Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWrights Creek_753_PA-2014-01219 CITY OF ASHLAND August 15, 2014 Notice of Final Decision On August 15, 2014, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: 2014-01219 Subject Property: 753 Wright's Creek Applicant/Owner: Suncrest Homes Description: A request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the construction of a single-family home on slopes greater than 25 percent for the property located at 753 Wright's Creek. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05CD; TAX LOTS: 410 The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13t" day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of one 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. Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.108.070(B)(2)(b) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2)(c). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are 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 Michael Pina in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-088-5305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900-- WV c_: r.tts I_;%~ 5 SECTION 18.108.070(13)2 Effective Date of Decision and Appeals. B. Actions subject to appeal: 2. Type I Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. The final decision of the City for plamiing actions resulting from the Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is mailed unless reconsideration of the action is approved by the Staff Advisor or appealed to the Commission as provided in section 18.108.070(B)(2)(c). b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider Type I planning actions as set forth below. i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City Agency may request reconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the staff advisor, might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of mailing. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three (3) days whether to reconsider the matter. iii. If the Planning Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten (10) days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Staff Advisor shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. iv. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. c. Appeal. i. Within twelve (12) days of the date of the mailing of the Staff Advisor's final decision, including any approved reconsideration request, the decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any party entitled to receive notice of the planning action. The appeal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary on a form approved by the City Administrator, be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to City Council action, and be received by the city no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 12th day after the notice of decision is mailed. ii. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the city and whose boundaries include the site. iii. The appeal shall be considered at the next regular Planning Commission or Hearings Board meeting. The appeal shall be a de novo hearing and shall be considered the initial evidentiary hearing required under ALUO 18.108.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission or Hearings Board decision on appeal shall be effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the parties. iv. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.nr.us /L _ ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2014-01219 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 753, Wright's Creek APPLICANT: Suncrest Homes OWNERS: Betty Jane Hulse Trust DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the construction of a single-family home on slopes greater than 25 percent for the property located at 753 Wright's Creek. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05CD; TAX LOTS: 410 SUBMITTAL DATE: July 14, 2014 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: July 21, 2014 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: August 15,.2014 APPEAL DEADLINE: August 27, 2014 APPROVAL. EXPIRATION DATE: August 28, 2015 DECISION The subject property is located on the west side of Wrights Creek Drive, between Wimer Street and Grandview Drive. The presently vacant 11,499 square foot parcel (including the flag drive) is zoned R-1=10, Single-Family Residential, and contains slopes greater than 25 percent within a horseshoe-shaped fill that was placed on the lot by previous owner. Wrights Creek Drive, which has a right-of-way width of 45 feet and an improved width of approximately 27 feet, is improved with curbs and gutters but lacks sidewalks and park rows. There are blackberries and other vegetation within the horseshoe shaped fill in the center of the lot, and two mature Oak trees along the west boundary line. Access to the lot is through a partially improved flag drive. In 1976, a two-lot partition approved the division of the parent parcel into two separate lots (M76-277). A year later in 1977, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat and master plan for future development known as the Lithia Heights Subdivision. Beginning in the mid-eighties, the Planning Commission approved a series of partitions consistent with the master plan proposal (PA-84-010 and PA-86-055), including the one that created the subject parcel in 1990 (PA-90-015).. This application proposes to construct a 2,363 square foot single-family residence with daylight basement on the downhill (south) elevation, and attached 484 square foot garage on the north side. All hillside development projects require a Geotechnical Design Report to determine the parcel's geologic suitability for construction. The applicant has hired Marquess and Associates to prepare a site evaluation and geotechnical investigation report. The report dated May 14, 2014, notes that the fill slopes appear to be relatively stable, and sees no need to repair or modify them, therefore recommends that the proposed home utilize the fill slopes as part of the home's foundation. The report concludes that the site is suitable for development of a Single-Family home if the recommendations for development are followed. Staff will require periodic inspections in order to assure compliance with the geotechnical expert's recommendations during construction. All recommendations noted in the applicant's Geotechnical Report shall become conditions of approval. PA-2014-01219 753 Wrights Creek DrAT Page 1 The Physical & Environmental chapter includes hillside design standards in order to reduce hillside disturbance by incorporating slope responsive design techniques that utilizes architectural features to reduce the effective visual bulk of the home. AMC 18.62.080.C. prohibits downhill vertical walls greater than 20 feet, exclusive of decks. Furthermore, AMC 18.62.080.D also requires a six-foot vertical offset on horizontal building planes longer than 36 feet. The proposed home utilizes the existing fill slopes rather than re-grade the property, which results in less land disturbance. The proposed home complies with the maximum height requirement of 35 feet from natural grade, and the downhill elevation is 19 feet. The main (top) floor will have the master suite, kitchen, a dining and living area that provides a six-foot horizontal offset, and a 249 square foot deck along the west elevation. The bottom floor will have two bedrooms, one bath, and unfinished storage areas. The home's roof proposes no gable ends and is broken up into a number alternating rooflines to add interest and break up the visual mass. The exterior color has yet been determined, but that applicant asserts it will be an earth tone to minimize the contrast between then structure and natural environment, thus blending in to the surrounding neighborhood. Building permit submittals shall demonstrate compliance with these standards and will become conditions of approval. The existing flag drive was approved with a 15-foot width per the 1990 partition approval. AMC 18.76.060 sets standards for flag drives, including a minimum 12-foot paved driving surface placed centrally within the existing flag drive. A concern was raised regarding the construction methodology of the home, and the potential impact on a neighboring property. Staff shares the concern, and therefore will add as condition of approval that a construction and staging plan to be submitted with building permit materials indicating that access to the neighboring property will not impeded and that careful consideration is taken to limit adverse impacts. The tree survey indicates there are only two mature Oak trees along the west property line on- site. The applicant has not proposed remove the trees. The Tree Commission did not have the opportunity to review the application; however, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed development presents the least amount of disturbance, and proposes to retain the trees on-site. A tree protection plan was not submitted with the application, therefore a condition will be added that tree protection shall be installed prior to the issuance of the building permit. Staff finds that the applicant has proposed a home design that is well thought-out given the existing unique constraints of the lot, and has considered all potential hazards of the proposed development and has the least possible impact to the site. The applicant will mitigate each adverse impact, including storm water runoff, slope stability, and tree protection by instituting the recommendations of the geotechnical design report and landscape plans. Approval criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints (P&E) Permit as described in AMC Chapter 18.62.040.1• 1. That the development will not cause damage or hazard to persons or property upon or adjacent to the area of development. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented reasonable measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. 4. That the development is in compliance with the requirements of the chapter and all other applicable PA-2014-01219 753 Wrights Creek DOW Page 2 City Ordinances and Codes. Planning Action 2014-01219 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 2014-01219 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. Building plans shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. 3. That all recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report dated May 14, 2014 by the Marquess and Associates shall be instituted in the development of the property; and that Marquess and Associates be retained until the project is completed and a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Periodic inspections shall be required in order to assure compliance with the geotechnical expert's recommendations during construction. 4. That a construction and staging plan to be submitted with building permit materials indicating that access through the flag drive will not be impeded for the duration of the project. 5. That the tree protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to any site work. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit: a. That written verification from the project geotechnical expert addressing consistency of the building permit submittals with the geotechnical report recommendations (e.g. grading plan, storm drainage plan, foundation plan, etc.) shall be submitted with the building permit submittals. b. That the applicant submit an electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the building permit submittal. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. c. Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 40 percent as required in AMC 18.20 7. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: a. That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met, including but not limited to addressing, gates and fencing, and providing fuel break areas as required per fire code. b. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the house, the geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the home was constructed per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. PA-2014-01219 753 Wrights Creek Dr./MP Pape 3 l _~51ze Bill Aar. nar, irector Date De ariment f Community Development ii PA-2014-01219 753 Wrights Creek Dr./MP 'P.-. Ab3AV-09-006-6 r ,wdn-dod pjogej al jalanaj juawo6jep r 0965 A63AV lljeqe6 aI zes!I. pan ul0'AJaneMMM i S ap ulle ajn43e4 el a zalldaa ! joled a solpe} so:148r 14 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 501 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 104 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 402 CHIGNELL KIMBERLY A GAUTAM SUDHIR GETZOFF HOWARD/LYNN W 507 GRANDVIEW DR 545 FERNWOOD DR 779 WRIGHTS CREEK DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 106 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 502 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 117 GILL ROBERT B/PALMER SARAH E HAINES LLOYD M HOLINBECK DEAN L/DARLENE 19 BAY ST 51 WATER ST 222 550 FERNWOOD DR GREENWICH, 2065 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 408 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 409 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 406 HULSE BETTY JANE HULSE JAMES L/LINDA RAE JONES RICHARD J/LEIGH E .863 WRIGHTS CREEK DR 416 WIMER ST 705 WRIGHTS CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 405 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 102 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 103 KITZMAN DAVID M KNIGHTS RICHARD MAGNUSON LEE/PAULA 1780 NE BEULAH 780 WRIGHTS CRK 585 FERNWOOD DR ROSEBURG, OR 97470 ASHLAND, OR_ 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 500 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 300 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 119 MC DONALD WILLIAM 1 JR ET AL MOYA RICHARD F/MARGO EMRICH RICHARDS JOHN B/MEI-WEN 8621 OAK BRANCH AVE 820 WRIGHTS CREEK RD 590 GRANDVIEW DR BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 412 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 401 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 118 ROBBINS EUGENE K/BRODERSEN B VAN VLECK JON TRUSTEE ET AL WEISS VICTORIA L/NEUJAHR PHILIP 635 WRIGHTS CREEK RD 869 WRIGHTS CREEK DR 590 FERNWOOD DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 200 PA-2014-01219 PA-2014-01219 WIRT-BARTON KEMBERLY A ET AL MARQUESS & ASSOCIATES SUNCREST HOMES 509 WIMER ST 1120 E JACKSON ST P.O. BOX 1313 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 TALENT, OR 97540 PA-2014-01219 753 Wrights Creek Drive 08/15/2014 NOD 21 ® r w,a6p3 do-dod asodxa _ jaded peaj r ®0969 aleldwaj. (sfamv asn 1090E (D01 aull 6uole puss slags 1 mlaad Ase3 Alpualado:)3 ti 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 August 15, 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 #2014-01219, 753 Wrights Creek. Sig ture of Employee Documentl W15/2014 0 Zimbra https://zimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=41685 ibra pinam@ashland.or.us Wri hts Creek meeting with the neighbors From : Charlie Hamilton Wed, Aug 06, 2014 02:30 PM <charliehamilton2277@gmail.com> Subject : Wrights Creek meeting with the neighbors To : howlyn@mind.net, michael pina <michael.pina@ashland.or.us> External images are not displayed. Display images below Hi Michael, Today I met with the Howlyn's and we discussed their concerns regarding the driveway. The following is what we have agreed to: I will put up a sign at the entrance to the driveway that says something. like "slow construction traffic - shared driveway no parking" I will be hiring an surveyor to mark the property corners to assure the accurate location of the driveway and all improvements. I will send an email to each of our subcontractors asking them to tell their employee's that it is a shared driveway and to go slow. I told the Howlyn's that if one of the workers drove off the driveway into their planter or stack rock wall that I would be responsible for the damage and would fix/replace damaged item. The Howlyn's are aware that the driveway will not be passable twice during the construction for up to 48 each time for the trenching of the sewer and water line, I will give advance notice and coordinate with their schedule each time. At the conclusion of construction I will be repaving the driveway from Wrights Creek to the new home. I've included the Howlyn's in this email in case their understanding is different than mine. Thank you for your efforts, 1 of 2 8/8/2014 10:03 AM S9"OH 1S9HONAS :ao- ~ y W J OZS16 2JO 'ONVIHSb O1-b 11 0O 50 A 4 6E dVLN r I - - ~I I I ~I ~7 r I i 1 -i b- r , , ( + I v r r r, I _ I Mr Michael Pina Planner, City of Ashland Dear Mr Pina: I am writing in reference to the property that is going to be built on 753 Wright Creek Drive. Though I don't have any issues with a home being built on that property, per se, do have several concerns about how the construction of the home, and the use of our easement, will negatively impact me and my family. I live on 779 Wrights Creek Drive and share the easement that will be used for this proposed home. A portion of the easement is asphalt and is only ten feet wide. From that point, the asphalt ends in dirt and borders our garden. My first concern is that the easement is not wide enough to accommodate traffic from two homes. I believe that the minimum width required is fifteen feet. My second concern is with the existence of the dirt portion of the easement. Because this portion has traditionally seen little car traffic, the fact that it gets very muddy when it rains, has not been a problem. However, the use of cars in this area will make a muddy mess out of the driveway that I share and that I use to access my garage and my home. This has certainly been the case whenever the Hulses, the owners of the property, have used it for this purpose. When Virgil Hulse back-filled the lot with soil fifteen years ago, he made a disaster out of the area, leaving thick muddy tracks on our driveway, cracking the already elderly asphalt and ruining our adjoining garden. I request that this dirt portion of the easement be paved, and that the existing asphalt portion be repaved when the construction is complete. My third concern is the inevitable flow of construction vehicles along the easement. My wife and I both work full time, commute to Grants Pass daily and, being nurses, have odd and unpredictable hours. My expectation is that the construction of this home in no way affects our access to our driveway, nor coming and going to our home. My fourth concern is about damage to our property. It is fully reasonable for me to expect that no damage to our property occur as a consequence of this construction, and that if this does happen, it will be repaired or compensation be made. We have spent a great deal of time cultivating a garden that borders the full length of the easement, as well as building a raised rock planting bed and rock border along the dirt portion of the easement. These improvements are on our property and every attempt should be made by the construction crew to respect this. Our twenty years of experience with Betty Hulse have, unfortunately, been difficult and taxing. I am asking you, Mr Pina, to be our advocate to insure that this project goes smoothly; we certainly appreciate it. Sincerely, Howard and Lynn Getzoff City of Ashland Planning Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 August 3, 2014 Re: Planning Action 2014-01219 @ 753 Wright's Creek Drive Planning Department, I live at 720 Grandview Drive, adjacent to the above property. I would like to express my wish that the two large oak trees remain if/when this property is developed. It would be best if they were pruned for their health as well. Thank you, Lynn McDonald 720 Grandview Drive Ashland, OR 09520 v J. _ 1L 'bit i y A'r r 3 ~ F tom. _ _ _ x I ~ -At ~ - Oak r`. 1 _ tc.v { "ems{ s 1 1 i' N~ P 4 3 . y H. ~ a T r y -44 . 14 ti . p P { y T f _ tikt - .H - 4e JIMA- < 0 1020 40 Feet Property lines are for reference only, not scoleable I _ >,~`:Y~. dry I i~..W ~r =x ~ • 4 7 I 't r t 3 F I r ITT S qs a, # f #k -rte - of " "XU? r'~'@p_ ir' 3 t ~ ; r~ ~ f'7TC+~ _ • ~bC.. ,~Jj ~ ~ sxt~; r ,yam r FTTTTFT-F1 Property lines are for reference only, not scaleable 0 1020 40 Feet ~ 1. .t s r if,gq T f _ i ) \ S i ~ ~ .tee` 4 V t~'~'R' Ae !Y r }I t r to ice=, a .`S r }~td~Xy • lw rt a c F( 4~ - - Y1 r: ~ t . s a 7. t ARA q Y Of y ' ~,C r 1, ty t, ly# 4 4~ ~ d ~E t I a, e F ti; _ a: f f 6 ~ I y t Y a ~ i e ~ 7 y id ~ rw r~~ SH r ~ y 7 t ~ 1t i ~ L ,1 t ~1_4Y. i t` F Z, lx L r a llIaJPLO ` 4 ,,mot r~y~+~1. 1 I~ 1 rk~4~~• - 'l. S" t: i t c7 y r I 4 „ `mac s , .F ,e a ~ CC _ c"t III ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' h^,~1 kr ~ ~ ~-s• r ,;3, ➢,r. C' 7tP r < ti!.f ~A r G t f r &iA jl r r t - ky 7 m f~ L5 ,S yy ti Sx4 a- V t - Ak, N .4 `~*-y- a ~•+ik~.~~rys y. ~ ~a fit ' ~ E 3 'i'ce f.Y J x ~.,~~YY 4x ~ ~ J 7,A YvF 1 ;.Y t~'_ , .~`.y~r J1Fya fry L • K ~ _ 3 t Y ~ pA~► yy►- i ;?~I` ,(fit ~ J~'l z~.. i r L A f ~ ~ 's ~ 7 k Ili l r h lF ~l. 4. y ~I ~ ~•F J r , x wY~ ~ ~ < 3` a 71 M1 ; a ;y . .F -T~`-• III I~ ~ ~ C}f~~tl{~ ~ • ~ ^1`'~ ~~~y ~y~,' ~ t { 6r y ~ 1 t r c At CITY OF Planning Department, 51 Win6utn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 I 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: 2014-01219 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 753 Wrights Creek OWNER: Betty Jane Hulse Trust APPLICANT: Suncrest Homes DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the construction of a single-family home on slopes greater than 25 percent for the property located at 753 Wright's Creels. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05CD; TAX LOTS: 410. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 21, 2014 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: August 4, 2014 779 t 545 585 753 i u FERNWOOD DR U 705 SUBJECT PROPERTY: = 590 753 Wright's Creek cD i - 39 1E '5CD 410 L - 035 590 7201 - 550 O 15 30 60 Feet PA-operty ones are Jbr ref renca only, not -teabte The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staffs decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. Documentl PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONST INTS 18.62.040.1 Criteria for Approval A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (ORD 2808, 1997; ORD 2834,1998; ORD 2951, 2008) i Documend F YI I - f s. 1 : l ' L1 L 1 E=1' + + r i MIA t -TJ All, - r~ ' - Lit 00 -A I I C* =1 01 LJ v! r r d r~ + r ra + A. r~' ~IIi = H~ !t+ I I la `!£f ii I EcoFriendly Easy PeelO Labels i A Bend along line to ®48460Tm! Use Avery@ Template 5160® 'eed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM A PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 501 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 104 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 402 CHIGNELL KIMBERLY A GAUTAM SUDHIR GETZOFF HOWARD/LYNN W 507 GRANDVIEW DR 545 FERNWOOD DR 779 WRIGHTS CREEK DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 106 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 502 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 117 GILL ROBERT B/PALMER SARAH E HAINES LLOYD M HOLINBECK DEAN L/DARLENE 19 BAY ST 51 WATER ST 222 550 FERNWOOD DR GREENWICH, 2065 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 408 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 409 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 406 HULSE BETTY JANE HULSE JAMES L/LINDA RAE JONES RICHARD J/LEIGH E 863 WRIGHTS CREEK DR 416 WIMER ST 705 WRIGHTS CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 405 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 102 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 103 KITZMAN DAVID M KNIGHTS RICHARD MAGNUSON LEE/PAULA 1780 NE BEULAH 780 WRIGHTS CRK 585 FERNWOOD DR ROSEBURG, OR 97470 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-01219 391 E05CD 500', PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 300 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 119 MCDONALD WILLIAM & LYNN' MOYA RICHARD F/MARGO EMRICH RICHARDS JOHN B/MEI-WEN 720 GRANDVIEW DRIVE 820 WRIGHTS CREEK RD 590 GRANDVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 412 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 401 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 118 ROBBINS EUGENE K/BRODERSEN B VAN VLECK JON TRUSTEE ET AL WEISS VICTORIA L/NEUJAHR PHILIP 635 WRIGHTS CREEK RD 869 WRIGHTS CREEK DR 590 FERNWOOD DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-01219 391E05CD 200 PA-2014-01219 PA-2014-01219 WIRT-BARTON KEMBERLY A ET AL MARQUESS & ASSOCIATES SUNCREST HOMES 509 WIMER ST 1120 E JACKSON ST P.O. BOX 1313 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 TALENT, OR 97540 ~ti uettes fatiles a slat Repliez a la hachure afin de , www.averycom r q p Sens de reveler le rebord Po u Mc 1-R00-GO-AVERY i Utilisez le aabarit AVERY@ 5,160® 1 rh.vnmm~n4 P P , 4 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On July 21, 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 #2014-01219, 753 Wrights Creek. p j.r s"'°a Signature of Employee Documend 7121/2014 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Requited I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor i4,hen the Applicant demonstrates the folloiving.- 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. The existing property owner, not the applicant has indicated that some fill was placed on the property 20 years ago to build a road down to the lower parcel and there is a small area where this fill created a small area of slopes over 25%. The applicant hired Marquess & Associates to provide a Geotechnical report, see attached. This report not only dealt with the evaluating of the stability of the fill, erosion control but also how best to deal with the existing fill. The native slope of the lot is 21% see Friar & Associates submitted letter. Together with Marquess & Associates it was decided that the best way to deal with the fill is to place the home right in the middle of the lot and excavate out and remove all of the fill where the house is to go, returning the lot to its original condition. All of the house & garage will sit on native soil and the foundation has been fully engineered by KAS & Associates. Some of the existing fill will remain to backfill back against the foundation once complete, just like we would if there was no fill on the property. In other words this property will have a single family home built on it just like any other lot in town: remove existing soil until you get to hard pan, put in and engineered foundations and backfill with the excavated material; Further more Marquess & Associates has evaluated the stability of the fill from page 3 of 8; "The fill slopes appear to be relatively stable and we do not see a need to repair them or modify them". Also the applicant had Marquess & Associates evaluate the erosion control and their recommendations at the bottom of page 3 of 8 for a sediment fence and protecting disturbed areas with a temporary ground cover, the applicant will be using hay (mulching) until the permanent ground cover as shown in the submitted revegetation plan indicates. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development nzay create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. There are not really any hazards that this development may create in fact this application involves removing the existing fill and building a single family home. So both the stability of the slopes was assessed and erosion control measures created to mitigate any potential hazards of building the single family home. Specifically, the applicant hired Marquess & Associates to provide a Geotechnical report, see attached. This report not only dealt with the evaluating of the stability of the fill, erosion control but also how best to deal with the existing fill. The native slope of the lot is 21% see Friar & Associates submitted letter. Together with Marquess & Associates it was decided that the best way to deal with the fill is to place the home right in the middle of the lot and excavate out and remove all of the fill where the house is to go, returning the lot to its original condition. All of the house & garage will sit on native soil and the foundation has been fully engineered by KAS & Associates. Some of the existing fill will remain to backfill back against the foundation once complete. Marquess & Associates has evaluated the stability of the fill from page 3 of 8 "The fill slopes appear to be relatively stable and we do not see a need to repair them or modify them". Also the applicant had Marquess & Associates evaluate the erosion control and their recommendations at the bottom of page 3 of 8 for a sediment fence and protecting disturbed areas with a temporary ground cover, the applicant will be using hay (mulching) until the permanent ground cover as shown in the submitted revegetation plan indicates. 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 maximum permitted development by the Land Use Ordinance. Again this application involves removing existing fill building a single family home there are not really any adverse impacts on the environment. The only item unique about this project is the existing fill on the property, the stability of the slopes where assessed and the potential erosion control issue where created to protect the surrounding area. Although building a single family home is a fairly permanent action so is the removal of the fill putting the property back towards its original condition and providing permanent erosion control measures to assure stability and mitigating adverse impacts. To review the applicant hired Marquess & Associates to provide a Geotechnical report, see attached. This report not only dealt with the evaluating of the stability of the fill, erosion control but also how best to deal with the existing fill. The native slope of the lot is 21% see Friar & Associates submitted letter. Together with Marquess & Associates it was decided that the best way to deal with the fill is to place the home right in the middle of the lot and excavate out and remove all of the fill where the house is to go, returning the lot to its original condition. All of the house & garage will sit on native soil and the foundation has been fully engineered by KAS & Associates. Some of the existing fill will remain to backfill back against the foundation once complete. Marquess & Associates has evaluated the stability of the fill from page 3 of 8 "The fill slopes appear to be relatively stable and we do not see a need to repair them or modify them". Also the applicant had Marquess & Associates evaluate the erosion control and their recommendations at the bottom of page 3 of 8 for a sediment fence and protecting disturbed areas with a temporary ground cover, the applicant will be using hay (mulching) until the permanent ground cover as shown in the submitted revegetation plan indicates. 18. 62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplenientary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city. A. General Requirements. The following general requireifients shall apply in Hillside Lands: 1. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080. H. a. Existing parcels ivithout adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. The lot was created in 1990 and only one buildable unit is being applied for. The Friar & Associates May 19, 2014 letter indicates that the natural slope of the property is 21%. b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or partitioned. This application is only for the construction of a single family home neither a subdivision nor partition is being requested.The Friar & Associates May 19, 2014 letter indicates that the natural slope of the property is 21 2. All neivly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope ia,ith a slope of 35% or less. This parcel is not a newly created lot, nor a subdivision or partition. The Friar & Associates May 19, 2014 letter indicates that the natural slope of the property is 21% and this is not a newly created lot. 3. New streets, flag drives, and driven ays shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the folloi4,ing exceptions: The Friar & Associates May 19, 2014 letter indicates that the natural slope of the property is 21 % and this is not a newly created lot. Neither new street nor driveway is being requested only use of the existing driveway will be utilized and it is currently at about 7% slope. a. The street is indicated on the City`s Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. Wrights Creek is indicated on the City's transportation map and no new street is being created b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. The Friar & Associates May 19, 2014 letter indicates that the natural slope of the property is 21% and the existing driveway is at 7%, no new driveway or flag is being created with this application. 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, the followng additional information is required: A geotechnical study prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. The study shall include the following information: The applicant hired Marquess & Associates to conduct a geological study for the construction of a single family home on the lot, see submitted May 14t1i report. a.bzdex map. See page 9 of Marquess & Associates May 10' letter for the index map. b. Project description to include location, topography, drainage, vegetation, discussion of previous Work and discussion of f eld exploration methods. As described on Page 2 of the Marquess report, the flag lot gently slopes to the West and South with one Oak and wild grasses. Three test holes were dug to determine the slope stability and depth of exiting fill on the property. Please see attached Marquess report for a more thorough discussion. c. Site geology, based on a surfcial survey, to include site geologic neaps, description of bedrock and surficial materials, including artificial fill, locations of any faults, folds, etc..., and structural data including bedding, jointing and shear zones, soil depth and soil structure. See pages 2 & 3 of the DWGS of the Marquess report for a breakdown of the soil composition basically it ranges silty sand to sandstone. The fill on the property ranges in depth from 1.5' to 6' and as quoted from on Page 3 "the fill slopes appear to be relatively stable and we do not see any need to repair them or modify them" d. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a potential hazard to the site, or that may be affected by on-site development. There are no off-site geological conditions that pose a hazard to the site. The only unique characteristic of this particular site is the placement of fill and as described in the Marquess report all fill is to be removed where the house is to be place, engineered foundations are to be built. Erosion was evaluated and the Marquess report also indicates the recommended erosion control measures that are to be followed to not only protect the site but the surrounding area as well. e. Suitability of site for proposed development from a geologic standpoint. The Marquess report indicates that the site is suitable for a single family home with recommendations on pages 4-8 which the applicant intends to follow. f. Specific recommendations for cut and fill slope stability, seepage and drainage control or other design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards. The existing site will stay pretty much as is with no cuts or fills occurring except for the excavation of the single family home; the only retaining walls will be the foundation of the house as designed by KAS & Associates to follow Marquess & Associates recommendations. No groundwater was observed and the Site drainage recommendations on page 7 are to be followed and on the submitted plans. g. 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 shoiWng subsurface structure, graphic logs With subsurface exploration, results of laboratory test and references. No additional reports were recommended by either Marquess or Kas engineering. h. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist. See page 8 of Marquess report i. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site. No additional reports were recommended by either Marquess or Kas engineering. j. Inspection schedule for the project as required in 18.62.080.B.9. As indicated on Page 7 Marquess has been retained to provide soils monitoring and testing services during the earth work and foundation and drainage installation phases of the project. And as required by KAS & associates they have been retained to inspect all foundation set and rebar prior to pouring of any concrete. k. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation pipelines. Neither irrigations canals nor major irrigation pipelines exist on the property and none are proposed with this application. B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming i4th the following items: 1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to the International Building Code-and be consistent ii,ith the provisions of this Title. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed area The geological report from Marquess conforms to the International Building Code and on Page 3 are the erosion and sediment control recommendations to be followed. 2. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May I to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May I date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon iveather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. This application is for a single family home only, so this section is not applicable. 3. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with. an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from darrrage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25, 000 sq. ft lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. The lot is less than one-half an acre so this section is not applicable. 4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the folloiOng standards shall apply: a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of Which they are composed. Wliere the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained 14'ith stacked rock, retaining 1i)alls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected With erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. Except for the foundation of the house there are no proposed cuts associated with the construction of this house. When complete the site will look every similar to how it looks now, with no exposed cuts. k b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cutfaces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of free feet.. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allo}i, for° the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a nraximurrr vertical height of I5 feet. (See Graphic file attached) The top of cut slopes not utilizing structural retaining 1i~alls shall be located a minimum setback of one-half the height of the cut slope from. the nearest property line. Cut slopes for structure foundations encouraging the reduction of effective visual bulk, such as splitpad or stepped footings shall be exempted from the height limitations of this section. (See Graphic file attached) There are no exposed cut slopes with the construction of this house. When complete ~E x the site will look every similar to how it looks now, with no exposed cuts. c. Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction of top soil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for° these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value Which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine- type plantings may be appropriate. The home being built is a spec house so applicant will be replanting all disturbed areas and installing a temporary timed sprinkler system to assure growth and survival of all grasses, as per the submitted revegatation plan. The new owner will be required to submit final landscape plan for approval 5. Grading -fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a n7inimum of six feetfrom the nearest property line. (Ord 2834 S6, 1998) b. Fill slopes shall be protected ivith an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or ivood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. There are no new fill slopes proposed with this application and the erosion and sediment control recommendations page 3 of Marquess report are to be followed and the revegation plan. The Marquess report indicates that the fill slopes are stable and do not need repair. The Marquess report indicates erosion control measures for all disturbed areas during construction and all recommendations are to be followed. c. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. There are no new fill slopes proposed with this application and as shown on the submitted plans all utilities are on native soils are will be installed to the house after the foundation has been installed. d. Revegetation offill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long- term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on i disturbed areas. The home being built is a spec house so applicant will be replanting all disturbed areas and installing a temporary timed sprinkler system to assure growth and survival of all grasses. The new owner will be required to submit final landscape plan for approval See submitted revegetation plan submitted with this application. 6 Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established ivithin one year of installation. The home being built is a spec house so applicant will be replanting all disturbed areas and installing a temporary timed sprinkler system to assure growth and survival of all grasses. The new owner will be required to submit final landscape plan for approval See submitted revegetation plan submitted with this application. 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-ivay. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. The Marquess report indicates on page 3 states "The fillslopes appear to be relatively stable and we do not see a need to repair them or modify them". So no long term retaining, terracing is needed. Per the revegetation plan grasses are to be replanted and could actually be the long term landscaping solution but if the new owner would like to install different landscaping, that plan will need to be submitted and approved by b. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a pei formance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director deterinine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized All or a portion of the security retained by the City may be 10thheld for° a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. The subject lot was created on August 5t', 1990, so this section is not applicable 8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on. Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. No terracing is proposed with this application b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. (Ord 2834,52 1998) The property was inspected by Marquess & Associates regarding the suitability to build a single family home, no hazardous or unstable portions of the site where found. c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. There is no hazardous or unstable portion of the site as indicated by the Marquess report. d. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, siOnuning pools and large laia,ns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. The building pad has been minimized by the use of a daylight basement to create a reasonable amount of yard space, no tennis court, pool are proposed with this application 9. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on. partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A. 4j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. This is not an application for a single family home, no subdivision nor are partitions being applied for. C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards: L All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the folloiving requirements: a. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from dr°iveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems. The storm water proposed for this home are the infiltrator type and the associated information have been submitted with this application b. Stormii~ater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. The inflitrators will go in prior the roof gutters being installed. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface ivater atir,ay from. cut faces or sloping sui faces of a fill. All roof gutters and impervious surfaces water will be collected and placed into the stormwater facilities. There will actually be less water on existing slopes after construction because the house and driveway will d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential fi°om increased storm drainage. All roof gutters and impervious surfaces water will be collected and placed into the stormwater facilities. e. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flora, rate due to development.. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency over floiv system to safely carry any oveifloiv ivater to an acceptable disposal point. This is just a single family home and all roof gutters and impervious surfaces water will be collected and placed into the stormwater facilities. f. Stormwater°facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that ivill avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. All roof gutters and impervious surfaces water will be collected and placed into the Stormwater facilities. g. Alternate stormwater° systems, such as dry wellsystems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. r. D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: 1. Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.. b. h., identified by dd, b. h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proxinfity (i. e. those ivithin five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated nuinber and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus hvo feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. There is only one tree over 6" d.b.h. and it is indicated on the site plan and will have the standard 6" chain link fence around it at the drip edge as indicated on the submitted plan. 2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non- vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d Potential longevity. e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages. f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2'd b. h. or greater conifers and I ' d. b. h. or greater broadleaj) shall be protected and incorporated into the project design ii,henever possible. E_ a. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. b. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximuni number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the i development is located in Wildfire Lands. J c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. As shown on the site plan the house is located outside the drip edge of the existing tree on site. 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer' shall follow the following tree protection. standards: a. All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Mvisor. (see 18.61.200) The applicant mill clearly mark the existing tree on site which is to be saved and the temporary fencing will established prior to issuance of any permits b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage; soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances Within tree protection areas. No construction activity will occur in the tree protection area c. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. No grading or construction is proposed within the tree protection area. d. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for° conservation. No changes in the soils hydrology or site drainage will occur within the tree protection area, the existing area within the tree protection area shall be left in its current state. e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur 14hich causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter. 5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follol4 the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) No trees are being removed with the construction of this home. a. The tree is located 144thin the building envelope. b. The tree is located 14ithin a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located 14ithin a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property 14hen evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. i e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. 6 Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details. (Ord 2834 S4, 1998) r b. Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees 14411 in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior° to development of the property. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability.. Replacement tree locations shall Q consider impact on the ivildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. c. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the f rst five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after i4,hich a new five year replacementperiod shall begin. Replanting must occur ivithin 30 days of notification unless otherA,ise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) 7. Enforcement. a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. b. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, 14,hichever is greater. c. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the hvo values shall be used. E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards: 1. Building Envelopes. All newly created lots, either by subdivision or partition, shall contain building envelopes conforming to the following standards: The subject lot was created in 1990 no building envelope was designated at that time but the building meets all current setback requirements a. The building envelope shall contain a buildable area with a slope of 35% or less. b. Building envelopes and lot design shall address the retention of a percentage of the lot in a natural state as required in 18.62.080. B. 3. c. Building envelopes shall be designed and located to maximize tree conservation as F required in 18.62.080. D. 3. ivhile recognizing and folloiving the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands d. It is recommended that building envelope locations should be located to avoid ridgeline exposures, and designed such that the roofline of a building ivithin the envelope does notproject above the ridgeline. 2. Building Design. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive design techniques, buildings on Hillside Lands, excepting those lands 1vithin the designated Historic District, shall incorporate the f0110141ing into the building design and indicate features on required building permits: a. Hillside Building Height. The height of all structures shall be measured vertically fi°om the natural grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge or peak, ivall, parapet, mansard, or other feature perpendicular to that glade. Maximum Hillside Building Height shall be 35 feet. (graphics available on original ordinance) b. Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk. The house is designed with a daylight basement and is stepped into the hill to reduce the visual bulk of the home. (1). Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to alloii, the structure to more closely follola1 the slope. The house is designed to step down the hillside to follow the slope, with stepped footing. (2). Reduce building mass by utilizing below grade rooms cut into the natural slope. The house is designed with a daylight basement and is cut into the hill to reduce the visual bulk of the home. c. A building stepback shall be required on all do-mmhill building ivalls greater than 20 feet in height, as measured above natural grade. Stepbacks shall be a minimum of six feet. No vertical A,alls on the doivnhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above natural grade. (see graphic file attached) The vertical height of the home is 19', so no step back is required. d. Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet.. Planes longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet. (graphic available on original ordinance) There are no horizontal planes longer than 17' across rear 2 story portion of the home. e. It is recommended that roofforms and roof lines for new structures be broken into a series of smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the surrounding hillside. Long, linear unbroken roof lines are discouraged. Large gable ends on downhill elevations should be avoided, hoivever smaller gables may be permitted. (graphic available on original ordinance) The home has no gable end roof lines and the house is broken into a number of very interesting roof lines. The garage was designed to mimic a detached garage connected by a breezeway. The rear of the home has the different roof lines two hips on either side that each have a different reveal from main roof line. And for the front of the home we have a hipped roof over front porch but now at a different elevation to break up the roof mass and add interest. f. It is recommended that roofs of loiver floor levels be used to provide deck or outdoor space for upper floor levels. The use of overhanging decks ivith vertical supports in excess of 12 feet oil doivmhill elevations should be avoided. Although the best views are from the rear of the house, in keeping within the spirit of the ordinance and to avoid dominating over the downhill neighbor the applicant put the deck on the side of the home. Also this is where the grade is not tall so as not to have vertical supports for the deck in excess of 12'. g. It is recommended that color selection for° new structures be coordinated with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment The paint color has not yet been determined but will be an earth tone to minimize the contrast between the structure and natural environment. E All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations Which have been designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drativings without having foundations designed by an engineer. The foundation was engineered by KAS and Associates, the contractor and KAS have been working together for over 20 years building on homes on Ashland's hillsides. G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. gd S9 ; 5b } C This lot was created on Aug 15, 1990 and is not a newly created lot. H. Administrative Variance From Development Standards for Hillside Lands - 18.62.080. A variance under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: No variances are being requested with this application. i i I S~IWOH 1SD~tIONns :2j0zj og W 0Z9L6'dO `aMd~HSb ¢ o w z _ CL 22 0 G < 0 Lt -ii F n z UrW~ f ~ DO 50 ~6 6£ db'W Q S 5 ~ a Ii n - I I I I I I a m " w I ~ ys ~ I I III m I I I ~l I i I I III / / s i ~-t ----1 '•i " I- I e Iii ¢ oA r~ , ~ _ LLB" i III - III Ii • szo O u` ~s o¢m N :0 1 y F~ o'N LL J~Z ol yw ) Za-L m ~''rc az c~i~wa v. g w _ < y~a~ .U.L9 O-- (,6-N^N 9E)dM8,99'b=~9V X.LZ "b" =%BL%Y i I i6, e .iBr,z .vonZ I W x < o- I - l W I ry I p' Ox Q a- C ® Fr Q 0 m o E a Om ' 00 Ca`J Ip I r h a~ ❑ m Z Q li I C9- w RII ° p s .o-s LL m'~ 00 C o 0 99.[,*/s ax~c.~ .I yS W,Im e.0 L-N 133:ISi1=d N3N.'J35 V3 9 tl6Lx Z!'.'V3 Z38f1 00'tlO11 a0lo-191 VV.LZ! II ' gi - 0 4-U ' I~ a U' e } W i 9 >,N W a y 9 Z° > O ~m W`-' sN ~ 0 0-" I U I I - v I WI''p.,..~ .L-,at x ql a ~ Qp_ Lu m ®7 3 ° t ml~) / s ---..E-.9 .P3f „6:BL " I L6"NIY .LZ)dM89L'S-Y9lX9f I j€i:: h. pica, u3~sap s3uvoN.ssd_Nns az, sv - I TIOOI'~ tl3MOl a007j b3MOl .TM - J' Y y-S NI-n r7ovss~~ D is Nj ~ 4 d m e 6 i. 08 1S NIfS~ ~ Nl Y a i oae ~e :s3ioH ro"i Z ~ ~0 =and N JO i o © ~a~ ~ ~~n 6 go, ? ❑ o.~ o -~wo N z rW <LL~ I ol~Na ~ zWw p"''~ ill - - I I I I I I 11~ III II II I~~ I 1111 I I ' I I I~pl~_ ~I i1 11 ,III I~ I ~I III, ~ ~;I I I I 95 II III I _ J II ~I V I~ II' ' `II I I I I ~I II I ~ / II q~IIIII II ~ ~ I ~ ~II ~i V\ ~ ~ 1 II _ I c J IF- o co I I I I I ~ ~^I ~ ~ f III ffLL7 III ~ I~ I I ,III L LA I I~ ~I II y, l 5I I I -IT ~ ~ ,I JI I I d~ L I III ` I I ~ II I I I ; I I o° w Ij~ ti0 -6 r ILw~, "-"Q ¢a LL~u °mJow o 0~+ O ~z aw BO of °~L»""~z w~ E Q U Z Q U K'',3 S x u `L Q N U ? m F n o~I~',,'.I Z,~ N 9-.L9 ~•C-~1Z .0-.Hl i~PZZ I ~.SL .•o-,eL •c-s a,az n _ _ I e 9 0 C V . ; s I ~ 9 4 - - 1..._ • 4 ~j~ -'i _ _ III LLJ O J CL K CC 0.' d a O O O Q a s" § f v v v co ZO - z o I W W L ~L, m omIII ° mo WwWILd - W ~ CO W N N Ili W W X x X X x III. ~'?I-'~ N CO N O (O (V b W/ U m x X K N X X 4 %fi E •/.5 OL ~ 0 0. .9-.fi ~ ~ ZO I °Cp" i I m U D w V/ } e o - .asa .o-.L a-az i c~ m iy _ Z _ sr ❑ voN,o ~>~m N~ w w'Q w ~wo~w ~ oF~M ~ o w °s ci° I a O ca i~3,,y ~ "a iT u zyQ`a n m w z LL Qo D w w x - - ov~v o 03~' Z m ~ Q ILL O 3 LL 0 w Q 11 - j - S C _ I _ i ! _ a3 N U $ Z a m ar, K u O O J C z - - O S 2 g n ~ i x C a I I s5woM ISEWO vns :ao-~ 0Z9L6 X10 'ONH-1H2V 3 , ' - - 0~J7 ji _a o Nz~ n C r 4 07 90 16E dVA p~ 4~ R' N a ll a O } c% c} H 'r j CQ! 4. i J'I r _ C!J i i , ~ t JJ ; J r) j 39WOH IS3'dOWS :2iOd - N . 1 z ww'~! OZ916 2A0 `QNt/-HSd~ Ka g -,g j_ %t7 11 m y l I I° w ~Wsoa wO~ u a j K - as q 00 90 36 sE dVtA ~ J V~k(j ~ a KQ NFl~ ~X}~ N W.~ ~ S Z N ~ i i I m n - I; I ~ j' I ~ ~II J I _ II{ \v ~ a . AIR 3 11'A1 F H~ , , i % ~ I tit III it I, J f IIIII~ •s F i - - I ~ :q ~I I III ~I ~ ,I I I_ ~ ill I~ i ~ ELI ~ P341-772-711S F541-779-4'079 1120 EAST JACKSON PO BOX 490 MEDFOM, OR 97501 L C A S S O C I A T t s i N C EMAIL: iiifo(-@marqtiess.com WEB: www.marquessxom May 14, 2014 Charlie Hamilton Suncrest Homes PO Box 1313 Talent, Oregon 97540 RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT LOT 391E05CD 410 ON WRIGHTS CREEK DRIVE ASHLAND, OREGON MAI JOB NO. 14-1067 Dear Mr. Hamilton: As requested, we have prepared this geotechnical investigation report for the proposed residence at Lot 391E05CD 410 on Wrights Creek Drive in Ashland, Oregon. The property is shown on the attached Site Plan, Drawing 1. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the prevailing soil and foundation conditions at the site and develop recommendations for the earthwork and foundation engineering aspects of the project. The residence will be a two-story structure with the lower level daylighting onto the existing slope. The structure will be sited within an existing "horseshoe" shaped elevated fill around the west, north, and east sides of the residence. An attached garage, to be located just north of the proposed residence, is also plamled and its finished slab-on-grade floor will be established at the upper level of the residence. It is not yet lulown if the lower level of the residence will have a slab floor or a structurally supported floor. This report has been prepared for the specific use of Suncrest Homes and their consultants in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. In the event that any substantial changes in the nature, design, or location of the structure is planned, the conclusions and recommendations of this report shall not be considered valid unless such changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. It should be recognized that changes in the site conditions may occur with the passage of time due to environmental processes or man-made changes. Furthermore, building code or state of the practice changes may require modifications in the recommendations presented herein. Accordingly, the recommendations of this report should not be relied on beyond a period of three years without being reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. Charlie Hamilton May 14, 2014 Page 2 of 8 Method of InvestiLyation Three exploratory test pits were excavated near or within the building pad area on May 2, 2014, at the approximate locations shown on Drawing 1. A key describing the soil classification system and soil consistency terms used in this report is presented on Drawing 2. Logs of the exploratory pits are presented on Drawing 3. Site Conditions Surface. The property is a flaglot-shaped property that extends west of Wrights Creek Road. It is presently vacant and vegetated with trees and wild grasses. The site generally slopes gently to the west and south except for the existing artificial fill at the site. Deposits of artificial fill exist at the site and it is believed the fills are 20 to 40 years old. The fills lie along the north, east, and west sides of the property. Based on simple measurements of the fillslope heights, the fills vaiy from as much as 6 feet high in the north and taper down to about 3 feet high to the south. The toe of the fillslope along the west property line lies 8' to 10' inside the property line and a portion of this fillslope is armored with 3' to 6' diameter sandstone boulders. The fillslope inclinations, as measured at four locations, are approximately L5 horizontal to 1 vertical. It is believed these fills were placed to provide vehicle access to the lower properties to the south. We did not observe any sign or evidence of slope instability at the lot. Subsurface. Test Pit 1 was excavated within the proposed residence building pad and encountered about 0.7 feet of medium dense silty sand followed by about 0.8 feet of stiff sandy clay followed by sandstone bedrock to the depth explored (2.3 feet). Test Pits 2 and 3 were dug within the existing fill materials, and Pit 3 was also dug within the proposed garage building pad. Pits 2 and 3, respectively, encountered 5.0 and 7.0 feet of old fill. The fill materials consisted predominantly of loose to medium dense silty sand and contained scattered debris including broken concrete, round gravels, and filter fabric. The fill materials were underlain by natural medium dense to dense silty sand in both test pits to the depths explored. The sandy clay in Pit 1 is considered to have a medium expansion potential based on our previous experience with similar soils. The silty sands are considered to be relatively nonexpansive. Groundwater. No significant free groundwater was observed in the test pits during digging. Fluctuations in the groundwater level at the site may occur, however, because of variations in rainfall, temperature, runoff, irrigation, and other factors not evident at the time our observations were made and reported herein. Charlie Hamilton May 14, 2014 Page 3 of 8 Conclusions and Recommendations From a soil and foundation engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the proposed residence and garage can be constructed as proposed provide the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Sliding Stability of Old Fills. The existing fills are relatively low and on the order of 3 to 7 feet high, sloped at about 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical, composed of highly granular soils, fairly old (20 to 40 years by our discussion), heavily vegetated, armored with stones in one locale, and set back a sufficient distance from the west property line. We did not see any sign of slope instability. The fillslopes appear to be relatively stable and we do not see a need to repair them or modify them. If the slopes are modified as part of the future development, we would expect them to be lowered (rather than raised), retained with retaining walls, and landscaped with erosion-resistant plants. Residence. The proposed residence may be supported on conventional spread footings that either bear directly on the bedrock materials that underlie the site or on Structural Fill. The basement slab, where used, should also be supported on a mat of Structural Fill to minimize potential heave/settlement problems related to expansive soil movement and should be underlain by a slab underdrain system. Garage. The garage site is underlain by 7 feet of relatively weak fill and one foot of weak natural soils based on our observations from Pit 3. We recommend removing all old fill and the upper one foot of natural soils within the garage footprint. The resulting hole should then be backfilled with general fill and Structural Fill to support the proposed footings and slabs. The finished grade of the garage is presently expected to be close to the existing grades. If the finished floor is determined in the future to be more than 2 feet above existing grades, we recommend raising the site grades at the same time as backfilling the garage. Erosion and Sediment Control. A sediment fence should be installed along the southern and western property lines prior to earthmoving activities at the site and the sediment fence should be periodically monitored for adequacy. Existing slopes should remain undisturbed for as long as possible and, where disturbed by construction activities, protected with a temporary ground cover (plantings, mulching, or sheeting) or a permanent ground cover. The sediment fence and ground covers are more essential in rainy weather than in dry warm weather. Detailed recommendations for the project design are presented in the remainder of the report. These recommendations are contingent on our review of the construction drawings and our observation of the earthwork and drainage installation phases of construction. Charlie Hamilton May 14, 2014 Page 4of8 Recommendations A. Earthwork 1. Areas to be improved should be cleared of trees, vegetation, rootballs, etc. and should be stripped of topsoil materials. Holes resulting from removing underground obstructions in areas to be improved should be cleared out and backfilled in accordance with the recommendations presented below. 2. Residence Building Pad Excavation. The residence building pad should be excavated down to bedrock. The pad excavation should be extended laterally at least 1 foot beyond the sides of all footings. After the building pad is excavated, but prior to placing any fill or concrete formwork, we should be called out to evaluate the subgrade and ensure all weak or deleterious soils have been removed and all necessary sub-excavations beneath footings and slabs have been performed. 3. Garage Pad Excavation. The garage building pad should be excavated down to a depth of at least 8 feet below existing grades in order to remove all fill and at least the upper one foot of natural soil. The pad excavation should be extended laterally at least 2 feet beyond the sides of all footings. After the pad is excavated, but prior to placing any fill, we should be called out to evaluate the subgrade. After the subgrade level is approved, the subgrade soils at the bottom of the garage excavation should be densified by thorough compaction with a hoe tamp until hard. 4. In general, the subgrade soils beneath structures and new fills should be recompacted. If the subgrade materials within the residence building pad are firm and undisturbed by the excavation work, the soil engineer may waive the requirement for recompaction of subgrade. The recompaction should consist of moisture conditioning the soils approximately three percent above optimum and compacting them to at least 95 percent compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D698. Compaction should be performed using heavy equipment such as a self-propelled vibratory compactor. 5. In order to achieve satisfactory compaction in the subgrade and fill soils, it will likely be necessary to adjust the soil moisture content at the time of construction, Soils which are too dry will require the addition of water while scarification and aeration will be required for soils which are too wet. 6. General Fill Beneath Garage. If desired, the relatively deep excavation beneath the garage may be filled with Structural Fill (see below) or partially backfilled with moderate to high quality granular soils, such as decomposed granite sand with less than 25% silt or clay, recycled concrete, or "commercial" grade'/4"-0 crushed rock. On-site soils from excavations are not recommended for re-use as general fill beneath the garage. Charlie Hamilton May 14, 2014 Page 5 of 8 7. Structural Fill Under Footings and Slabs. Structural Fill is herein defined as high quality %"-0 or 4"-0 crushed rock suitable for use on City streets. Footings and slabs should be underlain by at least 12 inches of Structural Fill. For the garage, the lower portion of the backfill may, if desired, be backfilled with a general fill (see above) that is overlain with a final top layer of at least 12 inches of Structural Fill beneath footings and slabs. For the residence, the depth of removal is likely to be only one or two feet thick, as such we suggest using only Structural Fill beneath the residence. 8. All fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D698. Fill material should be spread and compacted in lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness. The compaction of the fill, thickness of lifts, and control of the moisture content should be monitored and tested by our field representative. 9. New cuts and fills should be no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. All finished slopes should be planted with landscaping to minimize erosion. 10. Crushed rock aggregate should be placed and spread in a manner that will prevent segregation and compaction should be performed with heavy self-propelled vibratory roller where possible. Each lift should be no more than about eight inches thick and be moisture-conditioned and compacted with at least four back and forth passes of a vibratory roller capable of producing at least 24,000 pounds dynamic force. The compaction should be evaluated by proofrolling with a loaded ten-yard dump truck where possible. 11. Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill placed in lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness, except thicker lifts may be used with the approval of the soil engineer provided satisfactory compaction is achieved. The upper three feet of trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698). Jetting of backfill to obtain compaction should not be permitted. 12. Grading and earthwork should be monitored and tested by our representative for conformance with the project plans/specifications and our recommendations. This work includes site preparation, selection of satisfactory fill materials, and placement and compaction of the subgrades and fills. Sufficient notification prior to commencement of earthwork is essential to make certain that the work will be properly observed. B. Foundations 1. The proposed residence may be supported on conventional spread footings bearing directly on bedrock or on Structural Fill bearing on bedrock. All existing soil should be removed from beneath the residence foundations. Charlie Hamilton May 14, 2014 Page 6 of 8 The proposed garage may be supported on a minimum of 12" of Structural Fill followed underneath by general fill materials (see Item A above). The subgrades should be excavated with a smooth edge bucket and cleaned of loosened soil prior to filling. Our field representative should evaluate the subgrade soils prior to placing fill and construction of forms. 2. Footings should bear at Code-required depth or at least twelve inches below lowest adjacent finished grade, whichever is deeper. Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces below an imaginary 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected upward from the edge of the bottom of the trench or retaining wall. 3. Footings can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 psf for dead plus live loads. All footings should be provided with sufficient reinforcement to provide structural continuity. 4. Lateral loads on footings can be resisted by friction between the foundation bottoms and the supporting subgrade. A friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used. In addition, a passive pressure equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf can be taken against the sides of footings poured neat or against compacted fill. 5. Foundation settlements and heave are expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed building construction. Post-construction differential movements of the residence foundations are expected to be less than 1/2 inch and differential movements of the garage foundations are expected to be less than 3/a inch. C. Slabs-On-Grade 1. In general, building slabs should be underlain by at least 12 inches of Structural Fill. If the lower level of the residence is a slab, the basement level slab should be underlain by an underslab drainage system. This slab should be underlain by at least 8" of mechanically tamped free-draining 3/a" crushed rock (no fines, no round rock). At.least one three-inch diameter perforated rigid PVC pipe should be placed at the bottom of the crushed rock about three feet from the wall foundations. The layout of the underslab system should be drawn onto the building plans in order to plan around proposed foundations or other possible obstructions. The perforated pipe should be daylighted below the building footing to drain to drainage facilities downslope of the house. The free-draining crushed rock will act as a capillary moisture break to help decrease moisture through the slab. A vapor barrier should also be incorporated into the design. Charlie Hamilton May 14, 2014 Page 7 of 8 2. The slabs should be reinforced in accordance with the anticipated use and loading, but as a minimum, slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 rebars on 16-inch centers, both ways. D. Retaining Walls 1. Walls should be supported on footing foundations designed in accordance with our previous recommendations. Unrestrained walls with level backslopes should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf and restrained walls with level backslopes should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf. Where backslopes are inclined steeper than 4 horizontal to 1 vertical, but no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, the above lateral earth pressures for unrestrained and restrained wall should be increased by 20 pcf. Surcharge loads, such as the horizontal pressures that will be imposed on the retaining walls by the garage foundations, are additive to the above earth loads and should be considered separately. 2. The preceding pressures assume that sufficient drainage is provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface or subsurface water infiltration. Adequate drainage may be provided by means of 3/4 inch drain rock material enclosed in a filter fabric and a four inch diameter rigid perforated pipe placed at the base of the wall. The drain rock should extend up the wall to within one foot of finished grade. The pipe should be tied into closed pipes that discharge into suitable drainage facilities. 3. Backfill placed behind retaining walls should be non-expansive and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction using light compaction equipment. All interior walls should be thoroughly waterproofed. E. Site Drainage 1. Positive surface gradients of at least five percent on porous surfaces and two percent on paved surfaces should be maintained away from the building so that surface water does not collect in the vicinity of the foundations. Water from roof downspouts should be collected into closed pipes that discharge the water into approved drainage facilities. 2. A foundation drain should be placed adjacent to the perimeter building footings (except where retaining wall backdrains are required) to control moisture beneath the building. F. Plan Review and Construction Observation 1. We recommend that we review the foundation and drainage plans and specifications for the project. We should also be retained to provide soil engineering monitoring and testing services during the earthwork and foundation and drainage installation Charlie Hamilton May 14, 2014 Page 8 of 8 phases of the project. This will provide us the opportunity for correlation of the soil conditions found in our investigation with those actually encountered in the field, and thus permit any necessary modifications in our recommendations resulting from changes in anticipated conditions. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding this report. PRVery truly yours, le B5 MARQUESS & ASSOCIATES, INC. I(X ` - - OREGON T.21,'\~ SW Rick Swanson, P.E., G.E. Civil Engineer 16885 ~f:XPiRES: 6.30. ad/~ RS/ler Copies: Addressee (1) by email Attachments: Site Plan, Drawing 1 Key to Boring and Pit Logs, Drawing 2 Logs of Pits 1 - 3, Drawing 3 P ._w - NYC _t r feet 200 meters 60 6 , PRIMARY DIVISIONS GROUP SECONDARY DIVISIONS SYMBOL GRAVELS CLEAN Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or GRAVELS GW no fines. J ~ o MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN Poorly graded gravels, or gravel-sand mixtures, little O 0 5% FINES) GP V) Q N OF COARSE or no fines. 6 FRACTION IS GRAVEL (3M Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, 0 W z W LARGER THAN WITH non-plastic fines. LLj Z O z N FINES Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, t,- ¢ V) No. 4 SIEVE GC elastic fines. z W W SANDS SACLEAN NDS SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. W ¢ MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or r OF COARSE 5% FINES) SP no fines. O W to FRACTION IS SANDS SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines U 0 SMALLER THAN WITH No. 4 SIEVE FINES SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. N W SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or J N ML clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity, 0 LIQUID LIMIT IS CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. M W LESS THAN 50% W = (n rn OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. Q ¢ 0 - 0 Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine W jE a SILTS AND CLAYS MH sand or silt soils, elastic silts. 6 0: z W o 'z LIQUID LIMIT IS C" ( Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. GREATER THAN 50% OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ASTM D-2487) U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3/4" 3" 12" SILTS AND CLAYS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE GRAIN SIZES ANDS & GRAVELS BLOWS/FOOT SILTS & CLAYS STRENGTHS BLOWS/FOOT VERY LOOSE 0 - 4 VERY SOFT 0 - 1/4 0 - 2 LOOSE 4 - 10 SOFT 1/4 - 1/2 2 - 4 FIRM 1/2 - 1 4 - 8 MEDIUM DENSE 10 - 30 STIFF 1 - 2 8 - 16 DENSE 30 - 50 VERY STIFF 2 - 4 16 - 32 VERY DENSE OVER 50 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY tNumber of blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch O.D. (1-3/8 inch I.D.) split spoon (ASTM D-1586). *Unconfined compressive strength in tons/sq. ft. as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the standard penetration test (ASTM D-1586), pocket penetrometer, torvane, or visual observation. P 541-7-7115 Ku To iA./Kil`!\7 Am N Low DR-AVANG P 541-779.4079 ~~~/~~/'~I~ I 1110 UST JACK50N L'lM J71G/,)M 410 PO WX490 ~WFORD.O IMI Wrighrs Creek Dive MA R 0-1 J S L ` Ashland Oregon ~a • MM Jos Na 141067 DRAVM RS f-- - , { .1~ d1 Y + OF 3 DWGS TSS[JB DATE May 2014 CHHC,F~D RS TEST PIT 1 0 SILTY SAND (SM), gray-brown, medium dense, moist *16 1' SANDY CLAY (CL), gray-brown, stiff, moist to very moist 2' SANDSTONE, brown, very firm to hard excavation, moist @0.5': Finer than #200 = 46 % Bottom of test pit = 2.3' TEST PIT 2 0 FILL. Mostly SILTY SAND (SM), mixed brown and gray-brown in layers, medium 1' dense, moist, some broken concrete curbs, scattered 1.5° round gravels, 2, fragments of filter fabric 3t- 4'. 50- 6#- SILTY SAND (SM), gray-brown, medium dense, moist ~SILTY SAND (SM), brown, medium dense to dense, moist Bottom of test pit = 8' TEST PIT 3 0 FILL. SILTY SAND (SM), gray-brown, loose to medium dense, moist, some 1' silty sand appears non-native, to this area, occasional granitic rock 2, fragments 3' 4' 5' 6, FILL. CLAYEY SAND (SC), gray with brown, loose to medium dense, moist, with roots to 7' deep 7'- I SILTY SAND (SM), gray-brown, medium dense, moist 9, SILTY SAND (SM), brown, medium dense to dense, moist Bottom of test pit = 9' *moisture content in percent F S41-772-7115 Tog of Pits 1 - 3 DIAWAG ~"b F541-779-4079 - IIIUFAfoJ ox AM 391MCD 410 MA R 1 1 LS W DFOA OILWSOI Wrights Creek Drive b is z 5 r n r_ n n ..1:7Wa.graaeom Ashland Oregon • MM Jos NO. 141067 nR:A1 RS ISSUE DATE May 2M4 anaw RS OF 3 DWGS LJ. FRIAR & A OC1 ..a TELEPHONE ® FAX 541-772-2782 CONSULTING LAND SURVEYORS 541-772-8465 P.O. BOX 1947 JAMES E. HIBBS, PLS PHOENIX, OR 97535 ljfriar®charter.net May 19, 2014 Charlie Hamilton Suncrest Homes, LLC PO Box 1313 Talent, OR 97540 RE: 391E05CD TL410 - Wrights Creek Road, Ashland, OR Dear Mr. Hamilton: After shooting a few points on this site, I find that the largest slope of the natural ground is 21% in the NW corner of the site. There are areas over 21% but these are due to the fill that was placed on this site. The natural slope of this property is to the Southwest and if the fill were removed, I find that slopes of no greater that 21% exist. Job: 14-142 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON JULY 17, 1986 JAMES E. HIBBS 2234 RENEWAL DATE 6-30-15 ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division 51 Winburn Way; Ashland OR 97520 FILE C I-i Y o F 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 ~,S HLAN D DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO Street Address Assessor's Map No. 391E? Tax Lot(s) Zoning I -to Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT Phone W % Y_ Cr_ ~ E-Mai( Name Address City Zip. S IV PROPERTY OWNER NamePhone E-Mail Address City Zip SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER Title Name Phone-222- -7/1~ E-Mail Address ((267 (l kf0- 1-' CiV .Jlq •Z9-(''" ''_'1 Zip 's Title Name - C-d• 7</(gar Phone -7 7 E-Mail Address l City Zip I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. 1 understand that all property pins must be.shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility, I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish; 1) that t produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; .2) that the findings of fact famished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact famished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will tpsult most likely°1n not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to . If haVb any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance, se be removed ~t7y Applicant's Signature Date As owner of the pro p y involved in this requegt I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. Property Owner's Signature (required) Date [To be completed by City Staff[ ; Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER 0 G:\comm-devlplanningTorms & AandoutManingPwmit A.ppGcatioadoc ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division ~ 51 Winlxan Way, Aslilatd Olt 97520 FILE # c r v O r 54l-i88-5105 rax 541-4}55.4,006 .ASHLAND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT rursung LEEDp Certificauon? ❑ YES ❑ NO DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY nnr Street Address, Lbif Gj"+T ~ c f e h V.. I rl"` Int ~ Assessor's Map No. 391 E ~9 s G D Tex Lot(s) "f f G Zoning - Comp Plan Desigration ~ti { ~NJ ILA APPUC S ~j 7C, ul c/stir C/ c~,scd ,c,6 Name _ 5/~~1' G~?5r ~Yk' S U C L Phase E•Matl _ Address t~ VX ~?j City ~~~PNI' Zp 7S PROPERTY OWNER ~,'~t /~e ~1 'TeNt uy(>C JtA 'I E-Mail Name Zp Address r city SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER ~--70 E-Mad _ C~ i/titci/< c(rSf. n~ f(~ 7 ~t1f` ~G) C~a G Phone Title lt~jAi~J. Name /T4c T, ifS-L' C;'Y , Zip 75o j Address - 7 27 E•MarI Address _1S ? 5 C Kf yc H f v~~i C Y 1~ pct f , . ! Z.p fad, I hereby certify that the statements and information conlaal0d in this application, including the onclosed drawangs ami The requvedvent the pins are r a in ail she" sWUS. Iruo and correct. I understand that air 1>'~nY Firs must be stvrvm on fire drawirngs and vis ble upon the sde inspection. In the e "ion found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responvbAly I further understand :hat it Ws rust is subsequently contested. the Neaten wig be on me to eetnbfish: t) !hat 1 produced sufficient factual e0dence at the hearing to support this request, q) that the findings of ix; (umished justifies t.be grarl:nq of ghe request. 31 !hat ;he W.nys of fact hmnshed by me are ade and ;~14~ JI that aN suudurrv u( improvements are property Facture in this regard Me re - sl likely in not only ! st Deu`g set as,de, bug also possibly in my structures beog buff in r9iiance thereon veiny required 'o he rernoared at my axpen ony dotrbl ad»sed to seek competent profess anal ,xNice and ass ace- r Applicant's Si ature Datee- ~ -J/ As owner of the p:mpedy'nvotveu in this request. t have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property ,wmer /"`r~r-~ Prone nwtir's Signature (required) Date F,I;r,t rep i Date Received - Zoning Permit Type w OVER rs t Job Address: 753 WRIGHTS CREEK DR Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A Owner's Name: HULSE BETTY JANE TRSTEE FBO Phone: N State Lie No: ~ Customer 07579 L SUNCREST HOMES LLC T City Lie No: Applicant: PO BOX 1313 R Address: TALENT OR 97540 A C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: (541) 535-8641 T Address: N Applied: 07/14/2014 C T Issued: Expires: 01/10/2015 Phone: R State Lie No: Maplot: 391 E05CD410 City Lie No: DESCRIPTION: Physical and environmental constraints permit. I VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Physical Constraints Permit 1,012.00 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 CITY Request Line: 541-552-2080 F %f ~ 1 ' lj~l r ~i'' ' ~ t j~:" ' I ail I~cx_•I j 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: $ 1,012.00 $ 1,012.00 or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Sub-Total: $ 1,012.00 Fees Paid: $ 1,012.00 Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 0 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