterrerlohn StrombergMike MorrislackHardesty presentBill Molnar Interim Planning DirectorMaria Harris Senior PlannerMike Reeder Assistant City AttorneySue Yates Executive Secretary

Council LiaisonStaff Present

ANNOUNCEMENTS The deadline for applying for the vacancy on the Planning Commission is Friday November 18thAPPROVAL OF MINUTESSeptember 27 2005 Continuation of Northllght Hesrlng Black asked under item 4 where she spoke to delete it and add theDesign Standards DotterrerlDouma ms to approve the minutes as corrected Voice Vote The minutes were approvedOctober 11 2005 Regular Meeting DoumalDotterrer ms to approve the minutes Voice Vote The minutes were approvedPUBLIC FORUMCOLIN SWALES 461 Allison Street showed a color coded map oflots in the downtown and discussed where he felt it appropriate tohave 40 foot buildings in the downtown He said we should preserve Primary Contributing buildings and those buildings on theNational Register The noncompatible non historic andnon contributing could be remodeled or tom down and rebuilt Buildsmallerbuildings on smaller lots not maximizing at the 40 footheight leaving the larger lots for larger buildings also recognizingthe bulk and scale ofthe neighboring buildings The color coded map is available at the libraryTOM GIORDANO 2635 Takelma Way felt strongly that we need to have anurban design form for the downtown looking at thedowntown in a comprehensive way Dawkins noted the Commissioners thatgee working on the Downtown Plan are looking atthat

TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGSPLANNING ACTION 1200501674SUBJECT PROPERTY 11 First StreetOWNERAPPLICANT Ron Carrie YamaokaDESCRIPTION Request for reconsideration ofthe Plannlhg Commission decision reachedat the October 11 2005 PlanningCommission meeting requesting Site Review approval for a threestory mixed use building comprised ofreatiurant spaceoffice space and two residential units for the property located at 11 First St The proposed building Is approximately 4 500square feet In size and Is located In the Downtown and Detail Site Review zones ATree Removal Permit Is requested toremove four trees sized six Inches diameter at breast height and greater

ReconsiderationFields as guided by the City Attorney has concluded this action should be reconsidered and continued at next month smeeting because ofan error in the ordinance interpretation A revised plan has been submitted by the applicantaddressing the vision clearance issue This will also give the Historic Commission an opportunity to review any revisions

ASHLAND PLANNING C SSIONREGUlAR MEETING

UTES8 2005

1

RecontldindlonFields decided not to exercise his power to ask for a reconsideration ofthis action because be does not believe any newinformation basemerged Fields would like the Commission to instruct Staff 88 to what standards and what issues should beincluded in the denial

DoumaDotterrer ms to reconsider Roll Call DottelTer MorTis Douma voted yes and Dawkins Black Fields Chapman andStromberg roted no to reconsider The motion failed and the action will not be reconsidered

The Commissioners discussed at length whether ornot they should give Staff guidance for the findings During deliberation ofthis action at the September 27 2005 Planning Commission meeting there was no clear consensus on each separate issue Fieldsasked each member to voice any reasons they might have had for denial that were not part ofthe motion at the meeting on the 27thChapman voted for denial because the project wasrepresented as two lots and it failed to meet the commercial requirement on theback lot

Black voted to deny because it did not meet four ofthe criteria ofthe Downtown Design Standards The setback issue was notclear She had problems with the height stepping back and staggering ofthe buildings as well as the 80 foot building width andlots greater than 80 feet in width She hadconcerns with the setback on the comer the sense ofentryat the comerofFirstandLithia Way as well as not maintaining the rhythm ofbuildings She did not have enough information about the future ofLithiaWay

Dawkins did not like the bulk andscale ofthe building There were no real differences in the height ofthe buildings He objectedto the building being three stories high and as long as the buildings on the Plaza An approval would have overturned the setbackalready established onLithia Way The setback shouldbe protected for the future

Fields said he would like to see a good sized sidewalk and the building built to the street His reasons for denial were keeping theentire ground floor commercial andbulk and scale ofthe buildings articulation building height and size It would make sense tohave six residentia1live workunits The buildings have more glass than building and that much glass does not complement thedowntown The public needs to be able to see into the commercial areas

Douma denied the project because there are two lots and one did not meet the requirement ofthe zoning district He had concernsabout bulkand scale

Dotterrer concurred with Chapman and Douma

Stromberg voted for denis1 because the balance between residential and commercial went too far and it wasdifficult to determineifthe project was considered one or two lots There were several aspects ofthe Design Standards that were not met includingbulk and scale He did not like the sense ofentry Ifthe front yard setback is along First Street then the setback should be20 feetiftheplain language ofthe ordinance is applied Though minor the project doesn t satisfy the vision clearance He does notbelieve the case was made that the transition from the townhouses to the adjoining neighborhood was made He felt thepurpose ofthe separation between buildings was not met as it was intended to reduce the mass not making the separation wide at the frontand narrow at the back He did not like the height ofthe tower The variation in heights did not meet the burden ofproofMorris agreed with Chapman Douma andDotterrer with regard to the commercial versus residential after the lot split There wasnot adequate discussion ofthe bulk and scale during the Commissioners discussion

PLANNING ACTION 200501476SUBJECT PROPERTY 290 Skycrest DriveOWNERAPPLICANT Brian Diane SmithDESCRIPTION Land Partition to divide one existing parcel Into two parcels Including one flag lot for the property located at290 Skycrest Dr The application Includes a proposal to vacate the existing pubJlc alley rlghtof way to the north of theproperty AVariance Is requested to minimum lot width requirement and the minimum lot size The minimum lot widthnqulred Is 1100 feet and the proposed lots are Irregularly shape with portions under 100 feet In width The minimum lot sizeIn the RR 5 zone Is 50 ofan acre and the proposed lots are 36 ofan acre The eastern portion of the propertyapproximately 38of an acre Is proposed as dedicated open space A Physical Constraints Review Pennlt Is requested tocreate a parcel with slopes 25 and greater and remove three Black Oak trees greater than 12 Inches diameter at breastheight In Hillside lands

A8HLAND PLANNlfO CO ISSIONREGULAR IEETINGuTES

NOYEIBER8

4

Site Vlslta and Ex Parte Contacb

Cb8pman waJbd the site a couple ofmonths ago and a gentleman onsite identified himself to Chapman Today he wa1bd the sitedown the back slopeBlack walked the site a couple ofmonths ago He met the owner and they ta1ked about how to identify a white and black oak treeShe has since had communication with the owner on Comprehensive Plan issues She believes she can be unbiasedDawkins Dotterrer and Fields had a site visitDouma and Stromberg had nothing to reportMonis had a site visit He reported that he just completed ajob thatKerry KenCaim was working onat the same time Hedid notbelieve he had a contlict ofinterest

STAFF REPORTHarris said there are two pieces to the application The bulk ofit is a land use application The second piece is a request for avacation ofan alley

The land use application has three components The first is a request to create anew flag lot Secondly there is a request for twoVariances I the middle lot width of 100 feet and 2 for the minimum lot size Third there is a request for a Physical ConstraintsReview permit to remove three trees greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height in Hillside Lands and to create a new lot thatis in Hillside Lands

Harris gave the property description and location The Tree Plan identifies 118 trees with threeblack oak trees slated for removalAll ofthe land is considered Hillside because it slopes 25 percent andgreater There is an existing single family home in thesouthwest comerofthe property She described the proposed partition by way ofthe site plan The partition relies on the vacationofthe alley The alley right ofway width is 20 feet

The main discussion point is granting ofthe two Variances The Staff Report discusses them in further detail The lot width iscalculated by averaging the different areas Eachlot size is aminimum one half acre Staffhas taken a conservative approachThe applicant has argued the site is unique orunusual because it is surrounded by lots that are smaller than one half acre It isunique because it is a large lot butone ofthe only ones in the area that could have possibly two home sites Staffmay not agreewith the applicant s argument that this application is a benefit because it is using the property to its intended density Goals andpolicies in the Comprehensive Plan talk about looking at lower densities in areas thathave physical constraints There is alwaysth balancing ofwhat makes the most sense However the obvious benefit is the public open space anduse ofthe property in atrail dedication whether it is through an easement or a lot

Harris showed the alternative scenario as discussed in the StaffReport This scenario assumes the alley vacation wouldnot happen leaving a relatively small area to build on Would that be an adequate area upon which to build

PUBLIC HEARINGLARRY MEDINGER 115 Fork said he is the technical person builder and friend ofthe applicant He outlined the buildablearea on the site plan There is a sewer line easement across the slope going over to the alley and down to Ditch Road

DotterrerlBlack ms to extend the meeting to 11 00p m Everyone approved

Medinger said he believes the plan they are presenting is the best planning for the site They are proposing two lots at 36acres and one at 4 acres They are proposing to set aside a significant amount ofopen space at the bottom oftheproperty They are trying to relate to theother lots in the neighborhood The distance from the south property line to thenorth property line is 68 feet making for anice sized lot The solar access is governed by a 16 foot solar fence allowingfor a substantial house He showed the proposed dedicated open space and trail Their map says easement but the ideais to dedicate that area including the applicant s one halfofthe vacated alley to the City

BRIAN SMITH 290 Skycrest stated they are proposing the partition so they can ultimately build a small modest house anddedicate the lower portion to the City He noted that by dedicating the lower portion of the lot a hiker jogger trail usercan traverse the slope and at some point tie into the Hald trail system Itgives more options to walkers and joggersThere is anotherneighbor who is not willing to dedicate the property that would be the connecting piece

Smith mentioned a letter from David Chapman endorsing the vacation ofthe alley only if the Smith s offered a traileasement to the City There is also a letter from Don Robertson Parks and Recreation Dept favoring thealley vacationas long as they can have the trail option There was a letter from 1im Olson City Engineer There was a letter from Rob

ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSIONREQULAR MEETING

UTESNOYEIIBER 8 200S

5

4

Cain Presidentofthe Ashland Woodlauds and Trails ASsociation giving support ofthe alley vacation inexchaoge for atrail easement

Medingersaid the Variances are minor and the sizes are well within the mid range lots in the Skycrest subdivision Thislot is unique because it is the only lot overone acrethat has two building sites that can be developedStaff Response Harris said looking at the alternate scenario the dimensions average 67 feet The assertion by Medingerthat this proposal could come forward and not require Variances is probably not accurate

Rebuttal Medinger said you don t average the flag drive in the lot width

COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTIONDoumaBlack ms to approve PA200S 01476 with the attached 19 Conditions ofapproval Roll Call Unanimous

1 DoumalStr mberg ms to recommend to the Council vacation ofthe alley right ofway to the north of 290 Skycrest RollCall Unanunous

QIlfgftMeeting Date Change The December Planning Commission meeting willbe held Monday December 12th at 7 00 p mThe Hearings Board will be held on the same date at 1 30 p m in the Council Chambers Dotterrer will be absent

The Commissioners were asked to keep their packets from this month for the next meetingADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11 00 p m

Respectfully submitted bySusan Yates

Executive Secretary

ASHLAND PLANNING COMISSIONREGULAR MEETING

UTESHOVEI18ER 8 2G05

6