HomeMy WebLinkAboutRoca_TL1210_PA-2016-01644
CITY OF
ASHLAND
October 21, 2016
Notice of Final Decision
On October 21, 2016, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: 2016-01644
Subject Property: Tax Lot #1210 on Roca Street
I
Owner: Edward Alpern
Applicant: Suncrest Homes
Description: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow
for the construction of a new single-family residence on slopes greater than 25 percent.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10.
The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12"' 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 Marl-, Schexnayder in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
i
cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 `
www.ashland.or.us
i
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
concerning any relevant ordinance provision.
4. Appeal Hearing Procedure. Hearings on appeals of Type I decisions follow the Type II 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: 541A88-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 i
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.onus
i
i
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01644
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Roca Street / Tax Lot 1210
APPLICANT: Suncrest Homes
OWNER: Edward Alpern
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit
to allow for the construction of a new single-family residence on slopes greater than 25 percent.
COMPREHENSIVE PL DESIGNATION: Residential Single Family; ZONING: R-1-10;
ASSESSOR'S P: 39 lE 1513C; T LOT: 1210.
SUBMITTAL DATE: August 31, 2016
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: September 26, 2016
STAFF APPROVAL DATE: October 21, 2016
FINAL DECISION DATE: November 2, 2016
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: May 2, 2018
DECISION
The subject property is located on the east side of Roca Street and just north of the unimproved right-
of-way for Emma Street. The property is irregularly shaped and approximately 0.18 acres in area
(7,885 square feet), and is zoned R-1-10 (Residential Single Family). The property is mostly grass
covered open space and comprised of steep slopes greater than 25 percent downhill to the east. Roca
Street along the subject properties frontage is improved to 27 feet with curb and guts. The lot is
presently vacant and contains only one tree over six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH).
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 subject property.
There are no trees proposed for removal as part of the application and only one tree over six inches
DBH is part of a tree protection plan submitted by the applicant.
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 slopes
in excess of 25 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 multiple-story, single-
family home is built into the hillside as much as possible due to the steep slopes. The main level is
proposed as 1,862 square feet including _a two car garage, with a basement floor of 645 square feet.
The proposed design of the dwelling complies with the -horizontal off-set requirements for planes
longer than 36 feet. The longest segment of the east elevation of the dwelling is approximately 27 and
PA #2016-01644
Roca Street Tax Lot 1210JMMS
Page 1
[4
a half feet in length before an offset in the wall face. The home's downhill elevation complies with the
vertical height maximum of 20 feet without a step back. The east wall of the proposed single-family
dwelling facing downhill is approximately 19 feet 11 and a half inches in height. The application
proposes a 38 percent lot coverage or approximately 2,979 square feet, which is less than the
maximum of 40 percent required by city standards for the zone. In addition, according to the
application materials, the proposed single-family dwelling is required to meet the Solar Access
Standard B based on a calculated slope of -0.115. Based on a height of 20.8575 feet of the highest
shade producing point of the structure which casts the longest shadow beyond the northern property
line, the proposed single-family dwelling will meet the required solar setback.
The application includes a geotechnical study prepared by Marquess & Associates, Inc. and notes that
all grading, retaining wall design, and erosion control have been designed and reviewed by a
geotechnical expert. The geotechnical investigation included a determination of the prevailing
subsurface conditions at the site and developed earthwork and foundation engineering
recommendations for the development. Exploratory test pits were excavated on July 22, 2016 and logs
recorded by the geotechnical expert. According to project engineer, Rick Swanson, the surficial soils
consisting of silty sand soils with underlying granite and the native slopes in the vicinity of the
proposed home site show no signs of hillside instability. The report concludes that the proposed
residence can be constructed as proposed provided the recommendations contained in the geoteclmical
study are incorporated into the design and construction of the development. Specific recommendations
for earthwork, foundations, slabs-on-grade, retaining walls, and site drainage prepared by Marquess &
Associates, Inc. has been included in the submission as well.
The application speaks to the grading standards of the ordinance, noting that Rick Swanson from
Marquess & Associates has helped design and reviewed the grading and erosion control plans. No cut
slopes will be greater than seven feet in height and no cut slopes will exceed 15 feet in height. The
project will have only one fill slope along the driveway which is proposed to be retained with an
erosion control netting, blanket, or the functional equivalent. All areas of cut and fill slopes will be
reseeded with native grasses. Utilities will not be associated with fill slopes.
The application materials note that the surface and groundwater drainage on the site will be directed
into the city's storm drain system. The storm drain system was installed when the original subdivision
was first developed. 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.
The application materials provided include a tree inventory prepared by Certified Arborist Clarence V.
Wangle (Beaver Tree Service, Inc.), which includes an assessment of existing trees. The inventory
shows only one tree- greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) on the property. No
trees are proposed for removal. The application states that the significant tree, a 26 inch Black Oak, is
to be preserved and a tree protection plan has been provide with the submitted materials.
The Tree Commission considered the reques-t at its regular meeting. on October 6, 2016. The Hillside
Development Standards provide for onty 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 with the specific recommendation that the applicant extend the- tree
protection zone fencing to sixteen feet, except at the midpoint closest to the proposed structure which
PA #2016-01644
Roca Street Tax Lot 1210/MMS
Page 2
k i
can remain at 14 feet.. Staff have included conditions to require that tree protection fencing is installed
for the tree to be preserved 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.
k
The approval criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit are detailed in
A-MC 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 Cornrnission shall consider the existing development of the
surrounding area, and the maximum developmentpermitted by this ordinance.
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 #2016-01644 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 #2016-01644 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 Roca Street and Emma Street will not be impeded.
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 Marquess- & Associates, Inc., an& shall be
PA 42016-01644
Roca Street Tax Lot 121 O/MMS
Page 3
i
inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work, storage of materials, the
issuance of an excavation or building permit.
6) That a preconstruction conference to review the requirements of the Hillside Development
F
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; artments• 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. The
Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the trees 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.
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 Marquess & Associates, Inc. shall inspect the site according
to the inspection schedule of the engineering report by Marquess & Associates Inc. 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.
PA #2016-01644
Roca Street Tax Lot 1210/MMS
Page 4
i
t
13) That a revised tree protection plan to include utilities and building footprints shall be submitted
with the building permit (AMC 18.4.5.030.B). The tree protection plan shall also include all
trees located within 15 feet of the property lines (AMC 18.4.5.030.13).
14) That building permit submittals shall identify "Natural Grade" as defined in Ashland Municipal
Code (AMC) 18.6.1.
15) That a landscaping and irrigation plan to include irrigation details satisfying the requirements
of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands and showing right-of-way improvements
shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit (AMC 18.3.10.090). The landscaping
and irrigation plan shall specifically address Grading - Cuts; Grading - Fill; and Revegetation
Requirements (AMC 18.3.10.090.B.4-6).
16) 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.
ILL-
MHarris, Planning Manager ® Date
Community Development Department
PA #2016-01644
Roca Street Tax Lot 1210/MMS
Page 5
i
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
i
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On 10/21/161 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
person's name for Planning Action #2016-01644, Roca Street, TL 1210.
Signature of Employee
Documend 10/21/2016
PA-2016-01644 391El 5BC 1210 PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 1207 PA-2016-01644 391El513C 2306
ALPERN EDWARD M AMRHEIN MARK J/AMY W BENEDETTI LAURA TRUSTEE FBO '
828 ROCA 804 ROCA ST 1685 NW AVERY ST C
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ROSEBURG, OR 97471
PA-2016-01644 391 E15BC 2100 PA-2016-01644 391 E1513C 2403 PA-2016-01644 391 E15BC 2000
BRADSHAW MARK ALLEN DE ROUCHEY LOUIS/AMANDA FAY KAREN T
811 ROCA ST 891 ROCA ST 799 ROCA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01644 391 El 513C 1701 PA-2016-01644 391 El 513C 2400 PA-2016-01644 391 El 513C 2302
JARVIS BARBARA A KINARD AMY E MARSDEN STEVEN S ET AL
1159 EMMA ST 875 ROCA 1174 EMMA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01644 391 El 513C 2200 PA-2016-01644 391 E1513C 2303 PA-2016-01644 391 E156C 2201
PAVLICH PAUL/JENI FEINBERG PERRY RAYMOND J/CHERYL LYNN PISCHEL LOIS J TRUSTEE ET'AL
829 ROCA ST 1192 EMMA ST 839 ROCA ST -
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01644 391 El 513C 1702 PA-2016-01644 391 E15BC 1208 PA-2016-01644
REYNOLDS TROY/JULIE LYN SLOAN EARLE R TRUSTEE ET AL SUNCREST HOMES
820 ELKADER ST 816 ROCA ST PO BOX 1313
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT; OR 97540
PA-2016-01644 PA-2016-01644
RICK SWANSON SCOTT DINGLE Roca, TL 1210
1120 E JACKSON 304 HOLLY NOD 10/21/16
MEDFORD, OR 97504 MEDFORD, OR 97501 17
F
II
y.~ a i
I
m (7
by ~ i ~ I rE € r~
A
m \ \ T,b
m
I
a ~
s
I 3 3
Y I \ \ w o
i
C I
£ i P
w
I I
ia~als R, Vwwe s e
PROJECT: NEW 9.F.b.Q CLIENT: bE51GN RFStbEiflW..INC.
4NP }s,EiSeC SUNCRESTHOXIES, LLC PROJECT OVIHER: eCALE ,@,_t,L, ryhY3 L4bFX I:
P.O-WXSM
TL,t,o
TrLLE Lt BOX 1019 d6 n fBSIdB71(t A`.EDfORb,OR 9"nol Ab.1 srT6 PLAN ,'INKY:
~~I r
nallw,v,anot>zo NT, O R 9l5!IU g.. 541.6063956 v,.rtw
cRECKEb br:Ir
541-9443970 wssdE=,4~~~"r16k
nr¢er ,
bnre:a~aroarc of-e
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
October 6, 2016
i
i
I
PLANNING ACTION: 2016-01644
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot # 1210 on Roca Street
OWNER: Edward Alpern
APPLICANT: Suncrest Homes
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review
Permit to allow for the construction of a new single-family residence on slopes greater than 25
percent.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10;
The Tree Commission recommends approving the proposed tree protection plan as submitted
along with specific recommendation below:
1. That the applicant extends the tree protection zone to sixteen (16) feet, except at the
midpoint closest to the proposed structure where it can remain at fourteen (14) feet.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541488-5350 CITY F
51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 d' " w LAN D"
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
L
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 , 1 T F
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: 2016-01644
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot #1210 on Roca Street
OWNER: Edward Alpern
APPLICANT: Suncrest Homes
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow for the
construction of a new single-family residence on slopes greater than 25 percent. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 6:00 PM in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: September 26, 2016
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: October 10, 2016
1
o 0 ae
- - SUBJECT PROPERTY -
w Tax Lot # '1210 on Roca Street
PA-2016-01644
-
fill
L
EMMA ST
-
j
N
1:600
1 inch = 50 feet K,--(~- e
Mappln0 Is actr"t' is only and bears warranty of accuracy.
Z5 reet All features. sfructures.lmllitios, easement or ro Mway locations
9 should he lndepend-ty Mid v ariflod for exiatenca and/or location.
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way,
Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above,
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice
is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period
and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice
of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision, An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must
be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040)
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal
to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity
to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services
Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305.
0CX
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONS' JNTS
10.3.10.050
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.
E
G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-01644.docx
E
i
i
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
i
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On September 26, 2016 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 #2016-01644, NOC Roca Street.
4& A, ) tAvy,~,/~
Signat e of Employee
Documentl 9/26/2016
i
PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 1209 PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 1207 PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 2306
ALPERN EDWARD M AMRHEIN MARK J/AMY W BENEDETTI LAURA TRUSTEE FBO
828 ROCA ST 804 ROCA ST 1685 NW AVERY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ROSEBURG, OR 97471
i
PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 2100 PA-2016-01644 391E1513C 2403 PA-2016-01644 391E1513C 2000
BRADSHAW MARK ALLEN DE ROUCHEY LOUIS/AMANDA FAY KAREN T
811 ROCA ST 891 ROCA ST 799 ROCA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
i
PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 1701 PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 2400 PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 2302
JARVIS BARBARA A KINARD AMY E MARSDEN STEVEN S ET AL
1159 EMMA ST 875 ROCA 1174 EMMA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 2200 PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 2303 PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 2300
PAVLICH PAUL/JENI FEINBERG PERRY RAYMOND J/CHERYL LYNN PERRY RAYMOND/CHERYL C
829 ROCA ST 1192 EMMA ST 1192 EMMA'
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 2201 PA-2016-01644 391E15BC 1702 PA-2016-01644 391E1513C 1208
PISCHEL LOIS J TRUSTEE ET AL REYNOLDS TROY/JULIE LYN SLOAN EARLE R TRUSTEE ET AL
839 ROCA ST 820 ELKADER ST 816 ROCA ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01644 PA-2016-01644
SUNCREST HOMES MARQUESTT & ASSOCIATES PA-2016-01644
P.O. BOX 1313 RICK SWANSON BEAVER TREE SERVICE
TALENT, OR 97520 1120 E JACKSON 270 WILSON ROAD
MEDFORD, OR 97501 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
._~J s 3
{
9
1401 1203
TIM,
i
1
' 24JUIf
1 U*T
1207
4 -
;ik 1
r
i 1004
I 100
2201
1
s
~ 311
400
2301 2-302 2141
2-502
d
1ri.I _y
Ar 014
:4u
ga 9 f 2309
E
2
2403 ~
C
r
121
2U4 2700
i+ 3-a1
r }
E l " I I Ul
FINDINGS F FACT
PHYSICAL AND ENVIONRIVIENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT
FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPERTY WITH HILLSIDE LAND
i
I
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Roca St, Street
39 1E 15BC #1210
PROPERTY OWNER
Suncrest Homes
APPLICANT
Suncrest Hornes
0 ROCA STREET
39 1E 15 BC #1210
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
Subiect Property
Address: 0 Roca Street
Map & Tax Lots: 39 lE 15BC #1210
Property Owner: Suncrest Homes
P.O. Box 1313
Talent, OR 97540
Applicant: Suncrest Homes
P.O. Box 1313
Talent, OR 97540
Geotechnical Expert: Marquess & Associates
Rick Swanson
Medford, OR 97501
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential
Zoning: R-10
Lot Area: 7,841 /.18 ac.
Request:
Request for Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the construction of a new single
family residential home on land that has more than 25 percent slopes.
Property Background:
The subject property is located on the South side of Roca Street at Emma St. The subject property is
zoned R-10.
The property is 7,851 square feet in area and is vacant of structures.
The lot slopes downhill away from the street. The average slope of the property is between 25 - 28
percent. The area of proposed development is in areas of the property where the slope ranges from 26 to
33 percent. For the purposes of the solar setback calculations, the lot is subject to solar setback standard B
because there is an 11.5% slope to the North and 30'/.331=90.9' and the longest N/S property line is
79.27'.
There is one tree on the site a 26" Black Oak that is to remain, an arborist report indicates tree protection
14' from the tree is required to protect the tree. This tree protection is indicated on the site plan.
Project Proposal:
The request is to construct a new single family residential home on the vacant lot.
0 ROCA STREET
391E 15 BC #1210
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Hillside Revelopment:
18.3.10.050 Approval 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 proposed residence is sited in a manner to preserve and protect the one black oak on the property
while not disturbing areas with more than 35pereent slope that are further downhill. The applicant has
also considered the impacts to the adjacent properties, by designing a residence with a cut pad
foundation and a low pitch roof. This reduces the building height and mass limiting impacts to nearby
areas. The proposed driveway is minimal by comparison to many in the nearby area.
Through the application of the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, the oversight of a geotechnical
expert, a structural engineer, implementation of the erosion control plan and tree protection /
preservation, potential 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.
The proposed residence is in the areas with the least amount of slope while retaining the existing tree.
The applicant has designed a home that steps down the hillside working with topography instead of
against.
The residences foundation will be engineered and the geotechnical expert will provide periodic
inspections of the site to verb the development requirements are being complied with. Erosion control
silt fencing is proposed along the bottom of the property
During construction, a gravel track-out pad at the driveway intersection with the street is also proposed.
All erosion control measures will remain in place throughout the duration of the site workportions of
construction. The tree protection fencing will remain in place throughout the duration of construction or
until the exterior of the structure is completed and no additional site disturbance is occurring.
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.
Due to the proposed placement, geotechnical oversite, structural engineering, tree protection and
preservation all reasonable steps have been taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment. By
utilizing a cut foundation, limitation on impervious surfaces, minimal setbacks and tree preservation all
site disturbance the applicant does not find that irreversible adverse impacts to the environment will
occur. Site disturbance from construction will be re-vegetated with native grass seed mix.
The average amount of impervious area on the adjacent properties is significantly greater than what is
proposed in this application. The proposed development has 2,979 square feet of total impervious areas,
including the footprint of the residence.
18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside sands
A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands.
0 ROCA STREET
39 1E 15 BC #1210
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
1. Buildable Area. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area.
The subject property does have areas greater than 35 percent but all proposed development is to occur
outside of the areas that are greater than 35 percent. The existing oak tree along the south property line
is beingpreserved.
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 plans for development on Hillside
Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to the
International Building Code and be consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Erosion control
measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed
areas.
Rick Swanson from Marquess and Associates has reviewed the grading, erosion control, that have been
designed by himself and others with demonstrable expertise in the development of Hillside Lands. The
plans provided demonstrate compliance with the standards from the Land Use Ordinance.
2. Timing of Improvements.
This proposal is exempt from this section of the code.
3. Retention in natural state.
This proposal is exempt from this section of the code.
4. Grading - Cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall
apply.
a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are
composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut
slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion
and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less
steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per
manufacturers specifications, and revegetated.
The proposed structure is cut into the hillside leaving few exposed cut slopes.
b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven
feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of
five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for
erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. The top of cut
slopes not utilizing structural retaining walls shall be located a minimum setback of one-half the height
of the cut slope from the nearest property line,
There are no exposed cut slopes greater than seven feet and not cut slopes that exceed a maximum
vertical height of I5 feet.
c. Cut slopes for structure foundations which reduce the effective visual bulk, such as split pad or
stepped footings, shall be exempted from the height limitations of this section.
The proposed residence is cut into the hillside.
d. Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction of top
soil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be
native, or species similar in resource value to native plants, which will survive, help reduce the visual
0 ROCA STREET
391E 15 BC #1210
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings,
and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate.
The areas directly adjacent to the residence where the soil has been disturbed are proposed to be re-
seeded with native plant mixture.
5. Grading - Fill. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply.
a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing
structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.
There is only on small fill slope along the driveway and the majority of this fill slope is on land that is less
than 25% slope and is not classified as Hillside lands.
b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting
or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The
blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur
beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with
manufacturer's recommendations.
The fill slope along the driveway shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional
equivalent.
c. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that
it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical expert.
The utilities are not being installed on fill slopes.
d. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and
which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary.
Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of
erosion control on disturbed areas.
All areas disturbed by construction shall be reseeded with native grasses.
6. Revegetation Requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill
slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey
plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a
manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation.
All areas disturbed by construction shall be reseeded with native grasses.
7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures.
a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not
limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas
which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence
indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures.
The landscaping will be maintained in perpetuity.
b. Security.
The subject lot is not subject to this section of code as it existed prior to January 1, 1998.
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following
factors.
a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for
providing vehicular access to the pad,
0 ROCA STREET
39 1E 15 BC #1210
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR HILIrSIDE DEVELOPMENT
No terracing is planned
b. & c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
Based on the Geological Report there is no evidence of hazardous or unstable portions of the site. There
is no physical evidence on the site of any hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
d. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of
yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the
remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope.
The proposed structure has a small footprint by comparison to those in the impact area. No formal yard
space is proposed. Areas of disturbance will be re-seeded with native grasses post construction, and, the
majority of the site will be retained in a natural state.
9. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final
survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project
geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and
erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections,
as per 18.3.10.090.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the
project.
The final inspection report completed by the geotechnical expert will be provided prior to the issuance of
the certificate of occupancy.
C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage.
The surface and groundwater drainage on the site will be directed into the city's storm drain system.
When the subdivision was developed, all necessary infrastructure was constructed to sustain all of the
lots in the subdivision.
D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the
following requirements.
1. Inventory of Existing Trees.
See the attached Tree Inventory and report completed by Beaver Tree service, which state a tree
protection fence of 14" will be sufficient to protect the existing black oak.
2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation.
See the attached report completed by Beaver Tree Service regarding the protection of the existing tree to
be preserved is addressed. A large portion of the site is not affected by the proposed development and
therefore is not included in the inventory,
3. Tree Conservation in Project Design.
No trees are to be removed as part of this proposal
4. Tree Protection.
A six-foot chain Zink fence is proposed to be installedl4' from the truck of the existing Black Oak per the
arborist report.
5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site.
The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire
Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for
one or more of the following conditions,
0 ROCA STREET
39 1E 15 BC#1210
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
a. The tree is located within the building envelope.
b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area.
c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement,
d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an
unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.3.10.090.D.2.
e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of
the tree, as determined by a landscape professional.
No trees are to be removed as part of this proposal.
6. Tree Replacement.
No trees are proposed for removal.
E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands
shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards.
1. Building Envelopes.
The proposed residence adheres to the yard setbacks allowed by code, by the Public Utility Easements on
the property, the Solar Setback ordinance and by the required tree protection zone.
2. Building Design. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive design techniques,
buildings on Hillside Lands, excepting those lands within the designated Historic District, shall
incorporate the following into the building design and indicate features on required building permits.
a. 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.
The residence is cut into the hillside with a below grade lower level proposed. The proposed residence is
less than 35 feet in height.
b. Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk,
i. Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to allow the structure
to more closely follow the slope,
ii. Reduce building mass by utilizing below grade rooms cut into the natural slope.
The residence is cut into the slope on the property stepping down the hillside, working with the
topography instead of against it.
c. A building step back shall be required on all downhill building walls greater than 20 feet in height, as
measured above natural grade. Step-backs shall be a minimum of six feet. Decks projecting out from the
building wall and hillside shall not be considered a building step-back. No vertical walls on the downhill
elevations of new buildings shall exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above natural grade.
The vertical walls are less than 20 feet as measured from natural grade (see attached elevations).
d. Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes longer
than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet.
There are no horizontal building planes that exceed 36 feet are proposed
e. 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. Long, linear unbroken
roof lines are discouraged. Large gable ends on downhill elevations should be avoided, however smaller
gables may be permitted.
0 ROCA STREET
39 1E 15 BC #1210
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
The residence is proposed to have a low pitch, hip style roof, which in keeping with the other homes along
Roca st. The proposed roofing creates unique shapes and patterns for the home's exterior that reflect the
irregular forms of the hillside. No large gable ends are proposed on the downhill elevations. The various
building sections break up the massing of the front of the residence creating interest on the public street.
f. It is recommended that roofs of lower floor levels be used to provide deck or outdoor space for upper
floor levels. The use of overhanging decks with vertical supports in excess of 12 feet on downhill
elevations should be avoided.
The deck at the rear of the property is less than 12' above grade.
g. It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the predominant
colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural
environment.
Natural colors selected from the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape will be used for the
exterior paint finishes..
F. All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations designed by an engineer or architect with
demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working
drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer.
The foundation will be designed by an engineer. The engineered foundation will be provided with the
building permit set.
G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include building envelopes
containing a buildable area less than 35 percent slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses
permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or
conservation purposes.
This section is not applicable. The subject lot was created in 1986
18.3.10.100 Development Standards for Wildfire lands
B. Requirements for Construction of All Structures.
Compliance with the development standards for wildfire lands will be implemented on-site prior to
introduction of combustible construction materials, Trees will be limbed up above the roof, the grass will
be mowed and small diameter ladder fuels will be removed. Additionally, Class B or better shingles will
be used on the roof.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the applicant's find that the proposed moderately sized, single family residence will be a
welcome addition in the neighborhood. The original geotechnical report has indicated that the areas
selected for development are suitable and the applicant's geo-tech has recommended erosion control,
foundation type and retaining wall design.
The site is one of the last remaining vacant lots in this area. Though the house design is consistent with
the existing residences. Additionally, all reasonable steps necessary to prevent negative impacts to
adjacent properties and the environment for the development of the site have been factored into the site
design and placement of the residence.
0 ROCA STREET
391E 15 BC #1210
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR HILISIDE DEVELOPMENT
i
The applicant finds that all of the applicable City of Ashland requirements have been met or can be met
through the imposition of conditions of approval.
Attachments:
Site plans
Elevations
Arborist Report
Geo-Tech letter and erosion control plan
4
(1
f=
t
I'
I
0 ROCA STREET
391E 15 BC #1210
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
r
i
E' 541-7/2-7115 E YA-77`)- 10H 1120 EA5T IAC:KSON 1'0hO\ ~')o lv1Cl~~fOl:i~, L)R ~)'iS01
A , ' t) t. 1 A i i s EMAIL: ii7f<r~ mar~~u~.ti,ti.c~>m WEC3: ~~~~°~~.marclu~ ~,s.e~>m
August 26, 2016
Charlie Hamilton
Suncrest Homes
PO Box 1313
Talent, Oregon 97540
RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT ROCA AND EMMA STREETS
(APN 391E15BC TI, 1210)
ASHLAND, OREGON
MAI JOB NO. 16-1161
Dear Mr. Hamilton:
Introduction
We are pleased to present our geotechnical investigation report for the proposed residence at the
northeast intersection of Roca and Emma Streets (APN 391E15BC 1210) in Ashland, Oregon.
The purpose of this investigation was to determine the prevailing subsurface conditions at the
site and develop earthwork and foundation engineering recommendations for the development.
The proposed residence will have a main floor level at elevation 2251 and this floor will extend
across the entire residence. Under the east (downhill) side of the residence, a daylight lower
level at elevation 2241 is planned. All of these living areas will have structural wood floors. An
attached garage with a slab floor is planned on the west side of the main level and will be
situated at elevation 2250.5. A driveway sloped at 4 percent is planned to serve the garage.
This' report has been prepared for the specific use of Suncrest Homes and their designers in
accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering principles and practices. No
other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. In the event that any substantial changes in
the nature, design, or location of the structure are planned, the conclusions and recommendations
of this report shall not be considered valid unless such changes are reviewed and the conclusions
of this report are modified or verified in writing.
It should be recognized that changes in the site conditions may occur with the passage of time
due to environmental processes or man-made changes. Furthermore, building code or state of
the practice changes may require modifications in the recommendations presented herein.
Accordingly, the recommendations of this report should not be relied on beyond a period of th>,ce
years without being reviewed by a geotechnical engineer.
' r
Charlie Hamilton
August 26, 2016
Page 2 of 7
Method of Investigation
Two exploratory test pits were excavated on July 22, 2016, in the building pad area with a mini-
trackhoe. Logs of the exploratory test pits are presented below.
Site Conditions
A. Surface
The property is undeveloped and covered with weeds in the building pad portion of the property.
The ground surface generally slopes moderately to the northeast. No signs of hillside instability
were observed at the site.
B. Subsurface
Test Pit 1 was excavated near the north side of the proposed garage. The soils observed in this
test pit consisted of loose to medium dense, dusky brown silty sand to a depth of 2.5' followed
by brown, medium dense to dense silty sand to the bottom of the test pit (3.5' deep). The
medium dense to dense silty sand was somewhat difficult for the mini-trackhoe to excavate.
Test Pit 2 encountered similar soils as Test Pit 1, but the upper layer of dusky brown, loose to
medium dense silty sand was only 2' thick.
The silty sands are considered to have a very low to low expansion potential based on our past
experience with similar earth materials.
C. Groundwater
No free groundwater was observed in the test pits during excavation. Fluctuations in the
groundwater level at the site may occur, however, because of variations in rainfall, temperature,
runoff, irrigation, and other factors not evident at the time our observations were made and
reported herein.
Conclusions and Recommendations
From a soil and foundation engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the proposed residence
can be constructed as proposed provided the recommendations contained in this report are
incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
Site Conditions. The site is mantled with approximately 2' to 2.5' of relatively loose silty sand
followed underneath by firm silty sand. In order to promote uniform and firm bearing for all
building foundations, we recommend excavating down to the film silty sand and backfilling,
where necessary, back up to bottoms of footings with structural fill.
Charlie Hamilton
August 26, 2016
Page 3 of 7 1
Foundations. The proposed residence may be supported on conventional footing foundations
bearing either directly on the firm, natural silty sands or on structural fill underlain by firm,
natural silty sand.
The recommendations presented in the remainder of the report are contingent on our observation
of the earthwork and subsurface conditions and building pad construction.
A. Earthwork
1. Areas to be developed should be cleared of brush, weeds, etc., and stripped of
topsoil and any remaining obstructions. Holes resulting from removing
underground obstructions in areas to be improved should be cleared out and
backfilled in accordance with the recommendations presented below.
2. Excavations Beneath Building Footings and Slabs. We recommend removing the
loose to medium dense surficial sands from beneath building footings and
building slabs to expose the firm underlying silty sands. In footing areas where
the excavations to the firm soils are deeper than the proposed footing bottoms,
these deeper excavations should be backfilled back up to design grade with
structural fill. These excavations below the bottoms of footings should be
widened to be at least F beyond all sides of the footings.
After the excavations are completed we should be called out to observe the
subgrade conditions prior to placement of any structural fill or concrete forms.
After observation and recompaction of the subgrades, the excavations may be
backfilled with structural fill.
3. In general, subgrade soils should be recompacted prior to placing fill. If the
subgrade is firm, excavated cleanly, and undisturbed by the excavation work, the
soil engineer may waive the requirement for recompaction of subgrade. The
recompaction should consist of moisture conditioning the soils to approximately
three percent above optimum and compacting them to at least 95 percent relative
compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D698. Compaction should be
performed using heavy equipment such as a self-propelled vibratory compactor.
4. In order to achieve satisfactory compaction in the subgrade and fill soils, it may
be necessary to adjust the soil moisture content at the time of construction. Soils
which are too dry will require the addition of water while scarification and
aeration will be required for soils which are too wet.
5. High quality structural fill materials, such as 3/a"-0 or 4"-0 crushed rock, should be
used beneath building footings and building slabs. On-site silty sand should not
be re-used as structural fill beneath building footings and slabs, but may be re-
used a general fill in driveway embankments,
Charlie Hamilton
August 26, 2016
Page 4 of 7
6. All fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as
determined by ASTM Test Method- D698. Fill material should be spread and
compacted in lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness. The
compaction of the fill, thickness of lifts, and control of the moisture content
should be monitored and tested by our field representative.
7. All fill should be moisture-conditioned, placed, and spread in a manner that will
prevent segregation and compaction should be performed with a heavy self-
propelled vibratory roller where possible. The compaction should be evaluated by
nuclear gauge density testing and/or by proofrolling with a loaded ten-yard dump
truck where appropriate.
8. Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill placed in lifts not
exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness, except thicker lifts may be used
with the approval of the soil engineer provided satisfactory compaction is
achieved. The trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction. Jetting of backfill to obtain compaction should not be permitted.
9. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical
and should be planted for erosion protection.
10. Grading and earthwork should be monitored and tested by our representative for
conformance with the project plans/specifications and our recommendations.
This work includes site preparation, site excavation, selection of satisfactory fill
materials, and placement and compaction of the subgrades and fills. Sufficient
notification prior to commencement of earthwork is essential to make certain that
the work will be properly observed.
B. Foundations
1. Building footings should bear either directly on the firm underlying medium
dense to dense silty sand or on structural fill bearing on the firm underlying silty
sand. All existing loose to medium dense silty sand should be removed from
beneath building footings.
2. Footings should bear at least twelve inches below adjacent finished grade. Footings
located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces below an
imaginary 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected upward from the edge of the
bottom of the trench.
Footings should also be deepened as necessary to provide at least 7' of horizontal
confinement as measured horizontally from the toe of the footing to the nearest slope
face. Footings supporting significant lateral loads, such as wall footings with keys,
should be provided with additional horizontal confitlement equal to 7' plus the key
depth.
Charlie Hamilton
August 26, 2016
Page 5 of 7
I
3. Footings can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 psf for dead plus
live loads. This pressure may be increased by one-third for short term loading. All
footings should be provided with sufficient reinforcement to provide structural
continuity.
4. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation bottoms and the
supporting subgrade. A friction coefficient of 0.3 can be used. In addition, a passive
pressure equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf can be taken against the
sides of footings poured neat or against compacted fill.
5. Foundation settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed
construction. Post-construction differential movements of the foundations are
expected to be less than 3/4 inches over a horizontal distance of 50 feet.
C. Slabs-®n-Grade
1. All garage slabs should be underlain by at least 0.5' of compacted 3/a"-0 crushed
rock, except as discussed below in Item C-2. All existing loose to medium dense
silty sand should be removed from beneath these slabs and be replaced with
structural fill.
2. If a portion of the garage slab is partially below exterior grade (at this time, we do
not know if the west side of the garage will be an earth retaining wall or a free-
standing wooden building wall), then the entire garage should be underlain by an
underslab drainage system. This slab should be underlain by at least eight inches
of mechanically tamped free-draining 3/a" crushed rock (no fines, no round rock)
over non-woven, minimum 4 ounces per square yard, filter fabric over subgrade.
Three-inch diameter perforated rigid PVC pipes should be placed within the free-
draining crushed rock layer. The pipes should be placed flat on two inches of
free-draining 3/a" crushed rock and form a grid system of interconnected
underdrain pipes. The pipes should start 2' inside of the retaining wall footings
and be spaced no more than 8' apart in an X-Y pattern across the entire slab. The
pipes should be plumbed to a solid pipe sloped at least 2 percent to drain
downslope of the residence.
The free-draining 3/a" crushed rock will act as a capillary moisture break to help
decrease moisture through the slab. A waterproofing membrane should also be
incorporated into the design to seal off the slab. A vapor barrier may also be used
beneath the slab.
3. All slabs should be reinforced in accordance with the anticipated use and loading,
but as a minimum, slabs should be reinforced with sufficient rebar or equal for
temperature and shrinkage control.
Charlie Hamilton
August 26, 2016
Page 6 of 7
D. Retaining Walls
1. Retaining walls should be designed in accordance with our footing design
recommendations as discussed above. Unrestrained walls with level to gently
sloping (less than 25 percent slopes) backfill surfaces should be designed to resist an
equivalent fluid pressure of at least 40 pcf. Where restrained, walls should be
designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf with similar backfill surfaces.
These pressures do not account for any surcharge loadings or saturated backfills.
Surcharge loadings and saturated backfills should be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
2. The preceding pressures assume that sufficient drainage is provided behind the walls
to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface or subsurface water
infiltration. Adequate drainage may be provided by means of 3/a" drain rock material
enclosed in a filter fabric and a 4" diameter rigid perforated pipe placed at the base
of the wall. The drainrock should extend up the walls to within one foot of the
finished grade. The drain pipes should be tied into closed pipes that discharge
downslope of the wall.
3. The backfill placed behind retaining walls should be fully granular and compacted to
at least 95 percent relative compaction using light compaction equipment. Interior
walls should be thoroughly waterproofed and the waterproofing should be protected
with protection boards or similar.
E. Site Drainage
1. Positive surface gradients of at least five percent on porous surfaces and two percent
on paved surfaces should be maintained away from the building so that surface
water does not collect in the vicinity of the foundations. Water from roof
downspouts should be collected into closed pipes that discharge the water in an
approved manner downslope of the home.
2. A foundation drain should be placed adjacent to the perimeter building footings,
where retaining wall backdrains are not required, to control moisture beneath the
foundations. The perimeter drain should be set as low as practical to obtain
maximum drainage control.
F. Plan Review and Construction Observation
1. We recommend that we review the final development plans. We should also be
retained to provide soil engineering monitoring and testing services during the
grading, foundation installation, and subdrainage installation. This will provide
us the opportunity for correlation of the soil conditions found in our investigation
with those actually encountered in the field, and thus permit any necessary
Charlie Hamilton
August 26, 2016
Page 7 of 7
modifications in our recommendations resulting from changes in anticipated
i
conditions.
Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding this report.
PROF
d
Very truly yours,
~ w lssss ~
MARQUESS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
OREGON s~PT. 21' 190 C
~/bA. gw Rick Swanson, P.E., G.E.
' Civil Engineer 16885
EXPIRES: 6-3p, 'ZO/8
RS/rs
Copies: by email
P 541-772.7115 E 541-774 iJii 1120 [AM 1"V-k)ur) ro 1"OX 4')U 1\'11.DFt)Rt~.
EMAIL: in(w, in:uyw, s_<<,m fir,! f',.: v \v.nt;11-y1(s.c()m
Date: August 26, 2016
To: Charlie Hamilton
From: Rick Swanson, P.E., G.E.
Re: Proposed Residence at Roca and Emma Streets (APN 391E1513C TL 1210)
Ashland, Oregon
MAT Job No. 16-1161
As requested, we have reviewed the erosion control measures shown on Sheet A0.1 Site Plan
prepared by Design Residential Inc. and dated August S, 2016, for the subject development. Our
review is from a soil engineering standpoint. The (1) silt fencing and (2) re-seeding/mulching
shown on the sloping land below the proposed building pad appears to be adequate for the site.
Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding this letter.
OREGON
21
E XF'Iltl S ~3(!
i
Fkk [C l~'~ [~r1 tF['
VOICE OF TREE CARE
I
August 25, 2016
Suncrest Homes
328 Talent Ave.
Talent, OR. 97540
Concerning the Large Black Oak, on the building lot on Rocca St. The developer will put a fence out 14
feet around the tree from the trunk to protect the root zone.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 541-821-873 cell or 541-664-1614 office.
Sincerely,
Clarence V. Wangle
Certified Arborist PN0518A
President, Beaver Tree Service Inc.
Beaver Tree Service Inc. Portland Metro Office: Corporate Office:
CCB # 173614 7085 SW 175th Ave 270 Wilson Rd.
Tax ID # 20-5639553 Beaverton, OR 97007 Central Point, OR 97502
nr-r
(503) 224-1338 (541) 779-7072
T 1 ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 97520 `
~ ` ~ v ~ ~ FIDE
ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERT Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO
Street Address
Assessor's Map No. 391 E I's- Tax Lot(s) 1
Zoning Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT "`I(
C C ~ S t f ' ~°_f Phone M E-Mail ,~'(Itl cl--e"S~(?1~ /`1yw
Name
Address City Zip O VS
PROPERTY OWNER
c.
Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title 9-05 --eMi1~~Name ~ SIC= Gr, ,w n Phone E-Mail k 1 '-6y'~`g '41<6
I t 4 c4 fix-- City /ki -I Zip
Address ac
l~ .G 1
Title CILli&I t° Name~S Phone E-Mail aC~ ( CAS
f City Zip q -7.S
Address
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects,
true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
Failure in this regard will result most F y in not only the request being s -aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be removed at my expense. If I have doub I am advised to competent professional advice an istance.
Applicant's Signature Date
As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
Property Owner's Si ure (required) Date
[To be completed by City Stain i 0 0
Date Received Zoning Permit Type_4~C,_ Filing Fee lll/ /1
OVER
CiAeomm-dev\planninffomis & Handouts\Zoning Permit Application.doc
I
Job Address: 0 TBA Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
C
Owner's Name: SUNCREST HOMES LLC O Phone:
P Customer 07579 N State Lic No:
P SUNCREST HOMES LLC T City Lic No:
Applicant: PO BOX 1313 R
Address: TALENT OR 97540 A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: (541) 535-8641 T Address:
N Applied: 08/31/2016
T Issued:
R
Expires: 02/27/2017 Phone:
State Lic No:
Maplot: City Lic No:
E
DESCRIPTION: Roca Street Map and Taxlot 15BC 1210.
i
I
VALUATION
Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description
Total for Valuation:
MECHANICAL
I
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL
PERMIT FEE DETAIL
Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount
Physical Constraints Permit 1,022.00
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF
i
I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the
best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts
understood and agreed to the following:
Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
(180 days).
2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in
advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 1,022.00 $ 0.00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the
applicant. Sub-Total: $ 1,022.00
Fees Paid: $ 0
Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 1,022.00
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF
-ASH LAN D"