HomeMy WebLinkAboutAshlandCreek_699_PA-2012-01710
CITY F
ASHLAND
January 11, 2013
Richard Vezie
208 Oak St., Suite 204.
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Planning Action #2012-01710
Notice of Final Decision
On January 11, 2013, the Staff Advisor for the Ashland Planning Division administratively approved your
request for the following:
A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit approval to construct a 2,668 square foot single-
family home on slopes greater than 25 percent for the property located at 699 Ashland Creek Drive. The
application also includes a request for an Administrative Exception from the Development Standards for
Hillside Lands to allow for two areas of the home to exceed the 20-foot vertical height restriction; at the
northeast corner of the garage and the main floor deck post at the southeast corner of the home.
Additionally, a modification of the Lithia Creek Estates subdivision (PA #94-003) to allow the allocation of
lot coverage from subdivision open space to the subject property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Low-Density Residential; ZONING: RR-.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 17AA; TAX
LOT: 1118.
The Staff Advisor's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13`h day after the Notice of Final
Decision is mailed.
Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice Of Final Decision may request a
reconsideration of the action by the Staff Advisor as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
(ALUO) 18.108.070(B)(2)(b) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in
the ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2)(c).
An appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Oregon law states that failure to
raise an objection -concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford
the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that
issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of
appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to
proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the
issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available
for review at no cost at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winbum Way.
Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee
schedule.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Community Development
Department between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305.
i
cc: Daniel Morse
Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn, Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY; 800-735-2900 \
www.ashland.or.us
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: 2012-01710
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 699 Ashland Creek Road
APPLICANT: Richard Vezie
DESCRIPTION: A request for Physical and Environmental Constraints Review
Permit approval to construct a 2,668 square foot single-family home on slopes greater than 25
percent for the property located at 699 Ashland Creek Drive. The application also includes a
request for an Administrative Exception from the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to
allow for two areas of the home exceed the 20-foot vertical height restriction; at the northeast
corner of the garage and the main floor deck post at the southeast corner of the home. A
modification of the Lithia Creek Estates subdivision (PA #94-003) to allow the allocation of
some lot coverage from subdivision open space to the subject property is also requested.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Residential; ZONING: RR-.5;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 17AA; TAX LOT: 1118
SUBMITTAL DATE: December 5, 2012
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: December 12, 2012
STAFF APPROVAL DATE: January 11, 2013
APPEAL DEADLINE: January 23, 2013
FINAL DECISION DATE: January 24, 2013
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: January 24, 2014
DECISION
The subject property is a vacant lot at the top of Ashland Creek Drive, west of Granite Street. A
private street, Winter Drive, intersects Ashland Creek Drive at the northwest portion of the lot.
The property is approximately 10,256 square feet in size, zoned RR-.5, and has severe downhill
slopes to the east from 25 to 45 percent. The lot is covered with native trees and understory brush
and grasses.
The property is designated as Lot 10 in the Lithia Creek Estates Subdivision, which had a long
history since the early 1980s, but was ultimately approved in 1999. The overall area of the parent
property was approximately 25.6 acres; however a significant portion had slopes in excess of 55
percent, which were deemed unbuildable. This equates to approximately 15 acres (655,768
square feet) of the parent property to be retained in open space in order to protect the sloped,
forested areas from the impacts of development.
Because of the steep slopes on the lot in excess of 25 percent, the new home is subject to the
Development Standards for Hillside Lands, as prescribed in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
Chapter 18.62.080 and 18.62.100; and therefore must obtain a Physical & Environmental
Constraints Permit. All hillside development projects require a Geotechnical Design Report to
determine the parcel's geologic suitability for construction. In this case, the report is provided by
Amrhein and Associates, which notes that fill was likely added to the site from construction of
Ashland Creek Drive, but conditions are suitable for the proposed, home and its associated site
improvements provided the recommendations are followed during the design and construction of
the project.
PA-2012-01710
699 Ashland Creek Dr./W
Page 1
The proposal is for a two-story single-family home with 2,668 square feet of living space and
attached two car garage. Due to the steep slopes on the property, the home's design is largely
dictated by placement of the garage and the subsequent driveway bridge/approach. In order to
avoid access conflicts with both the driveway across the street (700 Ashland Creek), and Winter
Drive; and to construct an effective interface with Ashland Creek Drive, the driveway curb cut is.
proposed on the western side of the property, as opposed to across from Winter Drive where it is
currently located. The result is a home situated high on the lot as to provide a sense of entry to
the home; built into the hillside as much as possible; and preserves many trees on the lot as
possible.
The City's Hillside Development Design Standards are intended to preserve the natural slope of
the property by preserving significant natural features and by utilizing building design-
techniques. The proposed home complies with the maximum height requirement of 35 feet from
natural grade, and includes a 22-foot wide offset on the downhill facing elevation to break up the
mass of the building. The main (top) floor will have the garage, kitchen, dining and living areas,
as well as a 144 square foot deck at the southeast corner. The bottom floor will have three
bedrooms and two bathrooms, including the master suite and a multi-purpose room. The
basement will have 338 square feet of living area including a mechanical room. The rooflines
generally follow the natural slope of the parcel, and the exterior finish will consist of light brown
stucco with dark brown complementing features to blend into the surrounding neighborhood, and
utilizes texture and landscaping to reduce the overall visual bulls.
Because the lot contains slopes greater that 35 percent, design guidelines for Severe Constraints
are also applied to the site. AMC 18.62.100 requires applicants to design a project considering
the sensitive topography of the site, while preserving as many natural features as possible, and
minimizing any adverse impacts related to the development. The applicant has demonstrated
compliance with this section and subsequent details are included with the attached geotechnical
engineering recommendations of Amrhein Associates Inc.
The application also includes a request for an Administrative Exception from the Development
Standards for Hillside Lands to allow for two areas of the home exceed the 20-foot vertical
height restriction; at the northeast corner of the garage, and the main floor deck post at the
southeast corner of the home.
Due to the driveway bridge, both the slope and the elevation of Ashland Creek Drive determine
the height of garage. The steep easterly slope beneath the garage drops off significantly, and the
northeastern potion of the garage is supported by an architectural column that exceeds 20 feet in
height. The applicant's findings ,state the alternative to this is either more disturbance, or more
building mass, both of which are counter to the intent of the Hillside Design Standards. Staff
finds that since the garage is. determined by the bridge location, that the short driveway bridge
instead of the typical on-grade driveway substantially reduces the amount of impervious
surfaces, the amount of site disturbance from excavation, and allows the greatest number of trees
possible to remain. Therefore, staff finds that by allowing the northeast portion of the home to be
taller than required is ultimately beneficial to the existing site topography and will substantially
limit disturbance..
i
PA-2012-01710
699 Ashland Creek Dr./MP
Page 2
At the southeast corner of the home, a deck post that supports an overhanging roof is also
proposed to exceed the 20-foot height requirement. In justifying the request, the applicant
explains that the 20-foot height requirement is specific to walls, and not posts. Whereas the wall
complies with the vertical height requirement by providing a six-foot step-back in the form of the
deck, the overhanging roof however, is supported by a post, which is taller than 20 feet above
natural grade. The intent of the design standard is to reduce the visual mass of the downhill
elevation of the structure. The applicant notes that creating a roof overhang that projects over the
deck produces a deep shadow that effectively breaks up the visual mass of the of the structure.
The applicant has met the intent of the hillside ordinance by having the home built into the
hillside as much as possible, stepping the footprint into the hill using split pad foundations and
moving the home towards the top of the lot, while still meeting standard setbacks, horizontal
building plane standards, and solar access requirements. In staff's view, the Administrative
Variance requested seems relatively minor given the site's constraints, and staff believes that the
application can be found to meet the burden of proof in addressing the applicable criteria.
In addition to a geotechnical report, a Landscape Planting Plan is also required that includes re-
vegetation of the fill slopes that are terraced by retaining walls. The proposal utilizes a 48-foot
long, three-foot tall retaining wall at the bottom of the hill to support the home. The landscape
plan notes that the area will accommodate native plantings that will further stabilize the site. The
remaining undeveloped potions of the lot will be retained in a natural state.
The tree survey indicates there are 24 trees that have a Diameter at Breast Height (D.B.H) six
inches or greater on the property, the majority of which are Oak, Madrone, and 1Vlanzanita trees
scattered throughout the property. The application proposes to remove 13 trees; nine of which
are located within the building footprint, with the remaining in close proximity to the building
foundation. The application also includes approximately 330 linear feet of tree protection fencing
to be placed in six areas on the lot. For vacant properties within the RR-.5 zoning district, the
removal of significant trees is regulated by the Ashland Municipal Code. None of the trees slated
for removal meet the 18-inch DBH requirement, therefore no tree removal permits are required,
and the proposed removals are considered here only in terms of the broader impacts of the
development as part of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit.
Chapter 18.62.080.D.6.b requires that replacement trees be planted that will result in a canopy
equal or greater than that of the removed trees. Six Oklahoma Redbuds are proposed along the
eastern boundary line, and one within the right-of-way, as to buffer the home from the adjacent
lot to the south. Additionally, due to the small size of the lot, no alternate locations for tree
plantings exist on the lot. The landscape plan, erosion and drainage plan, and planting details will
become conditions of approval, and must be instituted with the development of the lot.
The undeveloped portion of the parcel will be left in a "natural state" with slopes that extend
downward towards the adjacent lot to the east. The grading and drainage plan indicates that a
six-inch pipe will direct surface run-off to the north and drain onto Ashland Creek Drive.
Because the project has an impervious surface calculation of less than 5,000 square feet, the
applicant is not required to make improvements to the existing storm water system.
The final component request included in the application is a modification of the Lithia Creek
Estates subdivision (PA #94-003) to allow the allocation of some lot coverage from the
subdivision's open space to the subject property. The Performance Standards Options Chapter
PA-2012-01710
699 Ashland Creek Dr.1W
Page 3
(AMC 18.88) provides a measure of flexibility to allow for innovation in design and site
planning for Performance Standards subdivisions in exchange for greater efforts to protect
neighborhood character and natural features, as in this case where the parent subdivision
included 28 units constructed on 24 lots, but also protected roughly 15 acres of steeply sloped,
forested lands in open space and limited vehicular access to the development via only one street
so as to minimize vehicular disturbance of the surrounding neighborhood, forest lands and
nearby drainages.
The subject parcel is approximately 10,250 square feet, well below the half-acre minimum lot
size. The RR-.5 zoning district allows for a maximum 20 percent lot coverage, which would limit
the property to no more than 2,051 square feet of impervious surface. The application proposes
2,470 square feet of coverage, or approximately 24.08 percent of the site, and therefore has
requested the flexibility available in the Performance Standards Options chapter be applied to
allow the allocation of the additional 419 square feet of coverage from the subdivision's open
space to the subject property. Condition 11 of Planning Action 81-025, which was imposed by
Council upon appeal states "That discounting 11 unbuildable acres from the total project density
because of slope would still allow the applicant to a) receive a density bonus for this. land
dedicated as open space, and b) more importantly, it would be computed in the overall lot
coverage percentage. If this discounted land were not included, lot coverage would be reduced
to such an extent that it would be almost impossible to build even a few structures on the
buildable portions of the property. " Although the proposal is for 24.08 percent coverage of the
subject property, only a small percentage of the coverage that might otherwise have been
associated with the 15 acres now protected as open space. In staff's view, the additional coverage
is minimal in the context of the larger open space, allows the applicant to respond to site
conditions, and can be found to be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Performance
Standards Options Chapter.
Staff finds that the applicant has proposed a home design that is well thought-out given the
natural and existing constraints of the lot, and has considered all potential hazards of the
proposed development and has the least possible impact to the site. The applicant will mitigate
each adverse impact, including storm water runoff, slope stability, and tree protection by
instituting the recommendations of the geotechnical design report and landscape plans.
Approval criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints (P&E) Permit as described in AMC
Chapter 16.62.040.E
1 That the development will not cause damage or hazard to persons or property upon or adjacent to
the area of development.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and
implemented reasonable measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the
environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The
Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing developmeatof the surrounding
area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
4. That the development is in compliance with the requirements of the chapter and all other applicable
City Ordinances and Codes.
Approval criteria for an Administrative Variance to the Hillside Development Standards, as
PA=2012-01710
699 Ashland Creek Dr./MP
Page 4
described in AMC Chapter 18.62.080.H:
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique
or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site;
2. The variance will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter;
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Physical and Environmental
Constraints Chapter and section 18.62.080.
Approval criteria for Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands, as described in AMC
Chapter 18.62.100:
A. Severe Constraint Lands are extremely sensitive to development, grading, filling, or vegetation
removal'and, whenever possible, alternative development should be considered.
B. Development of floodways is not permitted except for bridges and road crossings. Such crossings
shall be designed to pass the 100 year flood without raising the upstream flood height more than
six inches.
C. Development on lands greater than 35% slope shall meet all requirements of section 18.62.080 in
addition to the requirements of this section.
D. Development of land or approval for a planning action shall be allowed only when the following
study has been accomplished. An engineering geologic study approved by the City's Public Works
Director and Planning Director establishes that the site is stable for the proposed use and
development. The study shall include the following;
1. Index map.
2. Project description to include location, topography, drainage, vegetation, discussion of
previous work and discussion of field exploration methods.
3. 'Site geology, based on a surficial survey, to include site geologic maps, description of
bedrock and surficial materials, including artificial fill, locations of any faults, folds, etc., and
structural data including bedding, jointing and shear zones, soil depth and soil structure.
4. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a potential hazard to the site, or
that may be affected by on-site development.
5. Suitability of site for proposed development from a geologic standpoint.
6. Specific recommendations for cut slope stability, seepage and drainage control or other
design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards.
7. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish whether an area to be affected
by the proposed development is stable, additional studies and supportive data shall include
cross-sections showing subsurface structure, graphic logs with subsurface exploration, results
of laboratory test and references.
8. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist.
9. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site.
Approval criteria for a Final Plan approval, as described in AMC Chapter 18.88.030.5.5:
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 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
PA-2012-01710
699 Ashland Creek Dr./MP
Page 5
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 (10%) 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 than ten (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,
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
(ORD 2836, 1999)
Planning Action 2012-01710 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or
more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then
Planning Action 2012-01710 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to
the approval:
1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2. That all recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report dated January 9, 2012
by the Amrhein Associates Inc. shall be instituted in the development of the property; and
that Amrhein Associates be retained until the project is completed and a final Certificate of
Occupancy is issued, and perform inspection to the site according to the Construction
Inspection schedule as noted in the report.
3. Building plans shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this
application; and plans must be stamped a by a certified engineer. j
4. This lot is held to Solar Setback Standard A and calculations depicting compliance with
Standard A are required to be shown on the building permit submittals.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a. That a preconstruction conference to review the requirements of the Hillside
Development Permit shall be held prior to issuance of the building permit. The
conference shall include the Ashland Planning Department, . Ashland Building
Department, the design professional, the general contractor, geotechnical expert,
landscape/tree professional and project engineer. Contact the Ashland Planning j
Department to schedule.the preconstruction conference.
b. That written verification from the project geotechnical expert addressing consistency of
the building permit submittals with the geotechnical report recommendations (e.g.
grading plan, storm drainage plan, foundation plan, etc.) shall be submitted with the
building permit submittals. j
c. That the applicant shall obtain a Tree Verification Permit and all requirements of AMC
18.61.042 shall be complied with prior to any tree removal, site work including grading
and/or storage of materials; and that tree protection fencing shall be installed as
proposed for all trees being preserved, and inspected by the City of Ashland Planning
Division-prior to any site work, storage of materials, the issuance of an excavation
permit, and/or the issuance of a building permit.
PA-2012-01710
699 Ashland Creek Dr./MP
Page 6
d. That the temporary erosion control measures (i.e. silt fence and bale barriers) shall be
installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials,
issuance of an excavation permit and issuance of a building permit. The temporary
erosion control measures shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning
Department prior to site work, storage of materials, the issuance of an excavation
permit, and/or the issuance of a building permit.
e. That a performance bond or the financial guarantee in the amount of 120% of the value
of the landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be
provided prior to issuance of the building permit.
f. That the applicant submit an electric design and distribution plan including load
calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers,
cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved
by the Electric Department prior to the building permit submittal. Transformers and
cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access
needs of the Electric Department.
6. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
a. That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met, including but not
limited to addressing, gates and fencing, and providing fuel break areas as required per
fire code.
b. That all re-vegetation including hydro-seeding of all cut/fill slopes shall be installed
prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Vegetation shall be installed in such a
manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation.
c. That all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but
not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, retaining walls and landscaping shall be
installed according to the approved plan, inspected and maintained in perpetuity on all
areas which have been disturbed including public rights-of-way in accordance with
18.62.089.B.7.
d. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the house, geotechnical expert
shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion
control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled
inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout
the project.
IGl. l.~
aria Harris, Planning Manager Date
Community Development Department
i
PA-2012-01710
699 Ashland Creek Dr./MP
Page 7 j
PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1121 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 2300 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1123
AXELROD SHIH LIVING TRUST ET AL AXELROD/SHIH LIVING TRUST ET AL CARRACIO GEORGE V JR TRUSTEE
1201 WINSTON AVE 1 WINTER DR 676 ASHLAND CREEK DR
SAN MARINO, CA 91108 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2012-01710 391EI7AA 1114 PA-2012-01710 391EI7AA 1117 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1115
CROFT NORTON E TRUSTEE ET AL EDWARDS CLIFFORD M/CAROLYN HANSEN JEFFREY/LYNELLE
599 ASHLAND CREEK DR 691 ASHLAND CREEK DR 1600 W 550 N
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PRICE, UT 84501
PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1120 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1122 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 2100
HEINRICH WILLIAM/SUZANNE HELM VERN D TRUSTEE ET AL KENNEDY JAMES P
700 ASHLAND CREEK DR 46995 OCTILLO CT 506 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 FREMONT, CA 94539 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1118 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1132 PA-2012-01710 391El7AA 1119
MORSE DANIEL G/KATHERINE G NELSON GORDON O/LESLEY W NEUMAN PROPERTIES & DEV LLC
1331 HUMBUG CREEK RD 612 ASHLAND CREEK RD 953 EMIGRANT CREEK RD
JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1600 PA-2012-01710 391EI7AA 1101 PA-2012-01710
NIX ZAN E SIDWELL JOHN Iv/CATHERINE Q Richard Vezie
512 GRANITE ST 1 CIELO DR SE 208 Oak St. Suite 204
ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 'Ashland, OR 97520
~I
PA-2012-01710 PA-2012-01710 PA-2012-01710
KenCairn Landscape Architecture Dew Engineering, Inc Amrhein Associates, Inc.
545'A Street, Suite 2 815 Bennett Ave 706 Jefferson Ave.
Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, OR 97504 Ashland, OR 97520
r
1
VVVV VUJ Y.J YV4 JVVvV YyVV VU VVVV Vu~VJVvl. VUUVV FPVV VU
1 I
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On January 11, 2013 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to
each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list
under each person's name for Planning Action #2012-01710, 699 Ashland Creek Drive
NOD.
Signature of Employee
i
i
i
I
Gkomm-devlplanningTorms & HandouWAffidavit of Mailing-Planning Action Notice.doc
i
i
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW/ COMMENT SHEET
JANUARY 3, 2 01 3
PLANNING ACTION: 2012-01710
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 699 Ashland Creek Road
APPLICANT: Richard Vezie
DESCRIPTION: A request for Physical and Environmental Constraints
Review Permit approval to construct a 2,668 square foot single-family home on slopes
greater than 25 percent for the property located at 699 Ashland Creek Drive. The
application also includes a request for an Administrative Exception from the
Development Standards for Hillside Lands to allow for two areas of the home exceed the
20-foot vertical height restriction; at the northeast corner of the garage and the main floor
deck post at the southeast corner of the home. And a modifications of the Lithia Creek
Estates subdivision (PA #94-003) to allow the allocation of some lot coverage from
subdivision open space to the subject property.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Residential; ZONING:
RR-.5;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 17AA; TAX LOT: 1118
Recommendation:
1) The Tree Commission recommends approving the application as submitted
2) That the recommendations of the project arborist be conditions of approval
I
i
Department of Community Development Tel: 541488-5350 C I T )F
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 7
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 1 -J
www.asliland.orms
Planning Department, 51 Wino, , Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY:1-800-735-2900 "NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: 2012-01710
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 699 Ashland Creek Drive
OWNERIAPPLICANT: Richard Vezie
DESCRIPTION: A request for Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit approval to construct a
2,668 square foot single-family home on slopes greater than 25 percent for the property located at 699 Ashland
Creek Drive. The application also includes a request for an Administrative Exception from the Development
Standards for Hillside Lands to allow for two areas of the home to exceed the 20-foot vertical height restriction; at
the northeast corner of the garage and the main floor deck post at the southeast corner of the home. Additionally, a
modification of the Lithia Creek Estates subdivision (PA 94-003) to allow the allocation of lot coverage from
subdivision open space to the subject property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Residential,
ZONING: RR-.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 17AA; TAX LOT. 1118.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, January 3, 2013 at 6:00 p.m, in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 12, 2012
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: December 26, 2012
<f i ~ 4. _ OCREEK4~
, 1 If 1
,
r
SUBJECT PARCEL:
699 Ashland Creek Rd. o
' 39 1 E 1 7AA 1118 -
,
O 1020 40 Feet
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn
Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a
notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the
comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the
application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning
Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC
18.108.040)
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this
application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your
right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with
sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services
Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305.
comm- ev p ammng annmg Actions o icing o er a~ e o ices igns - ocx
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAI"'TS
18.62.040.1 Criteria for Approval
A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the
potential hazards caused by the development.
1 That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered
more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the
surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
(ORD 2808, 1997; ORD 2834, 1998; ORD 2951, 2008)
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing Folder\Mailed Notices R Signs\2012\2012-01710.docx
~JI IC
! H
U
O
I
II ~ 2y
IC ~
1 ti - I
yr
I a! !
cc~ i
a
m r ur
j „ o r u se
w
Q) to C1
- 1 d{ t1 L1 W~ ,-t i
W i! r17 i 'LA
n 1 - m uS In
61
uv, J
I'I N b 4 • A Y
ttt p r: 11; ..l N ib
Vo N
~ 0
ii rC $ c e 1~+ G X
tl `
L2 C U o, y Q!
N
a~ rv f91 ru
l VS N ~I 2 . I ® if
a:
~ I 4 {
OIS
ti 1
i ' tal y S
yCj I
4
N
imp
III ~ 51. ~
I I ~ h 1 it ~ 2 , '
0 b y: SC
to I 1 Q w s
Op rv
I LL I^D N ~
II ® ~1 C c
I
- ~I
PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1121 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA2300 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1123
AXE RODSHIHLIVINGTRUSTETAL AXEIROD/SHHLNINGTRUSTETAL CARRACIOGEORGE VJRTRUSTEE
1201 WINSTONAVE 1 WINTERDR 676 ASHLAND CREEKDR
SAN MARINO, CA 91108 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1114 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1117 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1115
CROFT NORTON E TRUSTEE ETAL EDWARDS CLIFFORD M/CAROLYN HANSEN JEFFREY/LYNE LE
599 ASHLAND CREEKDR 691 ASHLAND CREEKDR 1600 W 550 N
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PRICE, UT 84501
PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1120 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1122 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA2100
HEINRICH WIL IAM/SU7_.ANNE HELMVERND TRUSTEEETAL IKENIEDYJAMES P
700 ASHLAND CREEKDR 46995 OCTI<LO CT 506 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 FREMONT, CA 94539 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1118 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1132 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1119
MORSE DANE L G/KATHFRINB G NELSON GORDON O/LESLLY W NEUMAN PROPERTIES & DEV LLC
1331 HUMBUG CREEKRD 612 ASHLAND CREEKRD 953 EMIGRANT CREEK RD
JAC MNVIHE, OR 97530 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1600 PA-2012-01710 391E17AA 1101 PA-2012-01710
NIXZANE SIDWELLJOHN M/CATHERINEQ Richard Vezie
512 GRANIIEST 1 CIF1 ODRSE 208 Oak St. Suite 204
ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCOTTSVALL7;Y,CA 95066 Ashland, OR 97520
PA-2012-01710 PA-2012-01710 PA-2012-01710
KenCairn Landscape Architecture Dew Engineering, Inc Amrhein Associates, Inc.
545 A Street, Suite 2 815 Bennett Ave 706 Jefferson Ave.
Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, OR 97504 Ashland, OR 97520
i
I
i
i
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On December 12, 2012 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to
each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list
under each person's name for Planning Action #2012-01710, 699 Ashland Creek Dr.
1, ..1 • '
Signat of mployee
I
i
i
I
G:Icomm-devlplanningTorms & Handouts\Affidavit of Mailing-Planning Action Notice.doc
7V/ r
~ I I "I,l j
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW
PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR.
DAN & DATE MORSE
Prepared by:
RICHARD VEZIE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
&
KENCAIRN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
December 4, 2012
CONTENTS:
• REQUESTED APPROVALS
• PROJECT INFORMATION
• SITE DATA
• APPLICATION BACKGROUND
• PROJECT DESIGN NARRATIVE
• FINDINGS OF FACT
• SOLAR SETBACK CALCULATIONS
• LOT COVERAGE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS
• GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
• ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, LITHIA CREEK ESTATES
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION REVIEW OF MORSE DESIGN PLANS
REQUESTED APPROVALS
Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit
Administrative Exception to Section 18.62.080.E.2.c. under Section 18.62.080.H for the top
of the wall at the northeast corner of the garage.
Administrative Exception to Section 18.62.080.E.2.c. under Section 18.62.080.H for the top
of the post supporting the roof near the southeast corner of the of the main floor deck.
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT:
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN FOR: DAN & KATE MORSE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a proposal for a new single family residence in an existing sub-division in the hillside
and wildfire lands.
OWNERS/APPLICANTS:
Dan & Kate Morse
1331 Humbug Creek Rd.
Jacksonville, Oregon 97530
541-690-6059
AGENT & BUILDING DESIGNER:
Richard Vezie, RICHARD VEZIE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
208 Oak Street, Suite 204
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-941-5165
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
Kerry KenCairn, KENCAIRN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
545 A Street, Suite 2,
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-3194
CIVIL ENGINEER:
Mark Dew, DEW ENGINEERING, INC.
815 Bennett Avenue
Medford, Oregon 97504
541-772-1399
PROJECT TYPE:
Single Family Residence
IT DATA
PROJECT LOCATION:
699 Ashland Creek Drive
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Assessor's Map Number: 39-1 E-17AA
Tax Lot Number: 1118
ZONING:
RR -.5-P
LOT COVERAGE AREAS:
Residence footprint 2049.33 sq. ft.
Entry Deck 180.85 sq. ft.
Driveway & bridge supports 239.87 sq. ft.
Total lot coverage 2470.05 sq. ft. (24.08%)
Lot area 10255.96 sq. ft.
Note: See maximum lot coverage narrative under 18.16.040.B.1 below.
APPLICATION BACKGROUND
After a lengthy approval process, Lithia Park Village, was re-plated as Lithia Creek Estates,
A Planned Community and the final plat for the subdivision, which was recorded 9/30/1999,
was approved.
The applicants purchased the subject lot 2/13/04 and retained Richard Vezie & Associates,
LLC (agent) to provide design services. A preliminary design was produced and a Pre-
Application application was submitted after which, the Pre-Application Conference was held
6/1/05.
No further planning actions were pursued until a new Pre-Application application was
submitted on the applicants behalf by KenCairn Landscape Architecture after which, the
Pre-Application Conference was held 8/22/12.
PROJECT DESIGN NARRATIVE
This home has been designed to be carefully positioned within the three dimensional
building envelope, which is established by the required setbacks and easements on the
ground and by the height restrictions required by the Physical & Environmental Constraints
chapter and the Solar Access chapter.
Additional parameters controlling the configuration and location of the home on the site
include, but are not limited to:
® The need to position the home to allow the necessary driveway bridge interface with the
street, which controls the garage floor elevation.
® The need to avoid potential driveway conflicts with both the driveway across the street at
700 Ashland Creek Drive and with Winter Drive, which is the private road across the
street.
® Our desire and the requirement to save as many existing trees as possible.
® The desire to position the home as far as practical from the existing home and potential
future homes on lots contiguous with this lot.
® The requirements and desire to reduce site disturbance and reduce building mass as
much as possible.
With the exception of the requested wall height limitation administrative exceptions for the
northeast corner of the garage and for the main floor deck post near the southeast corner of
the home, this application and proposed design easily meets all requirements of the Land
Use Ordinance.
The following statement is included within the stated purpose and intent of the Physical &
Environmental Constraints chapter of the Land Use Ordinance: "to provide for sensitive
development in areas that are constrained by various natural features."
In addition to meeting the requirements of the Land Use ordinance, it has been our desire to
embrace the concepts and implement the design strategies, which actually do provide for
sensitive development in this area constrained by various natural features.
Though restricted in some zones within the city, building area is not specifically limited within
the Rural Residential District or by the Physical & Environmental Constraints chapter.
Nonetheless, building area or living area is usually a primary factor in determining actual
building size and visual mass. This can have a dramatic effect on the impact of development
in the sensitive areas regulated by the Physical & Environmental Constraints chapter.
The total living area for this proposed home is 2668 sq. ft. This is relatively modest in size
for the area. Of the sixteen developed lots within this development, this proposed home
ranks fourteenth in living area size and is a full 498 sq, ft. under the average living area of
homes within this development. Though the living area is unregulated, the modest size of
this home plays a major role in reducing the visual impact and environmental impact of this
proposal.
Section 18.62.080.E.2.e. recommends "that roof forms and roof lines for new structures be
broken into a series of smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the
surrounding hillside." While this section is not a requirement, this proposed home design
incorporates relatively low-pitched hipped roofs broken into multiple facets with eave lines at
three different levels. The resulting design not only reduces the visual mass, but also
effectively blends with the slopes of the hillsides in the area (see the perspective drawings
on sheet A5 and the elevation drawings on sheets A6 and A7).
Additionally, the enthusiastic approval by the Lithia Creek Estates Homeowners Association
Architectural Review Committee (see the attached review) further testifies to the
compatibility and visual harmony of this proposed design.
FINDINGS OF FACT
APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS
18.96.020 Permitted uses
18.16.040 Genera/ regulations
18.69 Tree Preservation & Protection
18.62 Physical & Environmental Constraints
18. 68.160 Driveway Grades
18.70 Solar Access
1& 16.020 Permitted cases
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Single family dwellings.
The proposed development for this site is a single family dwelling and this use is therefore
permitted outright in this zone.
1X3.16.040 GeneL :etc®lafi®rt
A. Minimum lot area: Minimum lot areas in the RR zone may be one-half one (1), and
two and one-half (2 acres, depending on the topographic nature, service availability and
surrounding land uses, and other relevant characteristics of the area.
The subject lot is 10255.96 SQ. FT. (0.2354 ACRES) in size and was created substantially
under the 1/2 acre minimum.
B. Maximum lot coverage:
1. One-half (112) acre lots (RR-.5): twenty (20%) percent maximum.
Initial projected lot coverage for this proposal is 24.08% (see the Site Plan on sheet Al),
Zoning for this lot is RR -.S-P, which allows 20% maximum lot coverage. Minimum lot area
for this zone is typically one half acre, depending on the topographic nature, service
availability and surrounding land uses, and other relevant characteristics of the area.
The subject lot is 0.2354 acres (10255.96 sq. ft.) in area. This is less than half the typical
minimum lot area for this zone. Although the maximum allowable lot coverage of 20% for
this zone was established to accommodate a reasonable amount of coverage for a lot 1/2
acre in size, the 20% limit becomes proportionally burdensome to lots of less area. A half
acre lot for example, at 20% coverage would allow a full 4356 sq. ft. of coverage, but the
subject lot under the same 20% limit would only allow 2051 sq. ft. of coverage. This is overly
restrictive.
Based on planning staff research, which concluded 6/6/2005, the following was established:
At the time of the original subdivision approval, 11 acres were taken out of the project and
were not allowed to be used in density calculations as the slopes exceeded 52% and were
deemed unsuitable for any construction. A lot coverage performance standard was
discussed and a condition was added, which stated:
#11 - That discounting 11 unbuildable acres from the total project density because of slope
would still allow the applicant to a) receive a density bonus for this land dedicated as open
space, and b) more importantly, it would be computed in the overall lot coverage
percentage. If this discounted land were not included, lot coverage would be reduced to
such an extent that it would be almost impossible to build even a few structures on the
buildable portions of the property.
The final plat for the subdivision, which was recorded 9/30/1999, actually increased the
open space amount to 15.054 acres.
Having established the fact that the dedicated open space is to be computed in the overall
lot coverage percentage for the lots within the subdivision, it is necessary to provide an
equitable and logical method of allocating the coverage percentage to each lot.
The building lots within this subdivision differ substantially in size. Accordingly, it is most
equitable and logical to base the open space percentage allocated to each lot on the size of
each lot. If for example, a given lot consisted of a lot area, which was 5% of th ~otalyarea of
~_.I= i
all building lots within the subdivision, the amount of open space available to that lot to be
added to the area of that lot for lot coverage calculations would equal 5% of the total open
space of the subdivision.
The subject lot has a total area of 10256 sq. ft. This area is 2.95% of the total area (347352
sq. ft.) of all buildable lots within the subdivision. The total open space area for the
subdivision is 655767.5 sq. ft. (15.054 acres). 2.95% of the total open space for the
subdivision equals 19362 sq. ft. When added to the lot area of the subject lot the total area
to which the 20% allowable lot coverage for the zone applies is 29618 sq. ft. The 20%
allowable lot coverage for the subject lot is 5924 sq. ft. See the attached LITHIA CREEK
ESTATES SUBDIVISION LOT AREAS AND OPEN SPACE ALLOCATIONS calculations
sheet for specific open space lot coverage allocation calculations for all building lots within
the subdivision.
Additionally, it should be noted that if the dedicated open space for the subdivision was to
be simply equally divided between the 24 buildable lots within the subdivision the area of
open space allocated to the subject lot to be added to the lot area for lot coverage
calculations would be 27324 sq, ft., which represents 4.17% of the total open space area of
the subdivision.
E. Minimum front yard: There shall be a front yard of at least twenty (20) feet.
The proposed home design and placement complies with the 20 ft. front yard setback
requirement (see the Site Plan on sheet Al).
Note that the front yard of this parcel is situated on the curve at the northerly property line
and was established by planning staff 3/15/05 (see the building envelope on the Site Plan
on sheet A1).
F. Minimum side yard: There shall be a minimum side yard of six (6) feet, except ten (10)
feet along the side yard facing the street on a corner lot.
The proposed home design and placement complies with the requirements of a 6 ft. side
yard along its east property line and a 10 ft. side yard facing a street on a corner lot along its
west property line (see the Site Plan on sheet Al).
G. Minimum rear yard: There shall be a minimum rear yard of ten (10) feet plus ten (10) feet
for each story in excess of one (1) story.
The proposed home design and placement complies with the 20 ft. rear yard requirement for
a 2 story structure (see the Site Plan on sheet A1). Additionally, though the proposed home
includes a basement level below the 2 stories, under AMC 18.08.662 a basement shall not
be considered a story and AMC 18.08.078 defines basement as: That portion of a building
with a floor-to ceiling height of not less than 6.5 feet and where fifty percent (50%) or more
of its perimeter walls are less than six (6) feet above natural grade and does not exceed
twelve (12) feet above finish grade at any point. The proposed home design and placement
complies with this definition (see attached Basement Wall Height Analysis drawing on sheet
A4), as the ceiling height is 8 ft., 77.26% of the basement walls are less than 6 ft. above
natural grade and no basement walls exceed 12 ft. above finish grade at any point.
N. Maximum building height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-
half (2 stories in height, whichever is less. This does not include agricultural structures
fifty (50) feet or more from any property line.
The proposed home design and placement will have a maximum height above natural grade
of 29.46 ft., which occurs at the northeast corner of the proposed garage eave(see the Site
Plan on sheet Al and the North Elevation on sheet A6). Finish grade at this location will be
the same or slightly less. The proposed design is a 2 story structure (see comments
regarding the definition of "story" in subsection G. above).
18.61 Tree Preservation Protection
See the attached Tree Protection Plan by KenCairn Landscape Architecture for specific
information regarding proposed removals and protection.
See the attached Tree Removal and Protection Plan (L-5) by KenCairn Landscape
Architecture for specific information regarding proposed removals and protection.
18. 61.035 Exempt Tice Removal Activities
D. Removal of trees less than 6" DBH in any zone, excluding those trees located within the
public right of way or required as conditions of approval with landscape improvements for
planning actions.
F. Removal of trees within the Wildfire ands area of the City, as defined on adopted maps,
for the purposes of wildfire fuel management, and in accord with the requirements of the
Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter- 18.62.
Some thinning of Manzanita will occur on this site as part of the wildfire fuel management
practices, we will also be limbing up existing evergreens and removing some the smaller
evergreen trees in hopes of depleting connective canopies. All the trees removed in this
manner are exempts through size and wildfire allowances.
18.61.042 Approval Permit Required
A person who desires to remove a tree, not otherwise exempted in 18.61.035, shall first
apply for and receive one of the following tree removal permits before tree removal occurs:
B. TREE REMOVAL - VERIFICATION PERMIT:
This project will require a verification permit.
18.61.050 Plans Required
a. Plans drawn to scale containing the number, size, species and location of the trees
proposed to be removed or topped on a site plan of the property.
See the Tree Protection Plan sheet L-5.
b. The anticipated date of removal or topping.
The date of commencement for this project is not known. We anticipate removal, thinning
and limbing up to begin sometime in March 2013.
c. A statement of the reason for removal or topping.
All trees proposed for removal are either within the building envelope, adjacent to the
building envelope, or are a fire hazard.
d. Information concerning proposed landscaping or planting of new trees to replace the trees
to he removed.
See the Erosion Control and Planting Plan sheet L-4.
e. Evidence that the trees proposed for removal or topping have been clearly identified on
the property for visual inspection.
All trees have been tagged with an aluminum marker that contains a number corresponding
to the information on the Tree Protection Plan sheet L-5.
98.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not
a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with
other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but
not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental
Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be
staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant
an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered
and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the
zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider
alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would
lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other
provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
The trees proposed for removal are either in the building footprint or adjacent to it and would
therefore not survive construction. Mitigation trees are shown on the Erosion Control and
Planting Plan sheet L-4 and are located in the only available (where there is room for more
trees) areas on the site.
18. 61.084 Mitigation Required
An applicant shall be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal.
Mitigation trees are shown on the Erosion Control and Planting Plan sheet L-4 and are
located in the only available (where there is room for more trees) areas on the site. The
trees proposed to be used for mitigation are not natives,(Cercis texanum 'Oklahoma') but
they are well adapted to the exposure, deer browsing and low water use.
18.61.200 Tree Protection
Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building
permit. tJ fit;
A. Tree Protection Plan Required.
See the Tree Protection Plan sheet L-5 for full compliance with this standard.
B. Tree Protection Measures Required.
The measures listed are presented on the Tree Protection Plan sheet L-5.
14.62 Physical Environmental Constraints
A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the following activities:
A. Development, as defined in 19.62.030 (H), in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor
Land, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraints Land. In addition all activities located within an
area of special flood hazard are subject to the provisions for a Development Permit under
15:10 Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations.
The proposed home design and placement constitutes development under this section and
therefore requires a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit.
D. Tree removal, in areas identified as Hillside Land and Severe Constraint land, except that
a permit need not he obtained for tree removal that is not associated with development, and
done for the purposes of wildfire management and carried out in accord with a Fire
Prevention and Control Plan approved by the Fire Chief.
The proposed home design and placement will involve tree removal, which will require a
Physical Constraints Review Permit (see the Tree Protection Plan on sheet L-5).
H. Plans Required.
The required plans have been included with this application. The following should be noted
however:
i
Regarding the plans requirement 18.62.040. H.1. r. Location for storage or disposal of all
excess materials resulting from cuts associated with the proposed development. The
location for storage or disposal of all excess materials resulting from cuts associated with
the proposed development has not been finalized and no contract been signed at this time.
It is assumed that excess materials will be stored on the Harold Hardesty property near the
north end of Oak St. This assumption is subject to negotiations and contract agreements,
which will also be dependent on the final construction documents. The final construction
documents will not be started until approval of this application has been secured.
Regarding the plans requirement 18.62.040. H. 1. t. Proposed timeline for development based
on estimated date of approval, including completion dates for specific tasks. No contract has
been signed at this time. The estimated time frame for beginning construction is mid-March
2013 and the estimated completion time frame is 9 months later (mid-December 2013).
These time frames are strictly estimates, as contract negotiations have not started and will
not begin prior to the completion of final construction documents. The final construction
documents will not be started until approval of this application has been secured.
i
Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff
Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential
impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have
been minimized.
Potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been carefully considered, and
adverse impacts have been effectively minimized for this proposed project. See the specific
standards and requirements along with the explanations of the methods by which, these
standards and requirements are addressed and utilized for this project under the sections:
18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands and 18.62.090 Development
Standards for Wildfire Lands in their respective sections of these Findings.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create
and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
This proposed project has been carefully designed to reduce and mitigate the potential
hazards caused by this development. See the Project Design Narrative at the beginning of
these Findings and see the specific methods by which, the potential hazards are addressed
for this project within the attached plans and under the sections: 18.62.080 Development
Standards for Hillside Lands and 18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands in
their respective sections of these Findings.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the
environment. Irreversible actions shall be consider more seriously than reversible actions.
The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the
surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use
Ordinance.
This proposed project has been carefully designed to reduce and mitigate any potential
adverse impact on the environment caused by this development. See the Project Design
Narrative at the beginning of these Findings and see the specific methods by which, the
potential adverse impacts on the environment are addressed for this project within the
attached plans and under the sections: 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands
and 18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands in their respective sections of
these Findings.
18.62.050 Land Classifications
B, Hillside Lands Hillside Lands are lands which are subject to damage from erosion and
slope failure, and include areas which are highly visible from other portions of the city. The
following lands are classified as Hillside Lands:
9. All areas defined as Hillside Lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map and
which have a slope of 25 % or greater.
The subject lot has a slope of 25 % or greater and therefore is classified as Hillside Lands.
C. Wildfire Lands A Lands with potential of wildfire. The following lands are classified as
Wildfire Lands:
1. All areas defined as wildfire lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map.
The subject lot lies completely within the Wildfire Lands overlay on the Physical and
Environmental Constraints Wildfire Lands map and is therefore classified as Wildfire Lands.
D. Severe Constraint Lands - Lands with severe development characteristics which
generally limit normal development. The following lands are classified as Severe Constraint
Lands:
2. All lands with a slope greater than 35
The subject lot has many areas with slopes greater than 35 % and therefore is classified as
Severe Constraint Lands (see the Slope Analysis drawing on sheet A4).
E, Classifications Cumulative. The above classifications are cumulative in their effect and, if
a parcel of land falls under two or more classifications, it shall be subject to the regulations
of each classification. Those restrictions applied shall pertain only to those portions of the
land being developed and not necessarily to the whole parcel.
18. 62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands
A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands:
1. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater
than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be
granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080. H.
a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be
considered buildable for one unit.
The subject lot is an existing parcel without adequate buildable area less than 35% slope
and therefore shall be considered buildable for one unit (see Slope the Analysis drawing on
sheet A4).
3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or
equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions:
b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not
exceed a length of 900 feet.
The driveway for this project is designed primarily as a bridge and does not exceed a length
of 100 feet.
B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall
provide plans conforming with the following items:
9. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on
Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall
conform to the International Building Code and be consistent with the provisions of this Title.
Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in
runoff from disturbed area
All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for this project have
been designed by geotechnical experts. All cuts, grading and fills have been designed to
conform to Oregon Structural Specialty Code and Oregon Residential Specialty Code
requirements, which are the building codes governing this jurisdiction and which are based
on the International Building Code. These designs are consistent with the provisions of this
Title, Erosion control measures on the development site have been designed to minimize
the solids in runoff from the disturbed areas (see the Erosion Control and Planting Plan on
sheet L-4).
4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following
standards shall apply:
a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they
are composer/. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and
erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional
equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes
are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion
control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and
revegetated.
Cut slope angles have been designed in relationship to the materials at the project site.
Most areas of cut slopes are covered by the proposed residence. Steep cut slopes have
been designed to be retained primarily by retaining walls except as indicated otherwise on
the plans (see the Foundation Perspective drawings on sheet Al 1). See the Erosion Control
and Planting plan sheet L-4 for additional information.
b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater
than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on terraced section shall not exceed a
maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimurn of three feet to allow for the
introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum
vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic file attached)
No cut slopes are projected for this project other than those necessary for the structural
foundation and retaining walls, which are utilizing split pad and stepped footing design. As
these cut slopes will incorporated into the building, they will not be exposed,
c. Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan,
introduction of top soil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The
vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which
will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term
slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be
appropriate.
See the Erosion Control and Planting plan sheet L-4 for the revegetation requirements of
this proposed project.
5. Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following
standards shall apply
a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area
not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property
line. (Ord 2834 56,, 1998)
There are no fill slopes exceeding a total vertical height of 20 feet and there are no toes of
fill slopes proposed for this project within six feet of a property line.
b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional
equivalent. /Vetting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such
as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the
soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely
anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations.
See the Erosion Control and Planting plan sheet L-4 for the erosion control requirements of
this proposed project.
c. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes.
When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed
by a geotechnical expert.
Any utilities to be located within fill slope areas will be designed by our civil engineer, a
geotechnical expert.
d. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource
value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure
growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed
vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas.
See the attached Erosion Control and Planting Plan sheet L-4 by KenCairn Landscape
Architecture for the revegetation and erosion control requirements of this proposed project.
All revegetated areas will be hydro seeded and heavily mulched. Future native plantings will
be introduced over time on the site.
6. Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of
cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy,
signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority.
Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one
year of installation.
See the attached Erosion Control and Planting Plan sheet L-4 by KenCairn Landscape
Architecture for the revegetation and erosion control requirements of this proposed home
design. All revegetated areas will be hydro seeded and heavily mulched. Future native
plantings will be introduced over time on the site.
7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures.
a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control,
including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be
maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-
way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure
maintenance of measures.
See the attached Erosion Control and Planting Plan sheet L-4 by KenCairn Landscape
Architecture for the revegetation and erosion control requirements of this proposed project.
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the
following factors:
a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad
and for providing vehicular access to the pad.
Terracing is utilized only for development of split building pads and a stepped foundation to
accommodate the structure of the proposed home and a small yard area at the east side of
the proposed home. Fire access has been provided around the home and is one of the
primary drivers of the proposed design. See the attached Site Plan by KenCairn Landscape
Architecture.
b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
Hazardous and/or unstable portions of the site have been avoided with this design. See the
attached Site Plan sheet Al, Slope Analysis sheet A4 and the Erosion Control and Planting
Plan sheet L-4.
9. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City,
signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating
that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the
approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 98.62.080. A. 4.j were conducted
by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project geotechnical expert will
provide a final report as required, indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion
control measures were installed as per the approved plans and that the scheduled
inspections required by 18.62.080.a.4.j. were properly conducted by the project geotechnical
expert periodically throughout the construction of the project.
C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to
the following standards:
9. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on
the site and according to the following requirements:
a. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction,
facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious
surfaces, and roof drainage systems.
b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest
extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site.
c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or
sloping surfaces of a fill,
d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural
state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage..
e. Flaw-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used
where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to
development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to
safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point.
f Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will
avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties.
All stormwater facilities will be designed by our civil engineer, Dew Engineering, Inc. to meet
the requirements of subsections: a. through f. The grading and drainage plan sheet L-2
suggests how the stormwater will be dealt with from a landscape perspective.
g. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach
fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by
the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official.
No alternate stormwater systems are proposed for this development.
D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall
conform to the following requirements:
1. Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall
be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identifies/ by d.b.h.,
species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed,
existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified.
Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be
designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and
average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two
feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of
the survey shall be provided on the tree survey.
Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be
included in the inventory.
See the Tree Protection Plan sheet L-5 for a complete tree inventory.
2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing
trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the
hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors
included in this determination shall include:
a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non
vigorous trees.
b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in
damage to people and properly.
G. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment.
d. Potential longevity,
e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages.
f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees.
See the Tree Protection Plan sheet L-5 for a complete tree inventory.
3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2'd. b.h. or greater conifers and 1'
d. b. h. or greater broadleaf) shall be protected and incorporated into the project design
whenever possible.
Due to the sever spatial constraints of this lot, there is one ponderosa pine that will have to
be removed. This tree is number 19 on the Tree Removal and Protection Plan, and is
smaller than the 2'd.b.h. criteria at 17", and is therefore not a significant tree,
c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection
areas.
The proposed utility plan avoids disturbance within tree protection zones to the greatest
extent possible. There is a stormwater line that must exit the site at a location that will
require it to pass between trees number 4 and 6. This is the most feasible location to
remove stormwater from the site, and allows us to take it to existing city facilities. The way
to protect these trees while incorporating this location for the drain line is to hand excavate
the drain location within the radius of the tree protection zones, determining any roots over
1.5" in diameter. Once the roots (if any) of concern are identified, we can hand tunnel the
drain line under them at the time of construction. We request that this treatment of the
conflict between utility and tree protection be added to the conditions of approval for this
project.
4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the
course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards:
See the Tree Protection Plan sheet L-5 for compliance with this criteria.
5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees
on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is
located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may
approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2€334 S3,
1998)
The trees proposed for removal are either within the building envelope or directly adjacent to
it. The cut required for the home would greatly jeopardize the health of the tree.
6. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed
because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in
compliance with the following standards:
See sheet L-4 for replacement tree locations and species.
E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for
Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following
standards:
2. Building Design. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive
design techniques, buildings on Hillside Lands, excepting those lands within the designated
Historic District, shall incorporate the following into the building design and indicate features
on required building permits:
a. Hillside Building Height, The height of all structures shall be measured vertically from the
natural grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge or peak, wall, parapet, mansard, or
other feature perpendicular to that grade. Maximurn Hillside Building Height shall be 35 feet.
(graphics available on original ordinance)
The proposed home design and placement will have a maximum height above natural grade
of 29.46 ft., which occurs at the northeast corner of the proposed garage eave and therefore
complies with this requirement.
b. Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk.
The proposed home is designed to be substantially cut into the hillside and utilizes a
significant amount of retaining walls as a result (see the Site & Residence Section sheet
A2, the Residence Perspectives sheet A5, the Elevation drawings sheets' A6 & A7 and
the Foundation Perspective drawings sheet A11).
(1). Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to allow the
structure to more closely follow the slope.
The proposed home design utilizes both split pads and a significant number of stepped
footings, which allows the home to more closely follow the slope of the hill (see the Site
& Residence Section sheet A2, the Residence Perspectives sheet A5, the Elevation
drawings sheets A6 & A7 and the Foundation Perspective drawings sheet Al 1).
(2). Reduce building mass by utilizing below grade rooms cut into the natural slope.
The proposed home design utilizes rooms cut into the hillside with floor areas extending
below natural grade on two levels, effectively reducing above grade mass (see the Site
& Residence Section sheet A2, the Residence Perspectives sheet A5, the Elevation
drawings sheets A6 & A7 and the Foundation Perspective drawings sheet Al 1).
c. A building stepback shall be required on all downhill building walls greater than 20 feet in
height, as measured above natural grade. Stepbacks shall be a minimum of six feet. No
vertical walls on the downhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed a maximum height of
20 feet above natural grade. (see graphic file attached)
Minimum 6 ft, building stepbacks have been effectively incorporated into this proposed
home design bringing all locations except the northeast garage corner into compliance
with this requirement (see the Residence Perspectives sheet A5, the Elevation drawings
sheets A6 & A7 and the Floor Plan Overlay drawing sheet Al 0).
Additionally, planning staff has deemed that the top of the post supporting the roof near
the southeast corner of the main floor deck constitutes a wall and therefore does not
comply with this requirement. This application is therefore requesting Administrative
Exceptions for both of these two occurrences (see the Administrative Exception
requests below).
d. Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet.
Planes longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet. (graphic available on
original ordinance)
The proposed home design incorporates no horizontal building planes exceeding 36 feet
in length without a minimum 6 foot offset (see the Elevation drawings sheets A6 & A7
and the Floor Plans sheets A8 and A9).
e. It is recommended that roof farms and roof lines for new structures be broken into a
series of smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the Surrounding
hillside. Long, linear unbroken roof lines are discouraged. Large gable ends on downhill
elevations should be avoided, however smaller gables may be permitted. (graphic available
on original ordinance)
This proposed home design utilizes relatively low-pitched (33% slope) hipped roofs,
which are broken into multiple facets. The eave lines occur at three distinctly different
levels. This design effectively reduces the visual mass of the roof while allowing the roof
planes to blend with the slopes of the nearby hillsides (see the Residence_ Perspective
drawings sheet A5 and the Elevation drawings sheets A6 & A7).
f. It is recommended that roofs of lower floor levels he used to provide deck or outdoor
space for upper floor levels. The use, of overhanging decks with vertical supports in excess
of 92 feet on downhill elevations should be avoided.
This recommendation is incorporated in the proposed design at the main floor deck at
the southeast corner of the home. In addition, this deck cantilevers 2 feet over the east
facing support wall below providing an additional shadow line similar to that produced by
a roof eave overhang. The deck is provided with a roof above producing a deep
shadow, which further breaks up the visual mass of the home (see the Northeast
Perspective drawing on sheet A5, the East and South Elevation drawings on sheet A7
and the Floor Plan Overlay on sheet Al 0).
g. It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the
predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure
and the natural environment.
This recommendation has been utilized throughout the exterior design of the home by
the effective use of a neutral color scheme, which incorporates relatively dark brown
architectural grade roof shingles, a light brown body color and dark brown trim accents
(see the Residence Perspective drawings on sheet A5 and the Elevation drawings on
sheets A7 and A7).
F. All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an
engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as
defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an
engineer.
The foundation and retaining walls for this proposal will be designed by Dew
Engineering, Inc. This firm has numerous hillside foundation and retaining wall designs
along with many other designs requiring a high level of geotechnical design experience
to their credit.
18.62,090 evel2pnient Standards for Wildfire tends
1 8.62,090. B. 5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better non-
wood roof coverings, as determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. All re-roofing
of existing structures in the Wildfire Lands area for which at least 50% of the roofing area
requires re-roofing shall be done under approval of a zoning permit. No structure shall be
constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-product material or other
combustible roofing material, as defined in the City's building code.
The home will be roofed with GAF Timberline Natural Shadow composition roofing,
which carries a Class A fire rating. Additionally, the siding for the home is stucco, which
is commonly used in noncombustible construction.
18.62. 100 evelo rnent Standards for Severe Constraint kends
A. Severe Constraint Lands are extremely sensitive to development, grading, filling, or
vegetation removal and, whenever possible, alternative development should he considered.
The subject lot consists of slopes, which are primarily greater than 35%. The remaining
areas of the lot with slopes of 35% of less do not constitute a buildable envelope fora
home (see the attached Slope Analysis drawing). It is therefore impossible to develop
~r
this lot without substantially encroaching into areas classified as Severe Constraints
Lands with respect to slopes.
C. Development on lands greater than 35% slope shall meet all requirements of section
18.62.080 in addition to the requirements of this section.
All the requirements of this section have been met and are included with this application
(see the attached Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations by Amrhein Associates,
Inc.)
D. Development of land or approval for a planning action shall be allowed only when the
following study has been accomplished. An engineering geologic study approved by the
City's Public Works Director and Planning Director establishes that the site is stable for the
proposed use and development. The study shall include the following:
1. Index map.
2. Project description to include location, topography, drainage, vegetation, discussion of
previous work and discussion of field exploration methods.
3. Site geology, based on a surficial survey, to include site geologic maps, description of
bedrock and surficial materials, including artificial fill, locations of any faults, folds, etc., and
structural data including bedding, jointing and shear zones, soil depth and soil structure.
4. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a potential hazard to the site,
or that may be affected by on-site development.
5. Suitability of site for proposed development from a geologic standpoint.
6. Specific recommendations for cut slope stability, seepage and drainage control or other
design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards.
7. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish whether an area to be
affected by the proposed development is stable, additional studies and supportive data shall
include cross-sections showing subsurface structure, graphic logs with subsurface
exploration, results of laboratory test and references.
8. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist.
9. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site.
The requirements listed above have been included within the attached Geotechnical
Engineering Recommendations by Amrhein Associates, Inc. and are part of this
application.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION 1
Administrative Exception to Section 18.62.080.E.2.c. under Section 18.62.080.H for the top
of the wall at the northeast corner of the garage.
Criteria for approval:
H. Administrative Variance (Exception) From Development Standards for Hillside Lands -
18.62.080. A variance under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of
section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside
Lands if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to
a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site;
One of our primary design solutions to reduce the impact of development was to move the.
home as close as possible to the street while still allowing for the installation of the driveway
I
bridge, meeting the 36 ft. horizontal building planes minimum 6 ft. offset requirements and
providing a sense of entry and some curb appeal to the home.
As stated in the response to circumstance 2. below and elsewhere in these findings,
utilization of a driveway bridge is an essential component of this project's compliance
strategy for meeting the stated purpose and intent of the Physical & Environmental
Constraints chapter.
The contour lines of the lot are curved with their greatest extension easterly and curving
toward the street at both the southerly and northerly ends of the lot (see the Slope Analysis
sheet A4 and the Site Plan sheet Al). These contours alone make both the northeast and
southeast corners higher above natural grade if the home is somewhat aligned with the
street.
These topographic features effectively eliminate the possibility of utilizing a driveway bridge,
which requires the transition length, as drawn, in order to interface with the slope of the
street, unless this requested exception is granted.
The transition length of the proposed driveway bridge is necessitated by the slope of the
street. The driveway bridge must provide transition between a sloping street and a garage
slab, which is level parallel to the street.
2. The variance will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under
this chapter;
Positioning the home as close as possible to the street and thereby utilizing a short driveway
bridge instead of a traditional on-grade driveway substantially reduces the amount of
impervious surface coverage on the lot. This also greatly reduces the amount of site
disturbance from excavation and allows the retention of the greatest number of trees
possible. These benefits clearly produce greater protection of the resources protected under
this chapter than would be possible otherwise.
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
Due to the beneficial utilization of a driveway bridge, as referenced above, both the slope of
the street and the elevation of the street control the garage height. In addition, the
necessary avoidance of conflicts with the driveway across the street at 700 Ashland Cr. Dr.
and with Winter Dr. prohibits locating the garage and driveway bridge elsewhere. The
requested.7,.,14Tft. exception to the 20 ft. maximum wall height above natural grade is the
minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Physical and
Environmental Constraints Chapter and section 18.62.080. Appeals of decisions involving
administrative variances shall be processed as outlined in 18.108.070.
As indicated in the responses to subsections 1. and 2. above and elsewhere in these
findings, this requested Administrative Exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and
Intent of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter and section 18.62.080.
This requested Administrative Exception will provide for safe, orderly and beneficial
development of the lot, limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or
alteration of, any natural environment and it will provide for sensitive development in areas
that are constrained by various natural features. Physiographic conditions and significant
natural features can be considered to include, but are not limited to: slope of the lend
natural drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide areas, natural and
wildlife habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural vegetation. These
facts are clearly demonstrated in the responses to subsections 1, 2 and 3 above.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION 2
Administrative Exception to Section 18.62.080.E.2.c. under Section 18.62.080.1-1 for the top
of the post supporting the roof near the southeast corner of the of the main floor deck.
Criteria for approval:
H. Administrative Variance (Exception) From Development Standards for Hillside Lands -
18.62.060. A variance cruder this section is not subject to the variance requirements of
section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside
Lands if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to
a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site;
As stated in our request for Administrative Exception 1 above, one of our primary design
solutions to reduce the impact of development was to move the home as close as possible
to the street while still allowing for the installation of the driveway bridge, meeting the 36 ft.
horizontal building planes minimum 6 ft. offset requirements and providing a sense of entry
and some curb appeal to the home.
As stated in the response to circumstance 2. below and elsewhere in these findings,
utilization of a driveway bridge is an essential component of this project's compliance
strategy for meeting the stated purpose and intent of the Physical & Environmental
Constraints chapter.
The contour lines of the lot are curved with their greatest extension easterly and curving
toward the street at both the southerly and northerly ends of the lot (see the Slope Analysis
sheet A4 and the Site Plan sheet Al). These contours alone make both the northeast and
southeast corners higher above natural grade if the home is somewhat aligned with the
street.
Additionally, while the 20 ft, wall height limit requirement is specific to walls, not structure,
not roofs, not posts and though it falls within the parent section dealing with hillside
disturbance and slope responsive design. The intent of the 20 ft. limit is simply to reduce
visual mass. And though the post supporting the southeast corner of the roof exceeds the
20 ft. height limit, it is a post. It is not a wall. The wall directly west of the post actually does
step back the required 6 ft. and therefore both the post and the wall comply with the letter
and intent of the ordinance.
Though the post has been deemed to be a wall, necessitating this Administrative Exception,
the following facts also apply:
Regarding mass - The house (not including cripple walls and foundation, etc.) has a volume
(mass) of 37,190.51 cubic feet. The post and its beams have a volume (mass) of 15.34
cubic feet. The post and supported beams have a total mass of 0.04% of the building. That's
four hundredths of one percent. This is insignificant in scale.
i
Regarding visual mass - The east (downhill) face of the house (roofs, walls, foundation, etc.)
presents an area of 2,059.02 sq. ft. total. The east face of the post and beam presents 26.55
sq. ft. total. This makes the post and beam only 1.29% of the total downhill visual mass of
the house. This is clearly insignificant.
Regarding actual visual mass - Designing the roof to project over that deck area creates
deep shadow, This is simply one of the most effective ways of breaking up visual mass. The
roof itself will be viewed from below, if it is actually viewable from that area, and therefore
will be an insignificant contribution to the actual visual mass of the home.
2. The variance will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under
this chapter;
This requested Administrative Exception will allow the home to be positioned as close as
possible to the street by utilization of a driveway bridge. Positioning the home as close as
possible to the street and the elongation of the home along the axis parallel with the street
substantially reduces the amount of impervious surface coverage on the lot. This also
greatly reduces the amount of site disturbance from excavation and allows the retention of
the greatest number of trees possible. These benefits clearly produce greater protection of
the resources protected under this chapter than would be possible otherwise.
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
As stated in the previous Administrative Exception request for the northeast garage corner
above, both the slope of the street and the elevation of the street control the garage height.
This also directly controls the height of the main floor and the main floor deck on which, the
subject post bears. As stated previously, the site contours at the south end of the lot curve
westerly, which causes a given floor level to increase in height above natural grade as the
floor level extends south. The requested 6.39 ft. exception to the 20 ft. maximum wall height
above natural grade is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Physical and
Environmental Constraints Chapter and section 18.62.080. Appeals of decisions involving
administrative variances shall be processed as outlined in 18.108.070.
As indicated in the responses to subsections 1. and 2. above and elsewhere in these
findings, this requested Administrative Exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and
Intent of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter and section 18.62.080.
The requested Administrative Exception will provide for safe, orderly and beneficial
development of the lot, limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or
alteration of, any natural environment and it will provide for sensitive development in areas
that are constrained by various natural features. Physiographic conditions and significant
natural features can be considered to include, but are not limited to: slope of the land,
natural drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide areas, natural and
wildlife habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural vegetation.
18.68.160 Driveway Graces
grades for new driveways in all zones shall not exceed a grade of 20% for any portion of the
driveway. All driveways shall be designed in accord with City of Ashland standards and
installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction. If required by
the City, the developer or owner shall provide certification of driveway grade by a licensed
land surveyor. All vision clearance standards associated with driveway entrances onto
public streets shall not be subject to the Variance section of this title.
Driveway access to the proposed home will be provided by means of a driveway bridge. The
driveway bridge will interface with the northerly slope of the street and warp to near level as
it approaches the garage. Maximum slope of the driveway bridge is estimated to be 7.5%
and therefore complies with the Driveway Grades subsection of the Land Use ordinance.
18.70 Baler Access
NOTE: See the attached Solar Setback Calculations Sheet and Solar Setback Slope
Calculations sheet.
98.70.000 Lot Classifications
Affected Properties, All lots shall meet the provisions of this Section and will be classified
according to the following formulas and table:
FORMULA l:
Minimum MIS lot dimension for Formula 1
30'
0.445+S
Where: S is the decimal value of slope, as defined in this Chapter.
FORMULA Il:
Minimum NIS lot dimension for Formula Il
10,
0.445+S
Lots whose north-south lot dimension exceeds that calculated by Formula l shall be required
to meet the setback in Section (A), below.
Formula 1 above calculates to 54.44 ft. for the subject lot. The subject lot has a north-south
lot dimension of 142.78 ft. and is therefore required to meet the setback in Section A below
(see attached Solar Setback Calculations Sheet and attached Solar Setback Slope
Calculations sheet).
18.70.040 Solar Setbacks
A. Setback Standard A. This setback is designed to insure that shadows are no greater than
six (6) feet at the north property line. Buildings on lots which are classified as Standard A,
and zoned for residential uses, shall be set back from the northern lot line according to the
following formula:
SSB ® H - 6`
0.445+S
WHERE:
SSB = the minimum distance in feet that the tallest shadow producing point which creates
the longest shadow onto the northerly property must be set back from the northern property
line.
H ® the height in feet of the highest shade producing point of the structure which casts the
longest shadow beyond the northern property line.
S ® the slope of the lot, as defined in this Chapter. -
The highest shade producing point is located at the northeast corner of the garage roof eave
and is positioned 29.46 ft. above natural grade.
As 18.70.020.D, the definition for Northern Lot Line states: if the northern lot line adjoins any
unbuildable area (e.g., street, alley, public right-of-way, parking lot, or common area) other
than a required yard area, the northern lot line shall be that portion of the northerly edge of
the unbuildable area which is due north from the actual northern edge of the applicant's
property. And as Ashland Creed Drive is directly north of the subject lot, the north lot line is
the north edge for the street right-of-way for purposes of determining the actual solar
setbacks.
Formula A requires a minimum setback from the northern lot line of 42.57 ft. The actual
proposed setback from the defined northern lot line to the highest shade producing point is
77.07. This provides a solar setback compliance of 34.49 ft. (0.01 apparent error due to
rounding) (see attached Solar Setback Calculations Sheet and attached Solar Setback
Slope Calculations sheet).
Additionally, the 77.07 ft. setback provides a height compliance of 19.01 ft. (see attached
Solar Setback Calculations Sheet and attached Solar Setback Slope Calculations sheet).
This proposal therefore fully complies with Chapter 18.70 Solar Access.
RICHARD VEZIE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
208 Oak Street, Suite 204
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 488-1453
SOLAR SETBACK CALCULATIONS SHEET
Job Code: M1109
Client(s): Dan & Kate Morse Project Location:
Address: 1331 Humbug Cr. Rd. 699 Ashland Cr. Dr.
Jacksonville, Or 97530 Ashland, OR 97520
Date: 10/22/12 Map Number: 39-1 E-17AA Tax Lot: 1118
East N/S Lot Dimension: 155.07 N/S Lot Dimension:
West N/S Lot Dimension: 130.48 N/S Lot Dimension:
N/S Lot Dimension: N/S Lot Dimension:
N/S Lot Dimension: N/S Lot Dimension:
Average North/South Lot Dimension: 142.78
Eastern Grades: 1.38 26.00 1.65
Eastern Grades Total: 29.03
Western Grades: -0.08 2.00 0,861 --f
Western Grades Total: 2.78
Eastern Slope to North: 0.193533
Western Slope to North: 0.018533 Average Slope to North: 0.1060
SSB Factor: 0.5510
Lot Classification: A 6 30/0.445 +S = 54.44
Height of Highest Shade Highest Shade Producing Point
Producing Point: SSB: Location: NW garage roof eave corner
10.00 7.26
12.00 10.89 Proposed Height: Allowable SSB:
14.00 14.52 29.46 42.57
16.00 18.15
18.00 21.78 Proposed SSB: Allowable Height:
20.00 25.41 77.07 48.47
22.00 29.04
24.00 32.67 Height Compliance: 19.01
26.00 36.30
28.00 39.92 Setback Compliance: 34,4
30.00 43.55
32.00 47.18 e 47
34.00 50.81 ~ 6--1"-
M0831 Prepred By.
Ssb3.xls
V~ 6 e
ill, ~1~~
! It
,
.x
\xo
~V~'
/~k
SUBJECT LOT SLOPE CALCULATION AREA
FILE: M1109 55133 SLOPE 10123/12
SOLAR SETBACK SLOPE CALCULATIONS SCALE: r' =100'
NOTE: CONTOUR INTERVALS: 2'
THIS DRAWING IS PRODUCED FROM
CITY OF ASHLAND TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS. MAP: 39-1E-17AA
TAX LOT: 1118
i
RICHARD VEZIE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
RESIDENCE DESIGN FOR: 208 Oak Street, Suite 204
DAN ~7 Ashland, Oregon 9752,0
AN 1 MORSE 541 941-5165
i
I
. . . . . C. C. . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
p CO N M O M M It It O It r M O M LLB O N LC) N N LC) M r (o
J LO W W LO W It I\ M't N r O In m N (o N 't N M O M O
Q) Co Ln Ln f~ Co CO M r I- O LO O Co 00 't m r m M M r m M
d' Ln O In N LLB d' Lf) rt Ln r r M M Ln 'd' Cb Co Co T Ln LLB LC')
J N
O N ~
O >
U
0 0
Q U N
N ~ O O ~ O ~ O U O <n <n cn In cn cn cn v> cn (n (n cn to (n
r N m M O M r M M M 't M O I~ m N N M M r r} N (o N
M r r d' ~ r} I~ r M r L1) d' O M N O r N O r M Ln M
O C N M M d' N M M CO (D: lf) N O N M M M M~ CO (o t.C) M LI>
0 O M I` N 00 w m d' m m M I, m W M~ r O M M
C)-J I-- Nco Nco NNNNN Co Co d''t NN~tMM(oMNNN
O L T
W
O 'O a.
J ~ co
Z L)
O g<
~ ~ Q
Q E -p U(d
p U cn
~ ~ zt~ ll~ zt~ t~ }
L11 cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn to cn to O
U
Co I- 00 It N I- M It N N N M M I" M N O M M w r N N m
U C/) O "t r M O r m d- M (O M Lo r~ N m N M I\ N M N LLB N O
~ M N Ln ~ to r N M d' C'7 r (fl M N Cb r Co Co ~ N M Co M M
O t- M r M O M M M LO M d' N r N 't Co O O N M W r, M
F~ LLU V r N r M r r r r d' cf' M M r r N N N d' N r r r
a" td U
O (C
Q~ C) O Q J
1~1 Q N
U (n OQ0
® Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O T O0 CO I\ O N 00 00 (0 Ln CO O M r N LO I\ LO M "t (o d' M 't O
Q N J MI~N0000M~tLnMrnr\LOr`MI`rOrr't Ln000OM O
y I`NMNmNNNNN(6 (6 44c Cc 4 mc6(O06NNCV O
W OJ O U r rO I~H
-a co
Z L
O a~-Q
m cn cn (n cn cn (n cn O n cn w O cn cn (n cn cn cn cn w U) ,
(n LO M CO M M M N LO M M N M r O N O N O O M M O d M N LC) i
O O M L!) M N r r O LO M M N I" m 00 M Lo W I\ Lo W M N LO U
M Co m M M r m m N N M LLB Co O 't ,I- r m M m m 00 co N co r a)
U W O Lo m r M I\ O 00 CO CO O CO N Co I` M L O O N N M M O I~
Q Q N r ct r r N N r r r r r N r r It LO D
I- O co LO M
(n J M II
W
V r N CO cl- LO Co co M O r N M It LL) Co t- 00 M O r N M dt
w r r T T r r r r r N N N N N
W o N
N O
n3
U r J
N Q
Q o
N O Q CO
o 0 U)
N
J r Q F- O
i
I
January 9, 2012
AAI Project No. V346-02.01
Kate and Dan Morse,, LL C
c/o Richard Vezie & Associates, LLC ~tl "i ~5, In,,.,.
208 Oak Street, Ste. 204 u
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations
Lithia Creek Estates, Lot 10
699 Ashland Creek Drive
Ashalnd, Oregon -
Dear Mr. and Ms. Morse:
This letter report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering recommendations
for the proposed house to be located on the above-referenced, residential lot in
Ashland, Oregon. Our recommendations are based upon our review of a Geologic
Foundation Investigation report prepared by Ferrero Geologic, dated May 9, 2005 for
the lot and a visit to the site with Richard Vezie.
Project Description
The site was a vacant lot covered with native trees and a typical understory of brush. It
appeared some fill had been pushed onto the lot from the construction of Ashland Creek
Drive and a rough, access drive pushed onto the lot from the north corner to the
southwest. We understand the proposed house will be a conventional, multi-story,
wood-framed house stepping down the slope. The approximate house location and
layout is shown on Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan.
Subsurface Conditions
The test pits presented in the Ferrero Geologic report indicated a typical profile of
decomposed, granitic soils. The location of those test pits are shown on Figure 1. The
logs of the Ferrero Geologic test pits have also been reproduced and included in
Appendix A for completeness of this report.
The test pits describe loose, granitic soil fill to depths ranging from 2.5 to 4 feet.
Underlying the fill, a zone of loose, granitic soil was described that contained substantial
organic matter that we interpret to be the weathered horizon of the native soil containing
fine, dark brown, organic debris and roots. The competent, soil bearing stratum was
found at depths of 4.5 to 6 feet in the test pits and was described as firm, granitic,
residual soil. This soil stratum is commonly referred to as decomposed granite.
In general, the area is underlain by the Ashland intrusive pluton composed primarily of
diorite and granodiorite, commonly referred to as granite or bedrock. The parent rock
706 Jefferson Ave. Ashland OR 97520-3702 Phone: 541-482-6680 Fax: 541-482-6750
Morse Residence January 9, 2012
Lithia Creek Estates, Lot 10, Ashland AAI Project No. V346-02.01
decomposes very slowly creating three, general zones. The three zones are weathered
granitic soil, decomposed granite, and granodiorite bedrock. The upper layer of
weathered granitic soil is typically loose and a red-brown color. The second zone of
decomposed granite typically appears to be fresh bedrock, but can be ripped by heavy
equipment and breaks down to a fine to medium or fine to coarse sandy soil with some
silt. The decomposed granite can be red-brown, mottled red-brown and gray (swirled),
and generally turning gray with depth. Occasionally, boulders of hard granite can occur
in the decomposed granite that cannot be ripped by conventional equipment. The
granodiorite bedrock is very hard and typically characterized by its inability to be ripped
by conventional, earth-moving equipment and requires chiseling or blasting to be
excavated.
No indication of groundwater or subsurface seepage was noted in the Ferrero Geologic
report. However, some perched zones with limited volumes of water may be
encountered a top the less permeable, decomposed, granite soil during the winter and
spring months. Later into the summer, these perched zones may become less frequent
or dry up all together. It should be noted that the level of groundwater may fluctuate
due to variations in rainfall, season, site utilization and other factors.
Site Preparation Recommendations
The building footing areas, concrete slab-on-grade floors, retaining walls footings, or
stacked block wall foundations or areas to receive structural fill should be stripped of all
forest duff, topsoil, and loose, weathered granitic soil. We expect the bearing stratum to
be encountered at a depth ranging from 4.5 to 6 feet based upon the test pit logs. If
during the stripping process, an area is required to be over-excavated to reach
decomposed granite, the area should be backfilled with "structural fill" as described
subsequently.
We expect that the deeper excavations for the house may encounter very dense
decomposed granite and potentially, fresh granite bedrock. It is likely that a large track-
hoe may be required for the excavation. A hydraulic chisel on a track-hoe may also be
required if boulders or bedrock is encountered.
We recommend that the subgrade be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to
the placement of structural fill or building footings. The site soils contain some silt and
therefore are prone to disturbance in wet site conditions. The contractor should
minimize traffic across prepared soil subgrade areas.
Structural Fill Recommendations
All fill placed in the under the buildings, the concrete slabs-on-grade, on the slope
around the buildings, the driveway, and the backfill behind structural retaining walls
should be placed in accordance with the recommendations for structural fill. All
surfaces to receive fill should be prepared as previously recommended.
2 Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Morse Residence January 9, 2012
Lithia Creek Estates, Lot 10, Ashland AAI Project No. V346-02.01
The inorganic, site soils may be placed as structural fill for general grading purposes
around the site; however we recommend that imported crushed rock be used as
structural fill if it is required under building or retaining wall footings or under concrete
floor slabs. In all cases, site soils or soil imported to the site to be used for structural fill
should have a maximum particle size on the order of 8 inches and be free of organics
and other deleterious material.
Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness.
Individual lifts should be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition such that a
density of at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM
D:1557 or AASHTO T:180) is achieved. We recommend that a representative of the
geotechnical engineer be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work
and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the
adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as grading progresses. However, if large
crushed rock is used (e.g. 4-inch minus) the density of the fill will be difficult, if not
impossible, to measure by means of a nuclear moisture/density gauge. Therefore, we
recommend that the rock fill be spread, watered to an appropriate moisture content, and
compacted with at least 3 passes of a heavy, vibratory compaction roller. The
compacted fill should be a firm and non-yielding surface able to withstand proof-rolling
with a loaded dump truck without significant deflection.
If inclement weather occurs during grading, the upper wetted portion of the subgrade
may need to be scarified and dried prior to further earthwork. If it is not practical to dry
the wet, silty soils, it may be more expedient to remove the wet materials and replace
them with dry soil.
Footings Recommendations
The proposed house may be supported by conventional shallow spread footings and
continuous wall footings, founded on the dense, decomposed granite soil or compacted,
crushed rock placed over at least medium dense, undisturbed, native soil, as described
above.
Based upon these conditions, we recommend that the footings be designed with a
maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The
allowable loads may be increased by up to one-third to accommodate seismic or
transient loads. The base of exterior footings should be located at least 12 inches
below the lowest adjacent ground surface or top of floor slab, for frost protection.
Interior footings may penetrate 6 inches below the lowest surrounding grade or slab
surface. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches with minimum
reinforcing steel as required by the residential building code for seismic and to control
concrete shrinkage cracking. The footings should be designed and constructed on
horizontal benches with vertical, step-downs, if necessary. The footings should not be
designed or constructed running down the slope at an angle,
Assuming the foundation elements are founded on the prescribed bearing strata, we
anticipate that the total settlements should be less than 3/-inch with differential
3 Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Morse Residence January 9, 2012
Lithia Creek Estates, Lot 10, Ashland AAI Project No. V346-02.01
settlements on the order of half of that total. Most of the settlement should occur during
the construction of the house. If any disturbed or loose materials are left within the
footing areas prior to concrete placement, settlements may be increased. For that
reason, the condition of the footing subgrades should be observed prior to concrete
placement, to confirm the condition of the bearing soils are consistent with those
assumed during design.
Concrete Floor Slab Recommendations
All concrete floor slab subgrades should be prepared in accordance with the Site
Preparation Recommendations. The concrete floor slabs should be founded on
undisturbed, at least medium dense, native soil or crushed rock placed as structural fill.
We also recommend that the floor slabs also be underlain by a minimum of a 6-inch
thickness of clean, crushed rock or washed rock to serve as a capillary break and
working surface. An outlet for the drainage layer should be provided through or under
the concrete footings to allow for any water that may build up under the slab to drain.
A vapor barrier membrane should also be placed beneath the concrete floor slab. This
vapor barrier should be at least 15 mils thick and comply with ASTM:E 1745, Class C
vapor barrier.
Backfilled Retaining Walls Recommendations
Backfilled retaining walls are categorized by the condition of restraint at the top of the
wall at the time of backfilling. Retaining walls where the top of the walls are free to
move laterally or rotate to at least 0.1 percent of the wall height during backfilling may
be designed for an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If the
walls are structurally restrained for lateral movements at the top of the wall at the time of
backfilling, we recommend that they be designed for an equivalent fluid unit weight of 55
pcf. These values assume no buildup of hydrostatic water pressure behind the walls.
A value for the allowable passive earth resistance of 350 pcf may be assumed for each
foot of penetration below the ground surface, neglecting the first foot. An allowable wall
base friction value of 0.35 is recommended. This assumes that the concrete makes
intimate contact with the soil.
All backfill placed behind the walls or around foundation units should be placed in
accordance with our recommendations for structural fill. The above lateral earth
pressures, are based upon granular backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure
behind the wall. To minimize lateral earth pressure and prevent the buildup of
hydrostatic pressures, the wall backfill should consist of free-draining, granular material
with drainage provisions as discussed in the Building Drainage Considerations section
presented below. All backfill placed behind the retaining walls should be free-draining,
granular soil.
The backfill should be compacted to between 88 to 90 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density (ASTM:D 1557 or AASHTO T 180). Additional compaction
4 Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Morse Residence January 9, 2012
Lithia Creek Estates, Lot 10, Ashland AAI Project No. V346-02.01
adjacent to the wall will increase the lateral pressure while lesser degree of compaction
could permit post construction settlements. If silty soils are used as backfill behind the
wall, far greater lateral pressures can be expected to act on the wall. It is difficult to
evaluate what lateral earth pressures will actually be imposed on the retaining wall due
to the lower permeability silty backfill. The density of the soils, as well as the moisture
content plays a significant role. If much of the soil material is loose, the soil will readily
absorb and become a saturated mass, even further increasing wall pressures. Also, the
fines can plug the footing drain itself that may allow full hydrostatic pressures to
develop. The soil pressure and water pressure are additive and can approximately
triple the total lateral pressure against the wall.
Stacked Block Walls Recommendations
Stacked block walls may be used as landscaping walls to face stable cut slopes.
Stacked block walls should be constructed no greater than 4 feet in height for blocks
weighing at least 80 pounds each. For lighter blocks that weigh on the order of 60
pounds each, the maximum wall height should be 3 feet. If more than one wall is to be
used for greater heights, each wall must be set back at least 4 feet horizontally from the
top of the lower wall.
The bottom course of each block wall should be founded on at least medium dense,
native soil or crushed rock structural fill and set into an 8-inch deep "key". In addition,
the wall should be set upon a 6-inch minimum thickness of compacted, W-minus
crushed rock. The wall should be constructed with a batter no steeper than 6V:1 H or
each course of block is set back 3/-inch (pin setting or tail of block will determine this).
A minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe should be installed behind the first block
course and be fully embedded in washed rock or pea gravel. The drain line should
discharge into the storm drainage system or other suitable discharge point. As
additional block courses are being placed, free-draining rock (washed or crushed)
should be placed behind the wall to provide for drainage and prevent soil migration
through the wall. The top 12- to 18-inches of the wall may be backfilled with native or
topsoil for vegetation and prevent direct communication of surface water on the terrace
into the rock backfill.
Stacked block walls may be constructed to face fill slopes where reinforcing grid is
installed as part of wall construction and structural fill placement. The reinforcing grid
must be attached to the wall facing as an integral part of the wall. The grid must extend
into the structural fill being placed behind the wall. Reinforcing grid length and vertical
spacing should be designed by an engineer for the particular wall system to be used
and the specific conditions at the wall's location.
5 Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Morse Residence January 9, 2012
Lithia Creek Estates, Lot 10, Ashland AAI Project No. V346-02.01
Permanent Cut and Fill Slope Recommendations
We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be designed for a maximum
inclination of 2H:1V, however some localized areas of 1-1/2H:1V slopes may be used
provided their location and size are reviewed and approved by the geotechnical
engineer. Any slope steeper than 3H:1V must be covered with topsoil and erosion
control matting installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The
maximum fill slope length should not exceed 20 feet in vertical height. The maximum
cut slope should not exceed 15 feet in vertical height.
Permanent fill slopes should be constructed in accordance with our recommendations
for structural fill. The surface of the fill slope should be compacted to the same 90
percent density (ASTM:D 1557) as the body of the fill. This may be accomplished by
overbuilding the embankment and then cutting it back to its compacted core or
compacting the surface of the fill as it is constructed.
Fill placed on slopes should be keyed and benched in as it is being placed. This can be
accomplished by starting at the bottom of the slope cutting material horizontally from the
slope to create a level bench. The material can be most effectively compacted on the
level bench. As additional material is placed on the bench, the equipment should cut
out the next bench into the slope, stair-stepping up the slope. The bottom key should
be a horizontal cut at least 6 feet in width. Each horizontal bench should be cut at least
6 feet into the native granitic soil.
The top of all slopes greater than 10 feet in vertical height should be protected from
runoff by diversion berms or swales. The surface of the slopes should be covered with
topsoil and seeded.
Building Drainage Considerations
During periods of high precipitation, seepage zones may develop randomly in the cut
faces. Any seepage should be routed away from the construction and building area as
much as possible.
Site grades should be planned to slope away from the house. We recommend that the
house be provided with a permanent footing drain system to collect any available water.
The footing drains should consist of at least 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded
by at least 4 inches of washed rock or pea gravel on all sides. Roof and surface runoff
should not discharge into the footing drain system; instead a separate tight line drain
system should be installed. The footing drains and roof downspout drain pipes should
be extended to the storm drain system in the easement running down the slope.
If at all possible during the winter months, we recommend the roof gutters be installed
on the house as soon as the roof has been installed. This will prevent water from the
roof saturating the soil immediately around the house and will control the greater
quantity of water coming from the new roof.
6 Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Morse Residence January 9, 2012
Lithia Creek Estates, Lot 10, Ashland AAI Project No. V346-02.01
Erosion Control Measures
Erosion control measures should be implemented to limit and control the erosion as a
result of the proposed development. The erosion and sedimentation process is a
natural process whereby particles of soil are loosened from the soil and vegetation
matrix and carried down by water. Construction and land disturbance can increase the
rate of erosion above natural background levels by several hundred percent. Good
erosion control practices during construction can significantly reduce the erosion
process during and after construction.
However, even with the best erosion control practices, disturbed areas will produce
more sediment than naturally vegetated, undisturbed areas. Typically, the rate of
erosion is highest during construction and improves significantly after the permanent
erosion control measures are installed and vegetation becomes established. Over time
with the establishment and maturing of vegetation and proper maintenance of the
erosion control features, the rate of erosion can stabilize to near natural conditions.
Any surface water draining from the site will drain to the northeast into the shallow
drainage crossing the east margin of the site and through a culvert under Strawberry
Lane.
Temporary Erosion Control Measures
The following measures should be implemented during construction in order to best limit
the rate of erosion from the site.
T-1) Minimize the disturbed area. The natural topsoil and root mat offer the best
protection from erosion.
T-2) Install fabric sediment fences down slope of the disturbed areas to slow the
velocity of water runoff and contain sediment. The sediment fences should
traverse the slope along a line of equal elevation. Additional support can be
provided to the sediment fences with straw bales at each fence post. The fences
should allow for the slow release of water through the fabric.
T-3) Place a crushed rock pad at the site entrance to allow for parking of vehicles and
inhibit the tracking of soil onto the City street. Vehicle access onto unprotected
soil areas should be limited.
T-4) Water should not be allowed to run down the slope below the building pad, but
down slope pipes should be installed to carry the water down the slope via pipe.
T-5) Shield the exposed soil stockpiles and slopes from rainfall impact and hold soil
particles in place. This should be done by protecting exposed or disturbed soils
prior to rain by means of a complete layer of straw, erosion control matting, or
plastic sheeting.
7 Amrhein Associates, Inc.
I
Morse Residence January 9, 2012
Lithia Creek Estates, Lot 10, Ashland AAI Project No. V346-02.01
Permanent Erosion Control Measures
The following permanent erosion control measures should be implemented and
maintained at the site.
P-1) Surface water concentrations should be controlled by directing the flow to
appropriate paths and structures. If surface water routes are not designed, water
will create its own path sometimes across or into undesirable areas.
P-2) Maintain the soil's capacity to absorb water. Topsoil should be placed over the
native soil after construction has been completed. Ground cover vegetation or
bark/wood mulch should be used over new topsoil areas.
P-3) Implement a thorough maintenance and follow-up program. Maintenance of the
erosion control measures is critical over the long term. The major reason for
failure of erosion control measures is poor maintenance.
Inspection Schedule
The integrity of the site development, site grading, foundation support, retaining wall
support and stacked block wall construction depends on proper site preparation and
construction procedures. It is recommended that a representative of the geotechnical
engineer observe the construction at key times to determine the adequacy of
construction as it progresses. It also allows the engineer to observe variations in the
site and subsurface conditions, and provide additional geotechnical recommendations to
minimize delays as the project develops.
The geotechnical engineer will be required by the City to verify that these items were
observed and completed in general conformance with the plans and specifications. It
should be made the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineer with at least
24 hours notice that each of the following items is ready to be observed. The key items
are as follows:
• Temporary Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the start of site preparation and
other earthwork, erosion control measures must be installed and observed by the
engineer.
• Subgrade Preparation - When the topsoil and any loose soil has been removed
and the approximate subgrade has been reached. Footing subgrades should be
observed prior to the placement of crushed rock and preferably when the backhoe is
still on site to allow for the removal of any unsuitable soils recommended by the
engineer.
• Structural Fill Placement - During placement of structural fill, a representative
number of in-place density tests should be performed to verify the density and
adequacy of the structural fill.
8 Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Morse Residence January 9, 2012
Lithia Creek Estates, Lot 10, Ashland AAI Project No. V346-02.01
• Retaining Wall Backfilling - Prior to beginning of retaining wall backfill so that the
drainage system can be verified. The acceptability of the drainage material should
also be verified. A representative number of density tests should also be conducted
during the backfill placement.
• Stacked Block Walls - The subgrade for the bottom course of blocks should be
observed. In addition, the placement of the drainage material behind the walls
should also be observed.
• Floor Slab Subgrade - The subgrade(s) should be observed during final
compaction of any concrete floor slab subgrade. Placement of the vapor barrier
should also be verified.
Closure
The recommendations provided in this letter have been prepared in conformance with
generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No other warranty,
either expressed or implied, is made or intended. This letter has been prepared for the
exclusive use of the Mr. and Ms. Morse, and their agents, for specific application to subject
property.
PROP'r'r
Sincerely,
Amrhein Associates, Inc. 1483,
REGON
Mark J. Amr e n, P.E, GE
President / Ztor Engineer / e AM` s
RENEWAL DATE: 11/31/13
Enc: Figure 1 - Site and Exploration Plan
Appendix A - Backhoe Test Pit Logs
f
9 Amrhein Associates, Inc.
U U
+ _O J
13,'.V` O n W
- ~e
C)
o 0 C15
LL
LL o
cz
f m
If M1 N o z
O
o ° o o W O{~
r t..a . ! I L 7i CS 1-
N
f k Q ~ ~ Q
j o o -U O
O
t
J , lr r J, J~ n_ ~ Y
o
c
c-o w X
v) V)
ri ~f ~ o rn Z
f ~ ! rn Q Q
_ ui
s F f--
f
tl M
I I~
E On
f (3 + 4 y r-
LLJ
1 Q W OL
- rr
f`
1 f
1:fl l
LLI
V
x.+
APPENDIX
ACKH PIT LOGS
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Two backhoe test pits were excavated by Ferrero Geologic on April 13, 2005. The
following logs are a copy of their original logs. The approximate exploration locations
are shown on Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan.
Backhoe Pits
Backhoe pits were dug into the toe of the Ashland Creek Drive fill and access
ramp cut bank near the north end of lot 10 (BP-1), and through the fill and into
native soil at the end of the access ramp near the south end of lot 10 (BP-2).
They exposed the following conditions.
Dept Descdption
BP-1
0 to 2.5 Loose, buff, damp, granitic fill.
2.5 to 4 Loose, buff, moist to damp, granitic colluvial soil (colluvium)
composed of silty to well-graded sand (USCS-SM to Ste,
containing substantial organic matter.
4 to 4.5 As above, non-organic.
4.5 to 5.5 Firm, buff, moist to damp, granitic residual soil (residuum)
composed of silty to well-graded sand (USCS-SM to SW).
5.5 to 6.5 Firm to hard, moist, partially decomposed granite bedrock. Hard
at 6.5.
BP-2
0 to 4 Loose, buff, damp, granitic fill.
4 to 6 Loose, buff, moist to damp, granitic colluvial soil (colluvium)
composed of silty to well-graded sand (USCS-SM to SW), the
upper foot or less containing substantial organic matter (scalped?).
6 to 7 Firm, buff, moist to damp, granitic residual soil (residuum)
composed of silty to well-graded sand (USCS-SM to SW).
7+ Hard, moist, partially decomposed granite bedrock.
18 September 2012
Architectural Review Committee
Lithia Creek Estates Homeowners Association
Review of Morse Design Plans
On Friday 7 September 2012, the Architectural Review Committee of the Lithia
Creek Estates Homeowners' Association met to review and discuss the design plans
submitted by Richard Vezie for the proposed residence of Kate and Dan Morse at
699 Ashland Creek Drive. Present at the meeting were Cliff Edwards, Nort Croft,
Richard LeVitt and Gordon Nelson.
In summary, the Committee found the design plans well thought out and
appropriate for the location. Particular features noted were: the proposed residence
is situated high on the lot and built into the hillside; the driveway is on the west
side of the lot, not on the steep north side; the colors are neutral; and the design
preserves many of the trees on the lot.
Overall approval to proceed and complete this project is subject to the following
conditions:
L As required by Section M of the Declaration of the Development,
construction of the residence and any other permitted improvements,
including initial landscaping required by the City of Ashland prior to their
final sign-off and issuance of a certificate of occupancy, shall be completed
within two years of the City's issuance of building permits. Should
construction extend beyond the limit, a monthly penalty of $1,000 until
completion and issuance of a certificate of occupancy, may be imposed by
the Homeowners' Association.
2. Any changes to the building plans shall be submitted to the Architectural
Review Committee for review and approval, including the final plans to be
submitted to the City for approval.
The Committee looks forward to the successful completion of the proposed project,
and to the addition of a lovely residence in our neighborhood.
J
59GWe It'S
OZS(b NOJ'Ir ZIO `QNV'IflSV y~ 5 g!
HS~ H 4
=`SZLVDOSSVVHIMAQZI HDIU ZI®3NOISEIGRoNgclim LL
°
Wiz.
~ '°py m 4 b M
i 7y
izi war av
m'~ °H z m °
~ v ~zm2ood Wd;~rc-°
Nm~ °m z'w» o~owz~°w ~v e~ CL^ Z
pia mm aZrcaz ~°~b<c<i °a o'e S \ U_
B m w ~ m v O M w F LL z y. pZ N O N ~ b
O t9 ~ ~ ~ amv S N ~ 1w- ~ ° K 3 a ~ O ° O ¢ K w wrE
® f- E w W a o ii
°ooo
us
e /
w
am 'ts LUr
ail
i
f P
E 3
~m r v
22
S
:~~Y a Ga
9919aMv- sv asw® H g~$,s
OZSL6 NO;Jfl210 `QNd'tHSV
roozayuts`zaaxtsxaoaoz 2IOd NJIS~Q ~3N~~S z
aaz `sa Lvtoossv aIzan anWxOna o F
Roy
~~~~a w
I
~Q
fill
/ f ~S W2 ~x g
=pa / ALL~tm~ L€zu ~i
OZSL6 NOJ32I0 `QNV7HSd y~ J„~ 991;-1116 IVS co
w aA ax MIX
oTT`saavaossv NgJIS~~ ~~N~~IS a
B
i
IT"
5
O ~ p ?
O°~ o¢cfw
Z ~'V ~md
N Z Z WO
O W' O
w z
m~<C
ff)
tii¢NU In
ZO
U z
Wz
cn -p
W w
Zz
W w
W L.U
o$ ~
W 0
0"
^1
W Z ~
N
Z
~w
x Z
u
i ~
Z }
~ O
U
ow
w~
OUL6 NODaUO TSQNdJ76MSV EISWOW HI U A V °
OZZ `sasVIDossd MZan aaVHDM NDISaG FDNFI(uSa2I
906
1
3
9
, I
~ PSI
3
3i
1 W
U)
4
O
oG9
Z ¢ it
j ¢
~ r9
2
00
00 / LL
Q c)
-1
< 00
i ~ CJ S j
v \ 1
Q
Q I
3 ' ~ N
Z
N in 51
a
LU
3 I I i~ ~
z
E- p
,r
e
L_
59IS-[b6 [45 ~T
OZSL6 NO'~O`ONV'IIISV FISW HI V l V m o
bOZ aLms ,Lams XV0 80Z =
OTT `SaLiIDOSSV V H Z9A GIrMOT I .g®3 NDISHQ HDNHC[ISa2I o
a
0
Cope Q9 4--
Bvo'w 4 o a~~~
_ S`lQGJd Gqp o. g g~®
LLB
U)
C: LU
.L9.
U
OF
O
Z11
Z
E
4
4v~Q D LU
g' e cn
d
VIM o QD,
9 w
PAL V
O
O~
Z p
I Z
9919-1116
OZ9L6 NOf)HZIO `QNd7HStl w H
aTI `sELVIDossd Mz Qx HDI'd X103 NDISEIG HoNlaQIS _
oo~LL
~G N
G ~
))c W n
Ef" ~ Wo C1U Z
O° Y UW ?Z
LLO Q ¢Z NQ ~ -
c9~ Cz m~ ~
5F wm Z _
N> ,
o¢
y~
NNQ
QC61
~ZO
mw
Z~W
QKG L
KOWp
pZQ 1 _
~1 O
z
W
I ° ~k
o ;r
J
W
03
Z
s
i
o ~
o ~ o 0
o~ oo ~ m~
v o G j~ N
O Z O
N~ OZ OQ m~
tz m za °z o
m Np ~Z Z
µNµ..s p ¢Y N
3~ in~ ~m ¢D w
5915-1b6 IbS JSN HIV-A w xV
OZSG6 NOO3YO`ONd7IISV
hOZ MnS `.i3i{?LLS ]NO SOZ
DTI `Saa.Fn30SSV 79 a1ZaA CPdVMM I~I~IS~Q ~~N~QIS~2I a
1
~z
o
Q
w
J
uj
NZ Ot-
COI)II ¢ mF
K ZZ O N
G4 N~ ~O 2
<j oz az o
o Nm
12 ~K N U
ZLL tim NQp ~N
Y tF0 panp~3t nt oEoCC t2<t1K N_
~ O ¢ ~ w~ 3~ i(t l- OCR Iv'S
LL 3ZZ mF
oU[ O K i p N
00 ~
UO p0 OZ ¢ '
N otz ~ I I
5r Wo N'e m I
p'J1
El
I
I ,
1
59IS-[b6 IbS ~Y ~
OZ90 NODnO'QNVMISV HSWO~/~~ I ~ HIV'N O
tlWa s'SamsXVOBOZ Nva &i
o
ozz `sarvioossv w aazan axvmr a 2I03 NOISUQ IDNHC[IS32I a h
o ~
a
b
11 n
I ~
I `
I
! I ~I'
b I ',I C I
WO
! I
¢U I ox
I
a I ~ 1~ s o0
m t ~ z
L ~
I
I
I
w~ I
O
m O I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
5919-06 US
OZSL6 NGD9aO'GMTRMV
bOZ'SLiOS `,LaEnUS XVO 80Z ~s~ HI
aTi `saivraossv v azan axvxarx ZI03 1~IrJIS~~ ~~N~QIS~2I w
G
a ,
~'I U
Q
pq~/
.b-.6 LL
r®` LL
m
LL z
LU z U
Lij
Mil
Q J
m m a
1VVVV/ 6
q u~i~~ UQ /
i
i
r u
®I G
a
a J
0-.9£
)Ioaa
59KY' SV EIJU HW l ~V g
OZSL6 NOJ'32I0`UNtl'IIiSV Q j~
bOZ alms `Sda-als AVO 80Z . th... D
I `SaaVIOOSSV W aizaA allVHDIU NDISEIQ a3macasaw
J:~
~m
z ~
a
I
U
I S ~
~ uziz ~ J
w
ti
n[ J
LL
ILz
LL1
i
S9T5-Iti6 Ib5 ~T
OZSL6NOOaTO`GRV'MV as a,, w l V m
svvaizaA a~~ix
an`suvmos ai®~ N~IS~Q ~~N~QIS~2I f 4 °
Oy
F-
4x
- W w
LLJ Q
N
LLJo
W Z
z
/
z~
z
2z
ox z ~l Z W
no LL
z `3r--
Z a3
~c
Z
-W
2
O-
k
°z
\ o
ao
k
a
o
V~
W~
D LL
¢W
a0
Lu
LLI
z
m
o g LU
Z
ao W~
=z
®~=Yo
f
I\I
oY~r
o~
wosadeasPuewneauaH~/~~a~ ssssLosLrs:nao oantoallga,y aaeospue•1 m NE)032J0 `®NH,HS`d e LLj
szsLs ao Paaivsv zL96zss ias: L~ ~I~ LIa
,sans v sns VUC-een ns :I i x 3ARIa N331 10 ❑NH1HS`d 669
b 3ON309S3M 3SNO
z (9 w
IL
a w z - a
W J z U)
g
z ® a z
® z g w
z
a ~
o ® z ~
z W o
z j ® w O
O =
z ® U z
~ O d LL J
'L o U) y LLI N
z N f LL LL
F N N N W F L6 (n vi Q
z N t"D ed U N O W F. Y
U J J J J J J N N LL W W w
LU LL O
W
I)f
Q
Q g Q Q
V
a d w y N Q W > mU)U) w
® O
N (J P!J W U W
W
rn m m Q
Q Q f W S N (W~ H
_ Y Y
z N
f f/1 W ~w~~ a O~z f' Q W O W O
Q h W O O W w <`N o = U g J N N W U, LL,
L'U O ®O W z ha 0 W~ y N N w Q 4 z F of O w
z azo ~O .`d=jin ®wwir ON wzgW<t QOU Y U'
~g® ~❑~zo ~aQN®r aWZ~M ooW maw W
L) wm¢ wQiw z~,¢Qm iiYRN~ zw~ F¢
O ® W Z Oz~U`O 0220 ox z wZasf hHF t>~ 0.
IL ama aG~~u~i mit Kc°~aQuai It YYNN 000 mow Q
RENPISSAN
d&'is aouVl
AVM ON.
1109
\ / ~ \ ~ ~ A3N NOS ~ ~
gg a
\ 3 i -~L3iINN3f ~
~ 7d~ ~ I \ 1 I ~ I r I 1 S'1~ 1 ~'J
ba 110,
~
i A 77 1 ' ~ 95 1
@. ~ I ~ 1 ~ 311PIVN9 { o
II 1j I
TAP
,I t
M
r' a
III ~ ~ I I ~ \ \ ~ A
I1\ a
i
1 T 9
1 IN
/ i r~
woo odwspuuppouah®R„ah 69SS 091t971ao I aanj)ellga~yoaeoepue7a SD 1f NJ03230'GNVIHSd
02926 ho'puel4sV Z4S62SS'lroS:xej qg gtyy~gga`g 9 ry
100ggy 9roS ros4ee9a gas aa1 Uti G lA n n`" oQ eQ - m 3/~Ri4 >i33~J0 dN`dIHSV 669
dd LA os`e 3ON3®IS3U 3SHOW
J
J
D
Z
Lu
W W
W
W m
\ o z
O 0
F-z - Z EL
° aW
- i Q I pW„ C9 a
✓ z oa z~
o
L) z U) z C9
~r ~X,
C) Z
W as
U)
p wz ~ ~
~z Q O
O W z
W 0
• J K z U
\ u) a a U w
io a O (0 Z
1
r
\ m
1 1 \ ~ 1
.z
y
I ~
aar
0
r N ~ 4
~Iu(JI X11 F~.I~.'~~ L_ ] ~ ~ I S~
55
woa adv spuelu,iI 6999'l09'L69 IIaO adngo0114oayade19Pnel 9 YD drb, - N`J03240 'GNb'IHSb'
Od9L6 t1O'Puel4stl ZL562s9'LbS xej 77 p7p ~7i ®T X40. - -
Iaa,tsVSbs b6LE'996'lb5lal U1A10 u~11 €e 3ANG>1332A0GNVIHSb'669
_ = asGe N 33N3®IS3N 3SNO
LA
w
w
IIIIII t- k
III~1'~ wo a p6G ~ a ~ ~
G SA9
~ =III-111 ~ ~ ~3 ~
w~ r _ 1
III- z a„ 96€ w
UR
Z
m a C).
e
"
H - Y
I~IIII U
s I.I. IIL_1~p111111IF "36 zN oR
LIIITiII- IIIrT Z ~ ~
11=11_-- Q RYA iii J
'I IL 11 w too G~ J
og <
~~S z
` z
C)
o
~ s ~ ~ = psi"t w
d
f ~
r
r r
a I
L I _
>j
w of \ o z
I oo >a~ aQ o~ ~ C
I. ~ f I~ / I , j z_~ ~=a
I I ~ r r~[
I
77
/ d
/ J
wW'adeapur--- -aY.'.wxm
wooadeospuelw!e~ua~@tiiah 6555409'145:I1a0 Oan70e11gOdp adeJSpue7 t~ 3OZSL6 d0 `P~19sv ZtS67991' S:xed 9 e
laansvsts 461E'BBb'lbS =1a1 UJIL)DUa aw ze - NOJ3bO `®Nd1HSt/
v a = 3 = ND3213 ®NV-IHSV 669
a°V3I®S3~3S2I®iAI
0
Z
Z Z
a LU 9L
w
I~ ~A LU
w
,w
i 71 \y,` X, o b &
I
n _ I I , ~ ~1 A r ti w
W
Is: fir., bo of
I H LL
J
i,
I C)
F } i\ ° o
LU
E SL
Cl)
J
'4 z
US Z) z 0
Cn U- Z
I t. f 9 Q, } w 0¢ °ui
F-W Qa zcn
W a
O
U) ui c) C) U) of
:E z w i
IT
W oQ
Q ro J
/ $ S J
/~77 W
L
(6 m
.1 p '6
v a E a a° `m m° m E
o rmm° mo.°o3E a ma 16 RC . m3 ay
ry, n n m ..o s w w m E y~ y y E n Z, ` o.
m - c
°cn ° 'ma°io a~ Eo. ~E~~ov om w m n `o I
`o~m.. oyvO Y~'Em mm ~v nm v s w
E-1°ommn w°m~2E =~Niu zm c r
o m L -5
a K v
LL t .2 c- ct h E ii w Q n Q o m
o m R a o m R C m 3 R N m m m R .m r ~
am"v v.ev. oQ°._mn.-~d~m m Nw Z
z ....a 1=2
m mNm o ~~°mEmin=~xm° m av
~m°~g = aE
mE « 1~ E O
F v U ~ c c a w g m ~ v2 c°> E R m U a> W= N `o (~j
LU m m _
L!1 0~ t~ m m.ri mai mo af
o N z Z LLI ~ NOm " nL n.O-~a~OO `o ommoa Z
p
x lo
-8 IS >1 C)
a a
O U w U R t v E m H 3 `m z° m o o m m v LL1 Q
Cn _m~.-.J _RLE - ~s U
O
a m w
a O Q LL°_ ov~5E F-c~amm°~vVtm ~nmoo I a n LLU u)
0 O UFl; v m m m c m s 3 t¢ m m .a o o .vQ E ami O
(J Z yv m d o° v m~ 3 o w o m n v m z
U yam §a t6 nR"c m m E mN E r' R at R .°a
LLl o-» R m d m x„ r_. R a m m
CL o R m m t n t R vy m m m a m1 o N y m s° Z` o N
3 RHsi d Glm dH N- V R.t- R m m
Cn N N J 2; a t..
~•Q
moo admspuep,leauaN@Ajiq 6999'L09"L4s:IlaD 0Sna027tg0,ry'BdeOSpuP,~j 7.D d
039LB do'Puel9sv E196'Egg- lbs n-q 9 r•$^ e
laal{sv9vs VM99vm :lei U:,~IL';jlIax ! 'o~ 04 - NO`J3?JO `C]NVIHSV -
< LL x - m - N3M:10 ®NV-IHSV 669
Ln 95c~ ~ ~ u 3~N31®S3~ ~S~®
z
o~W at _ -m$ 3 s
~ttp 3 Ed nE _#m Et.m3 L Z• m E - # 3
00❑0 - - - b oEm m in3
1.9
t = = t - y 3 m
U '00
a E E - m
LLJ
g~ 0~ u m m ° cm o= 2 y ~Em- 20. t m _ ~Z
U m LL ° m
dCJq~o ` Oz
4~~8 \aQ a C E2 a
o LLI
~•pc = m E g LL a Q t 2 m$ S F -
Z D a g m E 3 E m a v C m c v E@- S 9 _
z Ey+ma Tim s°°; .E m3a = mE
O O W ❑ ° m a° t E m m m E a m.Q ` .c - `m .12
❑ _ @@ m = E m a m m n c_ a co.P'_° - = 3 m¢ w
\\k~ z c - -8L `o - - z 32 0
i 0Ya J Qc EmUm ? _ ~u =a~
z w, 8 E' -6
10 -d
U zU W J m -o w m v o m 3 E a C" t.@c u 6 ma E^0
tiW `i0 C Q m vSm °f mE r 2 y 3c ov $ v'
.00 aUU O W W goE=0~m~~m= " -L3o - c Lmo
W 3mov
z U Z s 9 °-3` o_°°'-' o c~E °mm N"m am .o @wNY ~,d9'm'- -a 75
F-
n m m s v = m
F I-'
p V 3g12 :9 h `m=~-8n°°'?W 3~E ~Emt E~= c 5
0.' W m m_ c v m c a a m m - 3 s=€ 0 3 m _
o -
W a F w'~m_xx a @ 2s2 mFi m°bE co ~E m.~m
W W d Q wab nc=°Em- _y~t c- ~~'c9 mw- 9Sna~`E°` -
E
72
0
K LL ° m = o v 10 o -
_ 12 E v$ c r a E n c m^ o w@ m a o y `m t o `m a°-°m c" °c Q d
~ W0.' w moc- °EUp czo-°Qw`-°'°F g¢y W`~ -®i¢`m L'=E~E❑°Ow2
/p® N Ana my°~dm 2 c m-.`m mc5 mma E
rc
i' LO `oJ O
/ I D m
❑ Wa' rQn2 o4im
WD❑ >88"! 0 O'O ~Om
DOD0000000000 DWO X00
1J 1~ »»»SSFEf fE H.H~ w F•
'VI A aaaaaa WmWS~w www wQ 5a
r$ ~ mNmmwm Krcrc CrcCrcrcCC rc222
V WWWWWWWWW3WWwWWWWW
CN ~ mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm
z 000 DOOOOO°0000000000
II/ Q FFFI-FFF-f r~F-f HFHt FFFF»>.g
W m
6 ®
i
\ ~ m ww =2=~zzm
g m ~
N CV A a o ~mmm~~mm~rrmrr~ mmmrm~mm
ui'c4
/ I~ N a0000020~000Of~a~~~~0 20§ i
ff~ o i
/ CA o r,:
_I
T C
CV CV_
/ I
( -
- _ -i
X :3 X X X X z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
~Q°O
Q ° U) Q 'O O :3 3 ?;7 S (a -n (D Q 0 6 N co D n (D 90
0 O) _Q °Do rrm-I o ~o o rr~ozco<-u-
N O _0 0 0 c' (p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D Q) 0 0 n p N O O N 0 Or v
0 O + N N Q n o r r N (D (D a O p N v C.) lD OL) OD p) (n O O ~ = =3 0 =5 Z C: O co O O (D
rnr O n 0 a
_0 (D 0 ~ 7 '00 ~ O O O N OC N 3 7 O O -I
(0n 3 v m< Q 0 v a a; (n 3 N z m
m
O 0 (D O 0 o c 3 sv 0 Q O O
Q- co 3
(n W (n I (n 0 -h (D
3 ch -h C)
° O 0 Q o cc v v (nn 7 m
(0D Q CL-0
(D (D Q c O N (D -0 -0 O m
v o ° a p x (n r* O= o' (n -0 E, Q Q m m
(D (n p (0n Q tU O M N 0 O O 5' = Z~
3 (c N (n (n O. 0 O r rt(D W (n (n Q
O -0 (D -o 7 (Q 7 d_ r' Q Q w n
7 _
"0 (D 0 C - n (D . O a s (0D
N Q (n O 3 :3 C 0 C_r Q- (D (D
(n co (D -h 0 0 0
(D O (n 7 (D
(D 0 7 (n 0 '2. v m 0 cn Q O
3 C: N (D
C p (D Q (D " (D cr (D
(D (n at ~ ~ 0 (p 6 N O
Q 3 (n 0 M (n :3
N =r Q O
p
(D CO
C O
CD
CL (D (n =h o ~ a
O 0
cn o a c 0 cn (D
C) (D O 0 c 0- - a - ~
0°
co ~ ~ v (n v. v
N O N Q (Q 0m N p -=i
N -0 O 2r ~ N CL O
O ccoo O D 3 0 (D C. " O (n : 3
O -0 0(n (D Q O- , 0
C-
CT (D
C O (D C C 3-
n (D -0 rt
N (D
E D c n n n N" (D :3•
O (n
C (n
(D O
O Q v o (O p p
O (Q Q v N C ( n ( (0n 0)
N 0 (D (D (D
< N
O O ~ 0 a (D
0- 0-
3
-0 7 Z. N (D N
co E; =3 0- (D N co
N O -00 O.O 0 n
Q N -0 (D 3 0
O " r
Op 0 O "0 00 S?O
(0n O m
3 0 v m(n 0
(n ' 0-
c
v
0 -p (n 0-0
w CD c< 0 o O
m
m v
cD. (D cn O D
vim, c ~
(D r
F), 0
w (D
m w O
Cn
° (D Z
(3D
D
z
x x
OD OJ
(DD N O N
Q O
(D O (a mO
O T
rt
(D
-S
W
U)
I
i
I
i
i
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
FILE
Y.i 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT P&E Review Permit Single Family Dwelling
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? 0 YES M NO
Street Address 699 Ashland Creek Drive
Assessor's Map No, 391E 3 9 -1 E -17 AA _ Tax Lot(s) 1118 _
Zoning RR - • 5-P Comp Plan Designation Rural Residential
APPLICANT" r_ ve z i e @
Name Richard Vezie --Phone 541-941-5165 E-Mail jeffnet.org
Address 208 Oak St., Suite 204 City_ Ashland Zip_ 97520
i
PROPERTY OWNER
Name Daniel Morse Phone 541-690-6059 E-Mail dgmorse@aol. com
Address 1331 Humbug Creek Rd. _ City Jacksonville _ Zip 97530
SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER _r ve z i e @
Title Bldg. Dsgnr -Blame Richard Vezie -Phone 541-941-5165 E-Mail j effnet . org
Address 208 Oak St., Suite 204 _ City Ashland Zip 97520
Title Name Phone E-Mail _
Address City _ Zip
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact. are in all respects,
j
true and correct. t understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that i produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
i
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be remov d t m#expense. If l av any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assi tance.
c ( ~
Aia iican#'s Sits ature Date
As o~mer o e roperty involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner
i
Property Owner's Signa pare (required) Date -
rrn be ,plamd by City Staffl
Date Received f_ Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee
OVER P~
.,.'coto~;r-dc<<:plauairg\forr. RHa;u;outs'Zo;~ ~Pc~ ni;~pi I;caGco.dc.
Job Address: 699 ASHLAND CREEK DR Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
A Owner's Name: DAN AND KATE MORSE ® Phone:
P Customer 00124 N State Lic No:
P RICHARD VEZIE T City Lic No:
L Applicant: R
Address: A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: (541) 488-1453 T Address:
N Applied: 12/04/2012 O
T Issued:
Expires: 06/02/2013 N Phone:
State Lic No:
Maplot: 391 E17AA1118 City Lic No:
DESCRIPTION: P & E Permit for SFR dwelling
I
VALUATION
Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description
Total for Valuation:
i
MECHANICAL
c
ELECTRICAL
_ v
STRUCTURAL
PERMIT FEE DETAIL
Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount
Physical Constraints Permit 982.00
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1
I
i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF
-ASHLININD