Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutClearCreek_123_PA-2015-02287 CITY OF ASHLAND February 10, 2016 Notice of Final Decision The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA-2015-02287 Subject Property: 123 Clear Creek Drive Applicant: John Fields/Clear Creek Investments LLC Owners: Clear Creek Investments LLC & Cooper Investments LLC Description: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct four two-story mixed- use buildings, consisting of leasable ground-floor office space and eight residential dwelling units on the second floors, and one two-story office building for the property located at 123 Clear Creek Drive. The request would also modify the previously approved Clear Creek Village Subdivision by further subdividing Lot 8 under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to create five new buildable lots to accommodate the proposed development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05 CD; TAX LOT: #1803. The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with section 18.5.1.060.1 of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also 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 Derek Severson in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. I cc: Parties of record COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us , I SECTION 18.5.1.060.1 1. Appeal of Type H Decision. The City Council may call up a Type H decision pursuant to section 18.5.1.060.J. A Type II decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows. 1. Who May Appeal. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following, a. The applicant. b. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. c. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. 2. Appeal Filing Procedure. a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.I.1, above, may appeal a Type II decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection. b. Tine for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. 3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time, and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting. 4. Scope of Appeal. a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.I.4.b, below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Commission. The record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits, and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. b. Reopening the Record. The City Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated one or more of the following. L That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 \ www.ashland.or.us i requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error. ii. That a factual error occurred before the Commission through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. iii. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. iv. Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the Council. 5. Appeal Hearing Procedure. The decision of the City Council is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type II decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission. a. Oral Argument. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different, and three minutes for any other party who participated below. A parry shall not be permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall be submitted no less than ten days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the written argument. b. Scope of Appeal Deliberations. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond. c. Council Decision. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the Council elects to remand a decision to the Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.060.J. 6. Record of the Public Hearing. For purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. The public hearing record shall include the following information. a. The notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 ? Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us %l I b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the application that the City mailed or received. c. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials submitted with it. d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open. e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available). f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application; g. The minutes of the hearing. g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions. 7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals City Council decisions on Type II applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council decisions on Type H applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 4 www.ashland.or.us i f 4 BEFORE TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION February 9, 2016 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2015-02287, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT FOUR TWO-STORY ) MIXED-USE BUILDINGS, CONSISTING OF LEASABLE GROUND-FLOOR ) AND EIGHT RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON THE SECOND FLOORS, ) AND ONE TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ) AT 123 CLEAR CREEK DRIVE. THE REQUEST ALSO PROPOSES TO MODIFY ) FINDINGS, THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CLEAR CREEK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION BY ) CONCLUSIONS, BY FURTHER SUBDIVIDING LOT 8 UNDER THE PERFORMANCE ) AND ORDERS STANDARDS OPTIONS CHAPTER TO CREATE FIVE NEW BUILDABLE LOTS ) TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. ) APPLICANT: JOHN FIELDS FOR CLEAR CREEK INVENTMENTS LLC ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #1803 of Map 39 lE 04CD is located at 123 Clear Creek Drive and is zoned E-1 (Employment). 2) The applicants are requesting Site Design Review approval to construct four two-story mixed-use buildings, consisting of leasable ground-floor office space and eight residential dwelling units on the second floors, and one two-story office building for the property located at 123 Clear Creek Drive. The request also proposes to modify the previously approved Clear Creek Village Subdivision by further subdividing Lot 8 under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to create five new buildable lots to accommodate the proposed development. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. 8. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban PA #2015-02287 Februaiy 9, 2016 Page 1 i storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. I I 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. 4) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. 5) The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 as follows: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted PA #2015-02287 February 9, 2016 Page 2 i i in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. C. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more i than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. 6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on January 12, 2016 at which time testimony was heard and evidence was presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. PA #2015-02287 February 9, 2016 Page 3 i 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review and modification of the Outline and Final Plan subdivision approvals meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval described in Chapter 18.5.2.050; for Outline Plan described in Chapter 18.3.9.040.A.3; and for Final Plan I approval described in Chapter 18.3.9.040.B.5. 2.3 The application proposes to modify the previously approved Clear Creek Village Subdivision by further subdividing Lot 8 under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to create five new buildable lots to accommodate the proposed development, with the remainder of Lot 8 to be reserved in open space/common area. The proposed lot configuration is detailed on the applicant's Sheet A.3 "Proposed Subdivision Lot Dimensions." The first criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, "The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City." The Planning Commission finds that the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements, as demonstrated in the findings provided by the applicant for Outline and Final Plan, and Basic and Detail Site Design Review approvals. The second Outline Plan criterion is that, "Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity." The Planning Commission finds that the development meets all requirements for identifying and providing adequate city facilities. The application materials note that existing and proposed city and private facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed development for water, sewer, and provide the following additional information with regard to city facilities in place and to be installed: ® Storm water from building roofs and hardscape surfaces will be directed to the wetland for retention in keeping with the original storm drainage plan prepared by Mark Dew Engineering as part of the original subdivision design. Two six-inch storm drains were previously installed into the subject property and will accommodate this final phase of development. The Commission finds that Public Works staff has also noted that the property is currently served by a 12-inch storm sewer main line in Clear Creek Drive. ® The applicant's electric design team has met with the city's Electric Department and developed a preliminary plan for providing electrical vaults and transformers to provide the necessary 600- amps of three-phase power. ® The applicant's water design team has been in discussions with the city's Water Department regarding the extension of the four-inch ductile water tap that will provide fourteen %-inch water meters and a central double check fire vault for all five buildings. The owners' association will manage all landscaping and fire requirements held in common areas, and all building will have fire sprinkler systems installed. The Commission further finds that Public Works staff has noted that the property is currently served by an eight-inch water main in Clear Creek Drive, staff has questioned whether a single four-inch service will be adequate to serve the proposed number of meters, a fire vault and necessary fire services, and has asked that the Water Department review service needs. The Commission has included a condition to require that a final engineered utility plan be provided for the final review of the Public Works and Engineering departments prior to PA #2015-02287 February 9, 2016 Page 4 i the issuance of a building permit. ® With regard to gas utilities, all buildings proposed will use electric energy systems rather than gas. ® Four-inch sewer laterals for each building will be tied into the existing eight-inch main sewer line in Clear Creek Drive. This will require the cutting, removal, and replacement of asphalt and j sidewalks. ® Phone, Ashland Fiber Network and other communication facilities will be extended to serve each of the proposed buildings. ® Recycling and garbage facilities are to be centralized in one accessible location, and Recology of Ashland has reviewed and approved the size and location of these facilities. ® The adopted street dedication map for the area ultimately connects Clear Creek Drive from Oak Street through to North Mountain Avenue, and also includes a crossing of the railroad tracks at Fourth Street. The original subdivision was required to sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) to participate in the cost of constructing the future street crossing at Fourth Street, and this property remains subject to that requirement. ® Additionally, a condition of the original subdivision's Outline Plan approval was that all properties agree to participate in the full cost of constructing a transit shelter along East Hersey Street or Clear Creek Drive should public or private transit service become available at a future date. ® The Commission finds that the traffic generated by this development will not negatively impact the performance of the intersections of Clear Creek Drive and Oak Street. The applicant suggest that this intersection is currently operating well under its capacity, and a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is not required because the common trip generation rates for the P.M. peak hour the "Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition" is well under the 50 additional vehicles per hour threshold. The ITE manual suggests that apartments (Code 220) generate 0.62 trips per hour. 8 units x 0.62 trips per hour = 4.96 trips per hour. Office use (Code 710) generates 1.49 trips per hour per 1,000 sq./ft. of office space. At 10,756 sq./ft. of office space, 11 x 1.49 = 16.39 trips per hour. The applicant therefore asserts that the total peak hour trips generated would be only about 21.35, which is less than 50 percent of the threshold number of trips which would trigger the TIA requirement. The Commission has added conditions below to require that the applicant provide final utility, electric service, drainage, grading, erosion and sediment control plans for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric and Public Works/Engineering Departments prior to final building permit approval. The third criterion is that, "The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas." The Commission finds that the current development is part of a larger subdivision which has already been reviewed and approved, and that subject natural features were identified and put into open space, wetlands and unbuildable areas with the original subdivision. The fourth approval criterion is that, "The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land front being developed for° the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan." The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, which would develop the property as originally envisioned in the Clear Creek Village subdivision, will not prevent the development of adjacent lands as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. PA #2015-02287 February 9, 2016 Page 5 l i t G G E The fifth Outline Plan criterion is that, "There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early E phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project." The Commission finds that this is the final phase of this subdivision which has already preserved open space and common areas and created an owners' association to manage them, and that the plan proposed provides all the amenities and improvements required by the original subdivision's phased plan. The Commission further finds that the applicant is subdividing this last parcel into five buildable lots that will meet all the owners' I association requirements and that the association will continue to manage and maintain the proposed new infrastructure to be installed and the newly created common areas. The sixth criterion is that, "The proposed density meets the base and bonus density) standards established under this chapter." The Commission finds that there are eight residential units proposed on the 0.557 acre parcel, which is consistent with the allowed residential density for E-1 zoned land (0.557 acres x 15 dwelling units per acre = 8.355 dwelling units). The Commission finds that no density bonuses are requested, and none have been approved here. The final criterion for Outline Plan approval is that "The development complies with the Street Standards." The Commission finds that full frontage improvements were installed according to city street standards at the time of the original subdivision approval. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the approval criteria for Final Plan are largely focused on considering any changes that might occur between Outline and Final Plan when the two are approved separately. In this instance, where Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review are proposed concurrently, there will be no such variation and the proposal is for the approval of the site and building designs in their final form. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the application further requests Site Design Review approval to construct four two-story mixed-use buildings, consisting of leasable ground-floor commercial space with eight residential dwelling units on the second floors, and a fifth two-story building which will be limited to offices without a residential component. The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards." The subject property's underlying zone is E- 1 (Employment) and within that zone, there is no minimum lot area, width, or depth; no minimum front, side or rear yard area except where abutting a residential zone to the side or rear; no maximum lot coverage; and no minimum residential density. The property does not abut residential zones to the side or rear as it is interior to the subdivision and all surrounding properties are zoned E- 1. The property is not located on an arterial street. As such, the Planning Commission finds that no setback requirements come into play. The maximum building height is limited to 40 feet, and the Commission finds that the proposed building, which has an average height of approximately 35 feet and which is approximately 38 feet at its tallest point, complies with this limitation. PA #2015-02287 February 9, 2016 Page 6 In addition to standard setbacks, E-1 properties are also subject to solar access requirements which limit the shadow cast by proposed construction to no more than would be cast by a 16-foot fence constructed on the northern property line. The ordinance includes provisions that if the northern property line adjoins any unbuildable area such as street right-of-way, required parking lot, common area or open space to the north, the northern property line is considered to be the northerly edge of the unbuildable area due north of the subject property. The site is a complex one for solar purposes due to existing and natural grades, angles of property lines and proposed buildings, and the installation of parking areas and associated easements and landscaping with the original subdivision improvements. The applicant here has provided numerous section drawings detailing the shadows cast by the proposed building (Sheets A6, A14-A15), and the Planning Commission finds that these drawings illustrate that the shadows cast at noon on December 21St - the time and date considered under the ordinance in determining solar access - either comply with the ordinance outright or fall on unbuildable areas in the parking lot and its associated landscape buffers. The second Site Design Review approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." The subject property is located within the Residential (R) Overlay, and is subject to the following requirements from AMC 18.3.13.010: ® Where more than one building is located on a site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses. The plans provided note that for the combined building area of the five proposed buildings, 97.1 percent of the ground floor space is dedicated to commercial use. Of the 35 total required parking spaces for the proposal, 13 parking spaces (or 37 percent) are attributable to the residential parking demand. Roughly 28 percent of the subject property is to be provided in common open space which will be available equally to the commercial and residential tenants. The Planning Commission finds that no more than 50 percent of the site is designated for residential uses. ® Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per ache. The Commission finds that there are eight residential units proposed on the 0.557 acre subject property, and that this is consistent with the allowed residential density for E-1 zoned land of 15 dwelling units per acre. (0.557 acres x 15 dwelling units per acre = 8.355 dwelling units). ® Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the E-1 District. The Planning Commission finds that the project is being considered in terms of the design standards for permitted uses in the E-1 district. ® If the number of residential units exceeds ten, then at least 10 percent of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate-income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The Planning Commission finds that, as noted above, only eight units are proposed and as such no affordable units are required. The third approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below." Generally, these Site PA #2015-02287 February 9, 2016 Page 7 i Development & Design Standards seek to improve each project's appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the streetscape to encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel; to lessen the visual and climatic impacts of parking; and to screen adjacent uses from adverse impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are to have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties' frontages, and automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between buildings and the street. The Planning Commission finds that application is subject to the standards for Basic Site Review for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review, Large Scale Development, Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards, and Street Tree Standards, all of which call for a high level of urban design. In terms of the Basic Site Review standards, the Commission finds that the proposed new buildings have their primary orientations to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Sidewalks and street trees have been provided. Building facades occupy a large majority of the site's street frontage, and the area between buildings is open space mixing landscaping and handscaping to highlight pedestrian areas. Parking areas were installed as part of the original subdivision improvements, and are located behind the buildings. A new refuse and recycling enclosure in proposed at the rear of the building, and the application notes that it has been located and designed in consultation with Recology. With regard to the Detail Site Review standards, the Planning Commission finds that the application includes details demonstrating that the buildings are proposed at a combined floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.80, significantly exceeding the minimum 0.50 F.A.R. required within the Detail Site Review zone. The Commission further finds that, while the current application includes written findings which discuss the F.A.R. for the original subdivision as a whole as well, the original subdivision developed under prior F.A.R. regulations in which 0.50 was a maximum allowed floor area ratio rather than a minimum as it is now, and the subdivision as then approved and largely built-out complied with the standards in place at the time. The Commission finds that the current request complies with current regulations for the project site under consideration, and that the applicants are not also required to revisit previously approved and constructed buildings on separate lots under new and different standards at this stage. The Commission finds that the combined building frontage area of Lots 1-4 exceeds one hundred feet in length; that the buildings provide distinctive changes, off-sets and jogs in their facades; and that 24.2 percent of the frontage walls along Clear Creek Drive are provided in window and door area. Entrances are illuminated and further emphasized with articulated balconies above, and numerous porticoes, alcoves, roof overhangs and balconies are provided to protect pedestrians from sun and rain. Plaza space and people-friendly areas are emphasized through the use of pavers and scored concrete. The Detail Site Review standards also call for the placement of buildings at no more than five feet from the sidewalk or the width of any public utility easement unless the placement is for pedestrian areas; in this instance, the Commission finds that there is a ten-foot public utility easement at the back of the sidewalk and that the second floor balconies are built to this easement while at the ground level, there is some articulation in PA 42015-02287 February 9, 2016 Page 8 the building fagade to emphasize pedestrian entries while providing covered areas beneath the balconies with protection from sun and rain. The Commission further finds that the building is similar in bulk, scale and coverage to the surroundings, and that the buildings will utilize a generally muted, natural color palette selected for compatibility with the surrounding buildings in the subdivision. i! In terms of the Additional Standards for Large Scale Developments, the Commission finds that neither the aggregate footprint of the proposed buildings nor their floor area exceeds 45,000 square feet, and that the combined buildings do not exceed 300 feet in length. The application materials further note that 1.17 square feet of plaza space is provided for every ten square feet of building area, which exceeds the 1:10 requirement, and the Commission finds that his space includes a combination of seating areas; areas with a mix of sun and shade; areas that are screened fiom the wind by proposed buildings; required trees; a water feature; and - while no provisions are currently proposed for food vendors - there is ample seating to accommodate outdoor eating areas. The Commission finds that the buildings as proposed comply with the Site Development and Design Standards. The Commission further finds that Site Design Review includes consideration of the parking, access and circulation standards found in AMC 18.4.3. Unlike some other developments, parking for Clear Creek Village was calculated with the subdivision application anticipating the full build-out and development, was constructed in conjunction with the original subdivision infrastructure, and has been in place for some time. As such, while five new buildings are proposed the parking requirements are addressed by parking that is already in place. A parking plan (Sheet A2) has been provided to illustrate the parking in place as it relates to the existing and proposed buildings, and allocations of parking to each building in the subdivision are detailed on this sheet as well. In addition, the applicant has provided Sheet A8 with more detailed parking calculations for the proposal illustrating that in total, 108 parking spaces are required for the subdivision as a whole and 108 parking spaces are provided. Sheet A2 identifies a number of on-street parking spaces that could be considered for credits although none are necessary with the current request. Planning staff has provided exhibits based on the applicant's Sheets A2 and A8 which color code the parking required for each of the proposed buildings to better illustrate the allocation of required parking. The Commission finds that the parking as proposed satisfies the applicable requirements of AMC 18.4.3, and a condition has been included to require that any changes of use that would alter the current allocations be submitted for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor to insure that adequate parking remains available. The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, seiver°, electricity, urban stor°in drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject proper°ty." The Commission finds that based on the details provided in the Outline Plan discussion in Section 2.3 above, the proposal complies with the applicable public facilities standards and adequate capacity can and will be provided by the applicant. PA #2015-02287 February 9, 2016 Page 9 i 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the application requests Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals for the property located at 123 Clear Creek Drive, which is Lot 8 in the Clear Creek Village Subdivision. The proposal is a straightforward one in that utilities, street improvements, parking and significant natural features were addressed at the subdivision level, and the current request amounts to the completion of the final phase of the original subdivision's well thought-out vision, with no Exceptions or Variances requested. The proposed new buildings have been designed with both the subdivision's village context and the city's design standards in mind with strong primary orientations to the street; attractive entrances accessed from the sidewalk and contributing to an engaging streetscape; and parking located behind the buildings in existing lots. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Site Design Review and modification of the previous Outline and Final Plan subdivision approvals for the property located at 123 Clear Creek Drive is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. : Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2015-02287. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2015-02287 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein 2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) That all conditions of the previous subdivision (PA #2001-0053 and #2003-089) shall remain in effect unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 4) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their January 7, 2016 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 5) That prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All signage shall meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7). 6) That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved addressing (OFC 505); commercial fire apparatus access including angle of approach and any necessary fire apparatus or shared access easements (OFC 503.2.8); provisions for firefighter access pathways (OFC 503.1.1); fire flow (OFC Appendix B, Table B105.1); fire hydrant clearance; fire department connection (FDC); fire extinguishers (2A10BC); a Knox key box; and fire sprinklers where required for mixed-use buildings or due to access constraints. 7) That the applicants shall obtain Demolition/Relocation Review Permit approvals through the Building Division prior to the demolition of any buildings greater than 500 square feet if deemed necessary by the Building Official pursuant to AMC 15.04.210-216. PA #2015-02287 February 9, 2016 Page 10 8) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Clear Creek Drive, and the location and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 9) That the front entrances adjacent to Clear Creek Drive shall remain functional and open to the public during all business hours, and the windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 10) That any changes of use that would alter the parking allocations detailed in the applicants parking plan shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor to determine whether further land use review is necessary to insure that adequate parking remains available. 11) That building permit submittals shall include: 6 a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or private utility or drainage easements, mutual access and parking easements, fire apparatus access easements, and public pedestrian access easements. b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those described in the application, and very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used. C) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d) Revised Landscape, Irrigation and Tree Protection Plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised plans shall address: 1) The recommendations of the Tree Commission from their January 7, 2016 meeting where consistent with applicable criteria and standards, and with final approval by the Staff Advisor; 2) a final size- and species-specific planting and irrigation plan, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications; 3) final lot coverage and required landscaped area calculations, including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas, and landscaped areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 85 percent, and the calculations shall demonstrate that the requisite 15 percent landscaping and seven percent parking lot landscaping are provided. e) Stormwater• drainage, grading and erosion control plans for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments. The stormwater plan shall address Public Works/Engineering standards requiring that post-development peak flows do not exceed pre-development levels. Any necessary drainage improvements to address the site's stormwater shall be provided at the applicants' expense. Storm water from all new impervious surfaces and run-off associated with peak rainfall events must be collected on site and channeled to the city storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. f) A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Meters, cabinets, vaults and Fire Department Connections PA #2015-02287 February 9, 2016 Page 11 i shall be located outside of pedestrian corridors and in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed by the applicant at applicant's expense, and the applicants shall obtain all necessary permits and inspections from the Public Works/Engineering Department for work to be completed within the public rights-of-way. g) A final erosion and sediment control plan. h) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including any transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located outside the pedestrian corridor in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed at the applicant's expense. i) Identification and placement of required bicycle parking. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the outdoor bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with the standards in 18.4.3.070.1, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met. 12) That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work including demolition or the storage of materials: a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by Staff Advisor. The Verification Permit is to inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained and protected. Tree protection measures shall be in the form of chain link fencing six feet tall, installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.4.5.030.C.) b) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each proposed unit, and system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for existing structures) shall be paid. 13) That prior to the final approval of the project, signature of the final plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All handscaping including any sidewalk corridor repairs; landscaping; and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) All utility service and equipment installations shall be completed according to Electric, Public Works/Engineering, Planning, and Building Departments' specifications, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. C) Sanitary sewer laterals, water services including connection with meters at the street, and underground electric services shall be installed according to the approved plans to serve all PA #2015-02287 February 9, 2016 Page 12 i units prior to signature of the final survey plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. d) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties. e) That final CC&Rs for the Owner's Association or similar maintenance agreement shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey plat. This agreement shall describe the responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including landscaping, parldng areas, driveways, planting strips and street trees. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the approved plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. f) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC 18.4.4.040. February 9, 2016 Planning Commission Approval Date PA 92015-02287 February 9, 2016 Page 13 I' i AFFIDAVIT OF (MAILING I STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On 2/10/16 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 #2015-02287, 123 Clear Creek. Signature of Employee Documentt 2/10/2016 i is PA-2015-02287 391 E04CD 1905 PA-2015-02287 PA-2015-02287 CLEAR CREEK INVESTMENTS LLC KISTLER SMALL & WHITE POLARIS SURVEY 845 OAK ST 66 WATER STREET P.O. BOX 459 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SUITE 101 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-02287 JOHN FIELDS 845 OAK STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 a* ? t i y R L . f,~s,t ri f y 4-4 Ay, ~ l q a~ t~ cat 1 ~ a ~ . t?yka i ,t E y ~ II I t rm i~ a N; i ~~y ~ . k L t .y : ~ 7 ~ it ~ _4~ J ~ ~ a 444 i ( _ ~ { ~ ~ ~ J' it S in-;~ ~ I } 1 ~ _ ~~r r. i jli I',' G 1+ f II u ~ ~ ~1 ~ <<~ w j ti I ~4~,) ~ lei ~l~ r~ j ~ ~ ~ C~~ i~ fr-~ - ; ~ 1~ - f l; i , i I,i ~ t~;~tiy4 ~ ~ ~ b 11 ~ ~ r i i~ ~ a ,3 y t ~ ; I' - ~ ? a ,i ~ t; ~ i ~ ~ j' ~ `~~J{ fjI J1! / 4 i t.-- i I r -Al u 1 1 . ~ 6 e I IF 1 f--71 F? i E S t i 44 W W t Fla ~-tea I a~ 'li - ~~~f ~11, . „ffi~ ~i s~ _ ~ ~ _ ~ Ili ~ I ,~o -f s I., t ~F i 4 .k, t ~ i ~ i- ~ ~a 11~ ~ ~ I_ L I' p i - _J -.ft, ! a k ~ i ~ aI ~i i I i i it I I« I' 1 ~IfF~i~ 11 I~ ~_a I - - d ~t~ ' 11 I, 1 ~~-J ~ ~ ~ II ~ i iii T . Y.., - _ ~ . I a c ~ Y ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ 'i ~ ~'t' ~ti,~~' k F ' ' T`r v ~C~ n at' . °s~~"" ~ 2 r 1. I y _ ~ ~ - r - a _ ~ i i t ~ I ~ 3 ~ j a ~ ~ F ~ ~ r - ~ - ~ i~(~ ~ f ~ s . I t - i ~r k r i~ ~ f r, ..t „j. ; _ ~ ~ ~ i , i r a ~ ~ i - i , i ~ ~ ~ ~,t t e:': ~ ~ 1 ~ I Y. Vii. i ~ ~ _ ys ~ ~ ~ f ~5 _ ~F ~ i ,.:3 n~ °.t ~ ~ ~ v' ~.r i ~ k ~ ~ x : ~ _ , ~[v ~i ~ ~ _ ~ ~1. , I f ~ y - [ ~ ~ _ ~ ' 1: 4 E~ I ~ § r s F ~ j - s~ _ ~i=' _ ~ s F ~ t I I _ . Y _ i~'F' T D- parr a L adT.G`3i. ,v _ ~ ~ ~~i ~ t ~ tl `y _ J a~~ I ~ ~~y. ~ zrj~ ~ y.' ~ { _ ~ 1 A; j~ WSJ ~G.. i I c c i r din '~lri ~ 1ar. JIi a 1 tl ~,..1/a1 I•,~~rr qq~ k ~ c f° i is i° i r I, x i i 1 I~ I1'~ J,. irk; 1 f ~ k L i I i A f IV ~4; is it is i ~ G, [ 1~ ~ 5;i , ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ' ~f ~ ~ ~ ~ : 1 i I 4 _ t ~ 1 ~ l , 1 ~l~ ~ ~ u'y ~il~~~ ~ ~ i a i k k i (@f F f k(k,, 4: C: i {E: E 4({; F". ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION TA PORT January 12, 2016 PLANNING ACTION: #2015-02287 OWNERS: Clear Creek Investments LLC Cooper Investments LLC APPLICANT: John Fields for Clear Creek Investments LLC E LOCATION: 123 Clear Creek Drive (Clear Creek Village Subdivision, Lot 8) i ZONE DESIGNATION: E-1 (Residential Overlay) i COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: January 4, 2016 r 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: May 3, 2016 ORDINANCE REFERENCE (see htt ://wwwashIand.or.us/comdevdocs to view land use code on-line): 1 I I 15.04.210 Demolition or Relocation of Structures 18.2.2 Base Zones & Allowed Uses 18.2.6 Standards for Non-Residential Zones 18.3.9 Performance Standards r 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation & Design c 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation 18.4.5 Tree Preservation & Protection 18.4.6 Public Facilities 18.4.8 Solar Access 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.7 Tree Removal Permits 18.6.1 Definitions REQUEST: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct four two-story mixed-use buildings, consisting of leasable ground-floor office space and eight residential dwelling units on the second floors, and one two-story office building for the property located at 123 Clear Creek Drive. The request would also modify the previously approved Clear Creek Village Subdivision by further subdividing Lot 8 under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to create five new buildable lots to accommodate the proposed development. Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 1 of 14 t 1. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application i In October of 1999, the Planning Commission approved a request for a Lot Line Adjustment and Land Partition including the construction of Clear Creek Drive for the property located southeast of the intersection of Hersey and Oak streets, and north of the I railroad tracks as Planning Action #99-048. In January of 2001, the Planning Commission approved a request for Outline Plan approval for a nine-lot subdivision for the property located on the 3.8 acre parcel adjoining Clear Creek Drive, Hersey and Oak Streets as Planning Action #2000-126. c The subject parcel was created through this subdivision. i In June of 2001, the Planning Commission approved a request for Final Plan approval and Site Review approval for Phase I of the subdivision, the portion east of the wetlands, as Planning Action #PA 2001-053. In July of 2003, the Planning Commission approved a request for Final Plan approval for Phase II of the subdivision, the portion west of the wetlands, and Site Review approval for the building referred to in the application as "Building F" (now Natura) as Planning Action #2003-089. There are no other planning actions of record for this property. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The Site The proposed buildings are to be centrally located within the Clear Creek Village j, Subdivision, situated on Lot 8. The project site is located between Clear Creels Drive and Hersey Streets, generally east of the Masif building at 496-498 Oak Street, south of the Kagyu Sukha Choling Buddhist temple at 109 Clear Creek Drive, and west of a large wetlands that has been preserved in open space on the property in conjunction with the original subdivision. i The subject property is irregularly shaped, with an area of approximately 0.56 acres. The property has approximately 204 linear feet of frontage along Clear Creek Drive, a commercial collector street, and full frontage improvements were installed as part of the original subdivision's infrastructure. The site currently contains only a barn/shed structure and is generally devoid of any significant natural features. There are no trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) located on the property. Street z, trees with irrigation are in place along the property's street frontage, and a few small diameter trees are located around the barn on the center of the property. E c Parking was considered as part of the larger subdivision approval, and the parking lots serving full build-out of the subdivision are already constructed and in use. i c Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 2 of 14 Zoning in the immediate vicinity in all directions is E-1 (Employment) and the buildings nearby include a Buddhist temple, a lumberyard, light manufacturing, warehouse, retail, medical office, general office, and residential uses. The Proposal Outline & Final Plan Proposal I The application proposes to modify the previously approved Clear Creels Village Subdivision by further subdividing Lot 8 under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to create five new buildable lots to accommodate the proposed development, with the remainder of Lot 8 to be reserved in open space/common area. The proposed lot configuration is detailed on the applicant's Sheet A.3 "Proposed Subdivision Lot j' Dimensions." fC Site Design Review Proposal The application further requests Site Design Review approval to construct four two-story mixed-use buildings, consisting of leasable ground-floor commercial space with eight residential dwelling units on the second floors, and a fifth two-story office building. II. Project Impact As explained more fully above, the application consists of Outline & Final Plan and Site Design Review approval request. Applications involving Outline Plan Review, and applications where Site Design Review is requested for buildings totaling more than 10,000 square feet in floor area within the Detail Site Review Zone, are subject to a Type II procedure and require a decision by the Planning Commission through a public hearing. A. Outline & Final Plan Proposal As noted above, the application proposes to modify the previously approved Clear Creek Village Subdivision by further subdividing Lot 8 under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to create five new buildable lots to accommodate the proposed development, with the remainder of Lot 8 to be reserved in open space/common area. The proposed lot configuration is detailed on the applicant's Sheet A.3 "Proposed Subdivision Lot Dimensions." The first criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, "The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City." The application asserts that the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements, as demonstrated in the findings they have provided for Outline and Final Plan, and Basic and Detail Site Design Review approvals. The second Outline Plan criterion is that, "Adequate key Cio) facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity." The application asserts that the development meets all requirements for identifying and providing adequate city facilities, noting that existing and proposed city and private facilities have Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 3 of 14 f `r( t adequate capacity to serve the proposed development for water, sewer. The application provides the following additional information with regard to city facilities in place and to I be installed: k' • Storm water from roofs and hardscape surfaces will be directed to the wetland for retention in keeping with the original storm drainage plan prepared by Mark Dew Engineering in the original subdivision design. Two six-inch storm drains were previously installed into the subject property and will accommodate this final phase of development. (Public Works has also noted that the property is currently served by a 12-inch storm sewer main line in Clear Creek Drive.) • The applicant's electric design team has met with the city's Electric Department and verified a preliminary plan for providing electrical vaults and transformers to provide the necessary 600-amps of three-phase power. • The applicant's water design team has been in discussions with the city's Water Department regarding the extension of the four-inch ductile water tap that will provide fourteen 3/4-inch water meters and a central double check fire vault for all five buildings. The owners' association will manage all landscaping and fire requirements held in common areas, and all building will have fire sprinkler systems installed. (Public Works has noted that the property is currently served by an eight-inch water main in Clear Creek Drive, but has questioned whether a single four-inch service will be adequate to serve the proposed number of meters, afire vault and necessary fire services, and has asked that the Water Department review service needs. As such a condition has been included to require that a final engineered utility plan be provided for the final review of the Public Works and Engineering departments prior to the issuance of a building permit.) • With regard to gas utilities, all buildings proposed will use electric energy systems rather than gas. • Four-inch sewer laterals for each building will be tied into the existing eight-inch main sewer line in Clear Creek Drive. This will require the cutting, removal, and replacement of asphalt and sidewalks. • Phone, Ashland Fiber Network and other communication facilities will be extended to serve each of the proposed buildings. • Recycling and garbage facilities are to be centralized in one accessible location, and Recology of Ashland has reviewed and approved the size and location of these facilities. • The adopted street dedication map for the area ultimately connects Clear Creek Drive from Oak Street through to North Mountain Avenue, and also includes a crossing of the railroad tracks at Fourth Street. The original subdivision was required to sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) to participate in the cost of constructing the future street crossing at Fourth Street, and this property remains subject to that requirement. • Additionally, a condition of the original subdivision's Outline Plan approval was that all properties agree to participate in the full cost of constructing a transit shelter along East Hersey Street or Clear Creek Drive should public or private transit service become available at a future date. • The traffic generated by this development will not negatively impact the performance of the intersections of Clear Creek Drive and Oak Street. The applicant suggest that this intersection is currently operating well under its Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff ReportAds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 4 of 14 c i capacity, and a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is not required because the common trip generation rates for the P.M. peak hour the "Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition" is well under the 50 additional vehicles per hour. (The ITE manual suggests that apartments (Code 220) generate 0.62 trips per hour. 8 units x 0.62 trips per hour = 4.96 trips per hour. Office use (Code 710) generates 1.49 trips per hour per 1,000 sq/ft of office space. At 10,756 sq/ft of office space, 11 x 1.49 = 16.39 trips per hour. The applicant therefore asserts that the total peals hour trips generated would be only about 21.35, which is less than 50 percent of the threshold number of trips which would trigger the TIA requirement.) Conditions have been recommended below to require that the applicant provide final utility, electric service, drainage, grading, erosion and sediment control plans for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric and Public Works/Engineering Departments prior to final building permit approval. The third criterion is that, "The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas." The applicant notes that the current development is part of a larger subdivision which has already been reviewed and approved, and all subject natural features were identified and put into open space, wetlands and unbuildable areas with the original subdivision. The fourth approval criterion is that, "The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan." The applicants indicate that they do not believe the proposal, which would develop the property as originally envisioned in the Clear Creek Village subdivision, will prevent the development of adjacent lands as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The fifth Outline Plan criterion is that, "There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project." The applicant explains that this is the final phase of this subdivision which has already preserved open space and common areas and created an owners' association to manage them, and that the plan proposed provides all the amenities and improvements required by the original subdivision's phased plan. The applicant further notes that they are subdividing this last parcel into five buildable lots that will meet all the owners' association requirements and that the association will continue to manage and maintain the proposed new infrastructure to be installed and the newly created common areas. The sixth criterion is that, "The proposed densil)~ meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter." The applicant notes that there are eight residential units proposed on the 0.557 acre parcel, which is consistent with the allowed residential density for E-1 zoned land (0.557 acres x 15 dwelling units per acre = 8.355 dwelling units). No density bonuses are requested. Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff ReporLdds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 5 of 14 i The final criterion for Outline Plan approval is that "The development complies with the Street Standards." The applicant notes that full frontage improvements were installed according to city street standards at the time of the original subdivision approval. The approval criteria for Final Plan are largely focused on considering any changes that might occur between Outline and Final Plan when the two are approved separately. In this instance, where Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review are proposed concurrently, there will be no such variation and the proposal is for the approval of the site and building designs in their final form. B. Site Design Review Proposal The application further requests Site Design Review approval to construct four two-story mixed-use buildings, consisting of leasable ground-floor commercial space with eight residential dwelling units on the second floors, and a fifth two-story building which will be limited to offices without a residential component. Underlying Zone Requirements The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal complies 1vith all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards." The subject property's underlying zone is E-1 (Employment) and within that zone, there is no minimum lot area, width, or depth; no minimum front, side or rear yard area except where abutting a residential zone to the side or rear; no maximum lot coverage; and no minimum residential density. The property does not abut residential zones to the side or rear as it is interior to the subdivision and all surrounding properties are zoned E-1. The property is not located on an arterial street. As such, no setback requirements come into play. The maximum building height is limited to 40 feet, and the proposed building, which has an average height of approximately 35 feet and which is approximately 3 8 feet at its tallest point, complies with this limitation. In addition to standard setbacks, E-1 properties are also subject to solar access requirements which limit the shadow cast by proposed construction to no more than would be cast by a 16-foot fence constructed on the northern property line. The ordinance includes provisions that if the northern property line adjoins any unbuildable area suck as street right-of-way, required parking lot, common area or open space to the north, the northern property line is considered to be the northerly edge of the unbuildable area due north of the subject property. The site here is a complex one for solar purposes due to existing and natural grades, angles of property lines and proposed buildings, and the installation of parking areas and associated easements and landscaping with the original subdivision improvements. The applicant here has provided numerous section drawings detailing the shadows cast by the proposed building (Sheets A6, A14-A15). These drawings illustrate that the shadows cast at noon on December 2lst - the time and date considered under the ordinance in determining solar access - either comply with the ordinance outright or fall on unbuildable areas made up of parking lot and their associated landscape buffers. Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant; Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 6 of 14 i f Overlay Zone Requirements The second Site Design Review approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." The subject property is located within the Residential (R) Overlay, and is subject to the following requirements which are detailed in AMC 18.3.13.010: • Where more than one building is located on a site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses. The plans provided note that for the combined building area of the five proposed buildings, 97.1 percent of the ground floor space is dedicated to commercial use. Of the 35 total required parking spaces for the proposal, 13 parking spaces (or 37 percent) are attributable to the residential parking demand. Roughly 28 percent of the subject property is to be provided in common open space which will be available equally to the commercial and residential tenants. In staff's assessment, no more than 50 percent of the site is designated for residential uses. • Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. There are eight residential units proposed on the 0.557 acre subject property, which is consistent with the allowed residential density for E-1 zoned land of 15 dwelling units per acre. (0.557 acres x 15 dwelling units per acre = 8.355 dwelling units). • Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the E-1 District. The project is being considered in terms of the design standards for permitted uses in the E-1 district. • If the number of residential units exceeds ten, then at least 10 percent of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate-income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. As noted above, only eight units are proposed and as such no affordable units are required. Site Development and Design Standards The third approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below." Generally, these Site Development & Design Standards seek to improve each project's appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the streetscape to encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to lessen the visual and climatic impacts of parking; and to screen adjacent uses from adverse impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are to have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties' frontages, and automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between buildings and the street. The application is subject to the standards for Basic Site Review for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review, Large Scale Development, Parking Lot Landscaping Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Reporl.dds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 7 of 14 i and Screening Standards, and Street Tree Standards, all of which call for a high level of urban design. Basic Site Review The proposed new buildings have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Sidewalks and street trees have been provided. Building facades occupy a large majority of the site's street frontage, and the area between buildings is open space mixing landscaping and hardscaping to highlight pedestrian areas. Parking areas were installed as part of the original subdivision improvements, and are located behind the buildings. A i new refuse and recycling enclosure in proposed at the rear of the building, and the application notes that it has been located and designed in consultation with Recology. Detail Site Review The application includes details demonstrating that the buildings are proposed at a combined floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.80, significantly exceeding the minimum 0.50 F.A.R. required within the Detail Site Review zone. (The current application includes written findings which discuss the F.A.R. for the original subdivision as a whole as well. The original subdivision developed tinder prior F.A.R. regulations in which 0.50 was a maximum allowed floor area ratio rather than a minimum as it is now, and the subdivision as then approved and largely built-out complied with the standards in place at the time. The current request complies with current regulations for the project site under consideration, and the applicants are not now also required to revisit previously approved and built buildings on separate lots now under new and different standards.) The combined building frontage area of Lots 1-4 exceeds one hundred feet in length, and the application materials provided note that the buildings provide distinctive changes, off- sets and jogs in their facades and that 24.2 percent of the frontage walls along Clear Creels Drive are provided in window and door area. Entrances are illuminated and further emphasized with articulated balconies above, and numerous porticoes, alcoves, roof overhangs and balconies are provided to protect pedestrians from sun and rain. Plaza space and people-friendly areas are emphasized through the use of pavers and scored concrete. The Detail Site Review standards also call for the placement of buildings at no more than five feet from the sidewalk or the width of any public utility easement unless the placement is for pedestrian areas; in this instance, there is a ten-foot sidewalk at the back of the sidewalk and the applicant notes that the second floor balconies are built to this easement while at the ground level, there is some articulation to emphasize pedestrian entries while providing covered areas beneath the balconies with protection from sun and rain. The applicant asserts that the building is similar in bulk, scale and coverage to the surroundings, and emphasizes that the buildings will be generally muted with a natural color palette selected for compatibility with the surrounding buildings in the subdivision. Large Scale The applicant explains that neither the aggregate footprint of the proposed buildings nor their floor area exceeds 45,000 square feet, and that the combined buildings do not exceed 300 feet in length. The application materials further note that 1.17 square feet of plaza space is provided for every ten square feet of building area, which exceeds the 1:10 Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report,dds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 8 of 14 I F requirement, and that his space includes a combination of seating areas; areas with a mix of sun and shade; areas that are screened from the wind by proposed buildings; required trees; a water feature; and while no provisions are currently proposed for food vendors there is ample seating to accommodate outdoor eating areas. In staff's assessment, the buildings as proposed can be found to comply with the Site I Development and Design Standards. Parking, Access and Circulation Standards Part 18.4 of the Ashland Municipal Code also includes parking, access and circulation standards found in AMC 18.4.3. Unlike many developments, parking was calculated with the subdivision application anticipating the full build-out and development and was constructed at the outset, in conjunction with the original subdivision infrastructure and has been in place for some time. As such, while five new buildings are proposed the parking requirements are addressed by parking that is already in place. A parking plan (Sheet A2) has been provided to illustrate the parking in place as it relates to the existing and proposed buildings, and allocations of parking to each building in the subdivision are detailed on this sheet as well. In addition, the applicant has provided Sheet A8 with more detailed parking calculations for the proposal illustrating that in total, 108 parking spaces are required for the subdivision as a whole and 108 parking spaces are provided. Sheet A2 identifies a number of on-street parking spaces that could be considered for credits although none are necessary with the current request. Staff has included exhibits based on the applicant's Sheets A2 and A8 which color code the parking required for each of the proposed buildings to better illustrate the allocation of required parking, and a condition has been recommended below to require that any changes of use that would alter these allocations be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor to insure that adequate parking remains available. Public Facilities The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property." Public facilities are addressed in detail in the Outline Plan section above. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City, b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff ReportAds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 9 of 14 or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project, f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in 18.3.9.040.8.5 as follows: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. L The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. C. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in 18.5.2.050 as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the s Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 10 of 14 E i Site Development and Design Standards, IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The application requests Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals for the property located at 123 Clear Creek Drive, which is Lot 8 in the Clear Creek Village Subdivision. For staff, the proposal is a straightforward one in that utilities, street improvements, parking and significant natural features were largely addressed at the subdivision level, and the current request amounts to the completion of the final phase of the original subdivision's well thought-out vision, with no Exceptions or Variances involved. The proposed new buildings have been designed with both the subdivision's village context and the city's design standards in mind with strong primary orientations to the street; attractive entrances accessed from the sidewalk and contributing to an engaging streetscape; and parking located behind the buildings in existing lots. The primary areas of focus in staff's review have been first in verifying that the parking, which was installed with the subdivision, remains sufficient as the full development has built-out and uses transitioned; and second in verifying that the proposal, when considered in light of the property line configurations and grade changes that have occurred over time, complies with the city's solar access standards The application includes detailed submittals addressing both of these issues, and upon review, neither seems to pose any concern. Staff supports the proposal, and recommends approval with the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein 2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) That all conditions of the previous subdivision (PA #2001-0053 and #2003-089) shall remain in effect unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 4) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their January 7, 2016 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 5) That prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All signage shall meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7). 6) That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, F including approved addressing (OFC 505); commercial fire apparatus access including angle of approach and any necessary fire apparatus or shared access easements (OFC 503.2.8); provisions for firefighter access pathways (OFC 503.1.1); fire flow (OFC Appendix B, Table B 105.1); fire hydrant clearance; fire department connection (FDC); fire extinguishers (2A1 OBC); a Knox key box; and fire sprinklers where required for mixed-use buildings or due to access constraints. Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report,dds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 11 of 14 7) That the applicants shall obtain Demolition/Relocation Review Permit approvals through the Building Division prior to the demolition of any buildings greater than 500 square feet if deemed necessary by the Building Official pursuant to AMC 15.04.210-216. 8) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Clear Creek Drive, and the location and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 9) That the front entrances adjacent to Clear Creek Drive shall remain functional and open to the public during all business hours, and the windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 10) That any changes of use that would alter the parking allocations detailed in the applicants parking plan shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor to determine whether further land use review is necessary to insure that adequate parking remains available. 11) That building permit submittals shall include: a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or private utility or drainage easements, mutual access and parking easements, fire apparatus access easements, and public pedestrian access easements. b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those described in the application, and very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used. c) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d) Revised Landscape, Irrigation and Tree Protection Plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised plans shall address: 1) The recommendations of the Tree Commission from their January 7, 2016 meeting where consistent with applicable criteria and standards, and with final approval by the Staff Advisor; 2) a final size- and species-specific planting and irrigation plan, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications; 3) final lot coverage and required landscaped area calculations, including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas, and landscaped areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 85 percent, and the calculations shall demonstrate that the requisite 15 percent landscaping and seven percent parking lot landscaping are provided. e) Stormwater drainage, grading and erosion control plans for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments. The stormwater plan shall address Public Works/Engineering standards requiring that post-development peals flows do not exceed pre- development levels. Any necessary drainage improvements to address the site's stormwater shall be provided at the applicants' expense. Storm water from all new impervious surfaces and run-off associated with peak Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 12 of 14 rainfall events must be collected on site and channeled to the city storm water collection system (i. e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. f) A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Meters, cabinets, vaults and Fire Department Connections shall be located outside of pedestrian corridors and in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed by the applicant at applicant's expense, and the applicants shall obtain all necessary permits and inspections from the Public Works/Engineering Department for work to be completed within the public rights-of-way. g) A final erosion and sediment control plan. h) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including any transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located outside the pedestrian corridor in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed at the applicant's expense. i) Identification and placement of required bicycle parking. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the outdoor bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with the standards in 18.4.3.070.1, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met. 10) That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work including demolition or the storage of materials: a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by Staff Advisor. The Verification Permit is to inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained and protected. Tree protection measures shall be in the form of chain link fencing six feet tall, installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.4.5.030.C.) b) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each proposed unit, and system development charges for water, Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 13 of 14 I sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for existing structures) shall be paid. 11) That prior to the final approval of the project, signature of the final plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All hardscaping including any sidewalk corridor repairs; landscaping; and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) All utility service and equipment installations shall be completed according to Electric, Public Works/Engineering, Planning, and Building Departments' specifications, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. C) Sanitary sewer laterals, water services including connection with meters at the street, and underground electric services shall be installed according to the approved plans to serve all units prior to signature of the final survey plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. d) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties. e) That final CC&Rs for the Owner's Association or similar maintenance agreement shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey plat. This agreement shall describe the responsibility for the maintenance of all common use- improvements including landscaping, parking areas, driveways, planting strips and street trees. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the approved plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. f) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC 18.4.4.040. Planning Action PA #2015-02287 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Clear Creek Investments LLC/John Fields Page 14 of 14 i r ASHLAND COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET January 7, 2016 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02287 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 123 Clear Creels Drive APPLICANTS: John Fields/Clear Creek Investments LLC OWNERS: Clear Creels Investments LLC & Cooper Investments LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct four two-story mixed-use buildings, consisting of leasable ground-floor office space and eight residential dwelling units on the second floors, and one two-story office building for the property located at 123 Clear Creek Drive. The request would also modify the previously approved Clear Creek Village Subdivision by further subdividing Lot 8 under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to create five new buildable lots to accommodate the proposed development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05 CD; TAX LOT: #1803 The Tree Commission recommends approval of the application as submitted with the following .recommendations: 1) That all new trees have sun protection and buck guards for protection and to ensure their longevity. 2) That the pear trees are avoided due to site conditions and replaced with Quercus rubra or a Hornbeam variety. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5350 CITY F 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 "LAND Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 -AS www.ashland.onus 1 Planning Department, 51 Winb;.„i Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 - 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: 2015-02287 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 123 Clear Creek OWNER: Clear Creels Investments LLC & Cooper Investments LLC APPLICANT: John Fields/Clear Creek Investments LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct four two-story mixed-use buildings, consisting of leasable ground-floor office space and eight residential dwelling units on the second floors, and one two-story office building for the property located at 123 Clear Creek Drive. The request would also modify the previously approved Clear Creek Village Subdivision by further subdividing Lot 8 under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to create five new buildable lots to accommodate the proposed development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05 CD; TAX LOT: #1803. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: -r: u - TE- E H E RS EY ST ,w J PA #2016-02287 \ 123 CLEAR CREEK DRIVE SUBJECTPROPERTY I Z_Z j -IZP C, Q ~ , of Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or 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 Commission 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. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). If you have questions or comments concerninq this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planninq Division, 541-488-5305. SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 I The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 18.3.9.040.A.3 Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City, b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter, g. The development complies with the Street Standards. APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAN 18.3.9.040.B.5 Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria, a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent, e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved, g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. GAcomm-dev\plenningTIanning Actions\Noticing Folder\Mailed Notices & Signs\2016\pa-2015-02287.doex I t 4 f ~'uff'. 33 - 1 3 hs 6 aqua y. 2d ul 201 2 95 201 U O U D SW - f ~ll ~tJ 3 ~ 3.3.E AMID MAO 211 1 f7 11'.3 rt. -'`*z" r to y~u .~.1~L. .~1 2 2~ ~~{~,.•~'iPg >a1`~ . 22,111 ' 419 304 ~ ilk 3w 41a r BUT 3U 3203. PV 51 211111 33IJa 329' ` e:;ll>I s;E 1 WA 3ucult, 3H X17 103 3490 iJ3 i f slim) 1 1512 2NOMON 1904, Pat 3RD ~~1 j5'lli) 1901 31 52114 14 yoz CREEK 2R ell 9, 163U 1 O U4 4 13-Bad A All V, a 0 6 U02, ISO ~riau~ 1asulr,'Was 14062 Will U I au D j 14603 6, p` Mu ' 1- ~r a F 3 Ar kF - F m n r1 7 • d 1 ~ Y' i ® ' ~ y t ) HUM MUD)' ln. dpi? ~t{q~ Hrlidly 4 3116 r~ a+¢ ¢ N a'.2-0 D R ' Y .fig ' 3 Il tli fl 311 ll 11' 4 1 6'u tl- If i LI ~ tl 2q DID (1 d YI il' MU iM1J a SJ. 65 2160 IV E wou pup swop i AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING G STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: E 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On December 29, 2015 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 #2015-02287, 123 Clear Creek NOC. Signature of Employee Documen@ 12/29/2015 i PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 1200 PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 515 PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 516 ASHLAND CHRISTIAN BEAUFORT ANNE TRUSTEE BERRY DONNA M TRUSTEE ET AL 50 E HERSEY ST 129 E HERSEY ST 366 RIVER PARK DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 REDDING, CA 96003 i PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 1804 PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 518 PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 520 BLACKBIRD POND LLC CARVER CAROLINE CHAN THERESA I 304 RIDGE RD 517 WINTERBERRY DR 119 E HERSEY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 FREDERICKSBURG, VA 22405 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 1906 PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 1905 PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 1903 CLEAR CONCEPTS OF OREGON LLC CLEAR CREEK INVESTMENTS LLC DELGADO INVESTMENTS LLC 1235 WESTMONT DR 845 OAK ST 148 E HERSEY ST JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 1400 PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 1801 PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 519 HODGINS ROBERT C TRUSTEE ET AL KAGYU SUKHA CHOLING MCCHESNEY DONNA 630 E VALLEY VIEW RD 109 CLEAR CREED DR 102 ! 121 E HERSEY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-02287 PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 517 PA-2015-02287 391E04CD 514 KISTLER SMALL & WHITE POUPENEY PADDY ROSE TRUSTEE ZUNDEL JEFFREY ROBERT 66 WATER STREET 21 FRANCISCA DR 107 GRANITE ST SUITE 101 MORAGA, CA 94556 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-02287 PA-2015-02287 JOHN FIELDS POLARIS SURVEY 845 OAK STREET P.O. BOX 459 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 975250 I I l 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek i 'T'ype II Site Review for Mixed-Use Development Five Lot Subdivision 'T'ype I Solar Setback Waiver Located at 123 Clear Creek. Findings Prepared by John Fields-Golden-Fields Construction and Design, LTD Architecture by Jerome White- Kistler, Small and White Architecture. Landscape Design by Gregg Covey- Covey-Pardee Landscape Architects. Survey- Shawn Kampman- Polaris Survey PLANNING ACTION: 2015- APPLICANT: John Fields Clear Creek Investments LLC 845 Oak Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-944-2262 John(a, LYolden-fields.net OWNERS: (Clear Creek Investments LLC and Cooper Investments LLC) LOCATION: Parcel of the Clear Creek Village Subdivision Accessed by Clear Creek Drive and East Hersey Street 391E 5CD TL 1803 ZONE DESIGNATION: E-1 Detail Site Review Overlay COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment District REQUEST: ® Detail Site Review approval to construct four two story mixed-use and one two story Office building. Buildings are all to be leased space consisting comprised of office space, retail space, and 8 residential units(two each mixed-use building. We are proposing to take the above tax lot and subdivide it into 5 new tax lots which will begin concurrently with developing construction drawings. This development will operate under the Clear Creek Village Subdivision's Owners Association CC and Rs and shall be wrapped into the subdivision's parking, landscape maintenance, utility and egress easements. ® 5 lot subdivision to be incorporated into the existing Clear Creek Village Subdivision. Outline and Final Plan Drawing provided: 2 Page 1 I 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek j Architectural: Al Cover sheet A2 Pedestrian Circulation Plan A3 Proposed Subdivision Dimensions A4 Site plan and Planning Summary A5 Enlarged Site Plan A6 Solar Setback Site Plan A7 Conceptual Site Utility Plan A8 Allocated Parking, FAR, Usage-Revisions to Subdivision Totals A9 First Floor Plans A10 Second Floor Plans All Roof Plan A12 Exterior Elevations A13 Exterior Elevations A14 Solar Shadow on South Wall of 109 Clear Creek- KSC Temple A15 Solar Setback Sections Landscape: L0.1 Tree Preservation Plan L1.0 Preliminary Grading Plan L2.0 Schematic Planting Plan L2.1 Plant List, Notes and Details Survey: As-Built Survey Introduction The evolution of Clear Creels Village (CCV) began in 1999 with the purchase of two E-1 lots on the corner of Hersey and Oak Streets. The first two buildings were comprised of a new location for the Furniture Depot (now Massif Clothing) at 498 Oak Street and the mixed use building at 108 E, Hersey. The original design had not anticipated the further development, but sought to Architecturally integrate this unusual four way intersection with the alignment of the incredible site line of Mount Ashland and the backdrop of forested hills to the South. A few years later the opportunity arose that allowed for the acquisition of the additional 7 acres of property to the south that included the development of Clear Creek Drive, the wetland restoration and the first subdivision, Clear Creels Village. This was a negotiated purchase involving land from the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Delatorre family Trust. This proposed group of buildings occupies the last undeveloped lot of the CCV Subdivision Phase II, which is comprised of the Wetlands surrounded by 8 lots. In addition to CCV the current owners John Fields (Clear Creek Investments) and Dennis Cooper (Cooper Investments) have the two acre parcel to the West adjacent to Ashland Page 2 i 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creels i I Lumber and the tracks and will most likely follow this pattern of development that has been established. The original concept sought to create a whole neighborhood, integrating the natural features of the site (the wetlands), the views and the opportunity to have mixed-use buildings close to the center of the Railroad district and downtown. The Intent Clear Creek Village is a Planned Unit Development, conceived by John Fields (applicant and owner) DBA Golden-Fields Construction and Design, Ltd. It is situated three blocks to the north of Downtown Ashland. The original buildings built in 1999 are located on the corner of 108 E Hersey and 498 Oak Streets are the gateway to Clear Creek Drive that will eventually connect to the other end of Clear Creek Drive located at South Mountain near the railroad crossing. Completed construction includes about 50,000 sq./ft. of Mixed-use development. KSC Tibetan Buddhist Temple, medical offices (Delgado Family Practice) general office use, therapist and alternative healthcare professionals, Salon, wholesale distribution and manufacture design teams (Natura, Massif), The proposed buildings will provide another 12,000 sq/ft of commercial structures that will be made of five separate buildings subdivided from the parent parcel Lot 8 of the original subdivision (Lot 1 will be two stories of commercial, lots 2-5 will be commercial below with two residential units each above). Once completed there will be a total of 17 residential units mixed through the two phases of CCV subdivision and another 8 that have been built on other lots within the original 7 acre site along Clear Creek. Sustainability; The original design redeveloped a derelict parcel of abused wetland, used as pasture, The 1 1/4 acres open space was a planned wetland mitigation project, that developed the ponds and redeveloped the protected areas malting way for the construction of this portion of Clear Creek Drive. By preserving and enhancing the natural amenities of the site, Clear Creek has lush cattails and wetlands habitat. This invites wildlife into the urban uses and enhances the environment and contributes to the quality of life of the second floor dwellings. The wetland acts as a storm water detention system metering out the storm drainage flow following intense rainfall. Clear Creels is an urbanized stream that daylights onto the development and handles street and storm drainage above A Sheet. Mixed-use development creates greater proximity between living and work opportunities. This encourages people to drive less. The proximity to the downtown, shopping amenities, professional services and public transportation makes it possible to reduce automobile trips. Numerous sidewalks, paths and the bike path that created on the east side of Phase I expands both pedestrian and bicycle mobility. Higher development densities create a more environmentally friendly footprint. It requires less urban infrastructure for more intensive use. The scale of the residential and Page 3 I r 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek the character of second floor uses creates a highly energy efficient design. We are making passive building designs that reduce the mechanical loads on all our buildings. Low toxicity and high life-cycle elements make the buildings both energy efficient but also create a quality residencial and work environment. r Visual Delight; Views are enhanced, architecture varied, by creating a village scale development. Winding streets and paths create a wonderfully human scale experience. When an observer comes around a corner and is greeted with something of visual interest, our creativity is piqued. This is why traditional town design gives a positive sense of well being. It makes us feel like we belong and that we want to be part of the experience. "The best buildings are yet to come." Background - History of Application: In October 1999, the Planning Commission approved a request for a Lot Line Adjustment and Land Partition including the construction of Clear Creek Drive for the property located southeast of the intersection of Hersey and Oak streets, and north of the railroad tracks (PA 99-048). In January 2001, the Planning Commission approved a request for Outline Plan approval of, a nine-lot subdivision for the property located on the 3.8 acre parcel adjoining Clear Creek Drive, Hersey and Oak Streets (PA 2000-126). The subject parcel, Lot 8 was created with this subdivision. For clarity, please note that the original application for the Subdivision presented the parcels with alphabetic nomenclature and through the formal creation of the Subdivision they were renamed and now are legally identified by numeric designation i.e. 1=9. In June 2001, the Planning Commission approved a request for Final Plan and Site Review approval of Phase I of the subdivision (portion east of the wetlands) (PA 2001- 053). In July 2003, the Planning Commission approved a request Final Plan approval of Phase II of the subdivision (portion west of the wetlands) and Site Review approval of the existing DreamSacks building (now Natura), referred to in application as Building F (Lot 7), located at 125-127 Clear Creek Drive (PA 2003-089). In July 2005, The Planning Commission approved Site Review to construct a three story, mixed-use building comprised of office space, retail space, a meditation center ant two residential units. A Conditional Use Permit was also included for a religious use being a Buddhist Meditation Center. (PA 2005-00671) The project lies within the Detail Site Review zone, and is subject to the Detail Site Review Standards as well as the Basic Site Review Standards. Additionally, the G development as part of the larger development is subject to the additional standards for Page 4 i 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek i Large Scale Projects. Since the site layout including the building footprint, parking layout, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and plaza and landscape areas were established and approved with the subdivision, a large number of the applicable standards have been previously completed. These proposed buildings meet the requirements of the LUO or provide findings for the remaining applicable standards. Scope of development This section examines potential impacts associated with the project. The project proposes a mix of uses, including offices, retail space, and eight housing units. The offices, retail space and residential uses are permitted uses within the E-1; Employment District The project site is located between Clear Creek Drive and Hersey Streets, South of Massif Clothing (498 Oak), the Mixed-Use building at 108 E. Hersey and west of the KSC Meditation Center (109 Clear Creek Dr.) and the wetlands. The proposed building would be located centrally in the Clear Creek Village Subdivision, and situated on Lot 2- D, a footprint lot which was approved with the subdivision. Phase II is a 1.23 acre parcel that includes three footprint lots including the subject Lot is .56 acres. One lot contains the existing Natura building (originally DreamSacks), Building F Lot 7, and the lot is KSC Meditation Center, Building E Lot 6. The two parking lots are fully constructed on the west and east sides of the subject lot. The site contains a barn/shed structure that will be moved or demolished. It is 480 sq/ft and is therefore not regulated by ordinance. There are no trees located on the parcel except those planted by the applicant in the park row and indicated on the plan, there will be no need to remove any of them. Several buildings are situated around the site including a lumberyard, light manufacturing, warehouse, retail, medical office, general office, and residential uses. This project is highly compatible with its surroundings and permitted uses. There is no other contiguous zoning. It is more than 200 feet from the R-1 zoning across Hersey Street. It is surrounded by Clear Creek Village Subdivision. It is an important consideration to be made that the original approved outline plan, that we are now completing and these last buildings are now being required to conform various ordinance changes. FAR maximum was changed to require FAR minimum, Parking standards that previously included 50% on-street parking credit have been dis- allowed. All the sidewalks, street lamps, street trees, driveway accesses, parking lots were approved and built to accommodate the needs of these buildings. They met all the existing standards at the time of approval. I This application involves the construction of a 5 separate buildings. on newly created separate tax lots (subdivided from the parent parcel-lot 8); from west to east along Clear Creek Drive: i Lot #1 2949.5 sq/ft, two story, zero lot line building to the east and adjacent to the parking lot to the west behind Massif. Page 5 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek Lot #2 2,780.7 sq/ft three story building zero lot line on either side. The third story is a second floor of the upstairs residential units. Lot #3 2,780.7 sq/ft three story building zero lot line on either side. The third story is a second floor of the upstairs residential unit. Lot #4 2,823.7 sq/ft two story building with zero lot line on the west and open to the plaza to the east. Lot #5 2,849 sq/ft two story opening on the east side of the Plaza and a zero lot line with Natura (125 Clear Creek) Area C1 6,799.6 sq/ft Area C2 2,252.4 sq/ft Area C3 408.5 sq/ft Total: 24,244.1 sq/ft Zonin 1. The E-1 zoning with residential overlay requires the first floor of the building to be used for permitted or special permitted uses of at least 65% of the ground floor. The proposed buildings includes 100% of the ground floor in "office/retail" use which are permitted uses in the E-1 zone. 2. The E-1 zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. In this case, the subject parcel is entirely surrounded by properties within the E-1 zoning. As a result, standard setbacks from property lines are not required. 3. There are 8 residential units provided on .557 acres meeting the maximum of 15 units per acre. Summary of Subject Parcel Impacts Detailed illustration and data can be found of Sheet A4 of the plan documents provided with these findings. A brief summary is provided below: Development Area 1. The parent parcel is approximately 24,244 square feet. 2. Total Building Foot print 9,656 square feet 3. Proposed FAR of combined buildings in 79.5%, minimum of 50% is required. 4. There is a total of 5,002 square feet of landscape equaling 20.6% of the parcels coverage, minimum of 15% is required. 5. 10% of building foot print is required to be developed as public space, this design proposes 11.7% of gross floor area as Plaza. 6. Total impervious lot coverage is 26,159 square feet or 83.1% the total lot coverage. Parkin 1. There is an allocation of 34.5 automobile parking spaces and 26 bicycle parking spaces provided for the new buildings. Page 6 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek I i 2. All parking lots have been built and have been approved by the City of Ashland through the subdivision outline plan, and several subsequent site reviews. There are no new parking lot improvements proposed in this application. 3. There are the required ratio of accessible parking, compact and full size stalls. G 4. 7% of the parking lots are landscaped. Traffic Impact The proposed development does not meet any of the threshold criteria and therefore the requirement for TIA is not met. See findings for Chapter 18.4.6 - Public Facilities . Public and private Facilities City and private facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed construction for water, sewer. electricity and paved access to the site. Findings of Fact 18.3.9.040.A.3 - Outline Plan Approval Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. Finding: The is development meets all applicable ordinance in the following findings for Site Review and Detail Site Review requirements. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. Finding: The following findings for Site Review and Detail Site Review demonstrate that this development meets the requirement for identifying and providing adequate City Facilities. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. Finding: This development is part of a planned development that has been approved. All subject natural features have been identified and put into open space, wetlands and unbuildable areas. d The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: This development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 7 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/2912015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek e. There are adequate provisions for° the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. Finding: This is the final phase of this subdivision.. This plan provides all the amenities and improvements required by the original subdivision phased plan We are subdividing this last parcel into five parcels they will meet all the owner association requirements and will continue on to manage these additional ifrastructure improvements and the newly created common areas. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established tinder this chapter. Finding: The findings for Site Review and Detail Site Review requirements below demonstrate that this project meets the base density of this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. Finding: The original streets and curb cuts are existing and meet the City Street Standards. 18.3.9.040.B.5 Approval Criteria for Final Plan Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria. a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. Finding: The outline plan and final plan will have the same amount of dwelling units. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. Finding: We have met this requirement. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of thatprovided on the outline plan. Finding: We have met this requirement. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. Finding: We have met this requirement. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. Page 8 i 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek Finding: We have met this requirement. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved g. The development complies with the Street Standards. Finding: We have met this requirement. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below; thatpermitted in the outline plan. Finding: We have met this requirement. 18.4.2 -Building Placement, Orientation, and Design Orientation and Scale. a. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. Where a site is one half an acre or greater in size, the FAR requirement may be met through a phased development plan or a shadow plan over time to meet the minimum FAR. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for° the purposes of meeting the minimum FAR. Finding: This has been met and found in finding of Detail Site Review. b. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building facade. Finding: This has been met and found in finding of Detail Site Review. c. Any wall that is within 30 feet of the street, plaza, or other public open space shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow view into working areas, lobbies, pedestrian entrances, or displays areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited Up to 40 percent of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted for° this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. Finding: This has been met and found in finding of Detail Site Review. d. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. Finding: This has been met and found below in the findings for Detail Site Review. e. Building Placement, Orientation, and Design of modern commercial development is the placement of a small buffer of landscaping between the street and the parking area, with the building behind the parking area at the rear of the parcel with loading areas behind the building. Finding: This has met this standard and can be found in finding for Detail Site Review. Parking lots are already built, established and approved within the original planning of the Clear Creek Subdivision and were developed according to the approved plan. There are buffers between the street and the parking areas. Page 9 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek A. Relates to commercial development- not applicable B. Basic Site Review Standards. Except as otherwise required by an overlay zone or°plan district, the following requirements apply to commercial, industrial, non-residential and mixed-use development pursuant to section 18.5.2.020. 1. Orientation and Scale. c G a. Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street and not a parking area. Automobile circulation or off-street parking is not allowed between the building and the street. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings, or to one side. Finding: All five of the proposed buildings are oriented towards Clear Creek Drive and have their parking to side or rear. b. A building facade or multiple building facades shall occupy a large majority of a project's street frontage, and avoid site design that incorporates extensive gaps between building frontages created through a combination of driveway aprons, parking areas, or vehicle aisles. Spaces between buildings shall consist of and landscaping and hard i durable surface materials to highlight pedestrian areas. Finding: These buildings have the majority of their fagades occupying a large majority of the projects street frontage. l I c. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed f °om a public in sidewalk. The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, fitnctional. h. Finding: Primary entries of each building are accessible by public sidewalk and are clearly visible. d. Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of way to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater setback results in an improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centers, where other buildings meet this standard Finding: Although the ground floor of the majority street frontage of the ground floor is within 2' of the PUE, the second floor balconies project to the required PUE set back. This is primary architectural tool for articulating the facade. The first floor begins 12' from the City's right of way, with alcoves another 5' back from that. Maximum first floor setback is less than 20' from the public right of way. e. Where a building is located on a corner lot, its entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. The building shall be located as close to the intersection corner as practicable. Not applicable f. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street front such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service stations. Not applicable g. The standards in a-d, above, may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and Page 10 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek automotive service stations. Not applicable Detail Site Review Criteria Procedural - Required Burden of Proof SECTION 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: 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 subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) i SECTION 18.72.040 Detail Site Review Zone. A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section 18.72.080. Finding: This project lies within the defined area. B. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant to this chapter, i-vhich exceeds 10, 000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type II procedure Finding: The development exceeds 10,000 square feet and is more than 100 feet in width or depth so there fore will be reviewed as a Type II procedure. C. No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross square footage of 45, 000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand tip to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross square footage or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. Finding: The gross square footage is under 45,000 sq. ft. D. Detailed Site Review Standards. Development that is within the Detail Site Review overlay shall, in addition to the complying with the standards for Basic Site Review, conform to the following standards. 1. Orientation and Scale. a. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. City ofAshland 4-12 Land Use Ordinance least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windoi-vs must allow vieia; into working areas, lobbies, Page 11 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek pedestrian entrances, or displays areas. Blank ivalls ivithin 30 feet of the street are prohibited ohibited Up to 40percent of the length of the buildingperimeter can be exernptedfor this standard if oriented t0141ard loading or service areas. Finding: The buildings meet and exceeds all of these requirements. These buildings have a F.A.R of 79.5% (Exhibit B) Exceeding the 50% minimum requirements of E-l. The entire parent Parcel 2 will give the relative density of these buildings with the other two buildings that have already been built. The original approved outline plan was under the old FAR requirements not to exceed 50%. The earlier FAR requirement had the opposite objective of the revised FAR ordinance. This project is rather complicated in that it is a modified Pad Lot Development and doesn't easily conform to basic lot coverage logic or calculations. There are several ways to consider meeting minimum FAR. The original outline plan looked at the entire development, excluding the wetlands and saw that projecting this development we would achieve around 44.5% FAR. With these new buildings, that is where we end up. These new buildings and created lots do not include their total proportion of parking. If you include the land in addition to the incremental percentage of parking, I think we will meet the minimum FAR requirement. If you wanted to spread the density throughout the development and expect a density transfer from the Wetlands parcel there we would be well under 50% FAR. These are competing requirements of conflicting standards. We would have preferred more density and a third floor with these buildings but the Solar setback requirements made it impossible. "Form follows parking", if 50% on-street parking credit were allowed, it would have been possible to do a third floor. 50% minimum FAR was instituted after we had an approved subdivision outline plan. This change of ordinance is an unusual circumstance and should be recognized as justification for not meeting the 50% minimum FAR requirement. b. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building fagade. Finding: The building has distinctive changes, offsets and jogs in the building fagade. c. Any wall that is within 30 feet of the street, plaza, or other public open space shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Finding: The buildings average frontage wall areas have 24.2% window and door area. d Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. Finding: Entrances are all illuminated and have an emphasis placed on the entries with articulated balconies above. e. Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidelValks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. Finding: Not applicable. f. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings thatprotect pedestrians fr"orn the rain and sun. Page 12 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek I Finding: We have numerous awnings, alcoves, a porticoes and roof overhangs providing rain and sun protection. 2. Streetscape. a. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above. Finding: We have created extensive plaza and people areas using pavers and scored and colored concrete. b. A building shall be setback not more than five feet fi°om a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public zttility easement. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 65 percent of the aggregate building fi°ontage shall be within five feet of the sidewalk. Finding: The public sidewalk has a 10' PUE between it and the building. The second floor balconies are built right up to the PUE and their related first floor entries below are an important architectural element that articulate the fagade and provide a strong sense of entry and protection from the elements. The western exposure on this building is served well by reducing cooling loads by stepping the windows back under the overhanging second floor. Chapter 18.4.4 - Landscaping, Lighting, and Screening A. The parking lots were constructed under the previous outline plan and met the ordinance at the time of construction 1. Parking area-landscaping amounts to at least 7% of the parking area. 2. There are numerous trees existing and there are additional trees being added in the proposed landscape plan. 3. Hedges within the screen/buffer strips have been chosen to achieve 50% of the 36" height within two years and 100% in four years. Ground cover in this strip has been chosen to achieve 100% coverage in five years. 4. The street trees were planted when 125 Clear Creek was developed and meet the 30 'spacing in the park row. 5. Planting of street trees were planted in accordance with City standards and have drip irrigation provided and root barriers where required. 6. The site is devoid of any significant trees or planting with the exception of the trees provided in the wetland development and street trees. a. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist or either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. Finding: The adjacent lots are compatible uses- Not applicable. b. Parking lots shall be bi ffered from the main street, cross streets, and screened from residentially zoned land Page 13 t' f t 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek Finding: We have buffered the lots with screening adjacent streets and residential zones. 4. Building Materials. a. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, and flirted masonry, for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall area. Finding: The building's scale, bulk and coverage is similar to other commercial buildings in the surrounding area. This building is providing the mass and scale that continues the "Village Effect" that was the original intention of the subdivision. The building provides a back drop behind the fountain plaza and two buildings at the intersection of E. Hersey and Oak When traveling south the new building's dramatic form aligns between the buildings on Hersey and Oak and allows the views of Mt. Ashland, the surrounding forest interface and The Ashland Springs Hotel creating urban and natural context. Since the surrounding area contains significant areas of undeveloped land, it is also important to consider the allowed size and scale of future structures. In terms of impact to this development on surrounding properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan the applicant firmly believes the proposed development will greatly enhance the streetscape and will have a positive impact of the area. b. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. Finding: We have no colors that are used to attract attention to the building. The proposed colors are fairly muted and have an natural color palette. Additionally, harmonizing color palettes that is used on the existing Natura and Massif buildings. A condition can be added requiring color samples to be muted colors and approved by the Staff prior to issuance of the building permit. We meet and exceed this requirement. D. Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. In the Detail Site Review overlay, developments that are greater than 10, 000 square feet in gross floor area or contain more than 100 feet of building fi°ontage shall, in addition to complying with the standards for Basic (18.4.2.040.B) and Detail (18.4.2.040. C) Site Review, above, conform to the following standards. Outside of the Downtown Design Standards overlay, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review overlay shall conform to the following standards. 1. Orientation anti Scale. i. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. Finding: We acknowledge this requirement and elevations demonstrate that we have accomplished this. ii. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45, 000 square feet cis measured Page 14 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek outside of the exterior walls and including all interior couro)ards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. Finding: The aggregate of these buildings are less than 45,000 sq/ft iii.'. Buildings shall not exceed a gross f oor area of 45, 000 square feet, - Finding: We are less than 45,00 sq/ft in gross floor area iv. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Finding: We are less than 300 feet length. 2. Public ,Spaces. a. One square foot of plaza or public space shall be required for every ten square feet of gross floor area, except for the fourth gross floor area. Finding: We have provided 1.17 square feet of plaza-public space for each 10 square feet of gross floor area exceeding the minimum requirement. See A4 b. A plaza or public spaces shall incorporate at least four° of the following elements. i. Sitting Space - at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of 16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches Finding: See L1; there is more than 60 lineal feet of planter seating and two addition benches are provided i. A mixture of areas thatprovide both sunlight and shade. Finding: We have provided area with a mix of both sunlight and shade. iii. Protection from wind by screens and buildings. Finding: Primary winds come from the south. The plaza area between building 4 and 5 are protected from the prevailing winds by the building on Lot 5. iv. Trees -provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of one tree per 500 square feet, at least two inches in diameter at breast height. Finding: We have over twenty one 2" DBH trees provided in our landscape plan including the seven we have provided for the 2,252 sq/ft of Plaza. This is excluding the street trees v. Water features or public art. Finding: There is a water feature in the Plaza area. vi. Outdoor eating areas or food vendors. Finding: There is no current provision for food vendors but we do have a lot of outdoor seating available for outdoor eating and individual tenants will be able to provide additional tables for their use. 3. Transit Amenities. Transit amenities, bits shelters, pullouts, and designated bike lanes shall be required in accordance with the Ashland Transportation Plan and guidelines Page 15 I 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District. Finding: There is a location for future transit stop located in front of the wetlands on Hersey Street although currently there is no bus service or transit amenities. 18.4.3 - Parking, Access, and Circulation 18.4.6.040 Findings summary: A. There are eighty six off-street parking spaces provided in the two parking lots adjacent to the proposed buildings,* The parking lots are designed to be shared by the other four buildings that have been built earlier. There is a Parking Allocation Schedule on the Revision of Subdivision Totals (Sheet A8) provided that is updated with each phase of development and is tied into approved city requirements when there are changes of use. Each property that is sold has the "use" and subsequent parking requirement recorded on their deed. This entitles them to a parking allotment authorized by their specific Site Revue, permit or planning action. All of the City of Ashland specific requirements are recorded by this established use. This is the completion Phase 2 of the Clear Creek Village Subdivision, the parking restrictions, the subsequent subdivision changes of use are enshrined in this plan. B. The western parking area can be accessed by E. Hersey Street and Clear Creek Drive, and provides a through connection. C. The eastern parking area is accessed by Clear Creek Drive. The application includes a site map (A4) detailing the locations of the two parking areas and the total number of spaces. D. The parking lots are fully constructed and landscaped. They conform to the original Outline plan approved by the City of Ashland. They are both under 50 parking spaces and do not require separated pedestrian walkways to the buildings. E. A total of 20 bicycle parking spaces are required. Shown on the site plan there are 10 bike parking spaces distributed in close proximity of the entries and a covered storage structure with 16 additional bicycles spaces (see A4 (1). F. The determination of required parking was based on the table submitted with this application identified as A4. G. The primary access to the parking and site is via existing driveways to parking entered from Clear Creek Drive and E. Hersey Street. There is a sidewalk along the building connecting the public sidewalk to the rear entries of the building and the parking lot. There are two parking lots serving this complex H. The residential and commercial units will share all parking spaces. There are only two private parking spaces in the greater subdivision and they are the two garages located at 151 Clear Creek Drive, under an earlier planning action. 1. There is a dedicated area for a future Transit Stop in front of the Wetland on E. Hersey Street. Page 16 C 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek E J. The two parking lots adequately serve those working, living and visiting the businesses by automobile. Clear Creek Drive, Oak Street and Hersey Streets are all major collector streets and provide adequate capacity. K. The newly built Clear Creek Drive has all required capacity for the Southerly part of this development. The E. Hersey Street is fully improved and has all required capacity to meet this development. L. The streets providing access to the area are collector streets which are designed to handle higher number of vehicle trips associated with commercial zones. The site is also centrally located and well linked by facilities for pedestrian and bicycle travel. M. The new buildings will obscure the parked cars to the rear. *This application's Sheet A4 includes an updated parking use table and includes a breakdown of the required parking spaces of the proposed buildings by use along with total parking for the entire subdivision. B. Alternative Vehicle Parking. Alternative vehicle parking facilities may reduce the required offstreet parking spaces zip to 25 percent, as follows. 1. Motorcycle or scooter parking. One off-street parking space credit for four motorcycle or scooter parking spaces. Non provided- Not applicable 2. Bicycle parking. One off-street parking space credit for five additional, non-required bicycle parking spaces. Finding: We have provided 26 bike parking spaces. 20 are required. All but 4 are covered. We have 6 surplus bike parking spaces provided in our bike parking facility and request one a space substitution for off-street parking. C. Mixed Uses. In the event that several users occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirements for off-street automobile parking shall be the sum of the requirements for the several uses computed separately unless it can be shown that the peak parking demands are offset, in which ease the mixed-use credit may reduce the off- street parking requirement by a percentage equal to the reduced parking demand A mixed-use parking credit may reduce the required offstreet parking spaces up to 50 percent. Finding: Applicant states that the presented mixed-use buildings will reduce the peak parking demand. The supposition is that parking required during the day will be available when upstairs residence go to work. We are requesting the flexibility for areduction of as many as 11 parking spaces(50% of the on street parking spaces) to meet our parking requirement deficit if our buildings were allowed some more intensive use i.e. restaurant or retail. Our parking plan requires 108 automobile off-street spaces and we are providing 109 (with the added extra 5 bike parking spaces). With all office use we would have 1 surplus parking space. We are requesting a 10% reduction in parking required per existing ordinance to allow flexibility in the event we have a more intensive use. Page 17 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek The ordinance allows for up to 50% reduction of off-street parking spaces. Note: We have an approved subdivision plan under the previous ordinance, that identified this intensity of development and required the parking that currently exists. We are requesting on-street parking to be counted at 50% of available spaces per the original plan, this would be 11 spaces giving us a surplus of 12 spaces available for more intensive use than our presented general office use. D. Joint Use of Facilities. Required parking facilities of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking facilities used jointly, to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators that the need for the facilities does not materially overlap (e. g, uses primarily of a daytime vs. nighttime nature) and provided that such right of joint use is evidenced by a deed, lease, contract, or similar written instrument establishing such joint use. Jointly-used parking facilities may reduce the required off-street parking spaces zip to 50 percent. Finding: We have successfully accommodated a joint use of Facilities in the Planning action for The Buddhist Temple, which there is a restriction on parking that requires the Temple's assembly hours happen only in off hours, this operates with this same concept. They are only allowed to use the parking for assembly before 9:00 am, after 5:00 pm and on weekends and holidays. This has been working perfectly. This off-hours reduction for assembly is for 12 parking spaces reducing the required off-street parking by approximately 11 We are utilizing the existing parking lots that have been built to accommodate this development's future parking demand. 18.4.3.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation 1. Continuous Walkway System. Extend the walkway system throughout the development site and connect to all fztture phases of development, and to existing or planned off-site adjacent sidewalks, trails, public parks, and open space areas to the greatest extent practicable. The developer may also be required to connect or stub walkway(s) to adjacent streets and to private property for this purpose. Finding: Sheet A2 illustrates the circulation system throughout the subdivision. We will demark the pedestrian crossings through the parking lots with painted hatched crosswalks connecting buildings and providing safe travel through parking lots, accessing public and private sidewalks. 2. Safe, Direct, and Convenient. Provide safe, reasonably direct, and convenient walkway connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply. Finding: Buildings have ADA pedestrian access to all entries from the public right of way and parking lots. a. "Reasonably direct" means a route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route that does not involve a significant amount of out-of-direction travel for likely users. Page 18 i 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek Finding: These routes are all reasonably direct. b. "Safe and convenient" means reasonably free fi°om hazards and provides a reasonably direct means of walking between destinations. Finding: The routes are safe and convenient. C. "Primary entrance "for a non-residential building means the main public entrance to the building. In the case where no public entrance exists, street connections shall be provided to the main employee entrance. Finding: There are multiple primary entrances and they are connected to the street. d. "Primary entrance "for a residential building is the front door (i. e., facing the street). For multifamily buildings and mixed-use buildings where not all dwelling units have an individual exterior entrance, the "primary entrance " may be a lobby, courtyard, or breezeway serving as a common entrance for more than one dwelling. Finding: This is secondarily a residential building. The entries for the residential units are shared in pairs by common entries. They are located either on the breezeway- courtyard or of the back plaza area. None of entries are facing the street. 3. Connections within Development. Walkways within developments shall provide connections meeting all of the following requirements as illustrated a, Connect all building entrances to one another to the extent practicable. Finding: All entries are connected together by an accessible sidewalk system, b. Connect on-site parking areas, recreational facilities, and common areas, and connect offsite adjacent uses to the site to the extent practicable. Topographic or existing development constraints may be cause for° not making certain walks-nay connections. Finding: All entries are connected together by an accessible sidewalk system. We originally sought to create a dirt pathway along the entire length of the new wetland. This is a private path, although we allow the public to access it. When the ponds were completed and the parking lot was built it was impossible to extend the walkway to Clear Creek Drive along the upper pond. We do have a private pedestrian crossing to the small buildings at 153 and 151 Clear Creek that allows a shortcut for pedestrians heading towards the multi-modal path on the East side of the subdivision, gaining access to the additional parking and 149 Clear Creek. We have created a crossing from the end of this pathway to the sidewalk system that allows access back to Clear Creek Drive along the sidewalks adjacent to the Natura building at 125 CC. c. Install a protected raised walkway through parking areas of 50 or more spaces, and where pedestrians must traverse more than 150 feet of parking area, as measured as an average width or depth. Finding: We have no parking areas of 50 or more. No building user will have to walls more than 150 feet to their building entrance through a parking lot. Page 19 I 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek 4. Walkway Design and Construction. Walkways shall conform to all of the following standards in as illustrated in Figure 18.4.3.090.B.3.a and 18.4.3.090.B. 3. b. For transportation improvement requirements, refer to chapter 18.4.6 Public Facilities. Finding: All walkways conform to this requirement. a. Vehicle/Walkway Separation. Except for crosswalks, where a walkway abuts a driveway or street, it shall be raised six inches and curbed along the edge of the driveway. Alternatively, the approval authority may approve a walkway abutting a driveway at the same grade as the driveway if the walkway is distinguished from vehicle- maneuvering areas. Examples of alternative treatments are mountable curbs, surface treatments such as stamped concrete or reflector bumps, and using a row of decorative metal or concrete bollards to separate a vi alkway f °om a driveway. Finding: There is no vehicle/walkway separation required. b. Crosswalks. Where walkways cross a parking area or driveway, clearly mark crosswalks with contrasting paving materials (e.g., light-color° concrete inlay between asphalt), which may be part of a raised/hump crossing area. Painted or thermoplastic striping and similar types of non permanent applications may be approved for crosswalks not exceeding 24 feet in length. Finding: We intend on painting parking lot crossings with contrasting paint. None of them are greater than 24' in length. c. Walkway Surface and Width. Walkway surfaces shall be concrete, asphalt, brick/masonry pavers, or other durable surface, and at least five feet wide. Multi-use paths (i. e., for bicycles and pedestrians) shall be concrete or asphalt, and at least ten feet wide, in accordance with the section 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards. Finding: We meet this standard. d Accessible routes. Walkways shall comply with applicable Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State of Oregon requirements. The ends of all raised walkways, where the walkway intersects a driveway or street, shall provide ramps that are ADA accessible, and walkways shall provide direct routes to primary building entrances. Finding: All entries are connected together by an accessible sidewalk system. C. Standards. As a guideline, lighting levels shall be no greater than necessary to provide for pedestrian safety, property/business identification, and crime prevention. All outdoor lighting, except streetlights, shall comply with the following standards. 1. Arrange and install artificial lighting so there is no direct illumination onto adjacent residential properties. Finding: This development has E-1 zoning on either side and will not create direct illumination to the R-2 zone across E. Hersey Street. General site lighting will be accomplished through lighting attached to the building. This will be relative low-level lighting that will minimize glare off site while providing adequate illumination for the pedestrian access from the parking lot. Lighting at the porch will be down lighting from the underside of the roof by means of compact fluorescent security lights. Page 20 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek There is no additional street lighting provided on Clear Creek Drive. The existing pole lights were approved with the subdivision. i 2. Provide light poles no greater than 14 feet in height for° pedestrian facilities. (Pedestal- j or° bollard-style lighting is an alternative method for illuminating walkways located inside a development but not located in a public street right-of-ivay.) Finding: All light poles will be less than 14 feet in height and there will be no light poles provided for pedestrians. There will be pedestrian walk way lights (LED low voltage) and lighting mounted to buildings for safety lighting. 3. Where a light standard is placed over a side walk or wallmwy, maintain a minimum vertical clearance of eight feet. Finding: There are no lights over sidewalks or walkways. 4. Install lightfrxtures where they will not obstructpublic ways, driveways, or ivallmvays. Where a light standard must be placed within a walkway, maintain an unobstructed pedestrian through zone per Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. Finding: We have no lights obstructing public ways, driveways or walkways. 5. Except as permitted for signs, direct outdoor light fixtures downward and have fill shielding to minimize excessive light spillover onto adjacent properties. Finding: We will have all our lighting directed down and will no spill over onto adjacent properties outside of this subdivision. 6 For streetlight requirements, see subsection 18.4.6.040. D. 18. Finding: Street lights are already in place as required by subdivision outline plan. 18.4.5.030 Tree Protection A. Tree Protection Plan. A tree protection plan shall be approved by the Staff Advisor concurrent with applications for Type I, Type II, and Type III planning actions. Findings: The only trees on the site that will be affected by the construction and development are the 6 street trees we planted 10 years ago. See the landscaped plan L0.1 for the protection plan. 18.4.4.040 Recycling and Refuse Disposal Areas 1. We have a recycling/ trash enclosure that will serve the residential as well as commercial tenants of this building (see A5). 2. The garbage enclosure is a masonry structure with cyclone gates. The 6' x 21' enclosure will allow for two 2 yard dumpsters for garbage and cardboard and 6 carts for mixed recyclables ie; newspaper, tin and bottles. 3. The applicant has met with Steve Defabion representing Recology and verified with them that this is the preferred location for this recycling location. Page 21 i 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek Chapter 18.4.6 - Public Facilities City and private facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed construction for water, sewer. electricity and paved access to the site. 1. Storm water from roofs and hardscapes will be directed to the wetland retention that was prepared by Marl, Dew Engineering in the original design of the subdivision. The two 6" storm drains were installed into the subject property and will accommodate this final phase of development. 2. Electric- Design team met with Dave Tygerson and verified a preliminary plan for providing electrical vaults and transformers for 600 amps of 3 phase power. 3. Water- Design team discussed with Steve Walker regarding the extension of the 4" ductile water tap that will prove 14 3/4" water meters and central double check fire vault for all 5 buildings. The owners association will manage all landscaping and fire requirements held in common areas. All building will have fire sprinkler systems. 4. Gas- these building will have all electric energy systems. 5. 4" Sewer laterals for each building will be tied into the 8" main sewer in Clear Creek Drive. This will require cut, removal, and replacement of asphalt and sidewalks. 6. Phone, AFN and other communication facilities shall be extended into each building. 7. Recycling and garbage facilities has been centralized in one accessible location. Recology of Ashland reviewed and approved size and location. 8. The adopted street dedication map for the area ultimately connects Clear Creek Drive to North Mountain Avenue, and also includes a crossing of the railroad tracks at Fourth Street. The subdivision was required to sign in favor of a local improvement district to participate in the cost of constructing the future street crossing at Fourth Street. 9. Additionally, a condition of the subdivisions Outline Plan approval is that all properties agree to participate in the full cost of constructing a Transit Shelter along E. Hersey Street or Clear Creek Drive should public or private transit service become available at a future date. 10. The Traffic generated by this development will not negatively impact the performance of the intersections of Clear Creek Dr. and Oak Streets. It is currently operating well under its capacity.TIA- Transit Impact Analysis is not required because the Common Trip Generation Rates (PM Peak Hour) per the "Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition" is well under the 50 additional vehicles per hour. The Institute of Transportation Engineers finds that code 220- Apartments generate 0.62 trips per hour x 8 units = 4.96 trips per hour code 710- Office generates 1.49 trips per hour per 1,000 sq/ft of office space 10,756 sq/ft of office space 11 x 1.49 =16.39 trips per hour Total Peak Hour Trips generated is 21.35. This is less than 50% of the threshold requirement for a TIA. Chapter 18.4.7 - Signs Page 22 i ,s 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek 1. The proposed signs for the five buildings that will occupy this site have not been designed and indications on the elevations are schematic. Final design for the signs will be submitted with the building permit j, application set. r, 2. The proposed building including the existing Natura (125 CC) has a business frontage of 192 lineal feet. The permitted maximum aggregate wall sign area for this building is 160 square feet, with 60 square feet for a monument ground sign. The ground sign will be approximately 8'x 4'(32 sq/ft) We will have much less signage than this and will defer the signage design permitting process until a future date. 3. Ground signs will be placed in the landscape buffer. These signs will be less than five feet above grade and will not exceed 60 square feet in area. 4. Wall signs shall be made of wood with painted letters. No requirement for Solar Access Variance Finding Chapter 18.4.8 - Solar Access 1. Solar setback under "Standard B" is required on properties in the C-1 and E-1 zoning districts. However, since the subject parcel abuts an unbuildable area of the parking lot, the code allows shading of this area. Finding: When the northern property line abuts an unbuildable area to the north, then the northern property line is considered to be the northerly edge of the unbuildable area. Parking lots are specifically included as one of those "unbuildable areas," and the LUO parking lot landscaping and screening standards require parking lot landscaping and buffers as part of parking lot design, so it the landscaped area that is shadowed would be considered part of the unbuildable parking lot. See definition below 18.6.1 2. The maximum building height in the E-1 zoning district is 40 feet. Since the finished grade differs on each side of the proposed building, the height varies for each side Nevertheless, even using the most conservative approach to get the height calculation, the north side has its greatest height at 38 feet. The average height of the four sides is approximately 35 feet falling below the maximum height limitation of 40 feet for the zone. 3. There is a minimal encroachment on the property to the North (KSC) that will be impacted. The only shading that exceeds the maximum allowed is on an unbuildable area that is meeting parking lot requirements. See Sheets A6, A14 and A15 18.6 1- Definitions Solar Access and Setbacks - Definitions Related to Chapter 18.4.8 Solar Access Page 23 L, 12/1/2015 (Revised 12/29/2015) Site Review 123 Clear Creek Northern Lot Line. Any lot line or lines less than 45 degrees southeast or southia'est of a line draivn east-west and intersecting the northernmost point of the lot. If the northern lot line adjoins any unbuildable area (e.g., street, alley, public right-of-11'ay, parking lot, or common area) other than a required yard area, the northern lot line is thatportion of the northerly edge of the unbuildable area which is due north fi°om the actual northern edge of the applicant's property. Page 24 t I I i STAFF EXHIBIT Sal i'Nii 1Ip~Yit (E) SUBDIVISION PARKING SPACES: SUBDIVISION PARKING ALLOCATIONS: E R, )d (E) ON SITE 108.0 sp BUILDING 1 LOT AUTOS r1: m (E) ON STREET (CLEAR CREEK) 11.0 sp r (E) SIDEWALK OR PATHWAY (E) ON STREET (HERSEY) 9•0 Sp ~A (LOT 1) MEDICAL N.A. SUBDIVISION TOTAL 128.0sp ss wn I eR sraeeT VIA 1 (N) SIDEWALK OR PATHWAY B (LOT 2) OFFICE 4.6 sp SUITE ASHLAN 1 OR L RESIDENTIAL 4.5 sp TEL 9 541.488.8200 ~ A C(L0f 3) OFFICE 98.1 .2 sp sp PRELIMINARY j 8 RESIDENTIAL 4.3sp THESE DRAWINGS SHALL € (0" % \ 12.5sp NOT BE USED FOR: CONSTRUCTION D (LOT 5) OFFICE 21.5 sp RECORDATION 9 SP ~2 RESIDENTIAL 13.0 sp CONVEYANCE 6 e- 4 34.5 sp ISSUANCE OFA PERMIT \ /5\\ E(LOT6) OFFICE 6.8sp 12-22-15 / 6? RESIDENTIAL 3.Os ~5 (LOT 1) \ 7\4 13.0sp SITE REVIEW 4 F (LOT 7) OFFICE 4.2 sp ti 3 % 8 WAREHOUSE 2.5sp i RESIDENTIAL 1.8 sp N.A. S-\ 3.4sp 10 G(IOT5) OFFICE 10.9 Sp " 19S 12 RESIDENTIAL 3.0 sp 13.9sp 13 18 7 /14 - H (LOT 4) OFFICE 17.1 sp (E) DELINEATED 1 RESIDENTIAL 1.0 s 2g WETLAND A 18 18.1 sp 5 23, \ 15 TOTAL 108.0 Sp U cj) co B- 0 _j 0 I `e / 23 Z ~m / l _ I I1 (E)GRAVEL PATH A~~ /((IL T2)~ Q N0 3 28 21A l® EDGE OF WETLANDS E to 2o"~" lit E PAVED BICYCLE PATH ,B-2 m W W (1) 18 2 ` n (LOT 5) 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 '11 (n D 33~>N ~~~r~ .1 7 - Y ~ O u 16115 I ' 13 (LOT 6) ~no) I ,14.13 \ 10 Q L (N) 6' WIDE STRIPED 9 _j W U 46, I 17~ `I _ CROSS WALK (3) PLACES / 12 .2 o N W y 36', 6415 8 7 _j X J W 5 p'ILii~l~,~d~c ~~-I . ■ 10\' U 14I \ 1 1\®®5 30/31 J32 16 6 5 V ~13 ~fl 33 12a , _ > N ~I■ nLUiIIi II-_ ~n T > N i~ e ur■ r~oe~r '.1 I 17 21 SP 4 e a~~ ~41SP sI 8~ ~W ~U X - E - Y \s10~o~~, o o ❑I ~38 7 8; ~C~ "46or}e o~ _ 8 I' 19 W ~ c) E - N ©.®0 9 a 7 20 C r n r~39 s l W e ~40 6 ~I37=1j 5 ~I 2 3 N (0 H 41 5~e 38- 3 (E) U 42-- (LOT 8) (LOT 7) s9 DELINEATED 2 o i43 Ur % N o (LOT A) 45 - _ 4 1~ D 2 1 WETLAND ~f 314~~ ,40 1 I ® l _ U Q L, m E' ~L ~44__ ~2)H I o _ _ e _e a~oar~ee 141 U ; _ - - I4e o a All ~el W Cp W _j I 46 1` ° (LOT 3) / Z - J Il Ili' "uFT gill If ~I _I _j 'o C0 0 D_ 2 1,J3 .4 ~.5 16\~~7 tl8 9 10 11 H - ® 11 SP REVISIONS a CLEAR CREEK DRIVE E - - - - - - - - - F - - - - - - - - i N PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION & PARKING PLAN ~ PROJECT' 14032 s 3 / PLAN ISSUE DATE: 12-22-15 SHEET: E PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION & PARKING PLAN a 1'=60• N IU. STAFF EXHIBIT S.2 CLEAR CREEK VILLAGE PARCELS 1 and 2 FLOOR AREA RATIOS (F.A.R.) ~alYy Revisions to Parking Requirements and Building Areas ~~~Iu1 E N fib WATER STREET SUITE 101 1 ASHLAND, OR 1 97520 F.A.R. by Lot F.A.R. by Parcel 1 Phase F.A.R. by Parcel t Phase TEL.: 541.488.8200 PRELIMINARY w/o Wetland Parcel (w/o Wetland Parcel) (with Wetland Parcel) Bldg. NOT SEUSEO FOR LL FACTOR Bldg. Area PARKING ReNsed Use FACTOR Area PARKING CHANGE Lot Area F.A.R. Id Are :BUILDING Original Use - REO'D RRKIN Lot Area F.A.R. BSRUNGON' RE oo Building A :Delgado Medical Buildin r CONVEYANCE 3 g g - - 135 ANOEOFAPERN1IT Q w 1st Floor Medical Office 350 5,400 sf N.A. w Medical Office 350 5,400 sf N.A. 2nd Floor 0 sf N.A. 0 sf N.A. 12-22-15 Q Total 5,400 sf Q 5,400 sf N.A. 25,817 sf 20.9/ SITE REVIEW w Building B-1 151-153 Clear Cr8e Or. w (9 1st Floor e 450 1,554 sf 3.5 C9 Office 500 1,554 sf 3.1 2nd Building Floor 2 Residential (2) 1 Bdr 1,916 sf 3.0 Residential (2) 1 Bdr 1,916 sf 3.0 Its _j Y 1st Floor Office 450 768 sf 1.7 Y Office 500 768 sf 1.5 g W 2nd Floor Residential (1) 1 Bdr 828 sf 1.5 w Residential (1) 1 Bdr 828 sf 15 Total 5,066 sf 9.7 5,066 sf 9.1 0.5 11,784 sf 43,0°/ Building C 149 Clear Creek Dr. W 1st Floor Office 450 4,108 sf 9.1 w Office 500 4,108 sf 8.2 U 2nd Floor Residential 3,000s f 4_3 Residential 3,000 sf 4.3 L Total 7,108 sf 13.4 7,108 sf 12.5 -0.9 17,326 sf 41.0% 17,574 sf 54,927 sf 32.0% U) 0 Building D ( Lots 1-5) 123 Clear Creek Dr. (Proposed Future) _j 0 r 1st Floor Office 450 10,400 sf 23.0 Office 500 9,380 sf 18.8 00 Z W Residential 276 sf 00 ® 01 0 h N 2nd Floor Office 450 8,000 sf 17.8 Office 500 1,376 sf 2.8 0 N q Residential 8,244 sf 13.0 (4 @ 1.5 + 4 @ 1.75) > m s 3rd Floor Residential 5,000s f 10.0 J m i z w Total 23,400 sf 50.8 w 19,276 sf 34.5 16.3 24,245 sf 79,5°/ W W a) Q w Building E Buddhist Meditation Center w °o > 1st Floor Office 450 2,080 sf, 3.9 L) Office 500 2,080 sf, 4.2 L) Q 2nd Floor Office 450 2,298 sf 5.1 Q Office 500 2,298 sf 4.6 6 a. W 3rd Floor Residential (2) 1 Bdr 1,562s f 3.0 w Residential (2) 1 Bdr 1,562 sf 3.0 J X l7 Total 5,940 sf, 12.0 0 5,940 sf 11.8 -0.3 7,399 sf 80.3% J N ' Bu 127 Clear Creek Dr. Natura > c 1st Floor Officesacks 125 450 2,104sf 4.7 Office 500 2,104sf 4.2 a) CU Y Warehouse 750 2,453 sf 3.3 Y Warehouse 1000 2,453 sf 2.5 s1 z m i E w 2nd Floor Residential (1) 2 Bdr 1,600 sf 18 w Residential (1) 2 Bdr 1,600s f 1.8 W > N Total 6,157 sf 9.7 6,157 sf 8.4 9,243 sf 66.6% Y W c - r M (D U) Building G 108 Hersey W 108 Hersey cl~ (D (n w 1st Floor Office 450 5,428 sf 12.1 w Office 500 5,428 sf 10.9 -1.2 Z W r 2nd Floor Residential (2) Studios 1,572s f 3.0 Residential (2) Studios 1,572 sf 3.0 U 0 Cr Total 7,000 sf 15.1 7,000 sf 13.9 -1.2 17,551 sf 39.9% (Y (q T Q' Building H Furniture Depot 496 Oak Street 0 F 1st Floor Showroom 750 4,792 sf 6.4 Office 500 4,792 sf 9.6 W ® W Q Warehouse 1000 1,980 sf 2.0 Office 500 1,980 sf 4.0 co Z 75 764 s f 2.4 Office c 2nd Floor RShowroom es dental 1 Studio 1,450 sf, 10 Residential 500 1,754 sf, (1) Studio 450 sf 1 1.0 U U) 0 0- ° Total 8,986 sf 11.7 O 8,986 sf. 18.1 6 16,879 sf 53.2% 47,359 sf, 76,316 sf, 62.9/ REVISIONS m Total Areas and Parking Required 63,657 sf 122 59,533 sf 108 -14,1 On-Site Parking Provided (Excluding Building A Parking) 111.0 108.0 -3.0 r Parking Credit for Additional 5 Bicycle Spaces 10 On-Street Parking Credit (22-7=15; 15-8=7; 7+4=11) 11.0 6r0 5,0 Total Parking Provided 122.0 115.0 -7.0 REVISIONS TO t Future Parking below Building D 0.0 SUBDIVISION TOTALS < Future Parking Total 115.0 - - - PROJECT: 14-032 Parking Parcel (To west of Building F, Nature, and to east of wetlands) 15,819 sf, 15,819 sf ssueoATE: 12.22.15 N Wetlands Parcel f 51,727 sf SHEET. Total Building Area and F.A.R. (Includes Building A area) 64,933 sf 146,063 sf 44.5°/ 64,933 sf 146,063 sf 44.5°/ 64,933 sf 197,790 sf 32.80 N (4 i 5'E.FOwSQE$ ST\\\;1a~ ~ H E R S E Y STREET AS-BUILT SITE SURVEY 1 ! LItVNV£ F.ISEM Ffft a& BI-rent \ V IO' I k 6'PUHP RDETIRV.Y A4Fk35' FASMAN7 ~ LOCATED AT / 11 \ 5' BIYNRr FOR SLOPES AID I I to' _ LwRAW PER aft at-MIN 123 CLEAR CREEK DRIVE / 1`\1 \ I ASHLAND, OREGON / 1 \ ' 4 \ I ( \ I L YING SITUATE I'ITHIN SOUTH V R'EST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP39SOUTH, RANGE I EAST, WILLAMETTEMERMLAN / / / 1~.,1 I \4 I I I CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON 4 I~I \ FOR ` ( \ John Fields 945 I S45O,+k Street \ \ Ashinrtd, Ortgon 97520 ~ 1w \ s \ \ \ I f \ LEGEND AB NE \ \ \ 0 BR9SSCAP INP - ED \ \ \ I PROPERTYU p 1 r BOUNDARI'LfNE {t \ \ 1 \ \ \ - CENTERLINE FASFABiNTLINF, &76 \ CD,VCRE7ECURDLRJE r6I6.09 \ \ A ® P WERTRANSFORAIER J \ \ © PDIVERPEDESTALICABINET \ S~` 0. \ \ pB~. \I bK ie ,i\ \ \ EIEN ELECTRICAfETER J \ aR• / \ \ \ 01847.IS ,yR6 \ \ E)WM W TER IIETER LIGHT \ (&5205 (J\ \ QW.F, / \ \ \ 10" S'~ \ \ \ 1 Iwv VA TER VAL VE Q'M FIREHi DRANT (((I \ I~1 A5 6 W X60 / \ \ \ \ -Q am co CATCHRASIN `\16515 \ \ / ~ 9.,,.q ` \ \ \ ` 9z a CURBINLET I~In ~,2 ,0 ' Ja, / 16 \ e \ \ \ 1 ® SANITARYSEIVERMANHOLE ,~.57 IL SIGN f \ \ 19+ \a ` 1;6^6 .117 ,FASAff / \ \ \ Q TELEPHONE PEDESTAL Ifl \ ♦\N661g5M1}°' 2'PA9 P1aES' 10L6A~~q'gy1M55~ \ A ,~0y,~0 / \ ` ® TELEVISION PEDESTAL EM IRRIGATTO BOX 01 7,61 TIV TOP OF WALL I ! \ ® IY 1 \ \ 8{6.95 \ ;f \ \ \ 1 \~1 +l .G,`p Ir OR OFFICIAL RECORDS, JACKSON COUNTYRECORDER 5 ll Q{' \ \ 1 i^ I I CONCRCTLSUIiFACE 40 UVILE 185°.62 Iam•20 \ 0 ,n q \ \ \ ` BUILDING t849.18 / 11 S6 \ MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT \1 \ 15`~ \ 1858.18 ~ N\~ 1Br~ \ / / ~ \ \ \ ` ~`®I~V w` 3 \o, e. ~ \ DECIDUOUS TREE (AS GESCMDED) \ I\\ L*61 \ / / r&5&IM69 \ 1 6 1 \ ( 1 \ eQ0 J - 2' MO f♦FES (&560 \ \ 1 4` I- Pv- H551 \~`\p5 M1D / 1858.1 \ 1 h'. XV \ fit / /rP~~!c{, \ 1 SURVEYNOTES \ \ 1 \ / c'0'^ 1\ THEBASIS OF VERTICAL CONTROL FOR THISSURVEYISA CITYOFASHLAND BENCMNfARKN0.29. A BRASSULSK IN THE TOP OF THE CONCRETE CURB .•WW y ` LOCATEDAT THE SOUTHWLSTCORNER OFOAKSTREET&HERSEYSTREET. \ BENCHMARK ELEVATIOV 1903.48: BASED ONTHE THENATIONAL GEODETIC \ p2 S \ \ 1 \ _ 1 _ _ _ _ iTRTICALDATUMOF1919,.1DNSTEDINIIINGVD29156) ,~y 1654 / 1854 J7 fMD \ \ Q - ` y 1 1 EXPOSED HTLEFI-YSTRUCTURCS DVS \ J \ 1 \F 15'fldYAIE IVEREDE7ERAIINED BYU E77LI-ZINGA COMBINATION IOFFIELD SURVVEYED \ 11 - PAINT'NLIRKSAND"ASBUHT"RL'CORDDRAIVINGSFURNfSHEDBYTHE \\\9'KWE B~ \ ~~y11g-W RESPECTIVE U lLffl'CO,NIPANn'REPRESENTATfVES ARE APPROXIMATE AND 4 a I~yp\ ~j~ \ I I SHOIVN HEREONFOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONL Y. FIELD IERTFTCATION OFALL J P 'p ~i BURIED UTILITIES ALUSi BEPERFORMED PRIOR TOANYECCAVATIONOR ((EEE V\; ; ~ \ I / ( CONSTRUMONACTIVITIES. j ' jo 7• K49f kA FRO!S~-? rLAM \\\\j V JAY IA IWB \ \N\ \ \ \ / / I RENEWAL MTC 6/30/2018 vvvy \ v / / I % SCAM .1" = 20' A SURVEYED BY: 0' 10' 10' 40' BO' [ N® ~c POLARIS .O BOX 459 P \ \ \ ASMLAN®9 OREGON 07520 \ \ l \ / / (541) 4B2-5000 \ \ \ T DATE, JUNE 16, 2015 PROJECT NO. 962-15 Assessor's Mop No. J9 IE 04 CO, Tax Lot 1803 - ~ t-- h+ SURVEYING LAND i v Q 1M~ai _ .~ian}1_yi. E N - - - l - 66 WATER STREET Y SUITE 101 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TEL.: 541.488.8200 PRELIMINARY THESE DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR: 3 CONSTRUCTION BIDDING RECORDATION CONVEYANCE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT 12-22-16 a SITE REVIEW t ~lr I T .FJ I { r~~~~l tell l IIII ~ ~ L I _ I f, III II~I `r r~ ~ ~ t ~ i C~~l~{ 11 Ili U) U € II I~~ ~I ~I 1;( ( J CO o ~ i 4~ J A\~ U) 0) 00 r 0 u N i; r jll lT 111 l:I Om CL .I ~I,ILI I IL I ~I-iI W W n¢ -I a UJI ~~~~j J X NU > C VIEW FROM WEST Wz >N E NO SCALE _0 [ r 2 1 ~U) _ Up ~Q ~U) (1) Q Q> U LLI D W W LIST OF DRAWINGS U o ARCHITECTURAL: _ Ai. COVER SHEET REVISIONS A2 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION & PARKING PLAN _ A3 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DIMENSIONS A4 SITE PLAN& PLANNING SUMMARY A5 ENLARGED SITE PLAN E AS SOLAR SETBACK SITE PLAN A7 CONCEPTUAL SITE UTILITY PLAN AB REVISIONS TO SUBDIVISION TOTALS A9 FIRST FLOOR PLANS F= A10 SECOND FLOOR PLANS All ROOF PLANS A12 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A13 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A15 SOLAR SHADOW SECTOONS WALL Of TEMPLE COVER - SHEET LANDSCAPE: a L0.1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN PROJECT: 14-032 3 L1.0 PRELIMINARY SITE GRADING PLAN ISSUE DATE: 12-22-15 1_2.0 SCHEMATIC PLANTING PLAN E L2.1 PLANT LIST, NOTES&DETAILS SHEET: N SURVEY: r AS-BUILT SITE SR N LU` { I Q 114I'~i~I~li~> 3 (E) SUBDIVISION PARKING SPACES: SUBDIVISION PARKING ALLOCATIONS: a (E) ON SITE 108.0 SIB BUILDING/LOT AUTOS E L E (E) ON STREET (CLEAR CREEK) 11.0 Sp I I I { (E) SIDEWALK OR PATHWAY (E) ON STREET (HERSEY) 9.0 Sp A (LOT 1) MEDICAL N.A. ss WATER srReEr Y SUBDIVISION TOTAL 128.0sp SUITE 101 B (LOT 2) OFFICE 4.6 sp ASHLAND, OR EL.: 97520 TEL,: 641.488.0200 i "q (N) SIDEWALK OR PATHWAY RESIDENTIAL 9,5 sP T 9 PRELIMINARY U C (LOT 3) OFFICE 8.2 sp 3 \ RESIDENTIAL 4.3sp THESE DRAWINGS SHALL T BE USED 12.5 sp NBONSTRIICTIGOR: y \ 7' D(LOT B) OFFICE 21.5sp RECORDATION BIDDING RESIDENTIAL, 13.0sp cONVEVnNCE 9 SP g~ 2;~ ~ 34.5sp ISSUANCE OEAaERrnIT /6\ E(LOT6) OFFICE 8.8sp 12-2245 5 RESIDENTIAL 3.0 Sp SITE REVIEW (LOT 1) 7v,\ 4 11.efip \ 7 `y F (LOT 7) OFFICE 4.2 sp 3 WAREHOUSE 2.5sp r 8 x RESIDENTIAL 1.8 sp 2 9 8.4 sp I 101 G(LOT 5) OFFICE 10.9 Sp 3 1 \ ~~y_ / RESIDENTIAL 3.0 Sp 12 13.9 sp X18;! 13 E H (LOT 4) OFFICE 17.1 BID T DELINEATED 7 11%~ . AT RESIDENTIAL 16.16.1 sP c i WETLAND ~i A GJ j~~- \ \ 15 ~f \ TOTAL 108.0sp 25 "2' oc) Z -I 5 2~ ~ Z (n 0) (E) GRAVELPATHn (LOT 2)'~ p o 2S 2$ 21 EDGE OF WETLANDS J (E) PAVED BICYCLE PATH - L` 20 E "Jill Irl J > ro 3 6 ` CD W W ~Q O-Z 2524 23 22 21 20 12\1 j O. (LOT 5) 343332 98 18 1716 15 13 ~ 13 14 / X1110 O _ 4(LOT 6) 9 ® (N) VWDE STRIPED / Q U 35 CROSS WALK (3) PLACES ` 12 W U 46 SPA 14 3s 3 r J LU I 37 1516 W® ® L 1 11 15 7 \ J L 14 ®®'~►_I- 26 27 26 29 10 I'16 .1 6; > G C U t1 4, 1213 ® U' ~ ~ ~ r 132/33~344 ! 21 SP 5' 4;' m 11 ®®i ~~~"g ■ ■ u T i a El I- ( 78910 41 SP 9~ 18 ~ z z ~'m ° 36 ®®c. 1.b■}■ ■A 35 8 , 19/ w > V - : 39 ~L ~1 / ®.r®■,~i i.,~® 36, cf) E 7 70 s w C Y I 40 \ i'~ 21 ~ N a) U e T9 D I`37 5 3 z H 41 19 1 38 3 (E)~~ V O a f !C', 42 5 (LOT 8 ) n (LOT 7) DELINEATED 2 Q (LOT 4) 4 - 2 WETLAND 43 a 3 A 1 r J V 44 v lioot- ;i _ ~ W S I 45 W e 46 1 r© ! ~f~ - a IC (LOT 3) ~ co O n -n iilil,lllill~lll lll!illlllll~l~'llii ~Llllfl ~/i -I ~U _ L) r U (r7 00- . I IILI'(IIIIi_ _ _ _ 1 2 3' 4 6 6 7 B 9 10 11 ~ \ y, ri 11 SP REVISIONS ~i CLEAR CREEK DRIVE m - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %If;l 1' PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION & PARKING PLAN PROJECT: 14-032 ISSUE DATE: 12-72-16 PLAN E E SHEET: I [ PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION & PARKING PLAN Y 1 =fi0' A2 V N l~% ii I ® \ ®c0 ~IIII~`~L AREA C2 E ® (COMMON) E PUBLIC SPACE 55 WATER STREET SUITE 101 \ ASHLAND, OR 91520 I - ~ TEL.: 541,488.8200 ` 1 S X29' \ \ V~ \ PRELIMINARY - - - - - - - , ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THESE DRAWINGS SHALL \N NOT BE USED FOR: 'Zk \ \ \\\~\\®Z pt CONSTRUCTION I 1.a~ \ \ BIDDING \ \ \ N 47'41 '30 W - 90,00' o RECORDATION 5 \ ® CONVEYANCE ISSUANCE OFA PERMIT tz-zz-ta I \ \ \ \ ? N 47°41'30" W I A C \ \ SITE REVIEW 29.29' r \ \ R 1r4 \T E) r I AREA C3 (COMMON) \ OPERTY`LI LI XLL V v A~~~VA V Pv\~ / 32.33 32.33' 32.82 . 37.13 \ A~ Av ~V A~ I \ '20 \o' I I ,'I 1 h \ AOy A V~\~ A I I 'j _j 4! 0 / 50.58' w 00 Z V) 0) \ \ / I I I L;m m 1 o at \ I w U.~ m. _j E n ro N ct \ 10' co I a I w I w 'I 1 W y ? z z Z. WW CQ I I I f.~ ! 1~ (n o. I o o o o ; o °o co L I I o o co o o b co OD c N Q p` la la Ia a/j !tl JW Ux co c~ _j LOT 1 ; LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 ° J Ljj (0 co Do 0 I I I ;'i t YW NU N1 I I I f 1 WZ >r~v -0 0o W c U) Z: 10' S I I I, > I 1 W a --I 10 P. U U 0 II T) UQ j E 32.33' 32.33' 32.33' 32.82'O:OU`:' / 37.13' Q S WD WW 204.47' CD z---) Uc= oa PROPERTY ADDRESS: 123 CLEAR CREEK DRIVE PROPOSED LOT AREAS REVISIONS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 391E04CD TL 1803 LOT 1 3,549.5 sf SUBDIVISION: CLEAR CREEK VILLAGE, PHASE 2 A P.C. LOT 2 2,780.7 sf E OWNER OF LOT: CLEAR CREEK INVESTMENTS LLC COOPER INVESTMENTS LLC LOT 3 2,780.7 sf LOT 4 2,823.7 sf - I F OWNER/APPLICANT: GOLDEN-FIELDS CONSTRUCTION LOT 5 2,849.0 sf JOHN FIELDS AREA Cl 6,799.6 sf PROPOSED 149 CLEAR CREEK DRIVE STE.111 AREA C2 2,252.4 sf N SUBDIVISION , ASHLAND, OR 97520 AREA C3 408.5 sf DIMENSIONS TOTAL 24,244.1 sf 3 PROJECT: 14032 PLAN ISSUE DATE: 12-22-15 E SHEET: li PROPOSED SUBDIVISION LOT DIMENSIONS r a 1- 20' N t C t ` 1 PROPOSED LOT AS DIMENSIONS 1 SOLAR SETBACK / / / Nti S P V 4 'V t, 11 Af 7hlO A4 SITE PLAN c~ E.-Ras. DELINEATED 6 A3 SITE PLAN WETLAND 66 WATER STREET \f>, 46 B'1 ASUITE 01 SHLAND, OR 97520 27 TEL.: 691.466.6206 i ze PRELIMINARY 75 29 THESE DRAWINGS SHALL I 21 NCONSTRUCTION BIDDING RECORDATION CONVEYANCE 31 f 19 r B'2 ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT G _ 12-22-15 a _ o h C / j (LOT 5) SITE REVIEW i WALK t~l U~r% 32 z6 2t22 21 3 1 I O 6 +7 4V\~ 330 ~V (LOT - 6) / I I - i6 1 Lt ~i sa L EuolusT ❑ E PARKING LOT 4 13 16 Pl O41 SPACES (N) 6' WIDEY6 STRIPED t CROSS WALK (3) ~QO 12 27 2e ze PLACES P ~ / 30 v 35 Q P ~5Y 32 33 11 I I- . 38 34 ~Q n '~Q 10 37 N - - W (N) CROSS 6 9 L 1=1~I I ~y~yT~ I WALK Q a-- - - - - - ❑ b1 ti1 as e (E) DELINEATED U) J - cr- ~ I, J ❑ J ' WETLAND [ Z cn m 39 40 , ` V r (E) 21 PARKING 0 I Y7 J ? / SPACES IN ADJACENT J > PARKING LOT AT 149 L un s Q F UJ N Q ae a CLEAR CREEK DR. Lu H 41 C NA uT AND GARAGE p I I 42 1 - - PRO 6 39 3 I (D :D o (LOT 4) ~~,I V I o I 43 - 40 2 I 3. J LOT W UY 44 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 I I ai J X _j a) I _jU 1 I G ~ L - F-1 - - - _ _ S _iq,TLI1 c ~m E f Op CI - _ V~ W C-r f' 7 ~ 1 q°G r W 2 y ~ p 1` ~ _ - - - G _ J 2 9 10 - (E) it ON-STREET PARKING SPACES I \ ' ` L LLI C,L E A R C R E E K D R I V E roC I =I 0 - \ ~C/) °'Q COMBINED BUILDING AREAS: LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT: PARKING ALLOCATIONS PER LOT: PROPOSED BIKE PARKING SPACES: PUBLIC SPACE REQUIREMENT: LEGEND: W W m Z 55 1st FLOOR COMBINED LOT AREA 24,244 sf LOT AUTOS BIKES LOT 1 2.0 sp TOTAL BUILDING AREA 19,276 sf LANDSCAPE AREA (PERVIOUS) I D ~ COMMERICAL (97.1%) 9,380sf (E) PARKING LOT AREA 3,451sf LOT 2 4.0 SID RESIDENTIAL ( 2.9%) 276 sf LOT 1 COMMERCIAL 5.5 SIB 2.0 sp LOT 3 4.0 sp AREA REQUIRED (10.0%) 1,923 sf PUBLIC SPACE V O 0 M\ f 9,656 sf AREA PROPOSED (20.6%) 5,002 sf RESIDENTIAL 0.0 Sp 0.0 Sp LOT 4-5 0.0 Sp PROPOSED AREA (11.7%) 2,252 sf 2nd FLOOR 15%OFLOT 3637sf TWO-TIER COVERED 16.0sp ANOSCAPEA7EAANDPUeua REVISIONS - COMMERICAL 1,376sf DIFFERENCE +1,365sf LOT2 COMMERCIAL 4.0sp 2.0sp PROJECTTOTAL 26.0sp DIFFERENCE +329sf SPACE RESIDENTIAL 8,244sf RESIDENTIAL 3.0sp 2.0sp ~(N)oa(E)corvc.PavLNG Y 9,620sf RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: PROPOSED AMENITIES: IMPERVIOUS SURFACES: LOT 3 COMMERCIAL 4.0 sp 2.0 sp 1. SITTING SPACE -2BENCHES I4SEATS E ~(ElBUaoNCs TOTAL BUILDING AREA 19,276sf RESIDENTIAL 3.0s 2.0s 7 ACREAGE ALLOWED D.U. !I. MIXED SUNLIGHT & SHADE D COMBINED LOT AREA 24,244 sf LOT- p iii. PROTECTION FROM WIND BY BLDG. PROPOSED F.A.R. ALLOCATIONS: PERVIOUS AREAS: LOT4 COMMERCIAL 4.0 SID 2.0sp LOT1 0.082 AC 1.23 0.0 v. FOUR(4)TREES ❑(N)coMMEROALUSE LANDSCAPE 5,002sf RESIDENTIAL 3.5sp 3.0 Sp (N) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTAREA F.A.R" LESS ROOF OVERHANGS -916sf LOT2 0.082 AC 1.23 2.0 11 I TOTAL PERVIOUS 4,086sf LOT5 COMMERCIAL 4.0sp 2.0sp LOT3 0.082 AC 1.23 2.0 SITE PLAN & LOT 1 2,752 sf 3,549.5 sf 77.6 % RESIDENTIAL 3.5 sp 3.0 sP LOT 4 0.083 AC 125 2.0 RESIDENTIAL CIRCULATION \ N LOT2 4,180 s 3,5672sf 1122% PERCENTAGE PERVIOUS 16.9% LOT5 0.075 AC 1.12 2.0 \ PLANNING LOT3 4,180sf 3,567.0sf 117.2% TOTAL 34.5sp 20.0sp COMMON 0.153 AC 2.30 0_0 (N) LAMP POST -(0)PLACES SUMMARY v LOT4 4,082sf 3,622.2sf 112.7% BUILDING COVERAGE 9,934sf (E) LAMP POST- (1) PLACES LOT 5 4,082 sf 3,256.5 sf 125.3% ROOF OVERHANGS 916 sf (E) SUBDIVISION PARKING SPACES: 0.557 AC 8.30' 8.0 m PROJECT: 14-032 COMMON 0 sf 6,679.7 sf 0.0% ASPHALT PAVING 3,451 sf ISSUE DATE: 12-22-15 CONCRETE PAVING/ MISC. 5,857 sf (E) ON SITE 108.0 sp AFFORDABLE UNITS REQUIRED 0.0 PLAN E TOTAL 19,276 sf 24,244.1 sf 79.5% IMPERVIOUS AREAS 20,158 sf ~E) ON STREET ( CLEAR )REEK) 119.0 Sp .0 sp 15 D.UJAC IN F-1 DISTRICT ALLOWED SHEET. " F.A.R. RELATIVE TO TOTAL LOT AREA PERCENTAGE IMPERVIOUS 83.1% SUBDIVISION TOTAL 128.0sp SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN Y 1-40' 40' a N C / ~ ~ I ~Ilal~luL.I FF =+186.46 0 ~ FF =+,1846.83 d / FF-+1845.83 - Y 66 WATER STREET (N)6'WIDE STRIPED SUITE 181 j CROSSWALK (3) PLACES / D ASHLAND, OR 1 (E) BUDHIST (E) PARKING LOT 87520 TEL.: 541.488 8280 i / TEMPLE - - 41 SPACES (E)AC. PAVING r PRELIMINARY - R i _ 7 THESE DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR'. / O z CONSTRUCTION s P 9 m BIDDING D/ i a w RECORDATION CONVEYANCE (E) AC. PAVING ISSUANCE OFA PERMIT (N) TRANSFORMER DO TD 12-22-15 SITE REVIEW o ~ y I (N)6 WIDE STRIPED nmmmn m / CROSSWALK PROPOSED IW0.TIER ° / i~ MI pROPERTII LINE -(PROPERTY LINE - N PROPERTY LINE - - ~I7 ,r 3 G f7.i COVERED BIKE PARKING i (N)9CONC. / i t ~k FOR 16 BIKES I uww -Li -1 RAMP 7'12 / / _ J \ AGREEW FA ADJACENT I / ENTRY ENTRY EMRY ENTRY PROPERTY RTY OWNER ~ /per A Y ENTRY ENTRY a \ \ y/ / / ~~"\5\O 2I E'.4;E5 Br;E,-I~s cl) RE 0 (E~aeTSO O 00 Z ~ M G)O m / ENTR { O 'O I ~ ~ V zT U l v I{ II ~ N o \ I~' F Ir I PEOL$TRIA I W W l~ y z fnTRV WALKWAYI =lr, SII I) a (E) NATURA HEALTH PUBLIC pAC a PRODUCTS o ~ tt[ L FF . +1856.20' < ~ ..X Q F (N) 2-STORY o, l =+16se zap J W ' U N) 2 STORY N) 2-STORY (N) 2 -STORY (N) 2 -STORY BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING ) BUILDING - J J ~~srl BUILDING mill, 3549.5 sf 3567 .2 sf 3567.0 sf 3622.2 sf 3258.5 sf z LOT 1 N E 07 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 Z a`)i co W > I FF=+53.83 FF=54.50' FF=+54.550 FF-+55.17 FF=+55.67 ` W e 2 I I Y NTRV ENTRY 7 , LL a) U) = 1~1.J l ~y i z w c ( - ` ENTRY ~ / ~ - 2 COVERED ENTRY ENTRY , p OVERED _ - _ - - - - - . - _ - - ~ / \ \ BIHE SPACES J - ;"BIKE SPACES / f ~'a:Y / O N LJ E FIRE tq 15 ! / - / \ i AA HYDRANT H- S (E) PARKING LOT I/ a 45 SPACES 1 / r - i / : -1 _ / , - - - - - W W W 111 - 1 (E) Cot G. SIDEWALK ~`7 z € ~i (E) CONC. SIDEWALK i I U) O n m l / GL Iflo, } Il (E) PARK ROW ' E REVISIONS ~A 5 L,% o I z E - 0 7 n (E) 8(N) MAILBOXES IE { - - L E I V 5o'oe N ENLARGED s SITE PLAN E o PROJECT: 14-032 - - - `J ISSUE DATE: 12-22-15 PLAN E SHEET: i (E) FIRE ENLARGED SITE PLAN Y f HYDRANT I y 1-20 i N I I v E 2-STORY V L/ 3 BUILDING 66 WATER STREET SUITE 101 ASHLAND, OR a i A 17520 TEL.: 641.488,8206 L (E) BUDHIST PRELIMINARY 3 '9 A \ i \ TEMPLE I I THESE DRAWINGS SHALL s -T NOT BE USED FOR: WW 1 CONSTRUCTION L - DIDOINO RECORDATION 0 CONVEYANCE AREA OF BUILDING EXCEEDING ssUANCEOEAPERNIIT SOLAR HEIGHT LIMITS i \ 1 \ \ l E 2-22-15 9 V SITE REVIEW AREA OF PERMITTED 16' HIGH SHADOW 6 CASTING ELEMENT AT PROPERTY LINE 4 ~ q? a ~ ~ ~(®s ~ V ASV A A - I ~ ~ 5 0-- - SOLAR SECTION CUTS - SEE SHEET Al5 l I 3 m \ I +I , m N \ \ NOR3, PRR~PERTY L\INE \ \ \ V A CID - v v y~ - 007 E 6, _ 1 .t Q \ 4 7 J~ Y I ~~~~~7 1 2 3 ' \ O~ C L L w U) °o ~Im halm ~i CD :D < I~ ----/7~------ n. -q d~~q i 0 Q0 of0 m OI,m p 0. a'' / a W U Y - ° w F,W gio I I <Ia N J _j I'D - 0 ~ CC N U rw > m L.I I W E U 1 - I LOT 5 SOLAR PLAN Z ~ (y) o W 70 c _ I I o Z Uw LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 I I e U LOT 1 0 Q U ® W g I i ~ ` ~ 9 W W~ m Z I L) co Vv 0 Q- REVISIONS I-~ - a E ®o ® -L ®o - ® . r ® ~r.-off - e' J \ \ ,i % J , 0 A (D SOLAR r SETBACK SITE ML B ( , - ~ 1 1 l~ ❑M l - P l LAN - PROJECT' 14-032 + - AVM ISSUE DATE: 12-2216 SHEET: SOLAR SETBACK SITE PLAN K, Y I a 1'=20' ~1 N 4 ) CONNECTALL(N)STORM YVATEft / i FROM PERIMETER,FOUNDATION 4aY~(1~ ~ / (E) FDIC p DRAIN58 BODES TO THESEM'0 -(E(8" VC (E) STORM DRAIN LINES BI-(E)B'PVC STOR! DRAIN STORM DRAIN 66 WATER 67HttT ( q > j / l~D % \ SUITE 101 / r~ ) ASHLAND, OR j / (E) BUDHIST - 07520 TEMPLE TEL.: 541.488.8200 s PRELIMINARY i -17 N)u.c.3°CONDUIT (1EA) THESE DRAWINGS SHALL B BE USED FOR: 7 BETWEEN TRANSFORMERS N i NCOONSTRUCTION PER CITY OF ASHLAND BIDDING ' T RECORDATION 'o CONVEYANCE i r - o \ IBBUANCEOFA PERMIT N)u.c.3'cGNDUR(3Ea) 12-22-15 ~t a / NNECT SITE REVIEW ro(N)MaN \AIICFORMERS a (N~ U.G. 3' CIEABENTRR- - - - / PE CITY OF ASH ND r - , (N)TRANSFORMER U -6 Z CS SDI rP. ( 7~7 SD 00- nil F~r E TRANSFORMER #T4153 n-_ ~ ~ / ~nl,nllnls:rNlul uIII , o all r:.lur II p L1 I co I T CoMMERrI L (p' , ) v~ MMRESIDENTIAL (2) 2, n0a r f 11 J O LOT„ cOMMERCn (I).. lJ f2i= o4 co 'z N m RESIDENTIAL RPRIMARY- (3)a C Lul4 COMMERCIAL (1) 200A 20 POWERI3" m T. _ j I HESIDEIJPAt (1)200A I CONDUITS J -j Q a L oT s. cFkAMERU ll s3a1 RI D NIL L 0M EUS PRIMARY (E)TRAN3ORMER 1 1) E _ x,34 r 0 POWER 0 DITRIBJTE TO EA BUI D,CINU.G /y~ (0 F1 3 CC ILITYI UISG C(,i iIC`I LOT W C ❑ B. _SENT w s ~ 1 ❑ I I I - \ W~ a Q ❑ ! °o ` of N) 2-STORY N) 2-STORY N) 2-STORY N) 2-STORY F- (N) 2-STORY (E) NA ODD HEALTH U PRODUCTS Q o 060 - BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDINGS TORY J W c) -Se I I ~ I I I J X m ( 2 LOT 1 ti I LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 v (N) FIRE _ k VAULT FOR ALL FIVE-LOTS - RU " ~ RUN WATER LINES (NOT (NOT SHOWN FOR U) ur 2FA (N)314 WATER 3EA (U).I' TER 3E0. (N)3lA WATE I INl 4 RATER to 1 ` 4EA(N)3hrWATER CLARITY) IN EASEMENT TO EA / w a S (E)U.G. PRIMARY METERSB LINES TO MET R ;LI :ES TO METER58 LINES T~ Ill ltfs&LIIIES TO o METERS B LINES TO BUILDINGI LOT 30 POWER I h I 0~ nJILDINGIIRRIGATION L I AI BUILDING I NJIf DI BUILDIN f IILI : W ,0 > I J ti ~ r ~ W 4 0 L r _ U o so , . SD SD IS _ SD f- N f t )t ~etl If9 1-~II11 (E) FIRE E)u.G4°sAN. HYDRANT U SEVvER ~jTL!(~..~17N UG 99°I IP {r,~ l ~ t`JN~ ~ - ~1 - LINE , T~ \y il.t> W W U E _ W -Wi ry-d ` (t4 Y1 G. 4"SAN. SE (E) PHONE CABINET r~ m j YP. (4)PLACES ( - (E)U,G 90 POWER .8 (E) CAN CABINET j UN oa. eaa R (E) POWER (E)WATER G - Y m rp (E)12°5'ODDRAR, LI,- sEGTIONALIZER 4° (DIP) 7 - (E)12'CTORMDRAIN REVISIONS $ ® IE POWER SDI i SD II $D I h I~ SECTIONALIZER SD g L9SI 1 - -kiL JJ e x A - _ N \f n u SS ss " (E) 8° PVC SS LINE (E) 8" PVC SS LINE I D 11I f - N CONCEPTUAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - -E)WAER SITE UTILITY ® 1~7( PLAN r ~ 8'( DIP) C PROJECT: 14032 - - - - - - f - ' PLAN ssuE DATE. 12-22- s E SHEET: 11&(E) FIRE CONCEPTUAL SITE UTILITY PLAN 1 12 A7 ai5 12 '=20' a \l ~ CLEAR CREEK VILLAGE PARCELS 1 and 2 11 lii FLOOR AREA RATIOS (F.A.R.) 7rA17t(t. Revisions to Parking Requirements and Building Areas E w ,i;ra1•--.~ I A 'Y 66 WATER STREET o _ - SUITE 101 ASHLAND, OR F.A.R. by Lot F.A.R. by Parcel I Phase F.A.R. by Parcel 1 Phase TEL20B4,.4B8.6260 PRELIMINARY w/o Wetland Parcel (w/o Wetland Parcel) (with Wetland Parcel) z _ - THESE DRAWINGS BE FOR LL BUILDING On inal Use FACTOR Bldg. Area PARKING Revised Use FACTOR Bldg. Area PARRKIN BIDDING $ REO'D RKING CHANGE LatArea F.A.R. Id .Ares Lot Area F.A.R. CONSTRUCTION ' RECORDATION Building A Delgado Medical Building I CONVEYANCE = J J - - ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT W 1st Floor Medical Office 350 5,400 sf N.A. W •Medical office 350 5,400 sf, N.A. a 12.22.15 2nd Floor 0 sf N.A. V 0 sf N.A. SITE REVIEW $ a Total 5,400 sf 5,400 sF N.A. 25,817 sf 20.9% W Building B-1 151 153 Clear Creek Dr. w ~ 1st Floor Office 450 1,554 sf 3.5 (7 Office 500 1,554 sf 3.1 , 2nd Floor Residential (2) 1 Bdr 1,916 sf 3.0 g Residential O 2 1 Bdr 1,916 sf 30 Building B-2 i 0 > 1st Floor Office 450 768 sf 1.7 Office 600 768 sf 1.5 B W 2nd Floor Residential (1) 1 Bdr 828 sf 1.5 w Residential (1) 1 Bdr 828 sf 1.5 Total 5,066 sf, 9.7 5,066 sf 9.1 -0.5 11,784 sf 43.0% o V _ ~ i Building C 149 Clear Creek Dr. N B 1st Floor Office 450 4,108 sf 9.1 w Office 500 4,108 sf 8.2 2nd ° W _ 4.3 O Bu Total Floor Residential Creek 7,1008 sf 13.4 J Residential 7,108 sf 12.5 -0.9 17,326 sf 41.0% 17,574 sf 64,927 sf 32.0 U) J g D ( Lots 1-5) 123 Clear k Dr. (Proposed Future) o 1st Floor Office 450 10,400 sf 23.0 Office 500 9,380 sf 18.8 00 Z 2 m C) a) 3 Residential 276 sf, 00 F- 0 N 2nd Floor office 450 8,000 sf 17.8 Office 500 1,376 sf 2.8 J U Residential 8,244s, 13.0 (4 @ 1.5 + 4 @ 1.75) > m - Jm ~L 3rd Floor Residential 5,000s f 10.0 z N Total 23,400 sf 50.8 w 19,276 sf 34,5 16,3 24,245 sf 79.5% W W u, Q w Building E Buddhist Meditation Center W J U j o a U _ C) l = 1st Floor Office 450 2,080 sf 3.9 Office 500 2,080 sf 4.2 Q ~ ~ 0 I Q 2nd Floor Office 450 2,298 sf 5.1 Q Office 5o0 2,298 sf 4.6 E w 3rd Floor Residential (2) 1 Bdr 1,562s f 3.0 W Residential (2) 1 Bdr 1,562s f 3.0 J _j W a Total 5,940 sf, 12.0 0 5,940 sf 11.8 -0.3 7,399 sf 80.3°/ ~ U 05 I Building F Dreamsacks 125-127 Clear Creek Dr. g Natura > a) co 1st Floor Office 450 2,104 sf 4.7 Office 500 2,104 sf 4.2 W E U Y Warehouse 750 2,453 sf 3.3 Y Warehouse 1000 2,453 sf 2.5 N I E W 2nd Floor Residential (1) 2 Bdr 1,600s f 1.8 W Residential (1) 2 Bdr 1,600s f, 1.8 W Z > N " u Total 6,157 sf, 9.7 IX 6,157 sf 8.4 9,243 sf 66.6% W Y m Building G 108 Hersey 108 Hersey t~ a U) (D U) Q 1st Floor Office 450 5,428 sf 12.1 w Office 500 5,428 sf 10.9 -1,2 Z W W t 2nd Floor Residential (2) Studios 1,572s f 3.0 -J Residential (2) Studios 1,572s f 3.0 U 0 Total 7,000 sf 15.1 7,000 sf 13.9 1.2 17,551 sf 39.9% (A D. Q Building H Furniture Depot 496 Oak Street U 1st Floor Showroom 750 4,792 sf 6.4 Office 500 4,792 sf 9.6 W ® w w Warehouse 1000 1,980 sf 2.0 Office 500 1,980 sf, 4.0 ~p z 2nd Floor Showroom 750 1,764 sf 2.4 Office 500 1,764 sf, 3.5 -t 3 Residential (1) Studio 450 sf 10 Residential (1) Studio 450 sf. 1.0 U U) 0 a Total 8,986 sf, 11.7 8,986 sf 18.1 6 16,879 sf 53.2% 47,359 sf 75,316 sf 62,9°/ m REVISIONS t , Total Areas and Parking Required 63,657 sf 122 59,533 sf 108 -14.1 On-Site Parking Provided (Excluding Building A Parking) 111.0 108.0 -3.0 r Parking Credit for Additional 5 Bicycle Spaces 1.0 :On-Street Parking Credit (22-7=15; 15-8=7; 7+4=11) 11.0 6.0 -5.0 Total Parking Provided 122.0 115.0 -7.0 REVISIONS TO Future Parking below Building b _ 0.0 SUBDIVISION Future Parking Total 115.0 TOTALS PROJECT: 14-032 Parking Parcel (To west of Building F, Natura, and to east of wetlands) 15,819 sf 15,819 sf ISSUE DATE: 12-22-18 N Wetlands Parcel 51,727 sf SHEET: Total Building Area and F.A.R. (Includes Building A area) 64,933 sf, 146,063 sf 44.5°/ 64,933 sf 146,063 sf 44.50/64,933 sf, 197,790 sf 32.8 ca r , r 1 ~12j 1 5f~ / 2) 2.4; 3) 3.6) 4 ; 4.6) 5 6 (G 4j ` 20'-0"P.U.EB 1W1 HU~~(}~J LOT1 LOT2 LOTBT LOT4 ~PEDEBnIANADCeaeEneEMENTY LOT5 ~~lll ILL 51mE ~1MN 192'-0" 41'-10" I 32'-0" / I 32'-0" I 32'-10' I 20'-0' ~ 32'0" 12,-0° B6 rvAl ER STREET ' 20'-2" 12'-10' 19'L" 19'-0° 12'-10" 29-2' 12'0" IU-0-SETBACK 10'-)"SETBACK 12'-0" 20'-0" SUITE 101 `o o AND, OR 97520 (E) PROPERTY LINE TEL.: 541.488.8200 PRELIMINARY ASSUMED PROPERTY R FIRE SEPARATION LINE THESE DRAWINGS SHALL FO DISTANCE BETWEEN BLDGS. NOT BE USED FOR: 4 / I I / y I CONSTRUCTION elDDmc RECORDATION )PROPERTY LINE issuANCEOFA4PERMIT m w 12-22-15 / Y q I SITE REVIEW m INE OF DECK LINE OF DECK f I Y ABOVE ABOVE W / LINE O DEC m F K LINE Of DECK v r )I m l~PSE~ r (N) PROPERTY LINE ABOVE ABOVE (N) PROPERTY LINE - - - (N) PROPERTY LINE - - - (N) PROPERTY LINE 4 F - - - - - / - - - - - - - 3 ) ® ® F~ - - - - iL 7 ~f [ - u-sf - c 4 m I I I FF ,5450 is L: FF=+54.50' E. r E.5) 4 R m PROPERTYLINE = FF=+,1r I ) F +55-67' EI a - - I - - _j c: 0 7 \ q Z (D I I D - - - E - - - ~ - o N 'D m G .C t. i s tw W L~ ill ; `551 LL O U) CL _ - I A I GO sf PEDESTRIA KWAYN s(1 1 I + E - C~J O j -li_ - C, \ r o - - - L W :.l AL L a U C w o ZI I _ - REMO ABLE I~ X J ; .2 L METAAB&E NG I J N I ~ U y Q. m I _ ' a' 4 0 _ I y L - _ wi PORCII LOT 1 71 q) C0 0 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 W U 0. 1st Floor 1376 s( E III _ lslFloor 209{lsf ls[Hcor 2000sf 1slFI= 2050s( 1si Flao; 2050 sf W w 2nd Flo 1376 sf 2 to Floor 2090 sf 2nd Floor 2090 sf 2nd Floo,, 2032 sf d Floor 2032 sl ) ?752 sf ,I 4180 sf 4100 sf. 4082 sf 4052 sf w '0 C ' t B YU ' 1. N L x FF=+55.17 FF=+55.61 B 001 6 COMMERCIAL COP2012 of IAL COf 99') sf sf IAL C01,'OIFRGIhL 4 Z 1 FF +53.83 1316 sf sf 20 2012 sf s1 2012 of 1990 1990 sf I U 4 I v ~ - O 1 A 5 +54_50F a 50 I q A.5) T eJ - I o Q' _ U Q f L- - - ~ - J - ~I -i I - - w Z~ i 1-4 - A co } y Y y v I I rQ f «Q - -U Q 0 c F w .~R m REMOVABLE 4 4 m REMOVABLE L JL JLIJL JL J 9 m REMOVABLE q w 9 m (E) UTILITY EASEMENT N I U (n d ~w METAL AWNING METAL AWNING am ~m ~N F IF II'~F 'll- 1 N METALAWNING E PROPERTY LINE m REMOVABLE 1 v o~ F IF ~F IF IF I WOOD ARBOR v - - Ot REVISIONS Z. COMMERCIAL V BUILDING USE AREAS: GROSS BLDG. AREAS: RESIDENTIAL J o 0 0 V 0 0 COMMERCIAL 10,756 sf LOT 1 2,752 sf RESIDENTIAL 8,520sf LOT2 4,180sf CIRCULATIONI TOTAL 19,276 sf LOT 3 4,180 sf DECKS & PORCHES LOT 4 4,082 sf N \ FIRST FLOOR r ~ LOT 5 4,082 sf C, k TOTAL 19,276 sf PLANS ~ j•; PROJECT: 14-032 ' LAN ISSUEDATE: 12-22-15 m SHEET: 9,656sf FIRST FLOOR PLANS Y a rv Q 1~ 1.2' ,1.5 2 \2 3 ~3.6) 5 1 .4' 4 ',4.6~ 5 6 ' ;6.4) ( 7 i LOT1 7 -0°P.uEa 3 LOT2 LOT3T' 4T' 1. PEDESTRIAN ACCESSEASEMENT ( LOT5 ill 11 t~l I I /I I I 1 E 1 192''-0' 612" k ytvm 111``14e) N 41'-10" 92-0' 1~ 32_-0* E32 12-0" 20'-2" 12'-10' 20'-2" 12'A° 10'-0'SETBACN 10'-0' SETBACK t t7b" 20'-0' ( 66 WATER STREET SUITE 101 97 20AN0, OR (E) PROPERTY LINE TEL.: 541.488.8200 Y i PRELIMINARY 4 ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE m FOR FIRE SEPARATION THESE DRAWINGS SHALL / I I DISTANCE BETWEEN BLDGS. q NOT BE USED FOR: $ CONSTRUCTION BIDDING z / RECORDATION / F / I a a I (E) PROPERTY LINE CONVEYANCE ISSUANCE OFA PERMIT y 12-22-15 a i I I I Y / Y v I SITE REVIEW m y I n LINE OF ROOF LINE OFROOF (N) PROPERTY LINE (N) PROPERTY LINE (N<) PROPERTY LINE ABOVE I ABOVE (N I PROPERTY LINE - - - - _ F - - - - _ _ orol< DECK 3 I II it q oECE a - - 1B9,13 DROOM ~ ?HEDROOM 7HECP00~I _ O DROOM yE 5) y , H_ 5f 943 s( rn I q a , 1 _ II ~ot sf 964 N PROPERTY L . st m INE - I _ II LINE OF ROOF 43 ( U) m ~ABOVE r i/ II - Y ~1 o 00 Z 4 m + ~J E 0 L, II ~I 4 D) E .I rJ U - -_J L J F r r - i con,3 za(IAL 1-; ~1 I ° r J L r L A ' II I It I m ~ _ W ~I D ( oast TI I I hJ ~I~ W W loa3r (A II> a - x 1: ?S 164 .f _PEDES I RIAN_ N L WALKWAY a - - C U w I ©7 6~ II f t1 I JW ~Y El e I'll I' I 1 11 I it I_ 1 ETAL ABLE LJ ° \ 1111 x J T .2 T" ~ MTAL v ~iNG / L L J'-` N ~1l I T, ~ I I L -1 BECK III i -1~ ~ r~~ II II ~ 10 I a II ~I 11 n L II ll E I ~ 1 II I (I_ f YW ( 'Do w I W I 1 ~ 1eeoROOr~ ) IHEORCOM, IT J ~ C'B. li 68351 a 5D3 s( ~I I I t I . , x ff - _ tl- - - B) f° (D U) r +saes zeEORaoti, -+eaao F=+sa.LO 2HEDR00',I z (J W EF=+6raaI FF= CV83' <Isr I I asi 4 V -IT A.5 I _ ! i I -fl - - - -4 (A.5) Q $ U DECK ~ V A DECK DECK II OEOK - 4 I - A _ R 4- ) m w - L- ITT Efl w ® w Y~ 4 LLL q m REMOVABLE " a I I a I ""I Z o w LINE OF ROOF METALAWNING 4 m (E) UTILITY EASEMENT 4 REMOVABLE N m r\ co a q ABOVE m DN rvN METAL AWNING F REMOVABLE - q v `o REMOVABLE 'y METAL AWNING (E) PROPERTY LINE WOODARBOR REVISIONS L. -Z_ I~ G in ~ COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL F j ~ J Q p 0 0 0 ~1 - CIRCULATION/ DECKS & PORCHES 1 ( 1 N SECOND FLOOR $ PLANS PROJECT: 14-032 ISSUEDATE: 12-22AS E PLAN I"Lh1IV SHEET: a 9,620 sf SECOND FLOOR s-0) 1 l~: Q 1 1.2 1.5 2 3 4 T1r...TRI 7L0T1 LOT2 LOT3 LOT4 ANAOCESSEASEMENT LOT5 "~I'ly17115 / Y 66 WATER STREET Y / c / SUITE 101 ASHLAND, OR , a / 97520 / TEL.: 541.488.8200 SKYGHT7ROOF c / ACCLIESSHATCH PRELIMINARY THESE DRAWINGS SHALL 13E USED STRC FOR: 3 / I SKYLIGHT C NON CONSTRUCTION BID G $ / I I RECO RDATION r COMMERCIAL SPACE CONVEYANCE CONDENSING UNIT ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT 12-22-15 I / I RESIDENTIAL coNDESNINGUNN SITE REVIEW / I 0 METAL GUTTER METAL GUTTER F - - - - - ( - - - 3 - ` I ~ I - o ~ - 411% I U METAL GUTTER I1--- 4.12 (D -1 0 .J a ♦ v1 a~ vi I v~ 00 Z - - - - 17 I- - - - D J E - JW L 4 El 13 0 e I _ _ HIGH PL % HIGH PT. V HIGH C HIGH F771 _ Q (D ZD o j - 1 / PT. ----1 L.----- PT. U 'C L o vIW _j x I .4:12 / / - HIGH PT. fl---- _I.I..-.. El 11 M W a a I I- n _ w l o Z > N r 1 - F(-- -(t-- W Y _ I TT - - - - - - - - - - f>s N ~ w i U L I I 'pi I it _ ICI I I I N U Q I I g1l I q r W~ WW ~I I ~ , I I I I O m T I ~ Z II J I I I I I U v/ 0 IL m 'METAL GUTTER REMOVABLE REMOVABLE METAL AWNING METAL AWNING METAL GUTTER METAL GUTTER m REVISIONS u _ Z-- F' o o o o 0 0 i; J ~ _l r < \ \ ROOF PLANS 3 - PROJECT: 14-032 E PLAN ISSUEDATE: 12-22-15 N I-Ll1IV SHEET: i' r ROOF PLANS v 118" =1'-0' I Y All N LV t; II LOT2BEYONO ~F~~~~C~ry117iH LGT4 LOT 1 I ~l)~f17n4~ UTILITY UTILITY N EASEMENT I I I EASEMENT w-- JI IZ wIw ,J 66 WATER STREET Y ~I FI I~ rl Iz F,I_ SUITE 101 ~1 wl pl Ip wl ~w rcl ASHLAND, OR a ai w~ al wl lI. al l I~w ~ al l 97520 l a 0w a w a TEL.: 541.488.8200 w i W I z TYP. EXT. MATERIALS PRELIMINARY SHT. METAL COPING&CEM. I I I TOP OF PARAPET LOTS 283 THESE DRAWINGS SHALL F I PIASTER CORNICE DETAIL I I I NOT BE USED FOR: 3 I I I I EL 32-0"(1B85.B3') CONSTRUCTION TOP OF PARAPET LGT4 OPOFPARAPETL-&4 - - - BIDDING i _ - TOP OF PARAPET LOT) RECORDATION ° EL 30-B°(10845a) EL. 30'-B"(i 88q.50') I ¢ 3') EL. 30 W(1883.8 CONVEYANCE 1 ~ 1 l X11_ METAL ROOFING I T i I I ISAUANCE OFA PERMIT 2111 ~ } - 1 L_ t" H ~WGOD'OUTRIGGERS' 12-22-15 a L I ~_s a I ~g WOOD COLUMNS SITE REVIEW r r I q 7 C- OEM. PLASTER F~1 JJ HDRIZ 1AP81DING PAINT I I~ [ I I - SECt;I D L R Lli l ) FFTI I` I k I - _ EL 1rt-e nPO880 sE°OND FLOOR L0T"2 3 l = I + g ea'j - - - SE ~I if v I IT ~ - i- - I~ -I i ALUM. CLAD WOOD WINDOWS I _ FF I I MASONRY VENEER w 4 - _ - - FIRSTFLOORLOr ~u•. 1 W II - _S ( MASONRY BASE a - w I_ - _ - - FF ® - FIRST FLOOR LOTS 283 FIIIST g ELF-4'(1B66,Tff- FLOOR ~oTt EL 0'- D" (185 .03) IIn) J V 0 00 z 4 ~ ® C L 3 0 E EAST ELEVATION - LOT 4 WEST ELEVATION - LOTS 1 & 2 a) 2 1116"=P-0" 1116"_V-w J m C WW ~Q z K _ 0 °o> Q ® a C JW U~ (E) UTILITYI PEDESTRIAN I LOT1 LOT2 LOT3 LGT4 EASEMENT LOT5 'J J jl (E) UTILITY zl zl JI ~I wl wl > C U EASEMENT 1 1 I III w; ~i al al wl a) al wl Y W 0 a Z N m r ~I rci di °i rci °i a 2 wl zl is zl wl iliI wl W -0 C ~ is I I r ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE METALAWNINGTYP METAL AWNING TYP. 1 FOR FIRESEPARATION c r I~ I I DISTANCE BETWEEN BUD S. I Z N N L y TOP OF PARAPET LOTS 2&3 I j i I I I I 1 0 U L EL. 32'-0"(1885.83') i - I TOP OF PARAPET LOTS 485 ///2 w U Q k( m I - - 1lLlf1 FR-NJ L14JLI W~II~ 1- 4J I I I l TH-11 IT I EL 30 8- (18134.50') W WW U VJ 0 m i - I x I _ :11E 9ECON0 FLOOR LOTS9&6 I: $ SECOND FLOORLOTI REVISIONS - - EL. 12'-0"(1885-83') Y._ 0 ~ EL3-x13-b&) WALL AREA 1,126.00 WALLAREA 1,002.7 sf WALLAREA 1,002.70 WALLAREA 1,181.7 sf WALLAREA 1,181.7sf _ EXTERIOR WINDOWIDOORAREA 217.5 sf WINDOWIDOORARFA 335.80 WINDOWI DOOR AREA 335.8d WINDOW/DOORAREA 224.3 of WINDOW I DOOR AREA 224.3 sf ELEVATIONS s %OF WALLAREA 19.3% %OF WALLAREA 33.5% %OF WALL AREA 33.5% %OFWALLAREA 18.0% %OF WALL AREA 19.0% N Q N4NDOW f DOOR AREA WITHI N 30 R. PROJECT: 14-032 WALL AREA 5,494.8 of ISSUE DATE: 12-22-15 WINDOWIDOORARFA 1,337.8 sf N %OFWALL AREA 24.3% SOUTH ELEVATION (Clear Creek) SHEET: Y 1115" -1'-0" a N 1V' a IPlMcb v I ~aoh111G OT 5 LOT 5 Y~ 117114D1 m (E) UTILITY E EASEMENT I I EASEMENT m I zl - _ zl FI LL J=I1 Iz ~I SUITE 0 STRESI ai ~Ii ai w nl 0AN0, OR 9752 m rc TEL, 541.488.8200 I ~ a al w al al ai wi PRELIMINARY - wl wl z1 zl ~ I _.I SHT. METAL COPINGS CEM. VI `.I THESE DRAWINGS SHALL I I PLASTER LOTS I NOT BE USED FOR: _ I TOP OF PARAPET T LOTS4&5I BIDDING I I.-. ~ I I~ ~ I I CONSTRUCTION TOP EL 30'- OF P 1884.50' c/~~ ( i~ I I I~ I I I YANCE CVE METAL WOCD M17 ~:-#-'OU~TRIGGERS' ISSUANCE22 A6R 12 WOODCOLUMNS V _ - SITE REVIEW o CEM.PIASTER I HoRIZLAPSIDING -PaINT-}-y- I j1 - I SECOND FLOOR LOTS 4 8 6 I - - _ - - I a 1 ,i. I, I L 14'-8°(1868.50') m-.- - ItINkTUP. AHEALTH L 3 [ - " PRODUCTS ALUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS y MASONRY ER MASONRY RASE I I FIRST FLOOR LOT5 I :am ~ `EL 1'-10" (1866.66) ) I 01 U V J O 00 Z ,n m a C N (D E EAST ELEVATION - LOT 5 WEST ELEVATION - LOT 5 0® N WW co ~Q a 0 :D oo U (E) UTILITY A EASEMENT _I W U Y (E) UTILITY !PEDESTRIAN II .R LOT5 EASEMENT LOT4 L LOT3 LOT2 LOT, .-I J wl NU - ~I ~I ZI KI ~I ~I C JI Y _ rci ai ai rci wi wi IF aI Y W U I ai rcl p; OI 0 a~ IN O z a a ai I~ a L°' NN m 2 wl wl zl zl it zI iw wl W r 1 ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE j I W FOR FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN BLDGS I I I 7 I I I I I I I TOP OF PARAPET LOTS283 U (,j,( ~ I I 1 I I _ I EL 32 0°(1885.63') 0 L TOPOFPARAPETLOTS4&5,,, TOP OF PARAPET LOT I rn ®EL 30'-B"(1884.60') EL 30' 0"(,883.83') - i I Q ME q~1 p[{(1 (I(1~] ~7x- _tI I ;r~I I W❑M w w c I I--- W 0 1 k I Oct) oa f _ I _ I H o SECOND FLOOR LOTS 4&5 ITL-- -IT REVISIONS SECOND FLOOR LOT 1 - I -0" 186 .83' i I E C~ i-- 0 0 v -IF F- Ll-~-0 855. R FIRST FLOOR LOTI - I ELd-0(1853.83') EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - I a i PROJECT: 14-032 ISSUE DATE: 12-22-15 E NORTH ELEVATION SHEET. N i `U 11rr11Yy~ r1T11flllli~ 'i 66 WATER STREET SUITE 101 ° ASHLAND,OR 97520 TEL.: 541.488.8200 ' y 0 PRELIMINARY AREA OF SHADOW CAST BY BUILDINGS THESE DRAWINGS SHALL y, ON TEMPLE WALL NOT BE USED FOR: CONSTRUCTION BIDDING AREA OF BUILDING EXCEEDING SOLAR caK RATION - J HEIGHT LIMITS ON WALL ISSUANCE OF APERMIT ° 12.22-15 AREA OF PERMITTED 16' HIGH SHADOW LINE OF PERMITTED LINE OF PERMITTED SITE REVIEW CASTING ELEMENT AT PROPERTY LINE SOLAR SHADING ON SOLAR SHADING AT z o- - SECTION CUTS @ WALL- SEE SHEET Al5 FACE OF TEMPLE WALL NORTH PROPERTY LINE r • A s r~ I Ur~)T J Q V I O A m Z N - C L - - Q:D Qro TEMPLE FIN. FLOOR r EL. +15'- 8" (1869.00') - U :D o C4 JW VY J~ y0 4 ~E vW NU TEMPLE - (D m FIN. FLOOR I Z U ' EL. +2'- 8" 1856.49' ,.F G u <; \ \ - 1\ \ _ _ W l N a~ FIRSTFL OR LOT 1 / l L EL. +0'-0"(1853.83') U0 <~I Ii U) Q LINE OF (E) NATURAL L I l ( GRADE AT NORTH Q - U PROPERTY LINE W m z w TEMPLE FIN. FLOOR A I, -j D t EL. 8' 0" (1845.83') U) o e REVISIONS ~11 BASE ELEVATION E EL. 1840.00' AREA OF SHADOW CAST ON SOUTH WALL OF TEMPLE AT 12:00 NOON ON DEC. 21 SOLAR SHADOW Al ON SOUTH WAL a OF TEMPLE PROJECT: 14-032 ISSUE DATE: 12-22-15 SOLAR SHADOW ON SOUTH WALL OF TEMPLE SHEET: Y 118' =1'-0" iI N I i ~iru7=M~P N mvcwn -.awaimm ~Ep~ D0./ fib WATER STREET x w SUITE ASHLAINOD1, OR / 3 TE L.: u 54 1.488.8200 .01 q - r PRELIMINARY it Ip siti "I%E "al / / / / e n~ro I a / amra~ ® I / / THESE DRAWINGS SHALL 6 NOT BE USED FOR: 3 3 B m,M CONSTRUCTION / - 6 BIDDING RECOR 0 CONVE9 m YANC I m w I I E ISSUANCE OFA PERMIT 3 12.22.15 SITE REVIEW SOLAR SHADOW SECTION SOLAR SHADOW SECTION SOLAR SHADOW SECTION n 1H6"=1'-0" ~ 1118"=1'-0" 6 1116"=1'A" J i d I I I r eP/// J K a mn~aa" ~ J O ~oUR." Z :E co ate" / / / a r'~ § wI / % y N ~ 8 p0 a / a / m 5 II ma,a~ I m 21 WC/) as 5 0 a (D Z) 0 a) N m o 8 06 «x , _j W g 2 Me 0 , N ® a 0 ~ez a); N E W > SOLAR SHADOW SECTION o SOLAR SHADOW SECTION SOLAR SHADOW SECTION n w 1116"=1'-0" 8 1(16"=1'-0" 5 1(16"=1'-D" N W 0 U mQ I i~ W®~y1 WW W 0 Jz ] am" oam" / U (A 00- f m EPA wo:x. „~,rr REVISIONS 4 - - - - - = p E m I ii n I / I / 7 /I 4 U unx~u J a sa n SOLAR 4 - ® - - - SECTIONS W ATS~ 2 m. PROJECT; 14-032 + ISSUEDATE: 12=22-15 E SHEET: N SOLAR SHADOW SECTION SOLAR SHADOW SECTION n SOLAR SHADOW SECTION n 1116"=1'-0" 7 1116"=V-0" i Wl"J giR-411L~ 66 WATER STREET ITE o',oR LEGEND AU [EEBUDDHIST E~ARKING LOT 97520 1r TEMPLE - 41 SPACES C TEL.: 541,488.8200 i i EXS NGTREETOREMNN PRELIMINARY {I i_ _ 1)I~,1 _ _ THESE DRAWINGS SHALL x E NOT BE USED FOR: CONSTRUCTION T.o,, o o ou / ® ® e m ® ® TREE PROTECTION FENCING 5 SEE GENERAL NOTES C.&D;7 RECORDATION ~I o 0 1 CONVEYANCE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT d GENERAL NOTES Land A. Topographic Surveying, survey provided by Polaris Land Surveying, LLC. B. The information contained on this Tree Protection Plan supersedes the labels on the topographic survey for e1sting tree species B and BIZBS. ENTRY ' w tll C. Contractor shall provide, install, and maintain E`?TR _ T • tree protection fencing according to City of ~ Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 18.4.5, EN RV ~ ENTRY Tree Protection Measures ReDjired. 15 D. Final location of tree protection fencing shall o be determined by Landscape Architect. J O IF 00 Z m - - IL-~ _11 A _ a) N C) a) 0 m T.I'Z r ENTRY -3 L - v0 COURTYARD W W Q El m lr,-- I --J 1 ~l fill II. jII'Hill TI O N a J~ b uu. LrL~ O > 2 - $ 7EENATURA HEALTH Q 0 o6 o LJI LOT5~I PRODUCTS ~X J LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 j L 4RKING, LOT P ~ISPACEE~ 3: a) L N ~w Z a m LU - LU Y J a~i cj~ U W ENTRY \ I - O O ENTRY L R ENTRY O ENTRY ENTRY O Ji O Q - --UTILITY EASELIEPIT it R Q o 11LL > o - ( W CID c (((777------J- i o 5"OAK 4" OAK E SIDEWALK 51, OAK "-~6"OAK 9"OAK 7"OAK J Q' T co O d N v a--- I I I! I I i 1 I I I I I , 1 REVISIONS © r v TREE E C L A C R K D I V PROTECTION a N I PLAN E 0 50 101 200 PROJECT: 14-032 ISSUEDATE: 12-01-15 E l.SHEET: TREE PROTECTION PLANn 1 1Om 22,.-34" I LOA N I-,E~a„~ ~I N010 ~N0~0~ ~ FF 0+1845.83 EP 0 h4 FF 111856.49 11 o FF 11+1869.00 N 66 WATER STREET 1 Q) cc) NN LEGEND A9H ANA, OR CPARKING LOT h ~ co [EEBUDDHI ro~ 97520 0 ^ n _ J 41 SPACES TEL.: 541.488.8200 Q' TEMPLE - 4.6 b. / PROPOSED ELEVATION PRELIMINARY o ✓ A c . ~ k ^ _ S TOP OF STAIRS THESE DRAWINGS SHALL O TW TOP OF WALL NOT BE USED FOR: 112EPRAYER WHEELS CONSTRUCTION D 30"O.C. BIDDING o 49.70 e TS 52.70 0 0 0 RECORDATION a6UANC CONVEYANCE A - - - d- - - - - GVERIFY ENERAL N NOTES ALL BELOW GRADE TS 49.36 53.15 TS 56.45 I, D I UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK, Co. v DECK 1) \ ABOVE--- Ik- 6 -.396 _--__Q 63.72-___ CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR n i 50 I COORDINATING ING ALL ALL UTILITY LOCATES. 57.05 B. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROVIDED BY POLARIS SURVEYING, INC. Y\ i~ 46.70 \ N-J d. ty- TW55.72 F r I g I\ (0 Q 56,10 Oj'p 'V C. AREA DRAINS AND STORM DRAIN LINES HAVE NOT 66.20 6818 BEEN SHOWN, BUT MUST BE PROVIDED BY 54148 4T Of 64.46 m 55.88 0.]00 T9156.28 0~ 69 '4 OTHERS FOR PROPER DRAINAGE. 54.46 TRASH 3 01 I 0' TW 51.67 ENCLOSURE ^ TS 55.93 155.45 54 .50 ~~7 I D. INSTALL ALL NEW PAVEMENT AND LANDSCAPE AREAS TO DRAIN WITHOUT PONDING OF BELOW N W SURFACE WATER. IF THIS CANNOT BE ACHIEVED, TW 54.33 EHTR`f EPITR 54.50 54.50 ' 54.93 T NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY FOR °m \ O OJ h0 I - - EIJTRY _o EVITRy RESOLUTION. A) 50.40 5555 y6' 1875.78 E. ADD 1800 TO ALL PROPOSED ELEVATIONS. THE 1854.65 FIRSTTWO NUMERALS HAVE BEEN OMITTED FOR 4 ` ABBREVIATION. 60 5517 o 55.67 U 0 J ` TW 54.33 553 C . " 40 h rn - J . V O BENCH z N PLANTER m m L_ _~I 1N9' sEArwnu co Z N I) N101 \ TREE 3 1~~ O ENTR7 If-- -11 WATER ORATE J E R (D m FEATURE - DS E i ® > G c: :E 11\101i El h0 015 El 63.63 Otis couRTYARp W W Q 1~ 5 1 ® ® 0• rRR nn~ U ~ O m 1~ ❑ = 0~ I I I I I O O u® ®II Luu LEUNATURAHEALTH v G PRODUCTS Q ~ o I 1 I ~L L~ ® FF 11+1856.2011 J LOT 1 LOT 2 a LOT Q LOT 4 LOT 5 J _ a3 51.52 N FF 0+1868.2011 J 6 4RKING~LOT N~ FF 0+53.83 FF 1154.5011 FF 11+54.50 FF o+55.17 FF o+55.67 N I SPACES 1875.82 ROOF EAVE > m 1871.18 ROOF EAVE w U a> co E W '0 C r LLB C _ , I I Y 56.17 ~ 55.67 Z 111 - ENTRY - - Q Ellrav- - ENTRY - NTRY - ENTRY 11879855..112 7 SRO C) ROOF EAVE (1 O U _TS 3.83 54 .50 5= _ I_ _ O ✓ 8 - ® ^ 54.33 h1 - _ 0 N T~ _ N 7 p EiUTILITY EASEMENT a' U Q e t - 53.91-- - - - - - - -'-L ? _ I ii. Q o f' m ~ID - - 0~ ~ ^ - - U LLJ--- - - - w o w W co 53.39 53,76 F SIDEWALK 64.15 54.74 54.98 55.22 J Z 0 Uc) on N~ TR 0 g51.97 E 1111111.. 41 © CI ❑ MB El Mg REVISIONS I 1852-26 TV ~0 ary , tiA ~1~ y ~ ~ ,t I D PRELIMINARY C L A C D I V SITE GRADING PLAN NI 7= PROJECT: 14-032 3 I 0 5' 10' 20' ISSUE DATE: 09-14-15 i E CI SHEET: j PRELIMINARY SITE GRADING PLAN 4 1" 1110m 22 m4" Y L a N i I I II:~►~1~~I~1 m ~ ~ ~ vuosaaeaa°nrtas ~ ~'llj}{~ ~LJL; E ms x 1 I 80 WATER STREET ASHL LEODUDDH IST CPARKING LOT SUITE 101 ° _ 41 SPACES ASHLAND, OR TEMPLE - 97520 TEL.: 541,488.8200 - LEGEND PRELIMINARY m / THESE DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR: CONSTRUCTION o ---°t-PVC°- BIDDING / cer PROPOSED TREES RECORDATION / EYANCE ! 1-STJA ISSUANCE CO NV DFAPERMIT ! I o _ A 1-GIB1 SHRUBS j m I ~l' GROUNDCOVERS r AND GRASSES 1-AC L'' DOPE 3 jj~ ~ - - ❑ T SEE SHEET L2,1 FOR PLANT LIST, ~ 1- U U /f - NOTES & DETAILS 1-ACHO / 4-PAPE O l Z In o) ~ WATER TREE GRATE >T~ ! s FEATURE I 0 0 --o 0 to E /Y~ ~ > ro m C RTYARb J m c t ~0 1-ACHO ® ® iii II ;;'I Ii Jill ~I W W Q ® ® Luu LLC a LE❑NATURA HEALTH (D :D O > L~~ PRODUCTS Q C) o LOT I LOT 2 L LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 J W Y ~X J~ -PARKINGWLOT 43SPACES, LLLJJJ ro YW NU boUFR 1-PYCA 1-ACTft I W C 2 1-GIBI Lu oi~ O U [jj IR o - SIDEWALK 2-PYCA W W W 7 F PARI1 ROW N TR T❑ IY LAWN 0 0 0 LAWN 0 0 LAWN 0 U U) O a © C ❑ MB TV ❑ MB REVISIONS S - ' E s ~ v N I C L A C K D I V SCHEMATIC PLANTING PLAN CI PROJECT: 14-032 ISSUE DATE: 09-14-15 SHEET: SCHEMATIC PLANTING PLAN 7= Y v 1°o1Nm 22m4° U 3' 10' 20 ° N Q i I j t ~L'11~~1~L!I~~I~LI~~I ".'~lyFa;~I Ilat~llM~r 141, ti t 3 ~'bPY~P7~14.~ I + Muw~~ e m i 66 wATEN sTR-T SUITE 101 Y ASHLAND,OR 91520 1 PLANT LIST TEL.: 541.488,8200 I KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMONNAME SIZECCONDITION PRELIMINARY TREES THESE DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR: ACGI ACER GINNALA ELAMED FLAME AMUR MAPLE 2" CAL, B&B CONSTRUCTION ACHO ACER TRUNCATUM t10T WINGSD VOTWNGSEMAPLE 2- CAL, S&B BIDDING k ACTR ACERTRUN.XN RWEGIAN SUNSETD NORWEGIAN SUNSET MAPLE 2" CAL, B&B RECORDATION 4 1 ISSUANCE CONVEYANCE CORNUS r/ , / GBIL GINKGO BILOBA FLORIDA GIRUBRA NKGOOLOWERING DOGWOOD 2"CAL, B&B OF APERMIT PAPE PARROTIAPERSICA PERSIAN IRONWOOD 2'CAL, B&B [ NOTE: PYCA PYRUS CALLERYANA ARISTOCRATO ARISTOCRAT FLOWERING PEAR 2- CAL, B&B f / REMOVE ROOTBALL STJA STYRAXJAPONICUS JAPANESE SNOWBELL 2" CAL, B&B WRAPPINGS, INCLUDING DURU DUERCUS RUBRA RED OAK 2' CAL, B&B P TWINE AND BURLAP, FROM DUFR DUERCUS FRAINETTO FOREST GREEND FOREST GREENDTALIAN OAK 2-CAL, B&B c TOP THIRD OF HOOT BALL. i SHRUBS j r BECR BERBERIS T. CRIMSON PYGMYO CRIMSON PYGMY BARBERRY 1GAL [ 2'MIN.OIA ROUND STAKE. BERG BERBERIS T. ROSE GLOWO ROSE GLOWBARBERRY 1GAL BEWM BERBER IS WM. PENND WM. PENN BARBERRY 1GAL v STAKES TO BE PLACED WEST CHTE CHOISYATERNATA MEXICAN ORANGE iGAL &EASTOFTREE. REMOVE CISU CISTUS sSUNSETO SUNSET ROCKROSE 1 GAL 3 AFTER ONE YEAR. EEE DAOD DAPHNEODORA WINTER DAPHNE 1GAL 1GAL j STRAP TYPEAUBBERlIES, ILCO ILEX CORNUTA YARISSAD CARISSA HOLLY NO WIAEAAOUND TRUNK. MAA11 MAHONIAADUIFOLIUM OREGON GRAPE 1GAL _ MA CO MAHONIA ADD FOLIUM 1COMPACTAO COMPACT OREGON GRAPE 1GAL k PA PIERIS MT. FIREL MT. FIRE PIERIS 1 GAL POFR POTENTILLA FR.;GOLDFINGERO GOLDFINGER CINDUEFOIL IGAL SET ROOT CROWN 1172' RHAR RHUS AROMATICA GRO-LOWD GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC 1GAL _ ? ABOVE FINAL GRADE RHEA RAPHIOLEPIS I. BALLERINAD BALLERINA INDIA HAWTHORN 1GAL RHBO RHODODENDRON iBOW BELLSD BOW BELLS RHODODENDRON 1GAL MULCH AS SPECIFIED RIGA RISES SANGUINEUM MNG EOWARDD KING EDWARD FLOWERING CURRANT 1GAL co t SOLI RACKFILL:3 PARTS ROBE ROSA BRED GROUNDCOVER ROSED RED GROUNDCOVER ROSE 1GAL v/nl J C I - TOPSOILT01 PARTCOMPOST SAPU SALIX PURPUREA ALASKA BLUEWILLOW 1GAL V J 0 SARU SARCOCOCCARUSCIFOLIA SWEETBOX IGAL °9 y m 11 CC) SPAN SPIRAEAJ. ANTHONY WATERERD ANTHONY WATERER SPIREA 1GAL L 0 SPLI SPIRABA J. itITTLE PRINCESSD LITTLE PRINCESS SPIREA IGAL L ® 0 + T~_ TTjj / GROUND COVERS&GRASSES 11=~ 12" ~ ' (n E TYp ~I ARCTO.UVA-URSIMASS.O MASS. KINNIKINNICK 1GAL030"O.C. DM N (p v VIII PACHYSANDRA TERMINALIS JAPANESE SPURGE iGALD 24"D.C. --I W 3 _ I PCRIPITDES OF PENNISETUM A. LITTLE BUNNYO LITTLE BUNNY FOUNTAIN GRASS 1GRl w Q 1~ lll~lll III III ~III~i- W U) CL m '-I l -1II hT> COMPACTED NATNE SOIL ! L1 0 0 PLANTING NOTES lJ > U .L ~ A. SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM, 0 i' SOIL PREPARATION, AND PLANTING REDUIREMENTS AT THE TIME OF BUILDING J W U `1 z 'I TREE PLANTING PERMIT SUBMITTAL J X J v NOT TO SCALE m B, AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM INCLUDING POP-UP SPRAY ANU LOR DRIP N I,• m IRRIGATION WILL BE INSTALLED FOR ALL NEW PLANTING BEDS AND LAWN AREAS. \ a+ ' COMPLETE IRRIGATION PLANS LMLL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING / C PERMIT SUBMITTAL. C. P.O.C.- IRRIGATION POINT OF CONNECTION TO WATER METER wLDOUBLE CHECK 3. W N U li BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND. Z co E W >N 2 D. ALL SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTER AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WTHA C ~ MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 2 INCHES OF UNSETTLED BARK MULCH. NW Y CU Z C) ~U) UQ Q~ W U ® W W Uv/ 0EL REVISIONS E G F ~ i U PLANT LIST, r NOTES & DETAILS 3 PROJECT: 14-032 ISSUE DATE: 09-0445 E C SHEET: N L2.1 F N 0 r G i OW.3 PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE # ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Site Review for five mixed use buildings. Solar Access Waiver, 5 lot subdivision DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? NO Street Address 123 Clear Creek Drive Assessor's Map No. 39 1E 5CD TL Tax Lot(s) 1803 Zoning E-1 with residential overlay Comp Plan Designation Detail Site Review Overlay APPLICANT Name John fields Phone 541-482-8442 E-Mail John aPgolden-fields.net Address 845 Oak Street City Ashland Zip 97520 PROPERTY OWNER Name Clear Creek Investments LLC !cooper investments Phone 541482-8442 E-Mail Address applicant City Zip. SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Architect Name Jerome White Phone 541-488-2830 E-Mail ieromePkistlersmallwhite.com Address 6 Water Street. Suite 101 city Ashland zip 97520 Title Survevor Name Polaris Survev Shawn Kampman Phone _(541) 482-5009 E-Mail Shawn Rpolarissurvey.corn Address Address P.O. Box 459 city Ashland zip97520 I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. 1 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 ff this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that 1 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 proper1y4oeated on_,jhagmund. Failure in this regard will result-most-likely,In not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. the any doubts, I am advised to seek competen)_professional advicaland assistance. Applicant's Signature -Date i As owner of the property involved in this request, /have read and understood the complete application and its consequences tome as a property owner. Property Owner's signature (required) Date IT.. c« W.Od by cky stag 90 Date Received / Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee OVER ® lo- G:ltomno-dev\planning\FOO115 & Handmrts\Zo. ins P-WI Apph mimdo Job Address: 123 CLEAR CREEK DR Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A Owner's Name: CLEAR CREEK INVESTMENTS LLC 0 Phone: P Customer 07795 N State Lic No: P JOHN FIELDS T City Lic No: L Applicant: 845 OAK ST R I Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: T Address: N Applied: 12/04/2015 0 T Issued: Expires: 06/01/2016 Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: 391E04CD1803 City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: Commercial Site Review VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Commercial Site Review (type2) 11,581.80 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 CITY OF -ASH LAN wD