HomeMy WebLinkAboutBeach_552_PA-2017-00389
1
CITY F
ASHLAND
May 18, 2017
Notice of Final Decision
On May 18, 2017, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: PA-20t7-00389
Subject Property: 552 Beach Street
Owner/Applicant: Scott and Laura Bandoroff/Rogue Planning and Development
Description: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to allow for construction of a single-
family detached house. The requested removal is to take place on a preliminarily approved new
lot created through Planning Action No. 2016-01677, which proposed to protect the 48"
Diameter at Breast Height Douglas Fir tree during the construction process.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 16 AA; TAX LOT: 4100.
The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12th 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 h'
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 Maria Harris in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 j
www.ashland.orms
t
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: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 ( mm
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us I
I
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00389
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 552 Beach St.
O R/APPLICANT: Scott and Laura Bandoroff/Rogue Planning and Development
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove to allow for construction of a single-
family detached house. The requested removal is to take place on a preliminarily approved new-lot created
through Planning Action No. 2016-01677, which proposed to protect and preserve the 48-inch diameter
at breast height Douglas fir tree.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E16AA; TAX LOT: 4100.
SUBMITTAL DATE: March 7, 2017
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: March 27, 2017
STAFF DECISION DATE: May 18, 2017
APPEAL DEADLINE (4:30 P.M.): May 30, 2017
FINAL DECISION DATE: May 31, 2017
EXPIRATION DATE: November 30, 2018
DECISION
The subject property is located at 552 Beach St. and is zoned R-1-7.5 (Single-Family Residential). The
request is for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 48-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) Douglas fir to
allow for construction of a single-family detached house. The tree proposed for removal is located near
the southern property line and approximately 90 feet to the east of the curb of Beach St.
The subject property received preliminary approval to create a new tax lot in October 2016. The 48-inch
dbh Douglas fir tree is located on the new tax lot and was originally identified for preservation. According
to the application, the tree protection zone recommended by the project arborist would require nearly the
width of the new lot thereby limiting the buildable area of the new lot.
The 48-inch Douglas fir tree is identified as healthy and is not identified as a tree that presents a clear
public safety hazard. Therefore, the tree removal permit application must meet the approval criteria in
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.7.040.B.2 for a tree that is not a hazard.
The application states that if the tree were to remain in place, the required tree protection zone would
restrict the buildable area to an area approximately 1,000 square feet in size in the northwest corner of the
new lot. While the buildable area could meet the standard side yard of six feet between the side of the
home and the north property line, all new structures are also subject to the solar setback requirement in
AMC 18.4.8. The application includes a site plan which shows the solar setback for a 21-foot high
structure being located over 40 feet from the north lot line. As a result, the new home would need to be a
relatively low profile one-story structure in order to meet the solar setback requirement in the buildable
area shown outside of the tree protection zone. As a result, if the 48-inch Douglas fir is removed, the
buildable area could be expanded and moved to the south.
According to the application there are 14 trees sized ten-inches dbh and greater located on the new lot
including a variety of evergreen (i.e., fir and cedar) and deciduous (i.e. maple and oak) trees. Assuming
PA #2017-00389
552 Beach St./mh
Page 1
the remaining trees will be preserved, the removal of the 48-inch diameter Douglas fir tree does not
appear to impact tree densities or soil stability. According to the application, Douglas firs "are not
typically a windbreak tree." The application also states that there are two additional Douglas firs in close
proximity to the tree that is proposed for removal and the removal of the 48-inch Douglas fir will
therefore not have a significant negative impact on species diversity. r
The Tree Commission reviewed the request at its regular meeting on April 6, 2017 and recommended
approval of the tree removal permit. The Tree Commission suggested conditions requiring that the tree
removal is mitigated by planting two similar large conifers and to provide a Tree Inventory and
Protection plan for the review and approval of the Planning Division prior to any site work.
The criteria for 'T'ree Removal Permit approval are described 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 oelocation 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
18.51.050. 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 C
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.
In staff's assessment, the request satisfies the applicable criteria for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a
tree that is not a hazard.
Based on the materials provided, the application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable
City ordinances. Therefore, Planning Action #2017-00389 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 #2017-00389 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the
approval:
PA #2017-00389
552 Beach StAnh
Page 2
1
i
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically
modified herein.
2) That a tree meeting the requirements of AMC 18.5.7.050 shall be replanted on site with one year
of the tree being removed.
3) That a tree protection plan meeting the requirements of AMC 18.4.5.030 shall be submitted for
review and approval of the Ashland Planning Division prior to any site work, storage of materials
or the issuance of a building permit for the new lot. The tree planted as mitigation for the removal
of the 48-inch dbh Douglas fir shall be identified on the tree protection plan.
4) That the tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved tree protection plan
prior to any site work, storage of materials or issuance of the building permit for the new lot. The
tree protection fencing shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department prior
to site work, storage of materials or the issuance of a building permit. The tree protection shall be
chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with AMC 18.4.5.030.C.
c
May 18, 2017
ill Molnar, irector Date
Depa~ tment f Community Development
PA #2017-00389
552 Beach St./mh
Page 3
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On 5/18/171 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 #2017-00389, 552 Beach.
Signature of Employee
DocumeW 5/18/2017
(1`~ o Easy Peel'Address Labels el G® to avery.com/ter
~la~e~
0= Bead along line to expose Pop-up Edge,, e - UseAveryr iernplate 5160 t~
i
i
PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 6300 PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 4100 PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 5202
ASHLAND HOUSE LLC BANDOROFF SCOTT ET AL BERG SCOTT D/MARY CLAIRE C
PO BOX 471 552 BEACH ST 508 BEACH ST
WILLIAMS, OR 97544 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
i
PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 5400 PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 3601 PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 3600,
BROWN JOSEPH R/DOMINIQUE F CANNON EVA M TRUSTEE ET AL CORNS STUART R
1067 ASHLAND ST 503 BEACH ST 577 HENLEY WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 6100 PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 6200 PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA'4000
FELLOWS LATRINA B FOERDER ALAN H/LISA A KNOKE DANA LEE'
266 E BAYVIEW AVE 567 BEACH ST 1030 ASHLAND ST
HOMER, AK 99603 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 6001 PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 5201 PA-2017-00389 391 EOODD 5300
MATILDA TRUST ET AL MC NAMARA JAMES A/MARCIA S ORE STATE/BOARD HIGHER ED/
303 WHISKY HILL RD 1007 ASHLAND ST 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD
WOODSIDE, CA 94062 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 4201 PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 6400 PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 4300
THOMAS STEVEN C/KATHRYN A H VAATVEIT GRETCHEN WARREN PETER/EMILY DEAN
588 BEACH ST 908 ASHLAND ST 600 BEACH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 5200 PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 3600 PA-2017-00389
WIGGINS SALLY J ZUZIAK ROBERT J ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
1015 ASHLAND ST P 0 BOX 909 1424 S IVY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR. 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501
' i
552 Beach
NOD 5/18/17
18
i
i
j "
I
Pat: avery.eem/patents a klquettes d'adres5e Easy Feet' Allen A avert' xa/gaHar6ts o,
o Repliezalakacbureafirsder6velerlereb®rdPep-upO e; UtilisezleGabaritAveev5160I'
t
I
I'
f
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
April 5, 2017
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00389
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 552 Beach Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Scott and Laura Bandoroff/Rogue Planning and Development
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to allow for construction of a single-family
detached house. The requested removal is to take place on a preliminarily approved new lot
created through Planning Action No. 2016-01677, which proposed to protect the 48" Diameter at
Breast Height Douglas Fir tree during the construction process.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5 ASSESSOR'S
MAP: 39 1E 16 AA; TAX LOT: 4100.
The Tree Commission recommends approving the application as submitted with the
recommendation to mitigate the proposed removal with two similar large conifers and to provide
a Tree Inventory/Protection Plan for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to any site
work.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541A88-5350 CITY OF
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ASHLAND
C
C1 V - F
Planning Department, 51 Winbu Jay, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 I
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00389
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 552 Beach Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Scott and Laura Bandoroff/Rogue Planning and Development
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to allow for construction of a single-family detached
house. The requested removal is to take place on a preliminarily approved new lot created through Planning
Action No. 2016-01677, which proposed to protect the 48" Diameter at Breast Height Douglas Fir tree during the
construction process. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family Residential; ZONING: R-
1-7.5 ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 16 AA; TAX LOT: 4100.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 6:00 PM in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 27, 2017
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: April 11, 2017
I?
i
_ I
908 I - -
1030
i ,
1 552
555
~I-l d
a roved new aL' r- ccel
reliminarll
Approx. location of tree proposed for removal.
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 18.5.1.050.G)
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.
GAcomm-dev\pianning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2017\PA-2017-00389.docx
ti
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
18.5.7.040.B
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.
I
G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2017\PA-2017-00389.docx
i
Et
E
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On March 1l, 20171 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 #PA-2017-00389, 552 Beach Street.
Signature of Employee
C:IUsersltrappr DesktoplTemplatesWFIDAVIT OF MAILING _Regan.d= 3123/2017
~i
r
i 0gLS Oany;i1egea aizasunn i ,dn-dod pjogaj aIJBIgAgJ ap uye amyoeq el a za!ld98 i
j slIJegeB/eJ AJafle e z@IIV j ®Iasd /use3 assaJpap sapanbljg slualed/wootiane:ae,
PA-2017-00389 391 El6AA 6300 PA-2017-00389 391 El6AA 4100 PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 5202
ASHLAND HOUSE LLC j BANDOROFF SCOTT ET AL j BERG SCOTT D/MARY CLAIRE G
PO BOX 471 552 BEACH ST 508 BEACH ST
WILLIAMS, OR 97544 f ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 5400 PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 3601 PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 3600
BROWN JOSEPH R/DOMINIQUE F CANNON EVA M TRUSTEE ET AL CORNS STUART R
1067 ASHLAND ST 503 BEACH ST j 577 HENLEY WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 6100 PA-2017-00389 391 El6AA 6200 ( PA-2017-00389 391 El6AA 4000
FELLOWS LATRINA B FOERDER ALAN H/LISA A KNOKE DANA LEE
266 E BAYVIEW AVE 567 BEACH ST 1030 ASHLAND ST
HOMER, AK 99603 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
i
PA-2017-00389 391 El 6AA 6002 PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 5201 PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 5600
MATILDA TRUST ET AL MC NAMARA JAMES A/MARCIA S ORE STATE/BOARD HIGHER ED/
303 WHISKY HILL RD 1007 ASHLAND ST 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD
WOODSIDE, CA 94062 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2017-00389 PA-2017-00389 PA-2017-00389
PAUL & MISTY MATTHEWS ROGUE PLANNING AND DEV SO TREE CARE
704 HOWARD STREET 1424 S. IVY STREET PO BOX 5140
MARINA DEL RAY, CA 90292 MEDFORD, OR 97501 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
I
PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 4201 PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 6400 PA-2017-00389 391 El6AA 4300
I THOMAS STEVEN C/KATHRYN A H VAATVEIT GRETCHEN WARREN PETER/EMILY DEAN
588 BEACH ST 908 ASHLAND ST 600 BEACH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2017-00389 391 E09DD 5200 f PA-2017-00389 391 E16AA 3600 PA-2017-00389
WIGGINS SALLY J ZUZIAK ROBERT J 552 BEACH
1015 ASHLAND ST P 0 BOX 909 3124/2017 NOC
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 20
I
i
I
I
i
i 0915 ojeldwaikawasn ®a6P3 do-dod asodxa oa auil 6uole puag
sajeldwa4/WO~tiane of o~ „ slagej ssaJppV jead RseB j ®09 LS OAUSAW
I
LJLl1..1
t
S
1 ei f ~1 ~1,~~ ~ t
°ia
,I ll J ~ ~''J a
MIO, 9 _
i
6$0 L
J,j
i
4201
601
3
r ,
~LILiJ i
i- L;
~-1rjJ iALlir I'I
t
r
1:L 1
m ,
0 U,
Cory Darrow
From: Cory Darrow
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:53 AM
To: 'Amy Gunter'
Subject: RE: 552 Beach modification request
Hi Amy,
This will be going to the Tree Commission and as such, will not be noticed until 3/27. Including a more detailed arborist
report that identifies his findings for recommending a larger than average tree protection area could be useful. If I recall
correctly, the only information from the arborist is a few bullet point responses to an email.
Best,
Cory Darrow, Assistant Planner
541.552.2052 Tel
800.735.2900 TTY
541.552.2050 Fax
City of Ashland, Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520
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 j
received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2041. Thank you.
I
From: Amy Gunter [mailto:amygunter.planning@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 10:14 PM
To: Cory Darrow
Subject: Re: 552 Beach modification request
Hi Cory,
Hope all is well. I'm curious if the application has been reviewed and if it will be going to Tree Commission.
The original application did not go to TC for review.
Thanks for getting back to me.
Best,
Amy
Amy Gunter
Rogue Planning and Development Services
1424 S Ivy Street
Medford, OR 97501
541-951-4020
www.rogueplanning.co
m
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Amy Gunter <amyunter. lp anningmail.com> wrote:
Hi Cory,
i
I
Attached are the findings and plans for 552 Beach, I'm bringing in the application this afternoon.
Thanks,
Amy
Amy Gunter
Rogue Planning and Developinent Services
1424 S Ivy Street
Medford, OR 97501
541-951-4020
www.rogueplanning.com
k
C,
e
I`
L
2
i :
k
Corn Darrow
From: Cory Darrow
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:30 PM
To: 'Amy Gunter'
Cc: Misti Matthews; Paul Matthews; Eric Poole
Subject: RE: 552 Beach modification request
Hi Amy,
I certainly understand the financial considerations and the submittal is not a requirement. Providing an arborist report
was simply a suggestion because of the unusual nature of the request that hinges upon the need for a tree protection
zone significantly larger (30' radius) than required under AMC 18.4.5.030.
To recapitulate, the Notice of Completeness will likely go out on 3/27 and the application will be reviewed by the Tree
Commission on 4/6.
Best regards,
Cory Darrow, Assistant Planner
541.552.2052 Tel
800.735.2900 TTY
541.552.2050 Fax
City of Ashland, Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520
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) 552-2041. Thank you.
From: Amy Gunter [mailto:amygunter.plan ning@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 12:36 PM
To: Cory Darrow
Cc: Misti Matthews; Paul Matthews; Eric Poole
Subject: Re: 552 Beach modification request
Hi Cory,
Thank you for the reply.
They had considered an arborist report, but it was going to be at least $300.00 which they do not want to spend
since the request is not a preservation request but a removal request of an 60+-foot tall tree with a split top and
evidence of previous branch drop. The removal quote is upwards of $3,500, so any money spent on a report
would be worthless and make the requested removal nearly $4000.00. The application does not claim that the
tree is presently a hazard;. but it could become one.
That's A LOT of money for a tree that probably should have been removed before the application was made
since the tree is not in excellent health and has a huge critical root zone beyond the code mandated Tree
Protection Zone.
1
c
Post and pier foundation is out of the question due to the substantial financial implications and that still does not
guarantee the trees will survive. j
Thank you,
Amy
Array Gunter
Rogue Planning and Development Services
1424 S Ivy Street
Medford, OR 97501
541-951-4020
www.rogLieplanning.com
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Cory Darrow <cory.darrowgashland.or.us> wrote:
Hi Amy,
This will be going to the Tree Commission and as such, will not be noticed until 3/27. Including a more detailed arborist
report that identifies his findings for recommending a larger than average tree protection area could be useful. If I recall
correctly, the only information from the arborist is a few bullet point responses to an email.
Best,
Cory Darrow, Assistant Planner
541.552.2052 Tel
800.735.2900 TTY
541.552.2050 Fax
City of Ashland, Department of Community Development
c
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520
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) 552-2041. Thank you.
2
I
fpE
t
From: Amy Gunter [mailto:amygunter.planning@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 10:14 PM
To: Cory Darrow
Subject: Re: 552 Beach modification request
t
i
Hi Cory,
Hope all is well. I'm curious if the application has been reviewed and if it will be going to Tree Commission.
The original application did not go to TC for review.
Thanks for getting back to me.
Best,
Amy
Amy Gunter
Rogue Planning and Development Services
1424 S Ivy Street
Medford, OR 97501
541-951-4020
www.rogueplanning.com
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Amy Gunter <amY unter.planning@gmail.com> wrote:
" Hi Cory,
Attached are the findings and plans for 552 Beach, I'm bringing in the application this afternoon.
Thanks,
Amy
Amy Gunter
Rogue Planning and Development Serviees
I
3
in Envelope ID: 6791728C-1105-4F9F-B75D-644BB0927F20
ZONING _ PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
c r r o 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 FILE #
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Tree Removal Permit: modification of Minor Land Partition
ii
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? 0 YES ENO l
Street Address 552 BEACH STREET
Assessor's Map No. 391 E 16 AA Tax Lot(s) 4100
Zoning R-1-7.5 Comp Plan Designation SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
APPLICANT
Name Rogue Planning & Development Services LLC Phone 541-951-4020 E-Mail amygunter.planning@gmail.com
Address 1424 S Ivy Street Oily Medford Zip 97501
PROPERTY OWNER
Name Scott & Laura Bandoroff Phone 541-951-4329 E-Mail Scott@peakexperience.com
Address 552 Beach Street City Ashland Zip 97520
SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER
*SQk4 I IQI- t
Title Nam M . and Paul Matthews Phone 541-48 -6474 E-Mail misti west4gmail cam
Address 704 Howard Street City Marina Del Ray Zip 90292
Title Arborist Name Willie Gingg, Southern OR Tree Care phone 541-772-0404 E-Mail info@sotreecare,com
Address PO Box 5140 city Central Point Zip 97502
l hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the requlred findings of fact, are In all respects,
true and correct. l understand that all propertypins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or thelr
location found lobe incorrect, the owner assumes full responslblllty. l further understand that if this request Is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that I produced sufticient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request,-
2) that the findings of fact furnishedlustliles 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. (r''(
Failure in this regard will result most I/kely In not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being bullt /n reliance thereon being requlred to
Abe rsa vat expense. have any doubts,/ am advised to seek compelent professional advice and assistance.
3/2/2017 1 8:23:51 AM PST
1
'4gnature Date
As owner of the property involved in this request, l have read and understood the complete application and its consequences tome as a property
IMF uSigned by:
3/1/2017 1 7:46:26 PM PST
"PwpM,0wftf's Signature (required) Date
[To be completed by City Staff]
Date Received Zoning Permit Type_ Filing Fee S
OVER
G:\comm•dev\ptanning\Forms & Handouts\Zoning Pennit Application.doc
f''
i
f
ROGUE PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
March 2, 2017
Request for Modification of
A previously approved
Minor Land Partition
Subject Property
Property Address: 552 Beach Street
Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 16AA; 4100
Comprehensive
Plan Designation: Single Family Residential
Zoning: R-1-7.5
Adjacent Zones: R-1-7.5; R-2 & SO
Water Resource Protection Zone
Lot Area: .83 / 35,719.2 sf
Lot Coverage: Maximum 45 percent
MAR 0 7 7011
Property Owner: Scott Bandoroff & Laura Robin
552 Beach Street
Ashland, OR
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services
Amy Gunter
1424 S Ivy Street
Medford, OR 97501
The following is a request is for a modification of PA2016-1677 that allowed for a two-lot partition at 552
Beach Street. A 48-inch DBH Douglas fir tree had been proposed to be retained with that partition.
Following a consultation with an ISA Certified Arborist, the buyers of the newly created lot (the property
has not been recorded pending stub-out of utilities and is presently a single family parcel occupied by a
single-family residence). The Douglas Fir tree proposed for removal is located along the south property
line.
The location of the tree and its recommended tree protection zone due to the area of the critical root
zone for the Douglas Fir tree of this size, the bifurcated leader, the evidence of previous branch drop,
etc. push the future single family into a small and constrained area of the parcel in the northwest
corner. The area that is not affected by the trees critical root zone provides for less than 1,000 sf
footprint area, and is beyond the area of the lot where a 21-foot tall structure could be located for
compliance with the solar setback standards for the zone. Any new construction would be less than the
average size of residences in the vicinity and substantially less than the average single family home size
i
i
ROGUE PLANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
both in Ashland and nationally which per the 2015 data available from the US Census Bureau, the
E
median size of a completed single-family house nationally, was 2,467 square feet.
(https.llwww.census,govlconstruction/charslhighlights.htm1). In Ashland, the median size single-family
house is proportional to the national average. Development of the parcel would be relegated to an area
that is less than 20% of the total lot area. We believe it can be found that the proposed tree removal is
not a substantial modification and can be approved ministerially as it does not have a substantial impact
on the developability of the subject properties or the adjacent properties:
Applicable Criteria:
18.5.3.020 Applicability and General Requirements
F. Minor Amendments. The following minor amendments to subdivisions and partitions are subject to
Ministerial review in Chapter 18.5.1.040. Changes to an approved plan or condition of approval that do
not meet the thresholds for a minor amendment, below, are subject to Chapter 18.5.6 Modifications to
Approved Planning Actions.
1. A change that does increase the number of lots or parcels created by the subdivision.
The number of lots or parcels is not increased with the request for tree removal.
2. A change that does not enlarge the boundaries of subdivided or partitioned area.
The requested change to the tree protection and removal plan does not enlarge the boundaries of the
subdivided or partitioned area.
3. A change that does not alter the general location or amount of land devoted to a specific land use.
The requested tree removal dos not alter the amount of land devoted to the single family residential zone.
4. A changes that makes only minor shifting of the established lines, location, or size of buildings or
building envelopes, proposed public or private streets, pedestrian ways, utility easement, or
parks and other public open spaces.
The requested tree removal allows for the shifting of the buildable area of the property closer to the south
property line. The 48-inch Douglas fir tree requires a substantial critical root zone or recommended tree
protection zone according to the arborist, Willie Gingg of Southern Oregon Tree Care. The height of the
tree, the number of large branches that have already been dropped by the tree, and the need for the j
construction to take place nearly 30 feet from the edge of the dripline, coupled with the solar setback
standards, renders a large portion of the newly created lot unbuildable. The tree removal allows for the
construction of a single-family residence on the single-family lot and still retains the majority of the
significant trees on the site.
In the event that staff does not find the requested tree removal to meet the Minor Amendment to Minor
Land Partitions as addressed above, findings addressing a Minor Modification to the approved Planning
Action are provided below.
I
M,k 0 `12011
I
t
I
ROGUE PLANNING G DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
18.5.6.040 Minor Modifications
A. Authorization of Minor Modifications.
The application is to remove a tree that had been shown as protected with the partition application.
C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the
approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met.
1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project
approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request, For example, a request
to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed
parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance
with chapter 18.5.1.
The modification is a request to remove a significant tree that had been proposed to be preserved when
the lot was partitioned. Findings addressing Tree Removal have been provided.
18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria
E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part any applicable
overlay zone requirements, per part and any applicable development standards, per part
18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation).
The proposed lots will continue to conform to the requirements of the underlying zone. The
proposal is to remove one of the trees that had been proposed for preservation. The removal of
the tree allows for been solar access as the proposed residence on the property is able to move
approximately 30 feet to the south and further away from the Cedar and Oak trees along the front
property line near Beach Street.
2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or
exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements,
The requested modification does not alter a conditional use, require a variance, an administrative variance
or exception. The tree could have been removed without requiring review or permit prior to the minor land
partition.
3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on
written findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings are not required, where
the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review.
It can be found that the requested tree removal is consistent with the partition application and approval
and that the tree removal is permissible on the vacant R-1 zoned lot.
18.5.7.040 B. Tree Removal 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 MQp,1hPbjfl e
i
G
F
ROGUE PLANNING G DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Development and Design Standards in part and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part
The tree is proposed for removal to allow for the construction of a single-family residence on a newly
created lot that complies with minimum setbacks in the zone,
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.
The removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the soil stability or erosion as the
property is relatively level. There are no surface flow waters that will be impacted. The tree is not part of
a windbreak- Douglas Fir trees are not a typical windbreak tree. The othersmaller Doug firs and deciduous
trees in the vicinity may improve in their health without the competition of the large Doug fir requested
for removal.
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.
There are two Douglas fir trees in direct proximity to the Douglas fir tree proposed for removal. There are
numerous other Douglas fir trees of various sizes, heights, canopy coverage areas, etc. The removal of this
one tree will not have a significant negative impact on tree densities, sizes and canopies. The removal of a
single Douglas fir tree will not have a significant negative impact on species diversity as the tree is
commonly found in the neighborhood.
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.
The tree proposed for removal was reviewed by an arborist that found that the tree's critical root zone is
more than 30-feet from the dripline. Though a home could be built within the critical root zone, the
construction would remove more than 25% of the root zone which is often deemed the mass amount of
root area that can be impacted before the tree is negatively affected. The presence of a residence directly
under the tall, double trunk (more sensitive to trunk failure due to two leaders) and previous evidence of
branch drop in the trees canopy is a cause of concern. The removal of the tree allows for the residence to
be located further south, away from the north property line assuring there is a buildable area that is solar
compliant and not in the fall zone of the large Douglas Fir tree.
There a very limited number of developable, relatively flat parcels, unencumbered by constraints such as
topographical, water resource, access, or location of existing structures. The request is to remove this tree
to allow the development of the parcel as envisioned in the single family residential zone.,
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant
to section " . Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
In accordance with the mitigation standards found in AMC 18.5.7.050, a five-six foot-tall conifer tree will
be planted on site in the riparian zone to improve the shading for Beach Creek at the rear of the property.
Attachment:
Modified Tree Protection and Removal Plan
Email from Willie Gingg, SO Tree Care M 0 7 2011
s`
t
f
r
i
it ~C«?sutr<cc«t+'c,.con I
FW Beach Street - Tree & Sewer Update,
February 13, 2017 at 12:57 PM
af~(oo(e11 @c~i~~ iLcorr, nits TI
From: Willie Gingg [mailtomilliegingg@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 6:36 AM
To: Eric Poole <eapoolell@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Beach Street - Tree & Sewer Update
I'll just hit these point by point.
® Is the tree healthy? Is there any justification for removing the tree?
Yes, Tree appears very healthy. Yes there is justification due to structural issues and better chance to
save other trees.
® Show him the area we will likely have to build the two story structure (right up to the permitter
of the branches on the beach street side) and ask if there are roots we will disturb.
Absolutely there are roots that will be disturbed
o Is there a chance the tree might die due to excavation and disruption of the soil?
Yes
® Does it matter how high we cut the branches back? How hard is this to maintain going forward
with this type of tree?
Yes, prune off as little as possible. Low maintenence generally. Should be cabled if kept. Will likely
shed limbs in storms.
® If the tree does need to be removed, does he have any idea what that process looks like from a
timing / cost perspective? Is this a service he provides?
Yes, discussed the process with Eric.
Willie Gingg
Board Certified MasterArborist
Southern Oregon TreeCare, Llc
On Feb 10, 2017 8:46 PM, "Eric Poole" < > wrote:
Hello Willie,
Thank you very much for coming over to the lot on Beach Street today. I look forward to
hearing from you with your answer to the questions that Misti sent and also the link to the
reference book you were using when you were at the property. Agpin, I appreciate your tim
and look forward to hearing from you.
`,'1i g 0 X011
Kindest Regards,
i
Eric
f
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM Eric Poole < > wrote:
Here are the questions from Misti and Paul.
Hi Eric,
Below are the questions I have for Willy regarding the tree in the middle of the lot:
® Is the tree healthy? Is there any justification for removing the tree?
® Show him the area we will Rely have to build the two story structure (right up to the
permitter of the branches on the beach street side) and ask if there are roots we will
disturb.
o Is there a chance the tree might die due to excavation and disruption of the soil?
® Does it matter how high we cut the branches back? How hard is this to maintain going
forward with this type of tree?
® If the tree does need to be removed, does he have any idea what that process looks like
from a timing / cost perspective? Is this a service he provides?
We do really love the tree, but the location of it makes it difficult to make the most of the
lot. The worst case scenario for us is that we design a home around this beautiful tree and
then it dies and we have to remove it. Would be terrible!
On another note - I talked to David about the sewage and he said we definitely want to avoid
having the pump, but we should talk to the architect about whether that is doable with the
home design. We are talking with him at 3:00 and will keep you posted.
Thanks so much!
Misti
Sent from Gmail Mobile
MAR
Sent from Gmail Mobile 0 `1 2017
k
~f
- ME
c L
41
c
o ° Q
ao
u ~ u u
a c +41
o o
V in ~ a n n Q ~ tz~
C~ ~1`= Vii.zs~s-a-szs a-a a a~~ N ao a~i
a o a o Q o o a o a a a O o
rc v v a a o o a a o o a o o a o Q, ~s
p~ s S -t,~ t~ c~ t~, L7 C7 cD L (D on t9 o tD tD cu
n V cr v~ "cam cv rv dD "d 110 o d' ~r na'o c~ u'
:tf
B 3
c co
bo to co
0- CL -0 u
fg tII 't6 fQ Q} a O a Q} Su tAT co [u y..
F- 41
en C D h" w m 0 ci CAA m e8" E4§ O
I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-3 r9 xi rt c O Y
`c? cm a -
Y r
AD-
;t t SSA.
s
j
Job Address: 552 BEACH ST Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
C ~
A Owner's Name: SCOTT/LAURA BANDOROFF 0 Phone:
P Customer 09238 N State Lie No:
P MISTY/PAUL MATTHEWS T City Lie No:
L Applicant: 704 HOWARD ST R
Address: MARINA DEL REY CA 90292 A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: (541) 941-5870 T Address:
N Applied: 03/07/2017 0
T Issued:
Expires: 09/03/2017 Phone:
State Lie No:
Maplot: 391 E16AA4100 City Lie No:
DESCRIPTION: Tree removal & modification of Minor Land Partition
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
Tree Removal/Verification 28.00
I 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.ashiand.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 C I T Y F
S ]FIN LAN
i"
i
I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the
best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts
understood and agreed to the following:
Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation
(180 days). Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
.
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: $ 28.00 $ 28.00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the
applicant. Sub-Total: $ 28.00
Fees Paid: $ 28.00
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 F
A I& AI 14