The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMountainS_662_PA-2017-00340 CI'T'Y F ASHLAND May 5, 2017 Notice of Final Decision On May 5, 2017, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: 2017-00340 Subject Property: 676 S Mountain Avenue Applicant: Livni Family Trust/Gil Livni, Trustee Description: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new Accessory Residential Unit in conjunction with the construction of a new Single Family Residence for the property located at 676 South Mountain Avenue. Also included are requests for a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven trees greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height, including six ponderosa pines within the proposed building footprint and a 28-inch diameter cedar tree which is dying, and a Solar Access Exception to allow the proposed building to cast more of a shadow on the property to the north than would be cast by a six-foot fence built on the north property line. The applicant owns the adjacent property and has consented to the proposed shading. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 16AA; TAX LOT: 9002. 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 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 Enter Planner's Name 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 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us ~ 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: 541488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us> c ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00340 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 676 South Mountain Avenue OWNER: Livni Family Trust/Gil Livni, Trustee APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new Accessory Residential Unit in conjunction with the construction of a new Single Family Residence for the property located at 676 South Mountain Avenue. Also included are requests for a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven trees greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height, including six ponderosa pines within the proposed building footprint and a 28-inch diameter cedar tree which is dying, and a Solar Access Exception to allow the proposed building to cast more of a shadow on the property to the north than would be cast by a six-foot fence built on the north property line. The applicant owns the adjacent property and has consented to the proposed shading. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 16AA; TAX LOT: 9002. G SUBMITTAL DATE: February 27, 2017 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: March 29, 2017 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: May 5, 2017 FINAL DECISION DATE: May 17, 2017 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: November 17, 2018 DECISION The application involves a request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 814 square foot Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) within the lower level of a proposed single family home to be constructed at 676 South Mountain Avenue. The proposal includes a request to obtain a solar waiver to allow for the shadow cast fiom the proposed home to encroach onto the parcel to the North at 662 Mountain Ave. A Tree Removal Permit is also proposed with the application to develop the single family home and ARU.to remove seven trees greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height, including six ponderosa pines within the proposed building and driveway footprint, and a seventh Ponderosa Pine that was determined by an arborist to have been in declining health. The R-1-7.5 subject property is to have the existing rear lot boundary adjusted to result in a lot that is 7945 square foot in area. The subject parcel, the lot to the north and the lot to the east were all 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page ( 1 blg originally created in 1984. The lot is roughly square in shape with a 10-15 percent slope from South Mountain Avenue up towards Elkader Street and the property slopes approximately t: hN1 e ; 5-6 percent from south to north. o f ¢ PARCEL Rb t 61"ff ii f . PARCEL .J n H)u• 0.337 k"n The proposed Single Family Home and ARU will cast a ! PARM Ki te shadow on the property to the north greater than would be W 0 it I 1 cast by a six-foot fence built on the property line. A small a triangular area of roughly 40 square feet will be shaded in r 0000011 By A0r6Im1n1 Ifd tif...,k, rr•erui excess of the otherwise allowable shadow cast. The owner of the properly to the north has agreed to the proposed Exception. The new single home will access its parking area, garage, via a private easement through the adjoining parcels at 662 Mountain Ave. and 1135 Fern Street. A single car parking space will be installed off of S. Mountain for use by the ARU. Additionally the application demonstrates there are two available on-street parking spaces on the South Mountain Avenue frontage which is sufficient to provide on on-street parking credit as requested. CONCLUSIONS The Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) as proposed meets applicable Special Use Standards per. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.2.3.040, conforms to all requirements of the underlying zoning designation, and meets the requirements for residential design. Staff has found that the on- site parking for the ARU meets the automobile parking requirements outlined in AMC 18.4.3. Required bicycle parking will be located on the porch of the ARU. In evaluating the proposed building and site plan staff found that the submitted plans show a lot coverage of 44.9% which is slightly less than the maximum 45% coverage allowance. Given this small margin for increase in impervious surfaces the applicant will need to provide a detailed coverage analysis with the building permit application to ensure that the final lot coverage remains under 45%. Staff finds approval of the Site Design Review for the proposed ARU request is merited. The approval criteria for an Exception to the Solar Setback requirements are that: 1) The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site by future habitable buildings; 2) The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot; and 3) There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. In this instance, the impacted neighboring property, also owned by the applicant, has agreed to the requested shading. In staff's assessment, the minimal area shaded will not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the neighboring property and the cross slopes on the property present unique design constraints, and therefor approval of the request is merited. The application includes a letter from arborist identifying the ponderosa pine trees in the proposed building envelope (#1, #2, #4), the driveway approach (#5,#6), immediately adjacent to the proposed home (#3) and one 28" Cedar in declining health that was not identified on the tree protection plan submitted. This 28" cedar in the southwest corner of the property has already been removed. This cedar tree was declining health according to the arborist letter and as such its 676 S. Mountain Ave.; PL-2017-00340 Page 2 blg removal was merited. Three of the trees proposed to be removed are in the footprint of the proposed home as designed (trees #1, #2, #4), and their removal is merited to accommodate development of the property. The tree immediately adjacent to the south wall of the proposed home (tree #3), is presently leaning and upon development of the site would have 50% of the tree's drip line disturbed. The arborist letter indicates that the health of tree #3 would be further compromised by the impact of development, and therefore recommends removal. In an effort to minimize the solar access exception to the property to the north it is reasonable to permit the buildings southern wall to be located at the minim 6' setback, and thus in close proximity to this tree. As such staff G finds that removal of this tree (#3) is warranted to allow for development of the property. Tree #7 On the tree protection plan is identified to be preserved, however on-site this tree presently has a pink ribbon around its truck which appears to indicate removal is proposed. To clarify, the applicant's application does not propose removal of tree #7 and as such a condition of approval is provided that it shall be retained. Trees #5 and #6 are located within the proposed driveway immediately in front of the garage doors. Staff believes that these two existing trees (#5 and #6 ) can be retained through redesign of the home and specifically reorienting the garage approach. In the event the garage doors were oriented to face north, with easement access through the adjoining property, or through relocating the garage to the south and extending the driveway, development of the property could be accommodated to avoid the trees 5 and 6. On April 6th, 2017 the Tree Commission reviewed the applicant's request to remove above mentioned trees and recommended that Planning Action 2017-00340 be approved, but that Tree #3, #5, #6 be preserved and protected through reconfiguration of the building and site circulation. The commission further recommended that that a revised tree protection plan for these, and all remaining, trees be submitted prior to any site work, storage of materials, staging, or tree removal. In conducting a site visit staff identified the recent removal of a number of trees on the subject property, and upon the adjoining parcels. In having removed both small and large stature trees from the site the pre-existing canopy and variety of trees has been reduced to the degree that staff finds the cumulative impact of removal of all seven identified trees (including the 28" cedar previously removed) would significantly reduce the canopy within 200 feet of the subject property. Additionally removing all but one of the ponderosa pine trees on the subject lot would reduce the species diversity of trees within the project area. The redesign of the proposed building to preserve trees #5 and #6 appears to be a reasonable alternative to be explored which would still enable the property to be used as permitted within the zone. Retention of trees #5 and #6 may necessitate the removal of an established Japanese Maple tree along the west property line , however this tree is not considered a significant tree and is not regulated under the tree protection ordinance. Given the smaller stature of the Japanese maple it may be possible to be relocate this tree on site or to another property. Installation of the driveway in close proximity to trees 5 & 6 could affect their health unless care is taken during installation to protect the trees. To ensure preservation of these trees a condition of approvals included to require an arborist be on site during any excavation to take place within the vicinity of the trees for wither the drive way or the proposed building. The application requests that due to the location of the property within the Wildfire Hazard Zone that they not be subject to mitigation with replanting of similar trees. The tree protection ordinance does not include an exceptions process to allow waiving the mitigation requirement. Although the replanting of new (young) evergreen trees on-site, in immediate proximity of the future home, 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 13 blg i 1 could pose an increased fire risk, staff believes the applicant can plant fire resistant deciduous trees along the property frontage as illustrated on the planting plan (L-2.2 sheet 14 of 16) submitted with the application. Additionally, the applicant may identify locations on other properties under the ownership of the applicant to plant the requisite mitigation trees stipulated in 18.5.7.040.B.2.5. c Staff believes that retention of trees #1, #2, #3, and #4, on the property would largely preclude the development of a single family home. As proposed the home meets the applicable setback requirements, and the proposal to provide access off of Fern Street provides a shared access that reduces direct access onto South Mountain Avenue. Given these constraints staff approves of the tree removal for #1, #2, #3, and #4. Tree # 7 in the northeast corner of the property is proposed to be retained, but will require regular irrigation and maintenance. Staff denies the request to remove . trees #5 and #6. Staff believes there is sufficient area outside of the building envelope, or on other properties under the applicant's ownership in the vicinity of the subject property, to accommodate planting a five trees to partially mitigate for the reduction in canopy coverage. Retention of trees; 5 &6 will help retain a variety of tree types on site. Based on the discussion of this application before the Tree Commission, staff will require the applicant to plant one tree for each tree that is to be removed (including the 28" cedar previously removed), or provide a payment in lieu of planting. The mitigation trees shall be at least two-inch caliper evergreen trees, or 1.5" deciduous trees and will be a condition of approval. Staff has no reason to believe that removal of the identified trees will impact soil stability, erosion, or flow of surface water. Given the prior removal of the unregulated small diameter trees on the subject property having previously reduced the on-site canopy coverage and the concentration of numerous mature trees in the vicinity, the retention of the trees numbered 5 and 6, and the requirement to replant trees on-site or on other properties under the applicant's ownership, staff does not believe that the proposed removal will further impact tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200 feet of the property. E" E C The criteria for an Accessory Residential Unit are described in AMC Chapter 18.2.3.040, I' as follows: A. R-1 Zone. Accessory residential units in the R-1 zone shall meet the following requirements. 1. One accessory residential unit is allowed per lot, and the maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed two per lot. 2. Accessory residential units are not subject to the density or minimum lot area requirements of the zone, except that accessory residential units shall be counted in the density of developments created under the Performance Standards Option in chapter 18,3.9. 3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1,000 square feet GHFA. 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 14 blg i 4. The proposal shall conform to the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 5. Additional parking shall be provided in conformance with the off-street parking provisions for single-family dwellings in section 18.43.040, except that parking spaces, turn-grounds, and driveways are exempt from the paving requirements in subsection 18.4.3.080. E. 1. C. R-2 and R-3 Zones, Accessory residential units in the R-2 and R-3 zones shall meet the standards G in subsection 18.2.3.040.A, except that the maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 500 square feet GHFA. The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.2.050 as follows: C A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. 8. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18, 4,6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. E F The approval criteria for an Exception to Solar Setback are detailed in AMC 18.4.8.020 as follows: i. The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 15 blg ii. The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. iii. There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are detailed in AMC 18.5.7.040.8 as follows: i B. Tree Removal Permit. ~ 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. 4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 16 blg In staff's assessment, the application with the attached conditions complies with applicable ordinances and meets all required criteria. Planning Action 42017-00340 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2017-00340 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 the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application with the exception of modifications necessary to accommodate the preservation of trees #5 & #6. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That all necessary building permits and associated fees and charges, including permits and/or inspection fees for the kitchen and fire separation installation, permits and service connection fees for the new electrical services to the primary home and accessory residential unit, and any applicable system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. The building permit submittals shall include: a) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. b) That lot coverage shall not exceed 45 percent of the total lot area in accordance with 18.2.5.030. Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with the building permits. I 4) That Trees #l, 2, 3, and 4, and identified on the applicants Tree Protection Plan are approved for removal. Trees #5, #6,and #7 are to be retained and protected during the period of construction. a) That a revised Tree Protection Plan consistent with the standards described in 18.4.5 shall be submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall identify the retention of trees #5, #6, and 47, and include the location and placement of fencing around the drip lines of trees identified for preservation. The amount of fill and grading within the drip line shall be minimized. Cuts within the drip line shall be noted on the tree protection plan. No fill shall be placed around the trunk/crown root. 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 17 blg b) That five mitigation replacement trees shall be either identified on the revised tree j protection plan, identified on a property in the vicinity of the subject property, or a payment in lieu of planting shall be provided. The mitigation trees shall be at least two-inch caliper evergreen trees, or 1.5" deciduous trees and planted and irrigated according to the approved plan. C) That the tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any tree removal, site work, storage of materials or issuance of the building permit. The tree protection shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department prior to site work, storage of materials or the issuance of a building permit. d) Consistent with the arborist recommendation provided in the application, irrigation for trees #5, #6, and #7, shall be conducted twice weekly during the summer months and during the period of construction. Any pruning of these trees roots shall be conducted with an arborist's oversight and in conformance with the Southern Oregon Tree Care recommendations presented within the application. 4) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That a separate electric service and meter for the accessory residential unit shall be installed in accordance with Ashland Electric Department requirements. b) That a separate address for the accessory residential unit shall be applied for approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division. Addressing shall meet the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department and be visible from the Public Right- of-Way. C) That the applicant shall screen recycle and refuse containers from adjacent properties and public right-of-ways. d) All bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. e) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC 18.4.4.040. f) That a Boundary Line Adjustment survey, which includes the shared access and utility easements from the subject property to Fern St., consistent with Planning Action 2016-01891, shall be recorded and provided to the City. 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340` Page (8 blg 5) That installation of the South Mountain Avenue driveway curb cut shall be under permit from the Public Works Department. 6) That the property owner shall sign in favor of local improvement districts for future street improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, parkrow with irrigated street trees, curb, gutter, storm drainage and undergrounding of utilities for South Mountain Avenue. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any 4partment y ordinances and resolutions. I or° Dat munity Development 676 S. Mou ntain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 19 blg I I AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING c STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) I I The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, I Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On May 5, 2017 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 #2017-00340, 676 S Mountain NOD. E Signature of Employee Documend 51512017 r f' c r e ; 5160® ' Easy Peel'~'Address Labels ~ Go to avery.com/templates ~ ' I' Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge I Use Avery Template 5160 I i i PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 8800 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 9700 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 9400 BADEN ARTHUR TRUSTEE ET AL CHAPMAN RUSSELL K TRUSTEE ET AL ECKERT ROBERT W 1120 FERN ST 715 ELKADER ST 100 SURFSIDE AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAINT AUGUSTINE, FL 32084 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 1600 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 1500 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 1700 ESPINOZA EDGARD O/GINA H GINN RYAN D GRYNICK MAIE LTRUSTEE 1098 PLEASANT WAY 1090 PLEASANT WAY 3526 DARRELL DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 8900 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 9300 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 9200 HOPPE WOLFGANG TRUSTEE ET AL HOYEM SHAUN/AMBER JENSEN MELISSA ETAL 1116 FERN ST 625 ELKADER ST 690 S MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 9001 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 2000 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 2300 LIVNI FAMILY TRUST ET AL MARKLE WALTER G/DONNA M OLIVER HENRY TRUSTEE III ET AL 2532 OLD MILL WAY 681 S MOUNTAIN 2305C ASHALND ST 512 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 9500 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 900 PA-2017-00340 SACKS DAVID A TRUSTEE ET AL STACEY JEFFREY W AMY GUNTER 698 S MOUNTAIN AVE 625 MOUNTAIN AVE S ROGUE PLANNING & DEV SERVICES ASHLAND, OR 97520 i ASHLAND, OR 97520 1424 IVY STREET MEDFORD, OR 97501 :'A-2017-00340 PA-2017-00340 Id PROOF DESIGN SOUTHERN OREGON TREE CARE 3ATRICK MAY WILLIE GINGG 155 BUENA VISTA AVE PO BOX 5140 4LAMEDA, CA 94501 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 i j I i I 'I I, II ' i c i i Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel" " Allez a averyca/gabarits Pat: avery.com/patents I ! Utilisez le Gabarit Ave 5160 I RepliezA la hachure afin de r6v6lerle rebord Pop-ups I, ry t ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS I' PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00340 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 676 South Mountain Avenue OWNER: Livni Family Trust/Gil Livni, Trustee APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new Accessory Residential Unit in conjunction with the construction of a new Single Family Residence for the property located at 676 South Mountain Avenue. Also included are requests for a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven trees greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height, including six ponderosa pines within the proposed building footprint and a 28-inch diameter cedar tree which is dying, and a Solar Access Exception to allow the proposed building to cast more of a shadow on the property to the north than would be cast by a six-foot fence built on the north property line. The applicant owns the adjacent property and has consented to the proposed shading. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 16AA; TAX LOT: 9002. SUBMITTAL DATE: February 27, 2017 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: March 29, 2017 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: May 5, 2017 FINAL DECISION DATE: May 17, 2017 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: November 17, 2018 DECISION The application involves a request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 814 square foot Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) within the lower level of a proposed single family home to be constructed at 676 South Mountain Avenue. The proposal includes a request to obtain a solar waiver to allow for the shadow cast from the proposed home to encroach onto the parcel to the North at 662 Mountain Ave. A Tree Removal Permit is also proposed with the application to develop the single family home and ARU.to remove seven trees greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height, including six ponderosa pines within the proposed building and driveway footprint, and a seventh Ponderosa Pine that was determined by an arborist to have been in declining health. The R-1-7.5 subject property is to have the existing rear lot boundary adjusted to result in a lot that is 7945 square foot in area. The subject parcel, the lot to the north and the lot to the east were all 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page I 1 blg i originally created in 1984. The lot is roughly square in shape with a 10-15 percent slope from South Mountain Avenue up x towards Elkader Street and the property slopes approximately i AARM WZ. 5-6 percent from south to north. o k A+' it°a'n'c PARCEL R0,3 $ 531 The proposed Single Family Home and ARU will cast a 'A 1AIo shadow on the property to the north greater than would be cast by a six-foot fence built on the property line. A small g ~p ~,a W sae triangular area of roughly 40 square feet will be shaded in L ( Pan~ao,Y ~Y Aotatmom excess of the otherwise allowable shadow cast. The owner of the property to the north has agreed to the proposed Exception. The new single home will access its parking area, garage, via a private easement through the adjoining parcels at 662 Mountain Ave. and 1135 Fern Street. A single car parking space will be installed off of S. Mountain for use by the ARU. Additionally the application demonstrates there are two available on-street parking spaces on the South Mountain Avenue frontage which is sufficient to provide on on-street parking credit as requested. CONCLUSIONS The Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) as proposed meets applicable Special Use Standards per, Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.2.3.040, conforms to all requirements of the underlying zoning designation, and meets the requirements for residential design. Staff has found that the on- site parking for the ARU meets the automobile parking requirements outlined in AMC 18.4.3. Required bicycle parking will be located on the porch of the ARU. In evaluating the proposed building and site plan staff found that the submitted plans show a lot coverage of 44.9% which is slightly less than the maximum 45% coverage allowance. Given this small margin for increase in impervious surfaces the applicant will need to provide a detailed coverage analysis with the building permit application to ensure that the final lot coverage remains under 45%. Staff finds approval of the Site Design Review for the proposed ARU request is merited. The approval criteria for an Exception to the Solar Setback requirements are that: 1) The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site by future habitable buildings; 2) The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot; and 3) There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. In this instance, the impacted neighboring property, also owned by the applicant, has agreed to the requested shading. In staff s assessment, the minimal area shaded will not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the neighboring property and the cross slopes on the property present unique design constraints, and therefor approval of the request is merited. The application includes a letter from arborist identifying the ponderosa pine trees in the proposed building envelope (#l, #2, #4), the driveway approach (#5,#6), immediately adjacent to the proposed home (0) and one 28" Cedar in declining health that was not identified on the tree protection plan submitted. This 28" cedar in the southwest corner of the property has already been removed. This cedar tree was declining health according to the arborist letter and as such its 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 2 blg removal was merited. Three of the trees proposed to be removed are in the footprint of the proposed home as designed (trees #1, #2, #4), and their removal is merited to accommodate development of the property. The tree immediately adjacent to the south wall of the proposed home (tree #3), is presently leaning and upon development of the site would have 50% of the tree's drip line disturbed. The arborist letter indicates that the health of tree #3 would be further compromised by the impact of development, and therefore recommends removal. In an effort to minimize the solar access exception to the property to the north it is reasonable to permit the buildings southern wall to be located at the minim 6' setback, and thus in close proximity to this tree. As such staff finds that removal of this tree (#3) is warranted to allow for development of the property. Tree #7 On the tree protection plan is identified to be preserved, however on-site this tree presently has a pink ribbon around its truck which appears to indicate removal is proposed. To clarify, the applicant's application does not propose removal of tree #7 and as such a condition of approval is provided that it shall be retained. Trees #5 and #6 are located within the proposed driveway immediately in front of the garage doors. Staff believes that these two existing trees (#5 and #6 ) can be retained through redesign of the home and specifically reorienting the garage approach. In the event the garage doors were oriented to face north, with easement access through the adjoining property, or through relocating the garage to the south and extending the driveway, development of the property could be accommodated to avoid the trees 5 and 6. On April 6th, 2017 the Tree Commission reviewed the applicant's request to remove above mentioned trees and recommended that Planning Action 2017-00340 be approved, but that Tree #3, #5, #6 be preserved and protected through reconfiguration of the building and site circulation. The commission further recommended that that a revised tree protection plan for these, and all remaining, trees be submitted prior to any site work, storage of materials, staging, or tree removal. In conducting a site visit staff identified the recent removal of a number of trees on the subject property, and upon the adjoining parcels. In having removed both small and large stature trees from the site the pre-existing canopy and variety of trees has been reduced to the degree that staff finds the cumulative impact of removal of all seven identified trees (including the 28" cedar previously removed) would significantly reduce the canopy within 200 feet of the subject property. Additionally removing all but one of the ponderosa pine trees on the subject lot would reduce the species diversity of trees within the project area. The redesign of the proposed building to preserve trees #5 and #6 appears to be a reasonable alternative to be explored which would still enable the property to be used as permitted within the zone. Retention of trees #5 and #6 may necessitate the removal of an established Japanese Maple tree along the west property line , however this tree is not considered a significant tree and is not regulated under the tree protection ordinance. Given the smaller stature of the Japanese maple it may be possible to be relocate this tree on site or to another property. Installation of the driveway inclose proximity to trees 5 & 6 could affect their health unless care is taken during installation to protect the trees. To ensure preservation of these trees a condition of approvals included to require an arborist be on site during any excavation to take place within the vicinity of the trees for wither the drive way or the proposed building. I The application requests that due to the location of the property within the Wildfire Hazard Zone that they not be subject to mitigation with replanting of similar trees. The tree protection ordinance does not include an exceptions process to allow waiving the mitigation requirement. Although the replanting of new (young) evergreen trees on-site, in immediate proximity of the future home, 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 3 blg i could pose an increased fire risk, staff believes the applicant can plant fire resistant deciduous trees along the property frontage as illustrated on the planting plan (L-2.2 sheet 14 of 16) submitted with the application. Additionally, the applicant may identify locations on other properties under the ownership of the applicant to plant the requisite mitigation trees stipulated in 18.5.7.040.B.2.5. Staff believes that retention of trees #1, #2, #3, and #4, on the property would largely preclude the development of a single family home. As proposed the home meets the applicable setback requirements, and the proposal to provide access off of Fern Street provides a shared access that reduces direct access onto South Mountain Avenue. Given these constraints staff approves of the i' tree removal for #1, #2, #3, and #4. Tree # 7 in the northeast corner of the property is proposed to, be retained, but will require regular irrigation and maintenance. Staff denies the request to remove trees #5 and #6. Staff believes there is sufficient area outside of the building envelope, or on other properties under the applicant's ownership in the vicinity of the subject property, to accommodate planting a five trees to partially mitigate for the reduction in canopy coverage. Retention of trees 5 &6 will help retain a variety of tree types on site. Based on the discussion of this application before the Tree Commission, staff will require the applicant to plant one tree for each tree that is to be removed (including the 28" cedar previously removed), or provide a payment in lieu of planting. The mitigation trees shall be at least two-inch caliper evergreen trees, or 1.5" deciduous trees and will be a condition of approval. Staff has no reason to believe that removal of the identified trees will impact soil stability, erosion, or flow of surface water. Given the prior removal of the unregulated small diameter trees on the subject property having previously reduced the on-site canopy coverage and the concentration of numerous mature trees in the vicinity, the retention of the trees numbered 5 and 6, and the requirement to replant trees on-site or on other properties under the applicant's ownership, staff does not believe that the proposed removal will further impact tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200 feet of the property. The criteria for an Accessory Residential Unit are described in AMC Chapter 18.2.3.040, as follows: A. R-1 Zone. Accessory residential units in the R-1 zone shall meet the following requirements. 1. One accessory residential unit is allowed per lot, and the maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed two per lot. 2. Accessory residential units are not subject to the density or minimum lot area requirements of the zone, except that accessory residential units shall be counted in the density of developments created under the Performance Standards Option in chapter 18,3.9. 3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1,000 square feet GHFA. 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 14 blg i i i 4. The proposal shall conform to the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone, 5. Additional parking shall be provided in conformance with the off-street parking provisions for single-family dwellings in section 18.4.3.040, except that parking spaces, turn-grounds, and driveways are exempt from the paving requirements in subsection 18.4.3.080. E. 1. i C. R-2 and R-3 Zones. Accessory residential units in the R-2 and R-3 zones shall meet the standards in subsection 18.2.3.040.A, except that the maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 500 square feet GHFA. I i The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.2.050 as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards, B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist, 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval criteria for an Exception to Solar Setback are detailed in AMC 18.4.8.020 as follows: i. The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 15 blg i ii. The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot iii. There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are detailed in AMC 18.5.7.040.8 as follows: H. Tree Removal Permit. 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with otherapplicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including butnotlimited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. 4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 16 blg i i In staff's assessment, the application with the attached conditions complies with applicable ordinances and meets all required criteria. Planning Action #2017-00340 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2017-00340 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 the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application with the exception of modifications necessary to accommodate the preservation of trees #5 & #6. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That all necessary building permits and associated fees and charges, including permits and/or inspection fees for the kitchen and fire separation installation, permits and service connection fees for the new electrical services to the primary home and accessory residential unit, and any applicable system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. The building permit submittals shall include: a) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. b) That lot coverage shall not exceed 45 percent of the total lot area in accordance with 18.2.5.030. Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with the building permits. 4) That Trees #1, 2, 3, and 4, and identified on the applicants Tree Protection Plan are approved for removal. Trees #5, #6,and #7 are to be retained and protected during the period of construction. a) That a revised Tree Protection Plan consistent with the standards described in 18.4.5 shall be submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall identify the retention of trees #5, #6, and #7, and include the location and placement of fencing around the drip lines of trees identified for preservation. The amount of fill and grading within the drip line shall be minimized. Cuts within the drip line shall be noted on the tree protection plan. No fill shall be placed around the trunk/crown root. 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 17 blg b) That five mitigation replacement trees shall be either identified on the revised tree protection plan, identified on a property in the vicinity of the subject property, or a payment in lieu of planting shall be provided. The mitigation trees shall be at least two-inch caliper evergreen trees, or 1.5" deciduous trees and planted and irrigated according to the approved plan. C) That the tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any tree removal, site work, storage of materials or issuance of the building permit. The tree protection shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department prior to site work, storage of materials or the issuance of a building permit. d) Consistent with the arborist recommendation provided in the application, irrigation for trees #5, #6, and #7, shall be conducted twice weekly during the summer months and during the period of construction. Any pruning of these trees roots shall be conducted with an arborist's oversight and in conformance with the Southern Oregon Tree Care recommendations presented within the application. 4) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That a separate electric service and meter for the accessory residential unit shall be installed in accordance with Ashland Electric Department requirements. b) That a separate address for the accessory residential unit shall be applied for approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division. Addressing shall meet the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department and be visible from the Public Right- of-Way. C) That the applicant shall screen recycle and refuse containers from adjacent properties and public right-of-ways. d) All bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. e) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC 18.4.4.040. f) That a Boundary Line Adjustment survey, which includes the shared access and utility easements from the subject property to Fern St., consistent with Planning Action 2016-01891, shall be recorded and provided to the City. 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 18 blg i 5) That installation of the South Mountain Avenue driveway curb cut shall be under permit from the Public Works Department. 6) That the property owner shall sign in favor of local improvement districts for future street improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, parkrow with irrigated street trees, curb, gutter, storm drainage and undergrounding of utilities for South Mountain Avenue. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. Bill Molnar, Director Date Department of Community Development 676 S. Mountain Ave. PL-2017-00340 Page 19 blg I Planning Department, 51 WinL; Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland,or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -ASHU-1 -"D NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00340 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 676 S. Mountain Ave. OWNER/APPLICANT: Livni Family Trust & Gil Livni, Trustee/Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new Accessory Residential Unit in conjunction with the construction of a new Single Family Residence for the property located at 676 South Mountain Avenue. Also included are requests for a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven trees greater than 18- inches in diameter at breast height, including six ponderosa pines within the proposed building footprint and a 28-inch diameter cedar tree which is dying, and a Solar Access Exception to allow the proposed building to cast more of a shadow on the property to the north than would be cast by a six-foot fence built on the north property line. The applicant owns the adjacent property and has consented to the proposed shading. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 16AA; TAX LOT: 9002. 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 29, 2017 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: April 12, 2017 I L PLEASANT W -t - I Q _ I- FERN ST PA 42017-00340 _ 662 SOUTH MO UNTA IN AVENUE I 1` - - ,PROPERTYAGRrEEING TO SOLAR EXCEPTIO NJ. I w L i -u u Q1A#2017-00340 t TPROPEI U) REQUj tj - P SOLAR EXCEPTION L i The MOUNTAINAVENUE 1 F. I 6767-- I ~ ~ ciJ 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 18.5.1.050.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\ptanning\Planning Actions\Noticing Folder\D4alled Notices R Signs\2017\PA-2017-00340.docx t SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E, Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS 18.2.3.040 Where accessory residential units are allowed, they are subject to Site Design Review under chapter 18.5.2, and shall meet all of the following requirements. A. R-1 Zone. Accessory residential units in the R-1 zone shall meet the following requirements. 1. One accessory residential unit is allowed per lot, and the maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed two per lot. 2. Accessory residential units are not subject to the density or minimum lot area requirements of the zone, except that accessory residential units shall be counted in the density of developments created under the Performance Standards Option in chapter 18.3.9. 3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1,000 square feet GHFA. 4. The proposal shall conform to the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 5. Additional parking shall be provided in conformance with the off-street parking provisions for single-family dwellings in section 18.4.3.040, except that parking spaces, turn-arounds, and driveways are exempt from the paving requirements in subsection 18.4.3.080.E.1. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18.5.7.040.1 9. 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. G:\comnt-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing Folder\rilailed Notices & Signs\2017\PA-2017-00340.docx Solar Exceptions C. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depu,t from section 18.4.8.030 Solar Setbacks are subject to 18.4.8.020.C.1 Exception to the Solar Setback, below. Deviations from the standards in section 18.4.8.050 Solar Orientation Standards are subject to subsection 18.5.2.050.E Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. 1. Solar Setback Exception. The approval authority through a Type I review pursuant to section 18.5.1.050 may approve exceptions to the standards in 18,4.8.030 Solar Setbacks if the requirements in subsection a, below, are met and the circumstances in subsection b, below, are found to exist, a. That the owner or owners of all property to be shaded sign, and record with the County Clerk on the affected properties' deed, a release form supplied by the City containing all of the following information. i. The signatures of all owners or registered leaseholders holding an interest in the property in question. ii. A statement that the waiver applies only to the specific building or buildings to which the waiver is granted. iii. A statement that the solar access guaranteed by this section is waived for that particular structure and the City is held harmless for any damages resulting from the waiver. iv. A description and drawing of the shading which would occur. b. The approval authority finds all of the following criteria are met. i. The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. ii. The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. iii. There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing PolderWailed Notices & Signs\2017\PA-2017-00340.docx April 017 Blurbs TYPE 1: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00340 L{REAI)Y TO NOTK_', SUBJECT PROPERTY: 676 South Mountain Avenue OWNER: Livni Family Trust/Gil Livni, Trustee APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new Accessory Residential Unit in conjunction with the construction of a new Single Family Residence for the property located at 676 South Mountain Avenue. Also included are requests for a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven trees greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height, including six ponderosa pines within the proposed building footprint and a 28-inch diameter cedar tree which is dying, and a Solar Access Exception to allow the proposed building to cast more of a shadow on the property to the north than would be cast by a six-foot fence built on the north property line. The applicant owns the adjacent property and has consented to the proposed shading. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 16AA; TAX LOT: 9002. PLANNER: Mark TREE: YES HISTORIC: NO (Criteria: Site Design Revaeia), Accessory Residential Unit, Tree Removal Permit, Solar Access Exception) z C' i c: l AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) I 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 29, 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-2017-00340, 676 S. Mountain. Signature of Employee C:1UsersltrapprDesktoplTemplaleslAFFIDAVIT OF MAILING_Regan.dou 3/29/2017 i ® Easy Peel"Address Labels Go to avery.com/templates 5160 1 Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge® I Use Avery Template 5160 PA-2017-00340 A-2017-00340 391E16AA 8800 ,-2017-00340 391E16AA 9700 4D PROOF DESIGN BADEN ARTHUR TRUSTEE ET AL CHAPMAN RUSSELL K TRUSTEE ET AL 13497 PORTLAND RD. 1120 FERN ST 715 ELKADER ST j WOODBURN, OR 97071 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i I PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 9400 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 1600 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 1500 ECKERT ROBERT W ESPINOZA EDGARD 0/GINA H ! GINN RYAN D 100 SURFSIDE AVE 1098 PLEASANT WAY 1090 PLEASANT WAY SAINT AUGUSTINE, FL 32084 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 1700 ! PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 8900 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 9300 GRYNICK MAZE L TRUSTEE HOPPE WOLFGANG TRUSTEE ET AL HOYEM SHAUN/AMBER 3526 DARRELL DR 1116 FERN ST 625 ELKADER ST MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 I PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 9100 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 9200 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 9002 JENSEN MELISSA ETAL JENSEN MELISSA ET AL LIVNI FAMILY TRUST ET AL 690 S MOUNTAIN AVE 690 S MOUNTAIN AVE j 2532 OLD MILL WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 j i. PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 2000 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 2300 PA-2017-00340 MARKLE WALTER G/DONNA M OLIVER HENRY TRUSTEE III ET AL ROGUE PLANNING & DEV 681 S MOUNTAIN 2305C ASHALND ST 512 1424 S. IVY STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 9500 PA-2017-00340 PA-2017-00340 391E16AA 900 SACKS DAVID A TRUSTEE ET AL SO TREE CARE STACEY JEFFREY W 698 S MOUNTAIN AVE PO BOX 5140 625 MOUNTAIN AVE S ASHLAND, OR 97520 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i 676 S. Mountain 3/29/2017 NOC 18 I i I I it I I ' I i I I I VIII 1 Eticluettes d'adresse Easy Peel" Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat: avery.com/patents I I 1; Repliezalahachure afinderevelerlerebordPop-up' i Utilisezle GabaritAvery 51601' z { s 1 1 j , r u ' G I I yll~, t 60 S } gow I 17 I_ n s" 1 I i _ I Sly i - I 220 ri qm* is j~ • I ~~~~Y]i I i r pp c III I IIAII ? i. ;'Ili ~,'irll I ~ I_ i ~ ZONING IT APPLICATION Planning Division / C I T Y OF 51 Winbmn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE Kell e~ 1rr'y LA N 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ❑ YES 0 Street Address Assessor's Map No. 391E a Tax Lot(s) _ Zoning ) , a Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT Name Phone ff...E-Mail r M I Address City; Zip PROPERTY OWNER Name W Phonc E-Mail Address ilia City Zip SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Name V Phone z m , E-Mail Address City I Zip Title-,--- Name Phone _ E-Mail Address _ City Zip I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct, 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 likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed of my expense, If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance, 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 Signature (required) Date I [ro be completed by City 8wfr _ Date Received 7 Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER 0 GAcomm•dev\planning\Porms & Handouts7oning Permit Application.doc CITY ASHLAND Community Development - Planning Department 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 Phone 541-488-5303 Fax 541-488-6006 SOLAR WAIVER AGREEMENT Planning Action # For county use Address of Property Requesting Solar Waiver Tax Lot # of Property Requesting Solar Waiver _ Address of Property Agreeing to Solar Waiver Legal Description of Property Agreeing to Solar Waiver (Attach, if necessary) The undersigned, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, consent to permit obstruction of their solar access rights described in Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Municipal Code on that portion of property in Township 39, Range 1 East, Section Tax Lot # further described by legal description in the attached Exhibit "A". The undersigned certify and agree to the following: 1. This agreement shall be binding upon their heirs, successors and assigns and shall run with the land. 2. The undersigned are the owners of the property described on Exhibit "A". 3. This waiver applies only to the specific building(s) noted in the attached Exhibit "B"; and to the shadow(s) cast by such building(s) as noted in Exhibit "B". 4. The solar access rights described in Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Municipal Code are waived only for that buildable space shown on Exhibit "B" and the City of Ashland is indemnified and shall be held harmless for any damages resulting to any person or property resulting from this waiver. 5. The consideration for this agreement is $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the undersigned. Property Owner(s) Agreeing to Solar aiver / Signature L_ UZ✓ Date ' 2 7' ®l 7 Signature Date 2, 2- Z'20 17 State of Oregon ) County of Jackson ) On this day of 20 before me personally appeared, whose identity was proven to me on-the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(sl whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to this instrument, and Y acknowledged that OFFICIAL STAMputed the same. KIM ERLEY ANN MILLER Notary Public for Oregon Commission Expiration Date 1 " NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ; COMMISSION NO. 946702 ICY COMMISSION EXPIRES JANUARY 28, 2020 Approved by City of Ashland Planning Staff Date GAc0MM-devWanningFormsBHandouts\Solar Waiver Agreement.doc 9/3/2010 i i 676 South Mountain Avenue Site Design Review for Accessory Residential unit within a new Single Family Residence Amy Gunter 2-27-2017 -W n A' ' i# i \r ROGUE PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC i February 28, 217 Site Review approval for an Accessory Residential Unit within a new Single Family Residence. A solar setback waiver and tree removal permit are also requested. Subiect Property Address: 676 South Mountain Avenue Map Tax Lot: 39 1E 16AA: Tax Lot 9002 Property Owner: Livni Family Trust Gil Livni Trustee 2532 Old Mill Way Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning and Development Services Amy Gunter 1424 S Ivy Street Medford, OR 97501 541-951-4020 Building Designer: 4dProof Design Patrick May 455 Buena Vista Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Arborist: Southern Oregon Tree Care Willie Gingg PO BOX 5140 Central Point, OR 97502 (541) 772-0404 4• k i0i dand Page 1 of 11 Project Proposal: The request is for a Site Design Review Permit to allow for an Accessory Residential Unit within the lower level of a new single family residence at 676 S Mountain Avenue. The request includes a tree removal permit request to remove six ponderosa pines that are within the footprint of the new single family residential home. A dying 28-inch DBH cedar tree will also be removed. Site Background and Description: - FUN x The subject property is a vacant lot on the east side of South 94 OD*** Mountain Avenue. The property was originally part of lots 28 and PARCEL No o Q 29 of the Galey Addition from 1907. In 1984, the subject lot in its e sv a PARCEL ft 3 current configuration was created as part of a three-lot partition "T A. from the larger parcel to the east, (TL#9000) at 1135 Fern Street a @L , a m ~ (PA 84-029). The lots were then consolidated and remained iy nos°es®~°°'ar e°n... ns^~€eod d'runder one ownership. The lot lines were re-activated in June 2016. The subject property, 676 South Mountain is Parcel 1 on ® '°}e'~" I the attached 1984 Survey Plat map. The subject property and the surrounding properties are all zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-7.5). The property is within the wildfire hazard zone. The property had been very dry and before summer, the understory, interlocking canopy and small diameter fuels were removed from the site to reduce wildfire danger. There are several larger stature trees on the property. A tree inventory has been provided, additionally a detailed arborist report was completed by Arborist Willie Gingg of Southern Oregon Tree Care. The arborist reviewed the health of trees and their suitability to construction, a report is attached. The arborist recommended removal of some of the trees due to the impact of construction on previously stressed trees. The property slopes between 10 ®15 percent from South Mountain up towards Elkader Street with an average slope of 12 percent. There is also a five percent downhill cross slope from south to north. South Mountain Avenue is classified as an Avenue in the Transportation System Plan and has a 50-foot wide right of way. The improved width of the street is approximately 30-feet. The improvements include pavement, curb and gutter. This portion of South Mountain Avenue, including properties more than 200- feet to the north and south of the subject property do not have sidewalk or parkrow. South Mountain has a slope of six-percent downhill along the frontage of the property. There is a driveway curb cut from South Mountain Ave. onto the subject property. A gravel driveway traverses' the parcel from South Mountain Avenue crosses 1135 Fern Street and connects to Elkader Street. GRY 0 Asiifand Page 2 of 11 Fern Street is an un-improved right-of-way to the North of the vacant parcel to the north of the (TL#9001) subject property. The two properties to the north of the Fern Street right-of-way both take access via a gravel driveway that is located on the southern half of the ROW, each lot has a driveway connection to the gravel surface within Fern Street ROW. The two properties have additional improvements in the ROW such as yard area, paver stone patio areas, and landscaping. To obtain driveway access from Fern, the right-of-way will be improved to the Shared Street Standards, or the minimum standards allowed by the City of Ashland Public Works Division. Ideally, the improvements will be centered within the right- of-way. Fern Street's connection at S Mountain Ave. is approximately 35 percent slopes with large conifer trees, this prevents Fern Street from connecting Elkader to South Mountain Avenue. Elkader Street to the east of 1135 Fern Street (TL#9000) is improved with pavement, curb and gutter, there are no sidewalks on Elkader Street. There is a 6-inch water main in S. Mountain Ave. There is a 6-inch sanitary sewer main in S. Mountain Avenue. The property is served by a 12-inch storm sewer main in S. Mountain Avenue. There is no electric j service to the property. The property owner has been in discussions with the City of Ashland Electric Department to determine service locations and layout. A preliminary electric distribution plan has been provided with the application. A property line adjustment has been processed separately for the relocation of the east property line between the subject property, and the property to the east at 1135 Fern Street. This property line adjustment has not been recorded. Proposal: A new single family residence (SFR) is proposed to be constructed on the long vacant lot at 676 South Mountain Avenue. An accessory residential unit (ARU) is proposed to be within the new residence. Utilizing the 12 percent average slope of the property uphill away from South Mountain, the topography lends itself to the split-level construction to respond to the grade. The proposed SFR is a single story, 2,026 square foot, three-bedroom residence with a 541-square foot, attached, two vehicle garage. The primary dwelling is proposed to be accessed from the rear utilizing a shared driveway with the vacant lot to the north that connects to Fern Street. The garage would provide for two vehicle parking spaces, a vehicle turnaround area and a visitor parking space. The primary orientation of the residence is towards the rear of the property so that the single level living can be provided. Through the provision of a large deck that extends from the front of the residence towards Mountain Avenue, a sliding patio door and large windows provide strong orientation for the residence towards the street. The ARU within the lower level is proposed to be 814 square foot, one-bedroom space. The unit is also accessible from the residence above allowing for an extended family set up. The ARU will have a large Page 3 of 11 l ¢ ,i IF' i covered patio area under the upper story deck with a front entry door and a slider door. The patio and the street facing entrances provide orientation to the street for the accessory residential unit as well. A variety of shrubs and landscape Parking, Access, Circulation: As stated previously, the proposal is to access the SFR from "above" via a shared access driveway that will extend from Fern Street across the parcel to the north and including the property to the east. The driveway is proposed to have 15-foot clear width and 12-feet of solid surface. The driveway is proposed to be screened and provide a vehicle turn around area for vehicles backing out of the garage. In addition to the two parking spaces provided for the SFR within the garage a surface parking space for guests is proposed near the front entrance courtyard. The 814-square foot ARU requires two off-street parking spaces. One space is proposed to be accessed from the existing curb cut off of South Mountain Avenue as a surface parking space and one on-street parking credit is requested. The single vehicle parking space is utilizing an existing curb cut, driveways with surface parking are found on adjacent properties and a pathway Two covered bicycle parking spaces are proposed within the garage and a covered bicycle parking space will be provided on the oversized front entry patio outside of the ARU. Trees and Landscaping: The site is forested with conifer trees. The trees are predominantly Ponderosa Pine trees that are 18- inches in diameter at breast height and greater, The trees were looked at by a Certified Arborist. It is unknown how long the irrigation has been shut-off (many of the pipes are broken) on the property and the soil has dried out significantly in the previous drought stricken years. Nearly all of the trees exhibit signs of different pests including Red Turpentine Beetle, Mountain Pine Borer, pitch moth and Western Gall Rust. Though none of the Ponderosa pine trees are dead, stress from the insects and drought conditions and the combination of the two, causes weakness to the trees and increases susceptibility to other beetle infestations. Per published documents, these issues (pests) are usually not a problem in a forest but are problematic in an urban environment (Managing Diseases and Pests in Oregon Conifers, Oregon State University Extension Service; June 2009). There is a large 28-inch OBH Cedar tree near the southwest corner of the property, directly adjacent to South Mountain Avenue that is nearly 80 percent dead. This tree will be removed as well. The proposed landscape plan uses a variety of deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground covers. Including plants that are appropriate to the local climate, exposure, and water availability. The presence of utilities and drainage conditions were also considered in the planning of the landscaping. On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from Ashland Municipal Code are provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Calibri font and the applicant's responses are in Times New Roman font. 1 Page 4 of 11 ',~~L CRITERIA from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Standards for Residential Zones: 18.2.3.040 Accessory Residential Unit Where accessory residential units are allowed, they are subject to Site Design Review under chapter 18.5.2, and shall meet all of the following requirements. A. R-1 Zone. Accessory residential units in the R-1 zone shall meet the following requirements. 1. One accessory residential unit is allowed per lot, and the maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed two per lot. One accessory residential unit is proposed. Including the single-family residence, the maximum number of dwelling units will not exceed two per lot. 2. Accessory residential units are not subject to the density or minimum lot area requirements of the zone, except that accessory residential units shall be counted in the density of developments created under the Performance Standards Option in chapter 18.3.9. The lot was created as part of a standard subdivision and further divided through a 1980s-minor land partition. The lot exceeds the minimum lot area in the zone by approximately 800 square feet. 3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1,000 square feet GHFA. The proposed accessory residential unit is 814 square feet in area. The primary residence is proposed to be 2,026 square feet in area, more than 50 larger than the proposed AR U. 4. The proposal shall conform to the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. The proposed lot coverage at 3,590 square feet is 45 percent of the total lot area of 7,985 square feet. 5. Additional parking shall be provided in conformance with the off-street parking provisions for single-family dwellings in section 18.4.3.040, except that parking spaces, turn-arounds, and driveways are exempt from the paving requirements in subsection 18.4.3.080. E.I. The one bedroom ARUgreater than 500 square feet requires 1.5 parking spaces in addition to the two required for the single-family residence. One additional parking space is proposed on-site on a surface parking pad accessed via the existing curb cut on South Mountain Avenue. Provision of driveway curb cut from South Mountain that provides for surface parking is similar to the residential development on the adjacent properties in the impact zone. The other space is proposed as an on-street parking credit. The number of driveway approaches curb cuts will not exceed one approach/curb cut per street frontage. The primary access to the lot is via the shared access easement and driveway accessed from Fern Street. The secondary access (ARU) access is proposed from South Mountain Avenue. With a single vehicle parking space, proposed, the number of vehicle trips fr om the property onto the street will be minimal. Page 5 of 11 18.5.2.050 Site Design Review A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 123.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. The subject property is zoned R-1-7. S, Single Family Residential. The parcel is proposed to be 7,985 square feet and complies minimum lot area and minimum lot dimensions in the R-1-7.5 zone. The proposed residence complies with the minimum setbacks in the zone. The solar setback standards are met through the provision of a solar setback waiver. Findings addressing the solar setback waiver have been provided in the document. Lot Coverage: Proposed impervious areas including building footprints, patios, pathways, driveways, decks are 3,590 square feet. The maximum coverage is the zone is 45 percent the proposed lot coverage. The proposed lot coverage is 45% of the total lot area. .Parking: Five parking spaces are required for the development of the property. A two-vehicle garage is accessed from the shared driveway accessed from Fern Street, the driveway at more than 50 feet in length requires an additional, third, guest parking space. A single off-street parking space accessed from Mountain Avenue is proposed for the ARUand an on-streetparking credit on South Mountain Avenue as the second AR U parking space. Three bicycle parking spaces are required. Two bicycle parking spaces are provided for within the garages along the rear wall and one is provided on the patio outside of the AR U. Energy Usage: Both units will be constructed to the most current standards of the State of Oregon Building Standards for residential construction. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). The property is within the Ashland Wildland Urban Interface and the wildfire overlay zone. The proposed tree removal and the previous site work removing the ladder fuels, the small diameter timber and the understory growth will make the property compliant with the standards from 18.3.10.030.b. A composition shingle roof of class B or better or metal roofing will be provided. C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposed site development complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4. The layout and design does not provide for vulnerable areas that are not visible from the units and open space. The trash / recycle areas are near the public street for easy access and will be screened in accordance with the screening standards. The cans will not be visible from the public right-of-way. A pathway is proposed from the patio for the AR U to the parking space and the street. Page 6 of 11 Ji -and e Shrouded yard lights that provide down-lighting and securit1'for the unit but will not directly illuminate adjacent properties will be provided. Fences that comply with the fence ordinance are shown along the property lines, a fence permit will be obtainedprior to construction of the fence. No plant materials are proposed that prevent surveillance of the open space or the semi private patios and balconies. More than eight percent of the site is available as open spaces for the use of the residents. There is 320 square feet deck for the primary residence and a 320-square foot patio for the AR U. 7"he 640 square feet of patio, and deck account for only a portion of the 638-square foot required 8 percent open space. This does not include the private yard areas adjacent to the residence. Building Orientation. Building Orientation to Street. Dwelling units shall have their primary orientation toward a street. Where residential buildings are located within 20 feet of a street, they shall have a primary entrance opening toward the street and connected to the right-of-way via an approved walkway. There is a front entrance to the ARU facing South Mountain Avenue. There is a door for the primary residence and stair accessing the residence from South Mountain Avenue provided as well. A walk way is proposed to connect the residence to the public right-of-way. Limitation on Parking between Primary Entrance and Street. Automobile circulation or off-street parking is not allowed between the building and the street. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings, or on one or both sides. A single vehicle parking space is proposed between the structure and the street. This is a typical development pattern in the neighborhood. The proposed parking does not detract from the single family residence nor the AR U. If the garage was placed adjacent to South Mountain Avenue a larger area of the property would be devoted to automobile parking. The proposed design reduces the amount of parking in the front yard and the layout is consistent with the houses on the adjacent properties. Build-to Line. Where a new building is proposed in a zone that requires a build-to line or maximum front setback yard, except as otherwise required for clear vision at intersections, the building shall comply with the build-to line standard. There is not a build-to or maximum setback line in the R-1 zone. Garages. Alleys and Shared Drives. Where a lot abuts a rear or side alley, or a shared driveway, including flag drives, the garage or carport opening(s) for that dwelling shall orient to the alley or shared drive, as applicable, and not a street. The primary vehicular access to the site is via a shared driveway access from the unimproved portion of Fern Street on the uphill side of the property. This allows for a garage at the same level as the primary living area. The ARU is proposed to have a single vehicle parking space accessed fi-om South Mountain Page 7 of 11 ChY of e a I, i Avenue. There is only one curb cut proposed for the property. The allowance of the ARUparking adjacent to the street allows for separate living areas when desired, or for guest parking when the AR U is part of the SFR and not rented separately. Driveways accessed via South Mountain Avenue are common in the neighborhood and a single wide driveway is consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. Setback for Garage Opening Facing Street. The minimum setback for a garage (or carport) opening facing a street is 20 feet. This provision does not apply to alleys. The garage faces the share access easement driveway not the street. Building Materials. Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the surrounding area. Very bright primary or neon-type paint colors, which attract attention to the building or use, are unacceptable. The building materials are compatible with the surrounding area. The materials are typical building materials such as hardi plank, lap siding and stucco. Fiberglass windows and a metal roof. The exact paint colors have not been selected but they will not be bright primary or neon colors. Streetscape. One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street pursuant to subsection 18.4.4.030.E. Two, new street trees are proposed on South Mountain Avenue. There is a large statue pine tree that will be retained as the third street tree. The street trees will be 1. S inch caliper, eight feet tall and planted in accordance with AMC 18.4.4.030. No trees will be planted within 10 feet of the driveway. Landscaping and Recycle/Refuse Disposal Areas. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas shall be provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4. Area for a trash and recycle container is proposed adjacent to each unit. The trash can area will be screened to prevent view of the cans from the public street. 18.4.4.030 Landscaping and Screening The final landscaping plan and the irrigation plan will be submitted with the building permits will comply with the Irrigation and Water Conserving Landscaping requirements of the City of Ashland. The conceptual landscapingplan submittedwith the application has been designed so thatplant coverage of 90 percent within five years of planting is met. Two-inches of mulch will be provided in all non-turf areas after planting. Turf areas are limited to comply with the Water Conserving Landscaping requirements. The proposed landscaping has been designed for crime prevention and defensible space to allow for natural surveillance. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and replaced by the property owner. Page 8 of 11 i i f D. City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, k and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Adequate city facilities exist to service the new units. Winer. There is an existing six-inch water main in South Mountain. Sanitary Sewer. There is a six-inch sanitary sewer line South Mountain Avenue. In discussion with the Wastewater Department Supervisor, there are no capacity issues with the public sanitary sewer line. Electrical. New electric services will be installed on the property in conjunction with the needs of the Ashland Electric Department. The attached plan shows the preliminary electric layout. Storrs Sewer. There is a 12-inch Storm sewer main in South Mountain Avenue. In consultation with the Street Division, there are no capacity issues with the city's facilities. South Mountain Avenue is also an Avenue and is paved with curb, and gutter along the frontage of the property. There are no sidewalks along this side of Mountain Avenue due to topographical constraints on both sides of the street, large trees and other encroachments. The applicant is in favor of a local improvement district agreement. Tree Preservation, Protection, and Removal 18.4.5.030 Tree Protection: The trees along the west property line on the adjacent neighbor's property are protected by a six-foot tall, solid panel fence. No additional tree protection is proposed. 18.5.7 Tree Removal: 0. 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 to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. There are six Ponderosa Pine trees and one nearly dead Cedar tree on the property that are proposed for removal. According to the table of allowed uses in the zone, the construction of a single-family residence and a garage is a permitted use in the R-1 zone (18.2.2.030.B). A permitted use is allowed provided they comply with chapter 18.2.3., Special Use Standards and are subject to the development standards of the zone. The special use standards do not apply to single family home and accessory structure construction. Page 9 of 11 c I` i The development standards of the zone call for standard yard requirements and provides for special yard i exceptions for accessory structures (18.2.5.040). Standard setbacks for the zone are six-foot side yard and ten feet per story rear yard setback. In addition to the yard setbacks there are solar setbacks that affect structure placement on a piece of property. Due to the large area of the Ponderosa tree's driplines, without tree removal, the vacant developable site is unable to have a residential structure consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood on the property. Due to the large optimal tree protection zone, any construction would negatively impact the tree's root system. The removal of the trees allows for the site to be developed in accordance with the outright permitted uses allowed in the zone, the single-family residence and attached garage accessed from the shared access easement. 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 property, though compliant with the minimum lot size in the zone, the parcel is small at 7,945 (post BLA) there is a significant canopy coverage of the parcel to the extent that there is only a small area where site development will not have an impact on the trees. The removal of the trees will not have impacts on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, and 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. There are a significant number of deciduous and confer trees within 200 feet of the property. The removal of the Ponderosa Pine trees and cedar tree will not have a negative impact on the densities, sizes, canopies or species diversity. 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 proposal complies with residential densities. The proposal for a single-family residence and an Accessory Residential Unit on the property complies with the allowed residential densities. The removal of the trees facilitates the construction of a new single family residence. 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. Due to the property's location within the Wildfire Hazard Zone, the applicant is requesting to not replant "trees which will achieve similar size and stature at maturity as the trees removed". An exception to the mitigation standards is requested m Page 10 of 11 ~ - all ~i Solar Setback Exception: 18.4.8.020.0.1 Due to the steep cross slope, between 12 -15 percent slopes on the property, even with a nearly 19 foot setback from the north construction of a structure on the property does not comply with the solar setback ordinance. The proposed structure is approximately 23 %Z feet tall and 18 feet, 11-inches fi°om the property line with a low pitch skillion style roof. The actual shadow cast by the structure is shown on Solar Setback Calculation Plan A-1.2. C. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from section 18.4.8.030 Solar Setbacks are subject to 18.4.8.020.C.1 Exception to the Solar Setback, below. b. The approval authority finds all of the following criteria are met. L The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. The proposed exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site by future buildings. ii. The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. The lot to the north is currently vacant. The proposed area of solar encroachment beyond what is allowed is a small triangular area that is at the 20 foot front setback and behind a large protect tree. iii. There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The property has two substantial slopes to contend with for site development. The property has a five- percent slope downhill to the north for the purposes of calculating solar. The site also has a substantial cross slope of between 10 and 15 percent with an average cross slope of 12 percent. The cross slope presents challenges to providing the necessary floor area to have a functional floor area for a residence constructed on the site. Having the cross slope and compliance with the solar setback ordinance is unique in the vicinity. The majority of the residences in the neighborhood do not comply with solar setbacks as they appear to have been constructed in response to the 10 - 15 percent slope and not the five percent downhill solar access slope. Attachments: 1) SO TREE CARE TREE REPORT 2) PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS 3) SURVEY 4) PRELIMINARY ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION PLAN 5) SOLAR ACCESS WAIVER DOCUMENTS 16 ) Page 11 of 11 J I was contacted by Gil Liveney regarding a home site development project at 1135 Fern St. in Ashland, Oregon. I met Gil and Amy Gunter on site July 28th 2016 to discuss the project and what they needed from me. My assignment was to determine which ponderosa pine trees could be reasonably retained on two parcels that border Mountain Ave on this development site based on the layout of the buildings. The southern parcel has seven pine trees on it. Four of these are inside the building foot print. One is three feet outside of cut line (approximate area of excavation area for foundation) and the tree is 40 inches DBI 1 (diameter breast height) and leaning south over a neighboring home. Another Pine tree is three feet away from the garage cut on the east side of the building and 22 inches DBI-I. The remaining tree is located in the northwest corner of that parcel and 20 feet away from nearest building corner, it is 32 inches DBH. The northern parcel has seven trees on it as well and three are inside the footprint of that building. There is a 28 inch DBH pine tree five and one half feet from cut line. Another 28 inch DBH pine is located 13 feet from cut line and 10 feet from the street. There is a 24 inches DBH tree 15 feet from the cut line. The remaining tree from i this parcel is 30 inch DBH, and 15 feet north of north cut line. Ponderosa pine has a relatively good tolerance to fill soils and root pruning. Optimal tree preservation zones (OPZ) for the trees outside the cut lines are .75 feet per inch of DBH (Matheny Clark 1998). So for example, the smallest tree on the plan outside of the cut line is 22 inches DBH. This tree would have an optimal preservation zone of 16.5 feet. This particular tree is three feet from the cut line. This is well inside the OPZ and would likely be both a cause for the tree to die as well as for the tree to fail structurally do to major structural root loss. In conclusion I believe only four pine trees should be saved on these two parcels due to proposed construction plans. One on the southern parcel at the northwest corner. One near the southwest corner of the north lot and the two trees near the northern edge of the north lot. These trees should be irrigated at least weekly during the summer months beginning as soon as possible to decrease stress. As well they should have temporary fencing placed around them prior to construction commencing. This fence is to keep out vehicular traffic, equipment clean out, storage etc. All care to minimize soil compaction and excavation around the remaining trees is critical during construction. Some of these trees showed signs of insect damage, they should be treated with a systemic insecticide as soon as possible and again next spring as well. All trees to remain will have some impact inside the OPZ so if these steps are not taken the chances of tree survival will be significantly reduced. If any major roots from the four trees are encountered in the excavation process they should be worked around until a qualified arborist is consulted. Root pruning should be done with sharp hand tools to minimize long term damage. Feel free to contact us for any additional information that may be required. Willie Gingg Date i 1 J i_ J-U ZWJw0-, ZW ~@ a J~Z = O FLU wC9WOdWQp, [v €ae dd® 0 z - - W~m_tnZU XO®J~ i8l>a ®CZD~W@t~i of ® i6 IW- [a _ ZmZZ~Wd0QYt3 0!- t9 C30 QQ. ssni CSj O J Z U¢ U d ooo~zi`-Z lu z a~~ o ~WQ~Qffi J U) >ZW~Wp~oQWQ ®~ara»_ o ~Z(Y W to W O W JQWOQ fc~0 ii ¢Q LU >46W 6:i z nQ Ja IDLL JY Dfl~ rn ~Sc O' o L V3 (9 W 0) Z W zZ W W Z W W U Q ~ Z ~ W [dl w o Q Q Z m .SZ'08 3tdn R3A3d021d His V' 2Vh m<< + S O 1 - Zy___ W 0 W OW > ~0 C F .V 0 6XfY ~W NN V / a 53 ~/fl13S.4/L LL-$ / W v~u 51 ¢ OW i Z W I ~t V Q V Ww i u z z a V p Yo W ~ ~ >Y j U ®-_O O U w m~ a 1~ a~3 U[ w0~ ° z-O~\\ ~y\~{Zm/ /F 9p: its c: Qi V I ~ ti~J w z ow Wi Jw WO OI Z ~U OO' =m cDi Zh- U} ' e ~a mz u~i W LU x w W m 6F 3ET9 a tl@ YO ° - 0 V 8 i e v 3 - S CIUVA J.NONA .0 I Lu W W U = x umOTC O 0Za> o N 3flN3AV -L ; , ° 3 < -aaQ - v 1{ - z o l~ PAS ARC fA3 PsA3 ~'---A^~ M3 M~~F6§~~M3 ynee z+a ~V ss - - ss - _SS - - - ss -f- ss - - I ~ r- E I.~~_~ILILLLIL I y III~I'~, I II r it it ~ I I _ -1- o _ i nlllllll€! I - I(i111f4 \ O C cc u 'm~ m I i I T' J J ~ isvaass LU _ai ,vu vs co uj m a s J .°n t'• co 5~ I 4 3.z hr \ Qpl, J \ O o , % j l \ y \ '1_______ ~1 z g }6 F C O U i z w m 0 C~J Y 399 U¢ m Q m Q - - - - - - - - - - - - 399 U' N Q ~ Q ~ W J U 11< ~W C ~ w q9 Q Q ~ ID~ z ou U aw 0 >m Qa ¢W O UJ Z Q 30 o O y'w LL' OF 'Z C LL ~J V <U wg o Q zZ woo tim o~ rn W , Z O W O< S O V ¢ U t leis `ffi_~ uj L4T F ~T e Oj U, i CD - - v9 = o 1 A ¢ o-w z 1 j .4tE 9-Z \ -11\ .6S ~ ¢ 1-.41 .L - .Z/L ~6 .4/E OL :4 „ZL 8 ~ t n@ X00 0 ~ wir LOw < O O O _ x 1 Sc fp\ i 1+ ~ 3 w w ~ v ,Jfrmcr.a\t _ 9 w ~ ~ 2 o S 1 U m~ ~ w K ® ~ 8 t- xFi s~ ~ a ~ o Q~~ LQ ~ Z ~ IQ - - f-_ „s-,ee ,e L N LLI Qz W ~ W WCC Z. !5 W V) m wad. ¢-QO am ^ mgz ww - oLL e -j 0 e U 6Z~ 2 1Yr„ „ZI L L-,L L ,e L f , f / O - 13 f 1 I Y ~ ~ Q IU ~ 8 Q mz, to _or 11 .o b S i 1,. \ v I e Q 19-10 ® LLl v-v 3£ K W r L= O I' U ~i Vz \ Q F I Y o: W W Q lm rt•. >W ~o 1 ° U ti o 'h d `B R<n Z ° O N N - - - - - - Z ~~J ~b 3'-0'7O'-0' 51 O'XI'-0' Sq'XT-0' 3'-PXT-O' N y ~ OZ 2 V~ aO V W J~ V o~ ~ Xa od o1 ¢ vX v w 3 c~7 u, X B .4/L L-.9 w0 N e- Q ` Q N W H F O 0 o W <00 of z~ of o <a w °x ai ro wa O Zvi w 2z o ¢z°LL a o w¢ o c 0 to ~ Z -H"o au z h - t i ' h - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \ ~ I 7 1 I ti h ~ I I t Cy I l 1 I e, h I w I ~ O l I h ¢ I \ Oz h O 9 . - - - z i m 1 I O ua w i I W z 1 I z r~ I I z I O w d I R U I I ~ I I ~ I ` i t\\` l y 1 I I w I ~ I 3a I Zo I zo m I _y Q z 9 vz I LI? z0 ' 3 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O a 0 1' I t I I I~ I Ir ~ I q d - - O H•C „bll lL-,E „E-E o4lE E-,b „bll Z-,S Z ~Z C6 W W O g Y =(D O O 0 2 } a 00~ N JOLL rr g n n~gv`Ni Q 70 LL W F- ~.41i6' l / 1~7 9N33 L b o II wN ~f w w z ` II \h W O _ zl Y~ C x 9N1T1?~dT£L 3 .U-.EL b z o III o ~ N J b~_ / mN U O i 4 O a V y ~ „ mwV O u:' Z_ U=' ~ w W _ i 2 J ! O f m`w r~.op N o V a~ mf~ m V (sat 8W 9NIl13U.Ut Z-.£L~ 9NN3U.ZI6 L-AL -U I ONnED.A'L OL-SL P~ Y8`tl38'O'1 LL-6 Nq H Q `Q ou r r ~ ~"I I a - I - \ i it 'I 71 L1.! IR ~-1 I s I'i I s -4 _ UJ r 7-\-Jj~ 1E a 1 t ¢Y O 1 ddSH 01 BOV89 (3) .o-9 ? 111 i d d - , m C i w J 1''` ! d^ - - I I' i 17 I I I r l III ~ ~ ~r4f I ~ I ~ 1, f l j I, ~ ~ I 6 I L ~ f t li I I,I j _ 21 I z I - I I ~I II i I L[1 UJ o z° II III i I I I~ 1 i t ~ I I ' I ~ u i 1 ~ ~ I ~ I, I -9 ° _ Ills I, 1 r J I I 1 I i 1 C kl~ - ~I \ I I 1 i f I JI i 4, I I~ I~ ik 1 I y \ I ~ o_ \ Q \ \ ddSH Q13aViiS -I-XZ \ \ m \ 1 ~ 1 L s I~~I I I / ~ i w w I - ~ O' 1 Y! o m Ix a z LL zZ 'I I Z o a z m 6 t Q I 3a Ue I U Cc? ofl i~ I z > z a I,I 4 3 as 1 < 4 ~ cT cvX o ' I LLI H I ~ ~ 11 I ~ 'I I l 5 1 X11 ~ ~ _ ~ II ° 16V • 08 I A3 I } W ~ Q 1 I'~ } d I M1 m N3 ~ I R III f 3 ~ ~ ' U I I ~ f p I 11 IL Q ~ a I~~ ~`I Z t a < I ~ ~ b W ® ? ® c ~//~~w U•- U) m l~ U c/> v ~ ~ N Q Z Jo ~a u iq¢0 i ~ 77 1"t III ~I a O ; m IU j IIJ n m ZZ o f zq w gm Z w z$ zit Y J ~f I Z i z4 O~ U~ w< r C:z ® 1 g,_ W pZ U~UU ZZi_~2NZ ~ zawo-o~ ooa0 ;Jw`_~ <J~ mNO~~X~ ~WOV IL Q~ J-ca CQ2Q z -Z 0=-, ~m aO~LL4 I tl! ~ o z px~ ~4 G vt ? LU U wm_JU~ a v` L J LL Y/ ~ 1 W - Q m f: Z O00 Q Q Cc a J (7 Q7 Q J WQ J > I1 ~ BL ® f n V 3 3 V ' YI I o vJ wX J O cr- H Z O U Z Oq O~ ry ui LL a CL ao O ° w Q Q= Z W 0 0z a w~ 0 Dy 133 1S 3- 1 I I OM I . eO HO I I l I i , f , I I I I ~ I I , L 3AV I Vl 1 o z Q J z ~ w D i x Lij J) Q Q Z J h , O~ ~j- p 1.33 1S 33 1✓' it o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0-0-0 0 0 0 o 10 o~~~ ~ to ~0 0- e o 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 o -m of u Jw 3fi 3AV IVINno W U. S ~ m W J W O Z CL Q> C9 UUi WW ¢ w m~ aLL w~ z a~ aj O. W V Z U W in Q 60 0 O m ~y DU in J JcU ~C Q.1E S m El -7- El F-I 1 Q J N Q ~ I 1 i Z DO p Z 2 LU a1~ va z Q w - L LJ D < co n Q J 3f1 3AV I`dINno J W U ' d /r lj~vl r \ 9L Q- :tt i~ a 4~ U' J ~ 0 of a wuaw, Cl) J W d u; G GG\ cG~~~ r', G G z, i xG C%j ~ LU ens ~ ` t` eC L ~ L 4 ~ x o o f Sty C c 0 4 ....u 1 . x'a m r t u A A DJ Punog• ® - r 0 2 ® g t, 0 7C ° ~ ~ i; rra0r~osB'N•; ;.••''M„bb,LS o68 '5 m ,:M,OI,LZ o68 'N 1 • C6'6Y ® a`p ~c MIL'oN aN,,..•' m +`sz'IS ,80'96 - •se'Ii rsll'zs 'k ad!d 'I rrl 'pJ E -s m = U L o v O O sJOd £LI'0 !ra = N 1 IM 130aVd u o ~ _ w v W w Wow L£9'0 m 00'46 CL DN 1308dd .3 „Il,fib o68'S 0 0 e Cl) ~ 1 c~ uoy LI m C w- -TON -1338W w I z bL6l pe!1 , w . tlaap„2 `ad! Z/1 'P~ ad! ,£1'Z `'3,£9 LI'S'a jq I'd ® W SS£'611 - ,Sb£'9il J ,00'46 D b£'Zb w OL'0''3 L o9g'N'a6aq J M „0£,££oSb'S"~. I O G daaP„L foA!d'I,b/£'D!'-~- ,16'86Z o 'M „5fi Ztl .68'N 1112 *96a o 'M „Lfi ,zb o68 'N U) cn Q m L4'Zb °o 133H lS o I v3j[ M ' M „bZ,2£ obb'ia 1L bt61 Pall ZL61 ®A POU I., ; 1 -7 's ~q ZL61 P®!1 daap•£ ,II'0 '*M ,£S DBE*S I'ad!d •I„b/£'Pd chap„01`ad!d'I„b/£'Pd ,01 ;0 `'38SoZb'N aDjq'damp 9 I.- 2 sZ U (D W W v c LLI 1- U) O ° Ola. < F- o cv u Z~ z~,~'. s C O \ ® W 0) y ! m F- UJ Z p O Cl) ®o IL Q O _ Z W ° y O 2 O cr"ir v O ° W a W \ 0 ti O cf) J J U tin Z a V, ~ M J g W co N _ Z Q sn LLJ Z Li ® a) W N to Z ~U- O H10N 0) N° a v t?1 U) \ 0D M O 0 i J cr~ W r tl Z N U. C p O W H O U. X O a a ~~y z 0 W Gil Q 0 m O o m N ~ W U= I ~ t- I- z Z a z Q W ,0'0£ ,0'0£ 0 c U Q O 2a y~m p, O p CL C a 3 ° Q = S y Z > Z o m aFao 2 W J ii ` t0 1 E w Z F > W ¢ c0 '_0 W .lam O W E . (t W LL y~ w o LL1 O¢=2 c, w U o U 5 W f.. Q ~ Z a a U fl♦ a O O y V\ 6a0 r (n w } Z z R Q v 1 '3 /y W W a ~J co w a U 6 ° a W K~ Z Z OmN p U N o - c z. W W ® ~p ~,g ®@ f.e•os1 r3 v 4+ Z W N~ v m a F i33?AJ.3 ...,48'OS..SIi91 r s a x v c _c ® Y Gf7SV ® o. W o C7 cr J 0 2 z 1. 61 , It, o68 'S 01' 6 - w w Y ..O ZNOO 6Z d N N FWHF V } Z W O Q g m N 0: O O >i W U7 W \ \ W W Z ".jog a 'UOw UI Q~ n i° > a J".jog uolt o~l 'bS,l 'Pd 3 ~g0= aL o - W o tl3NEl00 NOi103S ® U Z Z O LL y y O Q h d0 NQ -i v7 Fpx u. IL Z\ .J CJ C y LL W O = N m 0 ® O Z "I S a LO N a a L) cf) LO 0 - U) 06 CL 0 LO 00 C) (D C) r - c ~ CL r ~ r r cn a) U) _ r a) (D 0 LO Z) a_ ra ®-c® ov..rw. a~ CO m > "t = E ~U a~ x OD sd C\l •~Ecan) - •-c~~ co X~ co ILO - co C\l - ® c) n- Lo C) r) (D C) --j cm CY) CO 0- - ~qt -n < < o i'/® Z > C.) .2 < c~ r ~ > ce) c1r) ® co L CC) (D 00 C.0 C.0 CD L') r L/C Job Address: 676 SOUTH MTN Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: A+ C P Owner's Name: LIVNI GIL/KATHLEEN © Phone: Customer 08795 N State Lic No: L MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES T ~ City Lic No: Applicant: R Address: A C C Sub-Contractor: A. Phone: (510) 913-5110 T Address: N Applied: 02/27/2017 T Issued: R Expires: 08/26/2017 Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: City Lie No: DESCRIPTION: Site Review for an Accessory Residential Unit & Solar Waiver 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 Solar Setback Variance 1,022.00 CUP Accessory Residential 664.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL t I: 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 C I T Y F i L_'\J ((t k 4I 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: $ 1,686.00 $ 1,686.00 or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Sub-Total: $ 1,686.00 Fees Paid: $ 1,686.00 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.ashiand.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF