Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSiskiyou_1250_PA-2014-00249 t f CITY F ASHLAND April 4, 2014 Notice of Final Decision On April 4, 2014, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: 2014-00249 Subject Property: 1250 Siskiyou Boulevard Applicant: Soderstrom Architects for Southern Oregon University Description: A request for a Site Review approval to construct a 788 square foot addition to the Southern Oregon University Science Building. The request involves upgrading the J VAC mechanical systems on the roof of the building for the property located at 1250 Siskiyou Boulevard The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13`h day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of one year and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. j The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. i Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.108.070(B)(2)(b) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2)(c). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Amy Gunter in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. I cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 l www.ashland.or.us L SECTION 18.108.070(B)2 Effective Date of Decision and Appeals. B. Actions subject to appeal: 2. Type I Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. The final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is mailed unless reconsideration of the action is approved by the Staff Advisor or appealed to the Commission as provided in section 18.108.070(B)(2)(c). b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider Type I planning actions as set forth below. i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City Agency may request reconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the staff advisor, might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of mailing. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three (3) days whether to reconsider the matter. iii. If the Planning Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten (10) days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Staff Advisor shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any j party entitled to notice of the planning action. iv. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. c. Appeal. i. Within twelve (12) days of the date of the mailing of the Staff Advisor's final decision, including any approved reconsideration request, the decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any party entitled to receive notice of the planning action. The appeal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary on a forth approved by the City Administrator, be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to City Council action, and be received by the city no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 12th day after the notice of decision is mailed. ii. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the city and whose boundaries include the site. iii. The appeal shall be considered at the next regular Planning Commission or Hearings Board meeting. The appeal shall be a de novo hearing and shall be considered the initial evidentiary hearing required under ALUO 18.108.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission or Hearings Board decision on appeal shall be effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the parties. iv. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 \ www.ashland.orms c ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2014-00249 SUBJECT PROPERTY: , 1250 Siskiyou Blvd. APPLICANT: Soderstrom Architects for Southern Oregon University DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Review approval to construct a 788 square foot addition to the Southern Oregon University Science Building. The request involves upgrading the HVAC mechanical systems on the roof of the building for the property located at 1250 Siskiyou Boulevard COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon ; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 15BB TAX LOTS: 100 SUBMITTAL DATE: February 21, 2014 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: March 7, 2014 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: April 4, 2014 FINAL DECISION DATE: April 16, 2014 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: April 16, 2015 DECISION The request is to add an entryway addition to the north side of the Southern Oregon University (SOU) . Science Building. The SOU Science Building is on the south end of the campus near the intersections of Roca Street, Elkader Street and University Way. The buildings were constructed in two phases, one wing in 1957 and the other 1967; the wings are connected via a central entry or "hall". The architecture of the two buildings is very different from each other. The 1957 portion of the building, east side of the building, `Science 1' is. cast in place concrete, is two stories and is a sparse, modernist design. No central air or mechanical ventilation exists. The `Science 2' wing, the west half of the building was constructed in 1967, is three-stories plus a daylight basement. The exterior finish is precast, concrete panels on a concrete frame. The building has an eight-foot tall mansard roof with reddish brown tiles and two penthouses clad with the same red tiles. Air conditioning and ventilation exist on the roof. A seismic evaluation of the building was completed and as a result, the mansard roof on `Science 2' is proposed to be removed. The individual tiles are very heavy and held only by a single nail. They pose an extreme hazard in the event of an earthquake. Additionally, the mansard roof appears to have been added following the construction of the building in order to "match" the Mediterranean theme of red tiles on Churchill Hall and some of the other campus buildings. The mansard roof is wood framed, the wood framing conflicts with the fire occupancy that the Science Building needs in order to store hazardous and flammable chemicals commonly used in university science buildings. The mansard roof is only on one half of the building furthering the architectural disparities between the two structures. The Science Building will be undergoing a major restoration; most of the restoration is comprised of an extensive interior remodel. As part of the restoration, the applicants,have proposed to add new entryways. The entrance of Science ,1 has an existing covered area and it is proposed to be enclosed to provide student work space. The existing exterior fagade will remain the same, as the enclosure will be behind the architectural details of the entry. The applicant has also proposed to expand the footprint PA #2014-00249 1250 Siskiyou Blvd./adg Page 1 t. slightly to provide a larger, ADA accessibly lobby area outside of the largest lecture hall on campus. The proposed entry will remain two stories but the new space is proposed to be modern with steel beams and glass and have architectural similarities to the entry of the Hannon Library, the Schneider Museum of Art and the new at building near the museum. The buildings primary orientation is to a parking lot and not to the public street as none are in the vicinity. The original building design and much of the layout of the university campus does not comply with the current Site Design and Use Standards which calls for orientation to the public street but the proposed entry will provide a major pedestrian entry facing the open space and be strongly articulated as called for in the Southern Oregon University Master Plan. In addition to the entryway modifications, all of the HVAC, plumbing, electrical and lighting systems will be replaced and a fire sprinkler system will be installed. The current HVAC systems exist on the roof of the buildings and the roof and equipment are visible to the adjacent public right-of-way, Roca and Elkader and the adjacent residential zone. In this location, the streets are not public and are on university property allowed through easement. The applicant has requested an exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to not provide screening for the new equipment atop of the Science 2 building. The existing mechanical equipment is still visible above an existing six-foot parapet. In order to provide adequate screening which prevents view of the equipment from the streets, the screen would need to be approximately 10 -15 feet in height. This would add to the overall massing of the structure and will add to the existing building height of 36-feet, making the building over 40-feet in height, which would require additional Conditional Use Permit review. The applicant's findings state that the proposal will improve the existing roof-top mechanical situation by consolidating the equipment into smaller areas and the units will be painted white to match the roof. Additionally, the applicant's findings state that there are a number of trees in the vicinity that effectively screen the building from direct view from the residential zone. The applicant has also proposed to modify the entry paths and associated landscaping near the main entrance in order to meet ADA accessibility standards, stair rise and run, installation of a fire sprinkler line and the new entryway. As a result, six small stature trees are proposed for removal. The six trees are less than 18-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). As per Ashland Municipal Code, 18.61.035, Southern Oregon University is exempt from tree removal permit when the trees proposed for removal are less than 18-inches DBH. Staff finds that the proposed additions and the upgrading of the mechanical equipment will improve and modernize the Science Building. The addition of the new entry will incorporate design elements which are found on some of the new campus buildings such as the Hannon Library and the Schneider Museum. The proposal complies with the Southern Oregon University Master Plan and the Site Design and Use Standards. The criteria for Site Review Approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.72.070, as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subjectproperty. PA #2014-00249 1250 Siskiyou Blvd./adg Page 2 The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances. Planning Action 2014-00249 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 2014- 00249 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 plans submitted at the time of a building permit be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. 3) That prior to the issuance of a building permit the tree protection fencing in accordance with the approved plans and AMC 18.61.200 shall be installed on-site and inspected by the Staff Advisor prior to site work. 4) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the mechanical equipment on the roof shall be painted white or a similar light color in order to reduce its appearance. - ---D i11~Moln r, Director 12- / Date epartm e t of Community Development i E I I PA #2014-00249 1250 Siskiyou Blvd./adg Page 3 PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 7400 PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 8700 ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND ORE PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 8600 ANDERSON JACQUE LYNN NE FPO TLA ROWE CHRISTOPHER/KATHLEEN 609 ELKADER 605 ELKADER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 2838 E BURNSIDE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PORTLAND, OR 97214 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 8000 PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 7900 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 7900 BROWN WILLARD L TRUSTEE ET AL CHAMBERLAIN JIM A/VICTORIA COONEY KEVIN J TRUSTEE ET AL 630 LEONARD ST 591 ELKADER ST 1280 MADRONE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 8300 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 9300 PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 8000 DAVIS CHELSEA DE LORENZO C/SUSAN EINHORN GARY A TRUSTEE ET AL 595 ELKADER ST 650 MONROE ST 580 S MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 7800 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 2100 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 1200 ENGLE MARY LOU FOERDER ALAN H HALD JACQUE JEAN TRUSTEE ET AL 565 ELKADER 1257 SISKIYOU BLVD 25 600 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 1300 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 2000 PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 8400 HALD JACQUE JEAN TRUSTEE ET AL JONES THOMAS E TRUSTEE ET AL KOCKS MARYLEN AGRELL C/O BUBB PEARSON & ASSOCIATES 605 ROCA ST 600 S MOUNTAIN AVE 821 E JACKSON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 9000 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 8900 PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 7700 LEPLEY CARIM ALAN/DAMSTRA-LEPLEY LEPLEY SACHA LYNDA/WILDGUSTJOHN MARTIN SUSAN L TRUSTEE ET AL CATHY J 935 HUNTER LN 5021 FOOTHILLS RD D 260 WELLS FARGO DR SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 1900 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 9100 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BA 1300 NIEDERMEYER PAUL/SIVESIND KRISTIN NUTTER JERRY ORE STATE/BOARD HIGHER ED/ ATTN: BETH BARNES 1497 WINDSOR ST 1336 MADRONE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 1250 U BLVD ASHLAND, , OR 97520 PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 8100 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 8100 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 2900 SAMEH SARAH SHEPHERD DANIEL P/AUSHNA A STONE JEWELL V 588 MOUNTAIN AVE S 650 LEAONARD ST 588 ELKADER ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 FACILITIES, MGMT, & PLANNING SODERSTROM ARCHITECTS 351 WALKER MICHAEL SHEA ASHLAND, OR 97520 1200 NW NAITO PKWY PORTLAND, OR 97209 1250 Siskiyou Blvd 4/4/2014 NOD 2-5 i; f 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 April 4, 2014 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2014-00249, 1250 Siskiyou Blvd. Signature of Employee DocumeW 41412014 Planning Department, 51 Winbu,m Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY OF . ' 541-488-5305 Fax; 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 SHLAND NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-2014-00249 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1250 Siskiyou Boulevard OWNER/APPLICANT: Soderstrom Architects for Southern Oregon University DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Review approval to construct a 788 square foot addition to the Southern Oregon University Science Building. The request involves upgrading the HVAC mechanical systems on the roof of the building for the property located at 1250 Siskiyou Boulevard; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 15BB TAX LOTS: 100 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 7, 2014 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: March 21, 2014 SUBJECT BUILDING 1275 SOU Science Building ASHLAND ST 39 1E 15BB 100 I I II I C) 1250 1290 I ~ ~ I 565 F- 1~-' 4LU 590 j s76 591.' Y 580 I - LU 5951 595 X80 1I' 5 _ I 605 - 600 605 U 1 Q10 O ~ ' Y Fi09619 i 620 624 626 O 35 70 140 Feet I 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 Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) 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 prgvided 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. Easy Peel® Labels i A i-- Bend along line to 11 i Use Avery® Template 51600 aed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM AVERVO 5160p PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 8700 PA-2014-00249 391 El6AA 7400 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BA 900 ANDERSON JACQUE LYNN ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND ORE BOARD/REGENTS/NORMAL SCHOOL S 609 ELKADER WALSH MEM NEWMAN CTR OREGON STATE COLLEGE ASHLAND, OR 97520 2838 E BURNSIDE ST 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD PORTLAND, OR 97214 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00249 391 El5BB 8000 PA-2014-00249 391 El6AA 7900 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 7900 BROWN WILLARD L TRUSTEE ET AL CHAMBERLAIN JIM A/VICTORIA COONEY KEVIN J TRUSTEE ET AL 630 LEONARD ST 591 ELKADER ST 1280 MADRONE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00249 391 El6AA 8300 PA-2014-00249 391 El5BB 9300 PA-2014-00249 391 El6AA 8000 DAVIS CHELSEA DE LORENZO C/SUSAN EINHORN GARY A TRUSTEE ET AL 595 ELKADER ST 650 MONROE ST 580 S MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00249 391 El6AA 7800 PA-2014-00249 391 El5BB 2100 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 1200 ENGLE MARY LOU FOERDER ALAN H HALD JACQUE JEAN TRUSTEE ET AL 565 ELKADER 1257 SISKIYOU BLVD 25 600 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00249 391 El5BB 1300 HALD JACQUE JEAN TRUSTEE ET AL PA-2014-00249 391 El5BB 2000 PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 8400 C/O BUBB PEARSON & ASSOCIATES JONES THOMAS E TRUSTEE ET AL KOCKS MARYLEN AGRELL LLC, CPA 605 ROCA ST 600 S MOUNTAIN AVE 821 E JACKSON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 E MFnFnRn nR WSM PA-2014-00249 391 El5BB 9000 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 8900 PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 7700 LEPLEY CARIM ALAN/DAMSTRA-LEPLEY LEPLEY SACHA LYNDA/WILDGUST JOHN MARTIN SUSAN L TRUSTEE ET AL CATHY J DAVID 5021 FOOTHILLS RD D 260 WELLS FARGO DR 935 HUNTER LN LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 PA-2014-00249 391 El5BB 1900 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BA 1300 NIEDERMEYER PAUL A/SIVESIND NUTT4ER-00249JERRY 391 E1 56B 9100 ORE STATE/BOARD HIGHER ED/ ATTN: NUTT KRISTIN D 1336 MADRONE ST BETH BARNES 1497 WINDSOR ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00249 391El5BB 6800 PA-2014-00249 391E1513A 1000 PA-2014-00249 391E16AA 8600 OREGON STATE OF S 0 S C BUSINESS OREGON STATE OF/ STATE ROWE CHRISTOPHER/KATHLEEN MGR 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD 605 ELKADER ST 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520' PA-2014-00249 391 E16AA 8100 PA-2014-00249 391 E15BB 8100 PA-2014-00249 391 El5BB 2900 SAMEH SARAH SHEPHERD DANIEL P/AUSHNA A 'STONE JEWELL V 588 MOUNTAIN AVE S 650 LEAONARD ST 588 ELKADER ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 FACILITIES, MGMT, & PLANNING 1250 Siskiyou Blvd 351 WALKER ASHLAND, OR 97520 317114 NOC ttiquettes faciles a peter ; A Repliez a la hachure afire de ; www.averycom Sens de t L Y CI ,7 GE Wy ^co-mCSUY -L~HLAND ST PLR~~T ST .4 _ ~ I n rq - ~ i rr ~ 1 R DSO'4 ;T. ,i _ .Y i f ~ l.- i+I ? ST Il. l'l I`L'1UI gi PrY - F)E< ;ER ST i C1111:15T ~~1U.'J_.A{~ G- 'li~ ii r ass R u r >k ~ ~ ~ I r riICT R u G - ` 7 - --1 71 r IKpxsf i i 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 7, 2014 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 #PA-2014-00249, 1250 Siskiyou Blvd. v% Signature o Employee i 1 DocumeW 31612014 MEMORANDUM SODERSTROM ARCHITECTS February 18, 2014 Re: Site Review Application Submittal for the Southern Oregon University Science Building Renovation Enclosed with this memo are drawings related to SOU's Science Renovation project. This project is primarily an interior renovation, but with exterior work involving a small addition to the building footprint and replacement of all rooftop mechanical equipment. Also there is a possible replacement of existing windows in one wing of the building. A pre-application conference was held on July 17, 2013. A check for site review is enclosed. The city has advised that the review fee is $998 plus .5% of the value of the construction that triggers the site review. In this case that consists of the expansion of the building footprint with a new larger entry lobby. Construction costs have been estimated by Andersen Construction at $240,090 for the lobby expansion. At .5% the fee would be $1200 plus $998 for a total of $2198. Background The Science building was built in 2 phases with one wing completed in 1957 and the other wing in 1967. Together they total about 77,000 SF. The 1957 wing is known on campus as 'Science V and has 2 stories in a spare modernist design. It currently has no central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation and is built of cast in place concrete. The 1967 wing is known as 'Science 2', has 3 stories plus a daylight basement, and is also built of concrete, but with precast concrete exterior panels on a concrete frame. Its visual design is characteristic of the late 60's and is strikingly different from Science 1. It has a mansard roof about 8 feet tall of reddish concrete tiles and 2 penthouses clad in the same tiles. Central air conditioning and ventilation are provided from equipment in the larger rooftop penthouse and flammable liquids are stored in the smaller penthouse. The building is on the south edge of campus, north of Madrone St and just east of Roca St. Since the lot is contiguous with the rest of the campus it is not clear what the lot area is or the relative percentage of lot coverage is. The zoning designation is 'SO'. No changes to existing parking are planned. The building is the home of the biology, physics, chemistry and environmental studies departments and has over 35 laboratory spaces, along with classrooms and faculty offices. It also includes the largest non- theater auditorium on campus. Work in This Protect In this renovation, all HVAC, plumbing, electrical and lighting systems will be replaced. A new fire sprinkler system will be added, requiring a new tap into an existing fire water line in the parking lot Cameron Hyde, AIA Dan Danielson, AIA E. Henry Fitzgibbon, LEED, AIA Brad Defile, AIA Main 503.228.5617, Fax 503.273.8584 1200 NW Naito Parkway. Suite 410, Portland, Oregon 97209 www.sdra.corn north of the building. The new fire service lateral from the main to the building will run under an existing sidewalk to avoid damage to existing large trees. A structural engineering seismic evaluation of the building has been completed and some interior modifications will be made so that the building meets the guidelines of ASCE 46 "Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings". In connection with this, the mansard roof on Science 2 will be removed. There are several reasons for this. First, the tiles pose an extreme hazard in an earthquake. Each concrete tile weighs about 15 pounds and is held in place by a single 50 year old nail. There is no cost effective way to secure these tiles so as to keep them from raining down during an earthquake. Next, the tiles are nailed to a wood parapet framing system. The entire building is concrete but the mansard roof and penthouses are wood framed. Because of the large number of labs, in which hazardous and flammable chemicals are used, the building needs to be classified as a Type II-A, 1 hour rated non combustible building. The combustible wood framing in the parapet and penthouses conflicts with this requirement. This framing is also inadequately braced and a liability in a seismic event over and above the tile fastening concern. Finally, the tile does not visually fit with the building. The mansard roof actually perches atop a concrete cornice and seems like an afterthought. It may have been intended to relate to other tile roofed buildings on campus but it increases the disparity between Science 1 and Science 2. Removal of the mansard roof and penthouses would be a visual improvement. As part of the replacement of all existing HVAC systems, all existing rooftop HVAC equipment will be replaced. Rather than try to fit new HVAC, equipment into the larger HVAC penthouse, that tile clad penthouse will be removed and replaced with new rooftop units. Current HVAC rooftop equipment is scattered across the roof areas. New equipment will be organized into just a 4 larger consolidated units, 2 on Science 1 and 2 on Science 2. The labs currently do not have safe or energy efficient fume hood exhaust systems. New exhaust systems will be positioned in an orderly arrangement on the roof. Two will be placed on Science 1 and 2 will be on Science 2. Each of these units has 3 exhaust stacks or chimneys. These are in addition to the 4 HVAC units described above. At the joint between Science 1 and Science2, on the north side, is the main entry to the building. On the ground floor this holds the largest lecture hall on campus, seating 218. The lobby space outside this auditorium is not large enough for groups waiting for the next lecture. The main entry is also not accessible to wheel chair users. On the second floor at this location, existing offices will be replaced by student workspaces, taking advantage of the excellent view north across the valley. Both of these factors resulted in a plan to expand the lobby space by about 15 feet to the north, creating a larger lobby on the ground floor, with additional student casual space on the second floor. The new lobby will be highly visible from lower parts of the campus and will help to join the 2 disparate halves of the science building into one whole. The roof above the auditorium has a the clad penthouse currently used for chemical storage. This smaller penthouse storing flammable liquids will be removed. The current arrangement for chemical storage in a roof penthouse is incredibly risky. Expansion of the lobby will require relocation of the patio entry area and stairs north of the lobby. A new sidewalk will be added to bring an accessible entry route to the main entry of the building from existing accessible parking near Hanlon Library. The new patio entry and sidewalk will reduce the landscaped area to a minor degree. This 788 SF expansion will be the only expansion of the building's footprint. At the Science 1 wing, the original main entry has an entry porch. This will be enclosed within the line of the existing porch roof to add student work space and from the exterior will look just the same as it does now. No other expansion of the building area will occur other than at these two points. In the Science 1 wing, existing windows will be replaced with windows having a similar appearance but better energy efficiency if budget allows. Also 3 new windows will be cut into the existing walls at the south side. The project will pursue a LEED silver certification. Approval Criteria - Applicable City Ordinances 1. Site review (AMC 18.72.030.A.1.b.) - The project is pursuing a site review. The project is not within a Detail Site Review Zone. 2. Plans Required (AMC 18.72.060) The following plans have been provided with this memo: 1. Site Plan 2. Tree Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Exterior Elevations 3. Unnecessary Noise - (AMC 9.08.170) - The project will comply with noise limits specified during both construction periods and during and regular operations. Approval Criteria - Site Design and Use Standards Section 18.72.080 C. 2. states that Site Design and Use Standards Section II-C is applicable to all non- residential development. The following is a list of pertinent standards from II-C along with a brief discussion of how this project responds to those standards. 1. Orientation and Scale (II-C-1a) - As shown on the site plan, the existing building has its primary entry oriented to the campus and away from the residential neighborhood to the south. This does not comply with the design guideline. However, the SOU Master Plan on page 55, calls for "Buildings facing the main campus open space shall have a major pedestrian entry facing that open space." So the building does comply with the Master Plan. The plan also states "Entries shall be strongly articulated and clearly understandable as entries." The proposed lobby expansion (Figure B) is a visually stronger entry statement than the existing entry. (Figure A) F _ _ w - _ A. Existing Main Entry i I { -OU v .3 B. Proposed Main Entry 2. Streetscape (II-C-1b)- The existing street frontage (south side, Photos C, D and E) is heavily planted with trees already. This is the only street frontage that adjoins the residential neighborhood. The E i t context aerial photo on the following page shows the locations from which the photos were taken, as well as the general situation of the building and the neighborhood. M1 F a Qz- v - C. View of Building from Roca St., south of the building OP, _ r G1m c. r .r D. View of Building from Roca St., south of the building f i 21 Ir Y - I I i i I I q (c i I i F ~ fl) ~ t t ~ ~ f s1f ~l] I f r 1 et E. View of building from Madrone St., southeast of the building 3.1-andscaping (II-C-1c) - New landscaping will be provided where the proposed main entry expansion is located and also where the existing porch at Science 1 is being enclosed. (See landscape drawings and figure B). 1. Landscaping will be selected so that plant coverage is 50% after 1 year and 90% after 5 years. 2. Landscaping will use plants with a low water use and will be a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees and flowering plants. 3. An existing large landscape buffer exists between the building and Roca St, the edge of the residential area. There are no outdoor storage areas. Existing loading will remain at the south side of the building where it is well screened from the residential area by trees, retaining walls and the steep slope. 4. The irrigation system will be upgraded to assist plant survival. 5. Since this is primarily an interior remodel project, no existing trees or shrubs will be removed. 4. Parking (II-C-1d) - No new parking will be added. No work will be done in parking areas except for patching any paving removed for installation of a new fire sprinkler line. 5. Designated Creek protection (II-C-1e) - There are no creeks in the building vicinity. 6. Noise and Glare (II-C-1f) - No new exterior lighting is proposed at the south of the building so no glare will be directed to the residential neighborhood to the south. The project will comply with noise limits specified during both construction periods and during and regular operations, 7. Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings ( II-C-1g) - The site conforms to the requirements of the SOU Master Plan which has been accepted by the city for zone SO, or the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards so this section is not applicable. 8. Rooftop HVAC Screens (18.72.030.13 (e))1_ - In the pre-application conference the city advised that screening is required for rooftop mounted mechanical equipment. Currently the older portion of the building, Science 1, has many items of rooftop equipment with no screening. Science 2 has most equipment within a penthouse, but also has some equipment outside of the penthouse. The proposed design removes the Science 2 penthouse and mansard roof but consolidates small rooftop units and lines of ductwork atop the roof into several large air handling units, minimizing the clutter. These units will rise about 10 feet above the parapet. The lab fume hood exhausts by technical necessity extend 15 to 16 feet above the parapet in order to project the exhaust high into the air where it can be diluted in the atmosphere. The units will be painted white to match the white roofing and make them harder to see. The adjoining residential neighborhood is uphill from the building and portions of it already can view the roof surface of Science 2, despite the fact that it has an 6 ft tall parapet around it. See photo F taken from Elkader St uphill from the building. In this photo one can see mechanical equipment beyond the existing 6 foot high parapet. This particular house is closest to the building. Houses further up the hill would have an even clearer view of the roof if not for the intervening trees, both on the SOU campus and in their own yards. These trees currently serve as effective screening. Additional screening of the new rooftop units, because of the slope, must be exceptionally tall to prevent sight of the equipment from all locations uphill, perhaps as much as 18 to 20 ft tall. A screen of the size needed would be more of an eyesore than the equipment so it would counterproductive. In the case of the fume hood exhausts, the stacks must rise above their surrounds or they will not be effective resulting in fumes possibly drifting into the neighborhood. The trees on campus and in the neighborhood are rather effective at screening the building from the neighborhood because they are 20 to 60 feet tall and located not only at the building but also on the residential lots uphill. For these reasons we seek an exception to the requirements for screening. Section 18.72.090 allows for exceptions to the Site Design Standards if "there is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties." ' This citation states that HVAC equipment visible from the street or residential neighborhoods is not exempt from site review. A citation specifically requiring equipment screens could not be found. E! F ` l ` rF ~~T 4k 4 Y F. View from southwest on Elkader St. In this case, we have several difficulties: 1. Because the neighborhood is uphill from the building, screening of the HVAC equipment would have to be very tall to hide the equipment and therefore probably more objectionable to the view than the equipment itself. (See enclosed elevation) To mitigate this, the equipment will be painted to match the white roofing. The roof surface can be seen from the neighborhood at some locations, and having the equipment the same color will help it blend in with the roof surface. 2. The fume hood exhaust stacks, in order to function properly must protrude above the surrounds by several feet. Tall screening will be detrimental to their correct operation. Tall screening to hide the rooftop units would require even taller exhaust stacks. The existing trees are reasonably effective at blocking the view from many locations in the uphill neighborhood. Addition of screening would be redundant for these locations so granting the exception would not have any impact on the view from these locations. U cz tj -41 141. a . W LU 4-1 LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovation roject Scorecard L E E R Oregon University science Building Renovation Rev 7-15.13 Oregon vES t o F-J Prereq 1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables Required Credit 1.1 Building Reuse - Maintain Existing Walls, Floors and Roof 1 to 3 Peuse euse 55% 1 euse 75% 2 95% 3 t--L~ Credit 1.2 Building Reuse - Maintain Interior Nonstructural Elements 1 Credit2 Construction Waste Management 1 to 2 R 50% Recycled or Salvaged 1 2° 75% Recycled or Salvaged 2 Credit 3 Materials Reuse 1 to 2 R Reuse 5% 1 Reuse 10% 2 ~Credit4 Recycled Content t to 2 10% of Content 1 R20% of Content 2 Credit 5 Regional Materials 1 to 2 10% of Materials 1 2 20% of Materials 2 Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 1 Credit 7 Certified Wood i Yes ro 12 Prereq 1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Required Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 Credit 2 Increased Ventilation 1 Credit 3.1 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan - During Construction 1 Credit 3.2 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan- Before Occupancy 1 Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials- Adhesives and Sealants 1 Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials - Paints and Coatings 1 Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials - Flooring Systems 1 Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials - Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products 1 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control 1 Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems • Lighting 1 Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems - Thermal Comfort 1 Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort - Design 1 redit 7.2 Thermal Comfort -Verification 1 redit 8.1 Daylight and Views. Daylight 1 redit 8.2 Daylight and Views -Views 1 0c, _ j~'"~~°~~ E5 - i? - Credit 1 Innovation in Design 1 to 5 1 Exemplary Performance - Green Power 1 1 Exemplary Performance - Regional Materials 1 1 Exemplary Performance - Construction Waste Management 1 1 Innovation - Pilot Credit 55 for Bird collision Deterrence 1 N Innovation 1 Credit2 LEED®AccreditedProfessional 1 Yo t 4 < =3 a Credit 1 Regional Priority 1 to 4 1 Regionally Defined Credit Achieved - SSc5.1 Protect Habitat 1 1 Regionally Defined Credit Achieved - Certified Wood 1 1 Regionally Defined Credit Achieved 1 1 'Regionally Defined Credit Achieved - 1 YES no 60 1 •1 :~i(r`7eP } ui;rl fi).-•.(,i 17 Certified: 40-49 points Silver: 50-59 points Gold: 60-79 points Platinum: 80+ points II e LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovation \ roject Scorecard L E E D Oregon University Science Building Renovation Rev 7-15.13 Oregon Yes 7 No Prereq 1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables Required Credit 1.1 Building Reuse - Maintain Existing Walls, Floors and Roof 1 to 3 Reuse 55% 1 Reuse 75% 2 3 Reuse 95% 3 Credit 1.2 Building Reuse - Maintain Interior Nonstructural Elements 1 Credit 2 Construction Waste Management 1 to 2 8 50% Recycled or Salvaged 1 75% Recycled or Salvaged 2 ~Credit3 Materials Reuse 1 to 2 B Reuse 5% 1 Reuse 10% 2 Credit 4 Recycled Content 1 to 2 810% of Content 1 20% of Content 2 Credit 5 Regional Materials 1 to 2 810 % of Materials 1 2 20% of Materials 2 Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 1 Credit7 Certified Wood 1 res 1 Prereq 1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Required Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 Credit 2 Increased Ventilation 1 Credit 3.1 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan - During Construction 1 LFF Credit 3.2 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan - Before Occupancy 1 Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials - Adhesives and Sealants 1 Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials - Paints and Coatings 1 Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials - Flooring Systems 1 Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials - Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products 1 Credit 5 . Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control 1 Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems - Lighting 1 Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems - ThermalComfort 1 Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort - Design 1 Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort - Verification 1 Credit 8.1 Daylight and Views - Daylight 1 Credit 8.2 Daylight and Views - Views 1 Y¢5 E6 T 71- Credit 1 Innovation in Design i to 5 Exemplary Performance - Green Power 1 i1 Exemplary Performance e - Regional Materials 1 PlInnovation Exemplary Performance - Construction Waste Management 1 Innovation - Pilot Credit 55 for Bird collision Deterrence 1 1 Credit2 LEED®AccreditedProfessional 1 Yes 7 r Credit 1 Regiunel Priority 1 to 4 1 Regionally Defined Credit Achieved - SSc5.1 Protect Habitat 1 1 Regionally Defined Credit Achieved - Certified Wood 1 f` Regionally Defined Credit Achieved 1 1 Regionally Defined Credit Achieved - 1 Yes X79 60 1 .)J-1,r F I - r1~ilr1 Til? Certified: 40-49 points Silver: 50-59 points Gold: 60-79 points Platinum: 80+ points ii r PROJECT NOTES 1, Interior renovation of existing space 80,508 SF (6 2. Addition, - 1,188 SF 3. Total Area: - 81,696 SF F 4. No new parking ° 5. New landscaping only at areas disturbed by a ~ construction. - ° 6, No changes to domestic water, sewer or electrical connection locations. N a 7. New water service for fire sprinklers only. LU won VONITY MAP EXISTING ACCESSIBLE \ a \ PARKING A ZNI~tq R15 i4°.~ e V A A~ I v V I I I - J R \E~ENHOUS \ f i. \ \ / A v yrf F' o \V A. ~aAaj" ,w 'V l \ V \ VA~• EXISTING ACCESSIBLE ENTRY \ ` s t Xk OCA STREE \ r ZOI~J~SQ R_ j l A v4 \ ~.sr 1 sTN~kTsHYDwNr~\~ \ Z rn 5 W 2 0 SCIENCE1 \ S)TNeRETAININCw IVA / \ A \ @ \ v~.. m % \ E \ fi' \ \ Z _ LINE OFEXISTING ENTRY k. W r';a 7 \ a LOADING ZONE Z Q PP_ f\A EXISTINGIWJISFORMERS Z) 'O EXISTING ENTRY 0 N \ W 111 0 A {J \ \ E%IS~I ~c--HANNQI~NG PORCH S \ `7 \ TOBEEaC OSEO1L ~1x W O 11 SCIENCE HALL K v - Z o LIBRARY % \ STING LOADING ENTRY r! Z W Y _ rw ~ \ \ \ \ NEW WALK HA_ S N \ . \\j ME OP EXISTING ENTRY Uj_ U) j AG?ssleLE ROUT ♦ G p SCIENCE 2 tR j SIB ~r A Cn UJ V \ \ _ ~'•N EWACCES 0 N ENTRY V v~ \ ~f \ \ \ .,CONTCI)<lSARE \ AT_2 INTERYA~ \ \`Sy\\, - REPLACE EXISTING WALK OVER NEW FIRE LINE *s` \ ~ ~ ,f-..M1r t.; rj\ ~ f~~ Orewn: MS \ \ .r f+-La~,5 Y Dale: 2N4114 T~ .~~,,t,vJ REWSKKIS \ ` ~~W° ~ ~ N6 eESQ~IKKI b1iE Ch.*: DOUBLtWIDE 4 - 5 { ❑ TEMPOR'ARY V4W XISTING FIRE HYDRANT NE1'fIRE HYDRANT FIRE DEPARYMENT,CONNECTION ` \ Sheet tle ANDFOC MSOEVpD~IPVALVECo>.xTEa.____ VACAI~ DASHLAND TREET slTEww MACCESSIBLE a\ - ` } \ 1~IY1 LEXISTINGG a" ISTING12 WATERLINE P ~ EXISTING IREHYD A \5~~~~2151A ~ 1 \ - - W Z"4, 'q SCALE I INCH = 20 FEET \ l a 2® OF ORy~ ~ e ~ PLAN A100 < TAX ID - 391E15BB LOT 100 Job No: 12111 8~ L " Crown Tree Protection ES DBH Height Radius in Zone Radius in Tolerance to fl---ff-- TREE PROTECTION FENCING X REMOVAL g Species (Inches) in feel Feel Feet Construction Condition Notes 1 Picea ables 15° 33' 11' o 2 Pinus flexilis 8° 20' 9' 3 Qoeroussuber 5° 17' 4' Unhealthy m 4 Queroussuber 6° 17' 6' Unhealthy ¢ Q ao" 5 Pinus ponderosa 19" 55' 17'' 01 6oQ a " 6 Pinus ponderosa 20" 55' 16' a v Qkedo 7 Pinusnigra 15" 28' 20' p a o p o 8 Pinus nigre 12" 28' 25' m s PROTECTION ~ 9 Tilia cordata 13" 30' 24' Remedial Pruning zoNE 4 ' 10 Tilia cordata 16" 30' 24' Remedial Pruning v a m PROTECTION FENCE CONIINUOUSLV O1 ZONE AROUNDTREEAT 11 Pinus conloria 8" 25' 7' Unhealthy ° PROTECTION ZONE 12 Pinus mugo 15" 15' 6' Unhealthy 13 Pinus ponderosa 16" 53' 15' 14 Pinus ponderosa 22" 65' 18' ~j 15 Pinus ponderosa 22" 65' 17' e PLAN 16 Pinus ponderosa 15" 65' 19' F Tj -eTALLCONTINUOUS 17 Pinuscontorla 7' 15' 9' Unhealthy, REMOVE ELEVATION CMNLINK FENCING ON 18 Pinus contorts 7°16" 15' 10' Multi trunk, Unhealthy, REMOVE CONCRETE PIERS 19 Pinus contorts 7' 15' 10' Leaning, Unhealthy, REMOVE TREE PROTECTION DETAILS 20 Populus tremuloides 6° 20' 6' n 21 Populustremuloides 5°!4" 15' 8' Multi Trunk 22 Malus spp. 6" 10' 3' rt 23 Chamaecyparis obtuse 8" 17' 7' REMOVE 24 Prunus spp. 575" 25' 8' Multi Trunk, REMOVE CZ 25 Chamaecyparis obtuse 6° 15' T M 26 Chamaecyparis obtuse 6° 15' T SPECIFICATIONS FOR TREE PRESERVATION DURING CONSTRUCTION: 1. Before beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the landscape architect at the site to review all work 12. Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for the foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any trees within the F procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures. specific construction zone shall be root pruned 1 foot outside the tree protection zone by cutting all roots cleanly at a 90 2. Fences must be erected to protect trees to be preserved as shown in diagram. Fencing shall be 6'tall temporary degree angle to a depth of 24 inches, Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a 8 Chain link panels installed with metal connections to all panels area integrated, these fences shall be installed so that it saw, vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root-pruning equipment. does not allow passage of pedestrians and/ or vehicles through it. Fences define a specific protection zone for each 13. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly at a 90 degree free or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or angle to the root with a saw. Place damp soil around all cut roots to a depth equaling the existing finish grade within 4 IN~ removed without the permission of the landscape architect. hours of cuts being made. 3. Construction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times. 14. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a road bed of 6 inches of 4! 4. All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the tree protection zone. If lines must mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The road bed material shall be replenished as necessary to maintain tranverse the protection area, they shall be tunneled or bored under the tree roots. a 6 inch depth. 5. No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within the tree 15. Spoil from trenches, basements, or other excavations shall not be placed within the tree protection zone, either OIS TE~~ protection zone (fenced area). temporarily or permanently. Q~ STATE OF 0 6. Additional tree pruning required for the clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified arborisl and 16. No bum piles ordebris piles shall be placed within the tree protection zone. No ashes, debris, or garbage maybe OREGON or buried within the tree protection zone. h U \ ^ J not by construction personnel. dumped REG a 493 \ / c 7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use. 17. Maintain fire-safe areas around fenced area. Also, no heat sources, flames, ignition sources, or smoking is allowed 9 8. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, the bee consultant should evaluate it as soon as possible so near mulch or trees. xrey xcncaun that apporpriale treatments can be applied. All damage caused by construction to existing trees shall be compensated 18. Do not raise the soil level within the drip lines to achieve positive drainage, except to match grades with sidewalks SC 11h2m for, before the project will be considered complete. and curbs, and in those areas, feather the added topsoil back to existing grade at approximately 3:1 slope. 4pg AEG LINE OF 9. The project Landscape Architect must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is expected to 19. Exceptions to the tree protection specifications may only be granted in extraordinary circumstances with written Revision Date: \ 26 EXISTING ENTRY encounter tree roots. approval from the landscape architect. 24 n 10. NI trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the landscape architect. Irrigation shall wet the 25 soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30 Inches. 23 11. Erosion control devices such as slit fencing, debris basins, and water diversion structures shall be installed to Drawn By. SGB prevent siltation and/ or erosion within the tree protection zone. Scale t" =20'-0" 20 21 ,2 3~ m - 4~ O 19 18~~ O 17 4 OUTSIDE WORK AREA LIJ =3 0~ 1 0 q-0 V~ 13-lp 165 16 a 5 s 12 f0 - O 6 Lf) 8 W SHEET KEY - OCTOBER 29,2013 L 1.0 TREE PROTECTION PLAN - L 2.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN A L 3,0 PLANTION PLAN A A L 4.0 IRRIGATION PLAN TREE PROTECTION PLAN L 1.0 p :r u 4 W N h~h O? d 2 1~ C Nb°~ a MAN V ~iD N ~ X r" tI° U Y 00 0 UPPCRBED REFERENCE PLAN " v _ . Sod level Is low, Needs Finished grade raised. SCALE: 1- W IS . Needs gmwdcover (Evergreen and deciduous) ASPEN BEDS STATE OF • Beds need groundcover. Mahonia rapers would unrylfiil [,ed. OREGON 0 Rhododendron-3 r REG. #493 H • Keep small specimen U 0 . Large specimens era to be saved by far] bas . SIDE STRIP 9 •Needs ground-er replaxmenl. Ke tm Mahoaaguhollum•1 13 Keep Uoloneasler Nand~ra-4 x11 Iili]A➢ Remove ALL .Remove ALL Pseudoauge - 1 Il Dwarf G PmmsluslaNa - i Creates large screen, looks unkempt, out ofp'ace. STAIRWELL BED ~PE A~ Keep, Add roes to entire bed / • Remove IilpdodeMmn-2 • Contains m[14 trash, and seedlings Aspen -'s a Prom lower half on poor habit specimens • Extremely difficult area that MAY gel summer sun /A gwood C .ALL Remove Deadwood. •Gould usesmall shmbs(under 3landvines onwall (ClimbingHydrengea) Revision Date: ' Keep C-Olla-2 Primus spp.-1 Keep ALL Keep Drawn By: SGB sumaM. Scale I" c: 20'-0" Remove LL • lex-5 8 Rhaladendmn-1 Keep, Heahy • . Remove Deadwood Magnolia pp.-2Nandina-4 Keep, Remove deadwood. LOWER LAWN AND PLANTING BED Remove ALL I e \ \1 TOP BED - • The lawn needs to be rehabbed. Are in front of large shrubs needs mid J • Creates large screen, looks unkempt, out of place PNneExisarg• level shrubs D<gm55&9 (flewellllg deciduous shrubs, elo.) 0 Fdl with Greurdcovc p r. "b Rhododendron-3 Prune I r half Remove"Deadwon poor habdspenmens Wrgow Leal Coloneasler 1 Ki, Remove Deedrood STUDENT POLLINATION STUDY BED Move to now location Contains Mahonia repens, Ardostaphylos, Achilles, R. Magnolia mecrophyila-1.`" Ribas-1 0 Do noldshnb • X • Keep Remove Deadwood - Move to now location LOWER BEE) ♦ Bed needsgmundcover, small shrubs, grasses Comu /A Keee ep 0 0 0 CeaReo - z (D0 - 1 Remove, Pea Health L_ RHODODENDRONBED 0 0 MAINTENANCE LEGEND • Remove all, Start Over X Plant for Removal 0 D ~ Plant Relocation cmeke - a W N Keep RINas-1 !d 0 rove to new location Keep My~ Trco Peny'B ...thusi Z tL 0 . Keep • Keep 0 - W O Q / VY 0 N p 0 ✓ 0 ro ON N Ele.gnus-4 r Located between existing pines. • Should be pruned or removed. ! • Function as screening for parking lot, BERM AREA OCTOBER 29, 2013 This are needs a unifying element (Gress, Flowering Shrub, Mid-Scale Bunch Grass). • Weaving new planting through the existing will unity this area and make it more appealing • Rubins penabulus Is a suggested plant _ DR MAINTENANCE PLAN L .O E IRRIGATICGr. KEY SYMBOL I GPM a RAINBIRD @ 30 psi 1 1 1/3 114 r7esx w.ca1 MPR5' 0 0.41 ® 0.20 ® 0.13 a 0.10 %VDE/TDP OF n ;~7 t z wr-LP srvAr sPAxxun: MPR8' 0 1.05 0 0.52 PN a~tteatvmxtm6 O 0.35 a 0.26 z em7 RNN DLO RorAer re mcr B v0 MPR 10' ® 1.58 0 0.79 e 0.53 0 0.39 aIMURaa) MPR 12' 0 2.60 ® 1.30 ® 0.67 El 0.65 6 s 3 6 PN: a aeL N 'd P"c sat snaEr nl al 's` MPR 15' T 3.70 V 1.85 V 1.23 V 0.92 6 PVC sa1 a rzE OR 15SST Strip O 1.21 ® 0.49 7 nc utRrw. PPE on ROTOR-3500 SERIES I5'@25 psi Q 0.54 00.54 I F) 6 766 7 c6 O co •S t~~f \ SPRAY HEAD ASSEMBLY F L54j~. ~wsPPo"aac CZtc ~ a al R1 CE PLAN .9 971 a S IREET ELL SCALE:CALE: t'= 80' PA UREWL F E P.4 SCE a TEE OR aL L. / ~i 0 0 S 6 E x ROTOR POP-UP HEAD IRRIGATION LEGEND ~TER~ nummu Mainline • 1%f Schedule 40 PVC STATE OF d OREGON Lateral line-1" Schedule 40 PVC, except as noted REG. #493 H P.O.C. Point of Connection n MPRSPMY 1339GPM erry xenCvm aunrrrumumrr i r m+G d6 lillL99 Controller- Connect to existing. Approximate location 2 LA ROTORS / (1 G © on plan.' zaz cPM 9PE A~ 1 MPRS RainBirdPEB-PRSSeries - Sizeasnotedonplan tY,• 1a,89GPM Revision Date: c ®o Shut-Off Valve - brass gate valve same size 6tY"' 18,93 GPM \ $L v, /g°•i/ c Pressure Reducing Valve- Wilkins 600 Series-1'h" Drawn By: SOB a""4~r lr 7nlluwu....... n.nmlnniunnnnnnnnnnnnnnunnnimm~unnuna6. ,0 A b p umnniumim m n H Double Check Valve -Wilkins 350-IV Scale 1"= 20'•0" 1 Controller-Zone u b S Valve size /GPM/PressuretPSl) / SL Sleeve-4"#3034 Sewer Pipe - - - ® Quick Coupler-RainBird44LRC GENERAL; e ti1r Sp r NOTES; I L L~PO oa cP61 - - - - Locations of mainline, laterals, and valves are diagramatic only. Locate these in \ planting areas where feasible. /11 1 Use PEB-PRS Dial module to reduce pressure to 30 psi at heads, except as noted. Verify pressure at P.O.C. before installation. Maximum flow per zone - 20 GPM. MPR & Side Strip Series installed with RainBird 180012" pop-up bodies where at sidewalk grade. Other locations, in raised planters installed on 12" high risers above grade. N Coordinate wire and conduit locations for irrigation controller to control valves. ! W > L0 V r-- 00 (3) All valves are to be installed with Baseline biCoders. Use BL-5201 or BL-5204 _ W 0 biCGders where applicable. All bicoders are to be wired to the existing science _ building controller. Refer to manufacturer specs for product installation and - 0 information. Baseline BL-53158 Soil Molsture/iemperature biSensors are to be installed in = tC _ U the proposed turf area and adjacent planting bed. Refer to manufacturer specs O for product installation and information. Verify location with SOU Landscape - - - O N - Q Maintenance Supervisor. SLEEVING: Contractor shall verify sleeving locations and coordinate with general contractor. OCTOBER29, 2013 Sleeves shall be installed under all handscape areas for irrigation except for long mainline nuns with tees and elbows under sidewalk. All penetrations, including sleeves, through landscape planter liner must be oR IRRIGATION PLAN L 3.0 sealed and watertight, E HamAP-1 M'R 4 w _ , E Huts-19 ~ cc Rut-11 _ Chao-1 N C Radr-s a m - 0 E 0000 vai b O` quitq i a uai t 1I • . Sludenl Plant ID . • • WL~U Gard-an Spaco ~PreO / r- 2„2'c0naete y \ ~'~f,_ toppem ' c, -P isR-9 \ \ Chao-1 , \ M 1,R-4 .-O L np-4 \ HBS 9 HdIMP -1 ` LINE OF EXISTING ENTRY I~.•4 • , \ \ -RMU-4 O O p \ pI ed 1 4 Pap 2 \ - ` REFERENCE PLAN SCALE: 1-BY S TE~~ d 4V STATE OF OREGON _ REG. #493 E.., Ribs-6 r V E ad - , 9 m3G-4 Cors-1 Rho -2 CamSG-1 Kerry KenCaw O Came-2 Rhod-4. 11112A9 --7 EelstlngRhod dana,n,m0 a PE AEG /~7 \ \ Into new IoaBons slime ~ Revision Date: E E E E OOO O E E E E E E E C Drawn By, SGB - - \V~~ ( Scale 1" = 20'-0" E EE EE E O O E y_ E E - PLANT LIST Student Palllnaron 0 KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON SIZE NOTES SMYBod / - O am - H so s l TREES _ nahr s Msgm 1 Magn-2 lAagm 1 hlahr 6 Chao Chamaecypparisobtusa HlnoldCypress Existing s cam-1 1 H ,SC-1s Cors Cornussiolonitero Redlwigt) ood Existing one-a Q Hamso 15 TI- 1 o1a-1 \ O _ - O oc 1 O O E Ginb Glnkgoblloba Maidenhair Tree Exlsting, Moved Magm Magnolia macrophylla Bigleaf Magnolia Existing, New - E E Pinc Pinus contorta Lodgepole Pine Existing I Pinm Pinusmuggo Mugo Pine Existing Popt Popululstremuloldes Quaking Aspen Existing © Z Prue Prunus Cherry Existing O O O O O O Tilc Tiliacordata Little- Leaf Linden Existing SHRUBS Bert Berberis lhunbergii Green Berbeds Existing CamSG Camelia sasanqua'Shishi Gashim' ShiShi Gashira Camelia CaniSG-2 M Came Camelia Camelia Existing G0-1 W Cean Ceanothus Deer Lilac Existing O Cots Cotoneaster salicifellus Willow-leaved Cotoneaster Existing W p N Elec Eleagnus commutate Common SilverBerry E 1 LO HamA Hamameles x'Amold's Promise' Arnold's Promise Witch Hazel _ y m 1- Hels Helictotrichonsempervirens Blue Oat Grass fem. E E Z Ilex Ilex Ilex Existing E E W o of CY) Lonp Lonicera pileala Privet Honeysuckle E Maggn Magnolia Magnolia Existing - E - 0 Me r Me onia repens Oregon Creeping Grape 0 MISR Mlscanthuss.'Rotsilber' RedSIIverMaiden Grass _ E E E E E E Paed Paeonia delavayi Delavay's Tree Peony Existing E N N Q Pseu Pseudotsuga Dwarf Doug Fir Existin C Rhod Rhododendron Rhododendron Existing, Moved _ RhoU Rhododendron 'Unique' Unique Rhododendron - - - - - ' Nms 22 idb. -1 = p ro Ribs Ribessanguineum Flowering Currant Ginb-1 Caen- L Panel-3 rn Ribe Rib Currant Existing Ginb-1 ® Rubp Ru u pentalobus Creeping Bramble N elec.l El"-3 / r Rud Rudbedbecklakia (ulgida ulgida Orange onellow 0ower Pirm-1 GROUNDCOVER Ajuga replan Common Bugle 4"pot 600 R' 18•o.c. \ OCTOBER 29, 2013 Erica darleyensis Mediterranean Pink and White Heath Mix 1 gal 646 R' 3'o.c. HemSD Hemerocallis'Stella De Orre' Stella De Orro Dwarf Daylilly 0 Pachysandraferminalis Japanese Pachysandra 4"pot 220 fl' 1'o.c. PLANTING PLAN e Sod Lawn Sod NA 1220 R' r J N m F' U - ROOF STAIR ENCLOSURE- W - RIBBED METAL SIDING B F- m ROOFING 2 FUMEH OD HAUST 1 U OUTLINE OF PARAPET TO BE HVAC UNIT HVAC UNIT F ME OD EXHAUST REMOVED Q m 0 SC2 ROOF 38-0~ B ED ET P ET 0 ra4 ~ GI GTE y IL Lu 11 LEVEL 3I SCI ROOF - vT+ . 24'-0 LEVEL2 Z 0 O 04 LEVELI , Q Lo 0 CY) O C Z m W 2 0 PATIAL SOUTH ELEVATION-SC2 - PROPOSED N v m Z wL >Q 0 z J ~ o FUME HOOD EXHAUST FUME HOOD EXHAUST 0 ROOF STAIR ENCLOSURE- co W O RIBBED METAL SIDING & w m ROOFING I + Z w'U) i o Lo 04 SC2 ROOF - - - 38'-0' LEVEL 31 SCI ROOF z v .-ct.• - 24,,0. ED EA `Drewn: TR Dele: 7114/14 Ch. MS u smrs LEVE yF C heel ERIDR ~LLW Ifluil S 2 EXT E . . , _ _ ELEVATIONS J LEVEL 01 S 0' F ~~~~D .d8g/! J 7 a 9 PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION-SC2 SCREEN HIDING ALL EQUIPMENT FROM STREET CURB EQUIPMENT STILL VISIBLE FURTHER SOUTH UPHILL'~~ aP o~~`~ A301 a a Job No: 12114 L. Planning Division ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION N51 WinbUl'n Way, Ashland OR 97524 CITY Q FILE #W.._ 541-488-5305 Fax S41-488-6006 -ASHLAND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT `.aLIV ~~Gi1~~ 1LculUT7S1J i~=t-~G}~/rt1`tD~ DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? 114ES ■ N• Street Address Assessor's Map No. 391 E.-_ Tax Lot(s) I Zoning _S "c? Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT Name Phone Zf, tq _ E-Mail lM IC. 4b~ `'>.IV ;C.Ur4't Address_ 17,2 Q PIC) k..lAiT j'KtV'~ _ City Zip PROPERTY OWNER p~t<w C•i ilt r t.-AtJG7 V=viZ. Name 't't Utz N c7c~ G ~tv Jt~i~~(L.s t7_j Phone E-Mail G }VI-IL-ANV P Address _-`~51 V,,'h-t-• Ug4Z• Ave, City A6 41-4NV Zip 15z& SURVEYOR ENGINEER AR HITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title ._...,._„Name 5057 %i'7 IM C'f.. , Phone 91 E Malt ~ ~i{t>~LS ~<~i~zfl, Ct7z~ Address . S WO Nu) MA (To City ~_rv t4 i v A D Zip G7 7.1!27 _ Title Name T_...~.__ Phone -E-Mail Address_ City Zip_ llmreby certify 1/181 1/10 statements and information contained in this applica( 011, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of lacl, are in all respects (rue and correct. / understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. in the event the pits are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, Iho owner assumes full responsibility. l further understand that it this request is subsequently contested Me burdc>n will be on the to establish: 1) that l produced suflicient factual evidence at (lie hearing to suppgit this (equest,- 2) thal the findings of fact lr mrshed justifies the grantinq of the request; 3) that the findings of fact firmished by me are adequale,• and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located oil the ground l aikrre in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removPY xpens` if l h ve and ubts, l am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant' Signatur J Date l As ow of tho roper(y involy ri f rr 5t, I have read and understood Ule cnnrplete appfic fion arc its cotrscquences tome as a pfopo y ` Property Owner's Signature (required) Date (To N 0010W by City SWO / Date Received _ w_ ~.._.f Zoning Permit Type _ Filing Fee OVER N (i;komm•da•rplanaing\I~onns fi IlandmrtsV'.'wring Pennir Applicxrion.Jx !1 Job Address: 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A Owner's Name: OREGON STATE - SOU O Phone: P N State Lic No: ~ Customer 07336 SODERSTROM ARCHITECTS, LTD T City Lic No: L Applicant: 1200 NW NAITO PKWY R Address: 410 A C PORTLAND OR 97209 C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: (503) 595-2519 T Address: N Applied: 02/2112014 0 T Issued: Expires: 08/20/2014 R Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: 391 E10005700 City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: SOU Science Building Renovation Site Review VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description i I Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL € € € i f ELECTRICAL I STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Commercial Site Review (type1) 2,198.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CI ? Y F IVA ,SHLAND I I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts understood and agreed to the following: Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Develo (180 days). pment Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ ` 0.00 3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 2,198.00 $ 2,198.00 or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Sub-Total: $ 2,198.00 Fees Paid: $ 2,198.00 Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.ocus CITY O F Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 ~