Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGrandview_320_PA-2016-01575 i CI'T'Y F ASHLAND September 23, 2016 Notice of Final Decision On September 22, 2016, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA-2016-01575 Subject Property: 320 Grandview Drive Applicant: Reichenshammer Building & Design, Inc. Owner: Courtney & Matt Burldiolder Description: A request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of a single-family residence, and removal of four trees within the proposed building envelope, on Hillside Lands with Severe Constraints for the property located at 320 Grandview Drive. Also included is a request for a Variance to exceed the maximum lot coverage by 1.8 percent (401 square feet). An Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands is requested to allow a downhill wall in excess of 20 feet without the requisite six-foot stepback. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential; ZONING: RR-.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05DC; TAX LOT: 2401. The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12t1i day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months 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) 18.5.1.050(F) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO 18.5.1.050(G). 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 Mark Schexnayder in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 L _ www.ashland.or.us ; i i i SECTION 18.5.1.050 Type I Procedure (Administrative Decision with Notice) E. Effective Date of Decision. Unless the conditions of approval specify otherwise or the decision is appealed pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.050.G, a Type I decision becomes effective 12 days after the City mails the notice of decision, F. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider a Type I decision as set forth below. 1. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City department 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. 2. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five days of mailing the notice of decision. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three days whether to reconsider the matter. 3. If the 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 days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The City shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. 4. 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. G. Appeal of Type I Decision. A Type I decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission, pursuant to the following: 1. Who May Appeal. The following persons have standing to appeal a Type I decision. a. The applicant or owner of the subject property. b. Any person who is entitled to written notice of the Type I decision pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.050.B. c. Any other person who participated in the proceeding by submitting written comments on the application to the City by the specified deadline. 2. Appeal Filing Procedure. a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.050.G.1, above, may appeal a Type I decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection. 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. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the required filing fee and shall contain. i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision. ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal. iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal. iv. A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public comment period. d. 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. 3. Scope of Appeal. Appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor shall be de novo hearings before the Planning Commission. The appeal shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument r concerning any relevant ordinance provision. 4. Appeal Hearing Procedure. Hearings on appeals of Type I decisions follow the Type 11 public hearing procedures, pursuant to section 18.5.1.060, subsections A - E, except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type I decision. A decision on an appeal is final the date the City mails the adopted and signed decision. Appeals of Commission decisions must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ` www.ashland.onus t i ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION I FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION. PA-2016-01575 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 320 Grandview Drive APPLICANT: Reichenshammer Building & Design, Inc. OWNER: Courtney & Matt Burkholder DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of a single-family residence, and removal of four trees within the proposed building envelope, on Hillside Lands with Severe Constraints for the property located at 320 Grandview Drive. Also included is a request for a Variance to exceed the maximum lot coverage by 1.8 percent (401 square feet). An Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands is requested to allow a downhill wall in excess of 20 feet without the requisite six-foot step back. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential; ZONING: RR-.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05DC; TAX LOT: 2401. SUBMITTAL DATE: August 17, 2016 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: August 26, 2016 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: September 22, 2016 FINAL DECISION DATE: October 5, 2016 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: April 5, 2018 DECISION The subject property is located on the north side of Grandview Drive, at the top of the hill just north of the Sunnyview/Skycrest intersection. The property is irregularly shaped and roughly 0.51 acres in area (22,516.6 square feet), and is zoned RR-.5 (Rural Residential). The property is mostly oak woodland and comprised of steep slopes greater than 35 percent downhill to the north. Grandview Drive has a 70 to 80 foot right-of-way width along the properties frontage, however the gravel roadway, between 20 to 30 feet in width, is shifted predominantly to the south, leaving approximately 30 to 40 feet of un- improved, steeply sloping right-of-way before the reaching the subject parcels property line. The lot is presently vacant and already contains a driveway that was originally approved in 2008 as part of a separate Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit. The subject property and the adjacent parcel to the west (340 Grandview Drive) were partitioned in 1989 (PA-89-022), and identified building envelopes located on the steep slopes. However due to the slope, future development is not subject to the solar access chapter, as addressed in the 1989 partition approval. In accordance with Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) section 18.4.8.020.B.2, a pre-existing parcel without a buildable area of less than 35 percent is still allowed one home site. In 2008, the applicant was granted approval for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit (P & E) approval, including tree removal to construct a driveway to access two severe constraints hillside lots. The request also included a Variance to the Street Standards for a private driveway to exceed 15 percent slope, and an Administrative Variance for a flag drive to be constructed on slopes of more than 35% (PA-2008-01703). A year later staff approved an extension, but ultimately the approval expired. PA #2016-01575 320 Grandview Drive/MMS Page 1 i In 2014 an application for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit was approved to reinstate the previous P&E permit request to install a shared driveway across two lots on Severe Constraints lands, which will roughly run parallel to the contours of the hillside (PA-2014-00722). In addition, the application also proposed a to construct a 4,385 square foot (Gross Habitable Floor Area) home and attached 550 square foot garage within the established building envelope for 340 Grandview Drive. This application involves a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling on Hillside Lands for the property located at 320 Grandview Drive. The application includes requests for Exceptions to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to 1) allow a downhill wall height to exceed 20 feet on the north side; and 2) to allow for a 1.8 percent (401 square foot) Variance to the maximum lot coverage requirement. The proposal also involves the removal of four trees within the proposed building envelope. A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the Development of Hillside Land is required because the proposed single-family dwelling will be constructed on hillside lands with severe constraints with slopes in excess of 35 percent. The intent of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay (18.3. 10) is for appropriate development within hillside lands that will protect the aesthetic and natural qualities of the land while protecting adjacent properties from erosion, sedimentation and slope failure. 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 18.3.10.090.E.2.c prohibits downhill vertical walls greater than 20 feet (exclusive of decks). Furthermore, AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2.d also requires a six-foot vertical offset on horizontal building planes longer than 36 feet. The proposed two-story, single-family home is built into the hillside as much as possible due to the steep slopes. The main level is proposed as 2,344 square feet, with a lower floor of 1,866 square feet. Due to the steep slopes on the property, and the proximity of Grandview right-of-way, the home home's design is largely dictated by placement of the garage and subsequent approach as discussed further below. The proposed design of the dwelling complies with the horizontal off-set requirements for planes longer than 36 feet. The home's downhill elevation does not comply with the vertical height maximum of 20 feet without a step back. The application notes that the applicants are proposing an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands because of the location of the city-owned (TID) irrigation pipe under the driveway as well as the elevation of the existing shared driveway grade designed to conform to the predetermined height of the garage. The north wall of the proposed single-family dwelling will exceed a maximum height of 20 feet from natural grade. The portion of the wall that will exceed this requirement will be built to a height of 23 feet and the applicant proposes to fill the area below the 20 foot walls with material from cuts made on site and building a small Ashlar block landscape and irrigation planter to retain the fill. In addition to the Exception, the applicant is requesting a Variance to allow for lot-coverage to exceed the maximum of 20 percent in the RR-.5 zone. The application proposes a 22.8 percent lot coverage, which is 1.8 percent (401 square foot) greater than is required by city standards for the zone. The applicant is requesting a Variance due to the fact that the lot was created prior to the implementation of the hillside lands ordinance. Furthermore, application notes that the hillside lands ordinance requires PA 42016-01575 320 Grandview Drive/MMS Page 2 that approximately 65 percent of the lot be retained in a natural state. The subject property is required to retain approximately 14,440 square feet of the lot in a natural state. The application materials note that 17,672 square feet is proposed to be retained in a natural state, which is 3,232 square feet more than the code requires under AMC 18.3.10.090.B.3. The application includes a geotechnical study prepared by Applied Geotechnical Engineering and Geologic Consulting LLC and notes that all grading, retaining wall design, drainage and erosion control have been designed and reviewed by a geotechnical expert. The geotechnical investigation included a review of geologic information, ground-level reconnaissance, and engineering analysis. According to the project engineer and geologist, the surficial soils consisting of silty sand soils with underlying granite and the native slopes in the vicinity of the proposed home site are relatively uniform and show no indications of deep-seated slope failure. The geotechnical report states that the main geotechnical considerations for development is the existing MSE walls along the uphill side of the proposed building footprint (driveway retaining walls) and recommends that extreme care be taken to not undermine these walls during excavation for the new dwellings foundation. The report concludes that if the recommendations for development are followed, it is the geotechnical expert's option that there is no significant risk of slope instability on the lot and thus suitable for development of the single-family residence. Illustrations for site preparation, structural fill, cut and fill slopes, and an erosion control plan prepared by Dew Engineering Inc. has been included in the submission as well. The applicant also recognizes that the hillside regulations include a requirement that on projects involving existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25 percent of the total project area plus the percentage figure of the average slope shall be retained in a natural state. In this instance, the application notes that lot coverage will not exceed 22.8 percent and 77.2 percent of the property area will be retained in a natural state with full development of the site. Grading, cuts, and fills have been designed by Dew Engineering. The application speaks to the grading standards of the ordinance as well, noting that the proposal would include cut slopes that will be retained with walls. Exposed cut slopes greater than seven feet in height have been designed to include terracing with sections not exceeding a maximum height of five feet and a minimum width of three feet to allow for plantings. The engineered terraced walls will not exceed 15 feet in total height and are specified as Allen block gravity wall and Allen block retaining wall. The application explains that cut slope terraces are to be re-vegetated with native or similar species to help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope and assist in providing long term slope stabilization including trees, bush-type plantings, and cascading vine-type plantings shown on the landscape and irrigation plan submitted with the application. The project will use some fill slopes, all of which are to be held by new retaining walls designed by an engineer. Utilities are already installed within the existing driveway grade and will not be associated with fill slopes. The application materials note that the storm water runoff system, driveway drainage, parking areas and storm drain systems were designed by Dew Engineering in cooperation with the City of Ashland Public Works Department. Most items have been constructed per the approval for the adjacent single- family dwelling and existing driveway (PA-2-014-00722)- A condition has been included- below to require that the applicants provide a final stormwater drainage plan for the review and approval of the Public Works, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to installation, and that Public Works permits be obtained for any work to occur within the public right-of-way. PA #2016-01575 320 Grandview Drive/MMS Page 3 The application materials provided include a tree inventory prepared by Certified Arborist Tom Myers (Upper Limb-it Tree Service), which includes an assessment of the existing trees. The inventory shows approximately 43 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) on the property. Of the 43 trees .4 are proposed for removal. The application emphasizes that significant trees are to be preserved wherever possible and notes that the removals are based on the trees being within the proposed building envelope. The Tree Commission considered the request at its regular meeting on September 8, 2016. The Hillside Development Standards provide for only limited circumstances where tree removal is appropriate, and these include the establishment of building envelopes. The Tree Commission recommended approval for the request as presented. Staff have included conditions to require that tree protection fencing is installed for trees to be preserved, flagging tape used to identify trees to be removed, and access to the site provided to allow the Staff Advisor to conduct a Tree Verification inspection as required by code before any site disturbance. Neighbors Paul Rostykus, Marnia Robinson, and Scott Calamar have provided written comments in opposition to the request. Most of the comments were related to the existing guard rail installed in the right-of-way for Grandview Drive. They note that the guard rail presents a hazard for pedestrians using the improved right-of-way. In addition, the comments note that construction staging could be problematic for neighbor's access through Grandview Drive. Staff understands neighbors' concerns regarding the existing guard rail on Grandview; however, there are no standards or approval criteria specifically related to this issue. A condition has been added to require a construction and staging plan for the project prior to issuance of a building permit. The approval criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit are detailed in AMC 18.3.10.050 as follows: A. 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. B. 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. C. 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 development permitted by this ordinance. Approval criteria for Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands, as described in AMC Chapter 18.3.10.110: A. Severe Constraint Lands are extremely sensitive to development, grading, filling, or vegetation removal and, Whenever possible, alternative development should be considered. B. Development of floodw,ays is not permitted except for bridges and road crossings. Such crossings shall be designed to pass the 100 year flood without raising the upstream flood height more than six inches. r C. Development on lands greater than 35% slope shall meet all requirements of section 18.62.080 in addition to the requirements of this section. PA #2016-01575 320 Grandview Drive/MMS Page 4 I D. Development of land or approval for a planning action shall be allowed only when the f0110141ing study has been accomplished. An engineering geologic study approved by the City's Public Worlu Director and Planning Director establishes that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. The study shall include the following: 1. Index map. 2. Project description to include location, topography, drainage, vegetation, discussion of previous work and discussion of field exploration methods. 3. Site geology, based on a surfrcial survey, to include site geologic maps, description of bedrock and sui facial materials, including artificial fill, locations of any faults, folds, etc., and structural data including bedding, jointing and shear zones, soil depth and soil structure. 4. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a potential hazard to the site, or that may be affected by on-site development. 5. Suitability of site for proposed development from a geologic standpoint. 6 Specific recommendations for cut slope stability, seepage and drainage control or other design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards. 7. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish whether an area to be affected by the proposed development is stable, additional studies and supportive data shall include t E cross-sections showing subsurface structure, graphic logs with subsurface exploration, results of laboratory test and references. 8. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist. 9. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site. The approval criteria for a Variance are detailed in AMC 18.5.5.050 as follows: 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for pur poses of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. The approval criteria for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands are detailed in AMC 18.3.10.090.H as follows: 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 2. The exception Will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3. 10 Physical and r: PA #2016-01575 320 Grandview Drive/MMS Page 5 i€ t S Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. The approval criteria for issuance of a 'T'ree Removal Permit are detailed in AMC 18.5.7.040.13 as follows: 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i. e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6 b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. 4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. PA #2016-01575 320 Grandview DriverMMS Page 6 Conclusion and Conditions In staff's assessment, the proposal has been carefully thought out to minimize the disturbance of the site and its trees. Based on the material submitted and the text above, the application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances. Therefore, Planning Action #2016-01575 is approved with the following conditions. If any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2016-01575 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 specifically modified herein. 2) That a construction, staging, and dust abatement plan to be submitted with building permit materials indicating that access through Grandview Drive will not be impeded for the duration of the project. 3) That a final storm drainage plan for the driveway shall be provided for the review and approval of the Ashland Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, building permit, or commencement of any site work. The storm drainage plan shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties in accordance with 18.3.10.090.C. 4) Public Works permits and associated inspections shall be obtained for any work to occur within the public right-of-way. 5) A final erosion control plan shall be provided for the review and approval of the Planning, Building and Engineering Divisions prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, building permit, or commencement of any site work. Any temporary erosion control measures (i.e. silt fence or bale barriers) shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials, or issuance of an excavation or building permit. Erosion control measures shall consistent with the recommendations of Applied Geotechnical Engineering, and shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work, storage of materials, the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. 6) That a preconstruction conference to review the requirements of the Hillside Development Permit shall be held prior to site work, the issuance of a building, or excavation permit, whichever action occurs first. The conference shall include the Ashland Planning, Building, Engineering and Fire Departments; the project engineer; project geotechnical experts; landscape professional; arborist; and general contractor. The applicant or applicants' representative shall contact the Ashland Planning Department to schedule the preconstruction conference. 7) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to excavation permit, building permit, tree removal, site work, or storage of materials. Trees on site shall be identified by number, those to be removed marked with flagging tape, and access to the site provided. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees on and adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with the Tree Ordinance. Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor within one year of the removal. PA #2016-01575 320 Grandview Drive[MMS Page 7 i 8) That the tree protection and temporary erosion control measures (i.e. silt fencing, bale barriers, etc.) shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials, issuance of an excavation permit and issuance of a building permit. The tree protection and temporary erosion control measures shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department prior to site work, storage of materials, the issuance of an excavation permit, and/or the issuance of a building permit. 9) A written verification from the project geotechnical expert addressing the consistency of the permit submittals with the geotechnical report recommendations (e.g. grading plan, storm drainage plan, foundation plan, etc.) shall be submitted with the excavation and building permit and prior to any site work. 10) That the geotechnical expert from Applied Geotechnical Engineering shall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule of the engineering geology report by Applied Geotechnical Engineering included in the application. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, Applied Geotechnical Engineering shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. 11) That all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas in accordance with AMC 18.3.10.090.B.7.a. 12) That to the greatest extent feasible route all utilities outside of tree protection zones. Installation within tree protection zones shall be done in accordance with an arborist's recommendations report submitted with the building permit. 13) That a revised tree protection plan to include utilities and building footprints shall be submitted with the building permit. 14) That a performance bond or the financial guarantee in the amount of 120% of the value of the landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be provided prior to issuance of the building permit. Bill Molnar; irector Dat Community evelopment Department PA #2016-01575 320 Grandview Drive/MMS Page 8 1 1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I i STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) c 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. I 2. On 9/23/161 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 i person's name for Planning Action #2016-01575, 320 Grandview. Signature of Employee DocumeW 9123/2016 iI i PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2400 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2401 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2303 ALI ZAKIR M/KATIE E BURKHOLDER MATTHEW M/COURTNEY CALAMAR SCOTT J 375 STONERIDGE AVE 124 MANZANITA ST 322 WIMER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2302 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2100 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2602 CHESTER ANDREW NEILIVAN DYKE CLARK MICHAEL R/MARY P JOHNSON STEPHANIE L ERIN 288 WIMER ST 329 GRANDVIEW DR 320 WIMER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 E' ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2300 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2601 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2500 KIRKENDALL J KEELEY TRUSTEE ET AL LONDON ROBERT S TRUSTEE SOARES NANCY C TRUSTEE ET AL 1379 PONDEROSA DR 212 AURORA DR 300 GRANDVIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 MONTECITO, CA 93108 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2304 PA-2016-01575 PA-2016-01575 WALSCH NEALE DONALD ET AL MARINA ROBINSON/GARY WILSON REICHENSHAMMER BUILDING 324 WIMER ST 535 GRANDVIEW DR 64 N PIONEER ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01575 PA-2016-01575 PA-2016-01575 ROBBIN WARREN MARK DEW CHARLES FURRY 21 N MAIN, STE 1 815 BENNETT 836 MASON ASHLAND, OR 97520 MED, OR 97504 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-2016-01575 PA-2016-01575 PA-2016-01575 TERRA SURVEY TOM MYERS KAREN MARSHALL 274 FOURTH ST 2040 ASHLAND MINE RD PO BOX 793 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 320 Grandview NOD 9/23/16 18 ASHLAND TREE I PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET September 8, 2016 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01575 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 320 Grandview Drive APPLICANT: Reichenshammer Building & Design, Inc. OWNERS: Courtney & Matt Burkholder DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of a single-family residence, and removal of four trees within the proposed building envelope, on Hillside Lands with Severe Constraints for the property located at 320 Grandview Drive. Also included is a request for a Variance to exceed the maximum lot coverage by 1.8 percent (401 square feet). An Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands is requested to allow a downhill wall in excess of 20 feet without the requisite six-foot I stepback. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential; ZONING: RR-.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05DC; TAX LOT: 2401. The Tree Commission recommends approving the application. Mark Schexnayder From: Rostykus Paul <prostykus@gmail. com> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 8:39 PM To: Mark Schexnayder Subject: new construction at 320 Grandview Mark, I have a number of concerns, comments and questions about the proposed construction project at 320 Grandview Drive, about 2 blocks from my house. I happened to have noticed the sign at the drive on 8/30/2016 when I was walking (photo attached). I have not received any other notice of this planning action (PA-2016- 01575). For the safety of Grandview Drive users, respect and courtesy of neighbors and residents, and in view of the construction activities at the adjacent lot (340 Grandview Drive) by the same Applicant, my requests, comments & questions include: 1) The current Grandview Drive issues must be resolved before additional construction is permitted, especially as the designer/general contractor appears to be the same for both lots. In the Spring of 2015 the contractor, prospective property owner or a subcontractor, installed a 350 foot steel highway-style guardrail 30-40 feet onto the public right-of-way (public property) without an encroachment permit as required by municipal code which presents a significant hazard of injury or death to the many neighbors who walk Grandview Drive to get to the Ditch Road in nearby Hald-Strawberry Park. 2) No excavation or erection of any kind be allowed on the public right-of-way (public property) without an encroachment permit from the city being applied for and issued - no exemptions allowed. The Applicant is apparently the same entity who installed the guardrail illegally as noted in #1. 3) No parking of vehicles along Grandview Drive at least from the dirt road accessing the Ditch Road until beyond the 4-way intersection of Grandview Drive, Sunnyview & Skycrest. The 2014 Planning Action (PA-2014-00722), bottom ofpage 3 and top ofpage 4, notes the previous concerns by a neighbor with vehicle parking along narrow Grandview Drive (now 2-6 feet narrower with the unperinitted ; guardrail installed) which continues to bean issue during the 2 years that 340 Grandview has been (and still is) under construction. In addition to the vehicle parking, someone, possibly the general contractor, had installed "No Parking" signs in these wide spots, which have since disappeared after the reporting of these signs to the Ashland Police Department who told me that these signs were not authorized by the city. As noted at the top of page 4 "will require a construction and staging plan I have been unable to locate a copy of this document at the city planning or building office. Was this required step ever carried out? 4) Any vehicles backing in or out of the 320/340 Grandview Drive driveway be required to have a flagger warning drivers and pedestrians because of the marked decreased visibility from the driveway. Visibility f°om the very steep 3201340 Grandview driveway (a variance was required for construction) is exceedingly limited when motor vehicles pull-out from the drive and basically non-existent for vehicles backing in or out of the drive. I have observed a number of near misses over the past 2 years. A flogger would reduce the riskof collision and injury to motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians on Grandview Drive. 5) Any street closures of Grandview Drive be permitted by the city, with prior notification of the neighbors, and require appropriate street signage in advance and during the closure below the Scenic/Grandview intersection and above the 4-way intersection of Grandview Drive, Sunnyview & Skycrest. 1 C' i In particular, the Grandviewv Drive was closed for several days When the unpermitted guardrail was being installed. Apparently the street closure itself tiaras permitted by the city. Unfortunately, street closure signs were placed on Grandview Drive near the Ditch Road and between the construction site and the 4-ivay Grandview Drive/Skycrest/Sunnyview. Thus, multiple motorists drove abnost to the closed section of road before being notified of the closure. For example, ia,hen coming up Grandview Drive from Scenic I, and many others, drove up to the Ditch Road, then had turn around on the dirt road, backtrack down to Scenic, to Wimer, to Wright's Creek and then finally to Grandview. I had several discussions with the general contractor about this issue and leis final comment to me was, Well, you can't make everyone happy 6) A specific city staff contact be provided for residents to notify of concerns about the construction project with a required response from the city within 24 hours and immediately if the citizen concerns are about a municipal code violation or safety-related issue. With the installation of the guardrail ivithout a permit I, and others, have found it very difficult to find someone at the city who can and will deal With the concerns and provide followup in a timely fashion. At various times, I have been referred to and have contacted the Publics Work front desk staff, the Public Works Director, the Compliance Officer, and the Engineering Services Manager. Response has been quite variable and to many of inquiries I have yet to receive any response or at least an adequate one, including to the Municipal Code Violation Complaint Form I filed in November 2015. Neither the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS & ORDERS from 2008 for 340 & 320 Grandview Drive (2008-01703) nor from 2014 for 340 Grandview Drive (PA-2014-00722) mention anything about the justification for or need for a guardrail in the public right-of-way. The guardrail at 320 Grandview Drive narrows the existing narrow roadway by 2-6 feet and obstructs the escape route for pedestrians who might be in the path of an out-of-control motor vehicle. The guardrail might prevent a motor vehicle from going onto the narrow & steep drive at 320 Grandview Drive, which is mostly in the public right-of-way by an approved variance. I do not understand the need for a guardrail to protect a driveway, particularly one which poses such a hazard to the many pedestrians who frequently walk Grandview Drive between the neighborhood and the Ditch Road in the Hald-Strawberry Neighborhood Park. Most importantly, the Zoning Permit Application #2016-01575 dated 8/7/16 does not mention the 350 foot long steel guardrail installed on public property without a permit in violation of the Ashland Municipal Code adjacent to 320/340 Grandview Drive in the Spring of 2015. The guardrail was installed without justification, design, plan, application for a permit, permit or inspection. Much of the guardrail is installed at or beyond the "hinge" or breakpoint of the road which usually requires longer posts or concrete reinforcements. In places the pavement near the guardrail is breaking down. How stable is the soil underlying this cut and fill hillside road? Is the soil stable enough to support the guardrail? Will the guardrail uprights contribute to further breakdown of the pavement If a vehicle hits the guardrail, is the guardrail adequately supported to remain in place? If the guardrail has inadequate support and it fails over time or because of being hit by a vehicle, will the city (public) be held responsible for any damages? I think that this guardrail must be addressed during this planning process, before construction begins, in view of its current and future impact on 320 Grandview Drive, the adjacent street and the many resident neighbors who walk or bike along this narrow road. Thank you for your consideration. Paul Rostykus 436 Grandview Drive Ashland OR 97520 541-601-9709 2 rt ~ ~ J ~ I i - ~ r ~ .i i ?i r x~ I i 4`- fSS i4; 3 i% r: Marls Schexnayder i From: Marnia Robinson <marnia@reuniting.info> Sent:- Saturday, September 03, 2016 3:06 PM To: Stefani Seffinger; Greg Lemhouse; Carol Voisin; John Stromberg; Rich Rosenthal; Michael Morris (Council); Pam Marsh; Mark Schexnayder Subject: Grandview Drive To Whom It May Concern, My husband and I hope that the City of Ashland will do whatever is necessary to make it safe for pedestrians to walk along the top of Grandview. Many of us use that roadway in order to reach the Ditch Road trail. Arriving at a workable plan includes considering very carefully whether it is appropriate to allow another residence to be squeezed in "on the cliff face," with a driveway that empties into the critical part of Grandview. Sincerely, Marnia Robinson & Gary Wilson 535 Grandview Drive Ashland, OR 97520 i t Mark Schexnayder From: Scott Calamar <scott@scottcalamar.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:18 PM To: Mark Schexnayder Subject: Re: PA-2016-01575 Hi Mark and planning staff- I have a couple of things to add after talking to a neighbor. He may also submit something for the record, or he may not. One thing that has not been considered with the Reichenshammer house that was recently built (340 Grandview?), and the home under construction now, I believe, on Fernwood, above the parcel for 326 Wimer, is j the private drive that accesses 320-326 Wimer. First of all, the use of the driveway for construction (laying sewage) has torn it up. It was supposed to be repaved. It has not been yet. It will get worse when there is work done on the driveway and retaining wall of 326, and that owner should have to pay for the repaving of the drive leading up to where the work is being and will be done. The other issue is sunlight on the private drive. Because we are sheltered by the hill, this driveway gets very little exposure to sunlight in the deep of winter. Every ray is precious to melt the ice on this driveway, as that hill from 326 and above seeps water on the driveway. That freezes and, in the cold of winter, the sunlight only hits it for a very limited time-sometimes melting it, but sometimes it's frozen for a number of consecutive days. I totally think that the house that was just completed (340) blocks even more sunlight from melting ice on our driveway and contributes to hazard. The one that's going up on Fernwood will make that worse, I noticed today. That blockage of sun in winter should be considered, please, with 320 Grandview. Thank you. Scott Calamar 322 Wimer On Aug 30, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Mark Schexnayder <mark.schexnayder@ashland.or.us> wrote: Hello, Thank you for submitting written comment during the 14 day public comment period. Your E-mail will be included as part of the planning application for review by the Planning Director. All the best, Mark Schexnayder, Planner City of Ashland, Community Development Department 20 E. Main St., Ashland, OR 97520 541.488.5305 Tel 800.7352900 TTY 541.552.2050 Fax 1 it i This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2044. Thank you. From: Scott Calamar [mailto:scott@scottcalamar.com] Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 6:43 PM To: planning Subject: PA-2016-01575 1 Do you know how miserable it's been this summer-noise and obstructions-with all the construction going on around Grandview? What is the character of this town-providing variances to allow developers to infill and excavate every remaining bit of hillside space with oversized, overpriced, symbols of conspicuous consumption while narrowing the roads. These new luxury homes are blocking sky, they're blocking light, they loom-why do you even have hillside ordinances if you're just going to hand out variances to anyone who has the money? 320 Grandview is not a hardship case. A hardship case would be all the families who can no longer live here, and the property taxes that people like I have to pay, which will definitely drive me out. I object to their variance to exceed maximum lot coverage. I object to the lack of a six- foot setback. Weren't those rules imposed for a reason? Scott Calamar 322 Wimer Street 541-482-4569 i 2 Mark Schexna der From: Scott Calamar <scott@scottcalamar.com> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 6:43 PM To: planning Subject: PA-2016-01575 Do you know how miserable it's been this summer-noise and obstructions-with all the construction going on around Grandview? What is the character of this town-providing variances to allow developers to infill and excavate every remaining bit of hillside space with oversized, overpriced, symbols of conspicuous consumption while narrowing the roads. These new luxury homes are blocking sky, they're blocking light, they loom-why do you even have hillside ordinances if you're just going to hand out variances to anyone who has the money? 320 Grandview is not a hardship case. A hardship case would be all the families who can no longer live here, and the property taxes that people like I have to pay, which will definitely drive me out. I object to their variance to exceed maximum lot coverage. I object to the lack of a six-foot setback. Weren't those rules imposed for a reason? Scott Calamar 322 Wimer Street 541-482-4569 k i f' i Planning Department, 51 WInL.,., i Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C1 Y OF 541-488-5305 Fax; 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 < g a i NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01575 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 320 Grandview Drive APPLICANT: Reichenshammer Building & Design, Inc. OWNER: Courtney & Matt Burkholder DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of a single-family residence, and removal of four trees within the proposed building envelope, on Hillside Lands with Severe Constraints for the property located at 320 Grandview Drive. Also included is a request for a Variance to exceed the maximum lot coverage by 1.8 percent (401 square feet). An Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands is requested to allow a downhill wall in excess of 20 feet without the requisite six-foot stepback. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential; ZONING: RR-.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 05DC; TAX LOT: 2401. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 26, 2016 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: September 9, 2016 " SUBJECT PROPERTY 320 Grandview Drive PA-2016.01575 GRANDVIEW DR 1:600 1 inch = 50 feel vl~ }c Acl-::vWdm,l~ aL,~mpe xm Gw/b~e~ua rkvwk t<Mer+edmtl M1NreLkd la uLerce vndtr4 _aUw. 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. t' If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. I i; is GAcomm-de0planningTIanning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-01575.docr PHYSICAL 8t ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTF 18.3.10.050 An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. A. 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. B. 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. C. 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 development permitted by this ordinance. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance, 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE LANDS 18.3.10.090.H An exception under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of chapter 18.5.5 Variances, An application for an exception is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1,050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter, 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18.5.7.040.8 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks,, c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-01575.docx i t 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,' I Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On 8/26/16 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 #2016-01575, 320 Grandview. Signature of Employee DocumeW 8126/2016 I f ~ PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2400 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2401 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2303 ALI ZAKIR M/KATIE E BURKHOLDER MATTHEW M/COURTNEY CALAMAR SCOTT J 61 NUTLEY ST 124 MANZANITA ST 322 WIMER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2302 j CHESTER ANDREW NEIL/VAN DYKE PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2100 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2500 CLARK MICHAEL R/MARY P ERWIN ALAN F TRUSTEE ERIN 320 RI WIMER ST 288 WIMER ST 300 GRANDVIEW DR E ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2602 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2300 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2601 JOHNSON STEPHANIE L KIRKENDALL J KEELEY TRUSTEE ET AL LONDON ROBERT S TRUSTEE 329 GRANDVIEW DR 1379 PONDEROSA DR 212 AURORA DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MONTECITO, CA 93108 PA-2016-01575 391 E05DC 2304 PA-2016-01575 PA-2016-01575 WALSCH NEALE DONALD ET AL REICHENSHAMMER BUILDING & DESIGN ROBIN WARREN 324 WIMER ST 64 N. PIONEER 21 N. MAIN, STE 1 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01575 MARK DEW 320 Grandview 8/26/16 815 BENNETT 13 NOC MEDFORD, OR 97504 13 j` E r J, U, a i 114 Bt 124 HUD 2,601 I ~.rJLI. 3 0 CIA 11 F PROPOSAL COURTNEY AND MATT B OLDER RESIDENCE 320 G VIEW DRIVE, ASHLAND, OR TYPE I PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT FOR A TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS: 320 Grandview Dr. Ashland, OR 97520 PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ASSESOR'S MAP # 39-1E-05 DC- TAX LOT # 2400 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: RR-.5 OWNERS Courtney and Matt Burkholder 124 Manzanita St. Ashland, OR. 97520 APPLICANTS: Reichenshammer Building & Design, Inc. 64 No Pioneer St Ashland, OR. 97520 LOT DATA: Lot Size: 22,515.6 Sq. Ft. Residence: 4,210.0 Sq. Ft. Garage: 550.0 Sq. Ft. Driveway: 1,320.0 Sq. Ft Decks: 945.0 Sq. Ft Parking: 220.0 Sq. Ft RESIDENCE DATA: Lower Floor: 1,866.0 Sq. Ft Main Floor: 2,344.0 Sq. Ft Total- Residence: 4,210.0 Sq. Ft. AU 17 2016 1 PROJECT PROFESSIONAL TEAM DESIGNER- BUILDER: Reichenshammer Building chi Design, Inc 64 No. Pioneer St, Ashland, OR. 97520 Office- 541.482.1212 Cell: 541.840.7040 CIVIL ENGINEER: Dew Engineering Mark Dew, 815 Bennett Ave. Medford, OR, 97504 541.772.1399 GEOTECIINICAL ENGINEER: Applied Geotechnical Engineering Robin Warren, Engineer 21 No. Main St. Suite 1, Ashland, OR. 97520 541.226.6658 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER Pacific Structural Engineering Charles Furry, PE 836 Mason Way, Medford OR 97501 541-858-8500 SURVEYOR: Terra Survey, Inc 274 Fourth St., Ashland, OR. 97520 541.482.6474 c= CERTIFIED ARBORIST: Tom Myers 2040 Ashland mine Road Ashland, OR 97520 LANDSCAPE DESIGNER: Naturascape Designs Karen Marshall P.O. Box 793, Medford, OR 541.501.5353 IRRIGATION DESIGNER Carol's Colors Greg Williams 541.535.7074 AU 2016 2 CITE' STAFF ADVISORS The following individuals have been consulted in order to obtain pertinent and accurate information relating to the facts presented in this application, their participation is hereby acknowledged and RBD is glad to express its appreciation for their positive contributions and advise during the development of 340 Grandview, Ashland under PA 2014-00722; And for their advise during the preparation of the Pre-Application for this Project. Planning Department: Mark Schexnayder, Assistant Planner Electrical Department: Dave Tygerson, Estimator/ Installer Engineering Department: Karl Johnson, Associate Engineer Water Department: Steve Walker, District Supervisor Fire Department: Marguerite Hickman, Fire Marshall SUBMITTALS Application Form Findings of Fact 2 Sets Scaled Plans 11"x17" 1 Set Scaled Plan 24"x36" Fees Geotechnical Engineering Report Arborist Report Truss Plan Structural Engineering Calculations Site Plan Sheet 1 Main Floor Plan Sheet 2 Lower Floor Plan Sheet 3 Elevations South and North Sheet 4 Elevation East Sheet 5 Elevation West Sheet 6 Cross Sections Sheet 7 k Roof Plan Sheet 8 Structural Engineering Plans Sheets S1-S6 Engineering-Driveway Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan Sheet C 1.1 *Civil Engineering- PA 2014-00722- Dated 7/21/14 (Reference) Sheets C1.1-2.3 Tree inventory, Protection and Removal Plan Sheet A.1 Landscape Planting & Tree Replacement Plan Sheet Ll.1 Landscaping Irrigation Plan Sheet L2.1 *NOTE: Throughout this Application Applicants will be making several references pertinent to the similarities of the Subject property and its twin parcel at 340 Grandview and some development issues and Professional Reports that were addressed at the time of the latter's property development under PA-2014-00722 such as the shared driveway, retention walls, landscape and irrigation, etc. For clarification and reference a copy of Dew Engineering Plan Dated 7/21/2014, approved under the above mentioned - PA 2014-00722, is attached to this Application 3 U 17 201P HISTORY-THE PROPERTIES The properties at 320 and 340 Grandview Dr. are located on the North side of Grandview Drive and are both approximately %2 an acre in size. The parcels were created in 1989 (PA89-022) as part of a partition. The Parcel designated as 340 Grandview is currently under construction and the Parcel known as 320 Grandview has not been developed, except for the shared driveway and retaining walls as shown on Dew Engineering Plan Sheet C1.1 Dated 7/21/2014 submitted as part of PA 2014-00722. Otherwise the subject property is vacant of structures, with some trees, and native grass. Both parcels slope downhill to the north away from Grandview Drive. Grandview Drive has a very wide right-of- way along the frontage of the parcels, between 70 to 80 feet in width, and the improved road surface is between 20 to 30 feet in width. The improved road surface is shifted almost entirely to the South of the right-of- way. This leaves approximately 30 to 40 feet of un-improved, steeply sloped right-of-way before the property lines of the subject parcels is reached. There are numerous trees on the site, many of which are between 6 to 10 inches in diameter at breast height. RECENT HISTORY- THE PROPERTIES Applicants applied, and received approval to construct a shared driveway, and a Single Family Residence at 340 Grandview, Ashland OR 97520. As per PA-2014-00722. The driveway was designed to be shared by the two parcels located at 320 and 340 Grandview Dr. Ashland, OR 97520. The driveway has been constructed (pending paving), the new City irrigation pipe (TID) was installed under the driveway, and the retaining and terraced walls were built (Pending Caps) as per City approved plans designed by Dew Engineering in cooperation with Karl Johnson, Engineering Department, and approved by the aforementioned Planning Action. The Single Family Residence located at 340 Grandview Dr. is currently under construction also in accordance with City Approval, PA-2014-00722 and Building Permit Number BD -2014-01472 TID PIPE: An approximately 360 feet long, 18" diameter pipe has been installed traversing both properties from East to West and a section of the pipe was located under the shared driveway as required by the City and as shown on Dew Engineering Plan in cooperation with Karl Johnson of Ashland's Publics work/ Engineering Department, and approved by PA2014-00722. Such pipe replaced the pre-existing approximately 100 years old steel irrigation Pipe also known as TID pipe, at a cost to the Applicant of approximately $40.000.00 4 AUK` y01P SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The subject property was created in 1989 (PA89-022) as part of a partition and is located at 320 Grandview Drive. It holds some trees and native grasses and is situated in an area of single family detached homes, similar in size, shape and slope with its surrounding parcels. The parcel generally slopes 40% to the north away from Grandview Drive. The subject property is located on the north side of Grandview Drive and it is .51 of an acre (22,516.6 sq. ft.) in size. Grandview Drive has a very wide right-of- way along the frontage of the subject property, between 70 to 80 feet in width, and the improved road surface is between 20 to 30 feet in width. The improved road surface is shifted almost entirely to the south of the right-of-way. This leaves approximately 30 to 40 feet of un-improved, steeply sloped right-of-way before the property lines of the subject parcels is reached. There are many trees on the site, most of which are between 6 to 10 inches in diameter at breast height. During 2014/15 a driveway to be shared with the other part of the aforementioned partition, as well the driveway retaining walls and the replacement of the City's irrigation pipe took place as per PA-2014-00722 at the same time utilities for both parcels were installed under the driveway. U 17 IL, 5 ASHLAND CIPAL CODE LAND USE ORDINANCE APPLICABLE CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS Chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones Chapter 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constrains Chapter 18.3.10.020 Applicability Chapter 18.3.10.060 Land Classifications Chapter 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands Chapter 18.3.10.100 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands Chapter 18.3.10.110 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands Chapter 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation Chapter 18.4.6.090 Utilities Chapter 18.4.8 Solar Access Chapter 18.6.1 Definitions. MC 15.28.010 OFC 503.4 Fire Line Sign REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE Chapter 18.5.5.050 Lot Coverage Variance REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION Chapter 18.5.1.050 Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Land f"U 1 `7 2016 6 i i FINDINGS OF FACTS Chapter 18.3.10 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONANNTAL CONSTRAINTS 18.3.10.020 Applicability A. Physical Constraints Review Permit. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required since the Project involves alteration of land consistent with definitions for Development Standards under the following Chapters: Chapter 18.3.10.060- Land Classifications Chapter 18.3.10.090- Hillside Lands Chapter 18.3.10.100- Wildfire Lands Chapter 18.3.10.110- Severe Constraints Lands 18.3.10.020.b Tree Removal Permit Tree Removal Permit, (is required) in areas identified as Hillside Land and Severe Constraint Land, except that a permit need not be obtained for tree removal that is not associated with development, and done for the purposes of wildfire management and carried out in accord with a Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the Fire Chief. Therefore, a Tree Removal Permit shall be applied for with this application. 18.3.10.050 Approval Criteria. An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type 1 procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria: A. 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 applicants have and will be taking all reasonable steps as outlined in Chapter 18.3.10.060- Land Classifications which includes Hillside Lands Chapter- 18.3.10.090, Wildfire Lands- Chapter 10.3.10.100 and Development Standards for Severe Constraints Lands- Chapter 18.3.10.110 To minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties. The applicants and property owners conversed directly and indirectly with neighbors, also they have hired a Professional Land Surveyor, a Geotechnical Engineer, a Civil Engineer, a Structural Engineer, a Landscape Designer, a Certified Arborist and Reichenshammer Building and Design, Inc, as, Residential Designer and Builder in order to address any potential impacts associated with the construction of the home. From the various meetings and communications, the Applicants and property owners contend any and all potential adverse impacts have been minimized B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create rind implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. The applicants have considered the potential hazards the eventual development may create and have hued Applied Geotechnical Engineering, Robin Warren, Certified Geotechnical Engineer, to evaluate the construction and site disturbance. His Report, assesses the site's existing conditions such as seismic, subsurface soils and surface soils, and any other concerns outlined on this Chapter. His complete Report is attached to this Application. Applicants have also retained the services of Mark Dew, Professional Registered Engineered, whose attached plans show all structural details pertinent to the project, as shown on Sheets #C1.1 and as detailed under corresponding Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapters cited throughout this application. 7 AUK 17 20fi C. 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 development permitted by this ordinance. I The applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce any adverse impacts due to the construction of the home, by securing the services of a Professional Surveyor, a Geotechnical Engineer, a Civil Engineer, a Structural Engineer, a Landscape Designer, a Certified Arborist, and Reichenshammer Building and Design, Inc. as Residential Designer and Builder. From the various meetings and communications, the applicants and property owners contend any and all potential adverse impacts have been minimized. Similar Professional Reports and Engineering Plans were previously submitted per requirements of PA 2014-00722 for 340 Grandview. Updated and New Reports have been prepared as determined by the Staff Advisor reviewing the Pre-Application. During the various stages of the home's construction, certain mitigating construction techniques have been implemented such as the installation of sediment fencing on the downhill slope prior to site disturbance as well as Tree Protection fencing and final inspection and approval by the Geotechnical Engineer before and after the home is completed. Other items submitted for your consideration may be found below. 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary 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 requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands: 1. Buildable Area. The Residence construction is proposed to occur in an area with an average of 40% Slope which has been identified on the attached Dew Engineering Plan Sheet C1.1 Dated 7/01/2016. The parcel was approved for the building of only one residence under a 1989 Planning Action (PA89-022) and because of its slopes was not and is not eligible for partition. 2. Building Envelope. The Building Area was identified at the time of driveway design so as to provide access from the driveway to the subject property's garage at a conforming elevation. The driveway with corresponding elevations was engineered by Dew Engineering in cooperation with Karl Johnson of Ashland's Public Works and approved by the Planning Department under PA- 2014-00722. See attached Dew Engineering Plan Sheet C 1.1 Dated 7/21/2014. 8 UC 17 2016 3. New Streets and Driveways. As mentioned above the shared driveway was designed and has been constructed (pending paving). Under PA-2014-00722 and has also been approved by Ashland's Fire department. 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, the following additional information is required.- The applicants have considered the potential hazards the eventual development may create and have hired Applied Geotechnical Engineering, Robin Warren, Certified Geotechnical Professional, to evaluate the site geology, including surficial survey, description of bedrock, and other materials including artificial fill, faults, folds, etc. The attached Geotechnical Report assesses the site's existing conditions such as seismic, subsurface soils and surface soils, as well as other requirements under this section. The attached Dew Engineering Plans Dated 7/21/2014 also include mitigation language and/or graphic illustrations for site preparation, structural fill, cut and fill slopes, and erosion control measures. The Geotechnical Report include, as required under Chapter18.3.10.010.A.4 the Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist addressing inspection times for the Geotechnical Expert to evaluate the site's disturbances in order to ensure the construction work is in compliance with the report. By taking these steps, the applicants contend measures will be implemented to mitigate against any potential hazards the construction may cause. B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as Hillside shall provide plans conforming to the following items. 1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plan ...For details see Chapter 18.310.090.B.4 below 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 percent 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. The area of the subject parcel has been documented as .51 of an acre, or 22,215.6 sq. ft. therefore 25% of the project area plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state: Average slope= 40% + 25%= 65%. Project area= 22,215.6 X 65% = 14,440 sq. ft., Therefore 14,440 sq. ft. shall be retained in Natural State. Applicants anticipate that the area to be retained in a natural state will be greater than the minimum percentage required. 4. Grading-Cuts. Grading, cuts and fills have been designed by Dew Engineering, in accordance with Chapter 18.3.10.090.B.1 See attached Dew Engineering Plan Dated 7/21/2014 Sheet # C L 1 Driveway Grading Plan, as well as Erosion Control Notes and General Planning Notes. Also note the Sediment Fence Detail and detail for Plastic Coverings for Slopes and Stockpiles. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for the shared driveway greater than seven feet in height have been terraced with sections not exceeding a maximum height of five feet and a minimum of three feet in width to allow for vegetation as shown on Dew Engineering Plan Dated 7/21/2014 Sheet C2.1, and the terraced walls do not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet, in accordance with Figure 18.3.10.090.B.4.b 9 BUG-172016 b Terraced walls: Dew Engineering's plans, Sheet C1.1 includes the engineered terraced walls supporting the necessary cuts and fill for the driveway, all cut and fill slopes greater than seven feet in height are being retained by engineered terraced walls not exceeding 5 feet in height per section with a maximum height of 3 sections not exceeding 15 feet in total height. The walls have a minimum 3 feet setback between each wall so as to provide a generous and healthy setting for proper plantings wellbeing. The terraced walls dimensions and construction specifications are shown on Dew Engineering Plan Dated 7/21/2014 Sheet C1.1 Detail 1, Allan block gravity wall, and detail 2 Allan block retaining wall. i Note: The length of terraced wall, Dew Engineering Plan Dated 7/21/2014 Sheet C 1.1 detail #4 in front of the building envelope corresponding to the garage access to 320 Grandview Drive has been re-designed by Dew Engineering in cooperation with Applied Geotechnical Engineering along with a portion of the gently sloping driveway in front of that portion of the wall, so as to provide safe and manageable access to the garage to be located in the above referenced residence. As proposed such garage will be accessed from the driveway through a short pathway running over the wall and leading into the garage c. Stepped foundations Stepped footings have been engineered by Charles Furrey of Precision Structural Engineering, incorporating the footings into the building design to allow the structure to closely follow the slope and minimize the visible vertical bulk, considering that the structure is composed of only two stories to minimize site disturbance and soil export. Had the Designers added a lower (Third floor) or daylight basement, the structure would have more closely followed the Ordinance intent of building rooms below grade. However the Applicant believes that considering the specific site location, the existing driveway and other not self-imposed limitations... the design and the resulting structure minimizes the overall impact on the view scape as the Ordinance intended. d Revegetation of cut slope terraces include the provision of a planting plan, introduction of top soil where necessary, and the use of irrigation. The vegetation used for these areas is native, or species similar in resource value to native plants, which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization including trees, bush-type plantings, and cascading vine-type plantings Landscape and Irrigation plan The-Landscaping plan Sheet # L1.1 shows the new plantings and trees to be installed as per grower's instructions. Sheet # L 2.1 delineates the proposed Irrigation Plan, illustrating the general location of irrigation lines and the planned irrigation heads and distribution systems. Attached to this Application please fmd The Plant Materials List and photographs of the proposed planting materials, Showing the Quantity, Botanical Name and Common Name and size. 5. Grading Fill- b. Fill slopes will be supported by engineered terraces as per Chapte18.3.10.B.4.b as designed by Dew Engineering Plan Dated 7/21/2014 Sheet #C2.1. 10 AU 17 201; c. Utilities have not been located within fill slopes, as they are installed into a corridor as per instruction from Ashland's Public Works Department and stubbed out to the subject property South- West corner. C. Surface and Groundwater .Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards. 1. Storm water runoff system, driveway drainage, parking areas and storm drain systems have been designed by Dew Engineering, Mark Dew, Registered Professional Engineer, an Ashland native with many years of demonstrable geotechnical design experience, in cooperation with Karl Johnson, Public Works, Engineering Division. See Dew Engineering Plan Dated 7/21/2014 Sheet C1.1 Detail #1- Driveway draining plan, in accordance with the requirements of this Section. Most items have been constructed per plans approved under PA-2014-00722, Sewer and Storm water lines have been installed as per approval of PA-2016-00330 and inspected and approved by the Building Department. D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements... Tom Myers, Certified Arborist has prepared the Arborist tree Inventory and Tree Protection Plan, Sheet A-1, Survey and corresponding Report are attached to this Application as follows: 1 Inventory of Existing Trees. Tom Myers Certified Arborist has prepared the attached Tree Inventory Plan and Report; as well as the Specifications for demolition and site clearing, Tree Preservation during construction and tree pruning. His documents reflect the number and health status of trees on the site. as well as those in the proximity, outside of the property lines, mostly in the north side of the Grandview Drive right-of-way. The applicants intend to remove trees only where absolutely necessary for the construction of the project. Trees to be removed are shown and numbered on the Arborist's Plan and on site and they are identified with bright red tape, the Tree Inventory and Report is attached as part of this Application. 2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees have been identified as to their suitability for conservation, as well as 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. Longevity. 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. { 11 AU 17 201 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (two feet DBH or greater conifers and one foot DBH or greater broadleaf) have been protected with appropriate fencing and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. 4. Tree Protection. Throughout the process the Designers have followed the tree protection standards as required by this section of the ordinance. See protection details on j Tom Myers Certified Arborist Plan Sheet A-1 attached to this Application. a. All trees designated for conservation have been 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 will install tree protection fencing per Chapter 18.4.5.030.c Prior to any construction activity, the site shall be inspected pursuant to Chapter 18.4.5.030.D. 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. c. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation will 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 drip-line, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. 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. e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which 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. Applicants have diligently worked towards the conservation of every tree on the property, and shall be removing only those trees located within the building envelope, as well as those trees that have been determined by the Project Certified Arborist to be dead or diseased, or trees that are within or adjacent to areas of cuts and fill that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree. Such trees are identified on the Arborist's plan Sheet A-1 and on site with bright pink/red tape, and are also identified c" with a numbered metal tag, with the number corresponding to the Arborist Plan and Report. Trees to be removed are metal tagged and numbered # 21, #22, and #29 and possibly #28 which is closed to the excavation line, and every effort will be made to save it if possible. These trees are identified on site with bright red/ pink colored ribbon. Trees #20, #30 and #44 were removed during driveway construction under PA-2014-00722, The development will also follow the standards for fuel reduction as it is located in Wildfire Lands, in accordance with instructions from the Fire Department. Ada V) 2016 12 c. Maintenance of replacement trees will be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting will be replaced in kind, after which a new five-year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. I E. Building Location and Design Standards. 1. The subject property does not meet the criterion of Chapter 18.310.090.1 2. Building Design. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive design techniques, buildings on Hillside Lands, shall incorporate the following into the building design and indicate features on required buildingpermits. The proposed residence has been designed by Reichenshammer Building & Design, Inc. (RBD). RBD has designed and built homes in Ashland's hillside since 1989, including the first Earth Advantage (Award Winning) Hillside home in Southern Oregon in 1997, at 599 Ashland Creek Drive, Ashland. RBD was an active contributor to the Hillside Standards development process, while building at that time the Life Magazine American Home of the Year, at 740 Emigrant Creek Drive in Ashland. The design proposed through this application plans attempts to comply with the various corresponding design standard with a deep understanding and respect beyond the written words by encapsulating the spirit of the Ordinance as the writer's intended. a. The height of all structures shall be measured vertically from the natural grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge or peak, wall, parapet, mansard, or other feature perpendicular to that grade. Maximum hillside building height shall be 35 feet. See Figure 18.3.10.090.E.2.a.i and Figure 18.3.10.090.E.2.a.ii Figure 18.3.10.090.E.2.a.i Hillside Building Height/Permitted The East and West elevation (Sheet #3) shows a Building height of less than the maximum allowable height of 35 feet, as measured vertically from natural grade to the uppermost point anywhere on the building, located perpendicularly to natural grade. b. Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk. The drawings showing the structure facing South (uphill) and North (downhill) Elevations Sheet #2 show a low profile residence which in order to reduce mass as indicated on the figures listed on Section a. above; consists of only two stories, predominantly horizontally shaped, as opposed to vertically, maintaining a low profile intending to merge the structure with the earth tones below and around it, and with the shade of the surrounding trees. i. Stepped footings have been engineered by Charles Furrey of Precision Structural Engineering, incorporating the footings into the building design to allow the structure to closely follow the slope and minimize the visible vertical bulk, considering that the structure is composed of only two stories to minimize site disturbance and soil export. Had the Designers added a lower (Third floor) or daylight basement, the structure would have more closely followed the Ordinance intent of building rooms below grade. However the Applicant believes that considering the site-specific design location, the existing driveway and other not self-imposed limitations... the design and the resulting 13 AU JJ 2016 structure minimizes the overall impact on the view scape of the City of Ashland as the Ordinance creators intended. ii. Reduce building mass by utilizing below grade rooms cut into the natural slope. In order to achieve minimal disturbance of the parcel, the residence was designed as two levels, instead of the typical three with living spaces cut into the hillside as much as possible supported by stepped foundations as designed by Charles Furrey the Projects Structural Engineer, Had the Designers designed a lower (third level) or daylight basement it would have been located almost entirely below grade in conformance with this section of The Ordinance resulting in more below grade rooms. However, this would have created the need for a much deeper excavation resulting in undesirable greater land disturbance and soil export. Additionally, and critically important is the fact that the garage had to be located in relation to the previously designed driveway elevation, (see TID pipe, below) so as to allow for access from and to the driveway and garage at a safe and manageable grade. This not-self-imposed condition dictates that the residence be located at the proposed elevation. As previously engineered and approved under PA 2014-00722 TID Pipe: Old City-owned irrigation 18" diameter pipes were located below were the existing drive is now built. The project begin as a Condition of Approval for PA 2014-00722 which required that such pipes be replaced with new pipes prior to construction of the driveway and the residence at 340 Grandview at Builder's own cost. ($40,000.00) The plan for the replacement pipes was prepared by Dew Engineering in cooperation with Karl Johnson, Public Works/ Engineering Division and Steve Walker, Public Works/ Water Division. See Plan attached. Since the pipes where connected to pre-existing TID boxes, fed by gravity; the driveway design and the driveway elevation had to conform with the pipe installation requirements. Applicant truly hope that this explains the reason for the driveway elevation and as a consequence the compounded result of the Garage elevation and the lower floor to natural grade wall height, and that that the aforementioned statement also explains that this was not a self-imposed situation but a consequence of a very expensive article for Conditions of Approval under PA2014-00722 Further, the structure will not be highly visible from Downtown (a concern of the Ordinance) or highly visible from other points of the City, with the exception of Wimer St. which is directly below and to the North of the subject property. c. A Building Step Back shall be required on all downhill building walls greater than 20 feet in height, as measured above natural grade. An ample and conforming Step-back, deeper than the minimum 6 feet required has been designed as shown on Sheet 43. As a 10 feet step-back separates the Main floor from the Upper Floor, the space has been designed so as to replace the roof section over the Main Upper floor with a step- back serving both as a deck space and a roof for the area below in accordance with Figure 18.3.10.090.E.2.c Downhill Building Step Back. Building Height. No vertical walls on the downhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above natural grade. See Figure 18.3.10.090.E.2.c. 14 AUG 17 2016 E The designer's plans show the residence's downhill Elevation on Sheet #4 More specifically, he North side, down-slope facing vertical walls. Although in this particular case the building design complies with the requirement mentioned above where it pertains to the Step-back between the Main Floor and the Lower Floor, the designers were unable to design another step-back between the Lower j floor and the Natural Grade. As a result of the elevation and location of the City-owned (TID) irrigation pipe under the driveway as per Ashland's Public Works requirements under PA-2014-00722, and because of the resulting final elevation of the shared driveway grade, which was engineered to conform to Public Works requirements, Dew Engineering established the elevation of the structure's Garage at a predetermined height, so as to be accessible from the shared driveway, unfortunately resulting in a lower floor/ crawl space wall with a vertical height as measured from the Main Floor to natural grade of 23 feet; exceeding by three feet the requirements of this section. Applicants encountered a worst situation (Main Floor step-back to natural grade vertical height of 27 feet) when developing the twin parcel at 340 Grandview, for the same reason, namely a predetermined Garage floor elevation and per Staff Advisor applicants applied for an Administrative Variance to 18.3.10.090.E 2. c. which was approved under j PA-2014-00722. During the Pre- Application conference for the subject property, the Staff Advisor adviced Applicant to apply for an Exception as outlined in Chapter 18.5.1.050 Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Land d. Horizontal Offsets 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. See Figure 18.3.10.090.E.2.d. Lower Floor: An offset of 6 feet deep by 21 feet in width has been incorporated into the horizontal building plane of the Lower floor, breaking the horizontal plane and leaving the West side wall at 21 feet, 10 inches in width; also there is another (adjacent) covered offset of 10 feet wide by 11 feet deep to the East of the first offset (outdoors seating area) leaving a wall width to the East of 21 feet. Main Floor: An offset of 6 feet deep by 10 feet 7 inches has been designed into the horizontal wall plane leaving the West side wall at 21 feet 10 inches wide and the East wall at 30 feet 6 inches wide, measured to the next covered seating area which measures9 feet wide by 16 feet. Lower Floor: An offset of 6 feet deep by 21 feet in width has been incorporated into the horizontal building plane of the Lower floor, breaking the horizontal plane and leaving the West side wall at 21 feet, 10 inches in width; also there is another (adjacent) covered offset of 10 feet wide by 11 feet deep to the East of the first offset (outdoors seating area) leaving a wall width to the East of 21 feet. e. Roof forms: It is recommended that Roof forms and roof lines for new structures be broken into a series of smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the surrounding hillside. There are no long, linear unbroken roof lines included on the design. Large gable ends have been avoided, and only one gable end has been incorporated in order to break the East-West roof lines which are surrounded by low and 15 smaller pitched hip roof forms including the very small hip roof over the Main Floor nook area. L Decks: It is recommended that roofs of lower floor levels be used to provide deck or outdoor space for upper floor levels. The building design incorporates a 10 feet step-back which separates the Main floor from the Lower Floor, the generous space has been designed so as to replace the roof section over the Main floor with a step-back serving both as a deck and open space in specific accordance with Figure 18.3.10.090.E.2.c. Overhanging decks with vertical supports have been avoided. g. Color selections: 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. Although color selections have not been finalized, Designers are working with and advising homeowners who are prepared to follow their recommendations in order to maximize exterior colors adherence to the recommendation of this section of the Ordinance Color preferences). F. Foundations: All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. As part of this Application Applicants are submitting Stepped foundation plans prepared by Charles Furrey of Pacific Structural Engineering in cooperation with Robin Warren, Certified Geological Engineer of Applied Geotechnical Engineering. 18.3.10.100 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands 1. Fire Prevention and Control Plan Applicants have met and will meet again on site to discuss the Fire Prevention and Control Plan in consultation with Marguerite Hickman, Fire Marshal, including the Fuel Reduction Code Changes for Wildfire Hazards, and the mitigation of such Hazards by measures including the use of domestic plantings as shown on the Landscaping Plan L-1. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan will show the entire lot complying with the standards, also the removal of dead and dried vegetation, and trees to be removed in and near the driveway and building envelope, as well as the replacement trees designated to C i replace the removed trees. Fire Sprinklers. The proposed residence will have fire sprinklers installed in the structure. The System and the bell for the system will be installed pursuant to new protocols for such installation by a professional Fire Alarm Company, under the approval and supervision of Marguerite Hickman, Fire Marshall. It is understood that an inside bell is no longer required. All large trees will comply with the notations in the Arborist's report and be pruned by a professional arborist to extend the health of the trees to be retained. Trees shall be trimmed back to prevent branches from touching other trees for a distance of 12' and be limbed up above existing shrubs as part of the fuel break work. The subject Property will have natural grasses and weeds cut down to less than 3" above the ground so that if ignited any flames would be less than 1' off the ground. Such fuel break work will be done prior to any combustible construction. The applicants will also enlist the advice of Chris Chambers, Ashland Fire Dept. Wildfire Prevention Specialist, prior to any combustible construction and mitigate any unsafe vegetation within the property 16 Aur 17 '1016 r lines per his direction. The residence has been designed to provide access to a path for Fire personnel, actually allowing for access to the entire perimeter of the residence. i Roofing. The building's roof will be constructed with Pabco Class A/ Lifetime non-wood roof shingles, in compliance with the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. Fire Apparatus access The Driveway design provides for a 20'X 40' Fire Truck work area with a turn around, and the structure will be equipped with fire sprinklers, See Dew Engineering's design Sheet #C 1.1 the access has been verified and approved by Marguerite Hickman MC 15.28.010 OFC 503.4 Fire Line Sign A "No Parking- Fire Lane- Tow Away Zone" sign will be constructed as specified in Dew Engineering's plan, Sheet C2.1, and will be installed as per the Fire Marshall requirements. 18.3.10.110 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands A. Severe Constraint Lands are extremely sensitive to development, grading, filling, or vegetation removal and, whenever possible, alternative development should be considered Applicants are aware of the extremely sensitive conditions of the subject property, having built many residences on the Ashland hillside while complying with the corresponding requirements of the Land Use Ordinance. Applicants intend to continue their successful and reputable course of action such as they have carefully established in the past. C. Development on lands greater than 35 percent slope shall meet all pertinent requirements of section 18.3.10 - Physical and Environmental Constraints, Overlay City of Ashland, Land Use Ordinance 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands in addition to the requirements of this section. Applicants have attempted and will continue to attempt to meet these requirements as shown throughout the attached documentation and the narrative submitted with this Application D. Development of land or approval for a planning action shall be allowed only when the following study has been accomplished: An engineering geologic study approved by the Public Works Director and Planning Director establishes that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. The study shall include the following information "Submitted above under 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands 4. Geotechnical Studies". 18.3.10.130 Penalties. Applicants are aware of the consequences detailed under this Chapter section, and are willing to diligently perform their work so as to avoid any wrongdoing resulting in the aforementioned penalties. 17 Chapter 18.4.3 - Parking, Access, and Circulation 18.4.3.050 Accessible Parking Spaces The shared driveway, approved under PA-2014-00722 is accessed west bound from Grandview Drive, commencing at the curb and reaching the property from the street through a right-of-way Permitted-encroachment area. It shall be paved and constructed as per the attached design provided by Dew Engineering, See Sheet. C1.1.- Dated 7/21/2014 The access has also been designed by Dew Engineering in cooperation with and with the approval of Karl Johnson, Public Works/ Engineering Division, and an Encroachment Permit was issued by the Public Works Department at the time of PA-2014-00722 Application and approval. Parking Areas Three parking spaces have been designed for the subject property, two parking spaces will be located inside the residence's garage, an additional parking space has been built approximately 3' West of the proposed Garage on the North side of the driveway, the parking space is shown on Dew Engineering Plan, Sheets # C1.l, which was approved under PA-2014-00722 3. Intersection and Driveway Separation. The shared driveway, as built is located in excess of the 24 feet minimum separation required from the neighboring driveways, and complies with the City Streets Designs Standards for Driveway separation 18.4.6.090 Utilities All utilities are stubbed out to the subject property and have been extended from their existing source, as shown on Dew Engineering Plans Sheet C1.1, Dated 7/21/2016 and approved under PA-2014-00722 Chapter 18.4.8 - Solar Access Due to the slope of the parcels, the future home construction is not subject to the solar access ordinance, as addressed in the 1989 partition. (PA89-022) Chapter 18.6.1 Definitions. Coverage, Lot or Site. The total area of a lot covered by buildings, parking areas, driveways, and other solid surfaces that will not allow natural water infiltration to the soil. Chapter 18.2.5 - Standards for Residential Zones C. Rural Residential Zone. Standards for the Rural Residential (RR) zone follow: Lot Coverage - Maximum of lot area) 2. Lot Type- RR.5- Lot Coverage: 20% Upon Applicant's request during the Pre-Application process the Staff Advisor determined that the entire area of the shared driveway's square footage located within the Subject Property lines shall be allocated as Lot Coverage to the Subject Property and not shared (as Lot Coverage) with the residence at 340 Grandview Dr. Lot Coverage= 20% Subject Property Lot Area= 22,216 sq. ft. x 20% = 4,443 Sq. Ft. 18 Lot coverage as designed: Building and Garage: 3,304 sq. ft. Parking: 220 sq. ft. 100% of Driveway : 1,320 sg. ft. Total Lot Coverage 4,844 sq. ft Allowable Lot Coverage: 4,443 sq. ft. Lot Coverage 4,844 sq. ft Difference: 401 sq. ft. (over)=1.8% Lot Coverage Variance: As described in AMC 18.2.5.030.A, the maximum Lot Coverage for the RR-05 zone is 20%. For the current Application, based on a proposed Lot Coverage of 21.8 % as calculated above, and as per Staff Advisor's advice Applicant will be applying for a Variance. Chapter 18.62.080.B.9. Inspection and Final Report The Geological Report attached to this Application includes mitigation language and/or graphic illustrations for site preparation, structural fill, cut and fill slopes, and erosion control measures. Lastly, the report indicates that Inspections will be performed as required, by the Geotechnical Expert to evaluate the site's disturbances in order to ensure the construction work is in compliance with his instructions and the Geo Technical Report. By taking these steps, the applicants contend measures will be implemented to mitigate against any potential hazards the construction may cause. The Geological expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans and that scheduled inspections, per Chapter 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the Geotechnical expert. Respectfully submitted by CJ ~ r d` R enshammer uilding & Desi, Inc. Carlos Reichenshammer, President 19 COURTNEY AND MATT B OLDER RESIDENCE 320 G VIEW DRIVE, ASHLAND, OR TYPE I PHYSICAL & E ONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT FOR A TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE PER CHAPTER 18.2.5- STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES- Chapter 18.2.5.C. RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE Chapter 18.2.5 - Standards for Residential Zones Lot Coverage- maximum % of lot area Chapter 18.2.5.C. Rural Residential Zone Standards for the Rural Residential (RR) zone follow: Chapter 18.2.5.0.2. Lot Type- RR.S- Lot Coverage: 20% Chapter 18.5.5.050 Approval Criteria A. The approval authority through a Type I or Type II procedure, as applicable, may approve a variance upon finding that it meets all of the following criteria. 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. The Subject Property was created as a legal lot prior to the establishment of the Hillside Standards, and not in compliance with the current standards, which in the opinion of the Applicant constitutes evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving the requested Variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. The Variance of 1.8% additional Lot Coverage constitutes an excess of 401 Sq. Ft. coverage which is proposed to be balanced by the fact that the area to be retained in Natural State exceeds by far the requirements Under Chapter 18.3.10.090.B.3 Retention of Land in Natural State, whereas Average slope= 40% + 25%= 65%. Project area= 22,215.6 X 65% =14,440 sq. ft., Therefore 14,440 sq. ft. shall be retained in Natural State. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The proposal in no way presents negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and otherwise closely adheres to the purpose and intent of the ordinance And the Comprehensive Plan of the City B. In granting a variance, the approval authority may impose conditions similar to those provided for conditional uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners, the neighborhood, or the City as a whole 22 U 17 )I This Request is respectfully submitted by: gn, Inc. Rea enshammer uilding & Mt Carlos Reichenshammer, Prei i I G AUG 1.7 2016 23 COURTNEY AND MATT B OLDER RESIDENCE 320 G VIEW DRIVE, ASHLAND, OR TYPE I PHYSICAL & E O i NTAL CONSTRAINTS PE RMIT FOR A TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CHAPTER 18.3.10.090.H REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSUDE LANDS During the Pre-Application conference for the subject property, the Staff Advisor advised Applicant to apply for. an Exception as outlined in Chapter 18.5.1.050 Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Land The Requested Exception: Chapter 18.3.10.090.E.c. Building Height: No vertical walls on the downhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above natural grade. An exception under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of Chapter 18.5.5 Variances. An exception is subject to the Type I procedure in Section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. The designer's plans show the residence's downhill Elevation on Sheet #4 More specifically, the North side, down-slope facing vertical walls. Although in this particular case the building design complies with the requirement where it pertains to the Step-back between the Main Floor and the Lower Floor, the designers were unable to design another step-back between the Lower floor and the Natural Grade. As a result of the elevation and location of the City-owned (TID) irrigation pipe under the driveway as per Ashland's Public Works requirements under PA-2014-00722, and because of the resulting final elevation of the shared driveway grade, which was engineered to conform to Public Works requirements, Dew Engineering established the elevation of the structure's Garage at a predetermined height, so as to be accessible from the shared driveway, unfortunately resulting in a lower floor/ crawl space wall with a vertical height as measured from the Main Floor to natural grade of 23 feet; exceeding by three feet the requirements of this section. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. Applicants are recommending that the approval of the requested Exception would eliminate the need of having to build another level, below the lowest currently proposed level, so as to create a stepback, by instead allowing the area below the 20 feet walls to be filled with material from cuts made on site and by building a small Ashlar block landscaped and irrigated planter, AUV I V l 20 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. As detailed above, the proposed planter would constitute minimal exposure and height, properly irrigated, covered with shrubs and cascading plants this approach will eliminate the need of lower floor decks and walkways which would require some unsightly supporting posts. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Applicant has explored several other possibilities to address this situation considering the consequences and minimal impact of the proposed solution, and hereby in good faith affirms that in his opinion the Exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Applicants encountered a worst case situation (Main Floor step-back to natural grade vertical height of 27 feet) when developing the twin parcel at 340 Grandview, for the same reason, namely a predetermined Garage floor elevation and per Staff Advisor applicants applied for an Administrative Variance to 18.3.10.090.E.2.c.which was approved under PA-2014-00722. This Request is respectfully submitted by: 4elenshammer Building & e Inc. Carlos Reichenshammer, President r" r E' AUG i i " 2916 21 pplied cotes nicl n ee in Geologic Consulting July 28, 2016 i Reichenshammer Building and Design 21 N. Main Street, Suite 1 Ashland, OR 97520 I 1 SUBJECT. Geotechnical investigation New Single-Family Residence 320 Grandview Drive Ashland, Oregon At your request, Applied Geotechnical Engineering and Geologic Consulting LLC (AGEGC) has completed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed single-family residence to be built at 320 Grandview Drive in Ashland, Oregon. The intent of our work is to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the new home. AGEGC provided geoteehnical engineering services during design and construction of the adjacent home located at 340 Grandview Drive. Our geoteclmical investigation included a review of available geotechnical and geologic information for the property and vicinity, a ground-level reconnaissance of the property and vicinity, and engineering analyses. This report describes the work accomplished and provides our recommendations for development of the lot. E We understand that the site will be developed with a new single-family home. Due to the existing slopes, the home will require a retaining wall as part of the structure. The retaining wall for the home may be up to about 10 ft high and will be located on the uphill side of the home. We anticipate that the garage will have part structural floor and part slab-on-grade. As part of the construction for access to the home located at 340 Grandview, MSE retaining walls were built for the new driveway. The home at 320 Grandview Drive will share a portion of the existing driveway and will abut against the downhill MSE walls for the existing driveway. The MSE walls were designed by others. Downspouts and low-point drains from the home will be hard-piped to the storm water system. SITE DESCRIPTION A licensed geotechnical engineer and geologist provided by AGEGC completed a site visit to the site uu July 2016. The property is relatively large and is located on the north (downhill) side of Grandview Drive. The majority of the lot is ungraded and slopes moderately down to the north/northeast, away from Grandview Drive. The majority of the property is vegetated with scattered trees and grassy I' areas. Indications of groundwater springs or seepage were not observed on the lot. {j Y3 "j;~' z r~.•f _ I ~~,~r~~~ ~9 @.G4 ti 4294-16 324 Grandview Drive Surficial soils consist of silty sand soils (decomposed granite). Geologic maps of the area indicate the site is underlain by granite. Native slopes in the vicinity of the proposed home site are relatively uniform and no indications of deep-seated slope failures were observed. We anticipate that groundwater typically occurs at depths of greater than 30 ft; however, perched groundwater likely occurs at the top of the weathered granite during periods of heavy and/or extended rainfall. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In our opinion, the property is suitable for development with the single-family residence. The main geotechnical consideration for development of the lot is the existing MSE walls along the uphill side of the proposed building footprint (the driveway retaining walls). Extreme care must be taken to not undermine these walls during excavation for the new home's foundations. If the geotechnical recommendations for development of the lot are followed, in our opinion, there is no significant risk of slope instability on the lot or settlement due to the home. Recommendations for development of the lot are provided below. Lot Development 1) The sequence of construction of the house's foundation is critical for stability of the MSE walls above the home. We also recommend that the excavations for the foundations be constructed during typically dry summer and fall months. Saturated soils and/or groundwater seepage into cuts can cause significant sloughing and /or erosion of cut and native slopes, which could result in loss of support of the MSE walls. The general contractor, the geotechnical engineer, the excavation contractor and the MSE wall designer should discuss the construction sequence prior to start of excavation. 2) We anticipate that the majority of the excavation spoils will be removed from the lot due to the existing, relatively steep slopes on the site. Final graded slopes on the lot should be no steeper than 2H:I V. Temporary cut slopes up to 10 ft high completed during dry weather may be excavated at a slope of 0.5H: IV. Structural fill under buildings and concrete flatwork should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. All fills should be overbuilt a minimum of 2 ft beyond final grades then trimmed back to design elevations using a trackhoe equipped with a smooth-lip bucket. The disturbed silty sand soils are highly susceptible to erosion and should be revegetated as soon as practical. Prior to placement of any fill, the ground surface in the fill are should be stripped of organics and existing fill. The strippings are not suitable for use as compacted fill and should be removed from the site or used in landscaped areas. Slopes to receive fill should be benched with relatively flat areas during fill placement. The benches should be a minimum of 12 ft wide. 3) Fill placed within 2 ft of driveway areas, the house footprint, retaining walls, and concrete flatwork should consist of compacted, structural fill. The on-site soil (without deleterious material) may be used as structural fill if properly moisture conditioned and compacted; however, it is notpractical to use the on site materials as structural fill during periods of wet weather. Structural fill may also be constructed of imported granular fill, such as 3/a- and 4-in.-minus crushed rock. Structural fill must be compacted to at least AUG 17 0E~ t 4zA-16 320 Grandview Drive 95% of the maxunum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698, at a moisture content within 3% of optimum. The ground surface within all areas to receive till should be stripped of su ficial organics prior to placement of the fill. G 4) Structural loads may be supported on continuous spread footing foundations founded on stiff native, undisturbed silty sand soils or on structural till over undisturbed native soils. We recommend that pad foundations not be used for support of the residence. Foundations should run perpendicular to the slope (uphill-downhill) were possible. Foundation excavations should be completed using a baekhoe or trackhoe equipped with a smooth-lip bucket. The downhill edge of any foundationmust be setback an equivalent horizontal distance of at least 10 ft from the face of any slope. This setback may be obtained by embedding the foundation below grades. On a 214A V slope, the downhill ' edge of a foundation must be embedded 5 ft below grade to obtain the recommended slope setback. Spread footing foundations maybe designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of up to 2,000 psf. This allowable soil bearing pressure asstunes all footings will be founded as recommended in this report. The minimum width of any footing should not be less than 15 in., and footings should be established a minimum of 18 in. below the lowest adjacent exterior grade. 5) The site should be graded to provide positive drainage away from footings and exterior walls. Subsurface drains (foundation drains) should be provided adjacent to all exterior foundations. 6) Spread footing foundations should be underlain by a minimum of 4 in. of compacted'/- in.-minus, compacted crushed rock on the foundation subgrade to protect the subgrade from disturbance due to construction. The thickness of the crushed rock may need to be increased during wet weather construction. The crushed rock should be compacted with several passes with a smooth-plate vibratory compactor. 7) Concrete slab-on-grade floors should be underlain by a minimum of 9 in. of'11-in: minus imported crushed rock. We recommend installation of a moisture retarding membrane under the concrete slab to minimize wicking of moisture up through the slab or leaking of moisture through the floor. 8) We understand that retaining walls will be constructed as part of the home. Rigid (such as concrete cantilevered walls) retaining wall foundations should have the same slope setback requirements as the house foundations. The following embedded wall design recommendations assume that the wall backfill consists of clean granular material (sand or crushed rock) within at least 2 ft of the wall, the back-fill is compacted to 90 to 95946 of ASTIvI D 698, the backfnll is level within 10 ft of the wall, and the embedded wall is folly drained, i.e., hydrostatic pressure cannot act on the wall. -A'alls that are allowed to yield by tilting about their base (cantilevered retaining walls are typically considered yielding) should be designed using a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid having a unit weight of 35 pc£ We further recommend that horizontal earth pressures due to surcharge loads be taken as an additional uniform horizontal pressure (rectangular pressure diagram) of 0.5 times the intensity of the surcharge load acting over the entire 3 Ur, 17 016 _94-I6 320 Grandview Drive height of the wall. Horizontal shear forces can be resisted partially or completely by frictional forces developed between the base of spread footings and the underlying soil and by passive soil resistance. The total frictional resistance between the footing and the soil is the nonnal force times the coefficient of friction between the soil and the base of the footing, We recommend an ultimate value of 0.4 for the coefficient of friction; the normal force is the sum of the vertical forces (dead load plus real live load). 9) We estimate that relatively hard rock occurs at a depth of less than 20 tI at the site. In our opinion, seismic design for the new home can be completed based on a Site Class B material. 10) A qualified geotechnicaI engineer should evaluate structural fill placement and compaction, and examine the foundation excavations and evaluate the subgiade prior to construction of the foundations. Lt ITT6S This report has been prepared to aid the owner's design team in the design and construction of the proposed home on the referenced building lot. The scope is limited to the specific project and location described herein, and our description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects of the project relevant to the design and construction of the proposed home. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the infonnation described above. It should be understood that there are limitations in a study of this type (without field explorations). If the owner wishes to reduce these uncertainties beyond the level associated with this report; we should be advised at once. We have performed these services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in southern Oregon at the time the study was accomplished. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are provided. Please contact AGEGC if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Applied Geotechnical Engineering and Geologic Consulting LLC D PRO ~ ►NE~,~ Rio a 45PE OREGON Robin L. Warren, G.E., R.G. ✓UC 1g~~ Principal At Renewal: June 2018 4 AUG 1.'Y 016"! t IJ PO Box 881 ?I Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541-482-3667 i i Carlos Reichenshammer Ashland, OR 97520 7/30/16 Tree Protection Plan for 320 Grandview The Tree Protection Plan for 320 Grandview is designed to address the needs of all existing trees within the project. The trees are identified by number on the plan as well as by numbered tag attached to the tree in the field. The specified tree protection zones (as stipulated in the enclosed tree inventory) will be drawn on the plans as well as delineated on the site by approved fencing- Trees with protection zones that extend within the foundation lines of the building, or driveway, as well as trees that are within the area of the foundation, or driveway, will need to be removed. All other trees within the building project boarders will need protection. The enclosed specifications detail exactly how the trees are to be protected. The building contractor and subcontractors will meet with a certified arborist before and during construction to insure that the correct measures are in place before construction or demolition begins. A certified arborist must supervise any work done within the specified tree protection zone. A certified arborist will conduct an inspection of the trees during and after construction. If you have any questions regarding this tree protection plan please call me at 482-3667. Tom Myers, Certified Arborist DBA Upper Limb-it AUK I ` i Upper Limb-it { Tree Service n PO Box 881 Ashland, OR 97520 7130/16 Pno„e 54IA82af 7 Tree Inventory for 320 Grandview - Tree Crown protection relative DBH in :Height in Radius in zone radius tolerance to Tree It - Species ' inches feet feet in feet construction Condition Notes - rcus garoyanna 12 32 10 6good _ :flood-.. 1 Que 2 Arbutus menziesi 14 33 13 17.5 poor 9ood_-_ - :Arbutus 3 Que cus kelloggii ! -30 10 it moderate fair 4 :Quercus gaaiyanna 9 27 9 4.5 :good :good - - - Quercuskelloggii 10 29 10 10 moderate good 5 6 Arbutus menziesii 14 32 15 175 '.poor_ _ :good r - 7 Arbutusmenziesii 7 30 _ 11 875 :poor:good 8 Quercus kelloggrr - - 8 32 - 7 6 moderate - 'fair j - - - . - - I 9 Quemuskell giJ 17, 44 5 - 17 moderate good 10 Quercus garriyanna 9 39 10 4.5 good-. _ good - good 11 ;Quercusgarriyamna _ 9 39. 9 4.5 good 12 •IQuercusgamyanna_. 6 : 39 9 4 .._.-.good ;good. i - - 13 Quercus garriyanna 7 38 8, - 15 -:good - - !good- - - 14 Quercusgamyanna, 10 40 11 _ 5 'good good. - I_-_ - - - - _ 15 ~.Quercuskeliuggii i 17 48 17 17 ;moderate -,---good 16 Quercusganiyanna to 38 . 10 5 good good_ _ j - - 17 Quemus garriyanna _ 9 36 10 4.5 . ,good good - 16 Querousgarriyanna-___ `...16 42----' 15 __12 --_.igOod good - - 19 'Pntnusduicis 9 24 10 . 9 :moderate- fair i-- _ _ _ 20 Catocednrsdecurrens_-_ 12- i - 36 8 12 ;moderate good remove move, 21 ~Quercusgarriyanna 7 22 8_-, 3.5.__ ':good ,good-___-_ 're-o 22 :Gercocarpusmontanus 6 21 8 4.5 moderate good... !remove 23 Quelcusgamyanna 8- --i. 20..- i 9- 4 good good - - - - - j 24 Quemus garriyanna 6 24 7 3 good ',good 25 `Quercus gamyanna 7 21 6 15 good good 26 Quercuskelloggii 7 25 8 5.25 moderate good 27 Quercus gamyanna _9 30 - - 10 _ 4.5 :good. good double trunk„ _ 28 JCalocedrusdecunens - - l - 12. 22 9 9 moderate 900. 29„ Quercusgarriyanna___ 8_ f 24 y _ 11 4 :good fair--- `remove 3D Quercus gamyanna..--- - 8 23.. - 9 4 ,good.-- good----. - titlts-~-_--- _ I 31 Quercusgamyanna 11 27 15 5.5 'good _ fair 32 'Quercus arri anna 9 24 8 4.5 ood :fair i g t 1 33 Quercusgarriyanna 7 24 8 - 3.5 good fair 34 Quercus gat . nna . 8 i 25 9 4 - -..:good :fair - - 35 _ iQuen usganyanna 7 24 _'-------B i-- - 3.5 good - good------- . i 36 'Quercusgarriyanna. ` 11 ` 25 12 ! 5.5 ',good _;good _ 37 QuercusgaMyanna 7 24 6 3,5 good fair 38 Quercusgarriyanna 7 23 3.5 good--- good - - - - - - - 39 Quercus kelloggii 7 24 10 5.25 moderate good 40 `Quercuskelloggii 7-. 23 10 3.5 good _ good_ . 41 cemoearpus montanus 6 18 - 12 4.5 moderate good 42 Quercus kelloggii 7 18 9 5.25 moderate 'poor 'dead top and trunk wound 43 Quemus arri anna 9 23 12 4.5 :good ood I'> it Fr I-< UG 17 2016 Specifications DeTmToUgon and Site Cleaning I : The demolition contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site prior to beginning work to review all work procedures, access and haul routes, and tree protection measures. I The limits of all tree protection zones shall be staked in the field- 3. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy oftrec(s) to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by demolition or construction contractors. The qualified arborist shall remove the tree in a mamer that causes no damage to the tree(s) and under story to remain. 4. Any brush clearing required within the tree protection zone shall be accomplished with hand operated equipment. 5. Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall way from tree protection zones and to avoid pulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain- If roots are entwined, the consultant may require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees. This may be accomplished by cutting through the roots by hand, with a: vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root-pruning equipment] 6. Trees to be removed from within the tree protection zone shall be removed by a qualified arborist The trees shall be cut near ground level and the stump ground out. 7. All downed brush and trees shall be removed from the tree protection zone either by hand or with equipment sitting outside the tree protection zone. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out, not by skidding it across the ground- 8. l3russh shall be chipped and placed in the tree protection zone to a depth of 6 inches 9. structures and underground features to be removed within the tree protection zone shall use the smallest equipment possible and operate from outside the tree protection zone. The consultant shall be on site during all operations within the tree protection zone to monitor demolition activity 10. All trees shall be pruned in accordance with the provided lprtIIiing specifications 11. A six foot chain link fence with posts sunk into the ground shall be erected to enclose the tree protection zone 12. Any damage to trees due to demolition activities shall be reported to the consulting arborist within six hours so that remedial action can be taken. Timeliness is critical to tree health. 13. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a roadbed of 6 inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil- The roadbed material shall be replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth. AUG I-'/ Specifications for Tree Preservation Du Construction rM9 1. Before begmnning works the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures. I 2.- Fences must be erected to protect trees to be preserved- Fences define a specific protection zone for each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed- Fences may not be relocated or removed without the writteiipcnnission of the consultant 3. Construction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times. 4. All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the tree protection zone. If lines must traverse theprotection area, they shalt be tunneled or bored under the tree. 5. No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within the tree protection zone (fenced area). 6. Additional tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction-personnel. 7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use. Anypesticides used on site must be tree-safe and not easily transported by water. 8. If injury should occur to any free during construction, the tree consultant should evaluate it as soon as .possible so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 9. The consulting arborist must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots. 10. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the consultant. Irrigation shall wet the soil within the tree-protection zone to a depth of 30 inches. 11. Erosion control devices such as silt fencing, debris basins, and water diversion structures shall be installed to prevent siltation and/or erosion within the tree-Protection zone. 12. Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any trees within the specific construction zone shall be root pruned I foot outside the tree protection zone by cutting all roots cleanly to a depth of 24 inches. Roots shall be clot by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating knife. rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root pruning equipment I3. Any toots damaged during -grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a yaw. 14. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a road bed of 6 inches of mulch or gravel shall be created lo-protect the soil. The road bed material shall be replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth. A(1! ° P/ 2016 Specifications ® I 1. All trees within the project area shall be pruned to: a) Clear the crown of diseased, crossing, weak, and dead wood to a minimum size of 1112 inches diameter. b) Provide 14 feet of vertical clearance over streets and g feet over sidewalks. c) Remove stubs, cutting outside the woundwood tissue that has formed around the branch_ d) Reduce end weight on heavy, horizontal branches by selectively removing small diameter branches, no greater than 2 to 3 inches near the ends of the sca .1ds. e) Remove any mistletoe. 2. Where temporary clearance is needed for access, brunches shall be tied back to hold them out of the clearance-zone. 3. Pruning shall not be performed during periods of flight of adult boring insects because fresh wounds attractpests_ Pruning shall be performed only when the danger of won is past. 4• Allpruzing shall be_performed by a qualified arborist 5. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree prun ng Guidelmes (International Society of Arboriculture) and/or the ANSI A300 Priming Standard (American National Standard for Free Care Operations) and adhere to the most recent edition of ANSI Z133.1. 6. Interior branches shall not be stripped out. 7. Pruning arts larger than 4 inches in diameter, except for dead wood, shall be avoided. a- Pruning cuts that expose heartwood shall be avoided whenever possible. 9. No more than 20 percent of Live foliage shall be removed within the trees. 10. While in the tree, the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects that require treatment. Any additional work needed shall be reported to the consultant. 11. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees within the tree protection zone to a maximum depth of six inches leaving the trunk clear of mulch. U P" , h i 15. Spoil from trenches, basements, or other excavations shall not be placed within the tree protection zone, either temporarily or permanently. 16. No burn piles or debris pits shall be placed within the tree protection zone. No ashes, debris, or garbage may be dumped or buried within the tree-protection zone, 17- Maintain fire-safe areas around fenced areas. Also, no heat sources, flames, ignition sources, or smoking is allowed near mulch or trees. L, i r t, f UO .1 `7 '~Q% -I d Ix- - - Maintenance Construction www.CaroIsColors.com 87 W. Nevada St,_ Ashland,-Oregon 97520 541-535-7074 The Turn-on phase of this service includes manually running through the system and checking for breaks and/or coverage adjustments. (Repairs are free if they are a result of faulty materials or workmanship on our part, otherwise they can be done at a rate of $65/hr.) References: Oreqon Shakespeare Festival Jim & Anita Chester Ashland, Oregon Talent, Oregon Scott 541-482-2111 ext 385 541-512-9684 Reid Hanna Peter & Sharon Potemkin 1101 Siskiyou 195 Carolyn Court Ashland, Oregon Talent, Oregon Tom Reid 541-944-4149 541-482-3711 Leo & Sylvia Bardes Rick & Alison Penfield 3367 Creek View Dr. 100 Ridge Rd. Medford, Oregon 97504 Ashland, OR 97520 541-773-4549 541-482-7557 Landscape/Irrigation Contractors License #9055 Landscape Contractors Board 2111 Front St NF Ste 2-101 Salem, Oregon 97310 (503) 967-6291 01, 17 1I'j{. Page 3 of 3 h Nauures pe Designs It LandscapeDesign and Consultation Plant Materials List for: 320 Grandview Drive ABBR. QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE CAL ACU. 3 Calamagrostis x acutiflora 'Karl Foerstee Feather Reed Grass 'Karl F. 1 gal. CAL DEC 6 Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar 4-5• CEA DAR 7 Ceanothus'Dark Star' 'Dark Star' Ceanothus 5 gal. GAR EVI 1 Garrya elliptica 'Evie' Silktassel 'Evie' 5, gal. MAH AQU 24 Mahonia aquifolia Oregon Grape 2-3 gal. ROS TUS 8 Rosmarinus officianalls'Tuscan Blue' Up-right Rosemary 'Tuscan Blue' 5 gal. RUB CAL- 58 Rubus calycinoides Creeping Bramble 1 gal. TSU MON 27 Tsuga Canadensis'Monlee 'Emerald Fountain' Hemlock 30-36" NOTES 1. Landscape installer is to verify locations. of any existing or proposed utilities prior to grading, trenching, or excavation. 2. Area for plantings of cascading perennials. Suggested plant materials include: Aubrieta x'Rokeys Purple; Basket- of-Gold Alyssum, asst. Creeping Phlox. Creeping Rosemary 'Irene,' and asst. Creeping Thyme. Plant from 4" or 1 gal. pots in a random arrangement, spaced 18" on center. Note: these are not included in the above plant materials list, but please include these in the installation bid. 3. Install pea gravel, spread at least 2" deep, in the area between the proposed retaining wall and the proposed asphalt driveway. 4. The proposed incense Cedars (Calocedrus decurrens) serve as replacement trees for the native trees designated to be removed (see the Arborists' Tree Inventory, up-dated on 2/5/14), 5. All proposed plants are to be irrigated with a drip irrigation system. Irrigation plan is to be designed by others. 6. Proposed retaining walls have been designed and engineered by Mark Dew Engineering. 7. Landscape installer shall confer with designer regarding any proposed substitutions of plant materials. Landscape designer will approve spotting of plant materials in their specified -locations prior to planting. Please allow at least 5 working days notice before designer is to be on site. 1 1 i ~ C 4 4 ~ 1 F Pik I" FLIII `;lW; Hor;: E'rii (!i,, AV; r i "ja fi't' 2 = f t M'. 190 07 -A0 f J, s' X.Ir r. A FG r r 1 43. ~V i~ i 'f ,p r ~ ~ I l a 4f s ~ I 1 1 it, j E' ti Fair r ~ _ f 3 h ^ 1 Image 1 of 3 sere a u ~.r f I + is S ) r ~ i 10 rte." > a . + It t - ~ ~ : , ~ ~ 4RIt ~ ~ ~ ~ ate, l`~ E E _.,'i ' j _ ~ ~ ¢ s \ a mom" jr - , Image 1 of 2 /1l®~~~ ~l ~ ~ air pass U I,-/ f t. i i. 1 1 Y N r ~tTl1 4 ®®Y~~ ss~4fiw896 8JY9~I~O~ t v pt _ VIA s [tot UK I b t1 ` _ a < - 7' nor w- F 4 Image I of 3 U 17 X0 l~ ~ 1 { I d =A ~ _Yv Itoage 1 of 2 AU 17 016, 21 I ~ ~L , r 5 ~ I f a 41 it it i .~r, . lr ~/~r1t r - r> Image 2 of 3 AUP, l~ use I j ~ b~~ >r .mow I r; r O-m i F r _ * v }tt _ r~ F a + A ~r r 5 ~ t p t iI ~~Assf, i i }il ji1 1 r'73 10 'J1 S i uT- r ~ ~k~ h r g~ - r ~ I~ I 1 ~ IS F 7 1 , x ~ ~ }t T7 (}}`,tray + i)tf~, i i 'YtP.4, 0~ I r 'tom h V ~~3~~ I 1., i woo yap ingalao4puelyse ZIZI-Zel it S 7,,9 ~O 'aN'V 1HSV Z30-TOHxains L, 'CIK'V-THSV '1S NSSNOIcti 'ON ~a m3lnaNV oZS l l v Lw 3 1. Nl~no~ a air Z)Ni 'N%~aSEIa $I IDNIClIng W4J~HsN H~i~~ NV'l c4 3115 2~0 H IS Q b1t0H v R =n. 'J4 " I915_'C a -IO-IIr. h3WI.1VHSN3F1713J 19 1N3SNOO N3ll121m If 0- 53SOd nd 213110 1NV 210j O3S1 2tp -OnCO21 391ON 1VW S1NIbd ONV N91S_O 3H1'2I0'ONVIH97 '3nIbO Ih3 41 9 < 1-1Ii9 39 Ol 2+301OH~121fi9 i1Va a 13N-1- b0, ©N9IS3O -II- N-9 5VH SN-.__H1 W Nnlb~¢ ST 3N'=aIS3r xL-UIOM~rLTO 3FIl '7W 'N915-=a a 9nlQllflB J3LJLlVHSN3HO1-2319 9102 ~FI91c.~_. > ° a a I ~ S m 3 ~~s ~ k~ o~ it s osa_o III el fi~ € / ® III ~ of 5 ~ °na ~a oa a3 ayg3n ~~o€og4 zrc Sr ~65mdr ..m.mm,-m va 9mmmmmmm$$ ~a 31~ rcuu uu a m' a ~ ~I ,a :48R } ;~mm~ h m o II~3 III I II ~ ~I > ~i z" ao m3ma~ Hwam k I d add x E- ~ w ~ LLd I~ - ~ ss ff f8 v. 3' R m O o ooogm 000 dill I ~ I'I \ 3..5 g CNpp.m+ y Q GI S? 3S m aa.iac Vh1.~w19 x3 ~ Q vs a~ ~z s' s NOR 3Q ti m 3 / °~n m m R I - 8 = 4 odS - a~ Q ~ n 9 - am I ~ z. z m m ~9P~ £9m as xc I - /s ~f a w apq a m a a»~d„b°NU~ . o x$a a a0 al gFs= ~ Y.. .,Z Y s f ~ kkpp 2All"ms 3a RIZ - ac v00 s t - 9 V °o F° ~9n as~F ' / o / _ o o ~ A ° w 9 ¢ - 22 ~ano~i >~av p~oa~a III -°g~ m4~°aa$ ~z°u$ -°~ma$ 4.°.Fa ~Zr rc~ x ~ - 3 9m ' e g a dw L~ I'I w I I MI I I~ OZ8L6 ~O 'QNb'~ttSb' ~C3-lOli~~11°~ OZSL6 'Z40 °ONb'-lH9V "IS Z!33NOIc! 'ON i,9 "NC[ M3lA(IN'VZ!A) OZE IIVW ~ A3NINnOO ~ ON 'N'J953a 3 smcilne FIwvti9r-af tOENV`'Sc4 N®®-7~ NIVIW 8-01 N D I S I Q H A O H s 'OV N9I- a 9NIO1l1E'1'NNYHSN3H~I3x! 1. -NOC -121 InCH1M S350dJfld LEh O ANY 2K1~ mSfl b0 ¢3CfI40Lo3L 30 -N AYW S1NIJd ONb N91S30 3H1'b0 'ONY7HS1'3AIn0 fn3 _ 39 OLE lb 1~1f12 f Ol 2130~GH>I Jfl9 L.YW a A3N121(t00 LOd 2=N91534 AT ISfI'10>G N~6 SbH SNYId 353111 NI NRIYtlO SY 30N3OI53?J Y30'IOH`~ib 5 =H1 'CNI N9IS3Q a 9NIa"IINE Y3LIWYHSfEtYJl3 J AE 91. ~'.::;__H°JIt1Ad00 - 5-,Ob 9~i „P,9 „P,b „Y,OI \ V O 1 ;i Z =Ll U _ f1 03 I ~ s > (1 1~__ ~~91 o I 4 o _ ~I F J o !o„ Z o z z q = II 4 i = I m I9a a I T:T i m I ki a I 4 I . a a =eve o F L c_,91 O- 1,91 „4,Ob Luoo•.aaplingawoypuelyse ZIZI-ZSb Itss OZSLS Z!40 'QN'd-IHS'V Q-IOfi~k~fl$ OZSSL6 "*aiO '(3NV7HSV '19 Z!S3NOId -ON -.t,9 ?Ja M2IACNVNtD OZ£ 11 v w , jaNlznoo c4 ~!a -ONi 'NSISEId > VNialin$ !ewwvtis I~ai ~t N ~ ®X11®-f 2I0 3 OIS3Q b~IOH o $ yea' "ONI 'N av v 9NIO~If18 2L3WWYHSN3lYJI321 A9 1N3SN00 N3111L111 l~OH11Rl S3SOd21ftd 2S1h10.L~IY TJO~ QiS JO mOf~O0 3810h lYW S ONY N91S3a 3H1'OL5L6 210 'ONtr=:nHY 3nlba (1431/ :~L9 OLE lY 1-1(I8 38 Ol 2i301OH1'21l19 11YW 9 A3N12Jf107 >l03 mN91S3Q 1'I?/[ISfI"IOX3 N336 S- SNY1d -1 NI NR:Y2IC 4Y .-.-I.. .1 3H1'ONI 'li71S3Q v 9NIQTfl9 2I3WW1I =.N=r'JI3ii A8 91C: -~!J.k9!TJ:.dO'J ,ad x.P9 , .m.:x,o9 o ` a ~ r e rys 4 - - NIA NIH g , O p 0 91 o ~ i U m a a d11 LU a I I 4 ~ - G - 7 o - r mlll ,U a m ~ mi r ~ ~ „Y,EE v0-,II ~ 04 woo•aaplincgswoypue yse ZIZI-Z8~, ltr,2 ?>1a 131nQ 9~1~ OZ6 Q TOi-I ~nB OZQLr. 'Z~10'QN'b'1H9V '19 ZtG-=NOId -ON fyOJ SNOfl'VAB-S 11~W 13N1~FP10O a III ONI °Ng7iS3Q ~ Z!lRQ7f1f99 Z3l..lLd°7$-iSN31iO13Z4 N47S~:l V lhlO 2I-0,j I\? J I S EIQ 21/rI 0 H -1 1 3e o xac--ins ane ..iau , ian ao ~a3n~ s3a Ismas -udda svn sua d =wM N--~SV^ -o sa a=_m-na aroa NI N* 1- r =''wa-ine a3wwpnar- 31laa «alnoh Mj ozs la rrenaHO~a .:a vioz a1H~laxdo~ i _ vF ~ I r ~I 6 e - M E3 Q p~q 9W r~ ~g K ~ - U 16A ~j1 l m I ' ,r r I 1 i~ ~ ( 1, 2 a 0~, ~r lJ0 0 4 IL o 0 O~C7®~ j o I ©t r ' ~ ~ III I I T I w EC_3® 1a° _ ~m ~m s r I CIS C'~ _ 5 a j m ~ a II ~ 1 I I (J~1 u _ 'I L a g c~ 76 rc~ ~ d aFu o _ I„ ,d ~ d o a~ mz Sao o~ 'i I II III ~ I I I o-,cz I u av-jsplingawaypualyse ZIZI-Z8b [2,G OZGLG NO 'CNV'7HSb ~3CI70ht~Ic~4nS g €I OZ5L6 'NO 'QNVIH9'V '19 N33NOId 'ON "<1Q (nalACINVZ4V ON: I-LV i 3 Jk3Nlz!in00 a - -ONI 'NVISS2 3 '&DQ78 Z!MWWV +SK5H:D3N 1 OUV -1 1SVa Z:~0,J NOISM aWOH g ' - x..eMay~z m=..r 7\i 'N9iS34 v 9NIQlIf19 t13WWVHSN3Hv13J A01IL-SN07 \3LLIbm N HL m 4340dJfld L91i0 ANtl ?11 Q35f1 210 ©72QObi-3 -1 01 hb S1NIa'd ONV N~JIS=a ?H -inz6 ?JO'CNp" 3 I!Q IIL11hoNV'?i9 OZ£ 1Y lllfl9 98 01 2L=OlOH?b^.9 11YM a A3Nta(100 Z; W_ mN91490 AT3hI5frTJ%3 N33E 54H SNVid NI 29 NlIIY214 Sd 3:N_~QIS321 O10HJ~fl9 9H1 "ONI 'N91494 > 9NIQilf19 SJ3WLI4HSN3H 0132f A8 9102 [*J-.H91211d00 O I n V X~ W ti I I I ~ I I I o- Q YO vd 41 I ' '3 i7~ LLI I - ~j . I J'. U n O i i I 1 i I rd _myyQ W'U I 4 w0O-jaPlingawoyPUP146P ZIZI-ZS7 l7S OZGLG Z!40 'QNd7HSV c~43C%70ti:f~n~ e OZ12L6 'Z~iO '(=NV7H9b` '19 'aiMNOlcl ~ON t19 "Z~(n MSACNVY !l Ozs ~.1VW 3 LSNlaino::) -ONi 'NV'SSO 8 VNICnInS l~l~l~HSN~ti~l3~ NOIIV'AEITa ISSM :2I-0H NOICHQ Hbpi0H < g CW N91S2C r 9rylCllflB 'J3L:4lpHSN3H71 r .:8 NLSNOC N3ll:Wi lllOHllRI S360dG0 d°5f1 21 5 0 C3C(IC02id3L aE lON ApW S1Nii 'N EC I 3H1 OL5L6 2t0 ONp~HSp "3N21G. REINCN92kJ Otf 14 . !IE .E Ol 213ClOHJIMN9 llpW t 1=NL2If00 210! C3N91 ~C A'.3TISfl"ICJC3 I'39 SpH 9Np' SNVIId 353H1 Nt NI NR:pJC --N Sd b ' N3C~OH~J,'I8 3H1 0NIC 9NIGllflB L3WWpHS11=.M1CI?L AE 910L a31H.`~IJAdOC ' I t-? - ~ I I I u-I „o-AI ~~ol j~ Q I lad \ - a\ F ~ I - I \ U U II ~ O PJ\ a~ I i,l I~ fl wo~•aaplingawoyY>~~'14s~' ZIZI-Z87 lba OZ8L6 ~O 'aN'P`~tt8'v` ~3QZOhi~6c~n~ 01 lliO 'ON V-tHS V "19 aNOIciil 'ON 179 'NCI MRACN4 Z!i=7 ON it v B-t L3N1 ~110~ a s r' •ONI 'NIDIS3Q ~ =JNIQ-fine ~3WW4VttSN3ttOl3Z1 sage, N011039 SSO ~ NOISHQ 3l'40H az Ni --a . --ins aawwv-Ilia I-- rc+ulam incn!Im sasodand aaH!o xnv aoy ~sn ao a~naoadaa 3E ioN Avw sanrod aNV N91s3a aH! cesls ao'aNV~risv ~nlaa m3lnonva~ oes iv ~!-InE a6 O! aaa-OHJIalIB LVw > .~3Naanoo ao~ a3N71S3a 1'13NSfIY'>G N3.E SVH 9N~d 3S3t11 NI Nmvaa SV 37N3_6 --ins 3Ha 'a1Vl 'N9-c > 9-iin9 a3'.WVH91~MO13a A9 9:oi o si9 - L I I I r~ ® Q a i 8S8 I I M® ~I i i I 1 o-,Ez II ~3Q lOi t:fc n8 woo-jap ingawoypu2l4sp ZIZI-Z9Y lbS OZSLG Z!iO "CNV-fHSV OZQL6 'Z40 '(3NV-IHS'' "19 Z433 OJ,;A 'ON's ~a m31AaNb~'7 ozs 11~w J.31d1~I1o~ x ' a~ I' oNl 'Mr 193® V VNlc-Iins z~3wwvttsNattoi3r~ N'V7c4 :A®®N 2+0 IS Q NI0H o I E 15=-0 . GN a~ n= Yr ~?F'OI-~ lE _'Y~kOa N?l1:Y,m 1ncHL!II 43SOdand V 1G ZHI and ©Sn a0 d rnaoad3a =s loN A7u slNla' l 1: 1 ing "ao CNVI+sV '3 la naNVa9 ozE 1V 1'I E 39 Ol a3olOH>lan9 LVW > J3PLan07 T~Od'J-~N9.S3a 1T/JSff17X3'39 SHn SNV"td 35 H W !.RMVaG $V _7N34153a N3a'IGH>IJn9 3H1 "GNI NJIS?a P > 9Nl a ~LJi:VHSN3M'J3a ,t3 4=1Hi MdD7. [~i~'x.EkaSs~ ~.?dYs35s`,3 ~E Y33' 1r e; a~alamam a , o s~ Y Y 110 ~ r-.Bl2-~F-.4llt^1-.S.Oo so l d 353 91R 33 R¢& 6~ N r tl _ ka ~ S` ~ P 3 9 d 6 ~R* ~ 3 P ~ 9j I, I 3 >2~ Y#3 i.S~ 3 2w ~ #LS~ 5 / x FG~ 5 C A ~ 4 5 p~ g PY s - I 1 \s, s a; ~ k~ yoP ~ 6 f4 ng I ° I ~ oLc` q-i d P...n t y .s .~T ee e cs 32;~m Q z ya:s sa a mill H a uv I~ I z q lYfl ~ Q I 7 ~ I u ~ r 9U N ~ QL u a ~ 4 LL ~ O z ~ 9U ~ o ~ z II a 3 a U ~ 99. I ® ~ z li Y ~ U O a~qp tSj Z Q~ 9U 1&1 191 a ~ I ~o II 'ow LJ v ~I 2 -2 W. i-n Qlm m oC]N ~zo s ~ ~ Foa ~ xys~vinaas~rnoisuwe.a~~u~w-SHIN ~ru ;rc3 aaisuriwmecsw. I ~ ~z IIQ Fla 0 C O O O _ ~ ~ z a ~ i rr n ~ a°' g - 11 4 ~ w i I I OI,_j E ~_Y F C ¢ I~~'s I~ ~ ~F~q oc x E a E s w a - - -4 j-°~V ¢I a ens ° ~ L O rc- `z .III m JJ ~ G s~ ~s z°6o ~ c J~I~~ I Edls _ 123 u-n a 5 z ° agcco oa ¢ ~gp<9a~O~WC ms n s Y €z $ 3- ° - p - a € o s fit a U _ A imp Qo< Sa ~ _ _ _ °s :1 , 445 Ml 111 N ton ~ =a s~ s s - " - _ a ' I e= m_ min. Alp 11 1R 1 -,Hug ~ ~'H 55 J ~ Ei - S P N S oYa °°.,LLa o~~=C w 5 _ ol~l - a,~ ' CS E _ a 'n O H 311- n3 E' w - - - Q- _ ° is. Q a- o y € w ° s~ Om a - 8 k £ 0.. an up, - 3 fra HOW ° ° U a ~ ~ ~ c R ~ °956 £ R a " ¢aaa - e w- ~ZE ~ sF ~ a _ 3 z ~ ,gs ae sa a o - asf fra ~ s ~ ~ s 'v 3 I a~ .ax °z~°° sa xx€=, ~ € s or a r..° s=e e sss x ~ _ n h ~ _n acs_ 2 y ~g_ r. a s ~z Uc c o §`'a zw o' o ao E 3§ cas3' - ~m =~~'p rsi,~z oq ~a W - - Y8° ~s oso Is„ - - x~vasnae cu x~rov\na cs~xnnassa.xon~oua.so :.uawn am s\vawaaoa aw. O~ ~ a G yE ~ 0 w ~pw ~ ~ ~ r O~tl 609 Nc~wO o~ ~ ° na ~i l7 z ~ 3 z s~ Qc 3 5E ~ N k¢~ ~ -.\p ILL ~ 3 Koo ° ~ ga& O m_ - a - C r 8a I'- &o ~ _ _ o.~. GLL G o as -o ~ F"i ~ r~ i "d 1 K a===C=~==~-Z\~~^\\\\ 9 111 ma V~ N m f S s g wga of _ vz€ _ - GG w Z e _ a r U ~ gz - y zoz~ ._.f~ Q Z - - o nn ¢ a - o No a ° ~ - a *Ap. o ~o z H - 2~ e o~ - z I wv~ "-yak oQ Nw_ ~ - 8€" ® oo <zz c zo c ~ c n_ c o _ ~ a w w w w w ~ ~ w u° ~ r L-L - I- H F- k ncn O O I~ O r O 0 O ~ - Z Z - - Z Z Z - Z 0 0 0 z z ~ 3 - N~ ~ x Nwv J w - e I1I e ~ -g z ti P h Mai zL- O O F-T i - s ,g F m \ d - a. w- _x o - 8= l ry oEooE-poro~ - _ - \ sY n~\"r- -._-~1 ~ n anyn~ - - ~~°x o z3aoa~£¢sn~ ~°`~,Nt S e = RIM _a p ~~h <s Yo_ WWa ~5£~F°~ -mM~ - Wy"""€°4n ° <iyp~z €o wx~`< °hh a ;E" ~wsC° "so ~'azc ~4mr'C -~w'a~-oe~ ~ I I I I I I - I I 11 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I Il I I 1 1 I ~ ~ I ' I I I E I, f0 I I I B j ~I I ~ L~LiO ~O S I I l i 110 1 I I ;I I I I nl LJ ~`f ~ ~ 1 I I I ~j I I I I 0 ~ I I I 4" i I i ~I I I p~ I 1 I f I II ~O I t I ~ i I I i I I I ~ ~a ° F I I I 100 ~ ~ ~ ~ if I I W I I I I Il ~ ~ I I =1 i I I I I C I OL_J LO p---~ - I I I`~ _ ~ I LL OI J I g Ll I I ~ O I i I 1 II I I i I I I ~'ar I I I I I I I 17` I I 9 ` I I I_ ~ I I j j < w~lm~ I I I I I 10 10 I I I _ w i, I 1 I I I I o ° i I p ~ o w'I 9 I I I j B I I I o~"d ~I V ' Q ' I I I I ~ O - =---1 --~---I - I----- -s - P ~ o U _ N ~J V W C 2LL eS 3E 2E ST' .Y0.'L C'x~s`~`n' Oa tN zp z c W a ~ c ,r_ -x _ R Q a 3 "m' Ui~ d"~ L~ VIA oG u - r~nssn se a.ioas~aur'~u a3 mn~,~wsNO~snaeemua aa~xwx:~--.^%_ m5~ z6 4 I I~ ~ ~1 C9 II n F° <C III-111 a o~ 1< - - W~F F-r H o I l l l l ll I IP, ~~o ~$.s a~ III III~« o.< I III- „i ° ° m ~ III-I - a ° s ~ I I - furl ° f II -I 'III~IZIi-fi~.,l~l II .III~IT~~ e~ HIM I III=11 i-II< 3 ~~i I'II II I~Ill~,g ~ ~Ia ~ ra- ~w J =®~I a ao^~ c .e xT7 ° « ° LL i m~= w O ~ a i ~a wS I- ° w w e J x _ _ ? W H -1 11 m '<K I I I < - z a m C a ° e a _ ~=1' I III . a w Q ~a `I p - I III! ° gL €11 € a n ~I, z _ 'w am ' c) ~ G € SS 4 2 ~U _ ~ L yA~ Z¢ ti tp Fv ~~o~n ~ ~S~x.~;sav~i_ m~Vxj q~o m~g.rTE,Y~ zQ ILN ~~ZO o~ ~ z o^ao ~y~ H 8 =z ~ o °ouo 00 c o~ ~ ~o. ffi~< Paz ~6<oaE ~c o" Y ow oga =x k o~z'S oo ~O Eio '~xo~ a ~c u~Z c5_ oz's ~`€C o&~ ~o "c S k, aF boa®" Na o~ti ~o' bb€~' _3y - - ¢ag~N ~ T u N u o.. u v v, io i < ~~am p Z _ Q~ xo j a F n- tip- jrcrc ~rn6 s) ©o o a ° I ~s r € - a~ ago $ « zz uo N~ a6 Sao ` >`<so=w = =g o n m --4-------------------- I I I I I I 1 , I I I I I~ I I I 'I I - I I J ICI ~ i 11 , I I _ -®ao9Ae Li - - - - o- f - - - - z ole Ll m I o _ Ulf' I n Z S~ I I ~ gIELL I J: ~ Us I ^I 1 - ~l I i m it ail ' z ' I I I z ¢ w' I I I w ~ _ wr Za wj w u I I wP - ;i w i m u o' :J Qv a t 8 ,-]`Zi _ 03 m o~cu'„L yv u~N N xN U U [ 3 8 HI S Q V`/~ O Q m ~ W~ o z z fl1 aJ ~wC,' .72 ti! - -x151'.~inass'nuo155aiobalatu3N~TdlSH~.+v~sv'oav3xaatraodvav:~su:~saa anvsvsa:' 5' - - Fo ^z tie wm z @o¢° o Gw - g a° ~o m'<WH'= Hwy ~QOO exo~o,~ o p z aF w=w z o poma €z ° ~kw °so = - o~ - p '"~K'ao sk N?mv _ ow~~~Gmx m It n Oz O O v O D O6 ©LL © D O O°= U, C'. O y CV° - QI Z `o w a G O ~ OH ;a Si r~ _ cA m I, , - k----- :tj :i 1 I I I - I I I 'I I ~I ~ 1 ! 'Il ~ II I I I I I , I I e ~ II 11 I I I = 1 l i i s I. I I ~ I I m I' I I I I ~ I I I II II M a =1 \ I I k I I O I k III. I II I ~-_r m_~ I I I ~ I I I I ~T~-^ I I I I ir IS I 1 I I \ I I I, I C ° ~ xl m ~ III o ~ 1 = I II e~~ I I I I I ~ I I - III I' ~n ,h. - I ~ ~ Ir I I I I I ' II ~ s II } °Q I l i 0 I ob c` „ ~ I ZC T - C N c es s QU io o , U $ $ ~ E ~ ~ 2 k8~- KW ~~U ` rn ~WxfQ ~ u) '•m k-N a h € ~m m si ? > ~I oca - xes~~,nass~.xo~miove~o axe ea~s:xewn~ oa W ~ Ci So w /7U I- C C Yz ~Ji d oa ze J - ~ Q /a z « O 'k C a fah ~o o~lN ~o- J ate- _ <yg _ zr - m~i 61\ Iop J _ ekA Fo ha g LL\ z w a r-Q~ ry \ z 004 zF a \ cH WE- a and z° bD 4~ 9 a o W e}_ cam.. N e~ o To N yN C ~ ~'§aNlu w ate; °c° '°s e ~ F~ ~3t -,~ca ?~v~ R psi ~ sF g W~ i 30 oL1 ~ ~ € a wow ° ° a °~$a _ w 1,2 ~C F~ o~ <a 3a m ~~wr ~ a _ ~ Yf ~ S§z'stg 4- MH-K zg ~W ~K~z~~o g a x°=~o° e~~ Aay ~ ft o sa ~ ~a g w x 'C g of = F~~ o _ n °W - - w5 "°n `cS6-pa ~ rs'W ~~~~a" <8~<c ay' "¢&:yo Ew=m&e"nr_"3 ~ e~LL.~~ r, Sz ..:g S~ LLo 8a az ~kc«> g. °N~E°~<5 °<E~°<_a°M ~9Fmw €o~~w_s~n~~`~a°=~o.a~< ~ _ mom 2°._ x_ E aE i < I I II I I ~ `I I I Z1,11 II xljjl~ _ Sr3H o li i ~ I -17 ~bMar n rv II ICI jl I I II 1 I I _ I I~i - - I II I ~ ` lei - ry I I I 1 IIa 1 I I1" i I I lie II Ili I. I - - ---r ------1-I`---------- - II ; I I ~ I 1 I it L/ I ~ o ~ _ ~ __M I II mi ~ II I I I III _ I I ?~y I rc 'I ll---- roy~ II I I J a I I II I I Q,b _ w~ I ~ 0 C < C ~ ~ ICJ 30 NODRao `GNVIHSV RAM I MRI1QNVZI~) OZS UICIHRH - z1aN IIVHSN3HOIAtI n n ~ TP.L-ay.~ NV'IcI I.VAMIHQ M3IAONV2I`J 9~CZ .u ,RdcC t 'Euu 6uE map . o,}ee_ } ua}}um nay}. 1aa, o.E ,au}a Fua } } yu u , aloe. F n y 1 } a o puu >ut 6u,. 3 maE }o F}:a o,d ui a,o I s Ipv , } } } 7 - -y pa}o,otl,o>ui a p puo p p s 4t a4i puo }va aoc .9l 4'LL''.OC S.IYICLi1C_ Z y o _K o~'oar F ~J Su - ~ z wz z U -LLm < w " W Gc`, ma Hn - - rcrco ` a~ uk°o>~ G Wi`rc'W re6 9e® __cn r w z a,s FF^ P u~o a$$W<N ohm z= 2E c! C) EE' 14 < - _ r y° Sao= _ o a 3 e w it s - a - - -E& - a a3zo`= 3 = nlp o' - - $ vas of aE° ~ j - 3 <~X -LEES 5j~; ~ -1U VO ''E ~ - - I Z z O ~ _ v _ Ec - m s m > u - _ r a`3a - W d c - o _ z R - I o x m o _ nna3.las asa _rvarEH rnm xrrv I a_erv ,E ~~O° L I I I/ I 1 0 ~ o II I o J ~ II I I n III I m1 I se I Ili \ T~ae --I PT\)+i 558 \ C.o s E _I~_ r C. u \ 1 e W I \ \ 1'on\k ~ N\ ~ 1 ~ \ 'OJi ~rv I ~ I s~ \ \ \ \ ~ L ~A3 52r[ Y O nwlets,a ssw I I I z - I % ° _~F I I G ~ ~ I I ~ w a ad awls x3 I I I I ~ y ` LL ~ < ~ aid, ~ o < I ~ I ~ II~ o~,pl ~ x I m Q ~ I I \ Y3NtlOJ5,ubal ap115%3 I ~ ~ I 0.. " / F >9 J W a ~ z a Yw d drvne III ~ ~ 3^ m ~i:I ~ W~ e nrrr anus x; _ , EE- ;n as by a~ a~bw oNU;%a ~ I ~s~l sv rvera ae iea is TTY_ w - I I ry I ~ bb 2Q~ - a° I 3n a a 3 o _ .2. [mss / / p / / N L Nt ~y o " na I ~ a I ° " x ~ f VI 5 E : e ~1L_aEt113'.%dt{d;._33~sg~~LP33s a-3dei~l~& tai A P R ESE gg ~ ~ v , t E g 1 S~ F S=@ h 8 B~~ 6 g 8 S ~ 8~ 5 ~~E L ~b~s4 , I~I11m t,~~.~Y I= ~ \ 1111 g , I ~ mo' ~o g P~~~ ~ a~ I\ 1 I Ilia i I'II~ I I 1 I I wi I I S3, ~o~ a c~~s §E__$a;~y 4a 1~'~A ~,~~!I®®®dui arias I 1 ~ ~ 4~, P a;' of = ,.I aioaS t loz I!AdV 2Io `pu-oILis vV'jam nnainpuex~ ®Z£ a~wm C' z y ma s - ~~~o ~ s v x aHl DEM9 'cue -og d <~05~~ F 8L -65 ~V iy \ L e I, o o l I ~ ~ ~ 8 I 1u 1 a fl r o s~ - f ~ I z~/ N / ~ ~h I a N N f a f ~ o ry I - o ~ I o sr ry I INS r /ryry~o ~ I o/ a o r _a _ zfy eO i = ae b 0I'20S #71 OZ IgzdV 2I® `p-li{sv `sq n aaA}~aaes~ OZ£ D - m W7Z NO ~7?}?J Z =--n- A - m € m a Hs A-dil S 5 mva ~3 His 2 £ z a ' 008£ ° VIN Ifflill - rA a '-pt! Hai R$gy t 2 rs, glas CA ; o e\ I - N e 0 I [ m) ~ of~l i f~ 1 "ter P ~ ei~ 8 Q _ I ~ ~fir~~ iJn 1 ~ ti E I rL, \ Nr J 7 ! 9 I v of ~ I ~ N P ti I h I h f ry I / I ! _ I c / I e~ez NODMI0 `QNVZHSV HAIIIQ AIRIdMMO o „3 ,a,. ss 2idQIIRH - HdYIInFHSN~HaI3?I mrid TvwaAHQ AmAQNvuD I'd ELCZ '4 ~ I 6u3 map to up,}oz voV;no uali vm .nou;m .>atP~tl va4iP Fu° val )-°N a i° a c m _ F n 9 ) .>u a P I au 6u3 m p n ad> ~+I Y° %}4aw P )c+cd~ .aP P» o G 1 uo }uawn>op srGy i ~ ~ 'm ~ V " < a " ° o ~a W ~°<°ma iaus'+ °~z ¢ ww°co C, _ zF, o+ .a II ~ z ~ a~~o_v ok` Frce - _ ~ E_~ $'3¢~° O Rg° pa 7 a3oFg o ~a~W~ ~ °€3 H^ @ oaNF < ° €O y<o" y I m z o " nx oua _a II tl I \ o.b a SEE,a`sg - § ° P°ea o°'°3 \ Mg, `ob L~iS o~E ae =Y aac z5b d° - .1 Eg I.zsroll I I II IO Ems' E.°,a N> €3= -"g=$ 8a EO - E - - - ~ i 1 I I IIi I I I o _E° - a~ 'e vE~ E8 dg° Sao E o €os - w ~a "ury~.a~ - -a e a~„ a. - a << ~I l i1i% i ml I 11 -s~~ --'o _ - P°ea -=%o - as.$so rm' ' °so ?E o Ln. Ing ~oQ II illr II & _ - a5 - EE~aI g2 = \I ,III ryl i ~QI,N~ lI~ ~ II1 j I° ~ av 'NOILpNaLSNOp ONltlnpi ~ I I °I 11E ,1_ 1 1 J-~__ di o3u:i oa~e%me~vdya I~ MI I ~I ' __~I rl- __r_ I -1 - 11 I y,I - orao x-uNrpl p / p-~11.91,17}v N~ V3H YV ` 12 11 ois Hi dXmix -.3 ~I 1 II 1 o w~ ° tl I ~ i z ~ I (NCU~Td3o sa+szzi L 9 I.'., _ 12 cam,' nse sz r s i I 12 w a J . h J ti '3Nr. Npurolrm ~ ~ I -6s sar .e) ~ o a I w + s i w o I " ~ m o 2 I O s I I I n aanono I n N ~ ' a~ ENL ra I 1 I 1 I V } ~ I ~ •°`v ~ r n ~ g o r~ ~ v i, sr_ppv Saw ,r ie~ini M1 I II I ~ I ~ = IJJI I ~ 3 ~ n \ III I 1 I S~ ~ ~0 5 ~ 4 ~ ~p 'a- I ~I d~ 1 n ~ 1~ 5 I I I i 1 z I\ Q v I~ ~I~1 1 I ~ ~ ° I `s I I J oszcez=9d >I~ ~ II~V~ ~ ~ I f - _ @ s I ~p aN3 ° aosZ 59a£ I I~ ` I ~ 1. Ig '~s ` I s A II III ! IV . P ~o 2 _ r° I I A .1 ~ '3 I ~ z II 1 \ P ~ 4SN\ 1 O Lo05t U n3 sz+¢ it I~~ ` 19.5a\ ) ' ~ s 3 .r.)s•e s 6 N - -'I ~ y ,pt7a}as iNV'as i - sz'u) aN3e .s) I I 8 \ a _cz oodn q &'i o Nb:a15303de I~"issix3 I ' I 11 I` ~li G d'o F~ .y II I 1d30 JIaW3 3 pNVldStl ))I I d 1 1~tl0 tl3d ( 31 /U II a ml - ' \ ` Y p5 I I ~ 3 ~ 3N esl ml of ° ~ JI 9~1+1 113-3 N-51 1 ma l LSNI Cw xrm 35I n NLw su5ntl) Ill /I F :N3V:~V3 AlnLLn pNtl \ N 1 ~ x{ 1 O 3MN N35Y^ rna WW~.ILr~ aY/ 1F ~ d \\y ` 1 / r ~ ~ w / ~ II 1SN > 1 1 \ / w xrvpLf N~oNra9 WOtl1 / V/ Y// ^ / /I ~ Tld l0,5 ~Y~pN w ~ auvm i wad of manE~ /~",1_ / / \ \ I ' sr nxae pv L+sns 7}r>.s ~ / I oL_-_ F _ / - % a _ ~~~z <FK3 "g3 maoz n n' r n a7m w'. 29 I` a,) NOOH2I0 `QNV IHSV gg ~ AVMai=l BAMAQNVU5 S m 4a 2lHAKVHSNHH3lHH o a d ) v ua~y S'IIVJ,HQ ~ ~ ~ pY SIGZ )y6w(do] 'FUj '6 , i6u3 maG to ua,) z,. y} v ~a}~:m ~nvy~ x ) :aylo .(uv :cl •).od u, aloym u, Fasn aq of ivu av puv ~vl Euyaaui6u: m p to F):adv:d ay} alv a.was Ivuv salved ye s) rul alay pa. u" isap puo svepi ay, p o '},awnvop a~yy < uou3a]aa e.iivlno° Vsi ® s h m °ad LL1 »~y o Ga sk o FF CID o ra pw t~ LU .6 c6 how ll = Z`v° gi a IX Lu 9 = w tL 2 Y° ` sE <°g yg~9 I w~ ~~g&~Dm~ ~ w ~AH awe. u, .~°o,s3~< ~a ma u, e = Hm=° ~ ~m p~a3o keg Y~_ma ~'o c~ ° w~< m ov r/ _ :wok 5 ww .9z - RI GI ~ ~~am O NIWv.ZbC 'I n~ _w m.. f VV" o dcr~sw~ Z az~a u _ z - - cOwW~ ° < ~ w s ° ~a y ~ w ~ ~ w assa o _ a l n - _ G„ ~ C E w'~.8h woz 3m ~ ra_H s aid .~]Is-~-"-"=en s x'46 N V ~ 9 j I in v o E R. 81 R 17- 1 dINCN]5 Yid LH913H P.tln~XVrv ,g "u ,z~ .<.:..~~„a~aa. a~Ny,.~,aNNaa, ~°N ~ NO~~tIO `QNd'dIdSV ~d AVad~AI2I4 M~IAONd2I~ w.,. ,N.sap~~pNa ,.,a,a,<~ a ~ ssz' n ~~LHNIFIdISN3ff0I~2I ~ o~'g~ C~J A ~'oaa o3d'i S'II~,L3Q ~8 3'II30tI3 NOd3.V~JY~2Yd $ 6002 l46!:FaaOauj6u.+aau!6u3 map ;o uoryvzuv43no usyi!~m loayilm 3., foal :ayly .(uo .ol 'l+ad u1 aq aipyn~ u pasn e q pi )ou a:v punau1 6uuaeul6v3 mep to(yado.d ay) ao 'a ae Ipuglssaload ;o s♦uawrd)sui so vtay pa)wod.oaul u6;aap piv aoapl ayl pup 'ivau:mop siyl 2w a ~w 1 g a o =~o ~ a o o-m~, / z 4 6\ m ~ w n _m ~m _ x a - - ~~5~~~ czDLL=ANI e NOLLtl91ax1 D~LL9d~O18)09 J c 1 1 I NpDG9 9NLL6ID3 ~ - - _ v''dW N~WMJIaaI OAd tl0 - - ) fipV,.Bt 30 .961 Ttll NI I ! sNV)a a=e Trvm Avm3n ap I NDLLtl91tlNl Nb3MM~OlIIdN A - - MJN3a1 a0ND0 30%~ Cd W G + F4 F n• 5 S~ZZ-1110 ANI ~;Bt \'Z R'60ZZ=Nla't'£D/9-Z ~r-- ~i ez Noutl9la p i3blsn Z +Z C7 6~ / ~w 30ba9 blA3AIa0 H NL' - 58 '0 Sptl~9t LLO~IB9L Tbl NI I ' I I i 1 1 1 b ZZ 1N0 ANI ~Bt \ NZ' OLZ°NI ANI ~Bt 9gDM B J0 d01 'X - HDLLd9a 1 9NLL6 3 , r 51 Winburn 9V Ashland OR 9752 L CITY 0 0 ~ L 541-488-5305 Fax l-- DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursaing LEEDO Ceff&9on ? DYES E NCB -~Ri~ Street Address 320 Assessor°s Map No, 391 E ~ Tax Loffsp Zoning y • Camp Plan Designatiort e ~ t; t 14L APPLICANT Name ~G Phone t rt 494' (?I -Mail cau„ Address I~'. tJ City ' t444^, o1Zp 2. o PROPERTY OWNER 11 Name C.vcs~ i ~~t e Phone~~~ ~'1(' 1l E-Mailcr~" -cov Address 'I 2A M A, !J 2 City _ 5 ' ~ a~° Zip 1 SURVEYOR. ENGUVEER, ARCHt3 ECT LANdSCAPE ARCFtiTECT OTi~ER Titled (W 9 L99r*lame '0 59f P W &ZF- A/ Phone -5q'- :2U • X656 E-Mai! Address t t`S~. M+~', fit • t City ~S k~Lk-p ~ zjp } 2 ~1 Tltle6; V. t1 Name M A K? Phone E-Mail t Address 1 S iJ CitV - k Zip 1 hereby car* that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed dr s and the required findings of fact are in all respects, wing 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 wrll be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings offacf furnishedlush1ies the granting of the request,• 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate, and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properlylocated on the ground. Fa`iltrre in this regard will resuft most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to e re oved at my expense. If 1 have any doubfs,1 am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. 11, App 'cant's Signature Date As owner of the property fnvo reel `in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences owner. to me as a property Property Owner's Signature (required) Da a fro be Cwrq L1W byQ1y5WU Date Received" l ~~0 Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ ~w 7 OVER G?carom-d-"N-ningwr s & ffimd wtalZonin9Pennit Apptimiion.d,, I t Job Address: 320 GRANDVIEW DR Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C P Owner's Name: MATT/COURTNEY BURKHOLDER O Phone: N State Lic No: P Customer 00181 REICHENSHAMMER BLDG & DESIGN T City Lic No: Applicant: 64 PIONEER ST N a Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: (541) 482-1212 T Address: N Applied: 08/17/2016 O T Issued: Expires: 02/13/2017 Phone: State Lic No, Maplot: 391 E05DC2401 City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: P & E Constraints Permit, Variance, Excception & Tree Removal 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 1,022.00 Variance (Type 1) 1,022.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY F 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: $ 2,044.00 $ 2,044.00 or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Sub-Total: $ 2,044.00 Fees Paid: $ 2,044.00 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 Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF -ASHLAND e