HomeMy WebLinkAboutTerrace_134_PA-2011-00256
CITY OF
ASHLAND
April 13, 2011
Urban Development Services
485 W Nevada St.
Ashland OR 97520
Notice of Final Decision
On April 12, 2011, the Staff Advisor for the Ashland Planning Division administratively approved your
request for the following:
PLANNING ACTION: 2011-00256
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 134 Terrace /19 Hillcrest
APPLICANT: Carolyn and David Allman
DESCRIPTION: A request for Physical and Environmental Constraints review permit approval for
Hillside Development t6 construct a new single-family residence on a vacant parcel located at 134 Terrace Street.
Also included are a Lot Line Adjustment, and Variances (2) to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 11 feet,
six and Yz inches and to make the existing non-conforming lot, which is wider than it is deep, more non-conforming
through the Lot Line Adjustment. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39.1E 09CA; TAX LOT: 11300 & 11301
The Staff Advisor's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13th day after the Notice of Final
Decision is mailed.
Prior to that date, anyone who was mailed this Notice Of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of
the action by the Staff Advisor as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO)
18.1 08.070(B)(2)(b) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in the ALUO
18,1 08.070(B)(2)( c).
An appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. 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 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.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available
for review at no cost 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.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Department of Community
Development between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-~305.
cc: Carolyn & David Allman
Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E, Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: 2011-00256
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 134 Terrace /19 Hillcrest
APPLICANT: Carolyn and David Allman
DESCRIPTION: A request for Physical and Environmental Constraints review permit
approval for Hillside Development to construct a new single-family residence on a vacant parcel
located at 134 Terrace Street. Also included are a Lot Line Adjustment, and Variances (2) to reduce
the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 11 feet, six and ~ inches and to make the existing non-
conforming lot, which is wider than it is deep, more non-conforming through the Lot Line Adjustment.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 IE 09CA; TAX LOT: 11300 & 11301
SUBMITTAL DATE:
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE:
STAFF APPROVAL DATE:
FINAL DECISION DATE:
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE:
March 4, 2011
March 23,2011
April 12, 2011
April 26, 2011
April 26, 2012
DECISION
The parcel is zoned single-family residential, R-1-7.5. The parcel is classified as Hillside Lands
because the site includes slopes 25 percent and greater, and is located on the Hillside Lands map. The
applicant is requesting a Physical Constraints Review Permit to build a single-family home, a Variance
to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet for a two story structure to 11 feet, 6 ~ inches. The request
also includes a Lot Line Adjustment and a Variance to the Lot Line Adjustment criteria to make an
existing non-forming lot, which is currently more wide than deep, more non-conforming through the
proposed Lot Line Adjustment.
The subject property is east of Terrace Street just past where the paved portion ends and the gravel
begins. The parcel has a Terrace Street frontage of 120-feet and is 48-feet, six inches deep and is 5,293
square feet in size. This is below the minimum lot size for the zone. The parcel slopes to the north and
east with slopes between 26 and 32 percent. The property is presently vacant and contains a number of
Pines, Oaks, and Madrone trees.
According to the deed records for the property, the parcel was created in the 1940s, in the early 1970s
the property at 19 Hillcrest was partitioned from the parent parcel, the subject property. The two
parcels were created prior to the Land Use Ordinance requirements requiring that all lots be wider than
deep and are considered, existing, non-conforming.
There is an existing driveway within the Terrace Street right-of-way along the west side of the lot,
which is also used by the neighboring properties at 110 Terrace and provides rear yard access to 9
Hillcrest. This driveway will provide the access to the new residence. It is a non-conforming driveway,
which would be subject to additional standards for width and grade if the lots and driveway access
were being created under current land use code.
The applicants are proposing to construct a single story with basement home. Due to the steep slope of
the parcel along the Terrace Street frontage, the applicant is taking advantage of the code section
PA2011-00256
134 Terrace St./adg
Page 1
(18.68,110. C,) which permits the front yard setback to be reduced to 10- feet when the slope is equal to
a one foot fall for each four feet of distance across the front of the parcel. The applicant has provided a
Geotechnic'al Engineering Report addressing the suitability of the site for construction and making
recommendations on site preparation, foundation construction, soil retention, and erosion control. The
proposed home complies with design standards for hillside home as required in Section 18.62 of the
Land Use Ordinance. The proposal shows numerous retaining walls to create the driveway
The property is also within the Historic Hargadine District and the applicant has addressed many of the
design requirements for structures within the Historic District. The Hargadine District is an eclectic
mixture of home designs, stories, roof forms, bulk and massing. Due to the small lot size the
applicant's structure is limited in size and at 2,208 square feet of living space is in keeping with the
size of other residences within the impact area. The applicant has also proposed variations in the gables
and the trim work adding interest and breaking up the linear fa<;ade fronting Terrace Street. The
Ashland Historic Commission reviewed the proposal at their April 5, 2011 meeting and found that the
subject property has constraints which make developing the site challenging, and added that these
challenges had been well-addressed through the proposed design which effectively blends new
construction with a historically compatible design well-suited to this location at the edge of the historic
district while taking into account the physical constraints of the site and its relationship to the right-of-
way, The Commissioners recommended approval of the request. The home is proposed to be painted a
neutral color which will blend with the surrounding structures and the landscape.
The utilities, water and overhead electric from Terrace Street are available to serve the property. The
applicant has proposed a Public Utility Easement across the parcel at 19 Hillcrest for a new sanitary
- sewer line, and storm drainage line down to Hillcrest. The proposal requires two off-street parking
spaces; the applicant has proposed a two-vehicle garage and has proposed to create a parking pad
within the Terrace Street right-of-way.
The tree survey indicates that there are 8 existing trees located' on and adj acent to the lot which will be
affected by the proposal. The applicant is proposing to remove 6 of these trees which are located
within the buildable area as well as for the proposed home and driveway area. The Ashland Tree
Commission reviewed the proposal at their April 7, 2011 meeting and expressed concern about
proposed mitigation specifically for the two large ponderosa pine trees (# 4 & 5 on tree inventory) the
ponderosa's are very large in stature with a significant canopy and that a dogwood or maple is nowhere
near an equivalent replacement. They made the following recommendation: That the two Ponderosa
Pine trees on site shall be mitigated for either off-site in accordance with 18.61.084.B with a tree that
will achieve similar size and stature at maturity as the ones removed or a Payment in lieu of planting as
set forth in 18.61.084,C. A condition reflecting this has been added. A landscape plan addressing re-
vegetation of the fill slopes and areas of disturbance has been submitted, an irrigation plan will be
required to be submitted with the building permit. The applicant has proposed to post a bond for 120%
of the value of the landscaping but that is only required for lots created after January 1, 1998 and will
not be required of them with this proposal.
Variance Requests:
The applicant has request two variances. The first is a Variance to the Lot Line Adjustment
requirements. Both parcels, 134 Terrace and 19 Hillcrest are preexisting, non-conforming lots in that
they are more wide than deep. According to Ashland Municipal Code, 18.20.040. C. Lot Depth: All lost
shall have a minimum depth of 80 feet...No lot shall have a width greater than its depth... To provide
for a more buildable lot, 19 Hillcrest rear lot line is being adjusted to provide 897 additional square
feet to 134 Hillcrest. Currently 19 Hillcrest is the parcel is 120,12 feet wide and 96 feet deep, This lot
PA 2011-00256
134 Terrace St./adg
Page 2
line adjustment will make 19 Hillcrest more non-conforming because the average depth will be
reduced to 90.6. According to the applicants findings both parcels are unique in that they are pre-
existing non-conforming, the orientation of 134 Terrace is unusual in that it is orientated parallel to
Terrace Street instead of the typical perpendicular orientation where the more narrow of frontages is
adjacent to the right-of-way, This variance will not have any negative impacts on neighbors or the
neighborhood. Both lots are legal lots of record and were cr~ated prior to the current owners purchase.
The second variance request is for a reduction in the rear yard setback. Due to the lot depth of only 48
feet with the lot line adjustment adding II-feet, 6-inches to the rear yard area will increase the lot
depth but not enough to provide for a the 20- foot setback as required by code. This variance as with the
variance to the Lot Line Adjustment is requested because of the non-conforming narrow lot depth.
Additionally, the benefit of the proposal permits a modest sized single-family home to be constructed
on the parcel.
Staff believes that the requests for the variances are the minimum necessary to permit a modest sized
home which complies with the other zoning regulations for the parcel to be constructed. The current lot
configurations are pre-existing, non-conforming conditions that were not self imposed by the applicant.
There will be no discernable negative impacts on the adjacent uses as a result of the proposal. The
applicant has done a commendable job in addressing the design requirements for the a new structure
within the Historic Hargadine District while maintaining compliance with the requirements of the
Physical and Environmental Constraints for Hillside Development.
The criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.62.040.1, as
follows:
1. That the development will not cause damage or hazard to persons or property upon or adjacent
to the area of development.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and
implemented reasonable measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
3. 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 are, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use
Ordinance.
4. That the development is in compliance with the requirements of the chapter and all other
applicable City Ordinances and Codes.
The criteria for a Variance is describe in AMC Chapter 18.100.020, as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically
apply elsewhere. .
B. That 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.
(ORD 2425, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed
PA 2011-00256
134 Terrace St./adg
Page 3
(ORD 2775,1996)
The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances.
Planning Action 2011-00256 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if anyone or more of
the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action
2011-00256 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 modified here.
2) That the survey for the Lot Line adjustment shall be filed, approved and recorded with Jackson
County prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify
this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
4) That all recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, dated May February 21,2011, by
Amrhein & Associates shall be instituted in the development of the property.
5) That the tree protection and temporary erosion control measures (i.e. silt fence and bale barriers)
shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials,
issuance of an excavation permit and issuance of a building permit. The erosion control measures
shall be installed as identified in the Amrhein & Associates report dated February 21, 2011. 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.
6) Requirements of the Ashland Fire Department regarding addressing, firefighter pathway around the
structure, and Wildfire fuel break shall be met.
7) A Right-of-Way Encroachment Permit for the installation of the parking pad, retaining walls and
walkway proposed within the Terrace Street Right-of-Way shall be approved and issued by the
City of Ashland Public Works Department prior to submittal of the building permit.
8) The easement for Storm Drainage and Sanitary Sewer shall be recorded on the property at 19
Hillcrest and evidence of the easement shall be provided to the Public Works Department.
9) A Miscellaneous Concrete Permit from the Public Works Department shall be obtained prior to the
installation of the Storm water drainage line and the Sanitary Sewer lines.
10) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) A storm drainage plan that shows compliance with 18.62.080.C and is designed by a
geotechnical expert. Storm water from the driveway surface shall be addressed with the
building permit submittals.
b) A written verification from the project geotechnical expert addressing the consistency of the
building permit submittals with the geotechnical report recommendations. The grading plan
created by the Landscape Architect and proposed retaining walls shall be correlated and
approved for compliance with 18.62.080.AA of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance,
c) The plans for the foundation of the new structure, which must be designed by an architect or .
engineer with geotechnical experience as required by Section 18.62.080.F.
PA 2011-00256
134 Terrace St./adg
Page 4
d) The proposed retaining walls shall be included with the building permit for the structure or with
a separate building permit. Building inspections of the retaining walls will be required.
d) Solar calculations in the form of: (H-6)/(0.445+ S) = Required Solar Setback shall be provided,
and the shadow producing point or points and their heights to natural grade identified on the
plans.
e) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation
areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 45 percent as required in AMC
18.20.040.F
f) Exterior lighting details demonstrating that the lights are appropriately shrouded, so there is no
direct illumination of surrounding properties.
g) An irrigation plan to include irrigation details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design
and Use Standards Water, Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies.
11) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) A preconstruction conference to review the requirements ofthe Hillside Development Permit
shall be held. The conference shall include the Ashland Planning Division, Ashla.i1d Building
Division, the design professional, the general contractor, geotechnical expert, landscape/tree
professional, and project engineer. Contact the Ashland Planning Division to schedule the
pre construction conference.
b) Tree protection measures shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and
approved by the Staff Advisor. No site work including any storage of materials shall occur
prior to completion of a Tree Protection Verification Permit inspection.
12) That prior to the final building permit inspections and / or issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be
installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to final building inspection. Vegetation
shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of
installation. .
b), That Amrhein &and Associates Geotechnical Engineering shall inspect the site according to the
Inspection Schedules of the geologic report. Amrhein & Associates shall provide final reports
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 proj ect
geotechnical experts periodically throughout the project.
c) That the two Ponderosa Pine trees on site shall be mitigated for either off-site in accordance
with 18.61.084.B with a tree that will achieve similar size and stature at maturity as the ones
removed or a Payment in lieu of planting as set forth in 18.61.084.C or $400.00 per tree. The
determined mitigation for the pine tree removal shall be selected. Evidence of off-site planting
(type, size and location oftrees) or payment to the City of Ashland Tree Fund shall be
submitted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
K 14- -- 4./2. II
J'v{aria Harris, Pl~ng Manager Date
Department of Community Development
PA 2011-00256
134 Terrace St./adg
Page 5
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CS 800 PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 11301 PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10300
ALLEN BARBARA A TRUSTEE ET AL ALLMAN DAVID W TRUSTEE ET AL BRITTNACHER JOHN G/MARTHAS
131 TERRACE ST 19 HILLCREST ST MARTA
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 160 HILLCREST ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CB 600 PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10400 PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10401
BRONK JAMES B TRUSTEE ET AL BURTON BOBBY L TRUSTEE ET AL BUZZO STUART D ET AL
50 EL MONTE WAY 2305-C ASHLAND ST504 163 MEADE ST
NAPA CA 94558 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 11400 PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10503 PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10200
CARR BRENT ANTHONY/REBA K CLAYTON DAVID S TRUSTEE ET AL DU V ALL PEGGY C
PO BOX 162 50 ALVARADO RD 165 MEAD ST
ASHLAND OR 97520 BERKELEY CA 94705 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10500 PA-2011-00256 391 E09BD 15100 PA-2011-00256 391E09BD 15300
GRAMLEY MOLLY MCCORMICK JOHNSON SARA LOU JULBER KRISTIN
TRUSTEE ET AL 4 HILLCREST ST 5 HILLCREST
135 MEADE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 11500 PA-2011-00256 391E09BD 15000 PA-2011-00256 391 E09BD 15400
MOLNAR W E/L MASSELL MRAZ DOYNE/CORINNE (LE) NEFF ANA M
155 HILLCREST PO BOX 158 3 HILLCREST ST
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391E09BD 15200 PA-2011-00256 391 E09BC 8000 PA-2011-00256 391 E09CB 900
PATTON KENT D/AMY S PATTON WILLIAM W/SHIRLEY D SAMMONS WILLIAM M TRUSTEE ET AL
9 HILLCREST ST 110 TERRACE ST 155 TERRACE ST
ASHLAND OR 97520 I ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10502 PA-2011-00256 PA-2011-00256
SHELTON TALBOT JR LIVING TRUST Urban Development Services Design Residential Inc.
131 MEADE ST 485 W Nevada St 191 Elm Av, Ste 106
ASHLAND OR 97520 Ashland OR 97520 Medford, OR 97501
PA-2011-00256 PA-2011-00256 23
Amrhein Associates Inc Laurie Sager & Associates "'3::23::1,1<;JOC-
706 Jefferson Av 700 Mistletoe Rd, Ste 201 19 Hillcrest & 134 Terrace
Ashland OR 97520 Ashland OR 97520
Amy Gunter
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kent Patton [kentpatton@jeffnet.org] .
Wednesday, April 06, 2011 4:45 PM
guntera@ashland.or.us
134 Terrace Street - Allmann Residence
Amy Gunter
Assistant Planner
City of Ashland
Amy
I appreciate the time at your office you spent discussing the plans for the proposed home at
134 Terrace. The information you provided and the detailed responses to my questions made me
feel very comfortable with the process and procedures you are following. After our meeting I
was able to meet with both Wayne and Carolyn Allman and found them very gracious and open to
discuss their plans. It was sad to see the big Ponderosa's will need to go but understand
that they tried their best to preserve them. I liked the plans and think they have done a
careful job to create a home that works well in that location. We discussed a shared
maintenance for the eventual shared driveway with 110 Terrace and I am sure a good agreement
will be reached. Wayne and I share the driveway for #9 and #19 Hillcrest and we have had no
problems sharing costs to keep it in good shape. I hope the plan for 134 goes through the
process at the city and is approved so the our neighbors can start building their dream home.
Best regards,
Kent Patton
#9 Hillcrest St
Ashland, Oregon
1
Planning Department, 51 Winb Vay, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2UoO www,ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
CITY Of
ASHLAN
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: 2011-00256
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 134 Terrace /19 Hillcrest
APPLICANT: Carolyn and David Allman
DESCRIPTION: A request for Physical and Environmental Constraints review permit approval for
Hillside Development to construct a new single-family residence on a vacant parcel located at 134 Terrace Street. Also
included are a Lot Line Adjustment, and Variances (2) to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 11 feet, six and ~
inches and to make the existing non-conforming lot, which is wider than it is deep, more non-conforming through the
Lot Line Adjustment. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 IE 09CA; TAX LOT: 11300 & 11301
NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on April 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on April 7, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Development
and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way,
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 23,2011
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: Apri/6, 2011
o 20 40 80 Feel
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
prior to 4:30 p.m, on the deadline date shown above.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to
surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more
than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to
the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staffs decision must be made in writing to the
Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040)
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by
letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that
criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department
to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided
at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51
Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
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\planninglNotices Mailed\2011\2011-00256.doc
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
18,62,040. I Criteria for Approval
A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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 permitted development permitted by the land Use Ordinance.
(ORD 2808,1997; ORD 2834,1998; ORD 2951,2008)
VARIANCE
18,100.020 Application
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans
and elevations necessary to show the proposed development Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing that all of
the following circumstances exist:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere.
8, That 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.
(ORD 2425, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
(ORD 2775, 1996)
G:\comm-dev\planninglNotices Mailed\2011\2011-00256.doc
,
I
I
I
AM3^,o'-0!:)-008- L
WOJ'ItI9^e'MMM
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CB 800
ALLEN BARBARA A TRUSTEE ET AL
131 TERRACE ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CB 600
BRONK JAMES B TRUSTEE ET AL
50 EL MONTE WAY
NAPA CA 94558
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 11400
CARR BRENT ANTHONY/REBA K
PO BOX 162
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10500
GRAMLEY MOLLY MCCORMICK
TRUSTEE ET AL
135 MEADE
ASHLAND OR 97520
P A-20 11-00256 391 E09CA 11500
MOLNAR W E/L MASSELL
155 HILLCREST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391E09BD 15200
PATTON KENT D/AMY S
9 HILLCREST ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10502
SHELTON TALBOT JR LIVING TRUST
131 MEADE ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256
Amrhein Associates Inc
706 Jefferson Av
Ashland OR 97520
f ~
{ @09LS @AHiM.V ~
r ,wdn-dod pAoqaJ al AeI9^~lJ
: ep uue eAmpeq el ~ ze!ldell
:j.uew.a6Jeq,
ep sues
T
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 11301
ALLMAN DAVID W TRUSTEE ET AL
19 HILLCREST ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10400
BURTON BOBBY L TRUSTEE ET AL
2305-C ASHLAND ST 504
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10503
CLAYTON DAVID S TRUSTEE ET AL
50 ALVARADO RD
BERKELEY CA 94705
PA-2011-00256 391E09BD 15100
JOHNSON SARA LOU
4 HI~LCREST ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391E09BD 15000
MRAl DOYNE/CORINNE (LE)
PO BOX 158
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09BC 8000
PATTON WILLIAM W/SHIRLEY D
110 TERRACE ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256
Urban Development Services
485 W Nevada St
Ashland OR 97520
PA-2011-00256
Laurie Sager & Associates
700 Mistletoe Rd, Ste 201
Ashland OR 97520
r w~~~~~!1~~~~ ~~~~~a -- Jaded paed
I _ T
f
I
I
I
@09LS @AH3A" ~!Jeqe6 al zas!I!ln
Jalad ~ sal!)e~ sau.anbrl-;l
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10300
BRITTNACHER JOHN G/MARTHAS
MARTA
160 HILLCREST ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10401
BUllO STUART D ET AL
163 MEADE ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CA 10200
DU VALL PEGGY C
165 MEAD ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391E09BD 15300
JULBER KRISTIN
5 HILLCREST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391E09BD 15400
NEFF ANA M
3 HILLCREST ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256 391 E09CB 900
SAMMONS WILLIAM M TRUSTEE ET AL
155 TERRACE ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2011-00256
Design Residential Inc.
191 Elm Av, Ste 106
Medford, OR 97501
23
3-23-11 NOC
19 Hillcrest & 134 Terrace
f
I
I
I
@09~S tl:J.eldwal@fuaAvaSn
slaqel @Iaad Ase3
1501
1400
800
900
1501
IY
A" 1401
@ Please recycle with colored office grade paper
12600 '~100' ': 1.2:300 ,/' 1~iOO/ i
:~~(;i~'l,it2.(jO,~, I ;11900 I
1_ '<,l~~1.;>', 111300 I nllOO .'00
13300 1'-1t " . P!~.
"'::y1~": ~~ i 116OO! . J
GLiBNVIE\v ... ...'% <1'1:00;">""
"\13.S(}(Jii",.. .;'1'1400
\ it' .". ,.,J'
\.13600 .'
15.600 '\'{3100'
1<\ ,t'"'"
\(
\,
15400
1S300
15200
11400
11S(}(Ji
SUMMIT
11600 11602
IJI
lj
rJ:
I1i
~
11100
11800 11801
I-
fit
t.i:
o
;;j
j;;
10000
10502
1ll!iO-3
10000
10400
10401
10300
10200
SLIMMIT
10001
1 (JOO()
9flOO
0000
Created with MapMaker
14900
1101
PEARl
1001
9001
9100
~
~
92.00
92:01
9300
JACKSON COUNTY
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Map Maker
Application
Front Counter Legend
Selected Features
i i Tax Lot OuUlnes
Tax Lot Numbers
JACKSON
COUNTY
oregon
fMoo
This map Is based on a digital database
compiled by Jackson County From a variety
of sources, Jackson County cannot accept
responsibily for errors, omissions, or
posilional accuracy. There are no
warrantles, expressed or Implied,
Map created on 3/221201111:41:06 AM using web.Jacksoncounty.org
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 23, 2011 I 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 #2011-00267,134 Terrace/19 Hillcrest.
G:lcomm-devlplanningIForms & HandoutslAffidavit of Mailing_Planning Action Notice,doc
FINDINGS OF FACT AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR
CAROLYN & WAYNE ALLMAN
19 HILLCREST STREET, ASHLAND OR 97520
~J'd\~IT
FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE FOR THE
PROPERTY AT 19 HILLCREST STREET AND A REAR YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE AND A PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
ON IDLLSIDE LANDS ON THE EXISTING VACANT PARCEL
LOCATED AT 134 TERRACE STREET
SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ASHLAND, OREGON
SUBMITTED BY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC.
485 WEST NEVADA STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
I. PROJECT INFORMATION:
PLANNING ACTION: The applicants are requesting approval for an application
involving two legal lots of record that include a Variance to one of the lots' existing non-
conforming width status and a second Variance for the other lot's rear yard setback. The
request includes a Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a two-story
single family residence on the existing vacant parcel located at 134 Terrace Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 391E 09CA 11300 & 11301
OWNERS:
Carolyn & Wayne Allman
19 Hillcrest Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541-488-8112
APPLICANT/LAND USE PLANNING:
Urban Development Services, LLC
485 W. Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541-482-3334
DRAFTING & DESIGN
Design Residential, Inc.
1910 Elm Avenue, Suite 106
Medford, Or 97501
Tel: 541-608-3956
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
706 Jefferson Avenue
Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541-482-6680
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS:
Laurie Sager & Associates
700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 201
Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541-488-1446
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION:
R-1-7.5; Single Family Residential
HISTORIC DISTRICT:
Siskiyou- Hargadine
2
ADJACENT ZONING/USE:
WEST: RR-.5-P; Rural Residential/Single Family Residence
EAST: R-1-7.5; Single Family Residence
SOUTH: R-1-7.5; Single Family Residence
NORTH: R-1-7.5; Single Family Residence
SUBJECT SITE: R-1-7,5; Single Family Residence
LOT AREA:
19 Hillcrest Street: 11,761 sq. ft. (existing) /19,836 sq, ft. (proposed)
134 Terrace Street: 5,793 sq. ft. (existing) / 6,718 (proposed)
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES:
Single Family Residential, Chapter 18.20
Physical & Environmental Constraints, Chapter 18.62
Lot Line Adjustment, Chapter 18,76
Variances, Chapter 18.100
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The following information has been provided by the applicants to help the Planning Staff,
Planning Commission and neighbors understand the proposed project. In addition, the
required findings of fact included below have been provided to ensure the proposed
project meets the Variance Criteria found in Section 18.100 and Physical &
Environmental Constraints Criteria for Development Standards on Hillside Lands found
in Section 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
History: Since 1993 the applicants have resided on the property located at 19 Hillcrest
Street where they had raised their two children who have since grown and moved. The
adjacent parcel to the west, 134 Terrace Street, has also been in the applicant's ownership
since this time. In 2009, the applicants had attempted to add onto their existing home at
19 Hillcrest, spent a significant amount of time, energy and money, but incurred
resistance due to the home's historic significance, In response, the applicants are now
proposing to construct a new residence on the rear vacant parcel and thereby retain the
historic house along Hillcrest Street intact.
Proposal: The applicants desire to construct a reasonably sized and reasonably configured
residence on the vacant parcel along Terrace Street. Unfortunately, the subject parcel is
very unusual in that its orientation is contrary to typical lot orientations due to the fact
that its width along Tenace Street is 120', but its depth only 48'-6". When one considers
the slope of the property and general zoning regulations for building setbacks, the depth
of the building's footprint could be reduced to 18' -6" and thus extremely limiting and
contextually unbalanced when compared to neighboring residences. That said, the
proposal includes a Lot Line Adjustment and two Variances as described below,
Lot Line Adiustment: The applicants currently own the two subject parcels and desire to
adjust the shared property line in order to expand the building area and thus provide
flexibility for the new home's limited footprint. The Lot Line Adjustment, as illustrated
3
on the attached site plans, shifts a portion of the shared boundary 11.5' X 78 adjusting the
parcels' lot area by approximately 897 square feet. Other than the Variance (1) as
described below, the lot line adjustment has no impacts on the various City zoning
standards such as building setbacks or minimum lot size as the existing home at 19
Hillcrest is single-story and the rear setback is 10' as identified, After the reduction of
897 square feet, the lots Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) is approximately 2,748
square feet and the existing home at 19 Hillcrest has only 987 square feet, according to
Jackson County Permit records.
Variance (1): Both of the subject lots are legal lots of record, but both do not comply with
Section 18.20.040 ofthe Ashland Municipal Code which reads as follows:
C. Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80) feet, and a maximum
depth of one hundred fifty (150) feet unless lot configuration prevents further
development of the back of the lot. Maximum lot depth requirements shall not apply to
lots created by a minor land partition. No lot shall have a width greater than its deoth,
and no lot shall exceed one hundred fifty (ISO) feet in width. ({!mohasis added)
Like most lots within the urban core of the City Ashland, the subject lots were created
prior to the width/depth standard being adopted. The intent of the standard is an urban
"infill" and "infrastructure accountability" tool to preclude "new" lot divisions/partitions
that propose a lot's width greater than its depth as wide lots along a city street generally
create a pattern of "flag lot" scenarios such as those found on middle Clay Street. Further,
wide lots along a public street become burdensome to maintain for tax payers as they
create an inefficient ratio of road frontage to unit frontage. In this case, both lots are pre-
existing, can not be further divided and are not anymore of a burden to maintain
regardless of the outcome of the proposal.
Most importantly, the intent of the standard has "nothing" to do with the proposal at hand
as it really only applies to new land divisions/partitions, but because it exists and
continues to remain without any Council interpretation, all existing lots, regardless of
their small and undividable size, are labeled "legal non-conforming" and subject to a
Variance entitlement as proposed herein.
Variance (2): In regards to the Terrace Street lot, the applicants are requesting a Variance
of 10' for the required 20' rear yard setback due to the lot's odd street orientation along
the street and limited lot depth. In the vast majority oflots within the City, lot patterns are
oriented where the narrow portion of the lot's width fronts the street and the long depth
sits perpendicular to the street (see examples below on Page 5 of a "typical" lot
orientation VS. the subject lot's orientation).
Overall, the subject lot is generally the same size, width, depth and shape of most lots in
Ashland, but its orientation along the street is unusual. The Variance will allow the
property owners the ability to construct a home that is similar to many of the other homes
found in the neighborhood as the expanded buildable area creates a functional and
reasonably sized home that looks like any other home in Ashland,
4
'.':"J"'.
"".. '.IO;:~.,.'
/,
~
o f~;~
P;,...
"2
'-.' .
.._....'''..~_......."..---.iff;-"\A'.'''-'"'''"._--".,, _. i
~ 8100
~ 0,105;',(;
z
~?~::.~,~~'^
1200 -0'7-... "".
D.2o"'''' / i":,, -'.
/
."'''..
€
"[--..
WJ
'" W
[g ~. '.
[--..1'
S .,.,. .':/) /
,,", .,,,...<...,_....~...... ~....",.<....... ~..,......~.....,.....~..... '~:, '. J " '...... ~"" ..." .., ..... ....... ~" .......,,".., -~ .....,' ....:!,''-. ......,: ,\ .~'
I ~ ';~l " 011-' .. .. '. . "< ... '... ...~ .... ~~',
" 8101
}; !L2DAt;;
CS 7&45
11'..~ ;,,,~.
8GOO
IL2::J:Ar:.
~f
'J
I
~I
j
,.
7-9DO
Ci.4!lAo
t,.~i;:';\:i
:l.
ll:>'J,lK)
gl
'\,
r
~I
:i:!
,.
r '\ 7.9UO
4. ,~y O.20Ao
-',
'.
Instead of a "typical"
perpendicular lot orientation
as illustrated above, the
subject lot as outlined to the
left is parallel with Terrace
Street creating an unusual
circumstance with the zone's
setback standards where the
"front" is along Terrace
Street and the "rear" opposite
leaving a very narrow
eighteen foot (18') building
depth. The combination of
the Lot Line Adjustment and
Variance (2) will allow for a
more standardized 41' ,
building depth - which is very
similar to typical oriented
lots.
Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit (P&E): Due to the lot's location on a
hillside with slopes exceeding 25%, the applicants are requesting a Physical &
Environmental Constraints Permit (P&E) to construct a two-story single family
residence. The subject property is somewhat rectangular shaped with 120' of frontage
along Terrace Street (width) and 48' in depth along the nOliheast side and 60' in depth
along the south east side (due to proposed adjustment). The parcel is eastern facing with
5
slopes ranging from 25% on the northern end and 32% on the southern end. The property
has six trees greater than 6" in diameter at breast height (dbh), five of which are proposed
to be removed as indicated on the Tree Removal and Tree Protection Plan (L-1.0) due to
their close relationship to the site's proposed earth disturbance areas as well as the trees
health, age or close relationship to another structure creating an unsafe situation for not
only the subject propeliies, but also the neighboring residences.
Note: Additional clarification has been provided below starting on Page 9 that addresses
the home's compliance with the City's Hillside Development Standards.
Geoteclmical Engineering: The proposed plans have been designed in concert with a
Geotechnical Engineer, with the objective to ensure slope stability for all cut and fill
areas. Submitted with the findings is a report by Mark Amrhein, Amrhein Associates,
mc" (February 21S\ 2011) which discusses the site's ability to accommodate the
proposed home as well as certain retaining and slope preservation techniques to not only
address structural soundness, but also reduce adverse erosion impacts, Further, the report
identifies specific periods at which inspections will be needed by the Engineer which the
applicants agree with.
House Plans - Hillside Issues: Although the proposed home is within the Ashland
Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District and not subject to the design standards required for
hillside homes (Section 18.62.080 E.2. - Development Standards for Hillside Lands), the
submitted house plans clearly illustrate the applicants' attempt to comply with this
section of code in order to mitigate building mass and scale, but also fit contextually into
the neighborhood. However, it should be clearly understood that the proposed home, due
to the grade of the property, sits "below" Terrace Street by approximately 12' to 14' and
will not be as visible to the streetscape as depicted on the elevation drawings. Finally, the
Planning and Historic Commission should also be aware that the applicants and designer
explored a variety of design scenarios that kept the house at the same elevation of Terrace
Street and a direct driveway access into a top floor garage, but due to the extreme height,
volume and mass it presented on the east side as well as the inability to meet the City's
Solar Access Ordinance, the submitted plans quickly became the obvious only choice,
House Plans - Design: As noted above, the proposed home will sit below the Terrace
Street right-of-way due to the site's 25 - 32% east sloping grade. Further, because the
Terrace Street right-of-way is significantly wider than the actual street pavement area, the
home sits further down the slope (approximately 22'), Neveliheless, the applicants have
put a significant amount of consideration and expense into the home's exterior that is
considerate and inviting, The design incorporates a number of unique elements that give
the home character and break up mass and scale such as its multiple vertical roof lines
that intersect with the home's main horizontal gable as well as the use and mixture of
materials that accentuate its entrance, windows, and eaves. Further, because of the
home's linear orientation and the site's severe grades, the designer has incorporated a
horizontal base that helps "ground" the structure into the hillside which also appears to
minimize its verticality from the home along Hillcreast. Lastly, an effort was made to
limit to reduce the mass and scale of the proposed home on the downhill neighbors to the
east (property owned by applicants) which resulted in minimizing the east side gables,
use of earth tone colors and setting the home deeper into the hillside in order to limit the
mass. Note: If the main floor was elevated to the Terrace Street elevation, the height of
6
the home at the rear would have been approximately 12' to 14' higher than proposed and
loom over the adjacent residence.
The horne's garage sits under the main floor and is accessed from the north side ofthe lot
minimizing it and its driveway's appearance from Terrace Street. Because of the site's
steep slopes, a considerable amount of effort has been incorporated in the grading plan to
ensure the driveway's approach does not exceed the required 15% grade which is
essential in this area of Ashland due to prolonged icy conditions in the winter months. A
small turn around area has also been incorporated into the driveway allowing for vehicles
to enter onto Terrace Street in a safe and forward manner,
The lower floor is generally the same footprint of the upper floor, but is defined as a
daylight basement as more than 50% of its floor area is recessed into the hillside and
back-filled with earth. In addition to the garage, the lower floor has a bathroom, home
office space and two bedrooms, The main floor is 1,665 square feet and consists of the
kitchen, dining, living and master bedroom space. The main floor also incorporates a
covered deck on the north and open deck on the east sides allowing for exterior leisure,
gathering and dining.
Site Grading: The combination of efforts to reduce the mass and scale of the proposed
home by recessing it into the hillside, tucking its garage under the house, the limited lot
depth and the simple fact that the property has slopes ranging from 25% to 32% has
created a unique challenge to the property owners. However, the project's applicants,
Designer, Landscape Architect and Geotechnical Engineer have collaborated agreeably to
produce a plan that clearly meets the intent and purpose of the Hillside Ordinance, but
also is contextually compatible to the neighborhood.
Evidence of the efforts can be seen in the site's grading plan starting at Terrace Street
where the pedestrian access is accommodated by a combination of short retaining walls
(no greater than 3') and sloped pathways leading to the front door. Vehicle access is
accommodated by a short retaining wall at Terrace Street (less than a 1') and extending to
the side and rear of the property (no greater than 3') in order to make sure the driveway's
grade complies with City regulations and vehicles can enter and exit in a safe manner.
Along the east property line, a new retaining wall is proposed that replaces a portion of
an unstable 9' rockery wall with a 6' versa-lock wall.
Front Yard Exception: The applicants have chosen to construct the front of the home
within 10' of the Terrace Street propeliy line (front yard area) which is typically 15', but
due to the severe grades between the right-of-way and the front yard setback area
(25%+), the codes (18.68.110 C,) automatically permit an applicant to reduce the front
yard setback to 10' which was essentially written to address hillside lots like the subject
lot in order to reduce a horne's rear mass and scale and also shorten vehicular access.
NOTE: Interestingly, this section of code was "likely" written with the understanding the
street's edge extended to the property line creating a short bridge to the home, but in this
case, the street's edge is already 18' to 22' from the property line creating a situation that
if a bridge design was proposed it would be much lengthier than anticipated by code and
further exasperate the rear ofthe horne's mass and scale.
7
Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA): As noted, the proposed lot is 6,718 square feet
(with lot line adjustment) having a MPF A of 2,246 square feet. The proposed home,
minus exempt area such as the basement area, has a floor area of 1,665 square feet. Note:
Typical of hillside homes, the floor under the main floor by default becomes a daylight
basement - weather desired by homeowners or not. The alternative is an understructure
with unaesthetic qualities (long posts or pillars, exposed mechanical equipment, etc.) and
insensitive to downhill neighbors. That said, the applicants desire to enclose this space
and make use of its utility with a garage and approximately 723 square feet of additional
living area.
The existing home at 19 Hillcreast is significantly under its MPF A as the home is less
than a 1,000 square feet and the MPFA above 2,700 square feet.
Utilities: Utilities are available to this property and served from both Terrace and
Hillcrest Streets, Electricity and Water service is to be served from Terrace Street and
Sewer and Storm Water is served by Hillcrest via a utility easement extending down the
southern boundary of 19 Hillcrest (owned by applicants). The placement of the utility
lines have been strategically located by the project's Landscape Architect (also an
Arborist), Civil Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer to minimize tree impacts and limit
erosion potential.
Tree Protection and Removal: As illustrated on the attached landscaping plans,
specifically L1.0, of the site's six trees, five are proposed to be removed due to either
their health or conflict with the proposed home that creates a hazardous relationship with
the existing structures on 19 Hillcrest. Further, the applicants retained the services of a
second Arborist to evaluate the site's trees, specifically the Pine Trees along the east
property line (#4 and #6), who also agrees with the project's Landscape Architect (also
an Arborist) the trees should be removed due to their close proximity to the home's
foundation and driveway area (See attached 2/25/11 letter from Tom Myers, Upper
Limb-It), Overall, the applicants and project team members contend they have thoroughly
evaluated the house and site plans in accordance with AMC 18.68.080 (Development
Standards for Hillside Lands) and is further clarified below in the response to the
applicable criteria section of the applicant's findings,
The site's most significant tree, in terms of species in this area, is a young Oak Tree (15"
dbh) located on the lot's southeastern comer. Although the tree sits in a precarious
situation on a steep slope, the project Arborist(s) believe it can be saved and continue to
thrive. The Tree Protection and Removal Plan illustrate the tree protection fencing and
limits of earth disturbance. All site work will remain within the boundaries of the fencing
and prior to any site disturbance a Tree Removal Verification Permit will be obtained in
compliance with AMC 18.61.042 B,
Furthermore, the submitted plans include sheet L-4.0, the Planting Plan, showing a
variety of new trees, plants and groundcover appropriate for their aesthetic and soil
retention qualities. Installation of the landscaping and inigation will be completed prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless other alTangements are made with staff.
In addition, applicants will provide a perforn1ance bond in the amount of 120% of the
value of landscaping and inigation for re-vegetation of cut and fill slopes prior to
issuance of the building pennit.
8
Solar Access: The proposed home has been designed to meet the City's Solar Access
Standards (Class "A") noted in Chapter 18,070.040 A. The lot's average north/south
slope is - .15.5% and the tallest producing shadow point of the home is 23', The Solar
Access formula is as follows:
Standard:
H-6' / .445 + S
Where H = Height and S = North Slope
Proposal:
H = 23' and S = -.155 / .445 + (-.155) = -,029
Required Solar Setback: 17' / .29 = 58'
Proposed Solar Setback: 59'
18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands: The application is subject to a
number of development standards to ensure that development occurs in such a mal1l1er as
to protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental
resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health,
safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion,
sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or
scarring, It is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensitive form of
development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual
character of the city. As such, the development standards noted below are followed by the
applicant's responses of compliance:
A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in
Hillside Lands:
1. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes
greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below.
Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section
18.62.080.H.
a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall
be considered buildable for one unit.
b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35%
cannot be subdivided or partitioned.
All of the proposed development, including the driveway, will be on lands less than 35%.
2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building
envelope with a slope of 35% or less.
Not applicable as the lot is a pre-existing lot of record.
9
3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than
or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions:
a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street
Dedications.
b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope
does not exceed a length of 100 feet.
Application complies with the above standards as evidenced on the submitted plans.
4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving
subdivisions or partitions, the following additional information is required:
A geotechnical study prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the site is
stable for the proposed use and development. The study shall include the following
information:
a. Index map.
b. Project description to include location, topography, drainage, vegetation,
discussion of previous work and discussion of field exploration methods.
c. Site geology, based on a surficial survey, to include site geologic maps, description
of bedrock and surficial materials, including artificial fill, locations of any faults,
folds, etc..., and structural data including bedding, jointing and shear zones, soil
depth and soil structure.
d. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a potential hazard to
the site, or that may be affected by on-site development.
e. Suitability of site for proposed development from a geologic standpoint.
f. Specific recommendations for cut and fill slope stability, seepage and drainage
control or other design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards.
g. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish whether an area to
be affected by the proposed development is stable, additional studies and supportive
data shall include cross-sections showing subsurface structure, graphic logs with
subsurface exploration, results of laboratory test and references.
h. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist.
i. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site.
j. Inspection schedule for the project as required in 18.62.080.B.9.
k. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation pipelines.
10
Not applicable as the lot is a pre-existing lot of record.
B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as
hillside shall provide plans conforming with 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 InternationatBuilding Code_and be consistent
with the provisions of this Title. Erosion control measures on the development site
shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed area.
All grading, retaining wall design, drainage and erosion control plans have or will be
designed by professionals familiar with hillside developments and adopted Building
Codes. These measures are evidenced on the submitted plans and will be further detailed
and reviewed at time of the building pemlit stage.
2. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading,
drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May 1 to
October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the
year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up
to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May
1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in
consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be
the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to
accomplish the necessary project goals.
Not applicable as the proposal is for a single family home. However, it is the desire and
expectation of the applicants for the home to be constructed once the planning approval is
granted, appeal periods exhausted and building plans approved which should occur by
October 31 st,
3. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions
and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area
equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average
slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be
retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of
temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent.
For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of
the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state.
The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage
required here is encouraged.
Not applicable as the lot is a pre-existing lot of record and is only 6,718 square feet.
4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following
standards shall apply:
11
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.
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.
Cut slopes for structure foundations encouraging the reduction of effective visual
bulk, such as split pad or stepped footings shall be exempted from the height
limitations of this section.
c. 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
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 grading, retaining wall design, cut slopes, fill areas, drainage and erosion control
plans have or will be designed by professionals familiar with hillside developments and
adopted Building Codes. These measures are evidenced on the submitted plans and will
be further detailed and reviewed at time of the building permit stage. The application
complies with the above standards.
5. Grading - fills. 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.
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.
12
c. Utilities. 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.
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.
As previously stated, all grading, retaining wall design, cut slopes, fill areas, drainage and
erosion control plans have or will be designed by professionals familiar with hillside
developments and adopted Building Codes. Further, the proposed home's utilities have
specifically been designed to minimize impacts on trees as well as limit erosion issues.
These measures are evidenced on the submitted plans and will be further detailed and
reviewed at time of the building pennit stage, The application complies with the above
standards and no exceptions 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 survey plat, or other time as
determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner
as to be substantially established within one year of installation.
All plantings as identified on the Planting Plan will be installed at the time of a final
Certificate of Occupancy unless other insurance measures are approved by staff. The
project's Landscape Architect has designed the revegitated areas to be substantially
established within one year of installation,
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 applicants are aware of this standard and agree to maintain the landscaping, retaining
walls and various sloped areas in a condition that limits erosion.
b. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an
Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to
construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other [mancial
guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures
necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other
than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The [mancial
guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be
released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly,
13
that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by the City
may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance
period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently
stabilized against erosion.
Not applicable as the lot is a pre-existing lot of record created prior to 1998,
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed
considering the following factors:
a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level
building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad.
b. Avoid 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 applicants contend the proposal complies with the above standards in that the subject
property is simply being graded to accommodate the house and safe vehicular access
from Terrace Street. The lot is extremely small and its narrow orientation combined with
the topography of the site creates an unusual condition, but a condition the applicants are
sensitive to as evidenced with the home's moderate size.
9. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City,
signature of the fmal survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a
fmal report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control
measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled
inspections, as per 18.62.080.AA.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert
periodically throughout the project.
The applicants are aware of this provision and evidence of this fact is within the attached
Geotechnical Report (February 21 st, 2011) prepared by Amrhein and Associates.
C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall
conform to the following standards:
1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be
constructed on the site and according to the following requirements:
a. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street
construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas
and other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems.
14
b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the
greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site.
c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut
faces or sloping surfaces of a fill.
d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their
natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage.
e. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be
used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due
to development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow
system to safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point.
f. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner
that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties.
g. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and
leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and
approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official.
The proposed stormwater plans comply with the above standards as no stormwater is to
be detained on-site. All associated stormwater trenching will be revegitated and approved
by the project's Geotechnical Engineer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
Permit.
D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands
shall conform to the following requirements:
1. Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site
plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h.,
identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for
areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead
or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those
within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the
predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree
surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and
address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be
provided on the tree survey.
Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development
need not be included in the inventory.
Prior to site and building plalU1ing, a survey was completed by Hoffbuhr and Associates.
All trees were inventOlied, including all trees within 15' of the property line, and assessed
by the project's Landscape Architect and a second Arborist.
15
2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of
existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When
required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape
professional. Factors included in this determination shall include:
a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than
non-vigorous trees.
b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to
result in damage to people and property.
c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their
environment.
d. Potential longevity.
e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages.
f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller
trees.
The Tree Protection & Removal Plan (L-1.0) provides the above information on the plan.
The plan was completed by a Landscape Architect (also an Arb orist), Further a second
Arborist was consulted to verify the Landscape Architect's findings.
3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h. or greater
conifers and l' d.b.h. or greater broadleaf) shall be protected and incorporated into
the project design whenever possible.
a. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances
shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are
preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the
development is located in Wildfire Lands.
b. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number
of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if
the development is located in Wildfire Lands.
c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree
protection areas.
Unfortunately five of the site's six trees are proposed to be removed due to either their
health or conflict with the proposed home that creates a hazardous relationship with the
existing stmctures on 19 Hillcrest and would with the proposed house. In an attempt to be
as sensitive as possible to the issue of tree preservation, the applicants retained the
services of a second Arborist to evaluate the site's trees, specifically the Pine Trees along
the east propeliy line (#4 and #6), who also agrees with the project's Landscape Architect
(also an Arborist) the trees should be removed due to their close proximity to the home's
16
foundation and driveway area (See attached 2/25/11 letter from Tom Myers, Upper
Limb-It). Overall, the applicants and project team members contend they have thoroughly
evaluated the house and site plans in accordance with the above standards and that they
have incorporated the site's trees into the planning where possible.
Furthennore, the submitted plans include sheet L-4.0, the Planting Plan, showing a
variety of new trees, plants and groundcover appropriate for their aesthetic and soil
retention qualities, Installation of the landscaping and irrigation will be completed prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless other arrangements are made with staff.
In addition, applicants will provide a perforn1ance bond in the amount of 120% of the
value of landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut and fill slopes prior to
issuance of the building permit.
4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved
during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree
protection standards:
a. All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site.
Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading,
compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing
at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered.
Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to
grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location
approved by the Staff Advisor. (see 18.61.200)
b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage,
soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent
disturbances within tree protection areas.
c. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall
be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless
indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional.
If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional
may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority
to require protective measures to protect the roots.
d. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be
minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain
facilities and away from trees designated for conservation.
e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable
damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall
be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be
relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
The site's most significant tree, in terms of species in this area, is a young Oak Tree (15"
dbh) located on the lot's southeastern comer. Although the tree sits in a precarious
situation on a steep slope, the project Arborist(s) believe it can be saved and continue to
17
thrive. The Tree Protection and Removal Plan illustrate the tree protection fencing and
limits of earth disturbance and incorporates the above standards. All site work will
remain within the boundaries of the fencing and prior to any site disturbance a Tree
Removal Verification Permit will be obtained in compliance with AMC 18.61.042 B.
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:
a. The tree is located within the building envelope.
b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area.
c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement.
d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it
constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the
standards in 18.62.080.D.2.
e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed
threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional.
The five trees identified to be removed are either located within the building area of the
house, pedestrian access, driveway or too close and adjacent to cut and fill areas that
would compromise the tree's integrity and create a hazardous condition to the subject
property and neighboring properties. As stated, the applicants have retained the services
of two Arborists that have agreed to this potential hazardous situation.
6. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees
removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be
replaced in compliance with the following standards:
a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting
plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree
planting details.
b. Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in
canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the
property. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and
developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability. Replacement
tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The
hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree
canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony.
18
c. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property
owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy
manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be
replaced in lund, after which a new five year replacement period shall begin.
Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted.
The applicants are aware of the above planting standards and are proposing to plant a
number of trees, plans and ground cover that are appropriate for their site providing some
canopy, but also decrease erosion and increase slope stability. Maintenance of the
landscaping and trees will continue to occur.
7. Enforcement.
a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and
replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without
prior approval of the City of Ashland.
b. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has
been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the
current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to
three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist,
whichever is greater.
c. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been
designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00
per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's
expense, may be required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage
result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the
two values shall be used.
The applicants are aware of the above enforcement provisions and believe all efforts will
be made to limit any impact on the trees identified to be retained.
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. All newly created lots, either by subdivision or partition,
shall contain building envelopes conforming to the following standards:
a. The building envelope shall contain a buildable area with a slope of 35% or less.
b. Building envelopes and lot design shall address the retention of a percentage of
the lot in a natural state as required in 18.62.080.B.3.
c. Building envelopes shall be designed and located to maximize tree conservation as
required in 18.62.080.D.3. while recognizing and following the standards for fuel
reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands
19
d. It is recommended that building envelope locations should be located to avoid
ridgeline exposures, and designed such that the roofline of a building within the
envelope does not project above the ridgeline.
Not applicable as the subject lot is a pre-existing lot of record.
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. Hillside Building Height. 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. (graphics available on original ordinance)
b. Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk.
(1). Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to allow
the structure to more closely follow the slope.
(2). Reduce building mass by utilizing below grade rooms cut into the natural slope.
c. A building stepback shall be required on all downhill building walls greater than
20 feet in height, as measured above natural grade. Stepbacks shall be a minimum
of six feet. No vertical walls on the downhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed
a maximum height of 20 feet above natural grade. (see graphic file attached)
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. (graphic
available on original ordinance)
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. (graphic available on original ordinance)
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.
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.
Not applicable as the site is within a Historic District. However, the applicants have
attempted to meet these standards as evidenced by the plan submittals.
20
F. All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been 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.
At the time of a final building permit submittal, evidence will be provided illustrating the
proposed home complies with this standard.
G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a
building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% 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.
The existing lot, including the lot line adjustment, identifies a building area on slopes less
than 35%.
H. Administrative Variance From Development Standards for Hillside Lands -
18.62.080. A variance under this section is not subject to the variance requirements
of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for
Hillside Lands if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
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 variance will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected
under this chapter;
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Physical and
Environmental Constraints Chapter and section 18.62.080.
Appeals of decisions involving administrative variances shall be processed as
outlined in 18.108.070.
Not applicable as no exceptions or Variances to the Hillside Development Standards are
being proposed with this application.
Neighborhood Meeting: After the writing of this document, a neighborhood meeting on
March 18th has been planned, but preliminary discussions with the most adjacent
neighbors has already occurred with no concerns expressed.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT - RESPONSE TO CRITERIA:
In addition to the above narrative, the following Findings of Fact have been provided
that respond directly to the applicable criteria in order to not only justijj; the proposal,
but also to ensure clarity and completeness.
21
18.100.020 Variance (1) Lot Width to Depth (11301):
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
Both subject parcels are unique and unusual in a number of circumstances in that they are
both pre-existing non-confonning lots as they are both "wider than they are deep" per
AMC 18.20.040 C. General Regulations for the R-1 zoning categories which states:
C. Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80) feet, and a maximum
depth of one hundred fifty (150) feet unless lot configuration prevents further
development of the back of the lot. Maximum lot depth requirements shall not apply
to lots created by a minor land partition. No lot shall have a width greater than its
deoth. and no lot shall exceed one hundred fifty (] 50) feet in width. (f!mohasis added)
The smaller parcel (Tax Lot 11300) is non-conforming as its area is less than the zone's
R-1-7.5 minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet and is only 6,718 square feet - after the
increase in square footage due to the lot line adjustment. The proposal actually improves
the non-conforming status closer to compliance. The parcel's orientation is also very
unusual as its orientation is parallel with the right of way instead of perpendicular in
comparison to the vast majority of all other lots within the City, excluding comer lots
which have two street frontages. The applicants contend the City's zoning standards were
not designed to recognize a very shallow lot like Tax Lot 11300 (48 feet existing or 60'
feet proposed) due to the definition and application 'of setbacks which are based on the
lot's orientation to the street (AMC 18.08.420; 18.08.430, 18.08.440). Further, because
the setback standards, as identified under the lot's R-1 residential zoning category (AMC
18.20.040 D.), are 15' front, 6' sides and 10' per story in the rear, it renders the parcel
virtually useless and clearly forms a tall and narrow structure approximately 18' in depth
resulting in an incompatible structure with its neighboring residential structures. When
one applies these standards together with the Lot Depth standard inserted above (AMC
18.20.040), it clearly indicates that lots were intended to be oriented perpendicular to the
right of way - as evidenced simply by viewing virtually any and every other lot in the
City.
Tax Lot 11301, 19 Hillcrest, is also non-conforming due to its "lot depth to width" issue
as described above and generally measures 95' in depth by 120' in width. The parcel's
size is confonning and is 11,535 square feet (10,635 square feet after adjustment). The
proposed Lot Line Adjustment does not increase the ability of the subject lot from being
divided as the minimum lot size for the zone is 7,500 square feet (15,000 square feet
would be the minimum needed to partition). Further, all setback and MPF A zoning
regulations remain confonning. That said, the result of the Lot Line Adjustment and
Variance has no implications to the subject parcel. The parcel remains unique and
unusual as it exists prior to the adjustment. Finally, as noted previously, the applicants
contend the zoning standard for not having lots wider than they are deep are a direct
result of the original writers of the code desiring to infill with parcels directly abutting
along the street frontage and thereby decrease the amount of infrastructure and tax burden
on the community (more roads = more expense = more sprawl = inefficiency). The
alternative results in a street pattern / streets cape such as middle Clay Street in Ashland
22
that has numerous flag lots with houses not only invading the privacy of standard
oriented homes, but they also tend to create nuisances with their vehicle access (in most
cases 6' from a neighbor's window), are inefficient to overall density goals, are difficult
to access for emergency vehicles, create excess driveways and result in an erosion the
streetscape. Overall, Tax Lot 11301 is unique and unusual in that it is non-conforming
due to its lot width to depth ratio in comparison to the vast majority of other parcels
historically created prior to zoning as well as all new parcels created since.
Note: Although the applicants contend the specific wording of AMC 18.20.040 C. was
most likely intended to prohibit creating "new" lots from being created that are "wider
than they are deep", the language, as it sits within the context ofthe paragraph, appears to
be unclear and thus the only remedy would be to request a Council interpretation or
request a Variance - both of which are time consuming, expensive and highly
discretionary. Nevertheless, the applicants have chosen to move forward with the
Variance request, because they believe the matter is a City wide issue and should be
resolved between City staff, P1amling Commission and City Council without the
prejudice that may come with a specific parcel's application.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The direct benefits to Tax Lot 11301 result in a home on Tax Lot 11300 that is more
compatible with the neighborhood which is covered under a variety of goals and policies
of the City's Comprehensive Plan such as Policies VI-2b, VI-2c and VII-2c. The
Variance has no negative impacts on the surrounding neighbors, including the subject
property that has a historic contributing structure on it. In the end, the Variance simply
allows two non-conforming lots to remain non-confonning, but with one of the lots being
expanded to be more in-compliance with other zoning standards (lot area) and resulting
in a residence that is more compatible to the neighborhood.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or pUlposely self-
imposed.
The subject non-conforming properties are legal lots of record created prior to the
ownership of the applicants and thus the circumstances and condition of their non-
conforming status have not been willfully or purposefully self-imposed.
18.100.020 Variance (2) Rear Yard Setback Reduction (TL 11300):
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
For generally the same responses and statements explained previously, the lot along
Ten-ace Street is unique and unusual due to its shallow depth, street frontage orientation,
limited size and slope. See illustration below.
23
Unusual Lot Orientation
As it stands currently, the subject lot is 120' in width, but only 48' in depth. The
applicant's proposal includes a lot line adjustment adjusting the rear boundary an
additional 11' -6" in order to increase it's depth, but even with the adjustment, its depth
remains unique for the R-1-7.5 zoning regulations which requires a minimum depth of
80' equating to a 25% deficiency when compared to the majority of historically created
lots and newly created lots that now comply with the current regulations.
Further, the parcel's street orientation is also very unusual as its orientation is parallel
with the right of way instead of perpendicular in comparison to the vast majority of all
other lots within the City, excluding comer lots which have two street frontages. The
applicants contend the City's zoning standards were not designed to recognize a very
shallow lot like Tax Lot 11300 (48 feet existing or 60' feet proposed) due to the
definition and application of setbacks which are based on the lot's orientation to the street
(AMC 18.08.420; 18.08.430, 18.08.440). Further, because the setback standards, as
identified under the lot's R-1 residential zoning category (AMC 18.20.040 D.), are 15'
front, 6' sides and 10' per story in the rear, it renders the parcel virtually useless and
clearly fom1s a severely restricting building envelope - and thus affects the design,
livability, expense and neighboring compatibility. When one applies these standards
together with the Lot Depth standard inserted above (AMC 18.20.040), it clearly
indicates that lots were intended to be oriented perpendicular to the street's right of way-
as evidenced simply by viewing virtually any and every other lot in the City.
24
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The Variance request will result in a benefit that is greater than any negative impact on
the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent ofthe zoning
regulations and various Comprehensive Plan policies such as Policies VI-2b, VI-2c, VII-
2c and VII-2c-7. The applicants strongly believe the combination of the Lot Line
Adjustment and Variance to the rear setback results in a significantly improved home
design that is architecturally compatible to the neighborhood and results in a floor plan
that is simply reasonable and practical when compared to the neighborhood's
surrounding homes.
Note: Without sounding too theatrical, it's important for the applicants to convey that
without the combination of the two Variances proposed herein, a similar sized home on
the subject parcel that complies 100% with the R-1-7.5 zoning regulations would
"generally" appear to be approximately 18' deep X 24' wide (assuming 30' tall in order
to obtain a similar square footage). Of course, there are always exceptions where a
portion of the first floor could jog in a particular direction allowing for additional
habitable space and design variation, but it would still remain impractical, an unintended
consequence and aesthetically displeasing to the neighbors.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or pUlposely self-
imposed.
The subject parcel is already a legal non-conforming created prior to the ownership of the
applicant's ownership and current zoning standards and thus the circumstances and
condition of its non-conforming status, its shallow depth, its orientation and steep grade
have not been willfully or purposefully self-imposed.
18.62.040 I. Approval & Permit Required (Phvsical & Environmental Constraints):
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the
potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and
adverse impacts have been minimized.
The applicants have taken all reasonable steps as outlined in Chapter 18.62.080 (Hillside
Development Standards) to minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties. In
addition, the applicants have retained the services of a Geotechnical Engineer, a Land
Use Planner, a Landscape Architect (also an Arborist), a second Arborist and a Designer
that have worked diligently together in an attempt to design the home so that it complies
with the City's hillside development standards and minimizes impact on the site's trees,
is safe, is reasonable and is compatible with adjacent properties.
Specifically, the applicants have considered the potential hazards the eventual
development may create and have hired a Geotechnical Engineer, Mark Amrhein,
Amrhein Associates, Inc., to prepare a report as required under 18.62.080 which was
completed on February 21 st, 2011 (enclosed) to assess the site's existing conditions such
25
as seismic, subsurface soils and surface soils. The report also includes mitigation
language and graphic illustrations for site preparation, structural fill, cut and fill slopes,
stacked block walls, and erosion control measures. Lastly, the report includes an
"inspection schedule" as required in Chapter 18.62.080 B.9 that addresses inspection
times for the Geotechnical Engineer to evaluate the site's disturbances in order to ensure
the construction work is in compliance with the report. In combination with the findings
herein, the attached plans and the attached geotechnical report, the applicants contend this
criterion has been met.
2. 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 applicants have taken all reasonable steps as outlined in Chapter 18.62.080 (Hillside
Development Standards) to minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties and have
considered potential hazards the construction of the home may create. By retaining the
services of a Landscape Architect, an Arborist and Geotechnical Engineer and following
the recommendations within the Geotechnical Report noted herein, the applicants have
already and will continue to do so throughout the home's construction mitigate against
any potential hazards caused by the home's construction. In combination with the
findings herein, the attached plans and the attached geotechnical report, the applicants
contend this criterion has been met.
3. 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 permitted
development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
The applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the
environment by consulting with various professionals who have thoughtfully generated
the various design documents that limit impacts on the environment. None of the
applicant's proposals, including the removal of the site's large Pine Trees, are considered
irreversible and are proposed to be replaced with trees that are appropriate to their
location. The applicants contend that when the site's various constraints are understood in
combination with the applicant's mitigation efforts, the Staff Advisor and Planning
Commission will concur.
26
Tom Myers
Tree Consultant
2040 Ashland Mine Rd
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: 541-601-2069
Laurie Sager
Ashland, OR 97520
2/25/2011
Tree Report for Allman Residence on Terrace Street
The two Ponderosa Trees on the east side of the building project are not likely to survive the
construction process. Tree # 4, a 33 inch diameter Ponderosa Pine, and tree # 5, a 36 inch diameter
Ponderosa Pine, are both too close to a retaining wall and grade change. They are also too close to the
foundation of the building. I recommend a 15-foot minimum clearance between tree and building, but
these two trees would be within 6 feet of the construction. In addition, the construction would impact
between 30 and 45 percent of the trees' root zones. Trees can survive a 25% loss of root zone, but a
30% to 45% loss of roots would lead to the decline and eventual death of the two trees. Because the lot
is too narrow to accommodate the two Ponderosas and the proposed construction, I recommend
removal of tree #4 and tree #5.
If you have any questions regarding this tree report, please call me at 541- 601-2069.
Tom Myers, Certified Arborist
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
TERRACE STREET RESIDENCE
LOT 39-1 E-09CA, 11300
ASHLAND, OREGON
February 21, 2011
Project No. U264-02.01
Prepared for:
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
19 Hillcrest Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
706 Jefferson Avenue
Ashland, OR 97520-3702 AM R H E I N
Ph: (541) 482-6680 ASSOCIATES, Inc.
ev\"V~rOv\"V1AeV\"tClL ,9 Cieotec!rlV\,,[cClL ev\"g~v\"eerLv\"g
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-02.01
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
TERRACE STREET RESIDENCE
39-1 E -09CA, TAX LOT 11300
ASHLAND, OREGON
The engineering material and data contained in this Geotechnical Engineering Report
were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal as a
registered professional engineer is affixed below. The conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report have been prepared in conformance with
generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No other
warranty, either expressed or implied, is made or intended.
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
M~~d, pif::L
President / Senior Engineer
Geo,intro 021111
RENEVVAL DATE: 12/31/1 I
ii
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-02.01
Table of Contents
1 SUMMARy...... ...... ........... ........... .............................. ...... .......... 1
2 PROJECT D ESCRI PTION ....... ................................................. 2
3 SITE CONDITIONS .. ............ .......................................... ........... 2
3.1 Surface Conditions .......................................................... 2
3.2 Subsurface Conditions ................................ .................... 2
3.3 Seismic Considerations .................................................. 3
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 4
4.1 Site Preparation .............................................................. 4
4.2 Structural Fill ................................................................... 4
4.3 Footing Recommendations ............................................. 5
4.4 Concrete Floor Slabs ...................................................... 6
4.5 Backfilled Retaining Walls ............................................... 6
4.6 Segmental Retaining Walls (SRWs) ............................... 7
4.7 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes ....................................... 8
4.8 Building Drainage Considerations ................................... 8
4.9 Erosion Control Measures ................ .............................. 9
5 I NSPECTION SCHEDULE .... ..... ........................................... .... 10
Fiqures
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Site and Exploration Plan
Figure 3 - Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Design
Figure 4 - SRW - Cut Slope Details
Figure 5 - Erosion Control Details
Appendices
Appendix A - Subsurface Exploration Procedures and Logs
Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Results
Geo,intro.021111
iii
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No; U264-02.01
1.0 SUMMARY
The proposed residence is to be located on the north end of Terrace Street on tax lot
11300 in Ashland, Oregon. We understand the project consists of the construction of a
single-family residence with SRW walls up to 7 feet tall used to support the driveway.
The proposed residence is feasible with respect to the subsurface conditions at the site.
A brief summary of the project's geotechnical considerations is presented below.
The subsurface conditions generally consisted of a typical profile of weathered,
decomposed, granite soils. Our test holes revealed a very loose, organic topsoil layer
ranging in depth from 1.2 to 1.3 feet across the site. Below the topsoil, we obseNed a
mix of loose soil fill with trace organics and weathered decomposed granite soil to
depths of 2.5 to 3.3 feet bgs. The underlying native soil consisted of medium dense
quickly transitioning to dense and very dense, decomposed granite classified as fine to
coarse sand with some silt.
We recommend the house be supported on shallow spread footings designed with a
maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot for footings
founded on the dense and very dense, native, decomposed granite soil. In addition, we
recommend the footings on the farthest east side of the house, just above the existing
rockery, be extended to a depth of at least 3.5 feet below existing ground surface to
prevent any additional forces being imposed upon the rockery or new, walls down slope.
Retaining walls supporting the site slopes should be designed for a lateral equivalent
fluid pressure of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for flexible walls and 55 pcf for a wall
that is fixed top and bottom at the time of backfilling. These pressures assume that the
wall backfill is clean, granular, free-draining material. An allowable passive earth
resistance of 400 pcf may be assumed for each foot of penetration below the ground
surface, neglecting the first foot, and an allowable wall base friction value of 0.40.
As the silty site soils are moisture sensitive, site work in the presence of water or during
wet weather would disturb the bearing strata. The contractor should avoid disturbance
of these soils and limit traffic across the building areas and foundation areas during wet
weather.
This summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in
conjunction with the full text of this report. The project description, site conditions and
detailed design recommendations are presented in the text of this report. The scope of
work was completed within the constraints of the site and in accordance with our
proposal. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Wayne and
Carolyn Allman, and their agents, for specific application for this project in accordance
with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices.
1
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21,2011
Project No: U264-02.01
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed residence is to be located at the north end of Terrace Street (Map 39-1 E-
09CA, TL 11300) in Ashland, Oregon. The general location of the site is shown on the
Vicinity Map, Figure 1. We understand the project consists of the construction of a one-
story with a basement, single-family residence. The basement will require structural
retaining walls on the west side approximately 8 to 10 feet tall and the driveway will
require the construction of a retaining wall on the east (down slope) side up to a height
of 7 feet.
In the event of any changes in the nature, loading, or location of the house, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and
modified, if necessary, to reflect those changes.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
The site conditions were evaluated on February 4,2011. The subsurface conditions
were determined by the excavation of hand drilling of two test holes in order to observe
soil material types and consistency. The surface and subsurface conditions are
described below. The locations of the test holes are indicated on the Site and
Exploration Plan, Figure 2. A description of the test hole drilling and detailed
interpretive logs are provided in Appendix A. Laboratory test results are provided in
Appendix B.
3.1 Surface Conditions
The topography of the slope was relatively uniform with some minor terracing for
gardening and landscaping. The overall slope was moderate steep with grades of
about 25 to 30 percent based upon the site topographic survey shown on Figure 2. An
existing rockery wall was located on the east side of the lot and will be down slope of
the proposed house. The site was a vacant with a number of oak and evergreen trees
scattered across the lot.
Any surface water draining from the site will drain to the east and onto the adjacent lot
at 19 Hillcrest Street.
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions generally consisted of a typical profile of weathered,
decomposed, granite soils. Our test holes revealed a very loose, organic topsoil layer
ranging in depth from 1.2 to 1.3 feet across the site. Below the topsoil, we observed a
mix of loose soil fill with trace organics and weathered decomposed granite soil to
depths of 2.5 to 3.3 feet bgs. This mix may have been a result of the minor terrace
across the site. The depth of topsoil and loose fill/weathered decomposed granite for
each test hole is shown on Figure 2. The underlying native soil consisted of medium
2
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-02.01
dense quickly transitioning to dense and very dense, decomposed granite classified as
fine to coarse sand with some silt. A grain size analysis of the decomposed granite soil
is provided in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Results.
Based upon our experience and reviewing the geologic maps of the area, the
decomposed granite of the Ashland pluton is an intrusive unit composed primarily of
diorite and granodiorite, commonly referred to as granite or bedrock. The parent rock
decomposes very slowly creating three general zones. The three zones are weathered
granite soil, decomposed granite, and granodiorite bedrock. The weathered granitic soil
is generally reddish-brown, silty, fine or fine to medium sand and is generally several
feet thick. The decomposed granite becomes much denser and can still exhibit the rock
texture and fracturing and is generally red tan turning gray with depth. The
decomposed granite can typically be ripped with heavy equipment and crumbles to fine
to medium or fine to coarse sand with some silt. Large, hard, granite boulders are
sometimes encountered within the weathered and decomposed granite zones that
cannot be broken by conventional earth moving equipment. The granodiorite bedrock is
very hard and typically characterized by its inability to be ripped by conventional, earth-
moving equipment and requires chiseling or blasting to be excavated.
No expression of groundwater or subsurface seepage was seen in the test holes at the
site during our evaluation in February 2011. However, some perched zones with limited
volumes of water may be encountered randomly in the upper soil stratums, especially a
top the dense, decomposed granite, during the winter and spring months. Later into the
summer, these perched zones may become less frequent or dry up all together. It
should be noted that the level of groundwater may fluctuate due to variations in rainfall,
season, site utilization and other factors.
The subsurface conditions should be confirmed during construction by the geotechnical
engineer in accordance with the construction inspection schedule described in
Section 5.0.
3.3 Seismic Considerations
Shallow earthquakes can result in a rupture or deformation of the earth's surface,
otherwise known as a fault. The U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) identifies Quaternary
faults as faults recognized at the surface and which have moved in the past 1,600,000
years (Quaternary epoch). The nearest Quaternary fault identified by the USGS is the
Sky Lakes fault zone, located along the Jackson County-Klamath County border. In
addition, numerous Cascadia Subduction faults are located off the Oregon coast. No
other active surface faulting has been identified or was observed on or near by the
project site.
No other geologic hazards have been mapped or identified at or near the site.
3
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-02.01
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Site Preparation
The building footing areas, concrete slab-on-grade floors, retaining wall footings,
stacked block wall footings or areas to receive structural fill should be stripped of all
vegetation and very loose, organic, topsoil to the dense to very dense, decomposed
granite. The bearing stratum is expected to be at a depth ranging from 2.5 to 3.3 feet
below ground surface (bgs). If some areas of deeper loose or organic soil are
encountered during the stripping process, they should be over-excavated. Any area
requiring over-excavation should be backfilled with crushed rock "structural fill" as
described subsequently.
In addition, we recommend the footings on the farthest east side of the house, just
above the existing rockery, be extended to a depth of at least 3.5 feet below existing
ground surface to bear on the dense stratum and prevent any additional forces being
imposed upon the rockery.
We understand the basement will require an excavation of up to 8 to 10 feet bgs on the
west side of the house. We expect the very dense decomposed granite may be
encountered that cannot be ripped with conventional earth-moving equipment; and the
use of a hydraulic chisel may be required.
The exposed site soils contain at least some silt and are considered moisture sensitive.
They are highly erosive and can be disturbed during wet weather. Grading with the site
soils during the winter months will be more difficult during wet weather. The site soils
can best be graded during the summer months when the moisture content of the soils
can be controlled.
During wet weather, the contractor should minimize traffic on prepared soil subgrade
areas. In addition, the use of crushed rock for staging areas, vehicular access lanes, or
as structural fill may be required. If the building site subgrade is exposed during wet
site conditions, imported crushed rock may need to be placed across the building
subgrade to serve as a working surface and avoid disturbance to the soils while forming
the footings and rebar placement during construction.
We recommend that the subgrade excavations be observed by the geotechnical
engineer prior to the placement of any backfill for the building footings or beneath the
concrete slab.
4.2 Structural Fill
All fill placed under the building footings, the concrete floor slabs, the driveway, and the
backfill behind structural retaining walls or stacked block walls should be placed in
accordance with the recommendations for structural fill. All surfaces to receive fill
should be prepared as previously recommended. Structural fill should be placed in
4
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-02.01
loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Individual lifts should be compacted to
a firm and non-yielding condition.
The decomposed granite soils can be used for general site grading landscape
purposes; however, we recommend that all structural fill placed under the building
footings, floor slabs, or any retaining wall footings consist of imported crushed rock. In
all cases, site soils or soil imported to the site to be used for structural fill should have a
maximum particle size on the order of 8 inches and be free of organics and other
deleterious material.
Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness.
Individual lifts should be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition. Typically,
structural fill is compacted to a density of at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM:D 698 or MSHTO T 99). However, if large crushed rock
is used (e.g. 4-inch minus) the density of the fill will be difficult, if not impossible, to
measure by means of a nuclear moisture/density gauge. Therefore, we recommend
that the fill be spread, watered to an appropriate moisture content, and compacted with
at least 3 passes of a heavy, vibratory compaction roller. The compacted fill should be
a firm and non-yielding surface able to withstand proof-rolling with a loaded dump truck
without significant deflection.
We recommend that a representative of the geotechnical engineer be present during
placement of structural fill to observe the work and, if possible, perform a representative
number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be
evaluated as grading progresses.
The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on the soil particle size
gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines
(that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, the soil becomes increasingly
sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes
more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent
fines by weight, when measured against the minus NO.4 sieve fraction, cannot be
compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition when the moisture content is about 2
percent above optimum.
4.3 Footing Recommendations
The proposed house may be supported by conventional shallow spread footings and
continuous wall footings, founded on undisturbed, dense or very dense, decomposed
granite. The footings should not be set in or above loose or organic soil or any
uncontrolled fill. If over-excavation of the loose soils is required, the over-excavations
should be backfilled with compacted crushed rock placed as structural fill.
Based upon these conditions, we recommend that the footings be designed with a
maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The
allowable loads may be increased by up to one-third to accommodate seismic or
5
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-02.01
transient loads. The base of exterior footings should be located at least 12 inches
below the exterior final grades or top of floor slab, for frost protection. Interior footings
may penetrate 6 inches below the lowest surrounding grade or slab surface. All
footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. The footings should be formed on
horizontal benches and not angled down the slope.
As the site soils contain at least some silt and therefore are moisture sensitive, site work
in the presence of water or during wet weather would disturb the bearing strata. The
contractor should avoid disturbance of these soils and limit traffic across the building
pad and foundation areas during wet weather.
Assuming the foundation elements are founded on the prescribed bearing strata, we
anticipate that the total settlements should be less than %-inch with differential
settlements on the order of half of that total. Most of the settlement should occur during
the construction of the structure. If any disturbed or loose materials are left within the
footing areas prior to concrete placement, settlements may be increased. For that
reason, the condition of the footing subgrades should be observed prior to concrete
placement, to confirm the condition of the bearing soils are consistent with those
assumed during design.
4.4 Concrete Floor Slabs
All concrete floor slab subgrades should be prepared in accordance with Section 4.1,
Site Preparation. The concrete floor slabs should be founded on undisturbed native soil
or crushed rock structural fill (Section 4.2). We recommend that the floor slabs also be
underlain by a minimum of a 6-inch thickness of clean, crushed rock or washed rock to
serve as a capillary break and working surface. An outlet for the drainage layer should
be provided through or under the concrete footings to allow for any water that may build
up under the slabs to drain.
A vapor barrier membrane should also be placed beneath the concrete floor slabs. This
vapor barrier should be at least 10 mils thick and comply with ASTM:E 1745, Class C
vapor barrier.
4.5 Backfilled Retaining Walls
Backfilled retaining walls are categorized by the condition of restraint at the top of the
wall at the time of backfilling. Retaining walls where the top of the walls are free to
move laterally or rotate to at least 0.1 percent of the wall height during backfilling may
be designed for an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pet). If the
walls are structurally restrained for lateral movements at the top of the wall at the time of
backfilling, we recommend that they be designed for an equivalent fluid unit weight of 55
pcf. These values assume that the walls are supporting the slope above the proposed
house and no buildup of hydrostatic water pressure behind the walls.
6
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-02.01
A value for the allowable passive earth resistance of 400 pcf may be assumed for each
foot of penetration below the ground surface, neglecting the first foot. An allowable wall
base friction value of 0040 is recommended. This assumes that the concrete makes
intimate contact with the soil. Any space in front of the retaining wall footing created in
front of the retaining wall footing due to excavation or forming must be backfilled with
compacted crushed rock or sand/cement slurry.
All backfill placed behind the walls or around foundation units should be placed in
accordance with our recommendations for structural fill. The above lateral earth
pressures, are based upon granular backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure
behind the wall. To minimize lateral earth pressure and prevent the buildup of
hydrostatic pressures, the wall backfill should consist of free-draining, granular material
with drainage provisions as discussed in the Drainage Considerations section presented
below. Ideally all backfill behind the retaining walls should be free-draining, granular
soil, however at a minimum; the thickness of the granular drainage should be at least
12-inches against the wall.
The backfill should be compacted to between 88 to 90 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density (ASTM:D 1557 or AASHTO T 180). Additional compaction
adjacent to the wall will increase the lateral pressure while lesser degree of compaction
could permit post construction settlements. If silty soils are used as backfill behind the
wall, far greater lateral pressures can be expected to act on the wall. It is difficult to
evaluate what lateral earth pressures will actually be imposed on the retaining wall due
to the lower permeability silty backfill. The density of the soils, as well as the moisture
content plays a significant role. If much of the soil material is loose, the soil will readily
absorb and become a saturated mass, even further increasing wall pressures. Also, the
fines can plug the footing drain itself that may allow full hydrostatic pressures to
develop. The soil pressure and water pressure are additive and can approximately
triple the total lateral pressure against the wall.
4.6 Segmental Retaining Walls (SRWs)
We understand segmental retaining walls, (SRWs), or stacked block walls, will be used
to support the proposed driveway. Based upon proposed and site grades, the driveway
wall will be up to 7 feet high. SRWs should be constructed with blocks weighing at least
100 pounds per square foot of wall facing, including gravel infill (e.g. Keystone, Versa-
LOk, or Alan Block brands). Figure 3, Segmental Retaining Wall Design shows the
details for the stacked block wall under the driveway. For shorter walls, the lengths of
the geogrids may be shortened in correlation as a ratio of the wall's height, from the top
down.
The bottom course of each block wall should be founded on at least medium dense
native soil or structural fill and set into a 12-inch deep "key". In addition, the wall should
be set upon a 6-inch minimum thickness of compacted, %"-minus crushed rock. The
wall should be constructed with a batter no steeper than 6V: 1 H or each course of block
is set back %-inch (pin setting or tail of block will determine this). A minimum 4-inch
7
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-02.01
diameter perforated pipe should be installed behind the first block course and be fully
embedded in washed rock or pea gravel. The drain line should discharge into the storm
drainage system or other suitable discharge point. As additional block courses are
being placed, reinforcing geogrid should be installed behind the wall at the locations and
with the lengths shown on Figure 3. The entire length of geogrid must be embedded in
%"-minus crushed rock. The top of the wall must be protected with curbs or fencing
such vehicle wheels cannot hit the back of the block wall.
SRWs may also be used to face stable cut slopes without the need for geogrid or for
landscaping purposes. The details of short SRW walls facing cut slopes are shown on
Figure 4, SRW-Cut Slope Details.
4.7 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes
We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be designed for a maximum
inclination of 2H:1V, however some localized areas of 1-1/2H:1V slopes may be used
provided their location and size are reviewed and approved by the geotechnical
engineer. The surface of the slopes should be covered with topsoil and seeded plus
any slope steeper than 3H:1V must be covered with erosion control matting over the
topsoil and installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Permanent fill slopes should be constructed in accordance with our recommendations
for structural fill. The surface of the fill slope should be compacted to the same 90
percent density (ASTM:D 1557) as the body of the fill. This may be accomplished by
overbuilding the embankment and then cutting it back to its compacted core or
compacting the surface of the fill as it is constructed.
Fill placed on slopes should be keyed and benched in as it is being placed. This can be
accomplished by starting at the bottom of the slope cutting material horizontally from the
slope to create a level bench. The material can be most effectively compacted on the
level bench. As additional material is placed on the bench, the equipment should cut
out the next bench into the slope, stair-stepping up the slope. The bottom key should
be a horizontal cut at least 6 feet in width. Each horizontal bench should be cut at least
6 feet into the native granitic soil.
4.8 Building Drainage Considerations
During periods of high precipitation, seepage zones may develop randomly in the cut
faces. Any seepage should be routed away from the construction area as much as
possible.
We recommend that the house be provided with a permanent footing drain system to
collect any available water. The footing drains should consist of at least 4-inch diameter
perforated pipe surrounded by at least 4 inches of washed rock or pea gravel on all
sides. Site grades should be planned to slope away from the house. Roof and surface
8
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-02.01
runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system; instead a separate tight line
drain system should be installed and directed into a storm water detention pipe.
If at all possible during the winter months, we recommend the roof gutters be installed
on the house as soon as the roof has been installed. This will prevent water from the
roof saturating the soil immediately around the house and will control the greater
quantity of water coming from the new roof.
4.9 Erosion Control Measures
Erosion control measures should be implemented to limit and control the erosion as a
result of the proposed development. The erosion and sedimentation process is a
natural process whereby particles of soil are loosened from the soil and vegetation
matrix and carried down by water. Construction and land disturbance can increase the
rate of erosion above natural background levels by several hundred percent. Good
erosion control practices during construction can significantly reduce the erosion
process during and after construction.
However, even with the best erosion control practices, disturbed areas will produce
more sediment than naturally vegetated, undisturbed areas. Typically, the rate of
erosion is highest during construction and improves significantly after the permanent
erosion control measures are installed and vegetation becomes established. Over time
with the establishment and maturing of vegetation and proper maintenance of the
erosion control features, the rate of erosion can stabilize to near natural conditions.
4.9.1 Temporary Erosion Control Measures
The following measures should be implemented during construction in order to best limit
the rate of erosion from the site. Details of some of the measures described are shown
on Figure 5, Erosion Control Details. Any surface water draining from the site will drain
to the east and onto the adjacent lot.
T-1) Minimize the disturbed area. The natural topsoil and root mat offer the best
protection from erosion.
T-2) Install fabric sediment fences downslope of the disturbed areas to slow the
velocity of water runoff and contain sediment. The sediment fences should
traverse the slope along a line of equal elevation. Additional support can be
provided to the sediment fences with straw bales at each fence post. The fences
should allow for the slow release of water through the fabric.
T-3) Place a crushed rock pad at the site entrance to allow for parking of vehicles and
inhibit the tracking of soil onto the City street. Vehicle access onto unprotected
soil areas should be limited.
T-4) Water should not be allowed to run down the slope below the building pad, but
downslope pipes should be installed to carry the water down the slope via pipe.
9
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-Q2,Q1
T-5) Shield the exposed soil stockpiles and slopes from rainfall impact and hold soil
particles in place. This should be done by protecting exposed or disturbed soils
prior to rain by means of a complete layer of straw, erosion control matting, or
plastic sheeting.
4.9.2 Permanent Erosion Control Measures
The following permanent erosion control measures should be implemented and
maintained at the site.
P-1) Surface water concentrations should be controlled by directing the flow to
appropriate paths and structures. If surface water routes are not designed, water
will create its own path sometimes across or into undesirable areas.
P-2) Maintain the soil's capacity to absorb water. Topsoil should be placed over the
native soil after construction has been completed. Ground cover vegetation or
bark/wood mulch should be used over new topsoil areas.
P-3). Implement a thorough maintenance and follow-up program. Maintenance of the
erosion control measures is critical over the long term. The major reason for
failure of erosion control measures is poor maintenance.
5.0 INSPECTION SCHEDULE
The integrity of the site development, site grading, foundation support, retaining wall
support and stacked block wall construction depends on proper site preparation and
construction procedures. It is recommended that a representative of the geotechnical
engineer observe the construction at key times to determine the. adequacy of
construction as it progresses. It also allows the engineer to observe variations in the
site and subsurface conditions, and provide additional geotechnical recommendations to
minimize delays as the project develops.
The geotechnical engineer will be required by the City to verify that these items were
observed and completed in general conformance with the plans and specifications. It
should be made the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineer with at least
24 hours notice that each of the following items is ready to be observed. The key items
are as follows:
. Temporary Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the start of site preparation and
other earthwork, erosion control measures must be installed and observed by the
engineer.
· Subgrade Preparation - When the loose soils have been removed and the
excavation to approximate subgrade has been reached.
10
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-02.01
· Structural Fill Placement - During placement of structural fill, a representative
number of in-place density tests should be performed to verify the density and
adequacy of the structural fill.
. Footing Subgrades - Footing subgrades should be obseNed prior to form work
construction and preferably when the backhoe is still on site to allow for the removal
of any unsuitable soils recommended by the engineer.
· Retaining Wall Backfilling - Prior to beginning of retaining wall backfill so that the
drainage system can be verified, The acceptability of the drainage material should
also be verified. A representative number of density tests should also be conducted
during the backfill placement.
· Stacked Block Walls - The subgrade for the bottom course of blocks should be
obseNed. In addition, the placement of the drainage material behind the walls
should also be observed.
. Floor Slab Subgrade - The subgrade(s) should be obseNed during final
compaction of any concrete floor slab subgrade. Placement of the vapor barrier
should also be verified.
11
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
FIGURES
i\-II;:Jf
I,V(;st St
@
,:.oJ
T
Pajerson S~ ~
li1
Ul
~
'#
w
~.. . ,'/ JI'~IS"'\ '\;;:
"4i{!
~:;.~
Ct
Q:!
~
~
:...
"
~',-
(~,
~(;1;4'.aJ
....4"'t;_
E H ar-se~' 311
f7
.;:t;
'.
i,f
.'4
I/~i\'t~~
~'t q
(vi
Q'"
..-;: jJ~;f
Dr
<1
' OfiUiJ,o/
'"
r,~.-
"
,c:
)}
AQ;~
z
C ISI
(I}
p
''>
;.--
_ Bs(
ifl -
::.' l~~
C'St' sW
'?
S
,",
v]
~
l'.~1 B Sr. ,t! ~
i~,-'
s-
~
);r.
i
,'I
t> -
t;t:"
Ashland
@)
m
3
rr~
~
'~~
EI
$!)
-<'
"'
;.J
~1'
'",
l}l;
t::
~.
'J-. v..
Q: :J
,?,.,
,
'if).
Map obtained
"
d~a @201 '1 Google
from Google Maps
Wayne And Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street
Ashland, Oregon
39-1 E-09CA, TAX LOT 11300
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE
AMRHEIN
ASSOCIATES, Inc.
DATE 02/21/11
DWN MJA
DES
Project No.
U264-02,01
1
)
(F.) (;j:;:Q/\,'l. < ~ ;
Lot Line
~lGllalniOL'2E
,...... /
l'l..) I
1../,1__1
'L)
,
',-,,'--j
P d (~
"'h' ropose !~7
! f','~f7:' .Lot Line "
,~, . l,}-,-;"- __ tEl ~it."F.'>
:\ :":1 i:;;~djustm~nr-cc'
" ,'-t- , If \,.... (, \,,-..\
_~___....J ' ~i'\( \hr." I \ "
, \' '( lAXlaT'l1:141
lElR$JDE''''''
-JE}PR
- -,---- ----~-lP)Ud
lAX tOri t4t4
()
W1EUol:
~
N
o 10 20
r I
Scale in Feet
LeQend'
~ TH-2
Test hole number and
approximate location
Building layout by Design Residential, Inc.
Site plan provided by Laurie Sager and Associates
Landscape Architects, Inc.
Survey completed by Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc,
DATE 02/21/11
DWN MJA
DES
Project No,
U264-02,01
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street
Ashland, Oregon
39-1 E-09CA, TAX LOT 11300
SITE & EXPLORATION PLAN
AMRHEIN
ASSOCIATES, Inc.
FIGURE
2
-'"
o
.2-0
CD Cll
-'"
C 0
o 0
<eCll
.....0
a+"
"3~g.
--l E Cll
[enOl
0-",-0
~ U Q}
~~c
o
.;::
-0
2
.... 0
o 0
0.
~ E
cO,
Cll 0 Cll
"O<l)g
E.o'5
.~ =a U)
-g ~ ~
E +'
-0
+'O.c
~ 0..-0
~gE
ti~(fJ
-00
c c
O:l.c
a+'
"U ,+-'-
<ll "
]~ g
o..E:;s
m'-'Qj
.0 ,-
>-
I
0'025
1jiC/)c
<ll
-0>-0
o:P c:.
0.00
c
g' . E
._~,=
ID:;:i'+-
~ (/) .!a
=E.....
OJ :J'-
>'-
~""2 :p
(')E5
I
ai
c '
0-'" ....
t]go
~Li f/)
~ l....!:
<llo.
>-0.
.0 .c
Ul:t:::
'0-0"
<ll c
5 ::3 ~
+,00
o 0.....
o
....1.!).c
E f' g
o +' <ll
E en
o c
(])~ Q)
.0 Cll
+' "
_ 0 +'
~.cJ5
en.2' l...
<ll Cll
~:;:5
0-0 <ll
OcOl
moE
<'1
'(5
en
<lli'i
~.~
0-0
+'<ll
.~~
--'"
og
".0
~J5
>-=
<ll 0
-'" .c
en
o
+'<ll
en
<ll ....
~ is
en 0
+'
=en
o.~
.c ....
en
<ll
-t5:Ei
52'+-0
.00....
....+'-0
o C <ll
O.c
~.t= ~
~.f: t;
O<ll'O
o 0 Cll
o+'
Cig-g
iD 0.
> <ll E
~~8
I'i
o
3:
<Ii c
~ 'E
is -0
U .S
....
<ll -0 '
0. <ll <ll
-o.e-
, -0 0.
~ ~ <ll
+' E.c
gj Q).f.J
~
....
Cll 0
+' .0
o
0.
= 0
~ ..,g +'
o en <ll
o .c
.0 <ll+'
+J .2- l...
<ll 0. <ll
en >
c 0
15 '0:.
ii'<l'
'5 +'
.c -0 en
(fJ 2 g
rn e-
-'" 0 +'
g 't: 0
55 cf..B
...t tti
Q)
,<:
(f)
Q)
..c
(f)-o
;t:<l:
C
::Jc
C
0..0
o (f)
o 0
2
Q)
~"
CJ 3:
~
4-
o
-'"
u
o
..0
,
+'
:c
o..+,
o 0
Vlc
- +'
Q) (f)
Q) ::l
~E
(f)
.... Q)
o ....
:;:;
..0
l... l...
::lO
00
~
~
Qi
>
~
Ol
o
Cll
0.
QJ03.c >.
:52~~.o:E
bOl"'O~E'+-o
Cll <ll :l
:5~tlQjE~
0'1 0 >'x u
c 0.200
~ dE OlE.L:l
= g 8 ill I... Q)
-2l..."'O~2:S
"'0 c 04-
Q) Q) 0 0 0
..c: .J: . 1-
+-' CIl~ 5Q..-t-'
o 2.~ tl"O ~
+' (J:5 K~ '+-
-g!g' E'ON
octOooc.
- 'E c 0 E:E ~
~ I oa.>Q)~&5
0:: :5 o....,e 3-
~~ OJ -b+' ID 1;;
Q) '+- d IDQ ~ g
g'oE]~rn-
.5 1i) +' 0.0 III b
E: .~ g c Q).!: 0
'"Do B1i)r-+-,
co 0200 "'0
..c:-o~.3~-:'Q)
:: "S ~ ':; +-' [0 g
Q).,g.- J..... 0 t[) 0..
6 U)-o 00"-- E
"O~~+-'DO
-g 'C.2 g] ~ U
uO'lo..'---"+-'I-ID
o 0 (!)..c
c.g']~[~>.
-'0 '0. E 0
;:....'OEo..?E
~ .E -S ::s 0 'Uj
Oco......... c=
O'-..c: Q) Q) 0
en ern 0..0"'0 3
....
o
-'"
o
o
....
<ci
..c
+'
'~
-0
Q) 0..
-'" ,-
u-
o+,
;::c
Q) 0
+' ....
c4-
N
:g
_ Ol
o 0
.... <ll
~(')
C
o ,
:;:; ill
o 0
Cll 0
.!::: '+-
-0
Ol"O
2: e I
t):5~:;:
Q.) 0:;: -G
.c+'Q) 0
+-' l.....c: ...0
..c 0 +' Q.)
:t.:: :; c l...
3: 0 0 .E
"U~ C ~
<ll Cll "
ge-.2~
Q.~(I) :c
J5-g~~
:a ~ 00 g
.c .- c 1i
U) 0 S f0
1:*08
ID'C 0 c
E Ol- ,g
~1-g :
.g 4-' 0 t;
'ffib~ E
1.......-.. en 0
'Uc~ C
,_ 0_
~t; .. ~
~ ~ ~ g
0:O-P c.n
r-..: to oi
(0
'0
C
o
'5
"
,,"0
o
~g.
'0 I.... 4-' .
en +'OID p.~ ~
f?, - 0 0
- ~.s~.c
'rn~ cu.. g
b~ g,:~ U
,,g'5~+'<ll
~ Q) en ~en ~ :g
o g -g s'- CL
+-' c: o"O?; e
.."0 0 CL
N-o .s~tt= ~
..- OO+-'
.c~~I...Q)~ a
~ +-' ~b ~
.B"::-o5..B
].s _ c: 0
CL Q) Q) +-'
0. Ol >
8'~ ~:E
<ll.2
.L:l....
....
=<ll
o+'
.cO
en "
+'
C
:Q.
o
+'
+'
C
'(5
0.
en
:l
o
'S:
<ll ,
Q.~
E"
0.L:l
.;:: en
-'"
. 0
'<l' 0
+,:0
en
o Cll
~~
+' 0
o 0.
Cll
+' en
Cll
en c
~.-
0-0
<ll <ll
.og'
~~
:l <ll
o
.c<ll
en ....
o
en
+' en
c c
:2,"0-
-0
8~
t <ll
~:S
en
<ll
0.
g "6-
....
o c
'6
....
'0
Q3~
> 0
E''t:
Ol;:J
Cll en
Ol+,
o c
C <ll
,- >
E ~
00.
~t: en
o c
.!: "u .......
.g.2 5 U
'-' 4-' 0 ~
13 2 ~ U
+' en -0
0. en c
o C Q) 0
+'0-0
-+-' U E 1:)
UOlOlQ)
~ 'E -0 2
I... ::J C 0
o.-ooU
ci
<'1
~
u
o
..0
+'
C
o
l...
'+-
.~
c~
.2 ,(f)
+' C-'"
. 0 ,- U
-0 '"0 E 0
Q)C -
1J::l-",..o
00 u ~
0.. 4- :c Q)
E -'" +'-'"
o g. 4-
0....<.00
-'"
u
o Q)
1...... .9-
0..
-0
Q)
+'
o
l...
o
't
Q)
0..
<lJ ..c '+- Ll' ..c .
..o;t: 0 c;t: g-
_ 3:..c 2 3:;::
a_..~1n c: ~
{ioc :>:0
::lQ)Q)0
+-' 0- l- -C ..c ...::!:
~Q)t)+'{I)g
E t ~ ,~ C :0
Q) ,- . Q)
E..n~~E~
.2lf)~-:B~~
,~ u ..0 - .2 g
~ 2 2 g 0.. ,-
-ot Ll'r--- 'tJ
'C ~ Q) to 5 .,c;
CJ'l +' :..j:j ...-
o .... 0 0 U (f)
c3 ~ ,~ +' ~:S
fG=s~:Og'
:ic~ ~
o+'
o
f-..,.
_0
. N
-~-
N
l... -
0-011:
_<lJ
Q)'- +J_
_oUo
..Q(/)Ol...
o 0.. ::l
tlg;E1J
,- 0 ::l
out;
z (/)
l-
I
CJ
ill
I
~
::>
~
X
<:(
~
I-
o
o
LL
I
f'--.
w
cr:
::> CV')
CJ
LL
c
o
E
<{
z
C)
V5
w
o
~
a:
~f--
...JI
...JC)
<C-
5~
C) .
~~
~~
<Cf--
tuLL.
a: I'--
...J
<C
f--
Z
w
~
C)
W
(j)
c
-:v 0
~~2'
+,l...
(/)0
o
l...
o
o ~-o
-ooc
c t.!2
o Q)..c
Q)I-~
c
>,
o
3=
~
" <l: <l:
N -:J -:J
,,22
N
o
o
<'1
o
I
'<l'
to
N
::J
ci
Z
w z
!;: 3= f:3
000
+'
o
<ll
'0'
....
11.
z~
-
IiIIIIIIIIIIIII
wfff
:1:'-
~~
1:~
<C~
-----
Sailor Topsoil Cap
pins
Stable
Native Soil
Free-draining,
crushed rock backfill
4' max.height
pipe
key
Compacted, crushed
rock foundation, 6" thick min.
NOTES
1. Walls are intended to face a stable cut of native soil.
2, Gravel leveling pad shall be placed on at least medium dense or medium stiff,
native soil. Gravel shall be compacted until it is firm and non-yielding with a
smooth top surface.
3, Blocks shall weigh at least 80 pounds each and be capable of being pinned between
each course of blocks. Lightweight blocks may be used for lower height walls.
4, Blocks shall be set back ~"per course.
5. Blocks shall be connected with plastic or fiberglass pins supplied by the
manufacturer,
6. The base course of block shall serve to key the wall into the soil. The space in
front of the first course shall be backfilled with compacted crushed rock.
7. Perforated drain pipe shall be embedded in rounded drain rock or pea gravel to at
least 4" over the top of the pipe.
8. Drainage gravel behind the wall shall be angular and not have more than 5% silt
and clay by weight. Gravel shall compacted with light to moderate effort with a
jumping jack or vibratory plate type compactor.
9. Soil backfill behind the placed behind the drainage gravel should be placed in lifts
not more than 6" thick and compacted with a jumping jack or vibratory plate type
compactor.
1 0, Stack no more than 3 blocks high before backfilling.
11. Vertical joints should be offset at least 4" from previous joint and the two pins are
engaged in separate blocks below,
12. Drainage gravel shall be capped with 12" to 18" of silty soil to prevent surface
water flowing into the drainage backfill,
13. Protect top of drainage gravel from rain and surface water flow during construction.
At the end of each day's work, tarp top of wall and grade surrounding area to
prevent flow into the gravel.
14. Connect and direct drain pipes to an appropriate discharge point.
AMRHEIN
ASSOCIATES, Inc.
DATE 02/21/11
DWI-..J MJA
DES
Project No,
U264-02,01
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street
Ashland, Oregon
39-1 E-09CA, TAX LOT 11300
SRW-CUT SLOPE DETAILS
FIGURE
4
Filter fabric
material supported
by wire mesh if
necessary
Attach filter fabric
3 places per post
to
N
- - '" - Bury -;:-ottom -0;- - -
~ fabric in 9" to 12"
deep trench
I. 6' Max. ' I
2" by 2" wood
stake or metal
T stake
FILTER FABRIC
SILT FENCE
6" - 12" Coarse Rock
ROCKED ACCESS DRIVE
AMRHEIN
ASSOCIATES, Inc.
DATE 02/21/11
DWN MJA
DES
Project No,
U264-02,01
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace street
Ashland, Oregon
39-1 E-09CA, TAX LOT 11300
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS
FIGURE
5
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
AND LOGS
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-02.01
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
The field exploration program conducted for this study consisted of three, hand-drilled test
holes. The approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 2, Site and Exploration
Plan, The locations of the explorations were obtained in the field by measuring from
surveyed trees.
The explorations were completed on February 4,2011 and the soils logged by Mark
Amrhein, PE, GE. Visual classification of the soils was done in general accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A legend of the terms used for the soil
descriptions are provided at the end of the exploration logs.
EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
The drilling was accomplished by hand using a 2- and 3-inch diameter, bucket-type augers.
Disturbed soil samples were obtained from the bucket augers continuously throughout the
drilling process. The exploration logs presented in this appendix is based upon the field
logs, inspection of the soils recovered, and laboratory testing. The relative soil densities
indicated on the logs are interpretive descriptions based on the drilling action and hand
probing with a steel rod down the holes.
Test Hole TH-1
ro-EPTHTieety------.1 SOILS DESCRIPTION
r-oJ)-:::::--=f"2 .--.-- i Very loose, moist, black, organic, silty SAND - Topsoil
! !
11.2 - 2.5 -I Loose, moist, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND (SM) with
1 1 trace organics - Mixed weathered decomposed granite
:1.~2-,5 - 3.0------ i Medium dense, moist, gray with red tan mottling, fine to coarse
! I SAND (SP-SM) with some silt - Weathered decomposed granite
[-3:0-:::::'6:6'--'---.u-------'1 Dense, moist, gray with red tan mottling, fine to coarse SAND (SP-
iSM) with some silt - Weathered decomposed granite
. - Fines content = 10.3% (see Lab Results)
- Lense of fine sand with some silt between 3.3 to 4.0 feet
I No seepage
l_______oo_______,.___,..____J No cavi ng
TestHoles.020411
1
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21, 2011
Project No: U264-02.01
Test Hole TH-2
U:JJ;_EItlJf~~~_tL_____J SOILS DESCRIPTION
! 0.0 - 1.3 : Very loose, moist, black, organic, silty SAND - Topsoil
~----------j
1,3 - 3.3 ! Loose, moist, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND (SM) with
; trace organics - Mixed weathered decomposed granite
. .
[3:3=5.0----- Medium dense, moist, gray with red tan mottling, fine to coarse
SAND (SP-SM) with some silt - Weathered decomposed granite
I 5.0 - 6.7 I Dense, moist, gray with red tan mottling, fine to coarse SAND (SP-
I I SM) with some silt - Weathered decomposed granite
16.7- 6.9
~
I Very dense, moist, gray with red tan mottling, fine to coarse SAND
. I (SP-SM) with some silt - Weathered decomposed granite
! No seepage
I No caving
i
L_______________,______,
TestHoies.020411
2
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) LEGEND
PRIMARY USCS GENERAL SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
DIVISIONS SYMBOL
GW Well graded GRAVEL or.sandy GRAVEL mixtures with less than 5% silt or clay
"~~'_~~"'~~'~_'_____"_'__'__'__'W.'.W .---------.--.--.--------------.--------------.------..-..--------.-.----
GP Poorly graded GRAVEL or sandy GRAVEL mixtures with less than 5% silt or clay
GRAVEL GW-GM _ We~J!!:.a.~~~~~y._~_~ or san~y GRA~EL mJ?5.!.~!~~ith_~.~~~o/o s!!!.__.__.__
...___._.w.,.,..__.._..._____".,._.,._.
fine #4 - 3/4" GW-GC Well graded GRAVEL or sandy GRAVEL mixtures with 5% to 15% clay
coarse 3/4" - 3" GP-GM .----"'_00~iY__()!~~~~_~~.Y_~~~~ ~~n~L~!3A V_~!:.~~~~.~~_:rv!.!h 5:-,,--t.9.._!~!o~~.t..___.__,_,
..'.__..w,_,....,___....~,_,..,,,.,,,..._."......w,,,..
GP-GC Poorly graded GRAVEL or sandy GRAVEL mixtures with 5% to 15% clay
GM _. Silty G~A V!=L or silty, sandy GRAV~L mixtures with greater than 15% silt
._...,_w_,_,__..,__....._,_.~,~...,.....,,_._ -
GC Clayey GRAVEL or clayey, sandy GRAVEL with greater than 15% clay
SW _._liYell gril.~e.d SAND or_!I~~~!~.~ND mi~~!.::~ wit~J:.~~.!han 5~.~~~..?.!:...~~____
".,-_._......,.._,-,..'--_._........~.,-_...,...
SP Pooriy graded SAND or gravelly SAND mixtures with less than 5% silt or clay
SAND SW-SM _~~~ graded ~~-'?~grav_e.!!~SAND m~~l1!es with 50("..~0 15% ~~._____
....._...,..".".~..._-,......_.".,_...~..,..,,---
fine #200 - #40 SW-SC Well graded SAND or gravelly SAND mixtures with 5% to 15% clay
medium #40 - #10 SP-SM ----'='~~~iY_.grade.~~~p org!.~ve~~L~AN.l2.!"lix.!':J!es with 5% !?_.!..?.:"..~~__________
---,,~_.....,-..._...--,.~~.,-_..~-,..,
coarse #10 - #4 SP-SC Poorly graded SAND or gravelly SAND mixtures with 5% to 15% clay
SM Silty SAND or silty, gravelly SAND mixtures with greater than 15% silt
"___~..R.~~r......_..._,~~...~.~.....~...... ----.--.---------------.----------------.--------
SC Clayey SAND or clayey, gravelly SAND mixtures with greater than 15% clay
SILT ML _~i!.!. with no to low plastic~
"_....k__.~".~_.k.~4_'._~'....._.k.___.., --
MH Silt with medium to high plasticity
CLAY CL _'?~t~!t~_!9:rv.E.'.~~tici!L_________.____________..__________._
..~r_~_..__......_~..__~....._.~r.r_r..~
CH Clay with medium to high plasticity
OL ~ganic~ltwit~~~plastici~____.________
,,_.k__.____._._."....~"..__"4k.hh....
ORGANIC OH ___~ganJ5..~ay _~J!~~lgh_l?lasti~~t.L.______________________
..~_.hk.4...r"._k.....__.._"_..~k_.".~._
PT Peat or predominantly organic material
Oversize Material: Cobbles are 3" to 12" diameter, Boulders are +12" diameter
Description Modifiers: Major modifiers: ciayey, silty, sandy, gravelly - greater than 15%
listed lower to higher percentages
Minor modifiers: with some clay, slit, sand, or gravel - 5% to 15%
with trace clay, silt, sand, or gravel - less than 5%
SAND & GRAVEL DENSITY SILT & CLAY CONSISTENCY
SPT N-value SPT N-value Pocket
Term blows/foot Term blows/foot Penetrometer
(tons/sq. ft.)
Very loose 0-4 Very soft <2 o - 0.25
Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2-4 0.25 - 0.5
Medium dense 1 0 - 30 Medlurn stiff 4-8 0.5 -1
Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 8 - 15 1 - 2
Very dense >50 Very Stiff 15 - 30 2-4
Hard >30 >4
MOISTURE CONTENT PLASITICITY
Dry: No discernable water present, dusty, Non-Plastic A thread cannot be rolled at any
dry to the touch moisture content
Damp: Enough moisture to darken appearance, Low A thread can be barely rolled
no rnoisture adheres to hand
Moist: "Optimum" water content, Medium The easily rolled thread cannot be re-rolled
sample squeezes tight and maintains shape after reaching the plastic limit
Wet: Visible free water, High Much time is needed to reach the plastic limit
could not be recompacted as structural fill and the thread can be re-roiled several times
AMRHEIN
ASSOCIATES, Inc.
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street Residence, Ashland
February 21,2011
Project No: U264-02.01
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
Laboratory tests were performed during the course of this study to evaluate the index
and geotechnical engineering properties of the subsurface soils. A description of the
tests performed is given below.
Visual Classification
Samples recovered from the exploration locations were visually classified in the field
during the exploration program. Representative portions of the samples were carefully
packaged in watertight containers and transported to our laboratory were the field
classifications were verified or modified, as required,
Grain Size Analysis
A grain size analysis indicates the range in diameter of soil particles included in a
particular sample. Grain size analysis were performed on representative samples in
general accordance with ASTM: D 422. The results of the grain size determinations for
the samples were used in classifications of the soils, and are presented in this
appendix,
Appendix 8,Lab Testing
1
Amrhein Associates, Inc.
I
100
I U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE I
4 10 20 40 60 100 200
HYDROMETER
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
6" 3" 1 Yd' ;;'4' 'Va'
90
:--1--1 , I I
! . I
i \ I
i I
Ii I I
I 1\
i I
1 ' I I I
II 1\
I ,
r I I \1 I I I I
I III
I
I I
I I
I i 11 I I
I I I ,
I' I
I Ii I
I ~ I
I I I , , I I I I I
I
I I ~
I I
, I I I \ i I
I I I
i
, I I II \1
I
I
I I
II I I 1 I
I \ i I
80
70
f-
I
"
[jJ
:5 50
>-
m
Cr::
w
~ 50
l1..
f-
Z
W
~ 40
w
Q..
30
ZO
10
o
1000
0.01
0.001
'10
C '
!. !
.; 00
GRiJ,IN SIZE 111 lillLLlMETERS
COBBLES
Silt
FINE GRAINED
Exploration
Depth
% Moisture % Passinq ZOO
Sample
TH-1
5.3'
10.3%
S-Z
AMRHEIN
ASSOCIATES, Inc.
DATE 2/21/11
DWN MJA
DES
Project No,
U254-0Z.01
Wayne and Carolyn Allman
Terrace Street
Ashland, Oregon
FIGURE
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
B-1
~
t-
o
Z
w
g
~
6
N 0-
~ 8
~~~g
~m~~
~~~~
oZ<Cl-
~~~~
u.:fuffifS
Oul-....l
ox-<co
cr::w:;::u
g:
g
w
~
"
~
w
'"
o
~~
~~
~~~
~g~
w....e::
~xs
0::1:0
utOu
o
~
w
>
g
~
~
~~
"'0
~o
w::;
~hn
~~g~S
;:~g~8
z
o
i=
:;;
w
-'
W
I-
Cf)
W
S
"0-,6
1
,,"0-"1
I
..0-,6
~I ~
~ t @)(3~~
I ~ci80:J
ou.:UJo<::t:
~ g:w~~~
8 ~
I
en
z
.- ~ ~~co
ffi~ztJ~~
5<3~~O~
~cij::lggr:;:
Q~c:(~:5:;
~ ~~IO
$: "'<(
ce
c - 0 j
Iu,!j J
ffi~o I
-0
~L
o
""
'"
~
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ w
\ ~
\~
\&
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
b
iil
z
o
i=
:;;
w
-'
W
I
I-
0::
o
Z
({) ~I 0 z 0 CI:l
"- ~ ~~(O +=i1,: Ei
iri z ~ c ~ d
W ..0 9. ~1 LL ~fh
b ~~ ~~ 0 @!g !r ~z~~~ U
z ~I 00 0 o<CUJQ';>
i=[i; ~w U;!# ci c(5~}}ci~ ~~
~~ z ~~;
<< "'Jl :'i ~;i;d~~ ~~
----1 ()
ill '" f0- r >- I---ll.i) _Q)~io. H
w "' ~ N~ iBio
w <(
J:
"' 'D
z
o
~
ill
----1
ill
I-
({)
~
ill
z
o
~
ill
----1
ill
I
I-
::>
o
({)
Ii] ~I z 0 m
N\fll\lllV :t:lO.:l ~ ~ if" 0 >- r:~ nil;
'" --J
Z 0 "'''''~
$ 'ONV1HS\f p ~;3 "- ~z 0 >-mm
069L6 t:lO ~ <( @(3 0<( '"
in ....J 0 "':> ('j fBgj~
ill ~Il. ~~~- I o~ 0::1 5 ci~
>- OOB~ ~# 11 !:::w U;~ 6<( ""
0 ~ ~~ ~ ~~
z >-f- <( I ~~ tJ "';:; ill ~~~ 'f(C'icc<,e
OJ' ~~n
VJ603~6B w I"- z ifi ~~~ ~
U) >- N~
<: ~
@"O".:fS , p M LU
" ~ I !;;
o '"
t
o
t'
i
~~ ~~ 2~
0"- 0<0 off:
~~ ~~ ~~
~ ~~;I;i
(D g~ I?j~d~g
! : ~
,
i
! !
i
i j
j j :119(3)
i
!;~(-'>)
!~
!in ::;
!~ 1 ~ ~
~. i~ iH
:::: ;~:, ~
g~ 0
C9 ~ @.: iT ~
l:en \
z c:i 0' ! i ~~ )
I- . ! i ~
U)lL;U) I'
xU)CJ;) Ii: /
r---....... I /) /:
o :::; ill ,- //
. - 0 /."7 ~
~ t.. )~ ~ ~~./~;// ~
I- o'~ ,:1(1/\/\ ~~~ /;;;$~/
): ______ /d~ ~ ~
U) U)~ '.' ..;r~,-. /",w ~ /, v~~. ~~
X N~ .:",',. .;; i '--'1-. ~..~~ w
ill [n ~.... '- .~~ ~ '\ ~~ ~
~'ie~"V yl\ ~ z;:c~::!r(f~~Jf7- - ~ ;t---~
[~~o ~~--. l-4~) JcJ)[.,~~~ ~~ tr/
I ~~F~: ~~-~~~~~
V~,?~< ~~ #n,*~-J~'<~r,;
<..? .c2. .... '<' ": ~
- ';:5</-, 'e. ;ry A, ~1 (< , _ "
~ ,/1;'/..:';01 ;0'; ~ ,e,'-... : ~
~ '///r-:">.o )-;"'.> 2 /.... .. ........ ..,;~~ ~ i !
~ ./ [':0./ /~ .... ~~l" :
! '&~~Y/c/ <<c ~ ,. " ~~~'-
j/ ~u;;;zs~~v~'" r?2)~~?' 'To=-_
<A / ./td ~~ ......., ....y:, .............. y:--=--
II ".,...~V~/ ",,,,,,) '"0"''' :"n-;;;z""''"~''''/I.....::----
/ / ..... ... "0 g ~ \ / I I ~
....... .. ~lli~ r ~
;: - @ 'v--- ..
/'1 .;' I ",J e~
~/: ~1k n.. '~'(eel;;-
. . ... - ....-::-/.,:~>;.>y:;
z. ~ ~ :::~''''::: .. .:;"..'''('9
,~~..,;;;-, ..~
. '" ~"C, :,<_.,.';:; ..~
~~~~ ~';:..;> ,.- .......~~
.. ~..: .,.~..~.;:.:.>. .,../ '"'''e~"
,. ~~;; ';'}"y
"/ /~"...,-
~':';:'-'.:':.'-t;:.;. y
0/.<\".:.//
~;;. ,. .:...y
".;/
'\:..7
\7
3f111AllI3dDl:IdG) ~
,~
01
-~ V0\) -
-.J
01
O~
o~z
!~
I
5([
~
~
o~
'Ii! "
~;, \
"
ilfm
g~ ~~ ~~~
ii ~~ ~
8z
NO
lfll-
QI-~
illOlL
~--!I-
illXZ
@-<{ill
rfll-::.[
~;;;
"2
+
.rlsmss Fi..lt?11l
ill
133cslS-l 93CS::Jlll H
c ~;
."
ill
ill
500C03'20"E
120.12'
<.)
<.)
~
(J'l
z
G i
rfl --!
-<{ --!
l,j I- 1L -<(
G13d) III
OX1n f-
ill (i) r
@ -<{ lIt -<{
rfll-:;::: 3
oc
OC
<1
l,j
>-
o z
o ~
:! 1-
Z
<t I- 1:
~ 0 I-
0-1 Z
lliX ~
(jl -<[ !jL
rl) 1- m
Dig
.{\,,; -g~ an
-t"~N
4!l
ill
:::J
()
.!:
I
~
ill
'"
(Jil
Ifl
(p
III
<l)
IP",.o01
",
~I
!l-
~~
.-
!l-
-'-
~l~
III
N
$1 z 0 (i'j
rr:: .. 0 ..~ ~~(O ~~;
~~ N
~ o ~ '0
~ Ii ~g ~~ ~ lL ~ <(O;;;~ ffi o::z~~~
u; 0 z 0 ~ ~g~g3 ~(}~~O~ 'a3H
OJ ~ w$ Nj
b g f-LL.-.lZ .. U::::::l ~ ~~:;j;g~ ~c6:Jgg~ ~N
z z i=~ ll..~ ~ "
'" !L w~~~~ oW<::(...J<("<'""" .~H
5 " <( 0 ~ ~ I:E~
;;;: '" f- ro ffiio
LU < ~ N~
LU
:r: U
(j)
.9,' ~cr,w "9-,
k,P~ "o/.S-,9 oS-S ~5-; ~ ~ -,9
" G "
" "
5' 9 "
~Co
"
'<
'"
1-
'r
'"
"
0:::
, N 0
~I ~@ 0
, -'
_ X~ , LL
> "'~ , z
::i ~c.. , <(
(/) , '" ;;;:
6~1~ , '"
,
~ -Ox ,
a (;: fi:?25~ ,
" W ,
0..
, ,
,
, ~J ~ :
-,- ~I~
~I ~ , B
z ~&:l , ::c;':!
- ~~ , Ox
Z x~ ~t:
o ~~ , "2 ~
I ~~--;
"
'"
~ U. ;>-,'
18 ::y
WO:::~ ( ~
0..0" "
>o::wl~ ~ ~
O~O"
0<( (
:s:
"O-.tl(;
&;
W
f-
a
2
9
;;;
9
i<:
.------------ ~
, .
N
'lIo
2
o
o
0::
o
W
IlJ
,,9-,'<:
----------------- -
~
5
~
g
~
w
g~~
....IC!)-!
u.'.l-
n:f-~
~dg
QWM
..J~~
,,0-09;::
~
0')
'lIo
2.
O~
0;;
0::'"
o-
w
lD
~
~
:'::1"
u-
w~
o~
~I
f
'"
.
~
i-I
Do-.f;
'5
"O',W
0::
o ;..
o all
~u: ~~ ~
!::a:::.....Jz ill
I-W o...:Q ~
$: (J
o en
-'
z
~~
~"
~
,.o-,Z:~
IJJ
(9
<(
0:: ~
<( ~
(9 x
0:: to
<(
U
N
.------~-~----~------------
. .
: :
"o-,g{;
~I ~
"2
~ ~@)<o{g~~
_I ~d~EO_::l
v~ 0 u.:lI..l=t:l;Cl~
g:uj~~~~
o:~
U)
'"
f-
ill
ill
:I:
rn
"
~
~
~
~
~ -~
"0 ~~(Q
f5O::zt;~~
5(J~~O~
3~:j~g~
u ~~:E~~
~ ~~
"
~
m
~L ~ ~
.gs~i~~ I
-Sji ~~f5 ~
.~t1;1 i
(j)A
D
0;:;5;'L6 NOm"o 'ONY1HS\f
lOC; 31lns 'OYO~ 301311SI\^I ooL
:>NI SD31IH:>"\f 3dY:>SON"1 S31YI:>OSS\f ONY
"3ElYS 31"nYl
~
j " ~
~ :: Nom~o '<JNVlHSV
c" " ~- 0
6:;: ::... 1;:!3~lS 3:;'V~~31 ire l f
., a ~ 3:>N3aJS3(f NYWll\f .-
Ji ~ ~
~ '-C?
/ c:;
</ o@~ .;=_
I ),
'-; >
c:-) 1_.\
'1 c~
I ,v/\~~~
I 'I
1//59(3)-_,'
/:~ i
/ /:~ 1'-
/ :i ".~, ,.
I:> W
t ~j
I
z
Qz
g~
b:<
~>
~o
~~
f--~
~ ---/
/
)J\JLA
v'5'- '10
S-J ~L
~ Z;
<--, /
(
~
~
"'
~~ ~~~
<r:z~ ~"uS~
~~":< ->
~w> @J~
~gz
~il
z
o ~
,
~I
~.a
!3.~
n
Ii
~~
~~jg~~1
!!g
~Ill 1
Ih
o "
~~iatl
-E ~,;~ a ~
him
. ,
, ,
! ~
~, i
I !
.;~~-, t~~~
'<~f;<' . ~t.~",r/
/~..::......"\
'~( 0 l J
~
~~ E ~~ E
~i ! ~i i
II ~ i
" ,
g' !
I I I
~
z
o
"
u
~
w
w
~
I- <t.. u.i tL
ill
mm
l~111~
~~~
u e.s: _~,.."',......
~~ -~.,~..,,..
OcSL6 NO~l'l~O 'aNVlHS
lOC; 31lns 'av V ~
:JNI Sl:J31IH:J~V 3dv:JsaN O~ 301311SI\^I ooL
Vl S31VI:JOSSV aNY
~3ElVS 31~nVl
-
.':
~ ~
c'" ,
~;2 :.-
" .
]
NO~3~O 'ONVlHSV
133~IlS 3:Jv~l'I.I31 t8l
~:>N3aIS311 NVWll\f
o
:q
I
o
C'-l
~
~
!/
".
;7
~'\"J~i'J1~ i
T 0 ~ ~
~ g[ ~
~
\0'\J0"
. 3Nn Ul:!3dOl:!d (3) ~""'V/l S"--J~~' ~
----=-_SS'~\. --..:.~ A
~i ~~~-.-L.t-
} ~ ~}J'0Vi> / r. ________ p- --I ~----=t-
/ o~ ,!~"7: I
c - '--- @ ~i):
Z (_ ~ ----- ----- -----r"S- I -r- /
I :..J~ f ,s; 'I 00'31"
~~ "~~J1~ V
~-^.~ ;;j ,
v-~~"" \ l:!:
j~/"":I-I
/," '~
/:~ ~:~
i' ! II
I
: I
I
-/') I
,*
/"';-.,(:,#
-JS>" ____ ~",l'>--\ 1\--- 0 l 1-
II -0 ~! w c'
)' l" (j~ ,"
_,. 3NIl.ul:!~dOlJd(d) -f-
~J'-./~ ~ '..-
, 0 '1-'
!ii h~-0'-l.~'" -
z
~
W
>-
'"
W
..
<(
g
Q
Z
:'i
~
r
) (~~1~
~ I, !ii J:-
I ~ ~
- ~~
I
I
/JJ
~ ! 0
c .
;~I
/~~
Q
!ii
~
!
>
C~
/
ozSL6 N083HO 'aNY1HS\f
WC; 3110S 'aYo~ 301311SI1"1 ooL
:JNI Sl:J31IH:JH\f HY:JsaNVj S31YI:JOSS\f aNY
H38YS 31HnYl
~
"
~ 2
~~ ~
Q
]
g
;(I'
I
NO~3(fO 'GNVlHSV
H3l11S 3:)'v1!(I31 VtL
3:JN30IS311 NYW1'\f
o
C")
~
3NnA1B3dOl:ld (3)
IJ"'III--_ /
~~}L~Y ~\A I~_ ----
l ~r,--'~ ~---"
~y ;;::'~ ~~.,~~--=---
7' ~ / ~- '---- ':5r -, --- -=-J~ -
'----J / Q~ - :::-~C"\ vc -- -
~-~~t~j;~l:~ -~-
~~JI/
I~ - -J ~ t:~ '/'--
lffi ill
/i. ,
/'~ w'~
~J~!
/: .
// J 11'
/'
/L t:~/~ ~,'
/ '- 'VI
~~- , ~
'--[
\1 :: {
31 ~
rl'k~ _ ~
I ('.:{-
\{--,
~
o~
@
z
i2
(')
z
1S
'"
o
r~~
I
I
I
I
..-/
/
//
/
/
/
II
;2gb:~~~
0;:;S'L6 N083"O 'ONV1HSV
LO('; 31lns 'OVO~ 301311SI\^I ooL
:JNI Sl:J31IH:J"V 3dV:JsaNVl S31VI:JOSSV aNY
"38VS 31"nvl
~
g
~
fi
~
i~
.s
NO~3'l:lO 'qNVlHS\f
LH1I1S 3;)V~nI31 VEL
3:>N3aIS3~ NVWllV
o
.!
11
::!':::=<
~l=~
~~~
;;: ;E:::,~
~~~~~E~~~
~g
w~~fElf~~~
~~~~~g~~
mmm
~ ~
~_e ~~i ~
: ~~~fu~
ililmm
~ ~~8~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~
~I
~
"
.
~
.~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~
_ !:I ....r:: 0
~ ~ llit:l ~ ~ffi ~
~~~ ~~ ;te ~~ ~
O~" "_ ~! ~_~._ z
~~~ ~~ ~~ :;;~ ~
~~~~~~ ~~ ~i ~5
~g~~~~ g; ~9 ~~
~iS~~~);i ~~ ~~ ~t2o
"~8!U~~~ ~! :;:
~6f5ffi~gli!:o~~ffi ~~
~I mlUlnm ~i
~
z
~
G
Z
e:
Z
~
1)
~
Illilllllll!lil
n
~:'i
~~
~~
uP>
<"
II
~~
~;
~~
~~
g~
~o
~~
2~
~~. -
\ i
~ ~
~ 8
w"'" m ~
~~ ."
w.
"<
II
~
~
~
~
w
w
"
~
~
~~
~!
II
"
wO
limll!!l!lll!
~~~g~~g~~~~~~~~
<Ii:;;! ,'3
!i~~
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE # P fJ a f3~
Planning Division
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
CITY OF
ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Street Address ,/ '7 1).'1/ c U.s'J
Pursuing LEED@ Certification? 0 YES 0 NO
..
/J4- r~z
~/-
)
Assessor's Map No, 39 1 E 0 'l C- A
Zoning {L - \..7.)
, I :1 00 b, l'], 0 \ Tax Lot(s)
Comp Plan Designation ;;;'i ^'1/-{.
,r ,I
f~/4, ty
!
APPLICANT
Name LJ(Ll1i-J D..vfl4'J:II\A!!..IJ-J ,kV~"I\~,LLL Phone
I (
Address f & r W. tV ''PAl..4VJ>, 3:,_
PROPERTY OWNER
Name ~(~~
E-Mail
\Z6'l1J~ P tJI. I,J f> . 011.. 'I
Zip <=-17)7- 0
City A~\~
Jhrlhh ft,.'!)
/'
Phone
E-Mail
~~ ~
Zip
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER. ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. OTHER
Title Name _<;f>.-~ ,A"'7T4-c/' hi) ,~ Phone
E-Mail
~~ ~
Zip
Title
Name
Phone
E-Mail
Address
City
Zip
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in al/ 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 10cated-911-lb.e_gLQ.!!!!.;!'
Failure in this regard will It most likely in not rr~~: being set ?J!~e, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be removed at my....expense If I have any dou. s, I am advised to s~t7'(petent professional advice and assistance,
~~/' _---- 3, f-. //
Applicant's Signature Date
AS,.9'1ff,er of the property in !,6lved in this request, I have. read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
l'n 4} ,I 'IJ (f) i /' ... - 4, :3 - C(-d-6/f
~property Owner' Signature (required) Date
Date Received
Zoning Permit Type
I
IT 0 be completed by City Staff]
Filing Fee
OVER ~~
r., n.~""........... "....t l~"..;....~.l,......~..., n...~I.. .,... 7....:.... 11.._..;. ., __t:...~.;,... .I,.~
Owner's Name: ALLMAN DAVID W/CAROL YN R Phone:
Customer #: 06109 State Lie No:
ALLMAN DAVID W/CAROLYN R City Lie No:
Applicant: 19 HILLCREST
Address: ASHLAND OR 97520
Sub-Contractor:
Phone: (541) 488-8112 Address:
Applied: 03/04/2011
Issued: 03/25/2011
Expires: 08/31/2011 Phone:
State Lie No:
Maplot: 391e09ca11300 City Lie No:
DESCRIPTION: Lot line Adj and lot width variance for 19 Hillcrest and rear yard setback variance for new SFR on hillside at vacant
parcel at 134 Terrace
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080
CITY Of
ASHLAND
I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the
best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts
understood and agreed to the following: Building: $ 0,00 $ 0.00
1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
(180 days).
2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in
advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0,00 $ 0,00
4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 3,124.00 $ 3,124.00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the Sub-Total: $ 3,124.00
applicant. Fees Paid: $ 3,124.00
Date Total Amount Due: $ 0
Applicant
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080
CITY OF
ASHLAND