The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHelman_705_PA-T2-2020-00020BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 22, 2020 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2020-00020, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVALS TO } ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 23,755 SQUARE FOOT, SINGLE -STORY) CLASSROOM BUILDING FOR THE HELMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY) AT 705 HELMAN STREET. THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS TO ) ALLOW EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING NON -CONFORMING DEVELOPMENT ) WHERE BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARKING AND CIRCULATION ARE ) FINDINGS, LOCATED BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AND THE STREET, AND FOR THE RE- ) CONCLUSIONS & LOCATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIGNS. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES ) ORDERS THE DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING CLASSROOM BUILDINGS --- THE A AND B) QUADS - AND REQUESTS A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE A TOTAL OF) 12 SIGNIFICANT TREES. } OWNER/APPLICANT. HMK COMPANY/ASHLAND SCHOOL DIST. #5 ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lots 600, 2700, 2800 & 2900 of Map 39 1E 04BD comprise the Helman Elementary School campus located at 705 Helman Street and are zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5). 2) The applicant is requesting Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals to allow the construction of a new 23,755 square foot, single -story school building for the Helman Elementary School property at 705 Helman Street. The requested Conditional Use Permit is to allow the expansion of an existing non -conforming development where both the existing and proposed new parking and circulation are located between the buildings and the street, and for the on -site relocation of a previously approved signage. The proposal includes the demolition of two existing classroom buildings ("A Quad" and "B Quad") and requests a Tree Removal Permit to remove 12 significant trees. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are detailed 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. 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, PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 1 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 9 or Z below, are found to exist. 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 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 approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are detailed in AMC 18.5.4.050.A as follows: 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4,050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. C. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e, Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. b. R_1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 2 5) The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B as follows: 1. Hazard Tree, A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i, e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18, &. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18, 5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit, 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent frees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e, The City shall require the applicant to mitigate far the removal of each free granted approval pursuant to section 18.5, 7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 6) The Demolition and Relocation Standards are described in detail in AMC 15.04.216 as follows: A. For demolition or relocation of structures erected more than 45 years prior to the date of the application: 1. The applicant must demonstrate that either subparagraphs a orb apply: a. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any economically beneficial use of the property. In determining whether an economically beneficial use can be made of the property, the Demolition Review committee may require the applicant to: (i} Furnish an economic feasibility report prepared by an architect, developer, or appraiser, or other person who is experienced in PA-12-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 3 rehabilitation of buildings that addresses the estimated market value of the property an which the building lies, both before and after demolition or removal, or (ii) Market the property utilizing a marketing plan approved by the Demolition Review Committee or by advertising the property in the Ashland Daily Tidings and Medford Mail Tribune at least eight times and at regular intervals for at least 90 days and by posting a for sale sign on the property, four to six square feet in size and clearly visible from the street, for the same 90 day period. b. The structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound despite efforts by the owner to properly maintain the structure. In addition to subparagraphs a orb above, the applicant must also: a. Submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for replacement or rebuilt structure for the structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being demolished or relocated is less than 1,000 square feet. If the structure is less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all replacement or rebuilt structures. No replacement structure is required, however, if., (i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would, or (ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a nonhabitable accessory structure. b. Demonstrate, if the application is for a demolition, the structure cannot be practicably relocated to another site. 3. if a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan: a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.A.2. b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the building permit has been issued for the replacement or rebuilt structure, unless the site is restricted to open spaces uses as provided in section 15.04.216.A.2. 4, The Demolition Review Committee may require the applicant to post with the City a bond, or other suitable collateral as determined by the City administrator, ensuring the safe demolition of the structure and the completed performance of the redevelopment plan. PA- 2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 4 8. For demolition or relocation of structures erected less than 45 years from the date of the application: The applicant., a. Has the burden of proving the structure was erected less than 45 years from the date of the application. Any structure erected less than 45 years from the date of the application, which replaced a structure demolished or relocated under section 15.04.216, shall be considered a structure subject to the standards in subsections 15.04.216. b, Must submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for a replacement or rebuilt structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being demolished ore relocated is less than 1,000 square feet. If the structure is less than 1, 000 square feet, the replacement structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all replacement or rebuilt structures. No replacement structure is required, however, if: (i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would, or (ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a nonhabitable accessory structure. 2. If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan. a. Requires a site review permit no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.B. b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition orrelocation may occur until a building permit has been issued for the structure or structures to be replaced or rebuilt, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.B. C. For any demolition approved under this section, the applicant is required to salvage or recycle construction and demolition debris, in accordance with a demolition debris diversion plan that complies with the requirements adopted the Demolition Review Committee. The applicant shall submit such a plan with the application for demolition. For any relocation approved under this section, the applicant must also comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.08. (Ord. 2925, amended, 04/18/2006; Ord. 2891, amended, 11/19/2002; Ord. 2858, amended, 06/20/2000; Ord. 285Z added, 0112112000) PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 5 7) On April 15, 2020 Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order 420-16 "Keep Government Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued Operations by Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak." The Governor's Order required that public bodies hold public meetings by telephone, video, or through some other electronic or virtual means, whenever possible; that the public body make available a method by which the public can listen to or virtually attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs; that the public body does not have to provide a physical space for the public to attend the meeting or hearing; that requirements that oral public testimony be taken during hearings be suspended, and that public bodies instead provide a means for submitting written testimony by e-mail or other electronic methods that the public body can consider in a timely manner. The Oregon Legislature subsequently passed House Bill #4212 which authorizes local governments to hold all meetings of their governing bodies, including taking public testimony, using telephone or video conferencing technology or through other electronic or virtual means provided that they supply a means by which the public can listen to or observe the meeting. This bill requires that recordings of the meetings be made available to the public if technology allows, and includes provisions similar to the Governor's order allowing public testimony to be taken in writing via e-mail or other electronic means. 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing on July 14, 2020. In keeping with Executive Order #20-16, this meeting was broadcast live on local television channel 9 and on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, and was live -streamed over the internet on RVTV Prime at rvtv.sou.edu. The application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, ,and the staff report were made available on-line seven days prior to the hearing, with in person review by appointment, and printed copies available at a reasonable cost. Those wishing to provide testimony were invited to submit written comments via e-mail by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, July 13, 2020, and the applicant was able to provide written rebuttal to this testimony by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2020. Comments and rebuttal received were made available on-line and e-mailed to Planning Commissioners before the hearing and included in the meeting minutes. As provided in the Governor's Executive Order 420-16, testimony was also taken electronically during the tele-conferenced meeting from those members of the public who had pre -arranged to provide oral testimony by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2020. After the closing of the hearing and the record, the Planning Commission deliberated and 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. EXMITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the index of exhibits, data, and testimony below will be used: Staff Exhibits lettered with an " S " PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 6 Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an " 0 " Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the staff report, written public testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review approval, Conditional Use Permit, and Tree Removal Permit meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review described in AMC 18.5.2.050; for Conditional Use Permit described in AMC 18.5.4.050; and for a Tree Removal Permit described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B. 2.3 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval. The first approval criterion addresses the requirements of the underlying zone, requiring 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 Planning Commission finds that the building and yard setbacks and other applicable standards have been evaluated to ensure consistency with the applicable provisions of part 18.2, and all regulations of the underlying R- 1-5 zoning will be satisfied. The second approval criterion deals with overlay zones, and requires that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). " The Planning Commission finds that the property is within the Performance Standards Option (PSO) overlay zone, which requires that all developments other than partitions or individual buildings be processed under Chapter 18.3.9., however the proposal here is limited to the development of school buildings on existing lots and does not require subdivision of the property. The Planning Commission further finds that the subject property is located within the Wildfire Lands Overlay, and as such a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 will need to be provided for the review and approval of the Fire Marshal prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property. New landscaping proposed will need to comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. Conditions to this effect have been included below. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that this criterion is satisfied. PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 7 The third criterion addresses the Site Development and Design Standards, requiring that "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. " The Planning Commission finds that as proposed, the new classroom building being considered is being placed more than 100 feet from the sidewalk, and existing parking and circulation between the campus buildings and the street is being expanded through requests for Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards and a Conditional Use Permit discussed later in this section and in section 2.4. Parking areas are being shifted away from the street, on -site stormwater detention and new landscaping are being added, and controlled access standards better addressed with the removal of a driveway which currently exits into the crosswalk at the corner of Helman and Randy Streets. The Planning Commission notes that automobile parking and circulation are discussed in detail in Section 2.4 below. With regard to bicycle parking, the Planning Commission notes that 70 covered bicycle parking spaces are required, based on the applicable ratios in AMC 18.4.3.070 of one covered space for every five students and an enrollment capacity of 350 students. The application explains that only 12 covered bicycle parking spaces are in place, and that the applicant proposes to add a 20 stall bicycle parking structure on the north side of campus accessible from Randy Street and an additional 29 space structure west of the new parking lot along Helman Street to yield a total of 61 covered bicycle spaces, or roughly 87 percent of the 70 spaces required. The Planning Commission further notes that with the approval of the gym and library additions in Planning Action #2007-01756, 66 bicycle parking spaces were required for the 330 student enrollment. At the time, there were 68 spaces already in place on campus in uncovered non-standard racks, and 12 new covered city -standard bicycle parking spaces were added adjacent to the new gym so that a total of 80 bicycle parking spaces available on campus. The Planning Commission finds here that since previously required bicycle parking has been removed since the last approval and no Variance has been requested, the full required 70 covered bicycle parking spaces are required. The Planning Commission notes that the current proposal includes the construction of a new security fence around the perimeter of the campus to control access. Presently, there is a paved pedestrian access casement from the cul-de-sac on Parkside Drive, near 535 Parkside Drive, to the south of campus which was required to be provided with the adjacent subdivision to the south to enable students to safely and efficiently access campus. The Commission here finds that given that the Pedestrian Access and Circulation Standards in AMC 18.4.3.090.B.3.b call for providing pedestrian connections to off -site adjacent uses to the site to the extent practicable and that there is already an improved easement in place to provide just such a connection, restricting this access during pick-up and drop-off times would run counter to the Pedestrian Access and Circulation Standards. The Commission therefore finds that at a minimum, the proposal needs to be modified to provide a gated neighborhood access point that can be un- locked during pick-up and drop-off periods to enable a safe and direct route to school for students living in the subdivision to the south rather than requiring a more indirect and circuitous route to campus. A condition to this effect is included below as Condition #7k. PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 8 The fourth approval criterion addresses city facilities, specifically requiring 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 subjectproperty. " The Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of city facilities, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. The Commission notes that existing services are in place and currently serve the campus and its buildings. The applicant asserts that adequate city facilities exist to service the proposed new classroom building, and further indicates that the proposal substantially upgrades the storm drainage facilities, which are currently inadequate. The applicant emphasizes that the civil engineering plans (Sheets C2.1 Erosion Control Plan, C3.0 Overall Civil Site Plan, and C.4 Overall Grading and Drainage Plan) provide necessary details to demonstrate proposed site development and construction can comply with city standards. The applicant further details: Water: There is an existing six-inch water main in Heiman Street, and a six-inch main in Randy Street. There are fire hydrants on Randy Street including a hydrant and fire sprinkler vault west of the gymnasium building. There are hydrants on Heiman Street. A fire connection vault is proposed to be located adjacent to Heiman Street. The water line sizes are substantial and water pressure is 90 p.s.i. at the Heiman Street hydrant, which is adequate to address the water needs for the new structure. • Sewer: There is an eight -inch sanitary sewer line in Randy Street, and there are 18-inch and 12-inch sanitary sewer lines in Heiman Street. The applicant notes that in discussion with the Wastewater Department Supervisor, no capacity issues with the public sanitary sewer lines have been identified. • Electrical: There are major overhead electrical facilities along Heiman Street, and private facilities including junction boxes and vaults are in place. The application explains that the new structure has been designed and engineered to be solar -ready, and areas for future solar panel installation have been reserved in the roof plan. The applicant indicates that they are unaware of any electrical capacity issues. • Urban Storm Drainage: There is an 18-inch storm sewer main in Heiman Street. The development proposal includes substantial storm water quality improvements including the creation of two large landscaped bio-swales. The final Civil engineering will be designed to the standards of the DEQ IVIS4 General Permit, Phase 2, and the storm water system also be designed to comply with all of Ashland's specific storm water quality design standards. • Transportation: The applicant notes that there are existing curbside sidewalks in place along all frontages, and indicates that no changes to the existing curbside sidewalk configuration are proposed. According to the Transportation System Plan, Laurel Street is classified as a Residential Neighborhood Collector. Laurel was recently subject to a Local Improvement District to install sidewalks in the Heiman School neighborhood, and no changes to the Laurel Street frontage are proposed. PA-12-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 9 Randy Street is a classified as a Neighborhood Residential Street, and currently has paving, curbs, gutters and curbside sidewalks in place along the property frontage, but no parkrows. The proposal would remove 3 of the five existing driveway curb cuts on Randy, including one that is immediately adjacent to the intersection and crosswalk, and reinstall a new driveway cut in a location which complies with controlled access standards and serves a new one-way circulation. The applicant emphasizes that these proposed changes to the driveways improve pedestrian safety by increasing driveway spacing away from the most heavily used intersection, while the proposed changes to the parking areas increase the length of the driveway and vehicular maneuvering area on site in order to better accommodate parent drop-off and pick-up on site, without pushing traffic onto the adjacent public streets, and the new one-way vehicular traffic circulation is to increase student and pedestrian safety. Heiman Street is considered an Avenue. Heiman Street along the frontage of the school is not improved to current avenue standards —there is paving, curb, gutter and curbside sidewalks in place, but no parkrows. The application proposes to plant street trees behind the sidewalk and retain two existing driveway curb cuts and add one additional new driveway cut which complies with controlled access standards. No other changes to the Heiman Street frontage are proposed by the applicant. The Planning Commission notes that the application materials assert that facilities are in place to serve the existing campus buildings, and adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the new classroom building, and that based on consultations with representatives of the various City departments (i.e. water, sewer, streets and electric) the proposed addition will not cause a City facility. to operate beyond capacity. The Commission further finds that the project is intended to improve accessibility, safety, security and site circulation, but with the demolitions and addition proposed, neither the student enrollment or staffing are to be increased. The application includes civil drawings to address the changes in site grading, drainage, utilities and access associated with the proposal, and conditions have been included below to require that final civil drawings detailing the final utility and infrastructure improvements be provided for review and approval prior of the Building, Planning, Fire, Public Works and Electric Departments prior to building permit issuance. The Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. The final criterion for Site Design Review approval addresses "Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards." The application materials recognize that the existing and proposed site development including the placement of parking and vehicular access between the buildings and the street, placement of the new building roughly 180 feet from the property line and not oriented to the coiner of Helman and Randy Street, and the lack of pedestrian entrances open to the general public from the sidewalk necessitate exception to the design standards. The applicant suggests that the use of the site as an elementary school can be found to be a unique which poses a demonstrable difficulty in meeting these standards in that schools in 2020 cannot be open to the PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 10 general public Iike the typical commercial building considered in the standards. For student and staff safety and security, access to the campus must be restricted, and the funding source for the current project is through a local bond measure which sought to improve accessibility, structural safety, energy efficiency and campus security for an elementary school original built in 1960's. And the existing site layout establishes building and parking placement which pose challenges to increasing compliance with the applicable standards without full redevelopment of the campus. The applicant concludes that the exceptions requested are the minimum necessary to accommodate the re -development of the parking area and allow for the construction of a new classroom building. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal involves the demolition of the two existing quad buildings nearest the comer of Helman and Randy Street, and the placement of a proposed new classroom addition more central to the campus rather than removing parking to put them nearer the corner. The Planning Commission concurs with the applicant that the unique nature of the elementary school use poses challenges in meeting standards seeking a streetscape orientation without parking between buildings and the street and placement of buildings close to the sidewalk in that while a school is a public building subject to the Basic Site Review Standards for Non -Residential Development, it is at the same time a use which requires campus access controls to insure the safety and security of students and staff, and which seeks to avoid bringing cars into the mix of uses interior to the campus. The Planning Commission notes that while the new classroom building is being placed in a location more central to the campus, rather than orienting to the corner as the standards would seek, the applicant is creating a new main entry plaza which orients the campus better to the corner and the neighborhood and places campus administrative functions in a location where they can oversee a single, controlled campus access point. The new classroom building responds to the campus character and broader neighborhood context through a scale and placement which also attempts to preserve views of Mt. Ashland and Grizzly Peak for the campus and its neighbors. The Commission finds that the proposed site plan creates a more cohesive campus with a strong central interior courtyard space centered on the library, provides a layout where access can be better controlled to maintain campus security, improves the campus orientation to the corner, improves pedestrian safety by addressing existing non -conforming driveway locations near the Helman and Randy intersection, and provides for new on -site detention of storm water in proximity to the parking as called for in current standards. The Commission further finds that the proposed improvements are in keeping with the general intent of the standards. The PIanning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Site Design Review approval. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable standards for Conditional Use Permit approval with regard to the expansion of a non -conforming development. The Commission notes that the first criterion for Conditional Use Permit approval is, "That the use would he in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program." The Planning Commission notes that the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 8 "Parks, Open Space & Aesthetics" speaks specifically to school playgrounds and fields in terms of their community role as PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 11 neighborhood parks, used as recreation space by nearby neighbors outside school hours, directly related to neighborhood character, and having the advantage of being available during summer months and non - school hours to provide recreational facilities for all age groups. The Commission further notes that the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element (10,10.07) speaks to "neighborhood connectors" as separate off -road pedestrian and/or bikeways which minimize travel distances within and between residential areas and schools, shopping and workplaces where street connections are infeasible. For example, these short multi -use paths are useful to provide connectivity for cul-de-sac streets and dead end streets, as is the case with the easement to the south connecting the campus to Parkview Drive, and the Comprehensive Plan includes a policy to require such pedestrian and bicycle easements to provide neighborhood connectors, and thus reduce vehicle trips, with development. The Planning Commission finds that the use of the property as a public school is an allowed use in the zone and the setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and parking conform to the R-1-5 zoning district standards, and further finds here that the Conditional Use Permit request here is limited to considering the expansion of the existing non -conforming development which places parking and associated vehicular circulation between the buildings and the street. The second criterion for a Conditional Use Permit is, "That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property." As noted in Section 2.3 above, the application includes civil drawings detailing site grading, drainage, utilities and access associated with the proposal, and conditions have been included to require that final engineered civil drawings detailing the utility and infrastructure improvements be provided for review prior to building permit issuance, and the Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of City facilities can and will be provided. The Planning Commission notes that the third Conditional Use Permit criterion is, "That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4. 050.A. 5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage; b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. -Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities; c) Architectural compatibility with the impact area; d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants; e) Generation of noise, light, and glare; fl The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and g} Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use." In weighing these impacts, the criteria here explain that the target use in the R-1 zones is residential use developed to the densities detailed in AMC 18.2.5, which for the R-1-5 zoning here is 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The roughly 9.5 acres campus, the Commission finds that for purposes of comparison the school property could accommodate roughly 42.75 dwelling units. In considering the adverse material impacts of the increase in parking and circulation between the buildings and the street, the Commission finds that the adverse impacts may include the aesthetic impacts of pavement and parked cars at a scale out of character in a residential zone; the environmental impacts, PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 12 including increased stormwater run-off, an increase in the urban heat island effect, exhaust fumes, noise and headlight glare; and the pedestrian impacts of paving and parked and circulating vehicles posing obstacles to pedestrians seeking to navigate from the sidewalk corridor to building entrances and of impediments to the neighborhood connectivity such as the pedestrian easement to the subdivision to the south, which are typically sought with development through development standards and supported by the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission finds that in the approval of the gym and library additions in 2008-2009 (PA- 2007-01756), 60 automobile parking spaces were required to serve the 240 seat capacity of the gym at the then -applicable parking ratio of one space per four seats. The parking in place was found to satisfy the parking requirements with 53 parking spaces to be provided off-street and the remaining seven spaces required addressed through on -street parking credits as the school property has a total of approximately 1,998 lineal feet of frontage on the three adjacent streets. The Commission further finds that current parking ratios require one parking space per 75 square feet of public assembly area, and the 4,725 square feet of assembly space here require 63 spaces. The applicant notes that there are now only 49 spaces in place on site, and proposes to add a new 17 space parking lot between the building and the street to fully accommodate the parking required on -site, with no reliance on on -street parking credits. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed increase in parking between the building and the street seeks to bring the site into compliance with current parking ratios and to reconfigure circulation and parking in such a way that pick-up and drop-off impacts can be better absorbed on the campus itself and in so doing limit the effects of traffic on the surrounding streets. The Commission finds that there are benefits to better accommodating more of the vehicular queuing on site and in reconfiguring parking to address ratios, minimize on -street impacts and provide new areas for stormwater detention, but further finds that to fully balance the negative impacts to the neighborhood and streetscape of placing more parking between the buildings and the street, the new main entry plaza treatment should be extended with light- coloredlpen- eable pavers, scored concrete or a similar treatment to include the driveway and seven spaces between the new plaza and the corner to provide an extension of the plaza space which strengthens the plaza and the campus orientation to the corner; reduces the aesthetic, environmental and pedestrian impacts between the buildings and comer; and still retains the potential to accommodate parking when needed. In addition, the Commission finds that the role the school's playgrounds and greenspaces serve both in providing essential neighborhood recreational space outside of school hours as recognized in the "Parks, Open Space & Aesthetics" chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and in providing neighborhood connectivity is crucial in offsetting the adverse aesthetic, environmental and pedestrian impacts of the school on the surrounding residential neighborhood and has accordingly included Condition 411 requiring, "That, outside of regular school hours and school events, the perimeter gates shall remain unlocked so as to not to unreasonably limit or restrict access school playgrounds and greenspaces." The Commission finds that with the modified parking treatment near the plaza, the changes to parking and circulation including improved driveway spacing near the Helman and Randy can be found to be beneficial to pedestrian safety while lessening impacts to the streetscape from pick-up and drop-off traffic and strengthening the campus's presence in the neighborhood streetscape with the new main entry plaza at the corner. PA-U-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 13 The fourth criterion is that, "A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance." Here, the Planning Commission finds that as detailed in AMC Table 18.2.2.030.D, public schools are a permitted use in all R-1 zones. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Conditional Use Permit approval. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable standards for Conditional Use Permit approval with regard to modification to the School District's approved sign permit program under AMC 18.4.7.120 which provides that, "Governmental agencies may apply for a Conditional Use Permit to place a sign that does not conform to this chapter when it is determined that, in addition to meeting the criteria for a conditional use, the sign is necessary to further that agency's public purpose. " Helman School's murals were originally approved in Planning Action 2009-00322, and were subsequently incorporated into the district's master sign permit program under Planning Action. PA-2012-00899 which allowed a dragon wall graphic on the then -new gym and two existing student-designed/student-installed tile murals in addition to wall, ground and directional signage. A number of other murals and a tile -mosaic bench are also in place on campus, but are exempt from permitting because they are not visible from the adjacent public rights -of -way. As proposed, the dragon the mural on the north side of the administration building, facing Randy Street, will be moved with demolition and replaced on a wall to be installed to screen mechanical equipment. With the move, the mural will be visible from Helman Street. In originally administratively approving the murals in 2009, staff found that the student-designed/student- installed murals directly served the school's public purpose not only in providing a direct and creative participatory educational experience but also in fostering a sense of connectedness between the students, the built environment of the school and their larger community. With the demolition of the two quad buildings, the applicant has proposed to relocate the dragon tile mural, and the Commission finds that this relocation remains in keeping with the original sign permit approval. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable standards for a Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard. The first approval criterion for a Tree Removal Permit is that, "The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10." The Commission notes that 12 significant trees are proposed for removal, and that the applicant explains that the removals are to permit the proposal to be consistent with applicable ordinance requirements and standards, including applicable Site Development and Design Standards. The second approval criterion is that, "Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks." The applicant indicates that the requested tree removals will not have significant negative impacts on erosion, soil stability, the flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, and further PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 14 explains that the areas where trees are to be removed will be redeveloped with structures, handscaping, or will re -landscaped. The third criterion is that, "Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone." The applicant indicates that there are several trees within 200-feet of the subject property, and further suggests that the relative proximity to the heavily vegetated Ashland Creek corridor across Helman Street provides substantial species diversity, canopy coverage, and tree densities in the vicinity. The applicant concludes that the proposed development will ultimately replace the canopy, tree densities, sizes, and species diversity associated with the requested removals. The fourth criterion for Tree Removal Permit approval notes that, "Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance." The Commission finds that there is no residential component associated with the current application. The final Tree Removal criterion is that, "The City shall require the applicant to mitigate far the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit." The Commission finds that mitigation trees sufficient to meet this requirement are proposed throughout the property. 12 significant trees proposed for removal and the Landscape Plants plans (Sheets L3.00-L3.01) call for over 50 replacement trees including Kentucky Coffee trees, Zelkovas, flowering Cherries, Maple, Birch, and Lindens and include planting of new required street trees and 26 proposed shade trees for the parking areas to reduce the microclirnatic impacts of the pavement. The Commission further notes that the Ashland Tree Commission was unable to convene its regular monthly meeting for July of 2020 due to the City Administrator's state of emergency declaration for the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which suspended advisory commission meetings. As such there is no Tree Commission recommendation. As provided in AMC 2.25.040, the failure of the Tree Commission to make a recommendation on any individual planning action shall not invalidate that action. The Commission finds that the remaining trees which are to be preserved are proposed to be protected with six-foot tall chain link fencing as recommended by the arborist and required in the City's Tree Preservation & Protection Ordinance (AMC 18.4.5). Conditions have been included to require tree protection fencing installation and verification before site work. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Tree Protection and for Tree Removal Permits to remove a total of 12 significant trees. PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 15 2.5 With regard to the proposed demolition of the "A" and "B" quad buildings, the Planning Commission notes that the demolition and relocation of existing buildings is regulated through AMC Chapter 15 "Buildings and Construction" with approval of permits by the Building Official and the potential for appeal to the Demolition Review Committee. The Commission finds that the applicant has indicated that the two quad buildings are to be demolished following completion of the new classroom building, and a condition has been included below to make clear that the applicant will need to obtain requisite permits for demolition through the Building Official prior to commencement of demolition work. 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, Conditional Use and Tree Removal permit approvals to construct a new 23,755 square -foot, single -story classroom building and associated changes to the campus site planning, relocate approved signage and remove 12 significant trees is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. The school property is an existing non -conforming development in that the existing placement of parking between the buildings and the streets is contrary to the city's Basic Site Review standards which seek to place parking behind buildings or to one side and have the building placed at and oriented to the streetscape. As proposed here, this non -conformity would be retained and expanded through a Conditional Use Permit. The Commission finds that both the existing building lay -out on site and the school use pose difficulties in complying with the standards and as proposed the applicant is creating a new entry plaza near the corner of Heiman and Randy Streets which creates an overall campus orientation to the corner and the neighborhood and places the school's administrative functions at a single, controllable access point for the sake of campus safety and security. The proposed new building's placement and scale are in direct response to a community public process by the School District which ultimately identified the need for a single -story structure placed more interior to the campus to preserve views of Mt. Ashland and Grizzly Peak for the campus and for the neighborhood, and in so doing a more cohesive campus with a central interior courtyard will be created and the library will become a clear center for the campus. In addition, with the changes proposed the controlled access issues with the northern parking lot's driveway exiting into the crosswalk are to be remedied, new on -site storm water detention facilities installed to better respond to standards, and site circulation issues addressed to handle a greater proportion of the daily pick-up and drop-off traffic and parking on -site rather than in the surround neighborhood streetscape. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2020-00020. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 42020-00020 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1. That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise 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 substantial PA-T'2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 16 conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of signage. Signage shall be consistent with that described herein and shall be placed in a manner consistent with the vision clearance standards of AMC 18.2.4.040. 4. That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved addressing; fire apparatus access including aerial ladder access, turn -around, firefighter access pathways and work area; fire hydrant spacing, distance and clearance; fire flow; fire sprinkler system if applicable; fire extinguishers; limitations on gates or fences; providing required fuel breaks; and meeting the general fuel modification area standards. 5. That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the surrounding streets, and the location and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 6. That the applicant shall obtain applicable demolition permits through the Building Division if deemed necessary by the Building Official prior to the commencement of any building demolition on site. 7. That building permit submittals shall include: a. The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or private utility, irrigation and drainage 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 Iighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d. Revised landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised plans shall address: 1) required size and species -specific planting details and associated irrigation plan modifications, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications; 2) 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 50 percent, and the calculations shall demonstrate that the requisite 50 percent landscaping and seven percent parking lot landscaping are provided; 3) the mitigation requirements of AMC 18.5.7 by detailing the mitigation for the 12 significant trees to be removed on a one -for -one basis through replanting planting on -site, replanting off -site, or payment to the city's Tree Fund in lieu of replanting; and 4) sight -obscuring screening of PA-`i2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 17 the parking lot with a landscape buffer in keeping with the requirements of AMC 18.4.3.080.E.6.a.iv and 18.4.4.030.F.2. e. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable PIant List per Resolution 2018-028. f. Final storm water drainage, grading and erosion control plans for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments. The storm water plan shall address Public Works/Engineering standards requiring that post -development peak flows not exceed pre -development levels. Any necessary drainage improvements to address the site's storm water 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. g. A final utility plan for the prejeet 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. The utility plan shall also address Water Department requirements relative to cross connections and premises isolation. 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. h. A final electric design and distribution plan including Ioad 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. That the applicants shall provide final engineered plans for any work in the street rights - of -way including any changes to sidewalks, driveway aprons or pedestrian crossings for the review of the Planning and Public Works/Engineering Departments. PA-n-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 18 j. Identification of required bicycle parking, which includes 70 covered bicycle parking spaces. Inverted a -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. k. A revised site plan that extends the new entry plaza treatment (i.e. light-colored, permeable pavers, scored concrete or similar) to include the driveway and seven parking spaces between the new plaza and the corner to provide an extension of the plaza space, strengthen the plaza while retaining the potential to accommodate overflow parking as needed; and provides a gated access point from the Parkside Drive pedestrian easement to allow its use during pick-up and drop-off times. 8. That prior to any site work including staging, storage of materials, demolition or tree removal, the applicant shall mark the trees to be removed and install protection fencing for the trees to be retained, and obtain a Tree Verification Inspection so that the Staff Advisor can verify that the trees identified on site for removal are consistent with the approved plan, and that those trees to be protected have tree protection fencing in place in a manner consistent with the approved plans. 9. That prior to the issuance of a building permit all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and connections fees for any new utilities, and applicable system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for existing structures) shall be paid. 10. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final project approval: a. That the required automobile and bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. b. All hadscaping including the sidewalk corridor, on site circulations routes, parking lots and driveways; landscaping; and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. C. That the screening for the trash and recycling containers shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Development Standards prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with 18.4.4.040. d. That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. C. All required utility service and equipment installations and street frontage improvements, shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. f. Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted and irrigated according to the approved plan, or alternative mitigation demonstrated. PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 19 I I. That, outside of regular school hours and school events, the perimeter gates shall remain unlocked so as to not to unreasonably limit or restrict access school playgrounds and greenspaces. Planni g Commission Approval September 22, 2020 Date PA-T2-2020-00020 September 22, 2020 Page 20 September 23, 2020 Notice of Final Decision The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA-T2-2020-00020 Subject Property: 705 HeInian Street Applicant: HMK Company/Ashland School District 95 Description: A request for site design review and conditional use permit approvals to allow the construction of a new 23,755 square foot, single -story classroom building for, the Helman Elementary School property at 705 1 lelman Street. The requested conditional use permits is to allow expansion of an existing non -conforming development where both existing and proposed parking and circulation are located between the buildings and the street, and for the relocation of previously approved signs. The proposal includes the demolition of two existing classroom buildings the A and B Quads — and requests a tree removal permit to remove a total of 12 significant trees. 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 DepartIlleDt at (541) 488-5305. cc: Ashland School District #5 Adroit Construction Co. BBT Architects FIMK Company KenCairn Landscape Architecture Rogue Planning & Development Walker Structural Engineering Powell Engineering COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn *ay Fax 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 SECTION 18.5.1.060.1 1. Appeal of Type H Decision. The City Council may call up a Type 11 decision pursuant to section 18.5.1.060.J. A Type 11 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. lVolice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.1.1, above, may appeal a Type 11 decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures Of this Subsection. b. Time.for F'ifing. 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 qfN6tice qfAppeal. 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 ajurisdictional 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 18,51,060.1-1. 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 I 8.5.1.060.1.4.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 firnes 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. 1). 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. i. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the . ..... . ...... COMMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541 A88-5305 51 ftbLirn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY! 800-735-2900 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 OD 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 rnay 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 It 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 party 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 Delibercttions. Upon review, and except when ]united 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 SUIntuarily remand the matter to the P'lanning Commission. If the Council elects to remand a decision to the Commission, either sun-nuarily or otherwise, the Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to subsection I 8.5,1.060.J. 6. Record of the Public FIcaring. 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 Win burn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 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 DVD,s when arvailable). f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application; The i-ninutes of the hearing, g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings aiad conclusions., 7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board. of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type 11 applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council decisions on Type 11 applications Must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197M5 - 19T8W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY800-735-2900 The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashiland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On September 23, 2020 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 an the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA-T2-2020-00020, 705 Helman Street. Signature of Employee C.1Userslsrn:lGh:da.AFNHEDesktop4AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING.dou 903/2020 PA-T2-2020-00020 PA-T2-2020-00020 HMK COMPANY MIKE FREEMAN ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 60 2ND STREET, #602 33 N. CENTRAL, STE, 213 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-T2-2020-00020 PA-T2-2020-00020 WALKER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BBT ARCHITECTS JONNY WALKER 1140 SW SIMPSON AVE., STE. 200 2863 NW CROSSING DR, STE. 201 BEND, OR 97702 BEND, OR 97701 PA-T2-2020-00020 PA-T2-2020-00020 ADROIT CONSTRUCTION CO. KYLE POWELL ENGINEERING TODD POWELL LUMSDEN 1874 ROSSANLEY DR 185 MISTLETOE RD MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00020 HMK COMPANY 46 N. FRONT ST 9201 MEDFORD, OR 97501 391 E04BC600 PA-T2-2020-00020 ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT #5 STEVE MITZEL 885 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00020 KENCAIRN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE KERRY KENCAIRN 545 A STREET, STE. 3 ASHLAND, OR 97520 705 Helman 09/23/2020 NOD 9 From. Regan Tram To: Michael Orendurff; lR anning subject; RE: PA-1-2-2020-00020 Date: Monday, August 03, 2020 9:02:26 AM Thank you. Your comment has been received. R" X, 'r% Permit Technician II — Community Development City of Ashland Regan.Trapp0ashland.or.us 541-552-2233 TTY 800-735-2900 541-488-6006 (fax) This email is official: business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541-552-2233. Thank you. From: Michael Orendurff [mailto:morendurff@hotmaii.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2020 1:08 PM To: planning <planning@ashland.or.us> Subject: PA-T2-2020-00020 [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Planning Commission Members: Please make the developers move the fencing on the south side of the Heiman School project northward l2ft to maintain the existing walking path access to both Heiman and Laurel Streets for our neighborhood. This is essential maintain the walking access to many features in our neighborhood, including access to the bike path, the dog park, the BMX track and the surrounding neighborhoods. We appreciate the need to have a secured campus for the school, but we need to maintain our ability to walk in our neighborhood. Received e.3.2020 a m m I I Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, AsNand, Oregon 97520 C I T Y 0 F rp, 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2020-00020 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 705 Heiman Street (Holman Elementary School) APPLICANTIOWNER: HMK Company/Ashland School District #5 DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals to allow the construction of a new 23,755 square foot, single -story school building for the Heiman Elementary School property at 705 Heiman Street, The requested Conditional Use Permit is to allow the expansion of an existing non -conforming development pattern where both the existing and proposed new parking and circulation are located between the buildings and the street, and for the on -site relocation of previously approved signage. The proposal includes the demolition of two existing classroom buildings (the A & B quad's) and requests a Tree Removal Permit to remove 12 significant trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1 -5; MAP: 39 1 E 04 13D; TAX LOTS: 600, 2700, 2800 & 2900. Ci':\c.omni-dev\T)Ja�iniii�\Planning AoionOAs by SVeetU1\He1,na,AHe1,,=_705 liefinan lsteni\PA-T2-2020-D�)02()\Noticiii,\Ilelinnn_705 PA-T2-2020-0002Q_N0C.d0cK Notice iahereby given that the AshlaudPlanning Commission will hold! emelectronic public hearing onthe above described planning action mmthe meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting onlocal channel 9.onCharter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.edLi and selecting 'RyTV Prime.' The ordinance criteria applicable tothis planning action are attached to this notice0naAon law states that failure tn raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers an opportunity to respond to the ioaue, 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 ofappeal to LUB/\ on that criterion. Failure of the appficant 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 on action for damages in circuit court. Because ofthe COV|D'1Qpandem|c.opp)icodommmterie|eareprovidedon|imeondwrittenoommentsvvi||beanceptedhy ennsiL/\|terna#ve arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305or lanninqObasManid.or. LIS. Acopy ofthe application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line at seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable ooat, if requested. Under extenuating oiruummtanoem, application mubarimUm may be requested to be reviewed in -person atthe Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51VNnburnWay, via apre-arranged appointment bycalling (541)488'53D5oremei|img Anyone wishing bosubmit comments can dosobysending ane-mail to with the subject line "July 14PCHearing Testimony" by1O:OOa.m onMonday, July 13.2U2U. Ifthe applicant wishes toprovide o rebuttal tnthe testimony, they can Submit the rebuttal via e-mail to with the subject line "Ju]yi4 PC Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a,m, on Tuesday, July 14, 2020. Written testirriony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. if you vv|ah to provide mrmi testimony during the electronic meet[ng.send anemail tn by1O:UO4.m.onTuesday, July 14.2O28.|norder tg provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make thesubject line of the email "July 14 Speaker Request", 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you will be participating bycomputer nrtelephone, and 5)the name you will use if participating bycomputer orthe telephone number You Will use ifparticipating bytelephone, In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to parti6pate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at541-4D8-GOO2(TTYphone number 1-HOO-735-28O3). Notification 72hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessib,ility to the meeting.(28CFR35.102� 35.104AOATit|e |). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Derek Severson at #541-552-2040 or Derek.Sev d).ashiland or Lis. SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5��5D The following criteria shall beused toapprove mdeny an application: A. Undudying3bne:Thepmpomo|nompUaowitha||ofthaapp[ioab|opmvieionooftheundedyingznne(pmrt182).indodinghutnot|imibadto:bui|dinQund yard setbacks, lot area and dimenminnn, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building urienbation, omhitedum, and other applicable standards. B, Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable n*er|ayzone requirements (part 183). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The pmpnnu| rnmp|iay with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided bysubsection Ebelow. 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 hzand throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will beprovided {nthe uub]mct property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: The approval authohty may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection I 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 prcperties� 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 met;ung the specific requirements, but granting the exceptu,l I will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.5.4.050.A A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2, That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e- Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed atthe density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. e. C-1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f. E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h. CM-Cl. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i. CM-CE and CM -MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k. CM -NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i. HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18.5.7.040. B 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18A and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or GScomm-devlplanninglPlanning Action0As by RreetUi EeimanUHelman_705 tlelman Elem1YA-T?-2020-0002Q5NoticinglHelman_705_PA-T2-2020-00620 NOC.doca existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a signin ant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canupies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR GOVERNMENTAL SIGNS 18.4.7A2© Governmental agencies may apply for a Conditional Use Permit to place a sign that does not conform to this chapter when it is determined that, in addition to meeting the criteria for a conditional use, the sign is necessary to further that agency's public purpose. DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION STANDARDS 15,04.216 A. For demolition or relocation of structures erected more than 45 years prior to the date of the application: 1. The applicant must demonstrate that either subparagraphs a or b apply: a. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any economically beneficial use of the property. In determining whether an economically beneficial use can be made of the property, the Demolition Review committee may require the applicant to: (i) Furnish an economic feasibility report prepared by an architect, developer, or appraiser, or other person who is experienced in rehabilitation of buildings that addresses the estimated market value of the property on which the building lies, both before and after demolition or removal, or (ii) Market the property utilizing a marketing plan approved by the Demolition Review Committee or by advertising the property in the Ashland Daily Tidings and Medford Mail Tribune at least eight times and at regular intervals for at least 90 days and by posting a for sale sign on the property, four to six square feet in size and clearly visible from the street, for the same 90 day period. b. The structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound despite efforts by the owner to properly maintain the structure. 2. In addition to subparagraphs a or b above, the applicant must also: a. Submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for replacement or rebuilt structure for the structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being demolished or relocated is less than 1,000 square feet. If the structure is less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all replacement or rebuilt structures. No replacement structure is required, however, if: (i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would, or (ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a nonhabitable accessory structure. b. Demonstrate, if the application is for a demolition, the structure cannot be practicably relocated to another site. 3. if a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan: a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.A.2. b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the building permit has been issued for the replacement or rebuilt structure, unless the site is restricted to open spaces uses as provided in section 15.04.216.A.2. 4. The Demolition Review Committee may require the applicant to post with the City a bond, or other suitable collateral as determined by the City administrator, ensuring the safe demolition of the structure and the completed performance of the redevelopment plan. B. For demolition or relocation of structures erected less than 45 years from the date of the application: 1. The applicant: a. Has the burden of proving the structure was erected less than 45 years from the date of the application. Any structure erected less than 45 years from the date of the application, which replaced a structure demolished or relocated under section 15,04,216, shall be considered a structure subject to the standards in subsections 15.04.216. b. Must submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for a replacement or rebuilt structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being demolished ore relocated is less than 1,000 square feet. If the structure is less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all replacement or rebuilt structures. No replacement structure is required, however, if: (i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would, or (ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a nonhabitably accessory structure. 2. If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan: a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.8. b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until a building permit has been issued for the structure or structures to be replaced or rebuilt, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.B. GAcomm-devlplanningTIanning AclionsTAs by Street\H\Helman Helman_705 Helman ElemTA-T2-2020-000201Noticin,lMelman_705_PA-T2-2020-00020_NOC.docx C. For any demolition approved under this sect' the applicant is required to salvage or recycle cony tion and demolition debris, in accordance with a demolition debris diversion plan that compliea Mth the requirements adopted the Demolition Review committee. The applicant shall submit such a plan with the application for demolition. For any relocation approved under this section, the applicant must also comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.08. (Ord. 2925, amended, 04/18/2006; Ord. 2891, amended, 1111912002; Ord. 2858, amended, 06120/2000; Ord. 2852, added, 0112112000) Gacamm-devlplanniag\Planning Ac€ioms PAs by Street\HlHehnan\fftlman_705_Helman ElemlPAT2-2620-000201Noticing\Eeiman_705 PA-'F2-2020-00020_NOC, dccx 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 6/30/201 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA-T2-2020-00020, 705 Helman. Signature of Employee Uccument3 WD1202j 391 E0413C133 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BC101 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BD2000 PA-T2-2020-00020 AMAROTICO KAREN ANDRE ALISTAIR J ET AL ASHLAND FLOWERSHOP AND 195 RANDY ST 142 W NEVADA ST 744 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BD1304 PA-T2-2020-00020 AUSTBO KIRK W/ANGELA BARBER 905 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BD2002 PA-T2-2020-00020 BENTON ANDREW THOMAS TRUSTEE 43 VESTA ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 391 E04BD2006 PA-T2 2020-00020 BOWMAN DANIEL CIDELISLE ALICE 656 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E04BD3205 PA-T2-2020-00020 BAHR MICHAEL AND SUSAN TRUST PO BOX 1023 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E04BD2010 PA-T2-2020-0 0 020 BINGHAM MICHAEL SIELIZABETH 50 W NEVADA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E0413C122 PA-T2-2020-00020 BRYSON JAMES RISHARON K 138 CYPRESS CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E04BC1015 PA-T2-2020-00020 391E04BC1003 PA-T2-2020-00020 CLEVENGER GREGORY A TRUSTEE E CLOVER DAVE TRUSTEE 540 PARKSIDE DR 540 N LAUREL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 - ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E04BC115 PA-T2-2020-00020 CROFT NORTON E TRUSTEE ET AL :109 RANDY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BC131 PA-T2-2020-00020 DELONG DIANNE S TRUST ET AL 230 85TH ST HOLMES BEACH, FL 34217 391 E04BD3203 PA-T2-2020-00020 HALBY MICHAEL TRUSTEE ET AL 763 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E04BC110 PA-T2-2020-00020 HUTCHINS JASON/ALISON 108 W NEVADA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E04BC1007 PA-T2-2020-00020 LARSON FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST GAREY D / ARLINE R LARSON 806 W VALLEY VIEW RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BD2400 PA-T2-2020-00020 DALEY THOMAS WISUSAN L 610 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BC412 PA-T2-2020-00020 FERNLUND PHYLLIS TRUSTEE ETA 560 DRAGER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E04BD1400 PA-T2-2020-00020 HAMILTON DEBORAH R 227 MIDDLE ST WEST NEWBURY, MA 1985 391 E04BC504 PA-T2-2020-00020 KLEVANSKY SIMON TRUSTEE ET AL 8233 MERRIMOUNT DR MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 391 E04BC1009 PA-T2-2020-00020 BEAR GRASS VALLEY LLC PO BOX 1649 JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 391 E04BC408 PA-T2-2020-00020 BISSELL GERALD D TRUSTEE ETA 584 DRAGER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BD2005 PA-T2-2020-00020 CAMPAGNA JESS AISARA E 670 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BD3300 PA-T2-2020-00020 'COLLINS WILLIAM BLUIJAMIE L 96 W NEVADA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 -- ........... 391E0413C109 PA-T2-2020-00020 DE BRUNO TONYILOIS 130 W NEVADA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E04BD1501 PA-T2-2020-00020 FISHER -SMITH JOHN TRUSTEE 945 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BC407 PA-T2-2020-00020 HELMAN SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASS 664 DRAGER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E04BC1014 PA-T2-2020-00020 KOENIG SARA L ET AL 538 PARKSIDE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BD1301 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BD3200 PA-T2-2020-00020 MALMBERG NORMA R & PAMELA M R MENEDES GEORGE ET AL TICOR TITLE COMPANY 84 W NEVADA ST 180 LITHIA WAY #101 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BC1010 PA-T2-2020-00020 391E04BC501 PA-T2-2020-00020 ; 391 E04BC1011 PA-T2-2020-00020 MILLER KIM MYERS WILLIAM B/MARIE E PARKER -SHAMES SIMON ET AL 147 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 1711 VIEW PL 537 PARKSIDE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E04BC1104 PA-T2-2020-00020 391E04BC143 PA-T2-2020-00020 391E04BC117 PA-T2-2020-00020 PARR MICHELE HOPE PDK PROPERTIES LLC PEAKS JOHN F TRUSTEE ET AL 210 OTIS ST 588 PARSONS DR #102 119 CYPRESS CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E04BD3100 PA-T2-2020-00020 391E04BC1006 PA-T2-2020-00020 391E04BC1012 PA-T2-2020-00020 PEMBROKE INVESTMENTS LLC POE FREDERICK D TRUSTEE POTTER PATRICIA L 7685 ADAMS RD 524 N LAUREL ST 535 PARKSIDE DR TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BD3000 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BD1302 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BD2600 PA-T2-2020-00020 PRINCE MAURICE IIIIKATHLEEN QUACCIA ROBERT J TRUSTEE ETA REYNOLDS BETTY JO TRUSTEE ET 101 RANDY ST 885 OAK ST 505 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BC1102 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BC140 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BC120 PA-T2-2020-00020 ROBERTSON DENNIS TRSTEE FBO ' ROEN PROPERTIES LLC SACHS JAMES D/EDITH S 531 N LAUREL ST 11236 DISK DR #A ' 130 CYPRESS CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BC142 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BC1204 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BC139 PA-T2-2020-00020 SAGE JEAN C ET AL SCHMITT FREDERICK R/JULIENNE SHAPIRO STEPHEN B TRUSTEE ET .708 N LAUREL ST 523 N LAUREL ST 143 RANDY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BC411 PA-T2-20 20-0 0020 391 E04BD3204 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BC116 PA-T2-2020-00020 SHAW VAN STON ET AL SLOPER MICHAELIAMY SMELCER MARY L 608 DRAGER ST 81 RANDY ST 115 CYPRESS CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BD1401 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BD2004 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BC118 PA-T2-2020-00020 SNOW D REBECCA TRUSTEE ET AL SPEARS BETH M STANLEY PHILIP AIANGELICA M PO BOX 337 686 HELMAN ST 123 CYPRESS CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BC119 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BD2007 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BC410 PA-T2-2020-00020 STOUT KEVIN P STREET GLENNIBARBARA C TARLOW THOMAS JIREBECCA Y 127 CYPRESS CIR 642 HELMAN ST 578 DRAGER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BC100 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BC502 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BC1013 PA-T2-2020-00020 TAYLOR STEVENIWANDA TERWILLIGER CONNIE L F TRUSTE VAUGHN SUSAN R TRUSTEE ET AL 139 RANDY ST 9100 SW PARKVIEW LOOP 536 PARKSIDE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 BEAVERTON, OR 97008 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BC1001 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BD2003 PA-T2-2020-00020 391 E04BC132 PA-T2-2020-00020 VINITSKY JULIE WALTON STEPHEN AILACEY R WILFONG-CRUSH ELLENIGRUSH OWE 167 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR PO BOX 543 701 N LAUREL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 39IE04BD2001 PA-T2-2020-00020 WILLIAMS GREGORY DIVALRI A 744 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BD2009 PA-T2-2020-00020 ZIEMBA THOMAS DONALD 730 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00020 HMK COMPANY MIKE FREEMAN 60 2ND STREET, #602 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 391E04BCI14 PA-T2-2020-00020 WYSOCKI EDWARD J JR/ANNA H 105 RANDY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00020 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 33 N. CENTRAL, STE. 213 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-T2-2020-00020 BBT ARCHITECTS 1140 SW SIMPSON AVE., STE. 200 BEND, OR 97702 PA-T2-2020-00020 PA-T2-2020-00020 WALKER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING IPOWELL ENGINEERING TODD POWELL JONNY WALKER 1874 ROSSANLEY DR 2863 NW CROSSING DR, STE. 201 BEND, OR 97701 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-T2-2020-00020 ADROIT CONSTRUCTION CO. KYLE LUMSDEN 185 MISTLETOE RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E04BC121 PA-T2-2020-00020 ZENTNER WILLIAM J 11 134 CYPRESS CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00020 HMK COMPANY 46 N. FRONT ST #201 MEDFORD, OR 97501 391 E04BC600 PA-T2-2020-00020 ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT #5 STEVE MITZEL 885 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00020 KENCAIRN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE KERRY KENCAIRN 545 A STREET, STE. 3 ASHLAND, OR 97520 705 Helman NOC 6130/20 76 City of Ashland Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone: 541-488-5305 Inspection Line: 541-552-2080 Plan Type: Type 11 Planning Action Work Class: Type 11 Planning Action PERMIT NUMBER PA-T2-2020-00020 Apply Gate: 6/8/2020 Ma ' & Talc Lot Pro a AIdre$s . 391 E04BD2900 705 Helman St Owner: Ashland School District 5 Owner 201 S Mountian Ave Address: Ashland, OR 97535 Phone: (541) 482-2811 Type 2 commercial site review with type 1 CUP, Applicant: Rogue Planning and Development Applicant 33 N Central Ave 213 Address: Medford, OR 97501 Phone: (541) 951-4020 Fee Description: Amount: Commercial Site Review (Type II) $52,190.75 Conditional Use Permit (Type 1) $1,092.00 Applicant: Date: Totalees $53,282.75 10)00DIODIC__� V dluvl ) co F1 IL Planning Division CITY OF 5 1 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 ti.SHLAND 541488-5305 Fax 541488-606 LaMu ", 1 '.1 .'_' - 111. J U; I C40100MIKU 111111111- 1 11 WIM1=510,10-1 III '' it 0 t 0, 0 Assewoesmaipm,391E 04BD Tax Lot(s), 2900, 2800, 27DO & 6010 Zoning R-1-5 Comp Plan Destnation. Single -Family Residential A—P P ki Np t — JLConnDany poom 541.40.7g% L-M_44 Mjkp egman@_hMk :o,ora AddIressunit AA_N. � M-d ff 9 —M1 zip, 97501 qnL.p PROEEM OWNER Name Ashland Sichool District #5 Phone 541. 32.2811 E.Mail steve.mitzel@ash land. k1 2.or. US Addrm 885, Siskiyou Blvd. City Ashland ____Zip_L7�520 INNIS 111111 # 97501 Addrass 33 N Central Avenue, Suite 213 city.MAef�_'� Zip_ T-tqe Architects Name: BBT Architects Phone,��1.3825535 E-Mail: ralexangjr@�btarq�LitectscOm Address,jjj2_§Y��Jppson Avenue, Suite 200 city.pen 97702 Zj p. See attached findings for cornglete list of groiect team I hombycolffy thafft statements andinformation rontainedin this opphcation, kxtuA the eadoseddrI and the mqviredfir4mgs 01W. aminallresPeds, truaendmndI understandfhat a9pre: ttypins nvst be shown on the dravangs and be upon the sie ihspechw. In the event the pins are not shown ortheir kK,afian turd to be kxwW, Me owner assums tug responsibRity I further understand that it M request is subsequently cont0ad, the burden wffl be an me to esfI 1) Uud I pwiducedsuffiaent fe&al evk1ance at the howng to support 1W request, 2) bwft Wings off6d tumishadjusiffloss the graming of the, request 3) mat me rWiVs o1dart furnshed by mare adequate. and 14111w 41 that ei sinxAns or knproveamts are property kcated on the gmund F&Ium in this regard *3 reSO most fiko in n0l only the request being sot aside, but aim p=4 in my structures being bruit k? reRoce thereon bwV raqulmd to a be ad at my, oss, Whave err I doubts, I am advised to seek competent proNssaW oceand psislance a "0 a' El �-p-7p?RK' Ignature Dale Rr As owner offfie Ify inywAwd In his request I have read and understood the complete applicalton and ft consequeove; to me as„ a,pMP64 owner cill; V i Property Ownees S(gniaiture' required) f")IIIII s fro ba wvww by � flaq CYa .. . ....... .. ............ . Zon1r@ Permit TypeUe' 41 F.$ng Fee$ RTT "Ifereo "10,9ROTIM, Helman Elementary School Ashland School District in' S iu i r � it ey i e a vu i n"a f 0 r N f e L� R E C El "'kl, ... . . . . . I jjo C'1,,Y Of I 10 ROUE PLANNING R DEVELOPMENT SFIRVICES, LH June 5, 2020 Site Design Review for Addition of more than 10,000 SF to non-residenitial structure and Conditional Use Permit to expand the non-confor,ming elementary school site. ADDRESS: MAP & TAX LOTS: 705 HELMAN STREET 39 1E 04BD; 2900, 2800, 27001 and 600 ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 0015 885 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, Oregon 97520 Phone: 5,41.482.2811 Contact: Stevie Mitzel Email: steve.mitzel@ashIand.k12.or.us HMK COMPANY 60 2nd Street, Unit 602 Central Point, Oregon 97502 Phone: 503.453.2836 Contact: Mike Freeman Email: mike@hmkco.org ARCHITECT: BBT ARCHITECTS 1140 SW Simpson Ave, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97702 Phone: 541.382.5535 Contact: Matthew Guthrie Email: LiiE ithrie_�_@C btarchiitect,s,corn 14=0141001"i 94-kT1rC1VL WALKER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LLC 28613 NW Crossing Dr., Suite 201 Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 541.330,6869 Contact: Jonny Walker Email: j� a �ker �wa�k�erst.com NO, "jr(, Page I of 39 CIVIL ENGINEER: POWELL ENGINEERING 1874 Rossanl:ey Drive Medford, OR 97501 Phone: 541.,613.0723 Contact: Todd Powell Email: Lns L LANDSCAPE: KENCAIRN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 545 A Street, Suite 3 Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541.488.3194 Contact: Kerry KenCairn Email: ke GENERAL CONTRACTOR: ADROIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 185 Mistletoe Road Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541.482.4098 Contact: Kyle Lumsden Email: kyledurnsclen@adroitbuilt.corn PLANNING CONSULTANT: ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33 N Central Avenue, Suite 213 Medford, OR 97501 Phone:541.951.4020 Contact: Amy Gunter Email: Lirny.,2 tLr.L)lInnin (Zx )LnLaj,corn Page 2 of 39 The request is for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit to expand and enlarge u non- conforming development to a|Uovv for the construction of 23,775 square foot, one-story classroom building atthe Heiman Elementary School campus. Toimprove accessihi]tv safety, security, and site circulation, anenhanced pedestrian entry plaza area isproposed. The parent p[ck-uo/dnopoff area and existing non -conforming parking area isproposed tu be reconfigured. The prmposal includes the expansion of non -conforming site development with parking area and vehicular access between the structures and the street. The request includes a tree removal permit to remove 12 significant trees. New landscape areas including mitigation trees, stnaci trees, and improved water -efficient irrigation are prmposed. The proposal includes a new storrnwater managemenit system including above -ground detention swales. New entry doors on the north side of the office building, and interior renovations to the existing administration offices and interior renovation and mechanical equipment upgrades to classroom building "[ Quad" are proposed. The mechanical equipment service yard is proposed tobescreened and buffered from the residential neighborhood. The basketball court and playground area will be relocated and new security fencing is proposed. To facilitate site modifications, the proposal necessitates the demolition of two (2) existing classroom Property Description: The subject property consists of four tax lots and is occupied by Heiman Elementary School. The property is bound by Heiman Street to the east, Randy Street to the north, and Laurel Street to the west., In total, the Heiman Elementary School campus consists ofroughly 9.5acres. The Heiman Elementary School campus buildings and parking lots are clustered on the northern portion ofthe site. The playground area is to the south of the campus buildings. There is a playground structure, and equipment area, two tennis cVurts,and a basketball court. There is also a large, approximately 3,5- acre grass field area. He|manBennemtaryScMoo8vvosoponedin1966wjthadd]tionoimthe197Ooand 2OO8.The school consists nf16 classrooms in four, four -room quad buildings, a oamtna| building nearest Heiman smsthe administrative and staff offices, library, kitchen-cafeteria/nmu|ti-p ��uMt monnn, Heiman Elementary is in an open campus &ornnatm/ith unsecured, htd'6hrT0�/aya connecting the page 3uf38 campuoquadsandtheschom|bu8UinRs.ThernnstnaoantadditionvvasTheapPrmxinmate|y6/408squome foot gymnasium and 5,018 square fmnL library on the northwest portion of the He|nnan Elementary School campus, near Randy Street, which was granted bythePlanning Commission inDecember of2O07. The improvements made atthat time generally comply with city, standards and excepting fencing, no modifications tmthe parking areas associated are proposed. He|rnanElementary School has amenrol mentcapacity of35Ostudents, averaging 30}s1uden1speryeor. The class sizes range from 20 — 30 students' There are 12 classroom teachers and a robustllde |X program, There are typically 20-30staff in all the various admin, classified, and teachimgstaffposi1imns. Nochanges tostudent orstaffing populations are proposed. The existing campus layout including the orientation tostreet, location ofthe parking between building and the street, lack wflandscape buffering nfthe existing parking areas, driveway curb cut spacing, and street improvements including the curbside sidewalk and lack of street trees are non-confonn|ng development situations. When He[rnan Elementary School was constructed, there was not a site nzv|evv process mrs1andards.. In 2089 a Conditional Use Permit was granted for the installation of dnsQmn rnuna| on the gymnasium wall and to allow forthe retention of two existing student -designed and installed tile murals. The school's changeable copy, reader board sign, and wall signs have approval through the, Ashland School 0ieihcL Master Sign Permit approval from 2012. He|nnaoStremt isciassified as Avenue, Laurel Street isa Residential Neighborhood Collector, and Randy Street iseNeighborhood Street imthe Transportation System Plan. ru",�� J fy"',v� I V�� . � ,^Qe4ofa9 UnZOl8,the voters approved aSchool Bond measure. The primary goals ufthe bond are toimprove the health and safety ofall students in the district, butindividua||y noted was Heiman Elementary School and its needs for redesigned entry, redeveloped more efficient and spatially adequate instruction area and secure student circulation. Heiman Elementary School as an open campus and does not have a clearly visible secure entry that limits points of access onto the school campus. Nor are there any restrictions for visitor access, and anyone can enter the campus and bypass checking into the office area. As existing, Heiman Elementary School layout and orientation are towards the parking area, the location of the administrative offices cannot change but the proposed entry plaza area, enhanced office entry doors, the improved parking areas, and the perimeter security fencing and gates upgrades will increase the safety of the teachers, students, classified employees, volunteers, and community members that utl0zethe elementary school campus. Additionally, seismic upgrades, HVAC, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical upgrades with afocus on green technologies and renewable energy -focused design and construction are proposed. Heiman Elementary School lacks the spatial capacity for site -based special education, and students receiving those services had to be bussed or taken to another school. These neighborhood children were not able to learn at their neighborhood school with their siblings and neighborhood friends. It was noted that the 1960s and 1970s era school construction did not accommodate flexible, functional instructional spaces and no gathering areas. Heiman Elementary School's layout also lacked eyes on the street functions in the front nffice. |nthese times, security and eyes on -campus access is critical tostudent and faculty wellbeing and safety. The proposed modifications to the Hm|rnmn Elementary School, layout and new classroom building construction address these very important issues. The project team, 88TArchitect and NMK Management worked with the He|mao staff, the school districts Core Team, the School User Groups, and the Site Cure teams to refine the layout and design. The proposal is the result of many months of community collaboration. The proposed design, layout, and construction are consistent with the policies of the Climate Energy Action Plan and review of the proposal from BrightvvorksSustainabi0iyare provided |nthe application materials. The proposal includes the demolition of two (Z) existing classroom buildings, A Quad is a 4/680 square foot structure, B Quad is a 4,680 square foot structure. These two structuresTIP $0 intersection of Heiman Street and Randy Street. The area of these struc±mr�"m��K��-0��eP��th* m-m�a�a�n� enhanced campus entry area and the redesigned parking lot. ��"�m� ° Page sof 39 The entry plaza area orients the campus to the intersection of Helman Street and Randy Street. This area is also the student drop off and pick-up for parents/guardians. This plaza area is accessed from the redesigned non-conforrmiog parking lot at the corner of He|rnan Street and Randy Street. The improved entry plaza provides enhanced building orientation towards the location of the entrance into the school campus and the administrative offices to the street intersection. The entry plaza area has been designed in a manner to provide dear, visible, and functional entry tothe campus with direct access to the public sidewalk while providing increase security through restricted campus access points. There are 2,260 square feet of interior renovations to the existing administration office area portion of the cafeteria and administrative building. These interior renovations provide o more functional administrative services entrance, leading to a reception area. A new entry door into the office is proposed on the north side of the, administrative offices. This is where all visitors and vo,lunteers sign in. The main campus entry for students isthrough gated access tVthe north mfthe offices. There are 300 square feet of interior renovations to the [ Quad building. This is to improve the restrooms, plumbing, electrical, and mechanicai provided within the Quad building. A33,755 square foot, single -story classroom building is the largest improvement proposed for He|nnan Elementary School. The new classroom building isproposed atthe south end ofthe He|mnumElementary School campus area. This building is proposed to have a central entry hall with a large, multi -purpose flex room. The entry isflanked bybuilding wings that are oriented tnthe northwest and northeast. The multipurpose room will provide for much -needed all-purpose space for staff meeting area, community meeting area, and student gathering area. The building wings are proposed to be developed with wide, accessible hallways, office spore, single occupancy (adult/staff) nestroonns' office space, custodial and mechanical areas as well. Both wings will have dedicated recycling areas. The northwest wing is proposed to have three general classrooms, asensory domsroon,, and SPED dedicated classroom area. There are two new kindergarten classrooms with kinder -sized restrooms, general activity spaces, for small group breakout areas. The northeast wing includes five general dassruons, two breakout activity spaces, and small group space. The student restroom is located in this wing. The central campus area connecting new construction to the existing building areas is proposed to be redeveloped with the creations of a central courtyard area and redevelopment of the walkway system AT 10provide pedestrian and ADAaccessibility tothe entire campus from the entry lowd ow basketball court and relocated playground area. � Page uof 39 The proposal includes the reconfiguration of an existing parking area and the expansion of non- conforming parking lo�. The mechanical equipment service yard �s proposed to be screened and buffered from the residential neighborhood across the street. The basketball court is proposed to berelocated, the playground area relocated and renovated, the instaHatinn of walking track on the west side of the property, and stmrmvvater management structures are proposed Lobeinstalled. Thepropmsal includesa new perimeter security fencing. The proposed fencing will allow for the students on campus to be contained during the school hours and will have only one unlocked entrance during the school hours to direct all campus visitors to the main entry area and administrative services offices. Other gatesare proposed around the perimeter, these will be able to be unlocked by those granted permission by the Ashland School District and/or He�rnon Elementary School as the property is listed (but not acquired) onthe Parks Open Space Plan. There are six, driveway approaches to the Heiman Elementary School site. There is a one-way vehicular loop from Randy Street, |pop�|ng back north to Randy Street, This is the west parking lot and the "bus loop" where bussed students enter the campus through secure, gated access on the north side of the library. This gate will be open during bus drop off and pick up, remaining closed throughout the school day, There are nwmodifications proposed to this location. There is another vehicular accessed parking area at the intersection ofRandy and He|rnon Street. The north |o1 is accessed from Randy Street and has non -conforming driveway access at the southwest corner of the intersection that exists right at the Randy Street and Helman Street stop sign and a heavily utilized crosswalk. This area is proposed to become a formal student drop-off area which He|nnon Elementary School previously lacked. The parking area is proposed to be modified by shifting the parking area away from the street, closure of the non -conforming curb cut, and development of storrnvvater biuswale/ponding area. This parking area is propnsed to be developed as a one-way from Randy Street, and connecting 1othe existing east parking lot on He|rnon Street. The east parking lot lsaccessed from He|rnan Street, this curb cut is non -conforming due to Ne|nnmn Street c|ossificaUmn as an Avenue in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). No changes one proposed to this curb cut and mo increases in the non -conformity are prmposed. The east parking area isone-way tn the south, with diagonal, head -in parking, and a one-way exit onto He|rnon Street. Two lanes are vg,� provided that allow for northbound and southbound exiting. There is a |end-' -�� parking area and the street. No changes are proposed to this parking area, @,,oe Y ~ Page 7of 39 There are 49emsi1evehicle parking spaces. Based onthe 4,725square foot area ofthe assembly spaces, there should be53, on -site parking spaces. The proposal includes an increase in the number ofparking spaces provided on -site through the creation of new, 17space parking area (south lot). This lot is proposed to be extended as one way from the existing east parking lot. The parking spaces are proposed to be diagonal spaces in three banks of four and one bank of five. The parking lot is proposed to be buffered from He|rnan Street with astorrnvvaterbimsvvaUe/pmnd area, This parking area is proposed to have parking lot shade tree islands and accessible walkways. HeUmom Elementary School requires 70 bicycle parking spaces all covered. Though several He|mman Elementary School students ride their bicycles to school, never have anywhere near 70 bicycles been present at campus. There are presently IZ covered bicycle parking spaces on -site, this is a pre+exiaLlng, non -conforming situation. The proposal adds bicycle parking on the north side of the campus accessUe from the Randy Street entry to campus, a 20 stall, covered secure bicycle parking structure is proposed. Along the west side of the new south parking lot, a covered, secure bicycle parking structure for 29 bicycles is proposed. There is presently 17 percent of the required bicycle parking spaces provided, the proposal provides for 94 percent of the bicycle parking spaces. This is a substantial increase and will provide more than enough parking spaces for the students that ride bicycles toschool presently and an increase in riders. Trees and Landscaping: A detailed Landscape and Tree Protection und Removal Plan have been provided. There are 106trees on -site, of those, 89 are six inches, in diameter at breast height (DBH) or greater. There are 12 significant trees proposed for removal to facilitate site construction and development. Asignificant tree isaconifer tree having a trunk ID caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height /DBN\, or deciduous tree having a trunk 12 caliper inches in DBH, The trees proposed for removal include five (5)12-inchD8Hpear trees ;a14-inch0BHOak tree ((]uercus); two /2l maple trees, one 14-inch 0HH and one 17-inch DBH; n 16inch European beech (FoQos); and two Norway spruce /Piceo mb/es1 one 16-inch DBH, and one 20-inch DBH. The largest trees proposed for removal are three (3) black locusts (Rubin/opseudmococ/o) in a landscape planter along He�rnan Street. Two of the black locust trees are 19-inches UBH and one is o 24-inch DBH. Three trees are greater than six inches in diameter at breast height that are proposed for relocation. The proposed tree protection plan retains a substantial of the trees on -site, and the landscape plan uses a variety of deciduous shade trees, shrubs, and ground rVmeo. Implementing water -conserving landscape and irrigation design, the proposed landscape plan and the future irrigation plan can demonstrate compliance with the standards and is appropriate |naschool grounds setting. "proo" ?� I'll�I'll zm,� ��°�mm �~�� Findings ofFact: The following information addressing the findings uffact for the applicable criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code is provided on the fmU|mvv|ng pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Aria[ font and the applicant's responses are in 'Fimes New Roman font. Additionally, a phasing line isshown mnthe civil site plans. This demarcation isintended tmassist school staff in maintaining school operations with minimal disruptions during construction. The new cyaosnumrn addition is scheduled to be completed first, followed by building demolition, building alterations, and remaining site work. The contractor and project funds have been secured for the entire scope of work. n, Page gofay Criteria from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Site Development Design Standards Approval Criteria: t8.5.2.050 Approval Criteria An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and 1) below. 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. Finding: The subject property is zoned single-family residential (R-1-5). Public schools are a permitted use in the R-1-5 zone. The proposed new classroom building exceeds all the setbacks in the zone and the structure is more than 15-feet from Heiman, the front yard, more than 10-feet from Laurel Street, the rear, and more than six -feet from the south property line. The proposed building is 24-feet at the highest point, the top of the mechanical room. This is less than the maximum building height in the R-1-5 zone of 30-feetaverage height. The proposed height is similar to homes in the vicinity that are one- and two-story structures. The maximum allowed lot coverage in the zone is 50 percent. The proposed development and existing surfaces cover 38 percent of the campus which is less than the maximum coverage in the zone. Overall Site: 432,115 SF Asphalt (including some synthetic material at playground): 60,668 SF Concrete Flatwork: 45,414 SF v'05'00 Plv fllm Building: 58,216 SF pn Impervious: 164,298 SF Pervious: 270,171 SF o �f Impervious Percentage of Site: 38% The property is exempt from density and floor area ratio standards. The proposed architecture is consistent with elementary school design. Though not residential, the proposed new structure has pitched roofs and eaves which are common design elements found in residential construction. The site development standards place substantial emphasis on the pedestrian accessibility to the commercial business and the layout of sites requiring the parking be to the rear or side of the structure. Due to the nature of elementary school Campus safety and security, the structure has substantial setbacks from the street, and the entrances are not accessible from the sidewalks. The parking and vehicular circulation occur between the structure and the street as well. The proposed new classroom building is oriented towards Helman Street with large windows, doors that access the classroom areas, the new building is not accessible to the public from the sidewalk due to safety considerations. Page 10 of 39 B. Overlay Zones. 'Fhe proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). The southern portion of tax lots 600 and 2700 are within the Performance Standards Overlay. Performance Standards Overlay applies to subdivisions and is not applicable. C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site I}ersnpr000tand Design Standards nfpart H8.4,except uoprovided b»subsection ]B,below. 18.4`2,040Non-Residential Development The property is developed with a public elementary school that was first constructed in the late 1960s. The Heiman Elementary School campus and the development layout is non-residential but serves the surrounding residential neighborhood. The development ofthe majority mf\he campus including the |moa1loms of the parking areas, orientation to the streets, setbacks, site coverage, are non -conforming concerning the present site development standards. Additionally, other standards that typically apply to commercial development or typical residential development when developed to the standards for placement, orientation, and design ofbuilding from the Site Development Design Standard, conflict with the student and staff campus safety goals. The proposed modifications to the site layout and access bring the property closer to compliance with the standards by shifting the parking spaces and student drop off area away from the street and provifflng a landscape bioswale. Thie south parking lot is proposed to be installed as a one-way (north to south) extension of the existing parking area. The parking areas located between the new classroom building and the street is proposed to be buffered from Heiman Street with a large bioswale. The new classroom structure is designed in a manner that addresses the purpose and intent of the Site Development and Design Standards Administration for Review. The proposal provides for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the students through the design that supports resource conservation and renewable energy sources and high -efficiency construction, HVAC, mechanical and plumbing efficiencies, and electric upgrades. The building is proposed to have a wide facade along Heiman Street with windows and doors. The structure is set back from the street +/- 100-feet. This is substantially further than a typical commercial or residential development but not atypical of a large acre, elementary school campus. The proposed redesigned entry plaza area and administrative offices provide for a safe and comfortable entry providing improved surveillance of the public spaces and funnels all campus visitors tothe secure entry tothe Heiman Elementary School Campus. INK"Y4E 'd,� The existing structures and the new structure are proposed a substantially further distance from the public street than a commercial or employment development due to the nature of the use, as a public, elementary school. The proposed design though does provide a positive impact on the streetscape with residential forms instead of an unadorned concrete or brick structure of rectangular, forms found in a commercial district. Landscaping is proposed to enhance the site and provide screening of the parking lot and trees to provide cooling of the surface parking areas. The proposed onsite vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation improvements are proposed which will enhance the pedestrian environment and will improve bicycle transit by providing an abundance of bicycle parking facilities. B. Basic Site Review Standards. 1. Orientation and Scale. a. Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street and not a parking area. A1.1101-nobile 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. See Figure -1 8.42.040A, l . ..... ..... . ..... - Finding: See finding g. b. A building fapade or Multiple building facades shall Occupy a large majority of a project's street frontage a illustrated in Figure 18,42..( 4( J3, and avoid site design that incorporates extensive gaps between building frontages created through a combination of driveway aprons, parking areas, or vehicle aisles. This can be addressed by, but not limited to, positioning the wider side of the building rather than the narrow side of the building toward the street. In the case of a corner lot, this standard applies to both street frontages. Spaces between buildings shall consist of landscaping and hard durable surface materials to highlight pedestrian areas. Finding: See finding g. The campus is made up of individual structures connected via paved walkways and landscaped plaza area. c. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, -.functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. Finding: . . . . . . .. Page 12 of 39 See finding g. 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: See finding g. 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. Finding: The new construction is to the rear of the existing campus buildings and not located at the corner. There is an entrance to the new structure proposed facing Helman Street, it is not accessible from the sidewalk due to the use of the property as an elementary school. The proposed removal of Quad A opens the area of the administrative offices and the entrance gate to be visible from the public street and oriented towards the intersection. f. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Finding: There are public sidewalks adjacent to all of the public street frontages. The property frontage is, bound by curbside sidewalks. The curbside sidewalks are pre-existing, non- conforming. Excepting where the curb cut on Randy Street at the intersection is proposed to be closed, no changes to the existing curbside sidewalks are proposed. 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 automotive service stations. Finding: The proposal seeks to waive the standards of a. — d. above because though the new classroom building is accessed by students/parents/guardians as pedestrians from the neighborhood, the building is not a business that is accessible to the general public and the structure is not "open to the public during business hours,". fh;/e pirop, 0" d ,se ,g fencing and redesigned entry plaza area are intended to direct all p6d",eiii1a,'n r ffj6 tdtl 6 school towards the administrative services offices where the only access to the secure campus islocated. The existing buildings are oriented toward the parking area which is pre-existing, non- conforming development pattern, and the parking area is between the buildings and the street. The proposed entryplaza area will provide a better orientation to the main campus entry at the northeast corner of the administrative services/cafeteria building. The removal of Quad A opens the view from the street to the entry stairs and office building and the main entrance 10the He|nnanElementary School campus. Having the parking and the student drop off area between the building and the street is provided as m safety nneasure. The students that are dropped off bv parents/guardians allowing for a short travel distance from the guardia:n to the secure entry to the campus. The expanded parking area is between the new structure and the street. This istaincrease the amount Vfparking tobecloser tpthe demand reducing the use ofon-street parking by staff and visitors to the campus. The enhanced student drop-off will improve the vehicle stacking that occurs ontothe streets during the morning and afternoon drop off and pick up. The student access tothe basketball court and the relocated p�|ay8rnund area is around the east side of the new classroom structure. 2. Streetsc pe, One street tree chosen frorn the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portionofthe development fronting the street pursuant to Subaco1iou 18.4.4.030.]B. There are new street trees proposed to rep�aae trees removed due to their species, Black Locust, and their incompatibility with construction. There are new street trees proposed to be installed every3[)feet, behind the curbside sidewalk, along with the areas of the propertyvvhexethereispropuseddeve|oprnent.Thereareelghttneesproposeda|omQ1he b�insvvo|e pond area at the intersection of Randy and He1mon Street. There four street trees proposed in the area where the black locust trees are removed from and two new street trees to fill in the gaps along the Helman Street frontage where street trees are not present. New street trees are proposed behind the sidewalk, abutting the biqsvva|p/pmnd area between the new classroom building and the street. The proposed street trees include large stature trees, such as Bonfire Sugar Maples, Ze|kmvos, Kentucky Coffee trees. There are River Birches proposed for the bimsvva[e areas. The trees will be planted according to the standards found in AMC 18.4.4.030.E. 'T� 3. Landscaping. a. Landscape areas at leas[ ten feet in width shall buffer buildings adjacent to streets, except the buffer is not required in the Detail Site Review, Historic District, and Pedestrian Place overlays. Finding: The existing and proposed structures are buffered by at least ten feet from the street. Due to the nature of the use of the property as a public elementary school, lawn area, and hardscape are the primary landscape materials. The entry areas and the areas immediately surrounding the new classroom building include hardscape and landscape planter areas that include trees, shrubbery, and ground covers. The proposed landscape area at the new entry plaza area enhances the site orientation towards the intersection of Helman Street and Randy. b. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas shall be provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4. 18.4.4.030 Landscaping and Screening B. Minimum Landscape Area and Coverage. All lots shall conform to the minit"MIM landscape area standards of the applicable zoning district (see Table 18.2.5.030.A - C. for residential zones and Table 18.2.6.030 for non- residential zones). Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, areas proposed to be covered with plant materials shall have plant coverage of not less than 50 percent coverage within one year and 90 percent coverage within five years of planting. Finding: The areas of disturbance from the construction are proposed to be landscaped with a formal landscape plan. A large area of the property is lawn area and will remain as such. All areas of proposed landscaping provide for plant materials that grow to 90 percent coverage within five years of planting. C. Landscape Design and Plant Selection. The landscape design and selection of plants shall be based oil all of the following standards: L Tree and Shrub Retention. Existing healthy trees and shrubs shall be retained, pursuant to chapter 18.4.5. Consistent with chapter 18.4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection, credit may be granted toward the landscape area requirements where a project piqpp iaI,, includes preserving healthy vegetation that j ttr tout thy"" landscape design. T"y �6'15';of 39 Finding: The tree protection and preservation plan and the tree removal plan call for the removal of the trees that are within the areas of construction and that would not survive the impacts from construction. Of the more than 100 trees on the site, there are only 12 significant trees proposed for removal. 2. Plant Selection. a. Use a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, and ground covers. b. Use plants that are appropriate to the local climate, exposure, and water availability. The presence Of utilities and drainage conditions shall also be considered, c. Storm Water Facilities. Use water -tolerant species where storm water retention/detention or water quality treatment ,facilities are proposed, d. Crime Prevention and Defensible Space. Landscape plans shall provide for crime Prevention and defensible space, for example, by using low hedges and sirnilar plants allowing natural surveillance of public and semi-public areas, and by Using impenetrable hedges in areas where physical access is discouraged, e. Street Trees. Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. Finding: The proposed landscape plan has been created by a local landscape architect. The proposed plan uses a variety of deciduous trees, shrubs and ground covers. Due to the wildfire hazards overlay, no evergreen trees are proposed. The plants selected are appropriate for the local climate and exposure. Water tolerant species such as River birch and a wetland prairie seed mix are proposed within the stormwater detention facilities, "q A Page 16 of 39 The planting plan for the entry plaza area allows for natural surveillance of the public space. Fencing to direct all visitors to the common entrance at the Administrative Office / Cafeteria building has been proposed. Street trees are proposed to be planted along the Randy Street frontage where the parking area is proposed for relocation and the construction of a stormwater detention facility is proposed. New street trees are proposed along Helman Street behind the sidewalk. The street trees on Helman Street are chosen for their compatibility with overhead power lines. 3. Water Conserving Landscaping. Commercial, industrial, non- residential., and mixed -use developments that are subject to chapter 18,52 Site Design Review, shall use plants that are low water use and meet the requirements of 18.4.4.030.1 Water Conserving Landscaping. Finding: The proposed landscaping punt materials is low water use and meet the requirements of 18.4.4.03011 4. Hillside Lands and Water Resources. Landscape plans for land located in the Hillside Lands overlay must also conform to section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands, and in the Water Resources overlay must also conform to section 18.3.11.110 Mitigation Requirernents for Water Resource Protection Zones. Finding: Not applicable. 5. Screening. a. Evergreen Shrubs shall be used where a sight -obscuring .landscape screen is required. b. Where a hedge is used as a screen, fire-resistant and drought -tolerant evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that not less than 50 percent of the desired screening is achieved within two years and 100 percent is achieved within four years. Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such tha t 100 percent coverage is achieved within two years. Page 17 of 39 Finding: There are no areas where evergreen screening shrubs are required, 6. Plant Sizes. a, Trees shall be not less than two-inch caliper for street trees, and 1.5-Inch caliper for other trees at the time of planting. b. ShrUbs shalt be planted from not less than one gallon containers, and where required for screening shall meet the requirements of 18,4,4.030,C.5 Screening, F i 9dIM Ali plant and tree species will be planted in accordance with the specifications. 1). 'Tree Preservation, Protection, and Rernoval. See chapter 18.4.5 for Tree Protection and Preservation and chapter 18.5,7 for Tree Removal Permit requirements. Finding: Tree removal findings are provided on Page 38 of these findings. E. Street Trees. 'The purpose of street trees is to form a deciduous canopy over the street. The same effect is also desired in parking lots and internal. circulation streets; rows of street trees Should be included in these areas where feasible. All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required to plant street 'trees in accordance with the Collowing standards and chosen from the recommended list ofstreet trees. 1. Location of Street Trees. Street trees shall be located in the designated planting strip or street tree welts between the Curb and sidewalk, or behind the sidewalk in cases where a planting strip or tree wells are or will not be in place. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standards established by the Community Development Del rtirient. Finding: Page 18 of 39 The street trees are proposed to be located behind the sidewalk and on the private property Due to lack of right of way behind the sidewalk. All street trees will have irrigation and will conform to the standards of the Community Development Department. 2, Spacing and Placement, of Street Trees. All street tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions that may, for reasons Such as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall rnect all of the following requirements. a. Streettrees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. Finding: The proposed street trees are placed at 30-foot intervals and are evenly spaced along the Randy Street and Helman Street frontages where shown on the landscape plans. b. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 25 fleet frorn the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than ten -feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. Finding: No street trees are proposed within 25-feet of the intersection of Randy Street and Helman Street, The proposed street trees are more than ten feet from the driveway. Ali fire hydrants are also not within ten feet of street trees. c. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than ten feet to any existing street tree, and preferably Such locations will be at Least 20 feet distant, Finding: No street trees are proposed within 20-feet of streetlights. Page 19 of 39 d. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 2.5 feet from the face of the curb. Street trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk Cuts in concrete for trees, or tree wells, shall be at least 25 square feet; however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. 'Free wells shall be covered by tree grates In accordance with City specifications,. Finding: The street trees are proposed behind the existing curbside sidewalk, No tree wells are proposed. e. Street trees planted under or near power lines shall be selected so as to not conflict with power tines at maturity. Finding: The street trees proposed on Helman Street are proposed to be compatible with overhead power lines and are setback so as to provide adequate clearance for the Zelkovas. f. Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation, where approved pursuant to section 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards, may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. Finding: The existing, healthy street trees that will not be damaged during construction are proposed to be preserved and counted towards the total number of street trees along the Helman Street and Randy Street frontages where development is proposed. 3. Pruning. Street trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces. Page 20 of 39 F i UdIM The existing street trees will clearance above the street. be pruned to provide adequate 4. Replacement of Street Trees. Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with those from the street tree list approved by the Ashland "free Commission. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. rjo'olm There are three large stature black locust trees on the Helman Street side that are on the private property, not within the public right of way but function like street trees. These trees will be replanted with size and species -appropriate street trees. F. Parking Lot I.,andscaping and Screening. Parking tot landscaping, including areas of vehicle maneuvering, parking, and loading, shall meet the following requirements. Single-family dwellings and accessory residential units are exempt from the requirements of subsection 18.44.030Fr. 2, below. 1. Landscaping. a. Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of seven percent of the total parking area plus a. ratio of one tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect. Finding: There are two parking areas proposed or modified as part of this request. The first is the modified north parking lot, this lot has 18 parking spaces. There are six trees, provided that will create a canopy effect. There is more than seven percent of the area for the 18 parking spaces devoted to the landscape area. These areas include three landscape islands, the large bioswale/pond area, and the landscape area to the west of the driveway into the property from Randy Street. The new parking lot area to the south: of the existing Helman Street parking lot consists of three areas with four parking spaces and one area with five spaces. There are two parking lot landscape Page 21 of 39 peninsulas and a large bioswale area between the parking spaces in the street which provide more than seven percent of the parking area in landscaping. There are eight trees provided around the parking area. Parking lot shade trees are proposed to be added to the existing Helman Street parking area in the landscape buffer adjacent Helman Street. b. The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected from the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. Finding: The parking lot shade trees are a mixture of Zelkovas, Maple trees, and Kentucky Coffeetree. These species have large canopies and are not known to cause root damage or droppings onto vehicles or pedestrians. c. The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least two feet from any curb or paved area. Finding: The trees are at least two feet from any curb or paved areas. d. The landscaped area shall be distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio. Finding: The landscape areas are distributed in the parking area and at the perimeter. e. That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip, or, screening strip abutting parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping but only for those stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant material coverage, and placement disti-ibution criteria are also met. Front orexterior yard landscaping may not be Substituted for the interior landscaping required for interior parking stalls. Page 22 of 39 Finding: There are substantial buffers around the parking area and within the parking lots landscaped with tree species and living plant material distributed to meet the placement standards.The area of landscaping that screens and buffers the parking areas exceed the minimum areas required. 2. Screening. a. Screening Abutting Property Lines. A five-foot landscaped strip shall screen parking abutting a property line. Where a buffer between zones is required, the screenings hall be incorporated into the required buffer strip, and will not be an additional reqUirement. Finding: The parking areas where abutting a property line are proposed to be buffered from the sidewalk by five feet or more. b. Screening Adjacent to Residential Building. Where a parking area is adjacent to a residential building it shall be set back at least eight feet from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen. F J Id i nE. There is no parking adjacent to a residential building. c. Screening at Required Yards. i, Parking abutting a required landscaped front yard or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight obstructing hedge screen into the required landscaped yard. Finding: Where the new parking spaces are proposed along Helman Street, the parking spaces are more than 20-feet from the property line. The parking spaces are 30-feet, 2-inches from the property line. This exceeds the minimum front yard setback. The parking spaces are on the west side of a landscaped bioswale. No hedges are proposed due to the substantial setback and bioswale planting area. Page 23 of 39 The redeveloped parking area accessed from Randy Street is setback 24-feet, 4-inches, and substantially exceeds the required 10-foot side yard setback. ii. The screen shall grow to be at least 36, inches higher than the finished grade of the parking area, except within vision clearance areas, section 18.14.040. Finding: Not applicable, there are no hedges proposed due to the substantial setback from the parking area to the property lines and the landscape bioswale/pond area between the parking area and the street. iii. The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth. ri-iounding and plant materials. Finding: Not applicable. iv. Elevated parking lots slia.11 screen both the parking and the retaining walls. Finding: The parking area is not proposed to be elevated. G. Other Screening Requirements. Screening is required for refuse and recycle containers, outdoor storage areas, loading and service corridors, mechanical equipment, and the City may require screening other situations, pursuant with the requirements of this ordinance. 1. Recycle and Refuse Container Screen. Recycle and refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from view by the placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall five to eight feet in height to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights - of -way. All recycle and refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. Finding: An eight -foot -tall masonry wall is proposed to limit the view from the public right of way of the refuse and recycle area in the service yard. Page 24 of 39 2. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view, except such screening is not required In the M-1 zone. Finding: Not applicable 3. Loading Facilities and Service Corridors. Commercial and industrial loading facilities and service corridors shall be screened when adjacent to residential zones. Siting and design of such service areas shall reduce the adverse effects of noise, odor, and visual clutter upon adjacent residential uses. Finding: A new service corridor area is proposed. The corridor area is proposed to be screened using an eight -foot -tall masonry wall straight and secure, chain link fencing. 4. Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be screened by placement of features at least equal in height to the equipment to limit view from public rights -of -way, except alleys, and adjacent residentially zoned property. Mechanical equipment meeting the requirements of this section satisfy the screening requirements in 18.5.2.020.C.4. Finding: The mechanical equipment will be screened by the placement of an eight -foot -tall masonry wall limiting view from the public right of way and the adjacent residential zoned properties. The mural on the side of Quad B that is being removed, it is proposed to be relocated to this screening wall. a. Roof -mounted Equipment. Screening for roof -mounted equipment shall be constructed of rnatei-Ws used in the building's exterior construction and include features Such as a parapet, wall, or other sight -blocking features. Roof Mounted solar collection devices are exempt from this requirement pursuant to subsection I 8,.5.2.020.C.4. Finding: Not applicable Page 25 of 39 b. Other Mechanical Equipment, Screening for other mechanical equipment (e.g,, installed at ground level) include features such as a solid wood fence, masonry wall, or hedge screen. Finding: The ground level mechanical equipment within the new service yard will be screened with an eight -foot -tall masonry wall. 14. Irrigation, Irrigation systems shall be installed to ensure landscape success. If a landscape area is proposed without irrigation, a landscape professional shall certify the area can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. Irrigation plans are reviewed through a Ministerial process at the time of building permit submittals. Finding: There is an irrigation system is proposed. The irrigation system will comply with the water -conserving landscape standards of the city of Ashland. 1. Water Conserving Landscaping. Water has always been a scare, valuable resource in the Western United States, In the Rogue Valley, winter rains give way to a dry season spanning five to seven months. Lack of water during the dry summer season was a major problem facing early settlers. 'their creative solutions greatly altered the development of this region. Talent ➢rrigation District's and other district's reservoirs and many miles of reticulating canals are an engineering marvel. Findi..ng,-. Water -conserving landscape design has been proposed within the non -turf areas. The plants proposed around the landscape areas excepting the bio Swale are droughttolerant and are suited forthe Rogue Valley climate that way. J. Maintenance. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition, or otherwise replaced by the property owner; dead plants must be replaced within 180 days of discovery. Replacement planting consistent with all approved p proved plan does not require separate City approval. (Ord. 3158 § 6, amended, 09/18/2018; Ord, 3155 §§ 12, 13, amended, 07/17/201.8) Finding: Page 26 of 69 All landscaped areas will be maintained in good condition or wi I I otherwise be replaced. t8.4.4.040 Recycling and Refuse Disposal Areas A. Recycling. All residential, commercial, and rrianufacturing developments that are subject to chapter 18.5.2 Site Design Review shall provide an opportunity -to - recycle site For use of the project occupants, 1. Residential. All newly constructed residential units, either as part of an existing development or as a new development, shall provide an opportunity -to -recycle site in accord with the following standards. Finding: Not applicable 2. Commercial, Commercial developments having a refuse receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the refuse receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local sanitary service franchisee under its on -route collection program for purposes of recycling. Fines The Helman Elementary School students and staff recycle as much paper, plastics, food waste, etc., as possible to reduce the flow of materials into the landfill. A refuse receptacle that provides adequate collection area of materials produced at the school including recycling has been provided within the service yard area. B. Service Areas. Recycling and refuse disposal areas shall be located to provide truck access arid shall not be placed within any required front yard or required landscape area, Finding: The recycling and refuse disposal area are provided within the new screened service yard that is accessed from the parking lot adjacent to Helman Street. The recycling and refuse disposal areas are not within the front yard or a required 'Jandscape area. C. Screening. Recycle and refuse disposal area screening shall be provided pursuant to section 1 8AAM3 O.G. 1. "j Page 27 of 39 An ot-ta|8masonry wall isproposed tolimit the view from the public right of way of the refuse and recycle area in the service yard. 18.4.4.050 - Outdoor Lighting All exterior lighting isattached to the buildings and will bedirected ontothe subject property. No artificial lighting will be directed to illuminate adjacent residential properties. New light standards within the parking area will be pedestrian -scale and will not illuminate adjacent residential properties. l8.4L4.Oh0-Fences and Walls B.Deaign Standards. Fences, walls, hedges, and screen planting shal|meet the following standards, where height ismeasured pursuant to subsection 18.4.4.060.E\2,be\om/. See Figure 18.4.4.000.131 for illustration mfmnuxicounn fence heights. The majority ofthep*rirmmterfendmgex$ts.Thefendmgattheperiroetermfthe school area is a six -hoot, chain link fence. The existing chain -link fencing is set back more than 20 feet from the front property along Helman Street, more than 10 feet from the Randy Street side of the property, and 10 feet from the Laurel Street side of the property. Since the fence is outside of aU ofthe setback areas it is allowed to exceed the fence height standards from 184.4.080.8.2. Metal gates and decorative fencing is proposed t be added. All proposed fencing is outside of setback areas and not Subject tuthe height standards. 18�.3 Parking Access and Circulation: The elementary school requires, 6Gvehicle parking spaces. Per Table 18.43.040: 1.5 Spaces per classroom 17 * 1.5=2S.5(l7Classrooms) 1space per 75 square feet ofpublic assembly area, whichever |sgreater Public Assembly Area: Gymnasium = 4,880 = 4,888 /75 = 65.0567 ��f�1�ri@=4��=4��/7S=�� ' .0933 Library =372O=372O/75=49.6 Page 28 of 39 Required Parking based on the largest assembly space filled to capacity = 66 spaces. There are 52 parking spaces available on the site. This is non -conforming as the assemb|yareaparking calculations are not increasing due tVthe nevvcnnotruction but are required for the cafeteria area which ispart mfthe original construction of the cafeteria. 17spaces inwest lot accessed from Randy Street (bus loop) 18spaces inthe north lot atHe|nnanStreet and Randy Street 17spaces inthe east lot VnNe|nnonStreet Total S2 The proposal increases the onsite parking by 17 spaces through the development of the new south parking area. This increases the allocated 63 total spaces and brings the property into confOrmace with the parking standards. The proposed parking area relocation adds Accessible Parking spaces and expands the onsite parking to accommodate the parking demands of the elementary school. The 69 spaces is not a more than ten percent increase and are permissible under AMC 18.4.3.030.B. Accessible parking spaces as required by Oregon b�ui|ding code and federal regulations will beprovided. The proposal requires one bicycle parking space for every five students. This requires 70, covered bicycle parking spaces. The student capacity has not changed and is not increasing, 12 spaces are existing mn-sitm.The proposal increases the provided parking by 49, spaces which substantially decreases the non -conformity. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area I)esign A. Parking Lmcubnu l. Except for single and two-farniydwellings, required automobile parking facilities may bolocated omanother parcel o[land, provided said parcel iowithin 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve, �~ The parking is on parcels owned by Ashland School District Page zyofas 2. Except as u|kTvved in the muhmoc1boo below, mu1oozuMi|c parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard setback area abutting a public street, except a] The parking areas exist along the frontage ofHe|rnanStreet, between the building and the street. The redeveloped parking area and the new parking area are further away from the street than minimum setback distances. MWEEMMIGZam The reconstructed and new parking areas are proposed tobedesigned in accordance with the standards. The proposed parking spaces are 9' X 18' with up to5Opercent ofthe provided parking spaces ascompact. The parking spaces have the required back up, necessary for the types of spaces, head-in,and angled. The parking area has been designed tmminimize adverse emviromrnente�impacts. One shade tree isrequired for every seven spaces. Fifty percent more shade created by shade trees is proposed to address the microclimatic effects of the parking area. The proposal includes the required shade trees inthe reconstructed parking area which has 17 spaces and requires three trees, there are six proposed immediately adjacent tothe parking area. There are 17spaces in the new parking area and eight shade trees are proposed. The existing parking area on Helman does not have shade trees as it is preexisting, non -conforming. There are two new street trees which will also provide shade for the parking area. The parking lot is designed to capture and treat surface run-off through large, landscape swales. C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. The proposed access modifications remove extra curb cuts and non -conforming dhvevvaVopronothat|ocksepana1ionfromtheRendyStreetandHe|manStreet � � � intersection. The proposed layout improves on -site circulation and maintains and imp�ravestransportation system safety and operations. ^ � � The proposed circulation system accommodates expected traffic on the site and improves, ideally eliminates the problems caused atmorning drop off amd Page soof 39 afternoon pick up. The on -site circulation system |ncorpVrateosLneeL|[ke features such as sidewalks, plaza areas for gathering, and shade trees. Pedestrian connections omthe site and adjacent sidewalks are proposed. The distance from a street intersection to the driveway on Randy Street is being increased to provide more than thie required minimum 35-feet through the removal of a 25-foot wide apron that is at the intersection. A new, 28-foot wide apron 210-feet from the intersection is proposed to access the redeveloped parking area from Randy Street. The existing driveway apron on He|nnan Street, nearest the intersection, does not comply with standards but isnot proposed tnbeabered.The other two driveway aprons meet spacing standards. Anew driveway apron proposed 10 exit the new, south parking lot. This driveway apron is more than 100-feetfrmrm the nearest apron. No obstructions will be placed in the vision clearance areas of the driveways. D. Driveways and Turn -Around Design. All proposed driveways vvi0be2Ofeetwide. There are pedestrian sidewalks provided adjacent to the driveway. Adequate aisles are provided so that all vehic�esenter the street lnaforward nnannec No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance areas. E. Parking and Access Construction. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds, and driveways will be paved with amasphalt surface. The reconstructed and new parking areas, aisles, and turn arounds will have an onsite collection, treatment, and detention of drainage waters. All parking spaces will be clearly and permanenfly marked. �The reconstructed and new parking areas are not ad': acenttVthestreet and are more than 20-feet from the street, asite obscuring hedge nrother site obscuring barrier ionot proposed. Page 31 of 39 There ismore than seven percent landscaping inand immediately adjacent to the parking areas, The landscaping isuniformly distrib�mtedthroughout the parking area and provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs. 1@.4.3.09OPedestrian Access and Circulation The proposal isintended twprovide the studemt�s,staff, parents, asafe, � reasonably direct, and convenient walkway connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets. I8.4.5.000Tree Protection. The trees proposed for protection and removal were evaluated by a |ata| landscape architect with extensive erbmrist knowledge. All trees on the tree protection pian will have a six-foot chain link fence installed at the dripHne of the trees (or as depicted on the plan) to protect them from the impacts of construction. (See Sheet L.100) l0.4.7Signs. There is an existing sign program for He|nnom Elementary School and the Ashland School District (20U19-Q322)The existing "dragon tile" mural that ismnthe north side of the adrnim|slnstlom building is proposed to be relocated to the new screening wall for the service yard. This mural is presently visible from the right of way. See attached graphic of the dragon mural and sketch of location on the screening wall. 4. Desi nated Creek Protection. Where projectiuproposed a4jacent to designated creek protection area, the proJect shall incorporate the creek into the design while maintaining required setbacks and buffering, and complying water quality protection standards, The developer shall plant native riparianplants in and adjacent to the creek protection zone. Not applicable . mge 32 of 39 5. 'Noise and Glare. Artificial lighting shall rneet the requirements of section 19.4.4.050. Compliance with AMC 9.08.170.c and AMC 9.08.175 related to noise is required. Finding: All artificial lighting will meet the lighting standards. 6. Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings. For sites that do not conform to the standards of section 18.4.2.040 (i.e., nonconforming developments), an equal percentage of the site must be made to comply with the standards of this section as the percentage of building expansion, For example, if building area is expanded by 25 percent, then 25 percent of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document. Finding: it can be found that the site development is not required to, comply with the standards of section 18.4,2,040,13.1. a. — d,, because of 18.4.2.040.8.I,g,, that allows for regulations to be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, the code lists specific commercial businesses. The elementary school, though accessed by pedestrians, the pedestrians are students and their guardians, not the general public. All campus visitors, including students, are directed to the front entrance where a security gate for student morning access is proposed and parents and visitors will be allowed in only through the secure office space. The proposed entry plaza area enhances the orientation to the street. Substantial elements of the site are being brought into conformance with the site development standards. The installation of stormwater detention bioswales, planting of street trees, increasing driveway separation from the intersection, and a 50 percent increase in covered bicycle parking spaces all increase site conformity. The proposed site improvements reduce adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the general public through increased safety. The site modifications, the new classroom structure, and the modified administration building further energy conservation efforts within the City, to enhance the environment for students walking and cycling to ca:mipus. 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 thrOLIghout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Finding: Adequate city facilities exist to service the proposed new classroom building. The proposal substantially upgrades the storm drainage facilities, where inadequate facilities exist. The Civil engineering plans provide necessary details to demonstrate proposed site development and construction can comply with city standards., See sheets C2,1 Erosion Control Plan, C3.0 Overall Civil 5itePlari,and C'4 Overall Grading and Drainage Plan. Page 33 of 39 Water: Thcneisanexistimgsix-ndhvvaterrmaininHeImam6treet.Theneisa|suasixinchrnainin Randy Street. There are fire hydrants on Randy Street including a hydrant and fire sprinkler vault west mfthe gymnasium buildinQ.There are hydrants onHeiman Street. Afire connection vault ls proposed to be located adjacent to Heiman Street, The water line sizes are substaintial and there is 90 PSI at the Heiman Street hydrant, which is adequate water needs for the new structure. Sanitary Sewer: There is an eight -inch sanitary sewer line in Randy Street. There is an 18-inch and 12-inch sanitary sewer hne in Heiman Street. In discussion with the Wastewater Department Supervisor, there are no capacity issues with the public sanitary sewer lines. Electrical: There are major overhead electrical faciiities along Heiman Street. There are private facilities including junction boxes and vaults. To the project teern's knowledge, there are no capacity issues. The new structure isdesigned and engineered tubeso|ar'ready.Area for future solar panel installation locations [sshown nnthe roof p,|an. Storm Sewer: There is an 18-inch Storm sewer main in Heiman Street. The development proposal includes substantial stornnvva1er quality inmpnnvememts. There are two large, landscaped bioswales proposed. The final Civil engineering will be designed to the standards of the DEQ IVIS4 General Permit phase 2. The system will be designed to comply with all of Ashland's specific stmrmvvaterquality design standards. Transportation: There are curbside sidewalks on all frontages. No changes to the non- conform�ng, curbside sidewalks are proposed. According to the Transportation System Pian, Laurel Street is classified as a Neighborhood Collector. No changes to the Laurel Street are proposed. Randy Street is a Residential Street. The proposal removes non -conforming and extra driveways and proposes driveways that comply with controlled access standards, The proposed changes improve pedestrian safety by increasing driveway spacing away from the most heavily used intersection. The proposed changes to the parking area and increasing the Iength of the driveway and vehicular maneuvering area onsite to facilitate parent drop off and pick up without pushing traffic onto the public streets. The one-way veb|cuUar traffic circulation is proposed which increases student and pedestrian safety. Heiman Street is considered an Avenue. HnUmam Street along the frontage of the schom| is not designed to avenue standards. Excepting the proposed driveway curb cut that complies with controlled access standards and the installation Vfstreet trees, nochanges to, the HehmanStreet frontage are proposed. Page a4of 39 E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirenients, 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 F,in,d.i.ng: The funding for the proposed site modifications and new construction is from a local bond measure with emphasis on accessibility, structural safety, energy efficiency, and campus security of the 1960s elementary school campus. The existing and proposed site development such as parking and vehicular access between the, building and the street, large setbacks from the property lines and lack of pedestrian entrances open to the public from the sidewalk, not orienting the new construction to the intersection and not continuing a require an exception to the design standards. The use of the site as an elementary school could be seen as a unique use of a site as there are only three elementary schools in Ashland. Schools in the current times are not "open" for general business. For student and staff safety and security, access to the campus is highly restricted. The site design standards purpose to create a business environment that is safe and comfortable but does not translate to school development on an existing campus. The existing site layout including locations of existing parking areas and building locations, playground, and basketball courts prevent alterations to the site layout to increase orientation to the street. The exceptions requested are the minimum necessary to accommodate the redevelopment of the parking area and allow for the construction of a new classroom building. 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; or Finding_ Not applicable, see finding above. 3. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 1 8,2.10W Finding: Not applicapble, Page 35 of 39 18.5.4.050 Conditional Use Perinit A. Approval Criteria. 1. That the Use Would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. The proposal seeks to expand and enlarge a non -conforming development pattern of the parking and vehicular maneuvering area to accommodate a public school in the single-family residential zone. The use of the property as a public school is an allowed use in the zone and the setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and parking conform to the R-1-5 zoning district standards. Public Schools are addressed in Chapter 9 of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal adds much -needed gathering and assembly type spaces to accommodate areas for group learning, staff, and community meeting area. This achieves the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to make a maximum effort toward the utilization of present and future educational and recreational facilities and resources through public (bond measure), private (PTO, Ashland Booster Clubs, and community support) and city cooperation. The Comprehensive Plan encourages cooperation between the City and School District when new school facilities are considered or when City action affects the School District, this provides the city discretion to offer leniency instead of strict adherence to the site development standards that apply to non- residential development. Though the campus will be completely secured with fencing, options to retain community access outside of school hours are being discussed. The primary issue with allowing access outside of school hours is that too many community members allow dogs to run free and dog debris and school settings are highly incompatible. There is a place holder area for a track shown on site plans. This is not part of the project scope. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Finding: See the findings above. 3, That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the Subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection I 8,5,4,050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. Finding: The target use in the zone is residential development with the potential for around 50 residerttialparcels. The proposed expand and enlarge the parking and vehicular areas that are between, the existing Rage 36 of 89 structures and the street, and between the proposed classroom building and the street will not have any greater adverse material effects on the livability of the impact area than a 50+ residential subdivision. u'Similarity ioscale, bulk, and coverage. Ths is a challenging criterion to address since the conditional use permit is to expand and enlarge the parking and vehicular areas that ae between the existing structures and the street, and between the proposed classroom building and the street, Due to the nature Vfthe use, the campus school bui|dimRsare not similar inscale and bulk. The site does have less coverage than allowed inthe residential zone. b.Generation nftraffic and effects cm Surrounding streets. Increases iopedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. The proposed generation of traffic and the effects on the surrounding streets from the elementary school will not be negatively impacted. It can be found the proposed modified parking lot at the intersection of Randy Street and He|man Street and increased intersection spacing for the access driveway will improve vehicular circulation from the streets through the property. The proposed layout facilitates one-way vehicular traffic and provides additional mn- site,parent pick upand drop off areas. Additional covered bicycle parking isproposed tmprovide secure parking for riders. c. Architectural con-ipatibility with the impact area. The proposed structure isarchitecturally compatible with the other Helrnan Elementary School structures. The impact area is underdeveIciped or residential which does not provide any basis for comparison of architectural compatibility. d. Air quality, ''including the generation of dust, odors, or other l pollutants. The proposed expansion of the non -conforming parking areas and circulation between the building and the street will not have greater adverse negative impacts on air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, orother environmental pollutants when compared to residential uses. The proposed stor0vxater quality treatment structures will substantially reduce environmental pollutants. The new classroom building is p(leady, has dedicated recycling areas. '� °^ Page 37of 39 e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. FindiM The proposed parking lot expansion and new school building will not have a greater generation of noise, light, or glare than the existing campus buildings mechanical equipment and will not create more light or glare than what a large residential would generate. The proposed service yard and mechanical equipment will have visual and noise barriers. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The elementary school will have no discernable impact on the development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. 4. A conditional. use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. �Finding: Public schools, are a permitted use in the residential zone. 18.5.7.040 Tree Removal Permit. Tree That is Not a Hazard. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, iflClUding but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part i 8.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18,110. Finding: The 12 trees are proposed for removal to permit the applicant to be consistent with other applicable ordinance requirements and standards applicable to the Site Design Standards. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection ofadJacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Finding: The tree removals will not have significant negative impacts on erosion, soil stability, the flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Areas from where trees are removed will be redeveloped with structures, hardscaping, and re -landscaped. Page 38 of 39 c. Removal of the tree: will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Finding: There are several trees within 200-feet of the subject property. The proximity to the heavily vegetated Ashland Creek area provides substantial species diversity, canopy coverage, and tree densities. The proposed development replaces canopy, tree densities, sizes, and species diversity. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives Continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. Finding: No residential component is part of the application. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7,050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. FindiM Mitigation trees are proposed throughout the property. There are 12 significant trees proposed for removal. The landscape plan calls for over 50 replacement trees. These include Kentucky Coffeetrees, Zelkova, flowering cherries, maple, birch, and Lindens. Required mitigation of 12 removed trees, is achieved through the installation of the required street trees and the proposed 26 shade trees for the parking areas to reduce the microclimatic impacts of the pavement. Attachments: Dragon Tile Mural Sketch of mechanical service yard screen Cover Sheet (G0.00) Standards Sheet (GO.011) Civil Engineering Sheets (C1.2 — C6.1) Landscape Plan Sheets (LI.00 — L3.01) Architectural Renovation Sheets (AR2.01 and AR3.01) Architectural Plan Sheets (A1.01 — A2.03; A3.01; A3.,02; A4.01; A4.02 and A9.01) Page 39 of 39 � 1r L.' //�.� tg � f % y � � // Q J Lo 4 11-1110a1 "I . -11-510 P— Id oC�� j,M- v -l-, — o', 01), Q lag z� z z u n < 0 > F. o T:s tiHw=z uj �-q E jt R E u o".L _,_9 i NP lu I�Y z LLJ r) ❑T LIJ < T-) LU UU)O O < 0 z [a EECB'60E'IOSSES5Z0E'IYSk ZOLL6 uo6ai0'Puag OfK a!!n0" nr uoa wiSm C1 ¢u¢p� O U ? ti Qo ivUiw ° ai ii s o a� ja;w i 8� ® S �o I6 '� vw.ee v� o� n wieao .„nvx usnv n,isu E A- i Q n 8 _ s LPIJzzk�LL h E d i W LL> CI dagV�o a�d�rc6 pQ� rcp„.,„ � 2 .9x neacN o a a I si�3uu�av ies eeoas sza ios� 0 a g O ° ad Asa 6 O P 9 8 �m°—�') azo ooi s .oau cz eF M a E Z F 1� ¢ aS m ZO L6JE 2 QO188g60r=�N�o J r a wa o W �� W N W 0� 600 W8 F,OHIO Z ,g °='g Popw=� ada �= fr .� WMIH 73uj W tE�s wos N F£ g o M9� :°8:°a's €3� ."€� o�s� � ;_�_oggpo �frp €�°m�wda& y 0 � rnm G '„ p O� o � E 0868E'laSJ SiSSZJilOS1 E 3 o Q c1�'F4§ Q p o azQ zyEt z a� 091 L lee \ , 2B=!! 7 --V `-I-H I F c \ r«. :: ..«<i § § 0 \ ~ 0 , )%f\� — LLImi G GE n()(){(\((\\,}/, { zaj e ; ! ; ` ! =r ; !: ;, ; ,_ (: ; !! !( 'o:l:,;ye,rg2;R9:6 z:r;;�Gm!!gelgGlJ gym[ (S8SS\S\SS2G62»S9 §// «:©v a 5>r � \\ (\ 0--0-- 22 Z M 75 lee -z- - r� H z LLJ 22,8 -a i LLJ I M ft 9", 8Z Lu �c Lu e 13 0 0 a G (D 0 G (D 0 (D 0 @-IU@AV JOLUI@i-I @nU@AV Uri . , \R / �� / \ \ \ ; \\ § ISO ILI 10 w E .2 Nrn Ise 06 a z � . o Q n ! \; § ~ _ /-/� �, ~ \\ ` � /R � w b « \ \ : §&r �_ _ .�°° / p � \ <,2ƒ US > -Az c P—q 0 U' E E5 z 0 log 1 < Ta =0 .1 < Z O E�2 Hp. 0-� I M z 25 EEOda. "I I 'ElS1861. 1 -.2 u E ISO z E ho H N M vi� fl < p! ca w up Ul ER Ian w Ooa .. �'—all LU 0 A N M QED iH T < zi Rm 'HU! 1 t A WM N, M .. ... . . � > .y,. .. \ � .....��.... •• ooi �� sll pp Y Ao c � Q Q n of o o Z Z T t ii-',�L C vtl S'l�dl]F�'dV . o u vV c LBO Wd W E w a 0 0 Q Sly]-6V IN Wi ISO o 0 r 1� ZOLL6 U r,� � Y Q G C 0. ✓l � a n U S 00 1 , �V �o �tl9L (,� icy / W ,0 i W - 3�? w �K 61;J3114�1NV 14.N Wd M1 n o F a 0 0 eoH I ivsa - i '� � _ v s�o_iieoaviea us wd 1— E ,a 1 I Z _1L0!!6 6 U H 10, Yry o a�08> sa s�ioaue.�avieu o wa a z i E S Q a� y ostlw Sm 09 a („� O N u E v H z o awn ti.A z Q o � Z nyy 0 gl�l II C�Li S1J311H.�tlV N _ lfifl NA W � H I Z o q a Q I . .. ...... ...... .. .�\��+ ........ ® } ..�... �:...............»T%fJ% ... � S'L'Jd11H'Jatl 141E WA !JP' t VS! � � y O O = _ _ Ana N..... n � _ � � i-y = w CLl el ~ ' � O O ✓� K l0 A nyu Ju S s09 �' Li LJ � � //� - z N •— O ",.i � u E �; „ z o 0 1 0 �/� / W �� U -� r"1% �� 2 �- E s c u� i- k' _. __ _ a a ✓� n .� ,, r. / i 4 0 s m c � 4 � � - l� � -� I Tio z Q Q 'E 6 1 r -HIP SL311H�tltl 198 Z az o � EfCB'68E'Ib51 SESSZBf'1651 � � Z Q Ell° o N ZOLL6 uo9a�0'PueB a Y � F H P � ISO �u0> 22 a goo�x i aSzy� 3nN3AV NVW73H IN 51�311HJNV 199 N EEGB'68f'l4Sl S55'Z9E'In;t 0 Q Q Q N uJ 0 WZ aJZOLL 6 nY6uosd1i5 ms pp�l Q z _ ~ � O zQ OU ¢oy� o� z° o ? `8HE UI� NI ag EE08"68e I95: ffss'i8E'Its! 2 �z o Q Z N Q Z Q o � . o UUG a'ZOLL anv6aosdwi5 ms 04tl a V d O ~ �P Wop Zo way O n 188 0� =�z0Q �o E y2 aFQOo sa v v V z aosh� oQ z o mp_b� 0 �J mm S1J311HJtlY 100 N I eeaesaelr,;i;esszeciros� � ¢z O z0 o y O. QpZ a4 n5[antl uostlwlS ms OVI! O � 0 Z z O o � � lag O zUaoo Z O sy oZ s z V ¢Sx�vi "' Zs- - -T -4A o- ' y o u�anu�av!ee r � 6 0 - eece ab i>s4 sesszec ios4 Q Q O Z p h Zwz uo6ap'puab Y ° o OOZ a4�na "any uovtlwi5 m�iy It 0 y W Q ° z O O G Mi ��o w z mn, <10 m$ - z � Egw�2zm� X W E X o- IL I 0 I I zu s I�1 2 S'ZOE'loS! Q L0 L6 B OPS ms Oolt oZ�' w � l„) 0 188 2O U o— C C S - z�- o- O— ml fW8'6ff't6535E55'LBE'I?5! O Q Q2 h C� W Z�[(6 foeai0'Pua9 �p Y Q Z � � m � N mz ales-'e,.d ao.aw�s Ms Doll U U a x w o Z z K zp Q e 1g 0 O 2 wQ_ aGQO> �Q .a U aSi�� oa z o � I i C-J s C zc— --'o R,., o Jae I p wx met -,i o --L -j