Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOak_777_PA-2014-00307 t CITY F ASHLAND July 9, 2014 Notice of Final Decision The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following: Planning Action: #2014-00307 Subject Property: 777 Oak Street Applicant: Martha Howard-Bullen Description: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction Permit approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The property is subject to the Physical Constraints and Water Resource permits due to the location of the proposed development within the adopted floodplain for Ashland Creek. The existing approximately 720 square foot residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP/TAX LOTS: 39 lE 04CA 2707. The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13th day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 1 year and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with Chapter 18.108.110(A) of the Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal shall be limited to the criteria listed in Chapter 18.108.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Amy Gunter in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Parties of record 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 t SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council. A. Appeals of Type 11 decisions shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the appeal requirements of Section 18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or considered. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place to consider the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the meeting. 4. A. Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.B. below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. The record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the Planning Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. B. The Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the City Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated: a. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error; or b. That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision; or c. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the City Council. C. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited to ten (10) minutes for the applicant, ten (10) for the appellant, if different, and three (3) minutes for any other Party who participated below. A party shall not be permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall be submitted no less than ten (10) days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the Notice of Appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the written argument. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us I i° D. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the City Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Planning Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond. E. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify or remand the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make' findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the City Council elects to remand a decision to the Planning Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Planning Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to Section t 8.10 8.070.13.5. F. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-088-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.w.us J BEFORE T PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 2014 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2014-00307, A REQUEST FOR ) PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT AND ) WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONE REDUCTION APPROVAL TO ) FINDINGS, CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,414 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A 775 SQUARE ) CONCLUSIONS FOOT GARAGE. THE APPLICATION ALSO REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL USE ) AND ORDERS PERMIT FOR A 615 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT FOR ) THE PROPERTY LICATED AT 777 OAK STREET. THE APPLICATION ALSO ) INCLUDES A REQUEST TO REMOVE 13 TREES ON SITE. ) APPLICANT: MARTHA HOWARD-BULLEN RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #2707 of Map 39 lE 04CA is located at 777 Oak Street and is zoned R-1-5, Single Family Residential. 2) The applicants are requesting Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit to construct a new 3,414 square foot single family residence with a 775 square foot garage. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Sheet. The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. The Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction request was eliminated during the public hearing phase of the project. 3) The criteria for Physical and Environmental Constraint Review approval are described in AMC 18.62.040. 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. 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 StaffAdvisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the nzaxiinurn permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.72.070, as follows: PA #2014-00307 July 8, 2014 Page 1 4 A. That the use ivould be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in canformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of CiO) facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area }when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. YVlien evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6 The development of adjacOntpt°operties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. i In addition, the criteria for an Accessory Residential Unit are described in AMC Chapter18.20.030.11, as follows: H. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the folloia,ing additional criteria: I 1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 2. The maximum number of divelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.. 3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA. 4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for single-family dwellings of this Title. Lastly, the criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The StaffAdvisor shall issue a tree removal permit for° a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. PA #2014-00307 July 8, 2014 Page 2 t 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the 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 ivith 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 alloiv 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 ivithin 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion. }4,hen alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allot) 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. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on May 13, 2014 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. This hearing was continued to the May 27, 2014 meeting. At this hearing additional testimony was received and new exhibits were presented. This hearing was closed. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subj ect to conditions per taining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as PA #2014-00307 July 8, 2014 Page 3 i follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission believes that there are unique elements of the proposal, which pertain to the site, that justify flexibility to strict adherence to the flood plain corridor development standards and the standard in 18.62.070.E. The. application's comprehensive approach in the design of the development should result in enhanced safety for the future occupants of the proposed structures, as well as benefits to surrounding property` owners. Consequently, the Planning Commission decision to approve the proposal cannot be seen as setting a precedent for future land use applications, due to several factors exclusive to the site and further described in this final order. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that removal of the three existing non-conforming structures and replacing them with a new residence that is situated further from the creek channel and is constructed to current city and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood damage prevention regulations will result in enhanced public safety and minimize adverse impacts to the property and adjacent properties. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds that the adverse impacts to property and nearby areas have been minimized with the proposed improvements to the adjacent riparian area in an effort to stabilize the area and improve the sites resiliency to future flood events. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant has considered potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development by orienting the residence with a south to north orientation to better deflect and convey flood waters around the residence. The residence is proposed to be elevated above the FEMA flood plain Base Flood Elevation and constructed with an adequate foundation venting to allow for the passage of flood waters. The Planning Commission finds the development could not be located on a substantially higher grade because that the buildable area is relatively flat and the Ashland Floodplain Corridor and the FEMA Floodplain boundary are at the same elevation. PA #2014-00307 July 8, 2014 Page 4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed site planning is responsive to the existing site constraints and development requirements by providing ample protection area for the 64-inch DBH Black Poplar tree. The Planning Commission finds that locating the residence adjacent to the four foot embankment near the east property line could create a choke point for floodwaters and waterborne debris which would have negative, adverse impacts to the subject property and downstream neighbors. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant has taken reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact of the proposed development on the environment through the location and proposed construction methods. Additionally the Planning Commission finds that the proposed location of the residence and the accessory residential unit result in the preservation of view corridors that serve as collective open spaces for adjacent neighbors. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that previously proposed Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) Reduction to permit encroachment of a portion of the structure into the WRPZ is eliminated with the relocation of the residence outside of area of the WRPZ. The revised proposal includes a rear patio area, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the provision of porous solid surface, excluding deck area as required in AMC 18.63.060.B.4. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Water Resource Protection Zone enhancement, including grading the artificial pond area, the proposed removal of four hazardous trees, the removal of non-native, noxious plants and the planting of native, riparian zone appropriate plantings is consistent with the requirements of AMC 18.63.120. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed accessory residential unit complies with the requirements for accessory residential unit, Site Review and the Conditional Use Permit criteria. The unit complies with the required setbacks and lot coverage allotments of the zone. The new unit is orientated towards the driveway. The accessory residential unit is less than 50 percent of the square footage of the primary residence, and the two required parking spaces required for the unit are provided. The required trash and recycle area is provided for the accessory residential unit. The Planning Commission finds that adequate key city facilities can be provided to serve the project including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity. Oak Street is classified as an avenue (Major Collector) and will continue to operate at acceptable levels with build-out of the proposed project. Access to the site will continue to be provided off a flag driveway along the north property line. The water service is proposed to be upgraded. Adequate electric service exists that will continue to service the site. The proposed accessory residential unit will not have adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area. The property is 44,524 square feet in area, the target use of the zone is one residence per 5,000 square foot; the accessory unit will not negatively affect the generation of traffic, light, noise, glare, dust or odors. The unit is similar in bulk and scale and architectural compatible with other single family residences and accessory residential units in the impact area. PA #2014-00307 July 8, 2014 Page 5 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the 13 trees proposed for removal in conjunction with the project comply with the criteria for removal of non-hazard and hazardous trees. Ten of the trees proposed for removal are within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor including four within the Water Resource Protection Zone and the FEMA Floodplain. The trees proposed for removal have been evaluated by a Certified Arborist. The four trees near the creek have dead tops and. are in decline, the other nine are within the proposed building footprint or in the driveway and parking area. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record, the request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit approval to construct a new single family residence with an attached garage, a Conditional Use Permit approval for an Accessory Residential Unit and a Tree Removal Permit request is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2014-00307. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2014-00307 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 building permit submittals shall include: a) The new residence shall demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback Standard A. The building permit submittals shall include identification of the highest shadow producing point, identification of the height of the shadow producing point from natural grade and the solar setback measurement called out to the north property line. b) That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 50 percent of the lot area in accordance with the lot coverage regulations of the zoning district. Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be provided with building permit submittals. C) That the Fire Department requirements for Fire Apparatus Access shall be complied with either through the installation of a fire truck turnaround or fire sprinklers. Evidence of compliance shall be provided for with the building permit submittals. d) That the patio area at the rear of the residence which encroaches into the Water Resource Protection Zone shall comply with the requirements of AMC 18.63.060.B.4 and shall be constructed of porous, solid surface, excluding a deck. e) The proposed Accessory Residential Unit shall be constructed with a slab on grade foundation. 3) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) Tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan PA #2014-00307 July 8, 2014 Page 6 prior to any site work, storage of materials or permit issuance. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. The tree protection plan shall be modified to address the 80-foot recommended tree protection zone for the 64-inch DBH Black Poplar tree on the southeast property line. b) A Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to permit issuance, site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained on site, and on adjacent properties, c) The FEMA Floodplain boundary shall be identified on site and protected with silt fencing, and the installation of this silt fencing at the Floodplain line shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That the lowest habitable floor elevation shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100 year Floodplain level and shall be certified (by a registered surveyor) at two-feet above the FEMA base flood elevation or at or above the City of Ashland Flood Plain Corridor elevation, whichever is greater, in compliance with 18.62.070.D. b) There shall be at least three off-street parking spaces situated in such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for backing out installed on site. These parking spaces shall be shown on the building permit submittals for the primary residence, and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new primary residence. C) Two additional parking spaces shall be installed on site in such a manner to eliminate the necessity for backing out prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Accessory Residential Unit. d) The driveway area shall be signed as a no parking, fire apparatus access land if deemed necessary by the Fire Department and the building official to maintain required fire apparatus access. The vegetation along the driveway shall be pruned to achieve a width of 20-feet wide and 13.6-feet vertical clearance. e) That a separate electric meter for the accessory residential unit shall be installed in accordance with Ashland Electric Department requirements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. f) That an opportunity to recycle site shall be located on the site, or an individual recycle bin shall be provided to the accessory residential unit in conformance with 18.72.040 prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the accessory residential unit. Planning Commission App val Date PA #2014-00307 July 8, 2014 Page 7 i E¢®ftuendk Easy Peel@ Whets e ; A - ~ Bend along Brae to 10 048460w Use Avery@ Template 59600 ~ Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge PA-2014-00307 CARLOS DELGADO ARCHITECT LAURIE SAGER & ASSOC. INC. HOWARD-BULLEN MARTHA 217 FOURTH STREET 700 MISTLETOE RD., SUITE 201 124 MORNINGLIGHT DR. ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00307 PA-2014-00307 PA-2014-00307 GINA HECKLEY ! PHIL AND JUDIE LOVELESS LIZ HOSKINSON 135 MORNINGLIGHT DR 157 MORNINGLIGHT DR ! 1280 IOWA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00307 CAROLYN ALLMAN 134 TERRACE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 j r i 777 OAK ST 7/9/14 NOD 7 1 i I i ~ I i i I i I i i Nquettes fa¢iles A peler 9 A Repliez a la hachure afin de ,aeseer~¢®~uu o Utillsez le gabarit AVERYO 51600 ' 'har"Pmont reveler le rebord Pop-upMc ; 9-800-60-AVERY ; AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On July 9, 2014 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 #2014-00307, 777 Oak Street. Signature of Employee i i I DocumeW 7/9/2014 k CITY F ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES May 27, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lynn Thompson Mike Morris, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced a Special Meeting of the City Council on Thursday, May 29, 2014. The Council will be taking public input and discussing the Normal Neighborhood Plan. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Kaplan stated the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Committee will meet next on Wednesday, June 4. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: 2014.00307 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 777 Oak Street OWNERS: Martha Howard-Bullen DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction Permit approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The property is subject to the Physical Constraints and Water Resource permits due to the location of the proposed development within the adopted floodplain for Ashland Creek. The existing approximately 720 square foot residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP/TAX LOTS: 391 E 04CA 2707. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Dawkins, Brown and Peddicord declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Ashland Planning Commission May 27, 2014 Page 1 of 4 t Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained this application was continued from the May 13, 2014 in order for the Commission and staff to have sufficient time to review the applicant's revised site plan. Ms. Gunter stated the new proposal shifts the residence to the east by 15 ft. and removes it from the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ); however, the home remains within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor and the proposed patio is still located in the WRPZ. Ms. Gunter explained the primary issue remains the placement of the structure, and cited the two approval criteria which are: 1) 18.62.070.E- To the maximum extend feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Floodplain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Floodplain Corridor Area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. 2) 18.62.070.F - Existing lots with buildable land outside the Floodplain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Floodplain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Floodplain Corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. Commissioner Brown noted the map that was provided does not show the 2 ft. flood elevation line or the 20 ft. channel marker. Mr. Molnar clarified the application complies with both these criteria. Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the history of the Ashland Floodplain Corridor, which was adopted in 1989, and explained the objective is to keep structures out of this area to the greatest extent feasible due to the pattern of deviating creeks during flooding events. He added the burden is placed on the applicants to show why their proposed location is better than another. Staff also commented on the building requirements for substantial improvements to structures within in the floodplain corridor and explained any new construction would have to be built to current standards, but the applicants must also address the land use criteria which regulates the placement of structures. Mr. Molnar clarified the applicants have asserted that by removing the older home and outbuildings, placing the new home further away from the creek, and building it to current standards, this is a better situation than what currently exists. Applicant's Presentation Laurie SagerlStated this is a unique site and there were many elements they considered in determining the placement of the house, including: 1) the 64" Black Poplar tree located in the southeast corner of the lot, which has an 80 ft. tree protection radius, 2) the 15 ft. setback required by code, 3) the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) to the east, and 4) the required fire truck turnaround and residence parking in the northeast portion of the lot. Additionally, there were site design considerations to allow views of the creek, take advantage of the western shading, privacy for the applicant and her neighbors, have collective open spaces, and utilize the existing infrastructure and footprint of the three buildings that were there. Ms. Sager stated they have done a great job of evaluating the site. She noted the property is very level and noted their willingness to compromise by moving the home an additional 15 ft. back to take it out of the WRPZ. She stated when looking at the current proposal and taking into account the entire site, they have done a good job at siting the structure and believe this project should be approved. Carlos Delgado/Stated he understands that there is no guarantee for the placement they are proposing, but the code does allow the Planning Commission to be reasonable in interpreting the language and they believe this proposal is better than what exists now. He stated they have taken the advice of staff and moved the home further east, and stated the intent of the ordinance is to increase the level of safety and this proposal does that. Steve Asher/Also commented on the placement of the home and noted their desire for floodwater to flow around the structure should a flood occur. He stated moving the home further back could create a dam effect and does not believe this would make for a safer proposal. He stated they believe they meet the intent of the ordinance and have moved the structure as far away as they can while still preserving the natural features. Ashland Planning Commission May 27, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Questions of the Applicant Mr. Delgado commented on the flood protection measures that would be included in the build and stated there would be flow-through vents on the foundation and they would minimize the number of post coming up. Questions of Staff Staff was asked whether the information presented by the applicant tonight accurately represents the circumstances on the property in terms of required parking, fire truck turnaround, and tree protection. Ms. Gunter stated this is the first staff has seen this material; she stated the tree protection zone is similar to what she has seen for other Poplar trees, however she cannot speak to the other two items. Applicant's Rebuttal Steve Asher/Stated they have demonstrated that the replacement residence will be placed as far away from the creek and Ashland Floodplain Corridor as possible and requested the Commission take into account the overall safety of the building site, the legal allowances for building within this zone, the fact that this is not an empty lot with no structural history, their willingness to remove all hazardous previous structures, and their commitment to state of the art flood protection construction. He added this is the most appropriate placement of the home given the physical and environmental constraints of the site. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Mindlin recommended the Commission address the decision points outlined in the staff report. Placement of Structure Commissioner Kaplan stated the new site plan and overview presented by the applicants has made a difference in how he sees the site and does not believe they could have located the home outside the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Commissioner Brown commented that a two-story home could have been placed further outside the floodplain, but in its current figuration he agrees with Commissioner Kaplan. Commissioner Mindlin expressed her discomfort in not seeing this material until tonight and asked staff to comment on its legitimacy. Mr. Molnar stated the applicant's design team is very reputable and staff has no reason to doubt that this is not an accurate measurement. He stated public safety should trump all other issues and noted the applicants took an overall approach and took into account many factors. Commissioner Dawkins agreed that they made a legitimate point about avoiding the creation of a choke point. Commissioner Peddicord stated at the last hearing she was looking for a more substantial reason for the house placement and feels the applicants have provided this. She added it is a large house, but they do not have the ability to dictate the size or whether it is single-story or two-story. Placement of Patio Ms. Gunter clarified the code language states "Outdoor patio areas consisting of porous sold surfaces up to 150 sq.ft. may be constructed in the upland half of the riparian buffer and furthest away from the stream" and stated this will be included in the conditions of approval. The Commission discussed whether approving this proposal would set precedence. Commissioner Mindlin noted the applicants do not have the ability to move the house to a higher elevation, and so have located the house so that water can go around it. Mr. Molnar stated if this proposal is approved staff will create findings that explain what is unique about this site and why the Commission approved the placement so that others can't point to this in the future as a justification for their placement. He added the findings will include the specific considerations addressed by the applicant and the Commission, Ms. Gunter read aloud the proposed modifications to the conditions of approval: 1) Condition 2a will be eliminated, 2) Condition 2e will be modified to include a requirement for the patio to comply with 18.63.060.B.4 and be constructed of porous surface, 3) Condition 2f will clarify that the accessory residential unit will be slab on grade construction to minimize disturbance to the Poplar tree, and 4) Condition 3a will be modified to include the 80 ft. tree protection zone for the Poplar tree. Ashland Planning Commission May 27, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve Planning Action 2014-00307 with the modified conditions proposed by staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins stated because the site is so flat, moving the structure would not make it any safer; however he struggled with allowing construction in the floodplain. He stated for him, the applicant's presentation sufficiently addressed the placement issue and feels they answered staffs concerns well enough to approve. Commissioner Miller voiced her concern with setting precedence and stated the desire for a large single story home is a self imposed problem, and questioned whether the applicant could have placed a two-story home further out of the floodplain. Commissioner Kaplan stated this is a unique set of circumstances and does not believe it will set precedence. Commissioner Brown stated the site constraints does limit where the home can be placed, and noted it is not within their purview to set a limit on the home's square footage. Commissioner Miller stated it is an interesting idea to place a limit on the size of a home located in the floodplain and stated this may be a future change they will want to consider. She requested the findings for this action include the testimony about the passage of water, that the applicant could not locate on a higher elevation, and their desire to not trap debris against the bank. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Miller, Kaplan, Brown, Dawkins, Peddicord and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS A. Election of Officers. Commissioner Dawkins suggested they set a policy that commissioners cannot ask questions of persons providing testimony. He stated this allows certain people to get more time to express their personal views and does not think it is fair. Commissioner Miller stated it is important to be able to request clarification and does not want this ability taken away. Commissioner Mindlin stated it is not appropriate to say they will not ask questions under any circumstances but stated the commissioners should use good judgment in the types of questions they pose. Commissioners Brown/Peddicord nominated Richard Kaplan to serve as chair of the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioners Peddicord/Brown nominated Melanie Mindlin to serve as vice chair of the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioners Kaplan/Peddicord nominated Michael Dawkins to serve as second vice chair of the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission May 27, 2014 Page 4 of 4 Hi all, Laurie Sager Landscape Arch 700 Mistletoe Thanks for your time and for your site visits. I am sure that after seein this particular site, that you would agree that it is a real jewel within the City 11 imits and has many great site features to enjoy and r tect. f([,~a/1~p, nd tt~' c,{• `At ~~.f f ~4 Ji✓ ~ 1' /,t~tl t h la PC meeting, the com issioners At the end of olur I discus ns asked for more time to reviethe;e plans and asked for more i formation from our team regarding the P and factdrs that contributed to our proposed building placement. The diagram on the overhead and in front of you, more clearly delineates the site constraints. The hatched areas mark non-buildable zones outside of the Ashland Flood Plain corridor boundary The 64"diameter at breast height - Slack Poplar shown required a TP radius of 80' or 160' diameter protection zone - all noted on our originalxapplication and provided to us by certified arborist of many years, Tom Myers - an environment constraint - - V The 15' front yard setback - a physical constraint The lot access, parking and firetruck turn around area - a physical constraint Leaving just 1100 SF of buildable area outside of the Ashland Flood Plain Corridor The opposing constraint west is the WRPZ - the 50' riparian setback line Per the recent concern mentioned in the updated staff report, the proposed patio within the WRPZ will be pervious and will be under 150 SF So back to building placement and good site design. I have been working with the client and the design team for over 6 months. My job has been to evaluate the sites natural features and to help preserve, protect and enhance them! I am proud of the proposed design and of the good work that has gone into this proposal . Staff and the design team have talked at length about the flood zone and creek. would like to emphasize that the proposal in front of you takes into account not only these two elements but many more. The proposed house and site design highlight: Riparian protection and enhancement Creek views Western shading and cooling provided by the riparian trees Privacy for the client and neighbors Protection for the largest and most significant tree in this neighborhood 64" d poplar Protection of valuable open sunny meadow space adjacent to the poplar tree Utilization of existing infrastructure and disturbed areas for vehicle access, parking and turn around as well as home site location in an effort to minimize additional site disturbance Compliance with city planning and building codes Responsiveness to this unique sites'specific conditions and constraints based on all of the above site observations Finally ise- after discussions and comments with the City, the design team and client decided to move the majority of the proposed building 15'west `nand out of the WRPZ This proposal provides the client and the community with a model forgo d design, and responsible land and creek stewardship This is a project that should be approved and that we can all be proud of. Y I t.i P r ~s 3 f: r k e ~ 3 r II ~ 1 rr t i 64, 1 d t s.... w.~ a~ Y 4 1 1 r 1 4 alt 9 o Qpa ~ (E) 190 SF COVERED PORCH 1 TO BE REMOVED (E) 720 SF RESIDENCE TO BE REMOVED 544 SF OF STRUCTURE 81-2" 15'-0° TO BE REMOVED FROM WITHIN THE RPZ CITY OF ASHLAND 50' RIPARIAN SETBACK LINE REMOVED 680 SF RESIDENCE / SITE PLAN PROPOSED RESIDENCE PLACEMENT, MOVING ALL STRUCI THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE 15' TO THE 0 v N r a 00 0 v co v 0 N izz: N N t t ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Addendum May 27, 2014 PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00307 APPLICANT: Martha Howard-Bullen LOCATION: 777 Oak Street ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: April 4, 2014 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: October 1, 2014 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 R-1 Single Family Residential District 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zone 18.104 Conditional Use Permits REQUEST: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence with an approximately 775 square foot garage. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. 1. Background The application was continued from the May 13, 2014 Planning Commission meeting due to concerns regarding whether the proposal complied with the criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Floodplain Development. The applicant submitted a revised proposal at the meeting. The Planning Commission continued the meeting to the May 27, 2014 meeting date in order for there to be time for staff and the Commission to review the revised proposal. The applicant provided a 60- day extension of the 120 day decision period, extending the application to October 1, 2014. A. Description of Revised Proposal The revised proposal shifts the new primary residence, outdoor areas, garage, and parking to the east, away from Ashland Creek by 15-feet, but the revised location Planning Action 2014-00307 ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M, Howard-Bullen Page I of 11 t remains entirely within the Floodplain Corridor. The revised proposal also includes the demolition of the existing 720 square foot vacant single family residence. Finally, the applicant's revised findings state that the change in the proposed home location removes all structures from the Water Resource Protection Zone. II. Protect Impact Based on the record of decision from the adoption of the Ashland Floodplain Corridor, staff does not concur with the applicant's assertion that the Floodplain Corridor line was drawn for insurance purposes only. The Ashland Floodplain Corridor line does not have any implications on whether a property owner is required to carry flood insurance. Flood protection insurance is required by Federal law on structures within the Federally Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. The Ashland Floodplain Corridor was adopted in 1989 by the City Council, and the decision to include area on either side of the FEMA Floodplain was to minimize risk to life and damage to private property and public infrastructure. The decision was based on documented accounts which depicted erratic behavior of floodwaters. The erratic flooding is due to the high velocity of the floodwaters that carry large pieces of debris which plugged culverts and redirected floodwaters. Water naturally follows the path of least resistance and meanders to create that course. Ashland's Floodplain Corridor takes into account the natural meandering forces of waters which were not accounted for when FEMA created the federal floodplain maps. The Ashland Floodplain Corridor does not merely establish a flood elevation. Rather, the findings discuss the width of the Ashland Floodplain Corridor was established to provide a setback from the flood source. Additionally, the adoption of development regulations for the Ashland Floodplain Corridors was in response to public safety issues posed by development in proximity to creeks with potential for flooding. Protections for the floodplain corridors are adopted in the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan. i i i Planning Action 2014-00307 ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant; M, Howard-Bullen Page 2 of 11 835 J [ ! j 1 ~i If' I ~ 1 1 l .c ,o F7 1 ~5 - J- r - !1o I O l- - - r ,T ~ - - F A~ L Legend streams i ~ 7 - '---s I I I Water poly. a' Ashland Adopted Floodplaln I / FEMA tloodplain Flood, FLOODWAY I _ J 100 year. N i / 100 year, FLOODWAY - ' _F 500 year, 747 t 0 25 50 100 Feet Property lines are for reference only, not scatzabiz Figure 1 Above is a map, Figure 1, with the elevation contours of the subject site demonstrating the "benches" created by the movement of floodplain waters through the site. There are four benches or drops in elevation between Oak Street and Ashland Creels. The subject property is a flag lot. At Oak Street, the elevation of the lot located between Oaks Street and the subject parcel is 1,804 feet. As a result, the neighboring residences adjacent to Oak Street are located on the first and highest "bench". Moving to the west down the driveway, the grade drops eight feet. The front property line of the subject site is 1,793 feet, which is ten feet lower than the street. This is the second "bench". The Ashland Floodplain Corridor boundary is at 1,793 feet. The elevation of the third "bench" is 1,792 feet and is located approximately 141 feet west of the front property line. The fourth "bench" is the final drop to the creek banks. III. Decision Points A. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review for Floodplain Development The property is subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit due proposed development occurring within the boundaries of the Floodplain Corridor Lands Planning Action 2014-00307 ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 3 of 1 I t for Ashland Creek. The lot is approximately 44,524 square feet. Of that, approximately 36,044 square feet is within the Floodplain Corridor and 8,480 square feet is outside of the Floodplain Corridor. According to the applicant's findings, approximately 90 percent of the property is within the Floodplain. 1. Placement of Structure The development standards for floodplain corridor lands require residential structures to be placed outside Floodplain Corridor lands to the maximum extent feasible AMC 18.62.070.E To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. The subject lot includes a buildable area approximately 8,500 square feet in size (grey area on Figure 2) which is outside of the Floodplain Corridor. See Figure 2 on the following page. The revised application does not address why the proposed residence cannot be moved away from the source of flooding. The revised proposal locates the primary residence, garage, parking and outdoor areas entirely within the Floodplain Corridor. The application does not address the criteria from AMC 18.62.070.E. Decision Point - Does the application address why the proposed residence cannot be located to the maximum extent feasible on land outside of the Floodplain Corridor, and therefore meet the development standard for floodplain corridor lands in 18.62.070. E? I Planning Action 2014-00307 ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 4 of l l f-0i ~ E05 R+ 1 ~ V) FzE 1 67.87 I Iz Q - 0 777 J~ J !I / 38.89 Legend. Taxlots / - streams I Ashland Adopted Floodplaln - J ' FEMA floodplain Flood, FLOODWAY 100 year, N 100 year, FLOODWAY n 500 year, 0 20 40 80 Feet Property lines are for reference only, not scaleable Figure 2 Placement (continued) The development standards for floodplain corridor land also have a provision for development when more than 50 percent or more of the lot is within the floodplain, AMC 18.62.070.F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for° existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D j above. Planning Action 2014-00307 ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 5 of 11 A variety of development standards for the floodplain corridor may apply to a property given the lot configuration, zoning, and creation date. As a result, the applicable standards may overlap. Typically, overlapping standards are not independently applied when evaluating an application, but rather worked through in a hierarchal fashion. According to the code, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. AMC 18.62.020 Where this Chapter and any other ordinance, easement, covenant or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. It is likely that there will be some overlap-between the regulations in this Chapter and those in Chapter 18.63 Water Resources. Where two (2) regulations are in conflict, the most stringent shall govern. The applicant's findings address that approximately 90 percent of the property is within the floodplain. The findings go on to address the proposed construction as a replacement of previous non-conforming structures. According to the applicant, there were three structures which were utilized as residences. The City records find that there was one residence and two outbuildings, a barn and art studio on the site totaling approximately 1,680 square feet in area. Two structures were removed and with the revised proposal the existing vacant 720 square foot residence on the site will also be removed. According to the applicant, the existence of these structures provides justification of replacement residence in a similar location. Generally, when non-conforming structures are removed, new construction must comply with the setback requirements and any other applicable requirements. Staff questions the validity of replacement considering the area of existing non- conforming, vacant residence is 720 square feet. The proposed building area is approximately 4,170 square feet in size or more than 5 times the area covered by the existing non-conforming residence. Additional new areas of disturbance in the Floodplain Corridor include the significantly larger residence, garage, parking area and various outdoor living areas. Decision Point - Does the existing non-conforming structure justify locating the proposed residence in the Floodplain Corridor? If so, is the more than doubling of the area of disturbance in the Floodplain Corridor resulting from the proposed home and garage footprint reasonable? B. Water Resource Protection Zone reduction - Ashland Creek is a federal, state and locally protected fish bearing stream. It is the highest order of stream in the City of Ashland and has a 50 foot from the top of bank Planning Action 2014-00307 ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 6 of I 1 Riparian Protection Zone, from here on described as the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). The applicant has stated that the revised proposal eliminates the request for a Water Resource Protection Zone reduction. The applicant's finding also state that the proposed patio, at rear of residence, northwest corner of the structure, will comply with the porous solid surface patio exemption. AMC 18.63.060.B.4 Outdoor patio areas consisting ofporous solid surfaces tip to 150 square feet in size per lot, but not including decks, may be constructed in the upland half of the riparian buffer fitrthest away fi°om the stream. Porous solid surfaces are defined in the Ashland Municipal Code as a permeable surface built with an underlying stone reservoir that temporarily stores surface runoff before it infiltrates into the subsoil. Porous solid surfaces include pervious asphalt, pervious concrete, grass or permeable pavers. Without details regarding the patio, it is difficult for staff to discern if the standards are met. Based on the elevation of the structure (1794.6) and the elevation of grade (1793.15), there is a low wall and an area noted of up to 12-inches of fill and stairs to get fiom grade to the patio deck. The patio does not appear to meet the standard because there appears to be fill under the patio area in order to raise it to the height necessary to exist the residence. The presence of fill would indicate that the patio is not a porous solid surface. Additionally, there is a wall around the patio which is not permitted in the WRPZ. There is ample lot area outside of the WRPZ where the residence could be located and, the intent is for new construction to move away from the WRPZ. Decision Point - Does the proposed patio comply with the standard for exemption from the Water Resource Protection Zone ordinance and the definition of a porous solid surface? As noted in the previous staff report, the applicant has proposed to restore and enhance the remaining WRPZ by eliminating a previously constructed holding pond area, removal of non-native noxious plant material and the removal of dead/dying trees. The applicant's landscape architect has provided a detailed landscaping plan for the site showing re- vegetation of the site utilizing a mixture of native, riparian zone appropriate plant materials. The landscaping plan will need be revised to address the modified site layout. A condition to this effect has been added. The amended application retains the proposed request to remove 13 trees on site. The proposed Conditional Use Permit approval for an accessory residential unit is also retained in the amended proposal and no modifications to the tree removal or Conditional Use Permit request are included in the application. The discussion of the compliance of these items is addressed in the May 13, 2014 staff report. Planning Action 2014-00307 ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 7 of 11 III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Physical and Environmental Constraints approval are described in 18.62.040 as follows: The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) The criteria for an reduction to the Water Resource Protection Zone are described in 18.72.090 as follows: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site; B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty. The criteria for a Conditional Use approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.72.070, as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. Planning Action 2014-00307 ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 8 of 11 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The criteria for an Accessory Residential Unit are described in AMC Chapter 18.20.030.H, as follows: H. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional criteria: 1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot. 3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the'GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA. 4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for single- family dwellings of this Title. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The primary issue with the proposal remains the building placement. The applicant has not addressed the floodplain development standards for locating proposed residences to the maximum extent feasible outside of the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Specifically, the application does not address the buildable area located outside the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Though the lot has more than 50 percent of the parcel in the Ashland Floodplain Corridor, the standards do not guarantee the replacement of existing nonconforming structures in the protected area. The modified proposal appears to have encroachments into the Water Resource Protection Zone which do not meet the exemption requirements. There is ample lot area outside of the WRPZ which could be utilized for development. Staff believes the application as proposed should not be approved because it does not demonstrate compliance with the Floodplain Development Standards. There is a possibility of another continuance for the applicant to make additional modifications and demonstrate compliance with the Floodplain Development Standards Planning Action 2014-00307 ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 9 of 11 based on the direction of the Planning Commission. With the previously provided 60-day extension, additional time from the applicant would not be necessary at this time. Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to approve the project, Staff recommends the following conditions. 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That building permit submittals shall include: a) Structural engineering demonstrating the single family residence can be retained and added on-to shall be provided at the time of building permit submittals. b) The new residence shall demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback Standard A. The building permit submittals shall include identification of the highest shadow producing point, identification of the height of the shadow producing point from natural grade and the solar setback measurement called out to the north property line. C) That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 50 percent of the lot area in accordance with the lot coverage regulations of the zoning district. Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be provided with building permit submittals. d) That the Fire Department requirements for Fire Apparatus Access shall be complied with either through the installation of a fire truck turnaround or fire sprinklers. Evidence of compliance shall be provided for with the building permit submittals. e) That a revised landscaping and irrigation plan shall be provided with the building permit submittals. The landscaping and irrigation plan shall comply with the native plant material requirements for the Water Resource Protection Zone and the City of Ashland, landscaping and irrigation plan requirements. 3) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) Tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to any site work, storage of materials or permit issuance. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.13. b) A Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to permit issuance, site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to Planning Action 2014-00307 ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 10 of I 1 inspect installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained on site, and on adjacent properties. C) The FEMA Floodplain boundary shall be identified on site and protected with silt fencing, and the installation of this silt fencing at the Floodplain line shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That the lowest habitable floor elevation shall be a minimum of one foot above the 100 year Floodplain level and shall be certified (by a registered surveyor) at two-feet above the FEMA base flood elevation or at or above the City of Ashland Flood Plain Corridor elevation, whichever is greater, in compliance with 18.62.070.D. b) There shall be at least three off-street parking spaces situated in such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for backing out installed on site. These parking spaces shall be shown on the building permit submittals for the primary residence, and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new primary residence. C) Two additional parking spaces shall be installed on site in such a manner to eliminate the necessity for backing out prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Accessory Residential Unit. d) The driveway area shall be signed as a no parking, fire apparatus access land if deemed necessary by the Fire Department and the building official to maintain required fire apparatus access. The vegetation along the driveway shall be pruned to achieve a width of 20-feet wide and 13.6-feet vertical clearance. e) That a separate electric meter for the accessory residential unit shall be installed in accordance with Ashland Electric Department requirements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. f) That an opportunity to recycle site shall be located on the site, or an individual recycle bin shall be provided to the accessory residential unit in conformance with 18.72.040 prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the accessory residential unit. Planning Action 2014-00307 ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant; M. Howard-Bullen Page 11 of 11 k Amended Findings of Fact for Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development in Flood Plain Corridor Water Resource Protection Zone Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Residential Unit Subject Property: 777 Oak Street Assessor's Map 391 E 04CA Tax Lot 2707 Zoning R-1-5 Proposed Use: Single family residence & Accessory Residential Unit Submitted to: City of Ashland Planning Department Submitted for: Martha Howard-Bullen Prepared by: Carlos Delgado Carlos Delgado Architect LLC 217 Fourth Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 541.552.9502 May 16, 2014 t Project Proposal: The applicant is amending the original proposal for the Physical and Environmental Constraints permit (dated Feb 28, 2014) and per findings and presentation submitted at the May 13, 2014 Planning Commission meeting as per the following: 1) Replacing the existing structures on the property with the proposed replacement residence AND removing all structures from within the Water Resource Protection Zone. All patios designated in the Water Resource Protection Zone shall comply with area and pervious surface requirements. (refer to site plan comparison demonstrating 15 foot shift toward Flood Plain Corridor boundary) 2) Proposed new location of the majority of the replacement residence is shifted 15 feet towards the City of Ashland Flood Plain Corridor Line. (refer to site plan comparison demonstrating 15 foot shift toward Flood Plain Corridor boundary) 3) The applicant is requesting Planning Commissioners to make a visit to the site to review the proposed replacement residence location. 4) Neighboring property owners have verified that they are in support of this application. 5) In reference to the following ordinances additional findings are submitted as follows for the proposed replacement residence: In reference to AMC section 19.62.070 Section F: ' [ Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060....] In reference to AMC section 19.62.070 Section E: [ To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding.] CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL: (refer to drawings and diagrams submitted) 1) The Ashland Municipal Code does not prohibit development within the Flood Plain Corridor (per sections cited above). It permits the development as proposed in this application without requiring variance proceedings. The applicant's property is approximately 90% within the Corridor land and the proposal is in compliance with the development standards as submitted. The applicant is proposing a reasonable and safer replacement residence. r x. 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, Lot 2707 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone 2) Potential impacts of the property and nearby areas have been considered and adverse impacts have been minimized: ® The applicant chose to hire a licensed surveyor to survey the entire site East of the creek for accuracy. This Surveyor, along with his colleagues are the authority in regards to topographic mapping in this and any other topography. Through this survey and historical data he verified the Ashland 100 year flood line was not encroached by the 1997 flood on this property and established the `Top of Bank' and more importantly established the 50' Riparian Setback. ® The proposal creates less disturbance on the site utilizing existing infrastructure (locates of power, sewer, and water utilities) ® Minimal paving for required driveway and required fire truck turnaround by proposing garage location near flag driveway. ® Required paving for parking and fire-truck turnaround is best utilized in the area above the Ashland Flood Corridor line to best preserve land and lessen adverse impacts on the property ® By proposing a single residence and ARU, the applicant is reducing the potential impact to the property while full development of the property could comprise 3 tax lots with 3x the adverse impact (a 3 tax lot subdivision was previously approved in 1990 after the 1989 adoption of the Flood Plain Corridor ordinance). ® By proposing the removal of the non-compliant existing structure out of the Water Resource Protection Zone, the adverse impact is reduced as well as enhancing the safety of nearby areas. This is exemplary of the health and safety goals of the ordinance. 3) Consideration of the potential hazards that the development may create and implement measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. ® The applicant chose to design a linear single story home that is in-line with the creek flow and thus mitigates adverse impact against potential flooding. ® Due to the level topography of the site, shifting the replacement residence further to the east does not lessen potential hazards. ® The Design Flood Elevation of the replacement residence is I foot higher in elevation than required by Ashland City Ordinance (per FEMA regulations). ® The flood plain corridor was created in response to life safety issues posed by development in proximity to creeks. The applicant is mitigating potential hazards by removing (3) individual 1980's era residences with a combined area of 1,680 SF . These residences were not flood proof and posed an extreme hazard to downstream neighbors in a flood event. The proposed Replacement structure will meet all current flood code requirements. 3 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, Lot 2707 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone ® The local condition of the creek and flow adjacent to the property should be taken into consideration. The direction of the creek flow and accelerated waterflow towards the west during a flood event would adversely affect the west properties rather than the applicant's property. 4) Applicant has taken reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. ® The applicant chose to design a linear single story home that is in-line with the creek flow and thus mitigates adverse impact against potential flooding. ® Proposed location avoids development under dripline of 55" diameter Poplar tree to ensure health of this natural attribute on the property as well as ensuring the existing soil stabilization. ® The applicant has hired a Landscape Architect to integrate the property into as natural setting as possible. The design ensures the restoration of the Riparian Zone and enhancement beyond requirements. She has conducted a complete tree survey using a licensed Arborist, is removing (4) dead trees within the WRPZ (these 4 are among the 13 to be removed) and she is planting 14 Native Riparian Zone appropriate and approved trees in their place and additional native plantings to stabilize the creek banks. She is also filling in a dry pond that was illegally built by a former land owner. ENCLOSURES: 8.5 x 11 sheets Comparative site plan submittals - revised proposal 11 x 17 sheets EXISTING STRUCTURE and STRUCTURES PHOTOS FLOOD LINE SITE PLAN and SITE SECTION REVISED PROPOSAL SITE PLAN 4 l I I I I I I , Atlh\3hR1a AtlA13A1i14 I Stl°9H'3131!'fOtl Stl08H°I3N'fOtl °0im4 ( ^1 w0?2m ~ I I w~~zu'ml rc~ ~O U°U I K~ ~ VU°L~ wp o$ _ J wz I ~F ~ ms N5 ° I p~ o y5 ~ r II r s®'. r ( I ~ r®' ® I F F r wE« a uoa ww 1 i NwLLw ; b Q a m Q a I~ ~o 4 ° cAo le °r -0, U) 0, i + N mw 1 (n 0 I_ N 1 co Wj wp I O m , ( 4L I Op o O Np a- w o I I ~ s Q U~ N=a w IoN/ z m F,S~S n I OE. .60 lx owl -hU u~r W` I.1.6 ~K ZK U°F ` Ky DO of °a 0 NN Io o~y ` ~o Ilk F. AM6 ~ r lg _ F u 777 r 1 e r. Fk R ,a x 3 779 3 22'-6" W I z (E)'WRPZ' ZOI J I ~ I ENCROACHME W 4- I T ASHLAND FLOOD PLAIN CORRIDOR LINE " ° - - ~ASHLAND/FEMA 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE - (E) RESIDENCE 'TOP OF BANK' PER ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE 18.63.030 (SEASONAL HIGH WATER LINE) S I T E S E CREEK BED - 7) X110 I S.W. DRYWELZ (E 7 fib SF 17 / 'r 3JDENCE 10,_0" / i ~S(, ESE D EAR Y i / cySTBK - 12~rf ~~p/ j ~F RL StN ~l ' I REMOVED 680 I SF ca iY OF si I11 AN RESIDENCE o 00, YE_,tF; i=Lt1OD 19flE S.W. DRYWELL] / I I / I - BASE FLOOD 04 v~_~®_ __-is - ®~-N 8 '33'34"' E - 30.1.1 ~ SITE PLAN o 1 7q4 U'MIT o CITY OF ASHLAND / 50 RN SETBACK LINE AND AND WRPZ BOUNDARY / PROPERTY LINE / LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE AND FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR 8/UNDARY 1794.46 TW+ 3-5 AAA / / / / / 1 2- TREADS 3-5" RISERS .-4LL~~~ / I 1 1794.4' uj 18° I T 1793.15 BS+ +TS 1794 +TW 1794.46 +l- 78'OF FILL / / 2 TREADS ~ -5 "RISERS j/ oQ OM CD 20 1794.4n BS+ I / O LIMIT OF CITY OF / ASHLAND 50' RIPAll- / 3ETBACK LINE/ 1 / F. I; F: U~~It.L / AND WRPZ BOUNDARY / ` 7 ! 215"TREADS / 3 5"RISERS PC i193. z9 BS+ +7917948 /+/-18°OF FILL / / /SLOPE TO i NATURAL GRADE / 1 % LIMIT OF CITY ASHLAND 100 , YEAR FLOOD FLOOD LINE AND I I ~I FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR 1 - /-18 OF F.LL I BOUNDARY 1 - + o , -PROPERTY LINE ^ GRADING CALCULATIONS FOR AREAS WITHIN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AREA 145.7 CY STRUCTURAL FILL PROPOSED TO BE IMPORTED FOR BU w. F a ~ M J~ f Y ? g - - 80 CY STRUCTURAL FILL AND PAVING PROPOSED TO BE IMPDI F p s _ I13h40~ v 800Y ON SITE FILL (GENERATED FROM BUILDING EXCAVATION TO IC 305.7 CY TOTAL PROPOSED FILL FOR DEVELOPED CONSTRUCTIC 347.4 CY CUT PROPOSED FOR BUILDING FOUNDATION AREA 41.7 CY REMAINING ALLOWABLE FILL AMOUNT GENERATED FRO RESTORATION POND AREA 41.7 CY ON SITE FILL (REMAINING FILL GENERATED FROM BUILD PROJECTTOTALS 225.7 CY HAUL OFF GENERATED FROM BUILDING EXCAVATION 0 CY NET CUT/ FILL May 16 14 09:25a Martha Howard-Bullen 541-482-1708 p.2 CITY OF 171AAS H LAN LE)", Community Development-Planning Department 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 Phone 541-488-5303 Fax 541-488-6006 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION T 120 Y TIME LIMIT FOR A FINAL ACTION Planning Action: # 2014-00307 Property Address: 777 Oak Street Map &Tax Lot # of Property: 391E 04CA Lot # 2707 Description of Planning Action: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single- story single family residence with an approximately 775 square foot garage. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The existing approximately 720 square foot vacant residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. Property Owner(s): Martha Howard-Bullen Owner Address: 124 Morninglight Drive, Ashland, OR 97520 Owner Phone Number: 541-301-6391 Contact Name & Phone # (If other than owner): Carlos Delgado, 541-552-9502 ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120-day period set in subsection (1) of this section may be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total of all extensions may not exceed 245 days." Applicants request a 60 day extension to th me limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1). Signature Date 14-1 Received by City of Ashland Planning Staff l l CITY F ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Richard Kaplan Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mike Morris (Left meeting at 7:10 pm) ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Normal Neighborhood Plan public hearing has been continued to the May 20th City Council Meeting. The Planning Commission's report on short term home rentals will also be presented to the Council on May 20. Commissioner Brown commented on the recent Building Appeals Board hearing and 'Commissioner Dawkins provided a short update on the Downtown Beautification Committee meeting. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. April 8, 2014 Regular Meeting. 2. April 22, 2014 Study Session. Commissioners Brown/Peddicord m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. [Commissioner Miller abstained from approval of the April 8, 2014 minutes] PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00307 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 777 Oak Street OWNERS: Martha Howard-Bullen DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction Permit approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The property is subject to the Physical Constraints and Water Resource permits due to the location of the proposed development within the adopted floodplain for Ashland Creek. The existing approximately 720 square foot residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The. application Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 a Page 1 of 4 r includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP/TAX LOTS: 391 E 04CA 2707. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Miller, Dawkins, and Kaplan declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained the applicant's proposal to construct a new 3,414 sq.ft. home within the Water Resource Protection Zone and Ashland Floodplain Corridor does not clearly meet the approval criteria, which is why this hearing has been scheduled. She reviewed the application, which also includes the removal of 13 trees and the construction of a 615 sq.ft. accessory residential unit, and stated the property is located on a flaglot and the majority of the site is within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Ms. Gunter reviewed the site plan and provided a description of the subject property, and called attention to the code provision that states to the greatest extent feasible structures should be placed outside the Floodplain Corridor. She explained the applicant's findings indicate the existing 720 sq.ft. residence will remain on the site and will be added onto with the new construction, however current building standards require the finished floor elevations to be two feet above flood elevations and staff questions whether the existing structure will be able to remain. Ms. Gunter stated the applicant's position is that the existing non-conforming structure is their reason for the choice of placement, but this would place the structure completely within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor and also encroaches into the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). Mr. Molnar clarified there are two different areas of land use code that apply to this proposal, floodplain development and water resource protection. The floodplain protection language was adopted in 1989 and is primarily for protection of public, life and safety, and the protection of city infrastructure; and the water resource ordinance is primarily for the protection of the riparian area, including vegetation and topography. Ms. Gunter elaborated on why staff does not believe the existing house can be part of the new structure. She stated there would be a substantial amount of work to bring the structure up to current construction standards. She noted the applicants have proposed to change the roof line, and the existing slab on grade foundation is not permitted and will have to be raised to meet the requirement for the finished floor elevation to be two feet above the base flood elevation. Staff was asked if they have any objections to the proposed accessory residential unit and Ms. Gunter stated No. She added the structure is outside the Floodplain Corridor, is the correct size, and provides the required parking. Applicant's Presentation Carlos Delgado/Stated this proposal is for a single family replacement structure on a flaglot and provided a revised site plan that shifts the location of the structure 15 feet to the east. Steve Asher/Stated the property owner searched many properties before purchasing this one, and noted the owner's desire for a single family residence where she can age in place and walk to downtown. He stated they talked with staff before purchasing this property and asked if they could remove the structures and at no time were they informed this would affect their ability to build. He added it was not until they held the pre-application conference that they heard staffs concerns about the placement of the new house. Mr. Delgado stated the revised proposal places the residence outside the FEMA 100 year floodplain line and outside the Water Resource Protection Zone and he read aloud their revised findings statements (Exhibit #2014-04). Mr. Delgado was asked to clarify the differences between the site plan in the packet materials and the new plan presented tonight. Mr. Delgado stated the residence has been shifted 15 feet so it is now outside the Water Resource Protection Zone and the only issue that remains is that the structure is still within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Commissioner Mindlin commented that by moving the structure it supports staffs claim that the applicants are not Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 2 of 4 really incorporating the old structure. Mr. Delgado stated building officials allow you to keep a single wall standing and stated this is a viable and legal means to do a renovation. Commissioner Brown stated this is a stretch, especially since the floor will need to be raised. The Commission posed additional questions, including why didn't the applicant change their plans after the pre-application conference, and how do they meet to the maximum extent feasible criteria. Public Input Gina Heckley/135 Morninglight/Read aloud the letters of support provided in advance from herself and Carolyn Allman. Questions of Staff Staff was asked to comment on the process and whether the applicants were given misleading information. Mr. Molnar stated any action on this property would require a land use decision with public notice and he has a hard time believing staff would have provided a definitive recommendation at the counter. He added the requirements were clearly addressed in the pre-application report the applicant received. Staff was asked about the applicants claim that it is legal to replace the building, when none of it will be staying. Mr. Molnar stated the building code language states the building official can determine what types of upgrades will be needed, however this body has full discretion to make a determination on whether this is an addition or whether it is a reconstruction. Applicant's Rebuttal Carlos Delgado/Stated that adding onto the structure and bringing it up to current standards is a safer situation for property owners downstream. He commented on the intent of the ordinance and stated because the site is flat, making changes to the building location to move it further from the floodplain corridor would not change the risk. Mr. Delgado stated the property owner has the right to utilize the area where the previous structures were located and they believe this is a very reasonable proposal. Martha Howard/Noted her investment in the community and stated she found this property after years of searching. Ms. Howard stated they received some assurances from staff that they could build on the existing footprint and noted they are well outside the FEMA 100 year floodplain. She stated it is unreasonable to ask someone with a one-acre lot to build next to the dirt easement and stated they were hoping to have some front yard space. Mr. Molnar suggested the Commission consider continuing this hearing, which would allow both the Commission and staff adequate time to review the applicant's new proposal. Mr. Delgado was asked if they would be willing to grant a 60-day time extension of the 120-day clock and he agreed. Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the hearing at 8:30 pm. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Kaplan voiced support for continuing the hearing so that staff can provide an updated staff report on the applicant's new proposal. Commissioner Brown agreed and stated he would like a revised staff report that addresses the questions that have been raised this evening. Commissioner Peddicord questioned if there are other site constraints that impacted the chosen location of the residence and stated this information would be helpful. Commissioner Mindlin announced this action will be continued to the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION 2014.00539 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.08 [Definitions], Chapter 18.32 [C-1 Retail Commercial District], Chapter 18.40 [E-1 Employment District], and Chapter 18.52 [M-1 Industrial District] regarding the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name (please print) - - - - Address (no P.O. 13ox) Phone Email Tonight's' Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all cite meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not ah4wys require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Corrmrissiorr generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time constraints linaitpublic testimony. Noperson has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the or°der• of proceedings for public hearings and strictly folloii, the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 10 May 11, 2014 Ashland Planning Division c/o Community Development Dept. 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Application by Martha Howard-Bullen, 777 Oak Street, Ashland OR This letter is to express our support for Martha Howard-Bullen regarding her application to build a single family residence at the above address. Having read the Staff Report dated May 13, 2014, we would like to comment in the hopes that this will help to alleviate your concerns over this proposed project. We have known Martha Howard-Bullen for almost 25 years. She has been a friend and a neighbor of ours on Morninglight Drive. We share a private road and rural property lines and concerns. She has always been a pleasure to know as well as to work with on environmental issues that confront us in our neighborhood (i.e. wildfire assessment and abatement, road maintenance, etc.). She is well educated, responsible and a retired teacher and genuinely concerned citizen on local matters in Ashland. Her contributions to the local community for the past 31 years are many and substantial. The team that Martha has assembled for her building project attests to her good judgment: Steve Asher, General Contractor; Carlos Delgado, Architect; and Laurie Sager, Landscape Architect. I, Gina Heckley, have personally worked with Steve Asher on more than 40 home construction projects over the last 14 years. There is no better contractor for this type of project, which lies in a sensitive environmental area. He consistently displays the utmost care and responsibility; and approaches every job with integrity, quality, and sustainability. He is an Ashland native, a contractor for more than 30 years, and deeply committed to this city and the natural environment. It is fortunate that Steve has also built the two homes on the creek next to Martha's. Together with Carlos Delgado and Laurie Sager, we are extremely confident that this project is in the hands of people that have deep concerns for the proper design and execution of this home and its special surroundings. They are all well versed on the challenges, and they are extremely creative in the solutions needed to build here. It is a reasonable request that this home be built in the general location of the existing structures. And it is perfectly reasonable to assume that this team is creative enough and has the experience to incorporate a portion of the existing structure into this new home. Martha's due diligence, as well as Steve Asher's, in the initial investigation with the City upon the purchase of the home was extensive. There was never an indication even close to the stance by the City to restrict the buildable area, such as the one set forth on page 4 of the report. As designed, the home currently sits well outside the 100 year flood line. The boundary of this new "Ashland Adopted Floodplain" is extreme and unreasonable on this property, as well as on the adjacent property at 779 Oak, and should be reconsidered. With the proper engineering and construction, and building to new codes and standards, the concerns of public interest and safety should be effectively mitigated. (continued on page 2) x Page 2 The construction of a single level home is perfectly acceptable on this large, flat lot, given the demographics of the homeowner and population of the local community. In spite of the removal of 13 trees (4 of which are dead or rotting per an arborist's report), there is a plan in place to replace them. This is a one acre lot with more than 55 trees greater than 6"...trees that will be better cared for by a responsible homeowner. We are confident to say that this piece of property will be handled with care and, as a result, will be better off than it is today. By approving the application of Martha Howard-Bullen to build a home of this quality, influenced and guided by the team of professionals she has assembled, would be a responsible and rewarding decision. This neighborhood, and the environment in which it lies, will be enhanced and more valuable to the residents, the City, and the wildlife that call it home. Sincerely, ~ow%cL a.~.d~ G i~ ~f eck~ey David and Gina Heckley 135 Morninglight Drive Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-9717 I'm writing in support of my mom, Martha, and her proposed building plan at 777 Oak St. My mom has been living in Ashland for over 30 years. It is where my sister and I grew up, went through school, and where we consider home. She has been a fixture in the community-not only as an Elementary school teacher, but also as a lifelong staunch supporter of education and health for our youth. She personally secured funding for the Ashland High School Health center when it looked like it was going to have to close due to budget cuts. She also currently provides yearly scholarships for Ashland High Seniors to help ease the burden of college education expenses. But it's not just funding that she provides, my mom has always believed in volunteering. For several years she has worked with underprivileged youth in an afterschool program as well as in a soup kitchen. She is also a conservationist. We grew up on 10 acres up old Hwy 99, and there wasn't a tree, shrub or flower that she didn't know the name of (She's helping me with planting at my new house in Portland). She taught us how to respect, and care for, nature.. I have seen the plans for her new house-a house that has been sized to accommodate my sister and our families coming for the frequent family gatherings we all love (I have 3 kids and my sister with her 1rt on the way). She has made it one story because it is her retirement home and she needs it to be wheelchair accessible---and it won't block anyone's views. My mom hired a well respected local architect with whom she has worked to design an absolutely beautiful home that blends with its surroundings. She also has worked within the many guidelines set forth by Ashland community (some which she has voted on, no doubt) to conform to regulations and rules. She bought the land because she has always dreamed of living near water, and while she was disappointed to find out she couldn't be as close to the creek as she had hoped, she came to accept and respect the 100 year flood plain rules and quickly re-arranged her expectations to accommodate and design around that. Before she bought the land, all that existed was a group of dilapidated structures which, should a flood have occurred, could have been swept down river and caused substantial damage. Her development of this land is actually improving the area. She is removing some trees-some of which are already dead-and will be replanting them with others. She is even working with a well known local arborist to decide which ones should go, and what will be replanted in their places. In addition, she has been working with a landscape architect to design the outdoor spaces around the house. She is not the California 'Big Wig' developer who is swooping in to pillage the land and build some monstrosity that disregards all that Ashland stands for. Rather, she is a local long-standing productive member of your community who is working with well respected local professionals to build a beautiful home along the creek (but not too closel). In light of this, I ask you to please reconsider permitting her home to be built. Thank you for your consideration, Rachel Bullen Sdrulla May 11, 2014 Planning Commission Community Development Dept. 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Construction Site of 777 Oak Street, Ashland, OR We wish to submit our support in favor of construction of a one-story residence on this site for our current neighbor, Martha Howard-Bullen. This is a large and flat lot, which would accommodate a good sized single story home. There aren't many, if any, left in Ashland. With our aging demographic asking for such a residence for their later years, this is a real and present need in our city. It is my understanding that the plan calls for a home outside of the Ashland 100 year flood line. However, it is the planning staff's more recently and subjectively created (2009) "Ashland Flood Protection Zone" which, extending east to take in most of the level field, leaves this small rectangle bordering the dirt easement road as the recommended usable building space (representing only 8% of the total lot areal). This was not the understanding when she purchased the lot and the new home would not sit any closer to the creek than the existing old primary home and pre-existing barn, which she had removed for safety reasons while the property was sitting vacant. The builder, Steve Asher, architect, Carlos Delgado and landscape architect, Laurie Sager have all had extensive experience with construction along the creek and have met with and taken guidance from the city for several months in developing the current site plan. A professional arborist has also been hired to address every tree on the property to ensure that no riparian zone tree, native tree or healthy tree will be removed. All such trees and their root areas will be protected during and after construction. Riparian stipulations for new planting will be strictly adhered to. Martha Howard-Bullen is a 31 year resident of Ashland, retired Ashland teacher and community volunteer who is very much committed to maintaining the health and well-being of our city and lands. Please consider allowing her to build the home she is trying to construct on 777 Oak St. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, i Phil and Judie Loveless 157 Morninglight Dr. Ashland, OR 98520 541-482-6310 LIZ HO$KIN$ON, LTC 128o Iowa street, Ashland, OR 9752o Cell Phones 541-951-5412 Faxt 541-488-0292 Emails lixIsftharter.net May 12, 2014 City of Ashland Planning Commission 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re: 777 Oak Street, proposed building plan Martha Howard Bullen I am writing in support of the proposed building plan for 777 Oak Street. I have been an Ashland resident since 1972 and a homeowner since 1975. Martha and I have been friends for 30 years. I know her to be intelligent, honest, of high integrity, dedicated to community service, committed to Ashland, and a motivated conservationist. I have seen the proposed plans and she has shared with me the step by step process of creating them. When she began designing her new home she thoughtfully put together a team of highly qualified local professionals with experience in creek side building. In fact her builder Steve Asher built (2) neighboring creek side homes. Both her architect, Carlos Delgado, and her builder have consistently consulted with the Planning Department and incorporated their criteria and suggestions throughout the planning process. Martha also hired a landscape architect, Laurie Sager and a long time local arborist Tom Myers. Tom numbered and evaluated every tree east of the creek of 6" or more in diameter. He listed 49 trees noting their species, height, crown radius, condition, tolerance to construction, and protection zone requirements. I feel Martha has done everything possible to ensure the proposed plans conform to building, zoning regulations, and care for the plants and trees on the property. In spite of the careful and detailed planning process it is my understanding that now she is being allowed to build on only 8% of the lot. The proposed 8% is a narrow section on the eastern edge of the property, near a dirt easement and neighboring home. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to locate a home in that area of the property. It is certainly not how the property was used in the past. I hope the planning commission will re-evaluate Martha's carefully thought out plans and find a way to allow her to build what I know will be a beautiful home in keeping with Ashland standards and environmental sensibilities. Sincerely, Liz Hkinson May 8, 2014 City of Ashland Planning Commission 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 1 am writing to you regarding the property being developed at 777 Oak St. Martha Howard Bullen is a friend and design client. I have followed her search to find a wonderful downtown property and shared her excitement at finding not only a great level property on the Creek, but excitement at being assured by the city that there was a large percentage of the buildable lot that was outside the flood zone! Martha has put together a team of local professionals with experience in creek side building: Steve Asher, Carlos Delgado, Laurie Sager. With their leadership, and guidance from the city she has been developing the current site plan for several months. It is my understanding that now the building envelope is only allowing her to use 8% of the lot on the far eastern boundary, a narrow rectangle, distant from the creek, and abutting the dirt easement and neighboring homes. This is not how the property was used in the past, and does not work with the vision of a home on this property. I have recently completed my own challenging project at 134 Terrace Street, which I just received notice is being awarded "A Distinguished Architectural Preservation Award". We tried for almost twenty years to build on the site and hearing repeatedly that it was not doable. Finally we asked the same questions to the right person, (Amy Gunter) and she patiently helped us make it a reality. I assure you that Martha's commitment to Ashland and building a home that compliments the surrounding area is as strong as you will find. I urge you to look again at your process and help her make this home a reality also. Thank you, 3 r~ ~y Carolyn Allman, ASID, 134 Terrace Street, Ashland, Oregon 1 - ~ - s - -rs F~ t r_ `r ! I d 1-i y - . ,t r 4 y~ NL h L. 1 E city of Ashland Planningz Exhibit EXHISIT" PA# ®ari £ra~~Y; _ 22'-6" WI z (E)'WRPZ' ZC J1 ENCROACHN a 1 L9-- 01 n ASHLAND FLOOD PLAIN CORRIDOR LINE M ASHLAND/FEMA 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE (E) RESIDENCI 'TOP OF BANK' PER ASHLAND - MUNICIPAL CODE 18.63.030 (SEASONAL HIGH WATER LINE) SITE S E CREEK BED 77- 2 S.W. DRYWELt~~- - c>/ /F' SF J / j R11E.,ULNCE 10'-0" 1r0 BE REMOVED CRY d4TBK 0 m f i k-) BE/ d ® r} < RI ~ I REMOVED 680 ~;Yl 4-v I SF RESIDENCE r o /V 1 S.W. DRYWELL I _ASE BLOOD - / N 8'33'34" E - 30~5 SITE PLAN M ---1 7q4 OF CITY OF ASHLAND 60 R ? AND WRP BOUNDARY / PROPERTY LINE I 7 LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 160 YEAR FLOOD LINE AND FLOODPLAIN i CORRIDOR 8 UNDARY 1794.48 TW+ 7 / I r 2-15 TRS 3.5"RISER3ER3 ,-f 18" I 17314 fi ` I / 1793.15 BS+ -TS, _ ~f ~ I 11I Po, r / lI 11 1 +TW 1704.48 10" OF FILL ! I ~ ~ ~ ~r TI ~ /J o / r 01 i 2 Q ! ~ - TREADS 1 5 r r f -6"RISERS /10,1000" ~0q l- / +TS 1794Ab I% r ' a r 2% 7s3aa Bs+ ,7000< LIMIT OF CITY OF I - ASHLAND 50' RIPARIAN; SETBACK LINE AND WRP2 BOUNDARY I - 2-15°TREADS 3-5° RISERS - +F 7 793 29 BS+ tTS 17flA i II- 1WOF FILL SLOPE TO NATURALGRA IL / i I LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE AND ( - - FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR +/-181 OF FILL I BOUNDARY ANN.N-J`~-h l o v + , - - - - - - -PROPERTY UNE GRADING CALCULATIONS FOR AREAS WITHIN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AREA 145.7 CY STRUCTURAL FILL PROPOSED TO BE IMPORTED FOR BL 80 CY STRUCTURAL FILL AND PAVING PROPOSED TO BE IMPO 80 CY ON SITE FILL (GENERATED FROM BUILDING EXCAVATIOI 305,7 CY TOTAL PROPOSED FILL FOR DEVELOPED CONSTRUGTIC rvv 347,4 CY CUT PROPOSED FOR BUILDING FOUNDATION AREA 4L7 Cy REMAINING ALLOWABLE FILL AMOUNT GENERATED FRC RESTORATION 7y~~iy of s t1Shq,lanU ,y POND AREA VV A 41.7 CY ON SITE FILL (REMAINING FILL GENERATED FROM BUILC Planning Exhibit PROJECTTOTALS EXHIBIT + 225.70Y HAUL OFF GENERATED FROM BUILDING EXCAVATION - - - OCY NET CUTE FILL PA q~ QA~l 22'-6° PROPOSED REPLACEMENT RESIDENCE W Z 1 (E)'WRPZ' ZONE 1 ENCROACHMENT al O1==T==== D- ASHLAND FLOOD PLAIN CORRIDOR LINE F.F=1 ASHLAND/FEMA 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE (E) RESIDENCE TO BE REPLACED I~ TOP OF BANIC PER ASHLAND - MUNICIPAL CODE 18.63,030 (SEASONAL HIGH WATER LINE) CREEKBED S I T E SECTION AT NORTH WALL L I N E S.W. DRYWELL 1 ~ / 1 Ctr- ~ IV/At FF'1II~ / / 1 cr EllF ce _ PROPUSEU 1 1YjPE RELICIvLD -iGARAGE i (SLAB Oh GRgOE _ 1 ~ / ~ j ~ le) e t ~ JJJ /rArni ~ t no LU i I - - 1epz PROPOSED i - 5S1 i i I q i K&LACEMENT jx SIN06EFAMILY 3ESIDgNCE % /I. I o zone. Ri e. \,,,r ELCV=179 76 / b _ b RE`.`OVED 884-~ RCSIDENCE0 REMOVED 280 r i S.W. DRYWELL SFRESIDENOE t i NER CIT " b j BAS&fLpDD OFi L 179Z 76- f f Ji -_~SITE PLAN m ] fi 0 2 City of Ashland Planning 'Exhibit ExHIBIT s _ a PA, # DATE ;n~ t 1 "ci J 1 Z 1 5 1 \ \ X \ , W Of f \ - City of Ashland - - - - - - - Planning Fxhibit xr+i®ir PA# JOr . DA79 LIMIT CITY OF ASHLAND / .1 RIPARIAN SETBACK LINE / AND WRPZ BOUNDARY #37 - #30 - { PROPERTYLINE LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 160 #39 O YEAR FLOOD LINE AND FLOODPLAIN CORRIDORB 7DARV + / J / / h34 / 3/ I ~ ~V 1793 ✓ ~ ~ 1 it 1~ II O 6 #26 I ✓ 0#25 ' TREES TO BE PRESERVED ~J--- r/ //!(L L 1 U' `#24 / 1 M) Q #23 LIMIT OF CITY OF / / / . ✓ ASHLANSETBACKLINE/~ ' AND WRP7 BOUNDARY SEDIMENT FENCE (P) RESIDENCE SEDIMENT FENCE n21 . t I 415 LIMIT OP CITYOFASf7 D 100 O^ ✓ YEAR FLOOD L( AND ' FCROOPLAIN CO IDOR I / BO NOARY ` #i4~ - f \ TREE PROTECTION FENCE REMOVE ANY TREE UNDER \ W CAL ALONG THIS t PROPERTY EDGE T I 420 , #O19 #1 .#17 #i6 I 3 Q - - / -PROPERTY LINE " SEE NOTES ON SHEET L-171 City of Ashland Planning Exhibit EXHIBIT p~PA Vii` DATA TREEINVENTORY THE TREE PROTECTION TREE# SPECIES DBH HEIGHT CROWN RADIUS CONDITION SPECIES TOLERANCE ZONE NOTES IN INCHES IN FEET IN FEET TO CONSTRUCTION RADIUS IN FEET 1 DOUGLAS FIR 12 32 14 GOOD MODERATE 9 TO REMAIN 2 INCENSE CEDAR 9 26 12 GOOD MODERATE 8.75 TO REMAIN 3 INCENSE CEDAR 9 25 12 FAIR MODERATE 6.75 TO REMAIN 4 INCENSE CEDAR 10 25 11 GOOD MODERATE 7.5 TO REMAIN I 5 DOUGLAS FIR 9 35 13 FAIR MODERATE 6.75 TO REMAIN 6 BLACK POPLAR 64 60 45 FAIR POOR 80 MULTI TRUNK WI SLIME FLUX IN SEAM. BOXf TO REMAIN LIFTING ELECTRIC 3 7 INCENSE CEDAR 8 22 7 GOOD MODERATE a TO REMAIN e INCENSE CEDAR 10 28 9 GOOD MODERATE 7.5 TO REMAIN 9 INCENSE CEDAR 6 17 $ GOOD MODERATE 4.5 TO REMAIN 10 INCENSE CEDAR 13 30 12 GOOD MODERATE 9.75 TO REMAIN 11 BLACK PINE 18 33 15 FAIR GOOD 13.6 SEVERE LEAN ITOREMAIN 12 INCENSE CEDAR 9 28 8 FAIR MODERATE 6.75 LEANING, SLAB SIDED I TO REMAIN 13 INCENSE CEDAR 11 30 6 GOOD MODERATE 8.25 TO REMAIN 14 BLACKLOCUST 9 35 15 FAIR GOOD 6.75 MULTI TRUNK I TO BE REMOVED 15 AMERICAN ELM 13 42 13 GOOD GOOD 9.75 TO BE REMOVED 16 BLACK LOCUST 6 32 10 FAIR GOOD 6 TO REMAIN 17 BLACK LOCUST 10 42 12 FAIR GOOD 7.5 TO REMAIN SEC 18 DOUGLAS FIR 11 43 9 FAIR MODERATE 8.25 TO REMAIN - 19 DOUGLAS FIR 13 45 10 FAIR MODERATE 9.75 TO REMAIN 20 ALDER 20 50 21 GOOD POOR 25 TO REMAIN 21 WILLOW 12 30 18 POOR MODERATE 9 LARGE ROTTING WOUND AT SEVERED ODOMINANT STEM I TO BE REMOVED 22 PONDEROSA PINE 12 46 12 FAIR GOOD 6 CODOMINANT TOP/ TO REMAIN 23 INCENSE CEDAR 10 28 10 GOOD MODERATE 715 TO REMAIN 24 DOUGLAS FIR 6 30 6 GOOD MODERATE 4.5 TO REMAIN 25 INCENSE CEDAR 9 30 8 GOOD MODERATE 6.75 TO REMAIN 26 DOUGLAS FIR 6 28 8 FAIR MODERATE 4.5 TO REMAIN 27 DOUGLAS FIR 10 38 9 FAIR MODERATE 7.5 TO REMAIN 28 DOUGLAS FIR 11 39 10 FAIR MODERATE 8.25 TO BE REMOVED 29 DOUGLAS FIR 10 37 8 POOR MODERATE 7.5 TO BE REMOVED 30 ALDER 13 39 14 FAIR POOR 16.25 CORRECTED LEAN ITO REMAIN 31 ALDER 15 33 12 POOR POOR 18.75 DEAD TOP AND TRUNK ITO BE REMOVED 32 ALDER 14 45 15 FAIR POOR 17.5 EIGHT DEGREE LEAN I TO REMAIN 33 ALDER 16 45 17 GOOD POOR 20 TO REMAIN 34 ALDER 10 38 12 POOR POOR 12.5 DEAD TOP ITO BE REMOVED 35 ALDER 13 38 13 POOR POOR 18.25 DEAD TOP I TO BE REMOVED 36 ALDER 17 42 15 POOR POOR 21.25 DEAD TOP I TO REMAIN 37 BLACK PINE 8 25 8 FAIR GOOD 4 TO REMAIN sp 38 BLACK PINE 9 29 g FAIR GOOD 4.5 TO REMAIN - 39 LELAND CYPRESS 11 40 10 GOOD GOOD 515 TO REMAIN T 40 DOUGLAS FIR 9 39 8 GOOD GOOD 4.5 TO REMAIN 0 41 LELAND CYPRESS 10 41 9 GOOD GOOD 5 TO REMAIN n 42 LELAND CYPRESS 11 41 10 GOOD GOOD 5.5 TO REMAIN B A 43 LELAND CYPRESS g 36 9 GOOD GOOD 4.5 TO REMAIN C. T 44 LELAND CYPRESS 14 36 14 GOOD GOOD 7 TO REMAIN a 45 ENGLISH WALNUT 8 29 13 GOOD POOR 8 TO BE REMOVED e 46 DOUGLAS FIR 8 30 9 GOOD MODERATE 8 TO BE REMOVED e 47 DOUGLAS FIR 8 35 7 GOOD MODERATE 6 TO BE REMOVED h 48 LELAND CYPRESS 12 38 10 GOOD GOOD 6 TO BE REMOVED o 49 PONDEROSA PINE 14 40 13 GOOD GOOD 7 TO BE REMOVED D. B z 6 5. A a TI F. If re m City, of Ashland Planning Exhibit E*1©IT~ 1T )TAFF . LIMIT. CITY OF ASHLAND AND WRPZ BOUNDARY 4-/150'RIPARIAN SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 160 YEAR FLOOD LINE AND FLOODPLAIN i / CORRIDOR/(J 7DAIRY / / i - - ENHANCED RIPARIAN AREA - MEADOW roo RAISED A PLANTER CONCRETE PATIO GARDEN RAISED ANTER PL (P) DINING ~ AREA CD (P) RESIDENCE DININGANDTE O LOUNGE PATIOS (P) LOUNGE AREA PAT ~ / (P) WOODCHIP / RIPARIAN N PG 0 RAISED PLANTER ND 50'F CITY OFp _ U ASHLAND 50' RIPARIAN ERVIOVS PAVERS / SETBACK LINE (P) OR CONCRETE WALK / AND WRPZ BOUNDARY / WITH PLANTED / I 'JOINTS ✓ (P) CONCRETE PATIO AND STEPS / ENHANCED RIPARIAN AREA MEADOW GARDEN I LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 100 n Q I YEAR FLOOD LINE AND 1 FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR BOUNDARY O I I gag _ - fi (P) 0.6' SOLID FENCE WITH BREAK AWAY PANELS AT PROPERTY LINE O p O l_ ' -PROPERTY LINE Mn,. pity of Ashland planning Exhibit PA A` ~A7r~Ta~F / LIMft CITY OF ASHLAND / / / / / r 50' RIPARIAN SETBACK UNE / / / / ~ \ r AND 6VRyPZ BOUNDARY PROPERTY LINE - ' ° YVv LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 1lS0 YEAR FLOOD LINE AND FLOCOPLAIN CORRIDORB 7DARY 1794,46 TW+ 2-15' TREADS 3-5'RISERS ' 1 11 _f +A 18° 1794 4 - j 1793,158$+ +T9 ( 1 ~ 1794.8 / ~ F3+ +TW 1794.48 18' OF FILL _ O 215'T~ 3 L .+FS 1794.6 2°I O 1 -TS 179, 1 .48 FF 1794.75 2_ 1793,29 BS+ CJ TW 1794.48 O LIMB OF CITY OF 18°OF ON SITE FILL / ASHLAND IAN/ ""I SETBACK L L / / SETBAINE (P)RESIDENCE AND WRPZ BOUNDARY / i 2-15' TREADS _ 3.5 RISERS +FS 1794.6 / l r i 1793,29 B5+ , -7 / +731794.46 h18 OFFILL t ;SLOPE TO iNATURAL GRADE x UMITOF CITY OF ASHLAND 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE AND FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR 1 A 18 OF FILL BOUNDARY X. A, 1;~ga x ► ,.0~_. _ - -PROPERTY LINE ^ GRADING CALCULATIONS FOR AREAS WITHIN TH BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AREA 145.7 CY STRUCTURAL FILL PROPOSED TO BE IMPORTED FOR B 80 CY STRUCTURAL FLL AND PAVING PROPOSED TO BE IMP( 80 CY ON SITE FILL (GENERATED FROM BUILDING EXCAVATIC FrPA of As11awnd 305.7 CY TOTAL PROPOSED FILL FOR DEVELOPED CONSTRUCTI llTig '4+hlblt 347.4 CY CUT PROPOSED FOR BUILDING FOUNDATION AREA 41.7 Cy =.11(1 ALLOWABLE FILL AMOUNT GENERATED FRI a RESTORATAREA - 41.7 CY ON SITE FI LL (REMAINING FILL GENERATED FROM BUILI 7AFF PROJECT T - - - 225.7 Cy H HA UL UL OFF GENERATED FROM BUILDING EXCAVATION OCY NET CUT/ FILL LIME( GTY OF ASHLAND WRIPARIAN SETBACK LINE ANDWRPZBOU DARY O O 1 • • PROPERTY LINE , / , • , X X t LIMIT of CITY OF ASHLAND I C6 I~ W W W * X X j YEAR FLOOD LINE AND FLOODPLAIN CORRIDORB UNDyRY X / y W W W W X / I e-RHO / / W W W W W W w W W 6-RIBS / ; - w y y W WOOD CHIP PATH 1- ACE, '/A / / / W W y W W W 3. MAH AAA / / i W W W y y y NATIVE SHADE MIX _ W y W W W W ~ - _ 6 ~I (E)TREE W W W y W W / / ~ I W W W W W y W W W W W W I W W y W y W / / / I y y y y y y NATIVE SHADE MIX 5- DAPO W W W W y W i-'4-/ / / i- CORN I y W y y y y _ _ W y W W y y , W / / / W y W W W W 2-ACEC I° / / / ~ W W W W W/ W ! W W W y W / / / / W W W W y W W / / / ~y y y y y y W " -GO W W W W W IW 1GORE W y W W W W' (P)DECORATIVE ~ W' y W W W W W W BOULDERS AND / P~'~ ' / y L W W y y yl GRAVEL S / O W y' W W W W W W I 4-ZANT / W W W' W W W / / / L W y W W W W ~I W y w NATIVE SHADE MIX \ 4-DAPO / / L W y W W W y W W w W r-~ / Y/ W W y W W W W W W W L'-.. 1- CHOT O \ W y W W W W y W W U~~ 1-PAEO \ W y W W W W W! W W W I LIMIT D OFCRY PI O N OF B- EJ ASHLAND 50'RIPARIANI' \ y W yI y y y w y y - SUN COLOR MIX2 (E)TREES SETBACK LINE W y y Iy W W W W W W (P) RESIDENCE / AND WRPZ 80UNDARY B•RHOC W W y /y W y W W ,W W W y W y / \ . W y /y/ y y W y W I W w y W y y W /W/ W y W y W Iv W y y W W / NATIVE SHADE MIX W W' W W W W W W I W W W W W y / W W W W y y W W W W y W y 5-PAEo W W W y W W W W I W W W W W y W W W W y W W W W W W y W y i l l l l l 3-CHOT (P) WOODCHIP / 9 -PIED RIPARIAN PATH W y W W " y y y y I W W y y y y t -CORE MEADOW A91X W y / W W W W W W WI W y W W W W 1-MACS W W W W y y W y W W W y W iy y W 'L 'i 3•CHOT ~I SAN COLOR A/1W2 I I I W y W W y W W W W W W W W W I W W y I I I I X W W y W W W W W W W W W W W ,`t' W W W W W LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 100 . W y W W W W y X YEAR FLOOD LINE ANDY W W I W y W W y l y y y W W W y - fLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR W W I. y y y y X W y y y W W W W W BOUWOARYF w, y I W y W W P - X X W W W W W W y W W W y y y y W W W W W W y W W W y W y y W W , W y C W y W y W W W W C W y y y W y ® C W W W y ~ ® ~ C ® + C + c .O O PROPERTY LINE 5-RHOO 9•PRUL S-MAHA 4-RHOS 9 - RIBS 7 - RHAC 7-CHAS City of Ashram -SEE NOTES AND PLANT LEGEND ON SHEET L4.1 Planning Exhibit X11117 ~ PA ~Ai:-i_ alArh t WATER RESOURCED PROTECTION ZONE(WRPZ) MITIGATION NOTES PLANT LEGENI SECURING TIES USE RUBBER HOSE AT BARK 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL IDENTIFY AND ESTABLISH WRPZ BOUNDARY, CATEGORY SET UP TREE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL AND SEDIMENT MEASURES PER DW'GS PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON SITE. TREES PROTECTION ZONE(WRPZ). AST.ES(3~ 2. STOCKPILING OF SOIL IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN WATER RESOURCE 3. REMOVE NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE VEGETATION WITHIN DISTURBED AREA OF WRPZ PRIOR TO PLANTING. 4. PROPOSED NATIVE GRASS SEED PLANTING SHALL OCCUR AT FIRST 1X4 BOPPORTUNITY AFTER COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. 5. PROPOSED PLANTING WITHIN WRPZ SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 50% COVERAGE AFTER ONE YEAR AND 90% COVERAGE AFTER FIVE 2' WYEARS. SET ROOT CROWN 2' 6. PROPOSED NATIVE GRASS SHALL BE IRRIGATED ONLY AS NEEDED ABOVE FINISH GRADE PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. TREES AND SHADE MIX SHRUBS, WITHIN WRPZ SHALL BE PERMANENTELY IRRIGATED WITH DRIP MULCH: 2"MIN. KEEPING MULCH T IRRIGATION AND MULCHED WITHIN A T RADIUS. PERENNIALS AWAYFROMTRUNK 7. PROVIDE TEMPORARY FENCING TO ALL (P) TREES OUTSIDE OF AND GRASSES FENCE TO PROTECT FROM DEER. REMOVE AFTER 2 YEARS. SOIL SAUCER: USE PREPARED 8. ALL PLANTED MATERIAL WITHIN THE WRPZ SHALL BE EVALUATED SOIL MIX 4' YEARLY TO ASSESS HEALTH. TREE AND SEEDED AREAS THAT DO NOT GERMINATE AND THRIVEISURVIVE AFTER TWO YEARS SHALL BE ROPES AT TOP OF BALL SHALL BE REPLACED BY OWNER. LI~ ~ T I CUT. REMOVE TOP X OF BURLAP. 9. UNPAVED TRAIL THROUGH RIPARIAN ZONE SHALL NOT EXCEED 36' NON•BIO•DEGRADABLE MATERIAL AND SHALL BE UNDER 20% SLOPE, SHALL BE TOTALLY REMOVED, 10. IN AREAS PROPOSED FOR PLANTING ENHANCEMENT, NATIVE PLANT III-' II III- II_ (I MATERIAL SHALLSESOCATED TO ENHANCE RIPARIAN ZONE, STABILIZE F="'- I - C=I 4= I --~I=_ THE CREEK BANK AND ENHANCE WILDLIFE HABITIAT. h-III-I I-I I-III- T I BACKFILL WITH PREPARED MIX OF 25 b -LI!I=ill iI--~II=~~I=III IMPORTED COMPOST AND TOPSOIL AND 2 X BALL 75% NATIVE SOIL PLANTING NOTES FOR AREAS OUTSIDE WRPZ DIA. MIN. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL 1. PLACE 6` COTAPOST7TOPSOIL BLEND, TBD, IN ALL TREE & SHRUB NOTE: STAKE TREES ONLY IF NEEDED AND PLANTING AREAS. REMOVE AFTER 2 YEARS MAXIMUM 2. INSTALL SOIL IN 3' LIFTS AND TILL THOROUGHLY TO BLEND W1 EXISTING SOIL. 3. REMOVE NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE VEGETATION PRIOR TO MIXES/ 1 TREE PLANTING DETAIL PLANTING. GROUNDCOVER 4. PLANT ALL TREES AND SHRUBS PER DETAIL 1 6 2. 5. PROVIDE PERIAA14ENT AUTOMATED IRRIGATION TO ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS EXCEPT IN SEEDED MEADOW AREAS, WHICH SHALL BE IRRIGATED ONLY AS REQUIRED PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. 6, MULCH PLANTING AREAS - THAT ARE NOT SEEDED AFTER INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIAL WITH 3' OF DARK MULTIBARK OR EQUAL. 7. PROVIDE TEMPORARY FENCING TO ALL (P) TREES TO PROTECT SHRUBS SHALL BE SLIGHTLY FROM DEER. REMOVE AFTER 2 YEARS. HIGHER IN RELATION TO FINISHED GRADE MULCH W MIN _ PRUNE DAMAGED OR SF DESICCATED ROOTS III-WTI GENTLY COMPACTED SOIL MIX III- I --III=III- - SCARIFY PIT BOTTOM NA 150mm (8') MIN. .5 X DIAMETER O ROOT BALL 2 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL City of Ash10.'nd Planning Bxhibit {g Emma PA # 3AY~- g AFFal~ ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT May 13, 2014 PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00307 APPLICANT: Martha Howard-Bullen LOCATION: 777 Oak Street ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: April 4, 2014 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: August 2, 2014 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 R-1 Single Family Residential District 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zone 18.104 Conditional Use Permits REQUEST: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence with an approximately 775 square foot garage. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The existing approximately 720 square foot vacant residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. 1. Relevant Facts A. Background -History of Application In February 1982, the Planning Commission approved a Minor Land Partition to divide the property at 779 Oak Street; this created the subject parcel, 777 Oak Street (PA82-06). In January 1990, an application was made for Outline approval for a four-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option. The application included a request for a variance to allow four lots access off of the flag-driveway rather than the three allowed by ordinance. The application was modified in February to subdivide three lots instead of four and was approved by the Planning Commission in March 1990 (PA90-019). In March 1991, the final plan application was made for the above referenced three-lot subdivision (PA91-023). The final survey plat was never filed and the approval expired. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 1 of 12 In December 2010, a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) for the subject property, 779 Oak, 757 Oak and 500 Heiman Street was filed. This BLA modified the rear property line of the subject property (PA2010-733) There are no other planning actions of record for this site. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The subject property is a flag-lot located on the west side of Oak Street accessed via a 145 foot long flag driveway. The flag driveway has historically been known as Tolliver Lane. The subject site is 44,524 square feet in area. The subject property and surrounding properties are zoned single family residential (R-1-5). Most of the property is within floodplain and riparian protection areas. Ashland Creek runs diagonally from the southwestern corner of the property to the northeast near the rear property line. The majority of the lot is covered by the Ashland Floodplain Corridor this encompasses the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) Floodplain and the Water Resource Protection Zone for Ashland Creek. There is a dry, water storage pond which was created by a previous property owner near the south (side) property line. The site has a slope of approximately four percent downhill to the north. There are a number of trees throughout the site. Riparian species such as Aspen, Cottonwood are along the creek with upland species of Oak, Maple, Fir and Pine are found throughout the site. There is a 720 square foot, vacant, single story residence on the site. The residence was constructed in the early 1980s. The application suggests that the new 4,191 square foot house and garage will incorporate the existing 720 square foot residence. The site will be accessed via the existing driveway. The applicant has proposed five parking spaces. Included in the proposal is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 615 square foot, single story Accessory Residential Unit. 1. Physical and Environmental Constraints for Floodplain Development The proposed development is occurring on land identified as the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. It encompasses approximately 36,044 square feet of the property. The applicant has proposed to remove 13 trees; all but three are within the Ashland Floodplain. 2. Water Resource Protection Zone Ashland Creels is a federal, state and locally protected fish bearing stream. It is the highest order of stream in the City of Ashland and has a 50-foot Riparian Protection Zone from the top of bank, from here on described as the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). The proposal includes a request to reduce the WRPZ by 12 percent. The existing residence is located in the WRPZ , and the new areas of encroachment are new patio areas at the rear of the structure. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 2 of 12 3. Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Residential Unit The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit (ARU). The ARU is proposed to be located near the front property line outside of the Ashland Floodplain. - I rte' ' ` 4 , MW I'llill Mill, I11 I Tb-l a r ; ` 4" _ ck T. i.. i Legend 4 F I ( p a,'1 Tax lots Ashland Adopted Floodplain ill, kill, 47' nil s+- I~ ly r-~ FEMA floodplain Flood, FLOODWAY EA 100 year N 3F rt. n 100 year, FLOODWAY " 500 year, r ~11 -W/ I I Property lines are for reference only. not scaleabie 0 35 70 140 Feet Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 3 of 12 II. Project Impact The adoption of development regulations for the Floodplain Corridors was in response to life safety issues posed by development in proximity to creeks with potential for flooding. The Comprehensive Plan section 4.17 Flood Plains & Stream Flooding provides detailed information regarding the adoption of additional regulations (Ashland Floodplain Corridor) beyond the floodplain boundaries as identified by FEMA. The additional regulated area was due to substantial evidence that the FEMA study was not accurate because the federal flood zone bypassed areas of significant risk and that the basic regulations regarding protection zones to reduce or eliminate risk of flooding were inadequate. The Comprehensive Plan outlines the goal of protecting life and property from flooding and flood hazards, and managing the areas subject to flooding to protect the public's interest. A number of policies were developed to support the goal including; Development in any flood prone area is not a guaranteed right, but depends upon whether the benefits to the public outweigh problems which would be caused by development. This project requires a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the Floodplain Corridor. A tree removal permit is requested to remove 13 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. A Water Resource Protection Zone reduction approval is required to allow for a 12 percent reduction of the WRPZ. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed Accessory Residential Unit in the Single-Family Residential zone. The application was scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission because the proposal does not clearly meet the approval criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit and the Water Resource Protection Zone reduction. The land use ordinance allows the application to be approved at an administrative level using the Type I review procedure. The ordinance also gives the Staff Advisor the ability to schedule any Type I application for a public hearing at the Planning Commission. A. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review for Floodplain Development The property is subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit due proposed development occurring within the boundaries of the Floodplain Corridor Lands for Ashland Creek. The lot is approximately 44,524 square feet. Of that, approximately 36,044 square feet is within the Floodplain Corridor and 8,480 square feet is outside of the Floodplain Corridor. The area shaded gray in Figure 1 on the following page depicts the area of the property which is outside of the Floodplain Corridor Lands. The area that is outside of the Floodplain Corridor is the width of the front property line (east) and is approximately 40-feet wide near the south property line and approximately 70-feet wide near the north property line. The elevation of the Ashland Floodplain Corridor is 1793 feet above sea level. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 4 of 12 .a i NV D ti d - a u _ a E C) - I N C) CD CD o _ ~ r r... tip d I 1 - 13 a LLB LJI _ u L- FR 03 1 4_ Jir a) Q~ l O Ly r 1 I I I ui ui 1' Figure I Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 5 of 12 1. Placement of Structures The development standards for existing parcels with buildable area outside the Floodplain corridor require that to the maximum extent feasible, all residential structures are placed outside Floodplain corridor lands. The buildable area on the subject property is the grey area depicted in Figure 1. In the case where development is permitted in the Floodplain corridor, the development is limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. The new residence is proposed to be located and constructed on lands entirely within the Ashland Creek Floodplain Corridor. The Ashland Floodplain Corridor was adopted in 1989 by the City Council, and the decision to include area on either side of the FEMA Floodplain was to minimize risk to life and damage to private property and public infrastructure. The decision was based on documented accounts which depicted erratic behavior of floodwaters. The erratic flooding is due to the high velocity of the floodwaters that carry large pieces of debris which plugged culverts and redirected floodwaters. Water naturally follows the path of least resistance and meanders to create that course. Ashland's Floodplain takes into account the natural meandering forces of waters which were not accounted for when FEMA created the original Floodplain maps. The Floodplain Corridor is not merely about the elevation but also the setback from the flood source. Based on site visits and consultation with the Building Official, staff does not concur with the applicants findings that 64.7 percent of the existing structure will be retained. The proposal states that the structure will be elevated in order to allow for the floor to be two-feet above the Base Flood Elevation. The elevation drawings of the structure show a modified roof-line. These two issues coupled with the need to "fir" out the studs in order to comply with today's energy codes and other structural modifications, it seems questionable whether the structure can be retained and more likely that in the process of construction the existing home will be removed and replaced. The application does no address why the proposed residence cannot be located in the approximately 8,500 square foot area outside of the Floodplain (gray area on Figure 1). The proposal locates the primary residence, garage, parking and outdoor areas entirely within the Floodplain corridor. Staff Con cern/Reconnnendation - The new residence does not meet the floodplain development standards for placing the sh ticture in the buildable area outside the floodplain to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, it is questionable whether the retention of the existing structure is feasible and is justification for locating the proposed home in the f oodplain. 2. Tree Removal The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. Ten of the trees Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant; M. Howard-Bullen Page 6 of 12 t proposed for removal are within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor including four within the Water Resource Protection Zone and the FEMA Floodplain. The trees proposed for removal have been evaluated by a Certified Arborist. The four trees most near the creek have dead tops and are in decline, the other nine are within the proposed building footprint or in the driveway and parking area. B. Water Resource Protection Zone reduction - Ashland Creek is a federal, state and locally protected fish bearing stream. It is the highest order of stream in the City of Ashland and has a 50 foot from the top of bank Riparian Protection Zone, from here on described as the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). The applicant has requested a Water Resource Protection Zone reduction to reduce the WRPZ by 12 percent. The area of encroachment includes the existing structure which is proposed to be retained and the construction of new poured concrete patios at the rear of the residence. The proposed encroachment in the WRPZ is 252 square feet. The applicant has proposed to restore and enhance the remaining WRPZ by eliminating a previously constructed holding pond area, removal of non-native noxious plant material and the removal of dead/dying trees. The applicant's landscape architect has provided a detailed landscaping plan for the site showing re-vegetation of the site utilizing a mixture of native, riparian zone appropriate plant materials. The applicant's findings state that since they are adding to the existing residence, they comply with the section regarding expansion. The Water Resource Protection Zone chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code allows nonconforming homes located in a WRPZ to be maintained and replaced if the building footprint is not changed in size and shape and additional surface area in the protection zone is not disturbed (18.63.060.A.3). Chapter 18.63 also allows the expansion of the footprint of a nonconforming structure within or partially within a WRPZ if the expansion of the footprint occurs outside of the WRPZ and additional surface area is the WRPZ is not disturbed (AMC 18.63.060.A.3.a and b). The application does meet either of these exemptions because the proposal includes new construction and surface area disturbance in the WRPZ. Due to the proposal to encroach into the WRPZ with new construction, the applicant has requested a reduction of the WRPZ. The code allows for reductions of the protection zone when the alteration by the construction of the proposed home and associated development is the minimum necessary to efficiently perform a single-family residential use. The development is required to minimize the surface disturbance of the protected riparian area by utilizing various design options to limit the impacts. The design options are using multi-story construction, minimizing parking spaces, and minimizing pavement. The proposal has not utilized any of these options. There is ample lot area outside of the WRPZ where the residence could be located and, the intent is for new construction to move away from the WRPZ. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 7 of 12 Staff Concern/Recommendation - The viability of retaining the existing structure does not appear feasible, therefore there does not appear to be strong justification for encroaching into the WRPZ. There is ample lot area outside of the WRPZ where the residence and associated outdoor areas could be located C. Accessory Residential Unit The proposed Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) is proposed to be located near the front property line outside of the Ashland Floodplain. The ARU is proposed to be 615 square feet, less than 50 percent of the gross habitable floor area of the primary residence which is proposed to be 3,414 square feet. The proposed ARU complies with setbacks including the solar setback ordinance and lot coverage. Utilities are available to service the ARU. The applicant has proposed to provide two parking spaces for the ARU in addition to the three required for the primary residence. The unit is architecturally compatible with the variety of residences found in the vicinity. The parcel is zoned R-1-5 and is greater than 5,000 square feet, a 615 square foot ARU will not have adverse impacts on the neighborhood when considering the target use of the property. Ill. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Physical and Environmental Constraints approval are described in 18.62.040 as follows: The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) The criteria for an reduction to the Water Resource Protection Zone are described in 18.72.090 as follows: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site; B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty, Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 8 of 12 The criteria for a Conditional Use approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.72.070, as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that,are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The criteria for an Accessory Residential Unit are described in AMC Chapter 18.20.030.1-11, as follows: H. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional criteria: 1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot. 3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA. 4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for single- family dwellings of this Title. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: K Howard-Bullen Page 9 of 12 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The primary issue with the proposal is the building placement. Based on the condition of the existing residence it seems unlikely the structure can be incorporated into the new construction and the applicant's main argument is that the existing non-conforming structure is the reason for the choice of placement. The placement of the proposed residence is completely within the Floodplain Corridor lands and partially encroaches into the Water Resource Protection Zone Area. There is developable area outside of the Floodplain Corridor which the application does not address. Additionally, there is ample area outside of the Water Resource Protection Zone and all new construction could be achieved outside of the protected area. Staff recommends that the application be continued. If the Commission believes that legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the building placement and the resulting encroachments into the Ashland Floodplain Corridor and the Water Resource Protection Zone, general direction should be provided to the applicant regarding possible modifications to the proposal. If the application is continued, the Planning Commission needs to obtain agreement from the applicant for an extension to the 120-day time limit. The item is time sensitive because the 120-day limit expires on August 2, 2014. Staff recommends the applicant grant a 60-day extension which would extend the time limit to October 2014. The extended time line would allow for the Planning Commission to make a decision at the June 10th meeting, the Planning Commission to adopt findings at the July 8 meeting, and sufficient time should the action be appealed to the City Council. Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to approve the project, Staff recommends the following conditions. 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That building permit submittals shall include: a) Structural engineering demonstrating the single family residence can be retained and added on-to shall be provided at the time of building permit submittals. b) The new residence shall demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback Standard A. The building permit submittals shall include identification of the highest shadow producing point, identification of the height of the shadow producing point from natural grade and the solar setback measurement called out to the north property line. C) That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 50 percent of the lot area in accordance with the lot coverage regulations of the zoning district. Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be provided with building permit submittals. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 10 of 12 d) That the Fire Department requirements for Fire Apparatus Access shall be complied with either through the installation of a fire truck turnaround or fire sprinklers. Evidence of compliance shall be provided for with the building permit submittals. 3) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) Tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to any site work, storage of materials or permit issuance. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. b) A Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to permit issuance, site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained on site, and on adjacent properties. C) The FEMA Floodplain boundary shall be identified on site and protected with silt fencing, and the installation of this silt fencing at the Floodplain line shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That the lowest habitable floor elevation shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100 year Floodplain level and shall be certified (by a registered surveyor) at two-feet above the FEMA base flood elevation or at or above the City of Ashland Flood Plain Corridor elevation, whichever is greater, in compliance with 18.62.070.D. i b) There shall be at least three off-street parking spaces situated in such a manner as to eliminate the necessity for backing out installed on site. These parking spaces shall be shown on the building permit submittals for the primary residence, and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new primary residence. C) Two additional parking spaces shall be installed on site in such a manner to eliminate the necessity for backing out prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Accessory Residential Unit. d) The driveway area shall be signed, as a no parking, fire apparatus access land if deemed necessary by the Fire Department and the building official to maintain required fire apparatus access. The vegetation along the driveway shall be pruned to achieve a width of 20-feet wide and 13.6-feet vertical clearance. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 11 of 12 C) That a separate electric meter for the accessory residential unit shall be installed in accordance with Ashland Electric Department requirements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. f) That an opportunity to recycle site shall be located on the site, or an individual recycle bin shall be provided to the accessory residential unit in conformance with 18.72.040 prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the accessory residential unit. Planning Action 2014-00307 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: M. Howard-Bullen Page 12 of 12 T Planning Department, 51 WiL,,-n Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CIY 0.' 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www,ashland.orms TTY: 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: 209400307 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 777 Oak Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Martha Howard-Sullen DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction Permit approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The property is subject to the Physical Constraints and Water Resource permits due to the location of the proposed development within the adopted floodplain for Ashland Creek. The existing approximately 720 square foot residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP/TAX LOTS: 391E 04CA 2707 NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, May 8, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Lithia Room) located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: r ~ T~a f LJ_, E4o _ Lei ~a ss, s~5 Q nao - ~oe SUBJECT PROPERTY _ 777 OAK STREET 391 E 04CA 2707 _e soa ze roa rs Ta, ~o T55 T5i ~ ,B5 TaT OAK LAVVN AV N O 2040 80 Feet A p rr yes ar~f : rren~e onry. nor ~~ateaare Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On May 2, 2014 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 #2014-00307, 777 Oak St. Signature of Employee DocumenR 515/2014 K GEDDES BARBARA/ZALLER JOHN 664 HAVERFORD AVE EVONIUK BETH L LAN DT RICK TRUSTEE ET AL PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 484 HELMAN ST 468 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HERSHMAN WILLIAM B HOWARD-BULLEN MARTHA NAGELJAMES TRUSTEE ET AL PO BOX 1288 124 MORNINGLIGHT DR. 520 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520. HARKEY CORAZON A REV LIB TR BOWER KELSEY BARBER GEORGE DWIGHTJR REV 761 OAK ST 773 OAK ST 540 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HICKS MAUREEN SHERDON LELA HOLDEN HUGH/LIESA PO BOX 955 258 A ST 3 801 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MAYNARD JANE CHRISTIAN WILLIAM/CATHY LAMORE THOMAS J/LINDA 743 OAK ST 778 OAK ST 784 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 LINDSAY MATTH EW/LONG HURST J COOPER STEWART A TRUSTEE ET BEAUDOIN D 280 GARFIELD 780 OAK ST 835 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 KOLLANDA G D/GEORGIANNA F FLACK LORI LYNN ET AL THOMPSON LAWRENCE L 566 HELMAN ST 206 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR PO BOX 573 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HAYDEN GEORGE C ET AL CARLOS DELGADO ARCHITECT LAURIE SAGER & ASSOC. INC. 776 OAK ST 217 FOURTH STREET 700 MISTLETOE RD., SUITE 201 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i F E Y Findings of Fact for Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development in Flood Plain Corridor Water Resource Protection Zone Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Residential Unit Subject Property: 777 Oak Street Assessor's Map 391 E 04CA Tax Lot 2707 Zoning R-1-5 Proposed Use: Single family residence & Accessory Residential Unit Submitted to: City of Ashland Planning Department Submitted for: Martha Howard-Bullen Prepared by: Carlos Delgado Carlos Delgado Architect LLC 217 Fourth Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 541.552.9502 February 28, 2014 J Project Proposal: Currently there exists a 720 SF single family residence on the property that currently is situated within the required Water Resource Protection Zone setback of 50 feet from top of creek bank. 2 other existing residences (680 SF and 280 SF respectively) were recently demolished after deeming the structures unsafe and hazardous that were located adjacent to the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). The remaining residence is the principal structure non-conforming within the Flood Protection Zone. A portion of the structure's walls and foundation encroach into the required WRPZ 50 foot buffer 12 Feet and the existing patio encroaches 22 feet (350 SF in area). Other existing man made site grading on the subject property within and outside the WRPZ is proposed to be restored and enhanced in the flood protection zone and WRPZ in this application. The applicant is proposing a minimal Water Resource Protection Zone reduction to bring the existing non-conforming structure into conformance as well as provide development to mitigate, restore, and enhance the riparian area. This application demonstrates allowable development outside the existing Water Resource Protection Zone resulting in a renovation and addition into a viable single family residence with an attached 3 car garage. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a 615 SF accessory residential unit on the property above the "City of Ashland Flood Protection Zone" boundary line. Refer to submitted Site Plan ASIA for graphics on pre-existing structures, existing structure, and proposed additional structure on the property. E 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, Lot 2707 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone Findings of Fact for Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit & Conditional Use Permit This application demonstrates compliance to Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor and Water Resource Protection Zone pursuant to Section 18.62 and 18.63 of the City of Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Sections of the Ordinance and the Design Standards as deemed applicable, in whole or in part, are described in the following 'Findings of Fact.' Findings by the Applicant/Agent are inserted immediately following each section of the ordinance. Ordinances PAGE 15.10 Flood Damage Prevention Regulations 5 15.10.040 Methods of Reducing Flood Losses 5 15.10.050 Definitions 5 15.10.080 Provisions for Flood Hazard Protection 5 18.20 R1 Single Family Residential District 7 18.20.010 Purpose 7 18.20.020 Permitted Uses 7 18.20.030 Conditional uses 7 18.20.040 General regulations 8 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 9 18.61.200 Tree Protection 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints 10 18.62.050 Land Classifications 10 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands 10 18.62.100 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands 12 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zones 13 18.63.050 Establishment of Water Resource Protection Zones 13 18.63.060 Activities and Uses Exempt from These Regulations 13 18.63.070 Limited Activities and Uses within Water Resource 17 Protection Zone 18.63.080 Water Resource Protection Zone Reductions 19 18.63.120 Mitigation Requirements 20 18.68 General Regulations 23 18.68.010 Fences 18.70 SolarAccess 24 18.72 Site Design Review 25 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval 18.92 Off Street Parking 25 18.92.030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required 18.104 Conditional Use Permits 25 18.104.050 Approval Criteria 18.104.060 Conditions 1 l 3 i 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, LoL 1707 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone Chapter 15.10 - Flood Damage Prevention Regulations 15.10.040 - Methods of Reducing Flood Losses In order to accomplish its purpose, this section includes methods and provisions for A. Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities; B. Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; C. Controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters; D. Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and E. Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards outside of identified flood hazard areas. F. Coordinating and supplementing the provisions of the state building code with local land use and development ordinances. (Ord. 2925, 2006; Ord. 3045, 2011) The application complies with methods of reducing flood losses as outlined in this application. 15.10.050 - Definitions Unless specifically defined below or elsewhere in this Code, words or phrases used in this Chapter shall be interpreted as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this Chapter it's most reasonable application. F. Below-Grade Crawl Space means an enclosed area below the base flood elevation in which the interior grade is not more than two feet below the lowest adjacent exterior grade and the height, measured from the interior grade of the crawlspace to the top of the crawlspace foundation, does not exceed 4 feet at any point. Complies: Per building Section I on sheet A2.1, the elevations of floor, crawlspace, natural grade meet this criteria. 0. Lowest Floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of this ordinance. Lowest floor of proposed residence is main level per crawlspace compliance in section F above. 15.10.080 - Provisions for Flood Hazard Protection B. Specific Standards. In all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data has been provided as set forth in Section 15.10.060(B), "Basis for Establishing the Areas of Special Flood Hazard" or Section 15.10.070(C)(2), "Use of Other Base Flood Data, the following provisions are required: 1. Residential Construction: a. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to at least two (2) feet or above base flood elevation. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City, the property owner shall furnish certification by a registered engineer or surveyor of the actual elevation of the lowest habitable floor, including a basement. Per ORSC, the structure proposed complies with FEMA standards per City of Ashland flood map, the base flood elevation (BFE) for the structure is 1792.75 feet at the highest point at the structure. 5 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, Lot 2707 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone a All Chapter 18.20 - R-1 Residential District 18.20.010 - Purpose The purpose of the R-1 district is to stabilize and protect the suburban characteristics of the district and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life. 18.20.020 - Permitted Uses The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: A. Single family dwelling, utilizing at least two of the following design features to provide visual relief along the front of the residence: 1. Dormers 2. Gables 3. Recessed entries 4. Covered porch entries 5. Cupolas 6. Pillars or posts 7. Bay window (min. 12" projection) 18. Eaves (min. 6"projection) 9. Off-sets in building face or roof (min. 16'9 (Ord. 2612 S2, 1991) Complies: Per sheets A2.1 and A2.2 a minimum of 5 of the above criteria are proposed. B. through H. Not applicable - Single Family Renovation and Accessory Residential Unit is being proposed 18.20.030 - Conditional uses The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with Chapter 18.104, Conditional Use Permits. A. through G. uses: Not applicable - Single Family Renovation and Accessory Residential Unit is being proposed H. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the following additional criteria: 1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. Complies: Total lot coverage for proposed is 20% (50% is allowed - refer to sheet AS1.0 for tabulations 2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot. Complies: 2 dwelling units are proposed. 3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA. Complies: GHFA of primary res=3414, ARU=615 square feet. 4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions for single-family dwellings of this Title. 1. through K., M through N. uses 7 i 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, Lot 2707 Findings of Fact for C,U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone IA Chapter 18.61 - Tree Preservation and Protection 18.61.200 - Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. A. Tree Protection Plan Required. 1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit. 2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. 3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. 8. Tree Protection Measures Required. 1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. 2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. 4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. 5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. 6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. C. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. In accordance with AMC 18.61, a Tree Removal & Protection Plan (Sheet L-1.0) is provided, identifying trees to be removed and retained. Thirteen trees are proposed for removal. Nine of these trees are located within the proposed building envelope and driveway areas, or in very close proximity to the proposed. The site's other four trees proposed for removal are located within the riparian zone of the property. These trees have been evaluated by arborist Tom Myers, who has 9 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, Lot 2707 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone 3. The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following: a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction. c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material. d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material. e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued. The application complies with the above standards. 4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor. Complies - On site cut and fill amounts within the identified flood plain have been limited to necessary levels to complete the improvement per building code requirements for crawlspace and finish floor levels. The proposed development does not include any off-site fill other than permitted structural fill to build the structures outside the required riparian buffer in the Water Resource Protection Zone. 5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill. Complies: Per architects specifications and recommendations of pending geotechnical evaluation drainage will comply (preliminary report submitted as addendum A). 6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as feasible. Complies - refer to section 4 above. D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15. 10, or to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the stream channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet above the stream channel on all other Riparian Preservation Creeks identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060, and three feet above the stream channel on all other Land Drainage Corridors identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. Complies: Per ORSC, the structure proposed complies with FEMA standards and the more restrictive standard per the City of Ashland flood map. The base flood elevation (BFE) at the most upstream location for the structure is 1792.75 feet. (The furthest downstream location at the structure has a base flood elevation of 1790.00 feet.) The lowest floor has been established at 1794.75 feet (2 feet above BFE). E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. Complies: the additional area of development attached to the existing structure is within the Flood plain corridor area that ranges from an existing grade elevation of 1793.00 FT to 1793.5 FT. This area of development in its entirety is within a Base Flood Elevation ranging from elevation heights II i 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, Lot 2707 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in 2'x,1 4 Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zoned p 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. All excavation, grading, structural footing and wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans shall comply with design conclusions and recommendations as provided in Exhibit A: Geotechnical Investigation and Erosion Control report by Marquess and Associates, Inc. dated Feb 14, 2014. Chapter 18.63 - Water Resource Protection Zones 18.63.050 - Establishment of Water Resource Protection Zones A Water Resource Protection Zone is hereby established adjacent to and including all Water Resources to protect their integrity, function and value. The boundaries of the following Water Resource Protection Zones shall be established by an on-site survey based upon the following standards. A. Stream Bank Protection Zones. The following types of Stream Bank Protection Zones are hereby established to protect streams and their associated riparian resources. The approximate locations of streams are identified on the Water Resources Map. 1. Riparian Corridor - For streams classified as Riparian Corridor fish-bearing streams with an annual average stream flow less than 1, 000 cubic feet per second and on the Water Resources Map, the Stream Bank Protection Zone shall include the stream, plus a riparian buffer consisting of all lands within 50 feet upland from the top of bank (Figure 3). Figure 3: Stream Bank Protection Zone for Riparian Corridor Streams (see attachment under this chapter) 18.63.060 - Activities and Uses Exempt from These Regulations A. Exempt Activities Within Water Resource Protection Zones. The following activities and uses do not require a permit or authorization under this chapter to be conducted or to continue in a Water Resource Protection Zone. Exempt activities and uses may qualify as development as defined in section 18.62.030 (H) and may require a permit for development in Floodplain Corridor Lands Chapter 1. Vegetation Maintenance, Planting and Removal a. Landscaping Maintenance. Continued maintenance of existing vegetation such as landscaping, lawn, gardens and trees. b. Lawn. Existing lawn within Water Resource Protection Zones may be maintained, but existing lawn shall not be expanded and new lawn shall not be installed. c. Tree Pruning. Maintenance pruning of existing trees shall be kept to a minimum and shall be in accordance with the Tree Preservation and Protection Chapter 18.61. Under no circumstances shall the maintenance pruning be so severe that it compromises the tree's health, longevity, or resource functions (i.e. shade, soil stability, erosion control, etc.) d. Non-native, Noxious and Invasive Vegetation Removal. Removal of non-native, noxious and invasive vegetation, and replacement with local native plant species. The act of removing non-native, noxious and invasive vegetation shall not result in the removal of native vegetation. Local native plant species for both wetland and stream bank applications are identified on the City of Ashland's Local Native Plant Species List, and noxious and invasive vegetation approved for removal is identified on the City of Ashland's Prohibited Plant List. Removal and mowing of blackberries shall occur before May 1 or after July 31 to protect nesting birds. 13 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, Lot 2707 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone J b. Expansion of Nonconforming Structures. Expansion of the footprint of a nonconforming structure within or partially within a Water Resource Protection Zone if the expansion of the footprint occurs outside the Water Resource Protection Zone and additional surface area in the Water Resource Protection Zone is not disturbed. Additional stories may be added to nonconforming structures if the existing building footprint with the Water Resource Protection Zone is not changed in size or shape and additional surface area in the Water Resource Protection Zone is not disturbed. The applicant is proposing to renovate and add to the existing nonconforming residence footprint and comply with the intent of the section above. Under AMC section 15.04.210 (Demolition or relocation of structures), the proposed residence in this application has been strategically designed to retain 67% of the structure's external walls in place to classify the proposed construction as reconstruction. The resulting residence has been designed with the existing nonconforming building footprint within the WRPZ to remain unchanged in size or shape. With the exception of improving exterior patio area adjacent to this nonconforming footprint, there will be no disturbance to additional surface area. All disturbances within the required WRPZ are mitigation measures to restore and enhance the riparian area as outlined below in Section 18.63.120 Mitigation Requirements. All other additional building walls, foundations are to be constructed outside the Water Resource Protection Zone. As indicated in the Project Summary, the location of 2 other demolished pre-existing structures on the property are in the location of the addition to the existing structure as indicated on the site plan (Sheet AS1.1). The design team and applicant believe the reconstruction in this location adds no further disturbance or impact in the WRPZ than the original structures. There exists 174 SF of structure and 190 SF of patio of the existing 720 SF residence encroaching 12 feet into the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) within the required 50 foot buffer from the top of bank. It is important to note that the existing covered patio of 190 SF is being permanently removed out of the Water Resource Protection Zone. The encroachment of the existing residence is proposed to remain in the renovation of the residence as it does not further create disturbances to the site's natural features, not create additional flood hazard to the existing condition. Due to this encroachment, the applicant is requesting the minimum WRPZ reduction of 25% at a limited length of 25 feet of riparian frontage on the site (37.5 foot buffer setback from the top of bank) to bring the existing structure into conformance as well as provide for a proposed patio that would comply with the 37.5 foot buffer setback. Sheet AS 1.1 demonstrates this limited buffer setback. Refer to section 18.63.080 in these findings and Sheets L 4.0 - L4.1 for mitigation restoration and enhancements to the WRPZ. c. Replacement of Nonconforming Principal Buildings in Residential Zoning Districts. Nonconforming principal buildings within or partially within a Water Resource Protection Zone and located in residential zoning districts may be replaced or rebuilt if the existing building footprint within the Water Resource Protection Zone is not changed in size or shape and additional surface area in the Water Resource Protection Zone is not disturbed. Repair and reconstruction of a nonconforming structure under this section shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Flood Damage Prevention Regulations Chapter 15.10. B. Additional Exempt Activities and Uses within Stream Bank Protection Zones. In addition to the Exempt Activities and Uses in section 18.63.060.A, the following activities and uses do not require a permit or authorization under this chapter to be conducted or to continue in a Stream Bank Protection Zone. 1. Fire Hazard Prevention - Cutting or thinning of vegetation for fire hazard prevention provided that the cutting or thinning is the minimum necessary to alleviate the potential fire hazard and is consistent with City standards for Wildfire Lands described in the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter 18.62. 15 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, Lot [707 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone 18.63.070 - Limited Activities and Uses within Water Resource Protection Zone The following activities and uses within Water Resource Protection Zones are allowed under a Type I land use procedure provided the activities or uses comply with the approval standards set forth in section 18.63.070.D. A. Limited Activities and Uses within Water Resource Protection Zones. 1. Use of Power-assisted Equipment or Machinery - Use of power-assisted equipment or machinery for vegetation maintenance unless otherwise exempted in section 18.63.060.A.1.i. 2. Multi-year Maintenance Plans - Multi-year maintenance plans may be authorized as follows for existing areas or storm water treatment facilities in Water Resource Protection Zones which do not have a previously approved management plans, a. Publicly and Commonly Owned Properties. The routine restoration and enhancement of publicly and commonly owned properties such as public parks and private open spaces. b. Storm Water Treatment Facilities. The ongoing routine maintenance of storm water treatment facilities such as detention ponds or sediment traps, vegetated swales and constructed wetlands in order to maintain flow and prevent flooding. Routine maintenance of storm water treatment facilities in accordance with an approved management plan is exempted as outline in section 18.63.060. A. 2. c. 3. Building, Paving, and Grading Activities - Permanent alteration of Water Resource Protection Zones by grading or by the placement of structures, fill or impervious surfaces may be authorized as follows. a. New Public Access and Utilities. The location and construction of public streets, bridges, trails, multi- use path connections and utilities deemed necessary to maintain a functional system and upon finding that no other reasonable, alternate location outside the Water Resource Protection Zone exists. This title, the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan, adopted utility master plans and other adopted documents shall guide this determination, b. New Private Access and Utilities. The location and construction of private streets, driveways and utilities to provide a means of access to an otherwise inaccessible or landlocked property where no other reasonable, alternate location outside the Water Resource Protection Zone exists, c. Storm Water Treatment Facility Installation. Installation of public and private storm water treatment facilities such as detention ponds or sediment traps, vegetated swales and constructed wetlands. d. Replacement of Nonconforming Accessory Structures in Residential Districts and Replacement of Nonconforming Structures in Non-Residential Zoning Districts and Outside Historic Districts. Replacement of nonconforming structures located within or partially within the original building footprint, except those nonconforming principal buildings exempted in section 18.63.060.A,3, provided replacement does not disturb additional surface area within the Water Resource Protection Zone. B. Additional Limited Activities and Uses within Stream Bank Protection Zones. In addition to the Limited Activities and Uses in section 18.63.070.A, the following activities and uses with the Stream Bank Protection Zones are allowed under a Type I land use procedure provided the activities or uses comply with the approval standards set forth in section 18.63.070. D. 1. Stream Restoration and Enhancement - Restoration and enhancement projects resulting in a net gain j in stream bank corridor functions unless otherwise exempted in section 18.63.060. B.2. Restoration and enhancement activities not otherwise associated with development involving building, grading or paving are encouraged, and planning application fees associated with reviewing these activities for compliance with applicable land use standards may be waived by the Staff Advisor. The application proposes restoration and enhancement within areas of the WRPZ, see Planting and Mitigation Plan (Sheet L-4.0-4.1) for more information. The work proposed within this zone includes; restoring the pond area in the SW corner of the riparian zone to a naturalized gentle slope mimicking the adjacent undisturbed riparian areas, removal of noxious and non native plant species in the areas being restored, seeding disturbed open meadow areas with native grass and enhancing several key riparian areas with native small trees, shrubs, ferns and perennials. 17 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, Lot 2707 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone D. Approval Standards for Limited Activities and Uses within Water Resource Protection Zones. All Limited Activities and Uses within Water Resource Protection Zones described in section 18.63.070 shall be processed as a Type 1 land use procedure, The approval authority may approve or approve with conditions a request to conduct Limited Activities and Uses in a Water Resource Protection Zone based upon findings that the following standards have been satisfied. 1. All activities shall be located as far away from streams and wetlands as practicable, designed to minimize intrusion into the Water Resources Protection Zone and disturb as little of the surface area of the Water Resource Protection Zone as practicable. 2. The proposed activity shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation, grading, area of impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and other adverse impacts on Water Resources. 3. On stream beds or banks within the bank full stage, in wetlands, and on slopes of 25% or greater in a Water Resource Protection Zone, excavation, grading, installation of impervious surfaces, and removal of native vegetation shall be avoided except where no practicable alternative exists, or where necessary to construct public facilities or to ensure slope stability. 4. Water, storm drain and sewer systems shall be designed, located and constructed to avoid exposure to floodwaters, and to avoid accidental discharges to streams and wetlands. 5. Stream channel repair and enhancement, riparian habitat restoration and enhancement and wetland restoration and enhancement will be restored through the implementation of a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements in section 18.63.120. 6. Long term conservation, management and maintenance of the Water Resource Protection Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of a management plan as described in section 18.63.120. C, except a management plan is not required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a single-family dwelling and accessory structures. The proposed construction and associated activities are in areas predominantly outside of the floodplain corridor boundary. Less than 150 square feet of construction is proposed within the WRPZ, see Landscape Site Plan (Sheet L-2.0) for more information. To reduce the impacts of the proposed construction encroachment, restoration and enhancement within the WRPZ is proposed and outlined on the Planting and Mitigation Plan (Sheet L-4.0-4.1). A long term management plan for this residentially zoned property is not required. 18.63.080 - Water Resource Protection Zone Reductions A Water Resource Protection Zone may be reduced by up to 25% through a Type I land use procedure, and by greater than 25% and up to 50% through a Type 11 land use procedure to allow alteration within the Water Resource Protection Zone based upon findings that the following approval criteria have been satisfied. A. The proposed use or activity is designed to avoid intrusion into the Water Resource Protection Zone through the use of up to a 50% reduction of any dimensional standards (e.g. required front, side and rear yard setbacks; required distance between buildings) to permit development as far outside or upland of the Water Resource Protection Zone as possible. Such adjustment to any applicable dimensional standards shall be reviewed as part of the requested reduction, and shall not be subject to a separate Variance application under Chapter 18.100. Reductions to dimensional standards may not be used to reduce required Solar Access setbacks without evidence of agreement by the effected property owner(s) to the north through a concurrent Solar Access Variance application as described in section 18.70.060. B. The alteration of the Water Resource Protection Zone is the minimum necessary to efficiently perform the proposed activity and/or use. The proposed development shall minimize disturbance to the Water Resource Protection Zone by utilizing the following design options to minimize or reduce impacts of development. 1. Multi-story construction shall be considered. 2. Parking spaces shall be minimized to no more than that required as a minimum for the use. 19 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, Loy ~ 107 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone b. Restoration Area Ratio. Disturbed areas shall be re-planted and an `additional area restored, re-planted and enhanced at a one square foot to one and a half square feet (1:1.5) ratio (e.g. if 100 square feet of surface area is disturbed, 150 square feet shall be restored, re-planted and enhanced), c. Local Native Plant Species Coverage. The Stream Bank Protection Zone shall be a minimum of 50% plant coverage in local native plant species with the installation of new trees only to consist of native trees (Figures 8, 9 and 10). The Wetland Protection Zone shall be 100% plant coverage in local native plant species and in accordance with local, state and federal approved management plans, Local native plant species for stream bank and wetland applications are identified on the City of Ashland's Local Native Plant Species List. The use of noxious and invasive plants on the City of Ashland's Prohibited Plant List in Water Resource Protection Zones is prohibited. Figure 8: Native Plant Requirements for Riparian Corridor Streams (see attachments under this chapter) Figure 9: Native Plant Requirements for Local Streams (see attachments under this chapter) Figure 10: Native Plant Requirements for Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams (see attachments under this chapter) d. Re-planting Priorities, i. Priority shall be given to removal of noxious and invasive vegetation and planting of local native plant species. ii. Plant materials shall be located in such a manner as to maximize enhancement and restoration of the Water Resource Protection Zone, with particular emphasis on temperature reduction of watercourses, erosion control, bank stabilization and wildlife habitat enhancement iii. Nearby riparian plant communities should be used as a guide for developing a re-vegetation plan. e. Shrub and Tree Requirements. Re-planting shall include shrubs and tree canopy layers in accordance with the following coverage and spacing requirements. i. Shrubs shall be planted and maintained to provide a minimum of 50% total coverage of the restored area within a five year period. The minimum planting size shall be one gallon. Restoration areas that have existing vegetated under-story consisting of healthy riparian shrubs that covers at least 50% of the restoration area are considered compliant with the restoration standards for under-story plantings. ii. Canopy trees shall be planted at 20-foot intervals. The minimum planting size shall be one inch caliper. All new trees shall be staked and protected by deer/rodent-proof fencing. Restoration areas that have an existing vegetated tree canopy consisting of healthy trees at least four inches d. b. h. and at an average spacing of 20 feet on- center are considered compliant with the restoration standards for trees. f. Erosion Control. Erosion control material such as mulch, hay, jute-netting, or comparable material shall be applied to protect disturbed, re-planted areas. Disturbed areas shall be replanted so that landscaping shall obtain 50% coverage after one year and 90% coverage after five years, g. Irrigation. New plantings shall be irrigated for a period of five years to ensure establishment h. Performance. Local native plant species that do not survive the first two years after planting shall be replaced, i. Landscape and Irrigation Plans. A mitigation plan shall include landscape and irrigation plans, with details addressing the proposed plant species, variety, size of plant materials, number of plants, timing of plantings, plant spacing and installation methods. The landscape plan shall address the plant coverage by local native plant species after five years. 2. Alternative Option - The mitigation plan shall address the following requirements, and shall meet or exceed the standards in the Prescription Option in section 18.63.120. B.1. The Staff Advisor may require the mitigation plan to be prepared by a natural resource professional. a. Assessment of Water Resource Protection Zone Structures, Functions and Values. A mitigation plan shall include an assessment of the structures, functions and values (i. e. water quality, flood control, habitat, etc.) that will be adversely impacted by the proposed alterations of the Water Resource Protection Zone and a clear explanation of how these impacts are to be mitigated. b. Objectives and Standards of Mitigation. A mitigation plan shall state specific plan objectives and establish clear and measurable standards for determining if stated objectives have been accomplished. For example, the objective might be to restore or enhance the shade canopy within a Stream Bank Protection Zone to benefit fish and reduce water temperature, while the standard might be a certain 21 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, Lot 707 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone 110% of the proposal's cost to guarantee that the mitigation proposal will be carried out as approved, and to ensure that the objectives are met through demonstration of compliance with measurable standards and that the site will be maintained to keep the Water Resource functioning properly. The enhancement and restoration proposed within the WRPZ shall abide by the applicable provisions outlined in Chapter 18.63.120 - Mitigation Requirements, see Planting and Mitigation Plan (Sheet L4.0-4.1) for more information. The applicant intends to implement the proposed enhancement and restoration plan at time of landscape installation, upon completion of construction. Chapter 18.68 - General Regulations 18.68.010 - Fences Fences, walls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standards: A. Height. 1. In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and one-half (3 feet in height. 2. In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half (6 feet in height. 3. The height of fences or walls in rear or side yard setback areas abutting a public street shall be four (4) feet or less if said fences or walls are within ten (10) feet of any public street except an alley. 4. The height of a fence is the vertical distance measured from the natural grade to the highest point of the fence, including the structural supports. a: Below-Grade lots. On lots that are not generally level with the adjacent street, height may be measured from the top of the adjacent sidewalk or curb, or, where curbs are absent, from the crown of the adjacent street plus six inches. b. When fences are built on top of retaining walls, or one lot is markedly higher than an adjacent lot, height shall be measured from the highest adjacent grade, except that the solar access of adjacent properties to the north shall be maintained in accordance with AMC 18.70. B. Construction 1. The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's property, except where fences are jointly constructed. 2. Fences shall lean at an angle from the vertical plane no greater than five (591o) percent. In cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the Planning Department, the property owner shall be notified, in writing, of the problem. The Planning Department shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or on its own action. 3. Fences shall not be constructed across any waterway or stream identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to Section 18.62.070. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. Fences within water resource protection zones shall be located and constructed in accordance with Section 18.63.060. B.3 C. Materials 1. The use of barbed wire, razor wire, electrified wire and similar security fencing materials shall be limited t as follows: a. shall not be located adjacent to a sidewalk, a public way, or along the adjoining property line of another person; b. shall not be erected or maintained at less than six and a half (6 feet above grade; c. may be located in commercial, employment or industrial lands if not visible from the public right of way, or with approval from the Community Development Director on properties deemed to be hazardous or in need of additional safety. D. Deer Fencing 1. Deer fencing may be attached to a permitted front, side, or rear yard fences provided the area in excess of the allowable fence heights per 18. is designed and constructed to provide a clear view through the fence. a. Within required front yards at least eight five percent (8591o) of the surface shall be unobstructed to both light and air when viewed perpendicular to the place of the fence. 23 777 Oak Street - Map 391 E 04CA, L&, 707 Findings of Fact for C.U.P. & Compliance for Development Standards in Flood Plain Corridor & Water Resource Protection Zone Chapter 18.72 - Site Design Review 18.72.070 - Criteria for Approval The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord. 2836 S6, 1999) Chapter 18.92- Off Street Parking 18.92.030 - Automobile Parking Spaces Required Uses and standards are as follows: A. Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following for accessory residential units: a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. 1 space/unit. b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq, ft. or larger 1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units --1.75 spaces/unit. d. 3-bedroom or greater units 2.00 spaces/unit. A total of 5 parking spaces are proposed. Under this section, 2 parking spaces are required for the 3 bedroom residence, 2 parking spaces are required for the accessory residential unit, and 1 extra parking space is required for all properties that are flag lots. 18.104 - Conditional Use Permits 18.104.050 - Approval Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. There are a substantial number of small single family dwelling units within the neighborhood that mainly is zoned R1 that reflect similar scale, bulk and coverage of this proposed Accessory Residential Unit. The resulting fagade and mass of the single story building mass (bulk) is similar to surrounding single family development within the neighborhood. 25 <-& V4- MEDFORD, OR 97501 ^ - 1 Oc P 541-772-7115 F 541-779-4079 1120 EAST` JACKSON PO BOX 490 & A S S O C I A T E . 1 N C EMAIL: info )marquess.com WEB: www.marquess.com February 14, 2014 Carlos Delgado, AIA 217 Fourth Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 g RE: GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT ADDITION TO 777 OAK STREET ASHLAND, OREGON MAI JOB NO. 14-1024 Dear Mr. Delgado: Introduction We are pleased to present our geotechnical reconnaissance report of the property at 777 Oak Street in Ashland, Oregon. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the site and summarize our findings in a letter. A site plan of the property is shown on the attached Drawing 1, Site Plan. The project will consist of remodeling a portion of the existing residence, constructing a new garage that will be attached to the remodeled portion, constructing a replacement residence, and constructing a detached structure as shown on Drawing 1. This report has been prepared for the specific use of Carlos Delgado AIA and their client in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. Site Conditions' A. Surface The property lies between Tolliver Lane on the east and Ashland Creels on the west. The property is bounded on the north and south by residential properties. A single-story wood framed residential structure with dimensions of about 24' by 30' exists at the site while the rest of the site is vacant except for various trees and shrubs. Two other residential structures that previously occupied the site have been fully removed. The approximate corners and locations of the new construction were staked at the time of our field visit. The property slopes gently downward from east to west in the building pad areas. This gentle slope extends westerly from the building pad area for a distance of about 10 feet or more and Carlos Delgado, AIA February 14, 2014 Page 2 of 3 then breaks downward to a lower terrace level. The "slope break" is about 3' in vertical height over a distance of perhaps 12 feet. The lower terrace then slopes gently westward to the creek-banks of Ashland Creek. Based on the information provided on the Site Plan, the proposed new construction is wholly located outside and above the City of Ashland 100-year flood line Except for the removal of two of the existing structures, there does not appear to be any other disturbance to the grounds at the property. There appears to be some old fills, probably placed many years ago, along the north edge of the property, along the "slope break" discussed above, and along the creekbank of Ashland Creek. These fills are assumed to be "wedge" shaped and assumed to thin with distance away from the slope edges. Some of this old fill material may extend into the proposed new construction areas. The thicknesses of this old fill in the new construction areas is expected to be thin and on the order of 1' in thickness. B. Soils and Geology No subsurface exploration was performed at the site as part of this evaluation. The site and adjacent vicinity are mapped by USDA soil maps (issued 1993) as being underlain by the Camas-Newberg-Evans Complex. These soils consist of relatively non-expansive, granitic loams (ML) and sandy loams (SM) with varying gravels and cobbles. The geologic map reviewed (Beaulieu and Hughes, 1977, Land Use Geology of Central Jackson County, Oregon, Bulletin 94, DOGAMI) indicates the property is underlain by Quaternary alluvial fan deposits. The nearest mapped fault lies about 1.5 miles to the west and is considered inactive. C. Hazards We did not observe any signs of geologic hazards at the site nor any geologic hazards off-site that could affect the proposed development. The only concerns that could affect the site development is flooding (the structures, however, will be sited beyond and above the 100-year flood level) and miscellaneous fills (these fills, if present, would be remedied during foundation construction). As such, we believe there is a low probability of hazards affecting the development. Generalized Conclusions From a soil and foundation engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the residential structures can be constructed as generally proposed. Earthwork. The earthwork requirements are expected to be typical for this kind of development and will involve relatively thin cuts and fills to create flat building pads. The earthwork is expected to be "routine" rather than atypical. Expansive clay soils are not expected to be present; however, if Carlos Delgado, AIA February 14, 2014 Page 3 of 3 they are, structural fills for building pads would need to be thicker than if granitic soils underlie the site. Foundations. Future structures can likely be supported on conventional spread footing foundations and slabs bearing on a pad of structural fill for stable and uniform support. We anticipate the allowable bearing capacity of the site soils would be in the range of 1500 psf to 2500 psf. As is typical of foundation construction, the foundation excavations should be evaluated for weak soils or old fills and, where present, remedied by removal and replacement work. Additional Geotechnical Engineering. A geotechnical investigation letter or engineering evaluation of sorts should be performed prior to final construction of the foundations. The investigation or evaluation will require exploratory test pits to fully evaluate the soil conditions. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding this report. PR®F~° Very truly yours, 7~885E~® ,ff MARQUESS & ASSOCIATES, INC. OREGON ~ T.21 A"j Rick Swanson, P.E., G.E. Civil Engineer 16885 RS/ler Copies: Addressee (2) Attachments: Site Plan, Drawing 1 - - - • \ - m \ 04 a \ o 179 m~ - w; m II I I ~ P ° w O ~ O 1 \ I7 3l / J o 1 1 1~ 1 1 1 1 , 1 / ' III 11 / O 9 .0j.6L / ¢w wU I I oQLo-- ° I m oo I l Ix C) %0> C, IZ/ a I a w/I > m x 0 \ I a o I „0 9l/~ O ~~r~~~ L J\ w ¢w W--Ix o 0 0 I^wo / W - Z / ~ ~ w I U I w m N >O J / w O6``11 / V Z / I I a / N Lo W~ I Z~ /0 1 o ° w I \ I 1 l N 00' 6"03" W `\7 0' , / t~ t Tom Myers i ~a 2040 Ashland Mine Rd Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541-601-2069 11/25/13 777 Oak St. Tree Protection Plan The forty-nine trees listed in the enclosed tree inventory need to be protected as stipulated in the enclosed specifications (with the exception of those trees that have been approved for removal). The numbers on their respective tags, placed on each trunk in the field, identify the individual trees and correspond to the tree numbers on the enclosed tree inventory. The radius of the tree protection fencing is specified for each tree in the tree inventory. A certified arborist must supervise any work done within the tree protection zone. If you have any questions regarding this tree protection plan, please call me at 541-601-2069. Sincerely, Tom Myers, Certified Arborist I I y Tom Myers Certified Arbonst 2040 Ashland Mine Rd Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541-601-2069 777 Oak St Arborist Report The willow tree at the northwest corner of the property (tree #21) needs to be removed. There is a large rotting wound where half of the trunk was severed that will eventually lead to the failure of the entire trunk. The tree is in poor health and does not provide a significant contribution to the existing canopy. The large Poplar at the southwest corner of the property (tree #6) is in fair health although the tree structure is compromised by the weakness of a multi-trunk at its base. There are signs of slime flux in one of the trunk intersections that could indicate a developing weakness in the attachment. The roots of the tree are sound, however they are lifting an existing power box, and this could be cause for concern. I would be cautious in building near this tree because Poplars are notoriously weak limbed and prone to wind throw. The various other trees marked for possible removal will need to be assessed after the building plans have been solidified. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at (541) 601- 2069 Sincerely, Tom Myers, Certified Arborist i V 10' MIN 5' MIN FROM PROPERTY LINE PIPE JOINT 1'-0" MIN 10" MIN. ABOVE GROUND i r 1~ 5lOpE MIN.." 2'-0" MIN SEE DRYWELL SIZING CHARTS FOR REQUIRED DEPTH AND DIAMETER. MINIMUM HEIGHT 12" THICK LAYER OF TO 5FT, MINIMUM DIAMETER = 28" 2-4" ROUND ROCK BETWEEN ~4 n PIT UNING AND EARTH WALL, UP TO THE LID.: IN ~ 1. Provide, protection from all vehicle traffic, equipment staging, and foot traffic In proposed Infiltration areas prior to, during, and after construction. Exhibit 2-36: Dryweil Sizing Table Once approval has been given by BDS for onsite Infiltration of stormwater, 2. Siting criteria; Gravelly sand, gravelly loamy sand, or other the following chart shall be used. to select the number and size of drywelis. equally porous material must occur in a continuous 5' deep ray boxes are acceptable. stratum within 12' of the ground surface. IMPERVIOUS 28" Diameter 48" Diameter 3. Sizing:' Exhibit 2-36 is used to appropriately size the . Area Dryweil Depth Drywell Depth drywell(s) based an the amount of impervious area that (sq-ft) 5' LD 15' 2171' s' 10' 15' zo - - each drywell Is designed to manage. This chart shall be 1000 used as guidance, is based on field experience, and should 2000 be used as minimums only. 3000 4. Drywell shall not be installed where base of facility has less 4000 than 10' of separation to water table. 5000 6000 5, Top of'drywell must be below lowest finished floor. 7000 8000 _ 6. Setbacks (from center of facility): 9000 _ a.1 O' from foundations tooo0 b. 5' from property lines c. 20' from cesspools. 7. Piping shall be'ABS SCH40, cast iron; or PVC SCH40. 3" pipe must be used for up to 1500sf of impervious area, otherwise 4" minimum. Piping must have 1% grade and must follow current Uniform Plumbing Code, - DRAWING NOT TO SCALE' - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL TYPICAL DETAILS Simplified / Presumptive Design Approach- NUMBER Drywell SW-170 Bureau ofEnvironmentai Services PROPEF ZONING ASSESS nl I I / 777 OAK - 1C~1L,. I LOTCO\ 2 s c PRO 0: PROPO' x~w.v PROPO: PROPOf saioox TOTAL L TOTALL TOTAL F ww wuo„ BUILDINi "'ro ...rte GHFA F( GHFA F( GHFAT( GHFAT( GHFA TI L r GHFAT( L t OFF STI PROPO FLAG D PROJECT SITE X PROPO PROPO CITY OF ASHLAND we y HT. OF TYPE/ SETH SETBAi VICINITY MAP (1803.4 'AVG. "AVG. I IPARIAN - / _ T CKLINE C ION (37.5'V 7 - - - / PROPOSED- 1 r^ 7 ` I ss GAAGE i E~r.. TOE D, (sue w(caAOE7 210'-0° - I RY - f 720 SF OV 0 H 64SIDENCE €X _ BE REM .7 MTR WALLS T BASE ~I ~ O REMAIN / ) ECEV 9jj91 - / PROPO ~ ~ / REPLAC$I SINGLE 41 I' T I ~TJ~2E~ DECK NF 391E040A 2707 RI ARIA~-R ZONE: R1.5 T! SETBACK LINE /I I N,~ -FIN1.02 ACRE ISHED FLR _ 7/ ELEV~N94.75' - REMOV SF RESIDENCE DENCE / _ _ ~ yn70 ~Jj' --BASEF ////TOP OF BA, ASHLAND tNICJPAL SF RE O SIS C~Nl E C ODE 16.63,630 qq' PI I CIYEAOR FLOOD LV, E P DR L _ FCOOD S F /~ll. / l~~/•~jj~~ / 1 I EIEV.=193---- v _ - ~~/i~~-- N 8 _ 30 .17' / / / rte / 0 20 40 60 -J - cy) M / --&ITE PLAN N - v - CD - - - CALIRSIDENCE V A t t L, IPARIAN - / ( \ T ACK LINE C/TION (37.5')® - 1 '172/1 r i TC - 01-011 RY lo % (E) 720 SF ti / dOV PO H/RESIDENCE BE REMO WALLS TO PROPOS REPLACEME r- ~ SINGLE WN T 77 777 OAk 391 E04CA yy 00000/' Y OF ASHLAIKID-=~ ZONE: I I f / 50 RIPARIAN SETBACK LINE® ~ ~ I ~►P ' ~ ~y~i~ 1.02 AC I__EINISHED ELEV - I-7 / / / I I I ►r '/A -'TOP OF BA K' PEF~ REMO 680 Ir L ASHLAND IV NI90AL / I j - \ $ 0 SF REST CE CODE 16330 CITY OF ASHLAND 109-7- D E L YEAR FLOOD LVNE RY l 1 1 ® d T _ BASE F~ ~_o° D - ors f (.0 r - "5 N 8 3' - 305.11 7 9 4 SITE PLAN CD N - (h / LIMIT O CITY OF ASHLAND 50'RIPARIAN SETBACK LINE / AND WRPZ BOUNDARY PROPERTY LINE l/ L -lwv_ #39 O LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND YEAR FLOOD LINE AND FLOODPLAIN / 5 CORRIDOR B UFIDARY / RJR / ~ ~ I 7 111 / / Ir-------- / +#30 - - - ~Q#26 (P)RESIDENCE/ / I 0 #25 TREES TO BE / PRESERVED ~ G #2a / #23 LIMITOFCITYOF g ASHLAND 50' RIPARIA S N~ I 4 Q / O ETBACK LIN I r -I AND WRPZ BOUNDARY SEDIMENT FENCE I - i / #22 SEDIMENT FENCE a21 I / I5 II"T(:F CITf OF ASHLA D1o0-~ / I I 0 / vF °LC,ORtI AND I / LcU_FFAiNCp RIGOR L--I RO NDARY L------ 1 I I I \ \ ( TREEPROTECTIONFENCE \ 111 REA90VE AN TREE UNDER 1 6° CAL ALONG THIS v PROPERTY EDGE +#20 #19 #1 nn #16 3 C 1.0 0 -PROPERTY LINE V SEE NOTES ON SHEET L-1- TREEINVENTORY THE TREE PROTECTION TREE# SPECIES DBH HEIGHT CROWN RADIUS CONDITION SPECIES TOLERANCE ZONE NOTES IN INCHES IN FEET IN FEET TO CONSTRUCTION RADIUS IN FEET 1 DOUGLAS FIR 12 32 14 GOOD MODERATE 9 TO REMAIN 2 INCENSE CEDAR 9 26 12 GOOD MODERATE 6.75 TO REMAIN 3 INCENSE CEDAR 9 25 12 FAIR MODERATE 6.75 TO REMAIN 4 INCENSE CEDAR 10 25 11 GOOD MODERATE 7.5 TO REMAIN 5 DOUGLAS FIR 9 35 13 FAIR MODERATE 6.75 TO REMAIN 6 BLACK POPLAR 64 60 45 FAIR POOR 80 MULTI TRUNK W/ SLIME FLUX IN SEAM. LIFTING ELECTRIC BOX/TO REMAIN O 7 INCENSE CEDAR 8 22 7 GOOD MODERATE 6 TO REMAIN ° 8 INCENSE CEDAR 10 28 9 GOOD MODERATE 7.5 TO REMAIN 9 INCENSE CEDAR 6 17 5 GOOD MODERATE 4.5 TOREMAIN 10 INCENSE CEDAR 13 30 12 GOOD MODERATE 9.75 TOREMAIN 11 BLACK PINE 18 33 15 FAIR GOOD 13.5 SEVERE LEAN /TO REMAIN 12 INCENSE CEDAR 9 28 8 FAIR MODERATE 6.75 LEANING, SLAB SIDED/TO REMAIN 13 INCENSE CEDAR 11 30 6 GOOD MODERATE 8.25 TO REMAIN 14 BLACK LOCUST 9 35 15 FAIR GOOD 6.75 MULTI TRUNK / TO BE REMOVED 15 AMERICAN ELM 13 42 13 GOOD GOOD 9.75 TO BE REMOVED 16 BLACK LOCUST 8 32 10 FAIR GOOD 6 TO REMAIN 17 BLACK LOCUST 10 42 12 FAIR GOOD 7.5 TO REMAIN LEA 18 DOUGLAS FIR 11 43 9 FAIR MODERATE 8.25 TO REMAIN 19 DOUGLAS FIR 13 45 10 FAIR MODERATE 9.75 TO REMAIN 20 ALDER 20 50 21 GOOD POOR 25 TO REMAIN 21 WILLOW 12 30 18 POOR MODERATE 9 LARGE ROTTING WOUND AT SEVERED ODOMINANT STEM / TO BE REMOVED 22 PONDEROSA PINE 12 48 12 FAIR GOOD 6 CODOMINANTTOP/ TO REMAIN 23 INCENSE CEDAR 10 28 10 GOOD MODERATE 7.5 TO REMAIN 24 DOUGLAS FIR 6 30 6 GOOD MODERATE 4.5 TO REMAIN 25 INCENSE CEDAR 9 30 8 GOOD MODERATE 6.75 TO REMAIN 25 DOUGLASFIR 6 28 8 FAIR MODERATE 4.5 TO REMAIN 27 DOUGLAS FIR 10 38 9 FAIR MODERATE 7.5 TO REMAIN 28 DOUGLAS FIR 11 39 10 FAIR MODERATE 8.25 TO BE REMOVED 29 DOUGLAS FIR 10 37 8 POOR MODERATE 7.5 TO BE REMOVED 30 ALDER 13 39 14 FAIR POOR 16.25 CORRECTED LEAN /TO REMAIN 31 ALDER 15 33 12 POOR POOR 18.75 DEAD TOP AND TRUNK/ TO BE REMOVED 32 ALDER 14 45 15 FAIR POOR 17.5 EIGHT DEGREE LEAN / TO REMAIN 33 ALDER 16 45 17 GOOD POOR 20 TO REMAIN 34 ALDER 10 38 12 POOR POOR 12.5 DEAD TOP /TO BE REMOVED 35 ALDER 13 38 13 POOR POOR 16.25 DEAD TOP /TO BE REMOVED 36 ALDER 17 42 15 POOR POOR 21.25 DEAD TOP ,TO REMAIN 37 BLACK PINE 8 25 8 FAIR GOOD 4 TO REMAIN 38 BLACKPINE 9 29 9 FAIR GOOD 4.5 TO REMAIN 3F 39 LELAND CYPRESS 11 40 10 GOOD GOOD 5.5 TO REMAIN 40 DOUGLAS FIR 9 39 8 GOOD GOOD 4.5 TO REMAIN A. 1 41 LELAND CYPRESS 10 41 9 GOOD GOOD 5 TOREMAIN t 42 LELAND CYPRESS 11 41 10 GOOD GOOD 5.5 TOREMAIN 43 LELAND CYPRESS 9 36 9 GOOD GOOD 4.5 TO REMAIN B. A C.T 44 LELAND CYPRESS 14 36 14 GOOD GOOD 7 TO REMAIN 45 ENGLISH WALNUT 8 2g 13 GOOD POOR 8 TO BE REMOVED E 46 DOUGLAS FIR 8 30 9 GOOD MODERATE 6 TO BE REMOVED 47 DOUGLAS FIR 8 35 7 GOOD MODERATE 6 TO BE REMOVED E 48 LELAND CYPRESS 12 38 10 GOOD GOOD 6 TO BE REMOVED 49 PONDEROSA PINE 14 40 13 GOOD GOOD 7 TO BE REMOVED D B z t E. A a T F. It rf rc / LIA9ITOF CITY OF ASHLAND RIPARIAN SETBACK LINE AND W RPZ BOUNDARY O~ PROPERTY LINE / ~ _ ~ LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 160 ~//j11y1_ _ O YEAR FLOOD LINE AND FLOODPLAIN. CORRIDORS UNDARY ENHANCED RIPARIAN AREA - / I MEADOW - RAISED / PLANTER (P) CONCRETE PATIO GARDEN - ~ r - RAISED LLAN PLANTER GARDEN L_ i _ PALAN ER I DININGNANDTE / / 00 LOUNGE PATIOS (P) (P) RESIDENCE (P)LOUNGE AREA ~ I (P) WOODCHIP (P) DINING AREA 1 RIPARIAN PATH „ I Q' / 1 J Q LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 50' RIPARIAN \ (P) PERVIOUS PAVERS PLANTER r - RAISE SETBACK LIN OR CONCRETE WALK I / AND WRPZ BOUNDARY / WITH PLANTED - I I GARDE 1 JOINTS I _-J ~ (P) CONCRETE PATIO I / ✓ AND STEPS I Q L / ENHANCED RIPARIAN AREA I I / Q I/ MEADOW GARDEN I / / I i I I ~ I `III Jp LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 100 ( v I YEAR FLOOD LINE AND ; L FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 1 L_-- ('---J -J l ~'6 O (P) 6.5' SOLID FENCE WITH BREAK AWAY PANELS AT PROPERTY LINE Q L Q PROPERTY LINE N l \ AN OFASHLAND LIMIT0 CITY 50'RIPARI-SETBACK LINE D W 7 BOUNDARY PROPERTYLINE ~ / V YVV LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 160 _ O YEAR FLOOD LINE AND FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR BQU(~DARY / 179 .46 / / ; A 1 2-15" TREADS I / 3-5° RISERS /-18° OF ON SITE FILL j / +794. 1793.15 BS+ 7S - Y / 1794.6 FS, r L 179 46 rl F -J// - / 18 OF FILL - I I FS 1794.6 , gyp- V?/ / ~ / /Pe / / O \ \ I +~Tw 1794[418 18° OF FILL 2-15"TREADS / ( 1794.6 ~O❑ /QO~ ` 3-5'RISERS +TSIns.44Aa (P) RESIDENCE 2% / I ~0 / i 11793.29 BS+ FF 1794.75 +FS 1794.6 +/-18" OF ON ON SITE FILL ° LIMIT OF ICPCITY AR OF I +'?VU 7 48 4 I( / / ASHLAND 50 RIPARIAN/ SETBAC I 2-15RISERS AND WRPZ BOUNDARY DARY / I 3-5-RISERS 1793.29 BS+ I _ J ~ / I ( +FS 1794.6 IK / +TS 1794.48 +1-18" FILL SLOPE TO NATURAL GRADE Q -I LIMIT OF CINOFASHLAND 100 `I'mo I - YEAR FLOOD LINE AND FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR I L +/-181 OF FILL BOUNDARY I L___-_ Jr---J -PROPERN LINE GRADING CALCULATIONS FOR AREAS WITHIN THI BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AREA 151.8 CY STRUCTURAL FILL PROPOSED TO BE IMPORTED FOR B 75.5 CY STRUCTURAL FILL AND PAVING PROPOSED TO BE IMPI 104.1 CY ON SITE FILL (GENERATED FROM BUILDING EXCAVATIC 331.4 CY TOTAL PROPOSED FILL FOR DEVELOPED CONSTRUCTI 357.8 CY CUT PROPOSED FOR BUILDING FOUNDATION AREA 26.4 CY REMAINING FILL GENERATED FROM BUILDING EXCAVA RESTORATION POND AREA 26.4 CY ON SITE FILL (REMAINING FILL GENERATED FROM BUIL 17.2 CY ON STE FLL FROM REGRADING SURROUNDING CUT A PROJECT TOTALS 227.3 CY HAUL OFF GENERATED FROM BUILDING EXCAVATION or 'Y NETCUT/ FILL / LIMITO CITYOFASHLAND v SO' RIPARIAN SETBACK LINE AND WRPZ BOUNDARY • PROPERTY LINE X X X / LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 160 YEAR FLOOD LINE AND FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR BO/UNDARY i / w W w w w w w w X X 0- RHOS I / w w w w w 6-RIBS / / I w w w w WOOD CHIP PATH 0 MAR. -n/ / / / / i w w w w w I NATNE SHADE h91X w w W w W I} (E) TREES w w y w w w o / / • w v I / / I ~ I ~ W y w w w / i w ~ W w w ~ C / / / / / I w wNATIVE SHADE MIX NATIVE SHADE MIX 5-DAPO w w / / / / w W w Ir,.. 1 • CORN / / w w w 2-ACEC i W ww w ww r jw 1-ACEC 0 It 1-CORE DECORATIVE ~4- o ( w w w BOULDERS AND GRAVEL / O~~ / ~ o \ w w W w ~ I 6-ZANT Z o/ %~Sl / JJ"' / O \ \ w w w' W w w w _ - 1-PAEO - = Z Z Z / J w w 'w w. SUN COLOR MIX2 o /QO~ o s'-~\ f. w w w w w ( (P) RESIDENCE / y f _.C1 w w w ~J• w w~ w O I I / Y NATNE bHAUE MIX LO L 1 / / J r'Y w w w W w;~) w w W~ W 1-CHOT 4 - DAPO / / Iw w W ~V w w/I In \ 21 CD I 1-PAEO I ° / / / ~ O f( f) Y w w ~ w w Y~ w 6 PIEJ O LIMIT OF CITY OF W w w w w SUN COLOR MIX 2 wi r I r. _ ) / •o , ASHLAND SO' RIPARIA SETBACK LINE (E)TREES y- / w w w I w w w \ AND WRWZ BOUWDARYY 9-RHOC / ( rI ~ w w W/ w W w w w Iw w w ) --l I i / w w w w w Y w I w- ( 0 / NATIVL aH4L>E 0.11X ~ \ w w Y~ w w w w IY w w w l 1CJ/ ✓ w y / ~ O ~ w w w w w w I . L~ / / l o / w w w w w w w w. w w w I I r-w v/ w w w w w w j w ¢ 5• PAEO V / t / w w w w Y ~v w w 41 3-CHOT (P) WOODCHIP I I t8-PIEJ / RIPARIAN PATH w w w MEADOW MIX Y w w w w w w w w w -CORE A\ / w w w w w w I w w 1- MAGS w ~v- W w y w w w W w w w w OT \ w w w Iw w w w w w w w w wI w w w SUN COL(iR. 0 3-CH 811X2. ! I' 71X w /w w W w w w wY w (w w w LIMIT OF CITY OF ASHLAND 100 X R 0 ✓ w w w w w w IW w YEAR FLOOD LINE ANDY w w w I w w w P. j w w w w w w w FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR w. w w w w 1, - 1 R J \ X w w W w w w W W BOU,NDAR W W I1 w w w X X w w w wI w w w w w w w w Y( w w W w V, w w W w W w w 'Y w ~ w w G C C w w ~ w C t 6 O + o -PROPERTY LINE S-RHOO In 10-PRUL Vv e-MAHA 7-RHAC 6 -RIBS 7 - CHAE 4-RHOS SEE NOTES AND PLANT LEGEND ON SHEET L-0.1 WATER RESOURCED PROTECTION ZONE(WRPZ) MITIGATION NOTES PLANT LEGEND SECURING TIES USE RUBBER HOSE AT BARK 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL IDENTIFY AND ESTABLISH WRPZ BOUNDARY, CATEGORY S} SET UP TREE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL AND SEDIMENT MEASURES PER DWGS PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON SITE. TREES W.I. 2. STOCKPILING OF SOIL IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN WATER RESOURCE AC PROTECTION ZONE(WRPZ). AC 3. REMOVE NOXIOUS AND'INVASIVE VEGETATION WITHIN DISTURBED AC AREA OF WRPZ PRIOR TO PLANTING. CA 4. PROPOSED NATIVE GRASS SEED PLANTING SHALL OCCUR AT FIRST CO 1X4 BRACING OPPORTUNITY AFTER COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PER CO MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. MA 5. PROPOSED PLANTING WITHIN WRPZ SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 50% COVERAGE AFTER ONE YEAR AND 90% COVERAGE AFTER FIVE 2' WOOD STAKES (3) YEARS, SET ROOT CROWN 2" 6. PROPOSED NATIVE GRASS SHALL BE IRRIGATED ONLY AS NEEDED ABOVE FINISH GRADE - PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. TREES AND SHADE MIX SHRUBS, WITHIN WRPZ SHALL BE PERMANENTELY IRRIGATED WITH DRIP MULCH: 2" MIN. KEEPING MULCH 1' IRRIGATION AND MULCHED WITHIN A 3' RADIUS. PERENNIALS AR AWAY FROM TRUNK 7. PROVIDE TEMPORARY FENCING TO ALL (P) TREES OUTSIDE OF AND GRASSES CH FENCE TO PROTECT FROM DEER. REh40VE AFTER 2 YEARS. CH SOIL SAUCER: USE PREPARED B. ALL PLANTED MATERIAL WITHIN THE WRPZ SHALL BE EVALUATED DAI SOIL MIX 4' YEARLY TO ASSESS HEALTH. TREE AND SEEDED AREAS THAT DO NOT PAS GERMINATE AND THRIVE/SURVIVE AFTER TWO YEARS SHALL BE PAI IG:z ROPES AT TOP OF BALL SHALL BE REPLACED BY OWNER. PIE CUT. REMOVE TOP Y, OF BURLAP. 9. UNPAVED TRAIL THROUGH RIPARIAN ZONE SHALL NOT EXCEED 36' PR' NON-BIO-DEGRADABLE MATERIAL AND SHALL BE UNDER 20% SLOPE. RR SHALL BE TOTALLY REMOVED. 10. IN AREAS PROPOSED FOR PLANTING ENHANCEMENT. NATIVE PLANT RH MATERIAL SHALL BE LOCATED TO ENHANCE RIPARIAN ZONE, STABILIZE RH THE CREEK BANK AND ENHANCE WILDLIFE HABITIAT. RH BACKFILL WITH PREPARED MIX OF 25% RIE IMPORTED COMPOST AND TOPSOIL AND TR 2 X BALL 75%NATIVE SOIL PLANTING NOTES FOR AREAS OUTSIDE WRPZ ZAI DIA. MIN. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL 1. PLACE 6' COMPOST/TOPSOIL BLEND, TBD, IN ALL TREE & SHRUB NOTE: STAKE TREES ONLY IF NEEDED AND PLANTING AREAS. REMOVE AFTER 2 YEARS MAXIMUM 2. INSTALL SOIL IN 3' LIFTS AND TILL THOROUGHLY TO BLEND W/ EXISTING SOIL. SUN 3. REMOVE NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE VEGETATION PRIOR TO MIXES/ C 1 TREE PLANTING DETAIL PLANTING. GROUNDCOVER 6 4. PLANT ALL TREES AND SHRUBS PER DETAIL 1 & 2. 5. PROVIDE PERMANENT AUTOMATED IRRIGATION TO ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS EXCEPT IN SEEDED MEADOW AREAS, WHICH SUN SHALL BE IRRIGATED ONLY AS REQUIRED PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. 6. MULCH PLANTING AREAS - THAT ARE NOT SEEDED AFTER INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIAL WITH 3' OF DARK MULTIBARK, EQUAL. 7. 7. PROVIDE TEMPORARY FENCING TO ALL (P) TREES TO PROTECT h9EP SHRUBS SHALL BE SLIGHTLY FROM DEER. REMOVE AFTER 2 YEARS. I HIGHER IN RELATION TO L FINISHED GRADE ANNUA MULCH 3" MIN PRUNE DAMAGED OR DESICCATED ROOTS SHADE, GENTLY COMPACTED SOIL MIX T SCARIFY PIT BOTTOM NATIVE 150- (6")MIN. r .5 X DIAMETER O L ROOT BALL 2 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 12 3C~ 03 M O ' HOUSE FINISHED FLOOR HT: 1794.75' T.O. F.F. 1794.75 NATURAL GRADE: 1793.00' m NAT. GRADE 1793.00' BASE FLOOD ELEVATION: 1792.75' < RAWL CRAWL GRADE: 1791.17 N 4 STR C . FILL EXCAVATION DEPTH: 1790.17' (REPLACED) SECTION NORTH ELEVAT SCALE: 3/16" = V-0" ELEVATION KEY NOTES Q ARCH. COMPOSITION ASPHALT SHINGLE RO Q HIP ROOF WITH LOW 3:12 PITCH HORIZONTAL SIDING Q VERTICAL SIDING Q5 STUCCO SIDING © COLORS TO BE ALL NATURAL TONES i C I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /T OUTLINE OF (E) RESIDENCE WEST ELEVATION N a <r N V N d' O N N N 12 I 4 71 .I - - - - NAT. GRADE 1793.0( OUTLINE OF REMOVED RESIDENCES SOUTH ELEVATION SCA ELEVATION KEY NOTES Q1 ARCH. COMPOSITION ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING Q2 HIP ROOF WITH LOW 3:12 PITCH O3 HORIZONTAL SIDING ® VERTICAL SIDING t~5 STUCCO SIDING © COLORS TO BE ALL NATURAL TONES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \ r- r I cy) I I I T.O. F.F. 1794.75' NAT, GRADE I I - I - OUTLINE OF REMOVED RESIDENCES EAST ELEVATION (V _ O 61 6 6 T.O. F.F. 1794.25' NAT.GRADE1793.00. SOUTH ARl z r N C 6 Q. 6 co <r co <r C\j NORTH AF N W N N ~ I SCALE, C' = 20' 10' 20 40' 80' CONTOUR INTERVAL = ONE FOOT 12' A1DfR _ -174D- I F CR O SCRU SO' ryI( 6" CEMA 17" RfPARiAN SERUCK LVlE~~/ 10* SV1M1£Y CGVIIROL /400: i II' CE➢AR~ 10 f' I6°ALOF '7 OBS ELEYAR01l H92.J0% rJ' / "RW OF ggNK' PO? ASNIAND wrACmx caoE rasJ.ow q,(a , l i ~rr oaE 77 '(NK SINCE, 9 C0.4CR£>t' / EVAM4YRESaIOD:CE 119J.6, \ (r\ _ 1~ FR<vn as 1 G i \ ~a _ ~jJ•'/ 12" FlR few / c Nk Pte! -CK ISAo. a r00 AR ftO UYE Gturr OF ASINANO rz0o0 1 12' CE - / I II~ PRO/ECR011 ZONE 1 / ~l~ AVEY C0."AR • - ~ I / ~FL 4770N ~ Il9 S 6 4 /1p \ 1 Cox M&I.r ry • 1 I I ~ 25~~ 9' WX` / / ~ \ _il ~ TOPAGE N H 7J~E,,,,,IJOH.I1' ' / / /0 1 SHED f \r 6 C l I" WAUfI? \ I / I23 FIR to- EEOVt ' , ! 4i T i±' Flg ~ rz' wA1NVr 11' cEaw n' cEnia / -~=9" WAUIUI I9' ALDER I I SURVEYNOTES 1. THE BASIS OF VERTICAL COVTAOL FOR THIS SUR VEY IS A CM'OF BEVCIEWARK BRASS DISC IN MONUMENT WELL AT THE CENTERT IT OAKSTREET. BEVCH,,\fARKELEVATIOV=ISIZ915'BASEDONTHEI GEODETIC VETICAL OAM,%f OF 1929, ADJUSTED 1N 1956 (NGi'D 29/50 I 2. EXPOSED UTHITYSHOIYN HEREON WERE FIELD LOCH TED IN THE PERFORAGINCEOFTIILSSURVEY. eURJED UTILIT}'LOCATIONS {VE DETERhIINED BY UTILIZING A COIIDINATION OF FIELD SURVEYED NIARKS, ND"A.S-BUILT" RECORD DRA{VING.SIURNtSHED DYTHER UTILITYCD:IIPANY RI:PRFSEN-T11'E5, ARE APPROXIMATE AND SI I HEREONFORGRAPHICPURPO.SESONL}. F/EIVVERIFtCATIONOF, UTILITIES ,t1UST 1tE PERFORMED PRIOR TO ANV EXCAVATIONOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. I Assessor's Map No. 39 1E 04 CA, Tox Lot 2707 POLARIS LA ~j 4 ZONING APPLICATION PERMIT Planning Division C I T Y O 51 Winbum Way, Ashland QR.97520 ,AS -E il_ AN 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing I EEDQ Certification? 0 YES ONO Street Address 777 Oak s r Assessor's Map No. 3$1 E 04C A Tax Lot(s) 2707 Zoning R-1-5 Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT Name Martha Howard - Bullcn Phone 541.301.8391 E-Main nat-rha +amhbnowcom . 124 Morninglight Drive A hfand Address City Zip M,20 PROPERTY OWNER Name Marzha €-lowud - Bulfen Phone S4I' 301.8391 E-Mail rnartha(q_)mhbnow c6m Address 124 Mormn,,ftht Drive City Ashland Zip 97520 SURVEYOR. ENGINEER; ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, HER Title Name Cv!oo Delgado Architect LLC Phone E-Mail c~ los~a?cariosd~igzcioar~l~ E~~t~ofn Address 217 Fcwth Street City Ashland Z11) 97520 Title Name Phone E-Mail Address city Zip i 1 hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. 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 frill responsibility. I further understand that If this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that t produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request' 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting ofthe request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or Improvements are property located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely In not ly he to est being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to removed at my expense. If i hole any doubts I adv' d to competent professional a vie and assistance. o ;7,0/ Applicant's Signatu Date As owner of the property inv ed in this r t, l have read and understood the complete application and its consequences tome as a property her. Pr erty Owner's ntiare rrequlred) Date [To be awMWted by City Staff} Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee nVFR ►A 1 € >z Job Address: 777 OAK ST Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A Owner's Name: MARTHA HOWARD-BULLEN O Phone: P Customer 07650 N State Lie No: P MARTHA HOWARD-BULLEN City ~ Y Ci Lic No: Applicant: 124 MORNINGLIGHT DR R I Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: (541) 301-8391 T Address: N Applied: 03/04/2014 0 T Issued: Expires: 08/31/2014 Phone: State Lie No: Maplot: 391 E04CA2707 City Lie No: DESCRIPTION: Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit CUP for an ARU VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL i i PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Physical Constraints Permit 998.00 CUP Accessory Residential 649.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 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 T F I i I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts understood and agreed to the following: Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 (180 days). 2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 1,647.00 $ 0.00 or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Sub-Total: $ 1,647.00 Fees Paid: $ 0 Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 1,647.00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us CITY F Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 -YxSHLAND