December 9,2015

Planning Commission City of Bandon P.O. Box 67 Bandon, OR 97411

Coos Curry Consulting Group Permit Handling

P.O. Box 1548 * Bandon, Oregon 97411 sherimcgrathconsulting@gmail.com

541-982-9531

Dear Planning Commission,

RECEIVED DEC 09 2015

By _____ _

I am writing today on behalf of Deer Creek Ranch Trust, property owner of 2464 Beach Loop Road in Bandon, Oregon. We were notified that the Plan Review Application we submitted on August 19,2015 has been placed on the planning commission agenda for December 17,2015. I will be present on behalf of the property owner and have provided information below for consideration by the planning commission.

Correspondence with the city planning department regarding this project began on July 14,2015, and the applicant is unclear on several points as listed below. An interpretation by the planning commission regarding the alleged non-conforming nature of the existing steps is requested prior to approving either the original or revised proposal for stair replacement.

A site visit can be arranged with notice through our office if desired by the commission. Thank you for the time and consideration you have given us to date regarding our permitting questions, and thank you in advance for handling our application from this point forward. Looking forward to hearing from you!

Sincerely,

~\-Sheri McGrath Owner Representative

2464 Beach Loop Road Planning Commission Comments 12/9/15 Page 1

Summary of 2015 Events: July 14 : Email correspondence with city planner Michelle Hampton was initiated on

behalf of the applicant. July 23: Through email correspondence, Ms. Hampton relayed her concern of the

replacement stairs as proposed by the engineer as the stairs did not appear to comply with BMC 17 .20.040(B)(2).

July 27: Through email correspondence, a proposal to remove the stairs without structural support and/or elevation change was proposed. Ms. Hampton responded with the following email:

August 4:

August 6:

August 19:

August 24:

September 10:

September 14:

November 4 : November IS :

November 22:

November 30:

"If the steps can be at grade or below grade, this is something we could discuss with the Hearings Officer. I would need to do some research about what has been allowed within the view corridor before I make an absolute statement, but I think tillS could work. However, there could be no railings above grade." A request was made to schedule a meeting to discuss the application and drawings. An offer to visit the site was also extended. No response was received. A revised survey of the existing conditions was emailed to Ms. Hampton and a request to schedule a meeting was made. No response was received. A Plan Review application was submitted to the City of Bandon on behalf of Deer Creek Ranch Trust for the purpose of replacing existing steps that lead to the beach. The application included the original drawings from the engineer without revisions. The applicant was inquiring about non-conforming structures and continual use of such structures. Applicant attended DRB for application review. Staff unanimously determined that the proposed steps did not conform to the BMC for new construction or the replacement of a non-conforming use. The applicant was told that the steps must not exceed the elevation height of the existing steps in order to be rebuilt. A revised drawing was emailed to Ms. Hampton which showed compliance with the BMC. A response was issued that the item would be on the agenda for DRB. Applicant attended DRB for review of a revised proposal that showed all steps below or at the current elevation height of the existing steps. The design was well received and a geology report was to be executed before taking the proposal to the hearings officer. A geology report was emailed to Ms. Hampton. No response was receiveci. A hard copy of the geology report was delivered to the city and was placed in Ms. Hampton's box by the utility clerk. An email was sent to both Ms. Hampton and Mr. Owen's requesting an update on the project. Ms. Hampton sent an email response that the hearings officer requested that the planning commission consider the applicant's request.

2464 Beach Loop Road Planning Commission Comments 12/9/15 Page 2

Original Stair Design: The existing steps at 2464 Beach Loop Road consist of a portion of wood steps that are elevated and near the top of the bluff. The remaining gravel path has railroad tie steps that are unevenly spaced and located specific to the topography of the slope. Nearly all of the steps present a danger to a user, and the owner' s main concern is safety.

The owner hil·ed a local engineer to design a set of stairs that would meet the state building code, specifically the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code. In order to receive a building permit for the stair replacement, they must meet several criteria including clearance requirements from grade to the bottom of a wood structure and handrail height requirements. These required items cause the stairs to exceed the elevation height of the stairs that currently exist , thus staff determined that the proposed drawing could not be permitted.

Obtaining a building permit is the only way to ensure full compliance with the measures put in place for public safety. The state building codes division no longer requires a building permit for stair replacement along the bluff, but if one were to be applied for, full compliance is required. The applicant questions whether the commission wants to ensure the safety of the users of stairways along Beach Loop Road by requiring compliance with the building code, or if "user beware" replacements are sufficient.

Waiving the requirement for compliance with the building code not only presents a potential hazard to the private user of the steps along bluff areas , but also to surrounding properties and to beach users as high winds alone can upheave and displace railroad ties, damaged stairway components and other unanchored lumber. Additionally, without the requirement to obtain a state building permit, the property owners along the bluff would have no reason to believe that applyillg for zoning compliance through the city would be required.

The stairs at Coquille Point on 11th Street are another example that could be considered as these stairs would have been subject to review for view corridors, and subject to a conditional use permit in the NR zone. These stail·s replaced an existing below grade set of stairs that lead to the beach at the south end of the parking lot. The new stau·s are located west of the parking lot and are obviously constructed above grade and are assumed to have been permitted by the City of Bandon and the state building codes division. Regardless of whether the owner is a private person or a state agency, a precedent was set that existing stau·s can be rebuilt and can exceed the elevation height of the original stau·s.

Revised Design: In order to replace the existing dangerous steps, the contractor modified the design to show a below or at current stair height elevation. The steps are proposed to be placed between runners that run downslope and with the topography that support the treads. The runner ends will be placed on shallow concrete pads, and no handrail is included.

2464 Beach Loop Road Planning Commission Comments 12/9/15 Page 3

Bandon Municipal Code: Ms. Hampton provided BMC 17.20.040(B)(2) as the code reference for view corridors in the CD-l zone and why the proposed stairs could not be permitted. This portion of the code reads as follows:

BMC 17 .20.040(B)(2): Siting of structures should minimize negative impact on the ocean views of existing structures on abutting lots. Protection of views from vacant building sites should also be taken into consideration. Where topography permits, new structures should be built in line with other existing structures and not extend farther out into those viewscapes.

In response, the applicant provided photographs along with the application for development. The properties to the north and south are unaffected by the existing and proposed stairs, thus the applicant believes that the proposed stairs meet this criteria. There are currently 6 (six) existing stairways that extend from the top of the bluff to the beach in the immediate area as evidenced by the enclosed aerial. The applicant questions how a replacement stair could adversely affect an area that considers said stairs as a desired amenity to beach front properties. It could be said that the proposed stairs line up with other existing stairs along the bluff as the topography is similar; therefore, this criteria has also been met.

Based on BMC 17.20.040(B)(2), Ms. Hampton determined that the existing steps are non­conforming. The applicant questions whether the steps are non-conforming since they appear to meet the siting requirements for the CD-l zone, and incidental uses are allowed as conditional uses in the CD-l zone allowed per BMC 17.20.030(1). Interpretation by the planning commission is being requested as to whether all stairways along the bluff are considered non-conforming or legally created conditional uses, and how the permitting procedure for repair and replacement should transpire.

BMC 17.108.020 has provisions for altering, extending and replacing non-conforming structmes. If the existing stairs are considered non-conforming, they are currently less non-conforming in comparison to several stairways along Beach Loop Road.

In response to staff's determination, the applicant requested that the proposed stairs be considered a replacement of a non-conforming structure as allowed per BMC 17.108. The purpose of tlus chapter is to allow (among other items listed) non-confornung structures and other site improvements to be reconstructed. The BMC is not clear on what these site improvements might be, so the applicant has provided a definition for structure as follows:

BMC 16.42: "Structure" means that which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner and which requires location on the ground or which is attached to something having a location on the ground.

The applicant assumes the definition for the stairs is "Structure" and contends that BMC 17.108 exists to pernut the alteration and/or reconstruction of said stairs. The code reads as follows:

BMC 17 .108.020(A): a non-confornung structure may be altered or extended if the alteration or extension conforms to the standard of this Title.

(B): a non-confornung structure may be rebuilt provided that the new structure does not deviate further from the requirements of this Title than the original structure and the new structure is constructed inside the property lines.

2464 Beach Loop Road Planning Commission Comments 12 / 9/ 15 Page 4

The question before the commission is whether the proposed stairs deviate further from the requirements of BMC due to the change in elevation height. Based on BMC 17.20.040(B)(2), the replacement of the stairs would not deviate further from the code as no views are impeded by development. An interpretation of "extended" may be needed as well- what does it mean to extend a non-conforming structure if a change in elevation is not permitted?

Using the example of a non-conforming single family dwelling, a dwelling footprint can be replaced or added onto without consideration given to the previous height of the structure as long as the replacement structure and/or addition meets the height restriction of the zone in which it is located. If said extension or alteration meets the height requirements and would be allowed, would the same height restriction be placed on all structures and improvements in the same zone? For the subject property, that height restriction is 24' as found in BMC 17 .20.090(A), and the proposed stairs have a finished elevation height of approximately 8' . Additionally, the entire stairway is located outside of the required yards, thus conforming to setbacks as well.

BMC 17.04.040(B) allows for the planning commission to make a ruling for uses that are not specifically permitted. The applicant wonders if the commission may consider making an interpretation for all stairways that exist along Beach Loop as maintenance and replacement will be continual in our area. The code reads as follows:

BMC 17.04.040(B): The planning commission may rule that a use not specifically listed in the allowed uses of a zone shall be included among the allowed uses if the use is of the general type and is similar to the allowed uses. However, this does not authorize the inclusion in a zone where it is not listed if a use specifically in another zone or which is of the same general type and is similar to a use specifically listed in another zone.

2464 Beach Loop Road Planning Commission Comments 12/9/15 Page 5

Go gle earth feetr=========~ ____ 500 rretersl- 100

REVISED BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP FOR:

DEER CREEK RANCH TRUST TAX LOT 902 MAP: 2BS-15W-36CB

STAIRCASE CENTERUNE LENGTHS

WOOD STAIRS = 23.5'

RAILROAD TIE STAIRS = 123' (RAILROAD TIES ARE IN LENGTHS OF 3 ' AND 4')

IMPROVED DIRT TRAIL = 38'

8iS!l o..r Volley lae IIandoo, Onp !17m

541.294-f642

TRAIL ON NEIGHBORS PROPERTY

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL

LAND S URVEYOR

OREGON MAY 1 O. 2011

ITr=-C,r=-"'''E ALBERT CAMPBEll 83800

RENEWS 12/31/2015

• ( )

30 0

~~ ( IN FEET )

1 inch = 30 ft.

LEGEND

FOUND MONUMENT PER CS 32B50

CALCULATED POSITION PER CS 46A361

RECORD DIMENSION

PROPERTY LINES

CONTOUR ELEVATION LINES: ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON GOOGLE EARTH DATA AND NOT TO BE

CONSIDERED EXACT (BUT WITHIN A FOOT OR TWO Of NAVI)88) MATO? NT'"

S7l133 Dt" Valley Lont 1IImdoa, ~ "41J

541·m!1642

This photograph shows the wooden portion

of the existing steps. This view is facing east.

This photograph is taken from the end of the

wood steps facing northwest. The views of

the northern property are higher and look

over the existing and proposed stairs.

This photograph shows the transition in st air

style from pressure treated wood to railroad

ties. The railroad ties are not evenly spaced,

and some are missing or severely damaged.

The ti es are major safety concern for the

owners, and the sole reason why a new set

of stairs is desired.

Photograph taken from mid point on steps prior to west turn

and facing west.

The topography is such that the ocean view will remain unim­

peded for the properties to the north and south . The southern

residence can be seen in thi s photograph.

This photograph is taken from the gate on the west end of the

steps. The new stairs end prior to these existing stairs, and a

trail will be used to avoid wetland issues.

u:EN5 At.. NOT5~

STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION, ACCESS STAIRIAIAY FOR A RESIDENCE I_OCATED IN BANDON, OREGON

DFSIGN NOTES, STRUCTURAL DESIGN PER THE STATE OF OREGON 2014 STRUCTURAL

SPECIALTY CODE CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO ALL LOCAL CODES, ZONING MAINTAIN

ADEQUATE CLEARANCE FROM OVERHEAD POIAIER-LiNES AND ASSOCIATED EASEMENT(5) AS RECUIRED

INSTALL PRODUCTS PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS CONTACT ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION IF CONFUCT ING

SPECIFICATIONS ARE DISCOVERED CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING TO REVIEIAI

APPROVED PLANS

DeSIGN LOADS, IAIIND = 135 MPH (STRENGTH, ASCE 7-10), EXPOSURE "D" SEISMIC, RHO=I.3, S5=I.G% 9, SI=0.50"1 9, R=IS, 1=1.0

CONCRETE, ALL CONCRETE FOR FOOTINGS SHALL BE 3000 PSI 25-DAY STRENGTH

(MINIMUM) ALL CONCRETE FOR SLABS SHALL BE 3500 PSI 25-DAY STRENGTH

(MINIMUM) NOMINAL COARSE AGGREGATE SIZE SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE CONCRETE

PROVIDER BUT SHALL NOT EXCEED 3/4"

ReiNFORCEMENT, ALL CONCRE-E REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE DEFORMED STEEL REINFORCING

BARS CONFORMING TO ASTM A GI5 HAVING A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF GO,OOO PSI

PROVIDE 3" CLEAR COVER BETIAIEEN REINFORCEMENT AND BOTTOM OF rOOTINGS OR IAIH[N CONCRCTE IS CAST AGAINST SOIl_, 1-11/" CI_ [ AR BETIAIEEN EDGE OF FORMS AND REINFORCEMENT, 1-112" CLEAR BETIAIEEN TOP OF CONCRETE AND REINFORCEMENT

FOUNDATIONS, ALL EXTERIOR FOOTINGS SHALL EXTEND AT LEAST 12" BELOIAI GRADE PLACE FOUNDATION ON STRUCTURAL FILL LEVELING COURSE ASSUMED ALLOIAIABLE BEARING PRESSURE OF 1500 PSF (CONTRACTOR TO

VERIFY) DO NOT EXCAVATE CLOSER THAN A 2SHdV SLOPE BELO"I FOUNDAT IONS

STRUCTURAL FILL, ALL STRUCTURAL FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED 3/4"- CRUSHED AGGREGATE

IAII H LESS THAN 10% PASSING THE 200 SIEVE PLACE STRUCTURAL FILL IN HORIZONTAL LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 5" LOOSE

THICKNESS FOR ROLLER COMPACTIO~I EQUIPMENT AND 4" FOR HAND-OPERATED COMPACTIOI, EQUIPMENT

USE VIBRATORY COMPACTION FOR STRUCTURAL FILL USE CAUTION AROUND EXISTING STRUCTURES TO AVOID VIBRATION

RELATED DAMAGE EACH LIFT SHALL BE COMPACTED TO "15 PERCENT OR GREATER OF THE

MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY ASTM DG"I5 (STANDARD PROCTOR)

MAP 25S-151A1-3GCB, TL"I02

r7:\ ~I re Ae~ I AI_ ~ I" =5@ '

F'

PROJECT, RE070-15

51-IMINA Y

DATE, 5-1'1-2015

)-<I 3 fl <I 8 ~ cr

-' f-

lU co-

D-\.) 0

'" <I 3:

~ ~

\fl cO

'" 0 (L

«

~ L

W f-

...J \fi

PROJECT

51

III m a -.J a , tll

t-

o l> -1 m

(» , :D , IV 9 tll

J>

- m II X

~ ~ 6z = ~

o () z o --s () Z (p

1) r J> Z

r-esJ'dent'Ja l .27 SOOTH OTH STREET I c: S,pRINGFIELD OR q74TI e ngineering w: ( >4,) 207-417.

P MIKE PERINE, INC. in 1f,3 WILD GOOSE LANE ; ROSEBURG, OR '17470

S3I'3f, '1 4"E 31.'17'

II

;;:;

~

5'-3 15/1f,"

5'-0 3/5"

1] m m r :1 Z :D> ~ -{

2 L.ANC6CAF=E aT AI~WA-"-' m ~ SITE, MAP 25S 15W 2f,CB, TL '102

\J III

2 rn n --I

III rn a --J a I

lJ1

o » --I rn

CP I

-'l I

I\l 2 lJ1

I>

-11 " JU "'0 ~ 1) 00 = (p

m o () o z o --I

o Z (p

1) r ]> Z

r"esl'dent'lal <27 50JTH STH STREET Ie 5PRINGFIELD OR q7477

e ngineering lle (S4') 2ch-417<

,,"'II I v-,s

,,"' I/SI 0-,'"

I ~

--- - - --~-------o

P MIKE PERINE, INC. iii 1f.3 HILD GOOSE LANE ~ ROSEBURG, OR 97470

S31"3f.'14"E 31.97'

\J

-u JU m r ::l Z :B> ~ --(

2 L.ANCE!CAPE &TA I~WA'Y rn ::) SITE MAP 25S ISH 2f.CB, TL '102

-u ill

2 m ('I --\

ill m 8 a , U1

Cl » --\ m

OJ , :ii , N a U1

J>

(p ....... Q.l -a -II J> - IU ,

(:) E =1>-

--{

r I>---{ () c --f

~

S(;' ''--

.,' -0 7/5"

I I I Ii II

II

5' -4"

&'- 0 15/1.," 3 1- 0 11

P MIKE PERINE, INC.

o

~ r

» , ~

'esl'dentl'al '2' 5OJTH'TH STREET I { , , sPRINGFIELD, OR q7477

e ngmeenng u.c (541) 201 -411. iii 1.,3 HILD GOOSE LANE ~ ROSEBURG, OR '17470

0 rn --\ ~ r » , (j)

'" -- --

3JN3GIS3<!! 9NUSIX3

-u

1] iU m r ::1

o Z J> iU --{

2 L.ANOE!CAPE &T A I RWA-,-. m ~ SITE, MAP 25S 15101 2&(B, TL '102

\J ill C) L rn (1 --t

ill rn 0 --J 0 1

lJl

0 » --t rn

CP 1

::D 1 ~

2 lJl

I>

'-\)l

" --I

~

J, -',\

"( I

(5

" "!,

(J) -I J> -m E J> -< -U r i> Z

""'-I 0

" "!,

reSt'dential .21 """TIl STIl STREET I { , , SPRINGAELD, OR q74n

e ngmeenng LLC (S41) 201-""

P MIKE PERINE, INC. rn 1f,3 "'ILD Goo5E LANE ~ R05EBURG, OR '17470

) OS

SS

\J

"'--'-lP "-

~

"'--'-lP "-~

1] JU m r :J Z J> JU -<

21.A.NCE!CA.PE eTA I~WA.'Y rn ~ 5 ITE, MAP 255 15'" 2f,CB, TL '102

-a ill

2 fTl (l --j

ill fTl

S a I

IJl

Cl P --j fTl

OJ I

-'l I

i'0 <;> IJl

4'-7 112" 5'-2"

/ ~ , OJ

i~i~~~d ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8"

/ ~

P MIKE PERINE, INC. iii 1"3 "'ILD GOOSE LANE ~ ROSEBURG, OR '17470

-a

2 L.AN06CAPE eTA I~WAY fTl

~ SITE, MAP 2BS 15'" 2KB, TL '102

4 1- 0 11 1'-7" +/-

-. : 0

-o • r-

-

I ~

1'-7" +/- "1'-0"

I ~ ~ ~

. . . 0 . . . . 0 . . . • . . 0 . . 0

t- t-o . . . . . 0

t- t- t-

PReLIMIN AR Y ~

~

0 . . 0

(2) 1/2" CB HITH HA51 ER~ EXTERIOR SIDE (TYP) ...

2xf. RAILS; 3 -3/B" MAX CLEAR <I

:0 . . . t- t- III

A-<I

•• . . .r-.r-- .. .1- .f- 0 .r-.r. . .1- .f-. • ~ o ~~~~~~

t-o • • • ~

VA==~~~===7=r=====bF===~~====~======r=====br====~~= 0 ~ -I

N a 0-

-' I-

crf u '" N

3: ~

<Il cO N

0... <t 1:

w I-c:n

~t; Xr~ ~ 4XB ~ BEAM5~~*._ nv'v ~

~ ;;:~~~ ~~r~~:,7"HITH 5/B" DIA

PROJECT

5/B" MB HITH MIH EA SIDE r::: MB EACH END; PROVIDE MIH EACH SIDE OF CONNECTION