Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Prim_715_PA-2017-00288
f 4, t CITY F ASHLAND April 12, 2017 Notice of Final Decision On April 10, 2017, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA-2017-00288 Subject Property: 715 Prim Owner/Applicant: Blue Mariposa LLC/Rogue Planning & Development Description: A request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of a single-family residence on Hillside Lands for the property located at 715 Prim Street. Also included is an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands is j requested to allow a horizontal wail in excess of 36 feet without the requisite six-foot offset. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Modification to the Solar Setback classification from the original partition approval (PA-2003-142). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland Residential; ZONING: WR; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 16 BB; TAX LOT: 1100. 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 Brandon Goldman in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 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. Thne for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the required filing fee and shall contain. i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision. ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal. iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal. iv. A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public comment period. d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. 3. Scope of Appeal. Appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor shall be de novo hearings before the Planning Commission. The appeal shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant ordinance provision. 4. Appeal Hearing Procedure. Hearings on appeals of Type I decisions follow the Type II public hearing procedures, pursuant to section 18.5.1.060, subsections A - E, except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type I decision. A decision on an appeal is final the date the City mails the adopted and signed decision. Appeals of Commission decisions must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.onus ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00288 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 715 Prim St, APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development OWNER: Blue Mariposa LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit for development of hillside lands with slopes of 25 percent and greater and of severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent to allow for grading, filling, and the construction of the development of a single family residence and associated retaining walls at 715 Prim Street. The request includes approval of an exception to the development for hillside development standards to exceed the maximum 36' horizontal width of a wall without a requisite six foot offset. The application further requests a f modification of the solar classification from the original partition approval for the subject property (PA- 2003-142) to reclassify the property as a Solar Standard B lot. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: WR; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 16BB; TAX LOT: 1100 SUBMITTAL DATE: February 17, 2017 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: March 17, 2017 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: April 10, 2017 APPEAL DEADLINE (4:30 P.M.): April 24, 2017 FINAL DECISION DATE: April 25, 2017 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: October 25, 2018 DECISION The property is located at 715 Prim Street on The property is a trapezoidal shape, roughly 0.33 acres in area, and is zoned R-1-7.5 (Single-Family Residential). The property slopes are comprised of areas of 35 percent and greater, areas of 25 to 35 percent slope. The application involves a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow for the construction of a single family residence, a single car parking space, and a small yard area on Hillside and Severe Constrains Lands for the property located at 715 Prim St. The applicant has proposed a one-story with daylight basement, single-family residence. The application includes a request for Exceptions to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to exceed the maximum 36' horizontal width of a wall without a requisite six foot offset. The application describes the purpose of the excavation and retaining walls as necessary to accommodate the 2213 square foot residence, an 8ft by 20ft parking space, and to decrease the slope of the area immediately to the rear of the house to provide a minimal yard area. The application further describes the siting of the residence adjacent to the existing driveway, and as such the exception request regarding the 36' wide wall on the downhill side, as functioning to reduce the buildings footprint and minimize encroachment into steep slope areas. Due to this location the shadow cast from the structure will exceed that which is allowable for a Solar Standard A lot. Therefore the application also includes a request to modify the 2003 minor land partition approval to remove the condition that the lot be held to a Standard A, but instead be permitted to develop consistent with Solar Standard B. PA #2017-00288 715 Prim SUBG Page 1 The application includes a slope analysis which was provided when the parcel was created in 2003, which demonstrates slopes in excess of 25 throughout the parcel. Lands which have a slope of 25 percent and greater are defined as Hillside Lands in the Ashland land use ordinance (AMC 18.3.10.060.13) and lands which have a slope greater than 35 percent are defined as Severe Constraints Lands (AMC 18.3.10.060.D). Construction activities in Hillside and Severe Constraints Lands requires a Physical and Environmental Constraints \ Permit because these areas are subject to damage from erosion and slope failure. The application includes proposed grading within the footprint area of the ~'135 residence, an area to the west of the home for a single car parking space, and a small area to the south of the\oQ~ proposed home, all in areas of slopes in excess of 25 percent. In addition, a retaining walls will be constructed behind the home to provide a small yard area. The development standards for Hillside Lands in AMC 18.3.10.090 require a geotechnical expert to design grading, retaining walls, drainage, and erosion control. The original application to create the parcel in 2003 included a geotechnical report. The application includes a letter dated January 30, 2017 from the firm that conducted the original soils analysis and slope study in 2003 (Marquess and Associates). The letter indicates that site conditions are largely unchanged since 2003, and that the recommendations in the 2003 report are still applicable. The letter further provides additional recommendations relating to the proposed buildings footings and under slab drainage. The Soils Investigation Report submitted with the application notes that the property is suitable for development with the proposed improvements and provided the recommendations for development are followed there is no significant risk of slope instability on the lot. Conditions are added to this approval requiring evidence from the project geotechnical expert that the building permit submittals are consistent with the referenced report recommendations and a report on the inspections throughout the project construction by the project geotechnical expert. The report does not reference the retaining walls proposed at the rear of the house, not the wall to be developed to create a level pad for the exterior single car parking space. As the Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter of the land use code requires that such walls on hillside lands be designed by a The application notes that the applicants are proposing an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to exceed the maximum 36' horizontal wall width without a requisite six foot offset. Staff believes the exception to allow a 40ft wide horizontal plan, exceeding the maximum 36ft, is warranted as proposed as it allows the dwelling to be narrower in a north south direction, and as such limit the disturbance to steep slopes. This design provides for greater protection of the steep slope area and is consistent with the purpose of the development standards for hillside lands. A cut slope is located behind the home. The cut is approximately eighteen feet from the rear of the home and largely runs parallel to the home. The application includes constructing a retaining wall to secure the cut slope. As this retaining wall is not discussed in the 2003 geotechnical report a condition has been added to require a geotechnical expert design the wall, and that the building permit submittals demonstrate the wall be less than 5' in height consistent with hillside development standards. PA 42017-00288 715 Prim SUBG Page 2 i There are a two trees on the property, and although they are not considered "significant" (18"+) they are proposed to be retained. The application does propose tree protection fencing will be provided during the period of construction to protect the trees to be retained. The proposed building footprint is located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site consistent with the tree conservation, protection standards for Hillside Lands (I 8.3.10.090.D.3.b) The application includes a request to modify the Solar Classification of the lot from Class A to Class B. New lots created subsequent to the adoption of the Solar Ordinance were subject to Solar Standrard A, unless amended through the land use approval. In the case of the subject property it was classified as Solar Setback Standard A when it was created in 2003. Specifically the 2003 approval (PA#2003 142) included the following condition: "That Lots 1, 2 and 3 be held to Solar- Standard A The building envelopes created in 2003 were presented as demonstrating the newly created lots could be developed with a 21' shadow producing point to meet the solar setback criteria 'A'. The definition of a Solar Setback addresses situations where the area to the north is considered unbuildable as follows: 18.6 Solar Access and Setbacks - Definitions Related to Chapter 18.4.8 Solar Access Northern Lot Line. Any lot line or lines less than 45 degrees southeast or southwest of a line drawn east-west and intersecting the northernmost point of the lot. If the northern lot line adjoins any unbuildable area (e.g., street, alley, public right-of-way, par-king lot, or common area) other than a required yard area, the northern lot line is that portion of the northerly edge of the unbuildable area which is due north from the actual northern edge of the applicant's property. The driveway is considered unbuildable area, and that area can be shaded by the proposed building as the solar setback for the subject property would be calculated from the opposite side of the shared driveway. The application stipulates that the shadow to be cast by the proposed residence will fall within the existing driveway area. However in review of the solar calculations, in consideration of the slope of the property to the north, it appears that this is not the case. The shadow cast from the proposed building will cast a shadow onto the neighboring property to the north greater than would a 6ft tall fence at the property line. As proposed the residence complies with Solar Setback B, but due to the steep slope to the north the solar setback calculations demonstrate that a Solar Standard A could not be met unless a typical 21' shadow producing point was 64 feet away from the property line on the opposite side of the driveway. Although this could potentially be accomplished it would necessitate moving the shadow producing point an additional 30ft into the hillside, thereby requiring extensive encroachment into the severely constrained slopes. The proposed one-story home, with a daylight basement/garage, provides a shadow producing point of nearly 22ft on the downhill side. Given the proposed development is sensitive to the slope constraints by locating the home's footprint to the north of the property, staff finds the applicant has taken reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Additionally the existing lot's substandard width in a north south direction, in combination with the slope, would typically classify the lot as a Standard B. Staff believes the proposed reclassification to Solar Standard B is the minimum necessary to accommodate the development of the property. Staff finds that the proposed one story dwelling, with a daylight basement and garage on the downhill side, was designed in a manner that is consistent with the intent of the Hillside Design Standards. Further the incorporation of a flame resistant metal roof, the removal of ladder fuels, and adherence to the PA #2017-00288 715 Prim SUBG Page 3 ; ii planning action 2003-142condition of approval that required "That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department be nret, to include the installation of residential fire sprinkler systems in residences constructed on lots 2 and 3. " will serve to reduce wildfire risk consistent with the purpose of the Development Standards for Wildfire Lands. The approval criteria for a Physical c& Environmental Constraints Review Permit are detailed in AMC 18.3.10.050 as follows: A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. The approval criteria for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands are detailed in AMC 18.3.10.090.H as follows: 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this i chapter. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3. 10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Conclusion and Conditions In staff's assessment, the proposal has been carefully thought out to minimize the disturbance of the site. Based on the application material submitted, the application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances. Therefore, Planning Action #2017-00288 is approved with the following conditions. If any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2017-00288 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:' 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) That a residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in the residence in compliance with the conditions of approval for planning action 2003-142. 3) That the general fuel break requirements for wildfire lands as outlined in 18.3. 10. 100.13, shall be complied with before the commencement of construction with combustible materials on the lot. PA #2017-00288 715 Prim SUBG Page 4 4) That the development of the parcel is subject to Solar Standard `B' 5) Public Works permits and associated inspections shall be obtained for any work to occur within the public right-of-way. 6) The tree protection plan shall be provided with the building permit submittals. 7) That a detailed storm drainage, grading, and erosion control plan shall be provided with the building permit submittals. 8) That the tree protection fencing and temporary erosion control measures (i.e. silt fencing, bale barriers, etc.) shall be installed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the building permit for the retaining walls in slopes of 25 percent and over, storage of materials, or commencement of any site work. The tree protection and temporary erosion control measures shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department prior to site work, storage of materials, the issuance of an excavation permit, and/or the issuance of a building permit. 9) The retaining walls to the rear of the property and adjacent to the single car parking space shall be designed by the project's geotechnical expert and shall be provided with the building permit submittals. 10) The project geotechnical expert shall and shall provide an inspection schedule with the building permit submittals, and shall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. 11) The project landscape architect shall inspect work within the tree protection zones, including but not limited to excavation for utilities and trimming trees. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project landscape architect shall provide a final report indicating that the approved tree protection measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project landscape architect periodically throughout the project. 12) The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be installed prior to a certificate of occupancy. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas in accordance with ~AIC 18.3.10.090.B.7.a. April 10, 2017 dill Molnar, Community Development Director Date Co unityevelopment Department PA #20 1 7-0028 8 715 Prim SUBG Page 5 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On 4112/171 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope is 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 #2017-00288, 715 Prim. k-1 Signature of Employee j Document2 4/12/2017 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2208 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2321 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 403 BLUE MARIPOSA LLC BURJOSKI ALAN B TRUSTEE ET AL DICKEY TERRY P TRUSTEE ET AL 2532 OLD MILL WAY 520 LAKOTA WAY 465 SHERIDAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-00288 391 E058D 2205 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 802 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2320 DUTSON VAL J TRUSTEE ET AL ELL MARK G/JANET M FALKENSTEIN JIM AND BETH LIVING TR 725 PRIM ST 465 TUCKER ST 540 LAKOTA WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2206 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 708 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2207 HAMER JULIAN TRUSTEE ET AL HAMILTON CHARLIE KATZ DAVID/CATHLEEN 491 TUCKER ST PO BOX 1313 481 HERBERT ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2203 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 710 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2322 MILLER PAULEEN L/RICHARD A OSBORNE THOMAS EUGENE TRUSTEE PEAKE CAROLYN S 507 TUCKER ST 1989 FAIRGREEN DR 500 LAKOTA WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2204 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 701 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2315 RAUCH WILLIAM P ET AL REIMER STEVEN M/MARY M SORSOLI WAYNE A TRUSTEE ET AL 525 TUCKER ST 722 PRIM ST 495 SHERIDAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2302 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2101 PA-2017-00288 SULLIVAN FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC SULLIVAN MARALEE BLUE CANYON DESIGN C/O SULLIVAN DAVE 550 TUCKER ST 815 BENNETT AVE 8735 SW IRONSTONE PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 BEAVERTON, OR 97007 PA-2017-00288 PA-2017-00288 PA-2017-00288 ERIC SNYDER MARQUESS & ASSOC. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PO BOX 3551 RICK SWANSON AMY GUNTER CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 PO BOX 490 1424 S IVY ST. MEDFORD, OR 97504 MEDFORD, OR 97501 715 Prim NOD 4/12/17 21 Planning Department, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 ' T F 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www,ashland.or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00288 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 715 Prim OWNER/APPLICANT: Blue Mariposa LLC/Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of a single-family residence on Hillside Lands for the property located at 715 Prim Street. Also included is an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands is requested to allow a horizontal wall in excess of 36 feet without the requisite six-foot offset. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Modification to the Solar Setback classification from the original partition approval (PA-2003-142). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland Residential; ZONING: WR; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 16 BB; TAX LOT: 1100. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 17, 2017 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: March 31, 2017 SHERIDAN ST - SUBJECT PROPERTY l 715 Prim Street - PA-2017-00288 i 1:600 A~ 1 Inch = 50 feel w~c I~-ter,-i A4f ~Hb~1bivra.ls3a3a~mldnrnt or roraJbces - ~H lnoow to maon~acury r~a.watdta o.xm«o.oaww The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staffs decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.5.1.050.G) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2017\PA-2017-00288.doex TAL CON,. AINTS PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMEN 18.3.10.050 An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE LANDS 18.3.10.090.11 An exception under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of chapter 18.5.5 Variances. An application for an exception is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18__3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18.5.7.040.13 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 defmition 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 fmds 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. Wcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2017\PA-2017-00288.docx AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On March 17, 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 #PA-2017-00288, 715 Prim. a f leo Sign ure of Employee C:IUsersltrapprkDasktoplTempfatesWFFIDAMT OF MAILINO_Regan.docx 3117/2017 o9LSti9nyl!jegeE)alzasimn i ,dn-dodpjogajOlJalgAgJapugeeingoegLiqza!ldaN ' I,e e6 e9•/GaAe a za ' slualed~woo' Uane led ~ g / Ilb~ ®laad ~tse3 assaJpe,p sa~anbl}3 , PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 403 rA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 701 rA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 708 DICKEY TERRY P TRUSTEE ET AL REIMER STEVEN M/MARY M HAMILTON CHARLIE 465 SHERIDAN ST 722 PRIM ST PO BOX 1313 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540 IPA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 709 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 802 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2101 HAMILTON CHARLIE ET AL ELL MARK G/JANET M SULLIVAN MARALEE PO BOX 1313 465 TUCKER ST 550 TUCKER ST TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2102 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2203 1 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2204 SULLIVAN MARALEE MILLER PAULEEN L/RICHARD A RAUCH WILLIAM P ET AL 550 TUCKER ST 507 TUCKER ST 525 TUCKER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2205 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2206 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2207 DUTSON VAL J TRUSTEE ET AL HAMER JULIAN TRUSTEE ET AL KATZ DAVID/CATHLEEN 725 PRIM ST 491 TUCKER ST 481 HERBERT ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 I I PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2208 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2302 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2315 BLUE MARIPOSA LLC SULLIVAN FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC 1 SORSOLI WAYNE A TRUSTEE ET AL 2532 OLD MILL WAY 8735 SW IRONSTONE PL 495 SHERIDAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 BEAVERTON, OR 97007 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2320 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2321 PA-2017-00288 391 E05BD 2322 FALKENSTEIN JIM AND BETH LIVING TR BURJOSKI ALAN B TRUSTEE ET AL PEAKE CAROLYN S ET AL 520 LAKOTA WAY 500 LAKOTA WAY 540 LAKOTA WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-00288 PA-2017-00288 PA-2017-00288 ROGUE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MARQUESS & ASSOC ATTN: RICK 1 BLUE CANYON DESIGN 1424 S IVY STREET SWANSON 815 BENNETT AVE MEDFORD, OR 97501 PO BOX 490 MEDFORD, OR 97504 MEDFORD, OR 97504 PA-2017-00288 715 Prim ERIC SNYDER 3/17/117 NOC PO BOX 3351 22 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 i I I pgLgaleldwalNanyasn I 096P3dn-dodasodxaolaull6uolepuag i ' sa;e dW84 W0:) f lane of oJ ; slagel ssai ppb' asd Rse ' ®09 LS ~ I / ®I 3 ~ l t J I I i t t IIIh ~~fl~L1 ~j _ ~ I I ~IIr, I I III. III:I I , I~~I t i Ina 209 _ DOE L M tow OA 901 _r SON L Utz toy Uz ~ I v ~ r tr~ ~ a FIM? , + il'' _ tot t ! 77 3 t, KIN Iii I', ON I DocuSign Envelope ID: 83C05344-29BA42DE-83D' 'CB06959A17 ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division 51 Winhurn Way, Ashland OR 97520' ~~TY ~F FILE ,~;Z.t~(~"1 - 662,~~ -ASHLAN 541-488-5305 Fax 541488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT P&E for Hillside Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? ❑ YES GYNO Street Address 715 Prim Street Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E 05BD Tax Lot(s) 2208 Zoning R-1-7.5 Comp Plan Designation Single Family Residential APPLICANT Name Rogue Planning & Development, Amy Gunter Phone 541-951-4020 E-Mail amygunter.planning@gmai.com Address 1424 S Ivy Street City Medford Zip 97501 PROPERTY OWNER Name Blue Mariposa LLC Phone 510-913-5110 E-Mail magnoliafinehomes@gmail.com Address 2532 Old Mill Way City Ashland Zip 97520 SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Geo-Tech Name Marquess & Associates, Att: Rick Swanson Phone 541-772-7115 E-Mail rick@marquess.com Address 112n F ,Jarkgnn City MPdfnrri ZIP 97,940 Title Building Designer Name Patrick May Phone 510-205-0880 E-Mail 4dproof@gmail.com 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, i> 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 b~ tart WPM)P'#xpense. If I have any doubts, l am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. 2/16/2017 4:38 PM PST AWFW,s " nature Date As owner of the property involved in this request, ! have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property ow . DocuSlgned by: 2/16/2017 1 4:38 PM PST Pr` signature (required) Date [To be completed by City Staff) Date Received , ~Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ m OVER 0 Gdcomm-dev\plannin&orms & HandoutsVoning Pemril Applicnlion.doc i i 715 Prim Street Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Hillside Development ROGUE PLANNING 9 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC February 15, 2017 Subject Property Address: 715 Prim Street Map & Tax Lots: 39 1E 05BD #2208 Property Owner: Blue Mariposa LLC Gil Livni 2532 Old Mill Way Ashland, OR 97520 Building Designer: 4D Proof Design Patrick May fourdproof@gmail.com Blue Canyon Design 815 Bennett Ave. Medford, OR 97504 Engineer: Eric Snyder PO Box 3351 Central Point, OR 97502 Geotechnical Expert: Marquess & Associates Rick Swanson, P.E., G.E PO BOX 490 Medford, OR 97504 Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services Amy Gunter 1424 S Ivy Street i Medford, OR 97501 Page 1 of 13 I Request: The request is for Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the construction of a new single family residential home on land that has more than 25 percent slopes. The request includes a modification of the required solar setback classification from the partition approval. Property Background: The property is located on the west side of Prim Street to the southwest of the intersection of Prim and Sheridan Streets. The site is an irregularly shaped lot (Parcel #3) that was created in 2003 as part of a three-lot partition derived from the parent parcel located at 735 Prim (Parcel #1). Prim Street dead ends just south of the property frontage. Prim Street is improved with curb and gutter along the frontage of the parcel. The subject property and the surrounding properties are all zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-7.5). The adjacent properties are occupied by single family homes and associated accessory structures. The property is 14,787 square feet in area and is vacant of structures. The site has a fairly consistent average slope of 28 percent from the south downhill to the north. Along the west property line there are areas of more than 35 percent slope. The first 25 - 40 feet of the property adjacent to Prim and along the driveway is between 25 - 30 percent slope. There is a 3 %2 foot tall retaining wall on the south side of the flag driveway. Thirteen feet of the 23-foot-wide paved, shared driveway is on the subject property. There are two smaller diameter (-10-inch DBH) White Oak trees on the property, both appear to be in good health. Both trees were within the building envelope at the time of partition. r~trz+.soe~ vieM ~.svvvnr~c~~- 1 44 4 iN (wx't L"~ Page 2 of 13 Project Proposal: The request is to construct a new single family residential home on the vacant lot located at 715 Prim Street. The proposed residence is 2,213-square feet. The main living level (first story) is proposed as 1,718 square feet, the day-light basement living area is 495 square feet. A 460-square foot, two vehicle garage is proposed in the basement. The footprint of the proposed structure is 2,199 square feet. The structure is proposed to be located as close to the flag-drive way as possible to reduce the amount of disturbance into the hillside. The lot is steeper, uphill away from the driveway towards the south and southwest. i Since the lot is considered a flag lot due to the length of the driveway, a third guest parking space will be provided by cutting into the hillside to provide a parallel space adjacent to the driveway. The existing driveway is 2,910 square feet of impervious area on the site. The addition of the residence and the parking area adds 2,359 square feet of impervious surfaces. This is 35% of the lot area, less than the allowed 45% in the zone. i The proposal retains all trees on the site. The trees will be protected with tree protection fencing. Modification of Previous Approval: Solar Setback: One of the conditions of approval from the 2003 Partition is that the property is subject to solar setback standard A. The average North / South lot dimension for the purposes of calculating the solar setback is 53-feet. The average slope of the property for the purposes of the solar setback ordinance is 21 percent downhill to the north. To provide adequate N / S lot depth to comply with solar setback standard A, the lot should have been an average of 127-feet deep N to S. (.445 - .21 = .235) 30/.235 = 127.65' The lot, with 53-feet average N/S lot dimension, the lot is just barely subject to solar setback standard B. 10/.235=42.5. The shadow cast by the proposed residence falls within the driveway area. Findings addressing the approval criteria for Hillside Development, Wildfire Overlay and the approval criteria for the modification to the assigned solar setback are addressed below. I y Page 3 of 13 Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Hillside Development: 18.3.10.050 Approval Criteria A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. The proposed residence is sited in a manner to have the least amount of disturbance by allowing for the driveway access to the garage at the same grade as the existing paved flag-drive. The partition approval designated a building envelope that extended across the entire parcel to the minimum setbacks excepting a solar setback envelope of 20+ feet f -om the northern most property line adjacent to the property at 725 Prim (Parcel # 2). The applicant has proposed to construct the new residence in the area of the site that will requires the lease amount of soil removal to facilitate construction of the residence. The property is least steep along the driveway and the house is not located further to the south away from existing driveway which would require more disturbance. The applicant has considered the impacts to the adjacent properties, by designing a single level residence with a cutpad foundation and an overall low pitch roof. This reduces the building height and mass, limiting impacts to nearby areas. The residence is proposed to be setback from the front property line (Prim Street) by more than 23 feet, exceeding the minimum setback in the zone. The south side yard setback is ten feet, the minimum allowed due to a Public Utility Easement. The side yard abutting the flag driveway is proposed to be eight feet. This is to allow for adequate back-up dimensions from the face of the garage to the edge of the pavement and to minimize the area of site disturbance. The proposed residence is located as close as practicable in the areas of the site that are the least steep and lack trees. The building envelope included the two trees on the site within or very near the envelope. The proposed residence preserves both Oak trees on the property and moves all construction to the east, away from the group of trees adjacent to the west property line. The proposed driveway has minimal travel length and width to reduce the impact to the hillside slopes. Through the application of the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, the oversight of a geotechnical expert, a structural engineer, implementation of the erosion control plan and tree protection / preservation, potential adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. The developable area of property exceeds 25 percent slopes. Portions of the property exceed 30 percent slopes. The proposed residence is in the areas with the least amount of slope while retaining the two Oak trees on site. It is the applicant's understanding that there was a building envelope as part of the partition approval. It is unclear from the partition application materials whcre the approved building envelope is located. Using the envelope that includes a solar setback line provided in the Geo-technical Report created at the time of the partition, the proposed residence is within one of the approved building envelopes. Page 4 of 13 With the proposed residence located near the flag driveway, minimal retaining walls are necessary. A section of the existing retaining wall will be removed and a cutpad area that is necessary to install a third guest parking space on the property. Landscape block retaining walls on the south side of the structure are provide to allow for an access path to the residence. The foundation will be engineered and the geotechnical expert will provide periodic inspections of the site to verify the development requirements are being complied with. Erosion control silt fencing is proposed along the east property line parallel to the street and along the side property line. As required by the Public Works and Engineering Division, bio-bags will be placed in the Prim Street gutter to protect the storm drain system. All erosion control measures will remain in place throughout the duration of the site workportions of construction. The tree protection fencing will remain in place throughout the duration of construction or until the exterior of the structure is completed and no additional site disturbance is occurring. C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. With the proposed placement, geotechnical oversite, structural engineering, tree protection and preservation all reasonable steps have been taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment. By utilizing a cut foundation, limited amount of impervious surfaces, minimal setbacks and tree preservation all site disturbance the applicant does not find that irreversible adverse impacts to the environment will occur. Site disturbance from construction will be re-vegetated with native grass seed mix. The applicantfnds that the surrounding properties all constructed under permit over the past 30 years provide the baseline for the "maximum development" permitted by ordinance. The surrounding properties in the impact area and the proposed residence is similar in size, coverage, architectural features, setbacks, etc., as the developed properties in the vicinity of the subject property. 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands. 1. Buildable Area. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. The subject property has areas greater than 35 percent, but all proposed development is to occur outside of those areas. The proposed construction is within the area identified as the buildable area on the Geotechnical Report created by Marquess & Associates in 2003. The two oak trees on the site were both identified within the building envelope. The proposed location of the residence will allow for the preservation of both of the trees and is moved to the furthest extent possible away ftoni the group of trees that are adjacent to the westproperty line. i Page 5 of 13 i i i B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as Hillside shall provide plans conforming to the following items. 1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to the International Building Code and be consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Rick Swanson from Marquess and Associates has reviewed the grading, erosion control, drainage and retaining wallplans that have been designed by himself and others with demonstrable expertise in the development of Hillside Lands. The plans provided demonstrate compliance with the standards from the Land Use Ordinance. Evidence of Geotech concurrence with design will be submitted with the building permit submittal. 2. Timing of Improvements. This proposal is exempt from this section of the code. 3. Retention in natural state. Lot is less than % acre in area. 4. Grading - Cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply. a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. The proposed structure is cut into the hillside leaving few exposed cut slopes. The one area of exposed cut on the uphill side of the driveway in order to accommodate an 8' X 20' parallel parking space adjacent to the flag driveway will be retained with a stacked block landscape retaining wall. This wall is proposed at less than six feet tall. b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. The top of cut slopes not utilizing structural retaining walls shall be located a minimum setback of one-half the height of the cut slope from the nearest property line. Minimal retaining walls are proposed to reduce the r claining iiw is required on the site. No retaining walls are proposed taller than five feet in height. Page 6 of 13 c. Cut slopes for structure foundations which reduce the effective visual bulk, such as split pad or stepped footings, shall be exempted from the height limitations of this section. I The proposed residence is cut into the hillside, d. Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction of top soil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native, or species similar in resource value to native plants, which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings, and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. All terraced areas will be revegetated with ornamental plants. The areas directly adjacent to the residence where the soil has been disturbed are proposed to be re-seeded with native plant mixture. 5. Grading - Fill. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply. a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line. No fill slopes are proposed b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. No un-retained fill slopes are proposed. c. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. The utilities are not being installed on fill slopes. They are proposed to be installed within the existing driveway and directly adjacent to the existing driveway within the existing utility systems that service the adjacent parcels. d. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. No un-retained fill slopes are proposed. 6. Revegetation Requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate.of occupancy, signature of a required Page 7 of 13 I, survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. The landscaping proposed for the retained areas and areas of disturbance are proposed to be installed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. The landscaping will be maintained in perpetuity. b. Security. i A performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120 percent of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site will be provided. g. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors. a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. A short terrace constructed of landscaping blocks is proposed on the uphill side of the residence to create a small yard area. The proposed residence is cut into the hillside with the garage floor elevation determined by the existing flag driveway access to the site. b. & c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. Based on the Geological Report from the original partition there are no hazardous or unstable portions of the site. There is no physical evidence on the site of any hazardous or unstable portions of the site. d. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. The proposed structure has a relatively small footprint by comparison to those in the impact area. Minimal yard area is proposed. The majority of areas of disturbance, excepting the ornamental plantings adjacent to the retaining wall and the structure, and in the rear yard area will be re-seeded with native grasses post construction. 9. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, Page 8 of 13 and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.3.10.090.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. The final inspection report completed by the geotechnical expert will be provided prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. The surface and groundwater drainage on the site will be directed into the city's storm drain system. When the lot was created, all necessary infrastructure was constructed for the development of the new lots. D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements. 1. Inventory of Existing Trees. There are two trees on the site. There are few trees in the vicinity but they are more than I S feet fi°om any areas of disturbance. The sites topography and temporary fencing will prevent construction equipment from getting anywhere near, the trees in the southwest corner of the property. 2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. The two tree proposed for preservation are both smaller DBH Oak Trees that are proposed for preservation. The trees are smaller than the thresholds for protection within the Hillside Ordinance and they were both shown within the building envelope(s) proposed with the original partition application. 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. The two trees on the site are proposed for retention during project construction. 4. Tree Protection. A six-foot chain link fence is proposed to be installed at or near the dripline of the two Oak trees. The fencing is proposed to be installed at grade and to remain in place throughout the duration of the project. 5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions. No tree removal is proposed. Page 9 of 13 6. Tree Replacement. No trees are proposed for removal that are subject to the requirements of this chapter. E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards. 1. Building Envelopes. The proposed residence is within the building envelope that was proposed as part of the 2003 Partition. Additionally, the proposed residence adheres to the yard setbacks allowed by code, by the Public Utility Easements for the property.. 2. Building Design. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive design techniques, buildings on Hillside Lands, excepting those lands within the designated Historic District, shall incorporate the following into the building design and indicate features on required building permits. a. The height of all structures shall be measured vertically from the natural grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge or peak, wall, parapet, mansard, or other feature perpendicular to that grade. Maximum hillside building height shall be 35 feet. A single story residence cut into the hillside with a below grade garage is proposed. The proposed residence is significantly less than 35 feet in height. b. Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk. L Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to allow the structure to more closely follow the slope. ii. Reduce building mass by utilizing below grade rooms cut into the natural slope. The residence is cut into the uphill slope on the property. The garage is below grade and the upper level utilizes the garage roof as an outdoor deck for the residence. c. A building step back shall be required on all downhill building walls greater than 20 feet in height, as measured above natural grade. Step-backs shall be a minimum of six feet. Decks projecting out from the building wail and hillside shall not be considered a building step-back. No vertical walls on the downhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above natural grade. The vertical walls are less than 20 feet as measured from natural grade (see attached elevations). d. Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet. There are is one horizontal building plane that exceeds 36 feet proposed findings, regarding the exception to the hillside standards are provided herein. Page 10 of 13 e. It is recommended that roof forms and roof lines for new structures be broken into a series of smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the surrounding hillside. Long, linear unbroken roof lines are discouraged. Large gable ends on downhill elevations should be avoided, however smaller gables may be permitted. i The residence is proposed to have a skillion style roof. The site has limited visibility from surrounding hillside lands. The irregular, mono pitch roof is more in keeping with the irregular forms of the hillside that a typical gabled roof. The proposed roofing creates unique shapes and patterns for the home's exterior that reflect the irregular forms of the hillside. No large gable ends are proposed on the downhill elevations. The various building sections break up the massing of the front of the residence creating interest. The structure is more modern that the existing residences on adjacent properties but is reflective of the new home on the Prim Street property to the east. f. It is recommended that roofs of lower floor levels be used to provide deck or outdoor space for upper floor levels. The use of overhanging decks with vertical supports in excess of 12 feet on downhill elevations should be avoided. The roof of the below grade garage is providing for an 8' X 11 ' deck area off of the kitchen. No overhanging decks are proposed g. It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment. Natural colors selected from the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape will be used for the exterior paint finishes. The metal roof will be painted and not reflective galvanized metal. F. All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. The foundation has been engineered. The engineered foundation plans will be provided with the building permit set. G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include building envelopes containing a buildable area less than 35 percent slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. This section is not applicable. H. Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. Page 11 of 13 i i One of the exterior walls has a more than 36 foot horizontal plane without a six-foot offset. The north facade of the residence is 39' 7 Y2 The sites trapezoidal shape is unique. The steep topography of the side in addition to the long, narrow lot create difficulties in meeting the required step backs without increasing the amount of disturbance into the hillside. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. The proposed exception will not have an impact on the protection of resources. The proposed building design allows for the preservation of the two trees on the site. The requested elimination minimal and will not negatively impact protected resources. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The requested exception is less than four feet over the maximum and is ten percent of the maximum 36- foot horizontal plane. The exception is minimal and will not have negative impacts on adjacent properties, does not block views or block solar access on adjacent properties. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. The allowed increase in the maximum horizontal building plane allows for reduction to the amount of disturbance area by creating additional step backs into the steeper portions of the property. 18.3.10.100 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands 8. Requirements for Construction of All Structures. Compliance with the development standards for wildfire lands will be implemented on-site prior to introduction of combustible construction materials. Trees will be limbed up above the roof, the grass will be mowed and small diameter ladder fuels will be removed. Additionally, afire resistant metal roof is proposed. Conclusion: In conclusion, the applicant's find that the proposed moderately sized, single family residence will be a welcome addition in the neighborhood. The original geotechnical report has indicated that the areas selected for development are suitable and the applicant's geo-tech has recommended erosion control, foundation type and retaining wall design. Though the house design is more modern than many of the homes in the neighborhood, the existing residences could be described as eclectic and many were constructed prior to hillside design standards. With the proposal to keep the proposed residence setback the minimum amount from the driveway to reduce the amount of disturbance into the steeper portions of the site, the amount of disturbance area is minimized. Additionally, all reasonable steps necessary to prevent negative impacts to adjacent properties and the environment for the development of the site have been factored into the site design and placement of the residence. Page 12 of 13 The applicant finds that all of the applicable City of Ashland requirements have been met or can be met through the imposition of conditions of approval. Attachments: Site plans Elevations Geo-Tech Report 2003 Geo-Tech Letter 2017 i L Page 13 of 13 P-v A S S t. 1 ti . 5 ! P 541-7'72-7115 F 545-779-4079 11 I-A I )AC'~ON P() 1 I'M lll EMAIL; ii h)qs ili'itjuk-s.t (,ill WEB: Date: January 30, 2017 I To: Gil Livni (c/o Amy Gunter) i From: Rick Swanson, P.E., G.E. RE: 715 Prim Street Ashland, Oregon MAI Job No. 17-1023 As requested, we have prepared this letter concerning the proposed homesite development at 715 Prim Street in Ashland, Oregon. Applicability of 2003 Report. On July 30, 2003, we prepared a soils investigation report for the development of two vacant parcels, including 715 Prim Street, adjacent to 735 Prim Street. We visited the site on January 26, 2017, and observed that site conditions have changed very little since the 2003 report was written. The soil design recommendations presented in the 2003 report are still applicable for this development. Building Plan Review. We have also reviewed the structural drawings, prepared by Snyder Engineering and dated October 6, 2016, that we received from you. Our review was made from a soil and foundation engineering viewpoint; no review was made of other aspects of the project design, such as project civil or structural engineering. We find that the plans generally meet the intent of the recommendations presented in our soils report. However, we should point out two items that should be followed during the construction of the development. One item is that the new footings should bear in the medium dense or better soils underlying the site (this may require subexcavating beneath some footings to obtain firm soil and backfilling the footing subexcavation). The other item is the need for underdrainage beneath slabs set below adjacent site grades. Please refer to page 5 of the 2003 report for guidance regarding slab underdrainage. We appreciate the opportunity to have reviewed the plans. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call. Cc: Eric Snyder r OUG014 n, wn s. 6.30, g - P541-772-7115 0541-779-4079 1120 FAST JACKSON 110 BOX 490 ,,.EC) F0 U) M9-501 a S O C I AT L S i`1 C EMAIL: inf~~s?mar~liiess.G~c~ira WEB: ~~n~m=.margi~ess.coa~1 July 30, 2003 Val DULSo11 735 Prim Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: SOILS INVESTIGATION RE, PORI' VAL DUTSON PROPERTY ASHLAND, OREGON MAI JOB NO. 3-1180 Dear Nft. Dutson: Introduction As requested, we have prepared this soils investigation report for the proposed residences (2) on your property on Prim Street in Ashland, Oregon. The location of the development is shown on Draining 1 - Vicinity Map. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the prevailing subsurface conditions at the sites and develop earthwork and foundation engineering rccorn nendations for the residences. The residences will be sited within Parcels 2 and 3 which are shown on Drawing 2 - Site Plan. The actual footprint of the residences is not established at this time; however, the residences will be near the approximate centers of the parcels. The residences are expected to be two-story structures with daylight basement garages. Slab-on grade floors are anticipated in the garages and living areas. Retaining walls for the tower levels could be as much as eight to ten feet high. A driveway serving both residences will be extended up from Sheridan Street through Nin. Street. Grading for the driveway is expected to consist of minor cuts and fills of no more than three feet. No retaining walls are planned for the driveway cuts and fills. Method of Investi anon ' C Three exploratory test pits were excavated with a rubber-tire backhoe on July 1, 2003. The locations of the test pits are shown on Drawing 2 told stmlmane s of ilw test pit data are presented on Drawing 5. A key describing the soil classiticatiuiz system and soil consistency terms used in this report are presented on Drawing 4. t Mr. Val Dutson i July 30, 2003 Page 2 S,unples of the soil materials from the explorations were returned to our laboratory for classification and testing. A description of the tests is presented on Laboratory Testing Procedures, Drawing 3. The results of moisture content and percent fnler than P200 sieve tests are shown on Drawing 5. The pits were located in the field by pacing and interpolation from the features shown on the drawing provided to us. These locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied and the method used. Site Conditions A. Surface The building sites lie on a steeply sloping north facing hillside. Slope inclinations in the building and driveway areas vary from about 20 percent to 35 percent to the northeast. Some small portions of Parcel 3 have slopes greater than 35 percent but these are due to past grading activities and do not represent the natural slope of the hillside. The overall northward slope of the hill is about 17 percent. There was no evidence of hillside instability or erosion problems at the property. B. Subsurface The test pits encountered natural silty sands overlying weathered granodiorite bedrock. The silty sands and clayey sand soils varied bet,,vecn loose to medium dense and extended to depths of 1.5 to 4.5 feet. These sods were underlain by decomposed granodiorite bedrock which varied in hardness and excavation difficulty. The granodiorite became hard to dig with the backhoe at a depth of 3.5 feet in Pit 2 and 5.5 feet deep in Pit 3. Based on limited laboratory testing, including ftee swell testing, the soil and rock materials at the site have a low expansion potential. The attached logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations excavated and on the date excavated. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these locations. Also, the passage of time inay result in a change of soil conditions at these locations due to environmental changes. C. Groundwates- No groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits. Groundwater 1111cLuations may occur in the future because of variations in rainfall, run-off, irrigations, and other f << gars not evident at the time our measurements were made and reported herein. 4 Mr. Val Dotson July 30, 2003 Page 3 Conclusions and Recommendations From a soil and foundation standpoint, it is our opinion that the proposed structures can be constructed as proposed provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The structures can be supported on spread footing foundations bearing directly either on the bedrock materials or on the firm sandy soils that underlie the site. The recommendations presented below are contingent on our observation of the earthtivork, foundation, and drainage installation phases of constriction. A. Grading I. Areas to be developed should be cleared of surface obstructions including trees, footballs, and roots greater than two inches in diameter. Holes resulting from the removal of underground obstructions that extend below finished grade should be backtilled with suitable material and compacted to the requirements given below for fill. The backfilling operations should be performed under our observation. Surface vegetation and organic laden topsoil within areas to be developed should be stripped from the site and stockpiled in non-filI areas. 2. After the site has been prepared and required excavations have been made, the surface soils in areas to be filled should be properly moisture conditioned and recompaeted. This work should consist of scarifying the upper eight inches, thoroughly moisture conditioning the soils to about three percent above optimum moisture, and compacting them to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D698. Compaction should be performed using heavy compaction equipment such as a sheepsfoot roller or self-propelled compactor. Additional fill can then be placed after the sturficial soils are recompacted. In order to achieve satisfactory compaction in the subgrade and fill soils, it may be necessary to adjust the soil moisture content at the time of construction. This may require that water be added and thoroughly mixed into any soils which are too dry or that scarification and aeration be performed in any soils which are too wet. 3. Structural fill under footings and slabs may include 3/4"-0 crushed rock or other high quality pre-approved materials. Structural fills should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. Fill materials should be spread and compacted in lifts not exceeding eight inches in the uncompacted thicluless. Can-site soil should not be re-used as fill beneath the buildings. i Mr. Val Dutson July 30, 2003 Page 4 d. On-site soils having an organic content of less than three percent by volume and free of clay can be used as fill beneath exterior slabs and pavements and behind retaining walls, except where special aggregates are required. Fill material should not contain rocks or lumps greater than six inches in the greatest dimension with not snore than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches. Fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM DI557). Fill material should be spread and compacted in lifts not exceeding six inches in uncompacted thickness. 5. New cut and fill slopes should generally be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Low slopes can be steeper than 2:1 with our approval. Cutslopes in firm rock can be steepened to 1.5:1 cohere minor slope erosion is acceptable. Fill slopes should be planted to minimize erosion and surface runoff should be diverted away from the top of slopes and carried to a suitable drainage collection s~rstem. 6. Any fill placed on slopes steeper than 6:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be keyed into firm undisturbed material with a minimum key depth of two feet. As the fill is brought up, it should be benched into firm soil with a series of two foot wide benches. The actual extent of keying and benching should be deter pined in the field by the soil engineer. 7. Utility trenches should be backfilled with engineered fill placed in lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thiclaaess, except thicker lifts may be used with the approval of the soil engineer provided satisfactory compaction is achieved. If on-site soil is used, the material should be compacted to at least 85 percent relative compaction (ASTIvI D1557) by mechanical means only. Imported clean sand can also be used for backfilling trenches provided it is compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. In building, slab, and pavement areas, the upper three feet of trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction for on-site soils. Water jetting to achieve the required level of backfill compaction should not be permitted. 8. Site grading should be performed in accordance with the Ashland Hillside Ordinance, where applicable. B. Foundations 1. l ooung3 may bear directly on the firm sands and the granodiorite bedrock nr~terials at the site. Loose sands should be removed from beneath the footings. The footing bottoms should be checked by our engineer prior to placement of Iur)ns -indrebar. F Mr. Val Dutson July 30, 2003 Page 5 2. Footings can be designed for 2000 psf allowable bearing pressure. Footings should hear deep enough to be resistant to frost heave. Footings bearing directly on granodior to may be sized for higher pressures. Since the depth to granodiorite varies, we should be consulted during the building design please when specific design and depth information is available. footings, particularly footings near downslopes, should have at least seven feet of horizontal distance from the toe of the footing to the slope face. i 4. Unrestrained retaining walls with level to gently sloping (less than 25 percent slope) backfill surfaces should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pef. Where restrained, the design wall pressure should be 60 pef for walls with similar backfill surfaces. These wall pressures assume adequate backdrainage is provided behind the walls. 5. For lateral toad resistance, a coefficient of liiction equal to 0.3 and a passive pressure equal to 300 pcf starting 0.5 feet below finished grade may be used. The passive pressure should be ignored unless the footing is poured against undisturbed firm earth or the footing backf ll is well compacted. C. Building dabs-On- rade l . The lower level slabs should be underlain by an underslab drainage system. The slabs should be underlain by (in descending order) two inches of sand, vapor retarder, at least six inches of compacted free-draining 3/4" crushed rock (no fines, no round rock) and subgrade soil. A three-inch diameter perforated rigid PVC pipe should be placed at the bottom of the gravel length,,vise with the g. The perforated pipe should drain via gravity to the street below the building houses. 2. Stabs should be reinforced in accordance with the anticipated use and loading, but as a minimum, slabs should be reinforced with at least 6x6-W2.9/W2.9 welded- wire mesh. Adequate slab control joints, such as ten feet on center, should be provided for all slabs. I 3. Exterior slabs should be underlain by at least four inches of structural fill such as 3/4"-0 crushed rock. Mr. Val Dutson July 30, 2003 Page 6 D. Drainage and Erosion Control I. The finished grades around the buildings should be sloped away from the buildings at a minimum slope of about five percent. The ground surface on the uphill sides of the residences should be sloped to drain to the sides of the house with slopes of at least five percent. Alternatively, surface water in these areas can be intercepted with area drains and piped to the street, i Gutters and downspouts or roof drains should be installed to drain roof water with leakproof joints to the street below the house. Roof drains should not discharge onto adjacent pavements or splash blocks. 4 3. perimeter foundation drainage system as detailed on Drawing 6 should be constructed adjacent to perimeter footings. d. Retaining walls should have a gravel and perforated pipe and filter fabric drainage system placed behind walls as shown on Drawing 7. Interior walls should be thoroughly waterproofed. Clayey soil should not be used as backfiII behind walls. 5. Erosion control measures, such as silt fencing or staked straw bales, should be placed downhill of disturbed soil or stockpile areas. After constriction is completed, these areas should be revegetated. E. Constraction Observation i I We should be retained to provide soil engineering monitoring and testing services during the project. Our work should include observations of the erosion control measures, completed basement excavations and footing excavations, wall backdrainage and lower level underslab drainage systems, and finished surface drainage control measures around the house. Our involvement during the construction phase should start with a field meeting prior to any grading work at the site. We have provided our findings and recommendations in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. This report has been prepared to aid in the dcsi-n of this r)roiect. In the event that significant clianges in the nature or location of the st< iLcturc arc planncd_ plcase contact us to review the changes and our recommendations. Mr. Val Dutson July 30, 2003 Page 7 If you have any questions r arding this letter, please call. i Very truly yours, ~t% "I &5 ~ MARQUESS & ASSOCIATES, INC. t -j REGON /,,q *W P Rick, Swanson, P.E. Civil Engineer 16885 EXPIRES. 6-30 RS/pnaa Copies: Addressee (4) Attachments: Vicinity Map, Drawing I Site Plan, Drawing 2 Laboratory 'T'esting Procedures, Drawing 3 Key to Boring and Pit Logs, Drawing 4 Logs of Pits 1-3, Drawing 5 Foundation Drain Details, Drawing 6 Retaining Wall Detail, Drawing 7 "A3-119ORepoa.doc This document, and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of Marquess & Associates, Inc, and is not to be used, in part for,any other project without the written authorization of Marquess & Associates, Inc. - A,stit. N. ~ SCI10FIELD ST. a o katq ;U 99 F kVr z r W4( E ST. s .;r SHERIDAN ST. 0 z ~ O GRANT ST TUCKER I- _IT D r > ST. M = GREEt1ERIAR PL. WILE[ST. " i ca MAPLE ST. o J -1-F1 W {-IOSPITA t 001_1 GE Q 0- a v I t T_ U LL A VISTA CATa l I OF b, SCALE: - NON[ VICRWY M" DRAWING Psa~- rrmis g x sAi-m-4079 [QO L551'JACKSUN V _ PO lox 490 > (g ~,p~,~ o o2vrsm 735 Prim Street - Ashland Oregon i t i (i r i ~,iy ( 1(' 1.'1 ( MAI JOB NO. 3.1180 DRAWN - TJF GROUP PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOL SECONDARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS CLEAN "We11 graded gravels, gravel--sand mixtures, little or GRAVELS no fines. J ¢ MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN Poorly groded gravels, or gravel-sand mixtures, little Of 0 57 FINES)P CO W 0 OF COARSE or no fines. 4 FRACTION IS M Silty gravels, gravel- sand-- silt mixtures, o GRAVEL ~ non-plastic fines- r, t s LARGER THAN Ys7TH - - ~'1 0 Clayey gravels, gravel-sond-clay mixtures, d J u No. 4 SIEVE FINES plastic fines. Q W W SANDS CLEAN Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SANDS UJ Z C MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN Poorly graded sands or gravelly sards, little or J OF COARSE 57 FINES) SP no fines. O Cr to FRACTION IS SANDS SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, nor--plastic fines U 0 SMALLER THAN WITH No. 4 SIEVE FINES SC Clayey sands, sond-clay mixtures, plastic fines. co w SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or J L ML clo e, fine sands or clayey silts with slightpI osticitY O d Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly 0 L Q ¢ w LIQUID LIMIT IS clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. LESS THAN 507 a = (n OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. < - 0 Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatornaceous fine <t s J N SILTS AND CLAYS MFI sand or sdty sorts elastic silts. CH inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. w FE z LIQUID LIMIT IS W ¢ GREATER THAN 507 - Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, LL r ON or anic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pf Peat and other highly organic soils. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D--2487 U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3,/4" 3" 12" SAND GRAVEL SILTS AND CLAYS r COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE 1 I GRAIN SIZES ANDS & GRAVELS BLOWS/FOOT SILTS & CLAYS STRENGTH+ BLOWS/FOOT VERY LOOSE 0 - 4 VERY SOFT 0 - 1/4 0 - 2 LOOSE 4 - 10 SOFT 1/4 - 1/2 2 - 4 MEDIUM DENSE 10 - 30 FIRM 1/2 - 1 4 - 8 STIFF 1 2 8 - 16 DENSE 30 50 VERY STIFF 2 - 4 16 - 32 VERY DENSE OVER 50 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY i r:' r =r of blows of 1,10 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch O.D_ _ I (1--3/8 inch 1-D.) split spoon (ASTM D-1586). `tn,:onfined compressive strength in tons/sq. fit, as determined by laboratory testing or approximated y the standard penetration test (ASTM D-1586), pocket penetrometer, torvane., or visual observation. ' rsat-m-nrs __'Ry 1 Ts') : j AM ffr L, DRAWING asat-rr~ aorv gp ro Box 00 r ~~qq AILOFUIlD.OR4750t Prim Street k s s Ashland Oregon c l i 4 MAI JOB NO. 3.1180 LISTS DATE My 2M3 9 CHF D RS OF 7 DWGS r ST PIT 1 0 SILTY SAND (SM), brown, loose to medium dense, dry, organics in upper 2" *2 1' X Q1': Finer than #200 = 27 Free Swell = 25 % 2 DECOMPOSED GRANODIORITE, soil-like, speckled brown and black, medium 3' X dense to dense 4 4p- 5'- very dense at 5', grading stronger with depth 6' 7' gray, grading harder yet still diggable Bottom of test pit = 7' TEST PIT 2 0 SILTY SAND (SM), dusky brown, loose to medium dense, dry *2 1 X ®1.5': Finer than ,#200 = 28 % 2'- 3'- GRANODIORITE, very highly weathered, soil-like, brown, dense, grading to 1 4' GRANODIORITE, highly weathered, gray-brown, very dense/hard to dig 5' Bottom of test pit = 5', almost practical digging refusal at 5' with backhoe TEST PIT 3 0 SILTY SAND (SM), dusky brown, loose to medium dense, moist CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown, loose to medium dense, moist *8 2' X ©2': Finer than #200 = 32 Free Swell = 40 % 3' SILTY SAND (SM), gray, green, brown, medium dense, moist 4'- 5'- GRANODIORITE, very highly weathered, soil-like, brown, dense, grading to 6' GRANODIORITE, highly weathered, gray, hard to dig Bottom of test pit = 6,5', almost practical digging refusal at 6.5' with backhoe is *moisture content in percent P $41-rrH11S OF 1 _ 3 DRAWNG x s1H•nv-ao~~ Val 1120 MSC)ACKSON Dueon ty f0 BOX 450 ' A 1 .1HUit1RD OA 9750f Prim Street u r Ash6nd _ Oreg'oni . i _ MAI JOB NO. 3.1180 DRAV1N RS RS OF 7 DWGS 4 Lup- DATt July 2003 --M i i I PERIMETER FOOTING FINISHED GRADE COMPACTED SAIL OR SLAB SLOPE FILTER FABRIC DRAINROCK 4" DIAMETER PVC PERFORATED PIPE WITH PERFS DOWN 2» c,? Foundation Drain NOTES: 1. Install drain prior to forming footing. Compact drainrock with mechanical equipment. 2. Excavate foundation drain trench smoothly and uniformly to prevent pooling. DRAWING rs41-7 M-r4is b ~ ~ 1'' R .KM rfli-M-4479 g WO MST JACKSON Val ~ al Dam Fb,d, . j Yo BOX 490 17 MHDPORD OR97SOI Prim Street { t Medford Oregon [ ~z1! I , r 1 [ ( ,(M JOB NO. 3-1180 DRAWN RS - . RS r~ f >F nATF TuTv 2003 CHECKED F LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURE'S The laboratory testing program was directed toward a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the physical and mechanical properties of the soils underlying the site. The natural water content was determined on five samples of the materials recovered from the pits in general accordance with the AS TM Test Method D2216. These water contents are recorded on the logs at the appropriate sample depths. The percent soil fraction passing the #200 sieve was determined on three samples of the subsurface soils in general accordance with the ASTM Test Method D1140 to aid in the classification of the soils. The results of these tests are shown on the logs at the appropriate sample depths. Free swell tests were performed on two samples of the soil materials to evaluate the swelling potential of the materials. The tests were performed by pouring ten mL of the dry materials into a 100 nnL graduated cylinder containing about 40 mL of distilled water. The mixture was stirred repeatedly and allowed to equilibrate for 24 hours, then distilled water was added up to the 100 nnL mark. The graduated cylinder was left undisturbed to equilibrate. The free-swell volume was then noted. The percent free swell was calculated by dividing the free-swell volume by ten and multiplying by 100 percent. The results of these tests are presented on the logs. Di-awing No. 3 fr } raj<~ / ~ ' 1 w f J t 4,.1 1 ' F- ce T' Uf[j~~ t ICJ r F°Q t ~~"°`^ta l !I ~ ~ v'n Wig- t j W w ~n c f r 5j/ ca U)o u y w ut f ! rf Cq 1 Sr ~gtt~4' ann°i m oa~ to o oo ~I V I j r _rn r l a~ tl :x ~p-~ N to tj 0 Sax „ . ~>1~ • _ ~ ( % t ililr ~.u r ~ 15~ i "_-,!t - ~ ~/•Y~~°J `air,. na`~~ ryo o~lt-~~ 1 N ~ i ^r` rft r ~J r ! / v ( tiy,rysy f U J !f / ! r rttt~l~ >ti%'' ! Rac I t ! ~t '41v a` cl? d r♦iV / ~a- ! I /1°~ ttl cr. 06Q~'/ Ak / ♦ I'/ f t r ! / / a.1 r ! % !y - I ti n i r • 4 A I ' 1/ V ! ~ I r ♦ t..> ~ 0 1 I of ~ ~ • rl,~ %'~d t f 1, La 1 1 ~ c'° ryc~Ir f u \ / T / I mr/r nI wpm hp~' lc ~h p 1 t-.. ~ ~ : t ~ r ~ " ~ i'' ! 1ff/ •~t J r J ~ i T \ ! ~,LpCr 6,~' hl ~ t%, \ c~ 91 t r ~ J w w C) s~ `o iiz t-OlW O "~K~~~ZZZLC~~x ~ h az~; ~oo~~Q w IJ a= m2WO W tJ wo u)QU° 2YV4_`ai 4O F.`i ~ N h t~ o° ?_wWC~O'wS04a O 000 ~y M~ x4u4.2 ~w~~ ° `U" Q ttpp 41 tC Z l~ W W w Ir, ~ I) ,4Ca$a1~~ KWW2pOtti ti C1 O O O p I,~ as in Ln 3~q o wcitit'ua q w n F` C cw(~u!~~ 4 R a`>' V)G~~41Yy ~24 x"985[ICC$ ~'t tt0. W~ 3..~~ °~`°o ~m > S k= 4~ T.Ln }YTS ~ ~octm?- p 4 Ww tto--wN.- ~ ¢ ¢ * 4. i~a 3 ~aa~ItZ O~O~ k Rr q tC :t0 .e~~ ~ too . 6 ~ Z1~ilU R,iU 561 to 0.J h N k) SS O ~ U U U U ti p 199 a `i a s}~Ga O (rye O ~ "-~tey~ h ~ an ~ ^i ~ ~ V 3O 3 0. x~ k ®-~A ~N O4. 1,61 `,p1 16 u ° M1~rv ra~ J.7,7,ffJ,S fd' K M1° s 5 C u - ~'G9t a o~ 6b'4C1 'Ol 0'SC ~Q-a, q4 ~+3 w / p y_a t a ° o~ ern W~ ry., ro w a a z O Va ~ O '+J v O~ z o~ o boF z u U q g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U$k o Ir"' u ~ a Ol ~ E .atii rv 1 ~ O ay2 N- rte, p kJ 'C; d _ z ° ) n $ IN ~ "~I "1 ~ ~ ePi N LJ laj h ry ` w ¢ A ~ R41 ~ ~i Utai)v) 'o o Paa ' 9 ~y1 1T ~ ~ O ~ Q3~~n ^ry°\ rcN ~ ry° ~ a I; r~ ~i lJ ,-WS "'a h0 LZ ~ 'S 3.SZ.ORON ory v w C o / /k lY n ~ ~ W' / A 1 J VUj Y Y ~ C ~ - 1M M1 ! ry ~ $ $ ti az M1~ xw ~ ~ 4 0. ~ X w`' M1° nu ~ win ~ry°'a a !q o u a- n w ♦ /M1 -10 ~ ~ ~ s ~ er < J ry b` ° 0 3 a a w z w i4 ~w 4 Z 2 r Ip 4t Q Z M141 . 4 '1p Z 4 2~ 2 2 ry° O D $ > Z 5 XU U a a q~ z ry° ~ / a Q a~ ~ w X 1~jt 4 4 ~ ~ W z tiS / c~v n vii C A ll N p II ry° M1~ U S] 4a C1 Wa Lo S tigY h~ o h°~ '4 3 C', W a 4 / g r u n e u n O O O I LO 03 N& 4 d f 4 ti ~ LY"001 '$Z ~ a ~f a ~ `d a ® 3 z ~ l o ~ I 0 3Nn 101 H1aON ® / ` , w I l ~ ~ I ~I ~ I ~~I ~ w I I Ala dOad H1aON / ' I - / t H01 aNI lOl lN~ / .-I~ co N ee ~Q 1 E- ? e~~e I I w j ~ / ` a w / ~ I o / I I li / Ico / / III 1 ~.g£ - Imo,-~ ~ X ~ I 1 I I~ C~ O ~ ~ i I Q i 3N 1 l' .OV.I.Z I ~ m ~ II N Al aoaa H1aoN ® I /0Q \ li m Opp t /LS Z ct, j ~ 3NI1101 H1730N ~ ~ ~ O~ O (~N ~ 0~ ~ ~ ~ - N Q ~ N ~ ~ ryp~ pip 4~p / , ti tip / p ^Mro 00 a~ V ~ ~ rypp I / d / /ego i I Ala" - :k u 1 I I ~ ~ i _ I I, ON h i ~I LL ~ kl ~ti_ 1' ~ I C _ i - I ' i I a~ - I ~~1Jy = - ~ _ L J C III Q4 _ ;f r ~ o rc: I i Z I a I m _ r ~ i = n 1 you o~ LLT- n LLR~ e T - - aim z T U y I 6 '7_779t NN Y) N L L J W w a 6, I L L 1 l ~ Ct 4 L - _ - 1 ^ C N o ; I' I LL J V ~ Z Z W I W ' WZ 0 ui - z a > _ V ^ / I LU / z / O n / I O ~I i O`er p~L / ~O i i I zlQ I I- W I >C ~ I I LU i i <E ~ \ I i~ it i I II ; co ;I I I I; ~ I k' % / I I 0 I i Opp" I Z I ry 1 W ~ ~O ~ ryp ryphp p~Q~ / dry' I p i z w uj w ,I - l w % i I IV/ I I I i ?I ~ W , U) > x~ LU r, w i I i I f, LLJ f/ D - J CD z ZIQ ~w WIC ~ W D 0 i% . . . . i W co D 0 c~ z CO I' I i z i~ I w r N' ~ , r- ;r i r i 0 z rr I LL r )I / w O 1 O~ h0 ~~N 4jp~ i AV i r ~ I I Job Address: 715 PRIM ST Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A, Owner's Name: BLUE MARIPOSA LLC O Phone: P Customer 09215 N State Lic No: P BLUE MARIPOSA LLC T City Lic No: L Applicant: 2532 OLD MILL WAY R Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: (510) 913-5110 1- Address: N Applied: 02/17/2017 O T Issued: Expires: 08/16/2017 Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: 391 E05BD2208 City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: Type 1 P & E VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Physical Constraints Permit 1,022.00 DITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-/ 20 East Main St. Fax: 541 . Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2_r; :i wwww.ashland.or.us CITY OF Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 I i I' Ii F! I I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts understood and agreed to the following: Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance will, code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: (180 days). $ 0.00 $ 0.00 . 2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection sl-icje. 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 y advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 4. Responsibility for complying with all applic;-ible federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 1,022.00 $ 1,022.00 or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Sub-Total: $ 1,022.00 Fees Paid: $ 1,022.00 Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-482-53x5 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-482-531 1 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 C I Y )F i